No-Till (NRCS #329)

Applicable Systems

Jump to: Benefits/Limitations Impact Applicability Case Studies Resources

About

No-till¹ is a conservation tillage practice where farmers leave most previous crop residue on the soil surface year-round and crops are planted with minimal in-row soil disturbance. The practice can be implemented in all croplands to protect and rebuild soil natural structure.

Key aspects and considerations:

Choose the tillage systems according to soil and crop type, slope, and climate.
Enhance crop residues by using high residue crops and crop varieties, cover crops, double cropping, and adjustment of plant populations through seeding rates and row spacing.
Distribute residue uniformly over the entire field, in a minimum of 60% cover.
Maintain soil surface cover year-round with living vegetation to increase effectiveness.
Do not burn residues.
Adjust nutrient and pest management as needed.
Become more profitable than tilled systems after initial implementation².
Partial budget estimates suggest net economic gains ranging from $13 to $121 per acre, depending on site and crop³.

Benefits and Limitations

ACRE Category	Benefits	Limitations
Soil Health	Increases organic matter and traps carbon into the soil because crop residues are left in the system and lower soil aeration decreases decomposition rates. Improves soil structure, such as aggregate stability and porosity. Residues left on the surface help protect soil from wind and water erosion. Decreases soil compaction and crusting.	Cooler and wetter spring soils in the Corn Belt.
Water Management	Increases water infiltration and water holding capacity. Reduces runoff and ponding. Decreases evaporation due to surface residue. Increases plant-available moisture. Reduces transportation of sediment and contaminants to water bodies.	N/A
Nutrient Management	Reduces nutrient loss by avoiding erosion and leaching. Increases nutrient cycling through decomposition of organic residues.	N/A
Agricultural Production	Improves seed germination. Increases productivity, especially under stressful conditions.	Soil can warm up more slowly in spring and delay planting, with potential initial yield reduction. Can increase pests and diseases pressure due to lack of soil disturbance. Can increase dependence on herbicides in some systems. Benefits can take a few years to show. Increases residue management challenges.
Biodiversity and Wildlife	Reduces habitat loss or degradation due to less soil disturbance. Enhances soil biota and wildlife.	Can host pests and weeds.
GHG Emission	Decreases GHG emissions due to reduced use of machinery and tillage. More carbon is retained instead of being quickly released by fast residue decomposition on the soil surface. No-till systems can be either neutral or a small net source of GHG emissions if a cover crop is added to the system ⁴. Optimizing N fertilizer inputs can reduce N₂O emissions.	There are inconsistent results in the literature about decreases or increases in N₂O emissions⁴. N₂O emissions are not substantially impacted by tillage type and cover crop presence over the long term in corn and soybean rotations⁵. Lack of measurements at depth and consideration of the whole system make it difficult to quantify the carbon sequestration benefits, as well as the full net GHG balance.
Economics	Increasing no-till adoption has a significant positive effect on agricultural land value⁶. Across the Midwest, a 1% increase in no-till farming translates to a $7.86 per acre increase in land values. In Iowa, a 1% increase in no-till farming translates to a $14.75 per acre increase in land value. Increased input costs can often be offset by reduced machinery costs, including fuel and labor, due to conservation tillage.	Increases herbicide and pesticide costs due to weed and pest control. Requires investment in specialized planting equipment.

Impact on Agricultural Resilience

Increases plant resilience to drought and flooding due to improved water holding capacity and enhanced drainage.
Generates cumulative improvements in soil function and yield resilience.
Soil becomes healthier and recovers faster after disturbances.

Regional Applicability

No-till systems are applicable across the Midwest, especially in row-crop agriculture. Over 30 years of research comparing no-till to conventional tillage in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, found that no-till systems accumulated more soil organic carbon than conventionally tilled soils, but with possible yield declines that may be overcome with delayed planting dates.
Reducing tillage intensity improves biological soil health, with the maximum benefit observed with perennial systems or row crop systems under no-till across different agricultural production systems in the United States⁷.

Case Studies

Larry Thorndyke and his family farm Thorndyke Farms in Ford County, Illinois, where they implement both no-till and strip-till on their corn and soybean fields. The Thorndyke family has witnessed improvements in water holding capacity, aggregate stability, and earthworm activity after implementing multiple soil health practices.
In the Upper Scioto Watershed in Ohio, Eric Niemeyer of MadMax Farms adopted soil health practices, including no-till, with a goal to "make dead soil alive again." Eric found that by implementing no-till, he was able to reduce labor and machinery costs, allowing him to upgrade his planter.
In Logan County, Ohio, Tim Lyden transitioned Lyden Farms to no-till in 2016 to combat soil erosion. Describing his decision, Tim states, "It's just like a lightbulb went off. I'd kind of been doing stuff the wrong way."
Get to know how Ray Gaesser maintains and improves his cropland in Iowa with healthy soil management. "Water infiltration tests show Ray's fields can absorb an inch of water in two to three seconds. Comparable fields with a history of tillage take seven to eight minutes to absorb that much water."

Resources

Video. USDA NRCS: The USDA NRCS -- No Till
Video. USDA NRCS South Dakota: No-Till Seeding Concepts
Clean Water Iowa: No-Till / Strip-Till
Ohio State University Extension: AgBMPs. Tillage Intensity to Maintain Target Residue Cover (NRCS 329, 345 & 346)
University of Missouri Extension: Missouri No-Till Planting Systems
U.S. Nature4Climate: No-Till Agriculture Challenges and Opportunities

References

USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Standard Document, Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till, Code 329. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_No_Till_329_CPS_0.pdf
Cusser, S., Bahlai, C., Swinton, S. M., Robertson, G. P., & Haddad, N. M. (2020). Long-term research avoids spurious and misleading trends in sustainability attributes of no-till. Global Change Biology, 26, 3715--3725. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15080
Zhang, Y., Rejesus, R. M., Cavigelli, M. A., et al. (2025). Long-Term Economic Impacts of No-Till Adoption in the US Midwest. 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.361069
Basso, B., Cates, A., Jianwei L., J., Brewer, K., Tiemann, L., & Millar, N. (2025). Soil Health and Climate Outcomes: Literature Review and Technical Guidance. Technical Advisory Network for Climate Smart Agricultural Practices, June 30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17534271
Gelfand, I., Sahajpal, T., Zhang, X., Izaurralde, R. C., Gross, K. L., & Robertson, G. P. (2013). Sustainable Bioenergy Production from Marginal Lands in the US Midwest. Nature, 493, 514--517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11811
Chen, L., Rejesus, R. M., Aglasan, S., Hagen, S., & Salas, W. (2023). The Impact of No-Till on Agricultural Land Values in the United States Midwest. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 105(3), 760--783. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12338
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B., & Cambardella, C. A. (2020). Biological Soil Health Indicators Respond to Tillage Intensity: A US Meta-Analysis. Geoderma, 369, 114335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335
Michigan State University Extension (2024). Lessons from Long Term Research: Comparing No-Till to Conventional Tillage Over 30 Years. https://www.canr.msu.edu/soil_health/uploads/files/NoTill%20Bulletin%20final%202025.pdf
Miller, T. P., Peterson, J. R., Lenhart, C. F. & Nomura, Y. (2012). The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, p.94-98. https://wrl.mnpals.net/_flysystem/fedora/2023-09/the-agricultural-bmp-handbook-for-minnesota.pdf#page=95
University of Missouri Extension (1997). Missouri No-Till Planting System. https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/m164
USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Overview, Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till (Code 329). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_No_Till_329_PO_Sep_2016_0.pdf
Wongpiyabovorn, O., & Wang, T. (2025). Changes in Adoption Patterns of Beginning and Long-term No-Till Adopters. RaFF Policy Brief 2025-3(2), Rural and Farm Finance Policy Analysis Center, University of Missouri-Columbia. https://raff.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-32-RaFF-Policy-Brief.pdf/

View All Systems View All Practices

No-Till photo 1 — Photo 1: Planter operating in a no-till cereal rye field.

Courtesy of Iowa NRCS photo by Jason Johnson.

No-Till photo 2 — Photo 2: No-till field with crimp-rolled cereal rye and soybeans.

Courtesy of Iowa NRCS photo by Jason Johnson.

No-Till photo 3 — Photo 3: Farmer in an Iowa no-till field showing the soil biology.

Courtesy of Iowa NRCS photo by Jason Johnson.