Brought to you by:
“The benefits of no-till are slowly being capitalized into land values. Right? So in that framework, in the paper, I said, land values is typically based on expected future returns, essentially discounted forward to this day. And so, if you have no-till, and you know that there is both. Input cost benefits, right? Lower cost and fuel and all that kind of thing that lowers cost and increases profit. Plus if there is in, I mean, we didn't test this directly, but if there is some yield productivity benefits over time as well, all of those will be capitalized in the value of the land.”
- Rod Rejesus
Rod Rejesus studies economics, land values and crop insurance for North Carolina State University.
He and collaborators from other academic institutions authored and published a paper earlier this year showing increased land values corresponding with a 1% increase in no-till adoption at the county level.
That leads to some startling conclusions about no-till adoption. For example, if Farm A adopts no-till practices, both Farm A and Farm B, who are in the same county, will see an increase in land prices, even if Farm B remains conventional.
Given the database he’s working from, that likely excludes potential subsidy or commodity payments for carbon markets.
While Rejesus is limited somewhat by the data available to him (one of the key data components to their conclusions is a remote-sensing satellite database that just added a large number of states to its database, with plans to add more), the paper is the first one to quantify in hard figures what no-tillers have attested to for years: no-tilling benefits the land.
Join me as we talk with Rejesus about the ramifications of his research, future areas of research, and how no-till means more value for land.
No-Till Farmer podcast series is brought to you by SOURCE®️ by Sound Agriculture.
Welcome to a better SOURCE of fertilizer. SOURCE from Sound Agriculture unlocks more of the nutrients already in your fields, so you can add less fertilizer while getting the yield you’re counting on. By activating soil microbes, SOURCE provides more of the existing nitrogen and phosphorus to your crops. It’s such a solid backup plan, you’ll probably find yourself wondering why SOURCE wasn’t the plan all along. Learn more at www.sound.ag.
Full Transcript
Brian O'Connor
Welcome to The No-Till Farmer Podcast brought to you by Sound Agriculture. I'm lead content editor, Brian O'Connor. On the podcast this week, we're speaking to Rod Rejesus, one of the researchers behind a wave-making study released earlier this year. Rejesus, a professor at North Carolina State University, and as collaborators found increasing no-till adoption can lead to higher land values. Here's my discussion with Rod.
Rod Rejesus
So I'm Rod Rejesus. Professor here at the North Carolina State University. I've been here 15 years and done a lot of work in ag economics in general, and looking at different practices, recently, soil health practices in the economics of no-till and cover crops and these kinds of things. And historically, I work a lot on crop insurance issues and risk management in ag as well.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. So this isn't too far outside of this investigation that you found. Next thing I'll ask you to do is summarize your findings a little bit. From what I understand you guys, and I read your paper. Keep in mind I don't have the academic background itself.
Rod Rejesus
Yeah, no worries. No worries.
Brian O'Connor
In fluid, but essentially what from the cliff notes version for our listeners is that a 1% adoption at the county level of no-till practices leads to a corresponding increase in land values. Now there's a little bit of a difference between what was found in because you're using two data sets, there was one that was Iowa and so those values are tracked a little bit differently than this other data set. So can you explain, is that right? Walk us through what you looked at and what you found.
Rod Rejesus
Yes. So essentially we merged together a couple of data sets with what we call the Optus data set. So the Optus data set is the remote sensing data that looked at and have information about no-till adoption. Then so we link that first to ag census land value data for 12 states, essentially. That's one data set. And for that data set, we found a 1% increase in no-till adoption rates at the county level will result in around $7.86 increase in land values for counties in those 12 states. Then the other data set we use is the Iowa state land values data at the county level. It's a smaller number of counties, but more frequent yearly data temporally. So that's the difference. The census data is every five years, so that's the limitation of that, but it has a wider geographical scale, but for this Iowa data, of course, it's just Iowa. 99 counties in Iowa, but 2005 to 2016 yearly. And for that, it's a little bit larger. So 1% increase in no-till adoption increases land values close to $15 is where we're at.
Brian O'Connor
I understand that 14.75 figure. Poor Iowa was the conservative. You guys have a range of values. And that was the one that you were most confident in?
Rod Rejesus
Well, not necessarily. It's just that it's yearly thing. It's a middle value. It's a median effect or mean effect essentially. So there's still a confidence interval around $15 and we're confident in both. It's just that it measures two different things. So it's Iowa Iowa. And first of all, that higher estimate is expected because land values in Iowa are bigger than say Oklahoma. Oklahoma is part of that other data set. So it's expected in that sense. So we're confident in both estimates, it measures two different things, essentially.
Brian O'Connor
For the Optus data set that you use can you explain a little bit about why you decided to use that? I know there were some notes about that being maybe a little bit more verifiable or objective because you actually see the evidence. Why-
Rod Rejesus
So the problem with no-till adoption and other soil health adoption cover crops or those kinds of things, it's hard to get data on those kinds of things. So there is that ag census data on no-till adoption, but it's just available for 2012 and 2017, same for cover crops. So that's the limitation and we thought that's not ideal in our sense, because we wanted to see a longer run effect on land values. Because I think our hypothesis at least, we didn't mention this in the paper is that one year adoption of no-till doesn't increase your land values right away. It will take a while. It has to embody all the benefits of it to increase the land values.
And so that was why we opted for the Optus data. It's a remote sensing data that tracks essentially the residues and the developers of that data set, which is my co-authors essentially also allowed it's not every county, every field that they verified it, but they have some sampling way to do it so that they could validate what's shown in the satellite and what's shown actually in the field. And they showed in a separate paper that it's reasonable. It's not perfect. It can be perfect, but it's a reasonable estimate of no-till adoption on the ground.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. So what accounts for this? Do you guys have any inkling as to an explanation of why this correlation?
Rod Rejesus
Well, it measures the residues pretty well, but it's sometimes different, for example, with the ag census one, because ag census, they ask the farmers at a particular point in time and they could say, yeah, we did it. But then based on the remote sensing, for example, there may be some whatever event that didn't allow the residues to be detected or something like that. So that's where the discrepancy sometimes come in and then of course this relies on technologies to detect the residues and stuff. So it might be, there may be other residues other than due to no-till so something to that effect.
Brian O'Connor
We know from a fact we had windy parts of Iowa and the other west, some farms the residue was blowing from no-till onto tilled field.
Rod Rejesus
So that those kinds of things might happen there because it's actual sensing of residues on the ground.
Brian O'Connor
Got it. Why do you think land values increase when farmers implement no-till practices?
Rod Rejesus
Well, so the linkage, I think, as I explained in the paper is this, the benefits of no-till are slowly being capitalized into land values. So in that framework, in the paper, I said, land values is typically based on expected future returns essentially discounted forward to this day. And so if you have no-till and that there is both input, cost benefits, lower cost and fuel that lowers costs and increases profits plus if there is, we didn't test this directly, but if there is some yield productivity benefits over time as well, all of those will be capitalized in the value of the land.
And that's the mechanism why no-till whatever benefits it provides both on the cost side and the benefit side will be slowly but surely be capitalized into land values. And that's, I think what we're capturing here. And as you said earlier, when we started, I think there's has been talk that yes, probably it's logical, but there has been no data driven evidence to quantify that to the best of our knowledge. And so this is the reason why we try to quantitatively show that yes, we show that there is a data driven evidence that no-till increases land values, at least at the county level.
Brian O'Connor
And so, in other words, this is something that maybe subjectively has been understood by farmers and property owners for a while. You guys came along and put a dollar amount.
Rod Rejesus
Exactly. And there is evidence now to support essentially.
Brian O'Connor
Yeah. Okay. Given the increase, we've seen land values generally in Iowa and elsewhere. They're really high. Is there any reason or any cause to think that this increase will matter in the wider scheme of the economics of farmland purchase and management?
Rod Rejesus
It could. Again, it's just one of the factors that gets capitalized into land values. So among many other stuff. I think in my mind, this is mostly for the benefit of those landowners or farmers that are not yet quite convinced about no-till.
Brian O'Connor
Yeah.
Rod Rejesus
Right. So I think because yeah, this has been talked about as a potential benefit, but it's not front of mind in my mind. When you talk about no-till a lot of people talk about soil erosion benefits, environmental benefits and not land values. And so if you're conventional right now and you're thinking about doing this or even a landowner where the tenants are not no-tilling, this may be something to think about that over time this may be an additional benefit that might tilt the economics of it. Because perhaps the reason conventional are sticking to conventional because the economics for their particular case doesn't make sense to them, but maybe they didn't consider the land value benefit. Maybe that additional $7 may tilt it. If I have that, that might make it worth my while to go to no-till.
Brian O'Connor
So it's in the marginal economic decision making sphere, essentially.
Rod Rejesus
Exactly. That's where I think the main contribution of this, I think in my mind, because it's been talked about, but it's not front of mind as a key benefit of no-till.
Brian O'Connor
And that's certainly something I hear a lot is people talk about return on investment and the accessory costs associated with adopting no-till and don't know that there has ever been, well, I know I talked about it with some landowners recently, but I don't know that there's ever been a hard look at this will make our land better and that's why we should do it. More valuable.
Rod Rejesus
More valuable. Yeah. Right. There's a tangible land value dollar benefit.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. What led you to look at this?
Rod Rejesus
Well, so there's been a lot of work looking at soil health practices and not fully understanding the benefits. And so we thought, okay, so this may be something that I've heard about, but I haven't seen any hard evidence in terms of data and that's why we okay, let's look at it and see. And then as we looked at it first looking at the literature and we didn't find anything contemporary. We found something in the past, in the '80s, but not no-till per se, just soil conservation effort, whatever that is in the previous literature. And so once we looked at the literature, said, okay, so there's something here that we could provide. And I had access to that Optus data and that's, I think the missing link, the data on no-till adoption that's temporarily longer, has not been there before. And this allowed us to look at this issue deeper.
Brian O'Connor
I want to circle back to something that you said, said the Iowa increase was higher in part because land values are higher just generally in Iowa. Can you explain a little bit, tease out a little bit what you mean there?
Rod Rejesus
Well, there's a distribution. Typically I think if you consider just Iowa by itself, I would expect it and I haven't looked at the hard right off the top of my head right now, but you would expect that the distribution would be a little bit narrower and tilt towards higher values compared to say a data set that includes other states that has not prime agricultural land. So that's why I expected even beforehand that the Iowa runs an analysis would result in just the magnitudes will be a little bit higher because of that.
Brian O'Connor
What was the value? And I know I wrote when I summarized your guys' article, I wrote it up. To my recollection it was significantly lower somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 increase for those other states, is that right?
Rod Rejesus
$7.86.
Brian O'Connor
There we go. So significantly lower. Do you think that for other states is enough of an incentive or is this something that we can look at Iowa specifically and say Iowa, in other words, is there a regional variation between what's accomplishable by adopting no-till state to state?
Rod Rejesus
Yeah, I think that's the implication of that magnitude difference in and of itself that there is some heterogeneity across states. We didn't estimate it state by state. So we don't know, we haven't looked at that, but that may be something to look at in the future because again, it's about natural. So if it's already a very, very productive field, well, there may be heterogeneity. An additional 1% increase in no-till might result in higher land value increase in more productive lands compared to less productive lands. I haven't looked at that. We didn't look at that in particular for this paper. But my thinking is that when you look at the data on the land values, the distribution of land values for a set of counties over 12 state would be more variable. It'll be wider compared to a set of values from Iowa, which will be a little bit narrower because we know that most counties in Iowa have good and high value land.
Brian O'Connor
Where do you go next with this? What are the questions that you leave open? What do you want? What do you think are the top three or four things you want to look at?
Rod Rejesus
So this question of heterogeneity that you just raised. So mid-Atlantic states, Northeast states also have very strong no-till adoption. Tennessee have very strong no-till adoption rates, but we didn't have land values and no-till adoption data for that. But the remote sensing folks that I've been working on are trying, that's what they're working on, trying to get the no-till adoption rates for the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic states in the near future. What they tell me and I'm not a remote sensing expert, but what they tell me is that in the Midwest it's flat, it's easier to do their remote sensing thing. It's better correlation with the actual. In the Northeast, in the mid-Atlantic, it's more sloping, it's harder to do the remote sensing there. So they're working on it right now, but their goal is to have data, again, something similar, whatever, 2005 to 2020, for example, for all these other states.
And then we could redo these analysis again and see whether it makes a different, and then maybe look at it more carefully that perhaps not state by state, but region by region. What's the heterogeneity of the impact? Is it still $7 in the mid-Atlantic? Maybe not. Those kinds of issues because it's different. So it's limited to the Midwest right now, maybe in the Southeast, the mid-Atlantic, in the Northeast, it's maybe the land value, it may be higher. I don't know. That's maybe the one reason that the adoption rates are so high in Tennessee, for example, or Maryland. So those kinds of things is what we're wanting to do in the future.
Brian O'Connor
We'll get back to my discussion with Rod Rejesus in a moment. First, I want to thank our sponsor SOURCE by Sound Agriculture. Nutrients cost more today and can be hard to get when you need them. Thankfully there's a better source of plant nutrition. It's your soil. SOURCE from Sound Agriculture unlocks more of the nitrogen and phosphorus in your field. Learn more about SOURCE at www.sound.ag. And now back to Rod.
There's a tricky bit here. You guys looked at the county level data and that would seem to indicate that if I'm a conventional farmer and my neighbor adopts no-till that would necessarily lead to an increase in my land. Is that true? Or is there a fallacy about the way you guys looked at the data that-
Rod Rejesus
Well, that could be true, like a free riding effects. Just because it's at the county level. So what we're saying, the statistical analysis we run is at the county level. So a 1% adoption in general at the mean will increase land values. So even if you are in a county and other, your neighbors adopted that they pushed it, in general, the values will perhaps increase. It may, but it may not be the conventional. They may not benefit from it. I don't know so that's another reason maybe it's another research effort to look at farm level or field level data. And those are harder to get to because you're going to have to rely on survey, farm level surveys. More than likely you will get a shorter timeframe for those kinds of things.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. Are you guys looking at the Western states at all? We have a fair amount of, because Tennessee has the highest percentage of no-till adoption. I think in terms of the naked acre number, Nebraska actually has the most acres in no-till currently. Are you looking at areas where how that might play into it?
Rod Rejesus
Yeah. So again, I think one of the limitations is that Optus data, so I think they will expand a little bit to the west as well towards Western Colorado. So that will cover Nebraska. I think right now we don't have full coverage of all of Nebraska. Half of the counties, I would guess in Nebraska is included in our data set. So that's included in that thing, but I don't think we're going to go further west. So maybe the Great Plains till maybe some counties in Colorado and then the mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
Brian O'Connor
So California is out of luck is what you're telling me.
Rod Rejesus
Yeah. I don't think we're going to go to California.
Brian O'Connor
And then there's other pockets up near, for example, the Palouse in Western Idaho, Eastern Washington state, Northeastern Oregon.
Rod Rejesus
Yeah, maybe not. [inaudible 00:20:44] I take that back a little bit. Again, it depends on these remote sensing folks because I know their longterm objective is a national data set. If that's the case, then perhaps it's possible to cover even the furthest west states. But my understanding is they're prioritizing Northeast and mid-Atlantic right now. So that's I think is the lower hanging fruit, so to speak that may be more feasible to investigate in the near future.
Brian O'Connor
And I know they recently because one of the things, when I read your paper, I went and looked up the Optus website to see what it was about and where it came from. And one of the things that I saw on their website was an update saying they'd expanded parts of Wisconsin where I'm at, but also other states as well. Is there a chance that we could see an update more recently just with the more data coming in? I assume that would also undergird your assumptions or-
Rod Rejesus
Yeah. So I actually have that data already. Some expansion. So this paper. It was 12 states. The new update was 16 states, I think.
Brian O'Connor
Wow.
Rod Rejesus
But I don't know. So it's the marginal value of investigating that intermediate step or should I wait till the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic are there? So that's where I'm at personally as a researcher, whether should I investigate this intermediate improvement or should I wait for the others to make it more robust and different regions really?
Brian O'Connor
One of the other things that's going on right now in conservation agriculture is the ingress of the carbon markets as well and carbon programs. Is that part reflected in this data? Do you see that as part of the reason land values are increasing?
Rod Rejesus
No, not yet. Because again that the conceptual idea here again is land values is a function of expected future benefits. Now that given the data that we have 2005 to 2016, the carbon markets are not yet there, but say the carbon markets becomes bigger. That's payments already that's associated with no-till that could perhaps be capitalized into land value itself as well. That's a future thing to look at. So there's already a literature right now in the ag econ literature about other payments being capitalized into land values. So say the subsidy payments, the commodity payments, that's part of your future expected returns from your land and that's being capitalized in the land values itself. And there's a robust literature about that already.
There's still debate, but there is literature about, and there's some evidence about all these ARP PLC or disaster payments, disaster assistance, all those are government payments in general are already being capitalized into land values. And so in my mind, when you talk about carbon markets and carbon payments, that seems analogous to me that as that market grows, as that markets become included in the expectations of the value of land, of the things that you could get from the land, it'll be capitalized I think perhaps in the future as well.
Brian O'Connor
What about cover crops? One of the things that we notice every year, we do a big survey that looks at no-till practices and nationally something like 3% of farmers have adopted cover crops, but within the no-till community specifically, adoption rates are as high as 80%. Are you guys looking at possibly teasing that data out as well? I imagine that would be something that would be very easily sensible.
Rod Rejesus
So we actually looked at that as a separate right hand side variable, but we couldn't. Cover crops by itself, there's no effect right now. And so that's why we didn't include it in this paper, but my hypothesis, as you said, it's just too low in general. Our analysis from Optus says it's around 3.9%. My thinking, it's just too low at the county level that it's still not being capitalized into that land value. That's why we're finding statistically insignificant effects.
Brian O'Connor
Yeah.
Rod Rejesus
Now I like what you said though, about no-till and cover crops as complimentary practices together. And that may be an interesting thing to look at. So rather than no-till itself, we could look at the county level, some interaction between no-till and cover crops and see if adopt no-till effect will increase together with cover crop. We didn't look at that, but that may be something to think about. I'll write that down.
Brian O'Connor
One of the things that farmers worry about when they adopt no-till is stratification and that's you're mixing the soil up less because you're not tilling. So your nutrients tend to congregate in the top inches. And one of the most effective ways that farmers have found is to use taproot crops like radishes or turnips, Daikon is really popular to dig roots into the soil deeper to till without killing, essentially. Use plants to move soil around instead of heavy equipment.
Rod Rejesus
So that's something to investigate in the future, I think.
Brian O'Connor
Well I'm glad I could be of help.
Rod Rejesus
Yeah, no, no. That's why I do all these things. I could learn from you too.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. So are there any other avenues related to no-till that you still want to explore beyond land values? Is there a way of looking at, we have a huge, outstanding debate over just that. The carbon markets and people saying, oh, this is just greenwashing. Is there anything, any way that we can use the database that you looked at to determine how much carbon is being stored or anything like that?
Rod Rejesus
Good point, and we're looking at that, the key there is the data on the carbon.
Brian O'Connor
Got it.
Rod Rejesus
So essentially what you want instead of land values as the outcome, you want carbon as the outcome, and then at least at the county level, you want carbon [inaudible 00:27:58] whatever, some carbon measure in the soil and then some no-till or cover crop adoption on the right hand side to relate both of these things. And the carbon is the hard data to gain. There's lots of data Sergo from USDA and all that stuff. The problem there is it's static. Doesn't change over time. So I think we're trying to explore one data set that has variation over time. And just to see the same idea here, we will merge that carbon data with no-till adoption data and see whether there is some relationship. Of course, controlling for other factors as well. So that's in our docket, we haven't looked at that as of yet, but that's in our things to do list that we're interested in exploring.
And then I'm also working with some agronomists here at NC State looking at exact same thing, but at a smaller scale. So they have field trial data, randomized block design for different treatments of combinations of no-till and cover crops. So no-till with cover crops and different kinds of cover crop and so forth. But my collaborator is actually measuring the emissions.
Brian O'Connor
Oh. Wow.
Rod Rejesus
Per se, some machine or whatever. So that's another potential area we want to look at. The beauty about the county level is perhaps it's representative of farmer behavior. This is more field trial data, but we could get to that at some point.
Brian O'Connor
One of the things I've heard floated is an ecosystem services model for reimbursement. Do you think this work is going to go towards supporting that? Instead farmers who adopt no-till will just be paid a lump sum regardless of how much carbon that they store, just because we know these [inaudible 00:30:13]
Rod Rejesus
It could, I don't know, I don't know the answer to that. It could be, there's still lots of debate right now on how do you structure that market so there's always this monitoring and validation question, and it's always this concern about, well, are they really sequestering carbon? It may be just a transfer to farmers rather than getting the environmental benefits. So I think there still needs to be a lot of work to look at that. And also, just talking to a lot of my agronomist friends, they're just saying, well, it's different types of soils will have different kinds of rates of carbon sequestration. And should we go that deep? Or should we just be a lump sum? But again, I think the evidence base is not yet there for a lump sum type of payment because there's still debate whether or not no-till say in the Southeastern states sequester carbon the same way as no-till in the Midwest states.
And if you have a lump sum payment that assumes that it's the same. So those kinds of issues comes in that case. And I think that's why there's lots of, and I'm sure you heard about this, that the climate smart call for proposals and exactly what they're wanting to see. And there's different. There's no funding yet on the decisions yet, but I think that's what the government NRCS and all that stuff, that's what they want to figure out. It's like, what do you guys, in the academic community or in the NGO community think of how to best develop this ecosystem service or carbon market, what's the right way to pay or what's the right? Is it lump sum? Is it by acre? Is it some monitoring? Is it based on remote data? Those kinds of things I think still need to be worked out.
Brian O'Connor
And then this is a curve ball, but we know that since the moldboard plow has gone out of fashion, that there's actually, we like to think that it's just plow and then no-till over here at No-Till Farm but there's actually diversity of tillage practices. Have you guys considered looking at any of those strip-till, vertical tillage, what they call minimum tillage?
Rod Rejesus
No, in this particular case, so we separated out just no-till and conventional. That's something that needs to be looked at as well, in the future and how that will work. We haven't looked at that separately. In the Optus data there is some separation for the middle ground, so to speak, but we didn't look at that. So maybe that's something to look at the conservation till or the minimum till rather than no-till.
Brian O'Connor
Well, it's a little interesting is that when we put out our big survey, we get results that suggest that farmers do adopt no-till and you would expect that because, hey, our readers are it's No-Till Farmer Magazine, but we also find that farmers adapt multiple practices for lands that they manage. So they'll have half under no-till and half under strip-till, for example, or half under conventional and half under no-till as well. So I don't know to what extent you guys have looked into that or even if that would matter, but it's just-
Rod Rejesus
I don't know. That would probably matter as well. It depends on again how it will be capitalized. That's something to look at. Something for future research to see if that intermediate step already also contributes to land values in this particular case. We haven't looked at that yet, but that's a good point.
Brian O'Connor
So does this also support a change to the crop insurance rates for farmers that adopt no-till? Since that's your area of expertise I feel comfortable asking.
Rod Rejesus
No. Yeah. That's a different story in my mind. Premiums is based on risk, not land values in this particular. So it's based on the riskiness of the thing. So that's a separate question. Does no-till reduce production risk or does cover crop reduce production risk? And that's something that I'm looking at as well. So perhaps in the near future, we can talk again. That's something that we're looking at cover crops in particular, but we could also look at no-till as well, because as you said, and as you probably know, there's a pilot premium discount for cover crop adoption in, I think Illinois, Indiana, those. It's a $5 thing, but that presumes cover crops reduce risk. And I think there's still debate and so that's something to look at still.
Brian O'Connor
All right. Well, I think that's all the questions I got. Is there anything else you want to cover? Anything else we missed?
Rod Rejesus
No, I think we've covered a lot of stuff.
Brian O'Connor
Okay. I'm going to ask you the Ira Glass question, then. He calls it the blank check question. I always thought of it as the magic wand question. If I handed you a blank check with infinite budget, what would you study right now?
Rod Rejesus
Well, we would look at some of these issues that you mentioned about both carbon, that question, and also this larger risk question in soil health question at the farm level, perhaps, if that's the case. There is some data with the USDA called ag ARMS ag resource management survey. It's not every year, but it costs money to get access to those kinds of things. So some followup to investigate those questions. Plus a followup on this land value question at the farmer or field level would be interesting in my mind. So those are the things, those are the three things, the carbon market issue, or the carbon sequestration issue with no-till and cover crops, the risk crop insurance thing with no-till and cover crops and a similar study that of the paper we're discussing right now, but at the farm level and using your blank check to pay whoever to get their data.
Brian O'Connor
Thanks again to our sponsor SOURCE by Sound Agriculture for helping to make this no-till podcast series possible. More podcasts about no-till farming are available over at no-tillfarmer.com/podcasts. That's no-tillfarmer.com/podcasts. A transcript of this episode will be available there shortly. You can also subscribe and follow us wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have any feedback on today's episode, please feel free to email me at boconnor@lessitermedia.com or call me at (262) 777-2413. You can also keep up on the latest no-till farming news by registering online for No-Till Insider daily and weekly email updates and our Dry Land No-Tiller e-newsletter, and be sure to follow us on Facebook or Twitter. For our entire staff here at No-Till Farmer, I'm lead content editor, Brian O'Connor, thanks for listening and farm ugly.
Post a comment
Report Abusive Comment