A Washington D.C.-based environmental group published a lengthy report Tuesday criticizing no-till systems across the U.S. for their dependence on chemicals and demanding the industry shift toward “regenerative” systems that focus on organic farming methods.

But farm industry stakeholders interviewed by No-Till Farmer say the report contains much misinformation and suggested the group behind it does not have a full understanding of the benefits of no-till systems.

The 65-page report from Friends of the Earth (FOTE) describes current no-till systems with labels such as “factory no-till” and “industrial no-till,” owing to their use of herbicides, pesticides and seed treatments — in spite of the fact thee products have long been approved for use by regulators.

Sound Off!

Have comments on this article? Go to the comments section below or send an email to [email protected].

FOTE also asserts no-till systems do not, in all cases, result in carbon sequestration, and in some cases no-till could reduce sequestration.

In some circumstances, the group argues, conventional tillage could play a role in regenerative systems if used properly (although some advocates of regenerative ag emphasize less soil disturbance, not more). FOTE says a “leading form” of truly regenerative agriculture is diversified organic farming that has a rigorous legal standard.

“Truly regenerative agriculture cannot be boiled down to single practices, as it works with the farming system as a whole,” the organization says. “Research shows that careful tillage in holistic farming systems can achieve better soil outcomes than chemical-intensive no-till agriculture.

“Crucially, reducing use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in conventional agriculture is not only possible, but research also shows it can increase yields by fostering beneficial insects and healthy soil and can increase profitability by reducing farmers’ input costs.

“The fact that so many farmers have adopted no-till practices is evidence that they’re interested in protecting their soil. Companies and policymakers need to invest in supporting farmers to reduce use of harmful and expensive inputs.”

We’ve got to feed the people 3 meals a day so that they can do the work and think about how we can address climate mitigation.

Although FOTE says most no-tilled crops are used for livestock feed and biofuels, the group conversely argues crops produced that way still threaten human health due to unhealthy exposure to farm chemicals.

“People in rural communities are exposed through their proximity to fields where chemicals are used via drinking water, dust and blowing soil, and the air,” the group says. “Scientists consistently raise concerns about pregnant women and young children, who are especially vulnerable. Farmers’ occupational exposure to herbicides is also associated with increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s, and other serious health problems.”

FOTE also claims synthetic chemicals are a threat to soil health, despite decades of university research and on-farm examples showing no-till systems increase soil organic matter, reduce erosion and improve nutrient cycling, despite pesticides being used.

The group says its report “disproves the widely-held assumption that conventional no-till agriculture is “regenerative” because its analysis of USDA shows 93% of the 107 million acres of U.S. corn and soybeans grown in no-till and minimum-till management systems, “use toxic pesticides that have devastating consequences for soil life and human health.”

U.S. Census of Agriculture figures show there was 105 million no-tilled acres in 2022, and 97 million acres of conservation or reduced tillage.

Pesticide Debate

FOTE says a “staggering” one-third of the U.S.’s total annual pesticide use can be attributed to corn and soy grown in no-till and minimum-till systems, and 61% of the pesticides are classified as “highly hazardous.”

“The cost of pesticide-soaked conventional no-till goes beyond the immediate impact on our health: It is also destroying the soil that grows our food,” FOTE alleges. “The pesticides widely used in conventional no-till devastate soil health, harming the soil microbiome and invertebrates like worms and beetles, as well as animals in the broader environment like essential pollinators.

“Healthy, living soil improves farmers’ resilience to droughts and floods, conserves water, and draws more carbon down from the atmosphere. Soil ravaged by toxic pesticides, on the other hand, drains resources needed for a healthy food system.”

FOTE cites “extensive scientific research” that supposedly refutes claims that no-till combats climate change by pulling carbon down from the atmosphere into the soil – instead claiming “there is no clear relationship between no-till and soil carbon sequestration.”

Additionally, FOTE says greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fossil-fuel-based synthetic pesticides and fertilizers used in no- and minimum-till corn and soy are “equivalent to that of 11.4 million cars on the road over an entire year.”

FOTE also took aim at Bayer, who is offering to pay farmers to practice no-till as part of a “regenerative agriculture” program.

“While no-till as a practice can have positive impacts under the right conditions,” the group says, “it is most often implemented in industrial systems dependent on the pesticide industry, falling far short of the goals of regenerative agriculture.”

Farm Industry Responds

The FOTE report isn’t sitting well with some industry leaders and researchers. Bayer, which has indicated it may have to stop selling glyphosate due to the litigious environment around the product, nevertheless disagreed with the report’s stance toward no-till’s use of crop protection tools.

“Glyphosate-based products like Roundup help farmers employ some of the most significant measures when it comes to implementing sustainable farming and regenerative ag practices,” the company told No-Till Farmer in a statement in reaction to the report.

“Tools like Roundup are essential as more and more farmers turn to practices such as planting cover crops to reduce erosion, capture moisture and sequester carbon in the soil. Products like Roundup also enable farmers to adopt no-till measures that help drastically reduce the amount of carbon released by the soil through tillage.

“This approach has been used with success by farmers and is supported in a recent Directions Groupreport, highlighting the important role of glyphosate in farmers’ regenerative ag practices.”

The Modern Ag Alliance, a D.C.-based industry group that is working to protect tools of modern agriculture with the support of Bayer and other industry stakeholders, also took issue with the report.

“Anti-agriculture groups want to call these benefits into question to advance their ideological crusade against crop protection tools, despite the impact their loss would have on the environment,” MMA says in a statement. “Radical organizations like Friends of the Earth recognize that less farming means fewer people. Look no further than the organization’s founder calling population growth a ‘menace’ — its agenda should come as no surprise.”

‘Conservationists to the Core’

Like Bayer, MAA pointed to a study completed 2 years ago by Aimpoint Research that highlighted the significance of glyphosate for no-till farm operations and the environment.

The report says farm profits would fall as labor costs rise and farmers are forced to use more expensive alternatives for weed control — which could more the double crop protection costs per acre.

The report also stated if farmers switched to tillage it could increase production costs by $1.9 billion, while further increasing fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. Water use could rise due to lost soil moisture by 19%, and costs to consumers would rise as food prices experience more inflationary pressures.

Aimpoint Research’s report also noted that conservation practices have resulted in a 22% reduction in sediment loss, 19% reduction in water use for irrigation, 16% reduction in wind erosion and 13% reduction in water erosion.

“Farmers are conservationists to the core, innovating and advancing land stewardship for generations. The advent of no-till farming, made possible by modern crop protection tools, has been a win-win for both growers and the environment,” MMA says in a statement. “Research has shown, time and time again, that reduced tillage not only improves soil health, but it also helps conserve resources, lower emissions and preserve habitats. That’s a fact.”

Carbon Conundrum

Don Reicosky, an emeritus soil scientist retired from the USDA Agricultural Research Service office in Morris, Minn., says he took less issue with the group’s assertions about carbon sequestration, as he sees it as a very complex issue with no scientific consensus at this time.

He did express concern about some apparent misrepresentations in the report, including the information about the carbon footprint of various farm activities. He noted that even with organic systems there are carbon footprints generated for irrigation, manufacturing of tillage tools and in the transportation of crops to their destination points.

“They’re trying to be purists, and they apparently got the organic people influencing them,” Reicosky says. “Ideally, I think that's the way we should be working toward. But we’ve had 10,000 years of tillage and we’re having difficulty overcoming that tradition.

“And then we have a big business putting out this 830-horsepower John Deere tractor and the carbon footprint of the manufacturer of that. Nobody talks about the manufacturing of the chisel plow, the disc harrow and the planters.

Who gets to decide which 2 to 3 billion people have to die of starvation?

“Nature’s community requires this interaction to get the synergistic benefits out of the interaction, to maintain our quality of food and our quality of life and our food security. And it might contribute to carbon sequestration and the climate thing. But my bias is that we’ve got to feed the people 3 meals a day so that they can do the work and think about how we can address climate mitigation.”

Randall Reeder, a member of No-Till Farmer’s Advisory Board and Lessiter Media’s Conservation Ag Foundation, says the figures FOTE cites for continuous no-till is inaccurate, as it’s closer to 10%, not 28%, and no-tilling a field every other year is not no-till. There is “no way” the number of farms cited is generating a third of chemical use, he added.

“The only difference in herbicide use is for burndown. Other herbicide use throughout the year is the same as for tilled ground,” Reeder says.

“This report is promoting vegetarian diets and pure organic farming. The only way organic farming, with tillage, can stay even with soil carbon is by adding a lot of manure or other forms of ‘carbon,’ he added. “Tillage destroys organic matter faster than these additives can increase it. 

“A century of degenerative tillage has destroyed about half of the organic matter in Midwest soils. It’s ridiculous to claim that eliminating degenerative tillage can’t stop the loss. Continuous no-till can increase it and increase it deeper.”

Reeder added, “If all farming worldwide became pure organic, who gets to decide which 2 to 3 billion people have to die of starvation?”

FOTE responds that scientists estimate farmers already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. “Still, nearly 800 million go hungry every day and many more are undernourished. Research consistently demonstrates that world hunger is not a problem of supply, but rather of poverty, lack of democracy and unequal access to land, water, and other resources,” the organization says.

Defining Progress

There are bound to be tradeoffs with any change in agricultural systems. If farmers were forced into organic practices and tillage there could be more carbon being respirated into the atmosphere, more soil in rivers and streams, more wind and water erosion, poor soil health and use of high-horsepower tractors increasing fuel consumption and fossil fuel pollution.

No-Till Farmer asked FOTE if this is progress and the group doubled down on its targeting of pesticide and fertilizer use.

“The greenhouse gas emissions associated with these inputs could be equivalent to that of 11.4 million cars on the road over an entire year — about the number of cars in the top nine no-till states combined. This makes much of the current no-till practice a serious problem for carbon emissions.”

When it comes to sustainable farming, it’s all about the soil. Reeder notes growers who have used continuous no-till for a decade or more have improved their soil to the point that chemical fertilizer use has been cut drastically or even eliminated as cover crops and their roots generate N, P, and K from the air and deep soil. And the amount of herbicides can be greatly reduced, he added.

“Planting into a green cover crop, and rolling it afterwards, can provide close to 100% weed control.”