We have grown crops starting with wheat in the Red River Valley since the 1870s using conventional forms of tillage. The advent of glyphosate-tolerant crops made it possible for producers in western states to grow these crops using conservation and reduced tillage to reduce and conserve water. Conservation tillage (where 30% crop residue remains) can provide benefits such as soil conservation, improve soil organic matter content, and reduce labor and energy use. Some of our producers have started producing soybean, corn, sugarbeet and wheat using strip tillage and/or no-till. It will be useful to provide research-based information on advantages and challenges of using no-till and reduced tillage relative to conventional tillage for sugarbeet, soybean, corn and wheat grown in rotation.
We will determine the yield and quality of major crops grown in different crop sequence; determine the effect of tillage type on crop yield, quality, disease severity caused by major pathogens, soil fertility, microbial population, and document best practices for managing pest resistance.
This information can also be used to assist policymakers in determining incentives for adopting and using agricultural production practices that may have a significant public value (such as reduced use of fossil fuels and carbon sequestration that can lead to improved air quality). More importantly for producers during a period of low commodity price, it will be useful to know the economics and risks of using different crop sequences.

1. Determine the yield and quality of major crops (sugarbeet, corn, soybean and wheat) grown in different crop sequence.
2. Determine the effect of tillage type (conventional, strip, and no-till) on crop yield and quality.
3. Determine the impact of tillage and crop sequence on disease severity caused by major pathogens including Rhizoctonia, Fusarium and Phytopthora of the crops in the sequence.
4. Determine the impact of tillage on soil nutrients (N, P, K and carbon), pH, texture and microbial population over time.
5. Document the best practices for managing insecticide, herbicide and fungicide resistance of the crops in the sequence.

To be delivered as a report and by Extension Specialists involved with the project providing this information at annual winter meetings and workshops.
1. Provide yield and quality of crops grown and best pest management practices.
2. Provide update on microbial population over time based on starting time.
3. Provide insights into advantages and challenges observed for each tillage type.

Updated January 5, 2024:
Results from Year 1
Corn crop
There was no significant effect of interaction between tillage method and corn crop position in yield (p>0.43), moisture content (p>0.68) and test weight (p>0.87).
There was no significant main effect of corn crop position (i.e. crop sequence) in yield (p>0.46), moisture content (p>0.17) and test weight (p>0.76). This means that field positions or previous crops had no influence on the corn crop performance in year 1. This also suggested the field conditions were reasonably uniform throughout, providing a good baseline point in time.
However, the tillage methods had shown significant effects on corn crop performance in yield (p<0.05) and moisture content (p<0.05), but no effect on test weight (p>0.13) (see Table 1).

Table 1
Tillage Yield (bu) Moisture (%) Test weight
CT 213.72b 15.33b 53.86
NT 178.33a 14.85a 54.77
ST 196.75ab 15.30b 53.32

As can be seen from Table 1, no tillage (NT) had significantly smaller yield than the conventional tillage (CT), but the yield was not significantly different between ST and CT.
On moisture content, no tillage (NT) had significantly lower moisture content than the strip tillage (ST) and conventional tillage (CT), but the moisture concentration was not significantly different between ST and CT.
Soybean crop
There was only one soybean crop position (i.e. crop sequence in year 1). So, the soybean data structure was different from the corn crop data structure. For soybean data, we can only analyze and examine the effect of tillage method.
There was no significant effect of tillage method on yield (p>0.44), on moisture content (p>0.05) and on test weight (p>0.25). The mean values for respective tillage method are given in Table 2.
Table 2
Tillage Yield Moisture (%) Test weight
CT 26.01 8.34 59.75
NT 23.00 7.92 58.25
ST 21.84 7.99 58.50

It should be noted even though the soybean yields looked small in NT and ST, they did not differ significantly from the soybean yield in CT. This can be due to yield variation between replicates in the same tillage method.
Results from Year 2
Sugarbeet crop
There was no significant effect of interaction between tillage method and sugarbeet crop position in yield, sugar concentration and recoverable sucrose per acre.
However, the tillage methods had shown significant effects on sugarbeet tonnage, sugar concentration and recoverable sucrose. The crop sequence showed significant effects on tonnage and recoverable sucrose.

Table 1a – Sugarbeet, Table of Means, Tillage
Tillage Tonnage
(T/A) Sugar (%) Recoverable Sugar (lb/A)
CT 6.0b 13.2b 1409b
NT 9.5ab 14.2a 2511a
ST 12.1a 13.7ab 3042a


Table 1b – Sugarbeet, Table of Means, Crop Sequence
Crop Sequence Tonnage
(T/A) Sugar (%) Recoverable Sugar (lb/A)
2 Corn/Sugarbeet/Corn/Soybean 8.1b 14.2 2187b
3 Soybean/Sugarbeet/Corn/Soybean 12.6a 13.5 3066a
4 Corn/Sugarbeet/Soybean/Corn 7.0b 13.4 1708b

The plant population for sugarbeet was low at both planting and replanting dates as a result of poor soil conditions from wet conditions and heavy winds. As a result of the low population, yield ranged from six to 12 tons per acre.
Soybean crop
There was only one soybean crop position (i.e. crop sequence in year 2). So, the soybean data structure was different from the sugarbeet crop data structure. For soybean data, we can only analyze and examine the effect of tillage method.
There was no significant effect of tillage method on yield (p>0.39), on moisture content (p>0.77) and on test weight (p>0.26). The mean values for respective tillage method are given in Table 2.

Table 2 – Soybean, Table of Means, Crop sequence 1 (Corn/Soybean/Wheat/Sugarbeet) x Tillage
Tillage Yield (bu/A) Moisture (%) Test weight
CT 27.5 12.4 59.8
NT 20.0 13.1 56.5
ST 19.7 13.7 59.5

It should be noted even though the soybean yields were numerically lower in NT and ST, they did not differ significantly from the soybean yield in CT. This can be due to yield variation between replicates in the same tillage method. The yields of 20 to 28 bushels per acre were achieved with a very late re-planting date of July 2.

Preliminary Results from soil samples collected and evaluated for nematodes
The counting process is ongoing. The average cyst nematode count from each sample was 16 cysts with the highest and lowest cyst count as 24 and 14 respectively. Also, more cyst nematode population was recorded in the sugarbeet samples as opposed to the soybean samples which is the primary host of cyst nematodes.

View uploaded report

1. Growers will learn of the advantages and challenges of using different tillage of soybean and other crops commonly grown in rotation including corn, wheat and sugarbeet so they can increase productivity, reduce cost of production and incorporate production practices to preserve our natural resources for future generation.