Conventional vs. conservation tillage: Is it worth shifting?

Conservation tillage is widely associated with healthier soils and lower environmental impacts, but for farmers, one practical question remains: Does it pay? A study published in International Soil and Water Conservation Research addresses this question using 20 years of farm-scale economic data.

The experiment ran from 2004 to 2023 near Dióskál in western Hungary, covering approximately 80 hectares. The researchers compared conventional tillage (mouldboard ploughing, for example) with conservation tillage, which avoided soil inversion, required fewer operations, and retained crop residues on the soil surface. Six crops were included, and the study covered both exceptionally wet and dry years. Costs and revenues were adjusted to 2024 price levels to allow a consistent comparison.

The researchers divided the 20-year transition into four distinct periods. The “Transitional” period (years 1–3) brought lower yields and profits as farmers gained experience and addressed problems with machinery, weeds, and crop diseases. During “Adapted 1” (years 4–10), improved equipment and management helped yields and economic performance recover.

Progress slowed during the “Steady” period (years 11–17), when weeds, pests, and wildlife occasionally reduced the benefits. After further changes to crop protection, fencing, and sowing practices, performance improved again during “Adapted 2” (years 18–20). These periods show that conservation tillage requires continuing observation and adjustment rather than a “set-and-forget” approach.

Across the full 20 years, conservation tillage delivered measurable production and economic benefits. Average yields were 3.9% higher, while operating costs were 9.8% lower, resulting from the elimination of ploughing and harrowing. Together with lower overall production costs, this resulted in 13.0% higher profit than conventional ploughing (around €200 profit per hectare per year).

Notably, benefits varied among crops. Oilseed rape and spring barley recorded the strongest profit gains, while winter cereals also performed positively. Maize was affected by early transitional losses but became more profitable after the system had adapted. No general conclusion could be drawn for sunflowers because it was grown only once and was affected by sowing errors.

Based on these findings, “the answer to the question in the title is clearly yes,” according to the authors. Even if conservation tillage only matched ploughing yields after the initial decline, its cost savings could still provide a 3.4% profit margin because of significant cost reductions.

Nevertheless, the authors stressed that “immediate profits should not be expected.” The time needed to recover early losses will depend on local conditions, including farm size, climate, soil, crop choice, and market prices. To help farmers manage this transition, the study suggests that temporary bridging subsidies could support adoption while also advancing the wider environmental benefits of conservation tillage.

Contact the author: 

Gergely Jakab

Geographical Institute, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, HUN-REN, 1112 Budapest, Hungary

jakab.gergely@csfk.org

Funder:

The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (K143005) and the HUN-REN Secretary (KSZF-75/2023). 

Conflict of interest:

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

See the article:

Madarász, B., Járási, É. Z., Jakab, G., Szalai, Z., & Ladányi, M. (2025). Economic comparison of conventional and conservation tillage in a long-term experiment: Is it worth shifting? International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 13(3), 501-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2025.02.012