Search Results

It was the kind of late-summer afternoon when the land itself feels like it’s holding its breath. Ray Archuleta had come in from his home in Missouri to speak at the SC Forage and Grazing Lands Coalition, but before he ever set foot in a lecture hall, we wanted him out on the land, where his words always seem to take root. We brought him to Jason Carter’s farm — a familiar place for us, a living classroom. On one side of a dirt track: Jason’s ground, managed with no-till, long rotations, cover crops, and livestock. On the other hand, the very same Orangeburg loamy sand was managed conventionally with tillage and low diversity. Two fields, fifty feet apart, the same soil series, divided only by management. We’ve often brought visitors here to see the contrast, and the soils still spoke clearly. But this time what struck us most wasn’t the dirt underfoot — it was the weeds. Both fields had recently come out of corn. In the conventional ground, Palmer amaranth was already charging ahead, while Jason’s field, still green with cover, held weeds only here and there. Ray grinned at the sight. “If you want to preserve weed seeds,”  he said, “bury them with tillage.” Tackling the Sticking Points For months, our Growing Resilience community online has been hashing out the hard questions. Many of them made their way into the field with us that afternoon. “No-till makes soils hard as concrete.” Ray didn’t dodge. “Yes, no-till soils can get compacted. But the cure isn’t more steel — it’s living roots. Life creates porosity. There’s no piece of equipment on this planet that can do what biology does.” “Diversity just means more disease.” Ray shook his head. “Nature is self-healing, self-regulating. The real cause of disease is planting the same thing over and over. Nature wants diversity. The soil wants different roots, different exudates, different foods.” “Cover crops are just another cost.” Ray told us he prefers the term “service crops.”   “Because they serve the next corn, the next soybean, the microbes, the climate — they serve life itself.” “Livestock don’t belong on cropland.” Ray was emphatic: “Nature does not farm without animals. If I were forced to grow corn and soybeans, I’d fence my whole farm and run livestock. Animals bring freedom from the bank — but only if you’re ready to manage them well.” “Forbs are weeds on rangeland.” Ray reminded us: “Grasslands are not just grasses. They have legumes, forbs, deep-rooted plants that feed different microbes. Forbs bring nutrients to cattle that grasses don’t. Healthy land is a supermarket and a pharmacy, all at once.” “Longer rotations don’t pay.” Ray countered with what research — and farmers like Darren Williams in Kansas — have shown: “Bring wheat or oats into a corn-soy rotation and inputs drop, infiltration rises, pest cycles break. Profitability isn’t in one crop — it’s in the whole rotation.” “No-till just means more chemicals.” Ray leaned in on this one. “As soils get healthy, they need fewer inputs. Weed populations shift. Fungicides, insecticides, fertilizers — they all go down. The soil can’t get healthy without living covers, but when it does, you need less chemistry, not more.” From Questions to Conversations We filmed it all, not as a lecture, but as a conversation with the land itself. The tough questions came straight from our readers and neighbors, sharpened by skepticism. The answers came with soil in hand, with earthworms dangling, with clods breaking or holding depending on the management. Ray often returns to a single line: “The soil is alive.”  Yet, as he admitted that afternoon, “I’ve only been impressed with maybe 10 or 15 producers for their knowledge of the soil — and I meat thousands. We’re at a very low level of understanding.” That truth is harder to ignore when you see two fields side by side, one brittle and one full of life. The outing reminded us that skepticism is not an obstacle — it’s an opening. When you take the hard questions out into the land, the answers are waiting. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Iconic Ray Archuleta Image captured ca. 2013 before a Slake Test Demonstration. Introduction In 2010, I met Ray Archuleta on the farm of the late Ray Steyer. That day changed the course of my life. I was still working as an aquatic scientist, but one afternoon with Ray shifted my entire research and outreach emphasis to soils and soil health. Ray introduced me to the four soil health principles that, at the time, seemed almost radical: 1. Limit disturbance 2. Keep the soil covered 3. Maintain a living root year-round 4. Foster diversity Livestock integration and context weren’t yet part of the conversation, but even then, Ray was clear: if farmers were going to stay in business, they would have to reduce inputs. In 2010, that was a crazy idea. Fifteen years later, it feels more like common sense. This blog is longer than most, and I’ll apologize for that up front. But disturbance and our dependence on agricultural chemicals are deeply connected, and to understand how soil health moves forward, we need to look at those connections together. Disturbance as More Than Just Tillage Ray and I had another long conversation just last week where we drilled down into the idea of disturbance. It was a good reminder to me that disturbance isn’t just tillage. Tillage is dramatic — you can see and feel it — but soil disturbance is much broader, reaching into fallow, pesticides, and other chronic pressures that often slip under the radar. Ray encouraged me to think about disturbance on a spectrum, from acute to chronic. Acute disturbances are shocks — a tillage pass, an insecticide spray — while chronic disturbances are the slow, grinding pressures of repeated disturbances that wear soil down over time. Here’s one way to think about it: Chronic disturbance (long-term pressure):  fallow, tillage, pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides in varying degrees depending on context) Acute disturbance (short-term shock):  tillage, insecticides, fallow, fungicides, herbicides The shock for me was how damaging chronic fallow can be for soil. Bare ground — or even ground covered with residue but without a living root for eight months of the year — turned out to be among the most harmful chronic disturbances. We see the legacy of this in conditions like fallow syndrome. Of course, these rankings aren’t absolute — tillage fallow vs. chemical fallow may differ, the frequency and duration of fallow matter, and pesticide impacts vary by type and by crop. Insecticides tend to have the most direct effects, while fungicides and herbicides differ in frequency and breadth of use. The bigger point, though, is that soil health is shaped not just by one disturbance (like tillage), but by the accumulation of many, and rotation diversity goes a long way in reducing the need for them. This is where diverse cropping systems matter. Including small grains in South Dakota rotations or planting cover crops ensures there’s something living in the soil. And when cover crops are in play, they can open the door to livestock integration, layering another principle of soil health onto the system. The Herbicide Debate — and the Fungicide Blind Spot No-tillers are often criticized for relying on herbicides. It’s true: herbicide use can be a crutch when it replaces diversity and rotation. But focusing only on herbicides creates a blind spot. In conventional tillage systems, fungicides are often the silent cost. Bare soil leaves plants vulnerable to rain splash and soil-borne pathogens, which can prompt farmers to apply fungicides. By contrast, surface residue in no-till systems acts as a buffer against splash and supports microbial communities, making the system more resilient. South Dakota farmer Van Mansheim recalled the simple advice of his mentor, Rick Bieber: “Go walk out in your field and look down at your feet. If you see soil, you’d better spray fungicide. If you see residue, you don’t need to.” That wisdom captures the point: residue isn’t just cover, it’s protection. Research suggests that when fungicides are used, they can be more disruptive to soil biology than herbicides—a reminder that the real issue is disturbance in all its forms, not just the ones we can see. These principles are not just ecological; they are also economic. Back in 2010, Ray emphasized that if farmers were to stay in business, they would need to reduce inputs. What seemed like a radical claim at the time has since been borne out in recent studies. Very recent research (since 2022) from USDA-ERS, the Soil Health Institute, and NACD shows that producers adopting soil health practices consistently report stronger profitability and greater stability. Ray was prescient in his 2010 observations — and more than a decade later, the science is catching up to what he was already teaching. Lower fertilizer and herbicide costs, coupled with more resilient soils, translate into real financial gains. In cotton systems on the Texas High Plains, for example, farmers increased net income by more than $150 per acre after adopting soil health management. And when fertilizer spiked to $1,000 per ton, Ray recalled how farmers began searching for alternatives. Those who embraced no-till, diversity, cover crops, and grazing reported fertilizer reductions of up to 90% and herbicide reductions of 75%. Profitability, as Ray often says, isn’t about the equipment — it’s about understanding how the soil functions. Where We Stand Now What seemed radical in 2010 is being lived out across South Dakota today. Farmers are discovering that reducing disturbance, promoting diversity, and keeping soils covered with living roots not only leads to healthier land but also to healthier balance sheets. Ray once told me, “ Nature doesn’t disrupt itself.” That’s the lesson we’re still learning. Farming and ranching with Mother Nature isn’t quick or easy, but it is patient work — the kind that builds soils, reduces dependence on chemicals, and keeps families on the land for another generation. References Tillage & Soil Health Kibblewhite, M. G., Ritz, Karl, and Swift, M. J. “Soil Health in Agricultural Systems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , vol. 363, no. 1492, 2008, pp. 685–701. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2178 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Health: The Importance of Soil Health in Conservation Tillage . USDA-NRCS, 2024, www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/Soil%20health.pdf Pesticide (Herbicide, Fungicide, Insecticide) Effects Beaumelle, Léa, et al. “Pesticide Effects on Soil Fauna Communities—A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Ecology , vol. 60, no. 7, 2023, pp. 1239–1253. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14437 . Rose, Michael T., et al. “Impact of Herbicides on Soil Biology and Function.” Advances in Agronomy , vol. 136, 2016, pp. 133–220. doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2015.11.005 . Broad Overviews of Agricultural Management Impacts National Center for Biotechnology Information. Soil Health and Sustainable Agriculture . NCBI Bookshelf, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2024. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK609370 Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE). Farming with Soil Life: Farming Practices That Can Put Soil Health at Risk . SARE, 2024, www.sare.org/publications/farming-with-soil-life/farming-practices-that-can-put-soil-health-at-risk/ Economic Impact United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Outcomes of Soil Health and Conservation Practices on U.S. Cropland . ERR-353, June 2025. www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/112841/ERR-353.pdf National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), and Soil Health Institute. Nationwide Study on 30 U.S. Farms Shows Positive Economic Impact of Soil Health Management Systems . NACD, 2022. www.nacdnet.org/newsroom/nationwide-study-on-30-u-s-farms-shows-positive-economic-impact-of-soil-health-management-systems/ Soil Health Institute. The Economics of Soil Health: Cotton Production in the Texas High Plains . Soil Health Institute, 2021. https://wtamu-ir.tdl.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/55eea986-9fb7-4755-becb-0475f043768e/content ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Van Mansheim in one of his Cover-Cropped Fields, October 2020. I first visited Van Mansheim on his farm in October 2020, and when I recently sat down again for a podcast interview with him, the conversation quickly grew beyond a podcast. Van is the whole package: no-till, long rotations, cover crops, bale grazing, livestock integration, and even a pheasant hunting enterprise. In the past week I’ve spent hours answering questions on our social media about no-till, inputs, weeds, and soil biology — and Van spoke to every one of them from lived experience. He doesn’t deal in abstractions. He speaks as a fourth-generation farmer, a businessman, and as a board member of the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition who knows how to make soil health principles work in real fields. About 5 miles north of Colome in Tripp County, Van is showing that no-till can be more than a planting method — it can be a gateway to resilience. Since going all-in on no-till in 2010, he has built a system of long rotations, cover crops, bale grazing, and livestock integration. The result? Healthier soils, stronger crops, and lower costs. Van doesn’t just speak from the seat of his tractor. On the Soil Health Coalition board, he helps other producers think through the same challenges he’s faced. His credibility comes not from theory but from the struggles he’s wrestled with and the rewards he’s seen. Like many, he found no-till alone wasn’t enough. “It was when we started bringing in covers in 2014 that things really changed,” he recalls, crediting neighbor Brian Jorgensen, also of Tripp County, for encouragement. Cover crops filled the root gap, gave him living plants between cash crops, and made spring planting easier. Mud no longer balled up on the planter; residue no longer sat heavy. Microbes and livestock cycled it back into the soil. The economics followed. By building biology with diverse rotations and livestock, Van steadily cut fertilizer needs. He’s also gone more than a decade without spraying a fungicide — solid evidence that resilient soils and diverse rotations can keep crops healthy without an endless stream of inputs. “If the soil biology’s doing its job, you don’t need to reach for a jug every time,” he says. Rotation is another cornerstone: four years of high-carbon crops, then one year of low-carbon. Sometimes he seeds a “succotash” mix — multiple species together — that doubles as forage for cattle and food for the microbes. Every decision starts with biology, knowing that economics follow. “Farmers are practical,” Van says. “We don’t change unless we see it working.” That pragmatism is why Van has become such a strong advocate for the full suite of soil health principles. He reminds others — especially those debating online — that no-till by itself isn’t a silver bullet. But paired with covers, rotations, and livestock, it lowers input costs, reduces risk, and leaves soils stronger year after year. And the results don’t just show up in spreadsheets. Hunters who come to Van’s pheasant operation remark on the look and feel of his ground. Neighbors notice the difference in infiltration after a rain. For Van, those signs are as convincing as any research trial: living proof that resilient soils are profitable soils. This post is part of a companion piece. There was too much to share in a single post, so we decided to separate them even though they form a whole. Be sure to read the other post here to get the full story. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Heath Bullington (Van’s nephew), who runs the farm with Van Mansheim, Lealand Schoon, Van’s soil Health Mentor, and Van in one of his pastures, October 2020. I first visited Van Mansheim about 5 miles north of Colome, in Tripp County, SD, on his farm in October 2020. When I recently sat down again for a podcast interview with him, the conversation quickly grew beyond a podcast. Van is the whole package: no-till, long rotations, cover crops, bale grazing, livestock integration, and even a pheasant hunting enterprise. In the past week, I’ve spent hours answering questions on our social media about no-till, inputs, weeds, and soil biology — and Van spoke to every one of them from lived experience. He doesn’t deal in abstractions. He says as a fourth-generation farmer, a businessman, and as a board member of the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition who knows how to make soil health principles work in real fields. Walk onto Van Mansheim’s pastures today and you’ll find something rare on the northern plains: a constellation of forbs, native grasses, shrubs, and wildflowers. But it wasn’t always this way. For years, Van — like so many — assumed his “native” rangeland was just that. In reality, it was a monoculture of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, crowding out the diversity that once defined the prairie. That realization hit home around 2016–2017, when he began working with grazing mentor Leland Schoon and moved from what was essentially season-long grazing to rotational grazing. The result is that Van’s pastures began to thrive. A South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks survey tallied 10 native warm-season grasses, 6 native cool-season grasses and 42 native forbs! Sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens, both native birds, flourished. Interestingly, pheasants, not native, have made a slower but stead comeback — a boon for Van’s hunting enterprise. “It wasn’t what we brought in,” Van says. “It was what came back when we changed the management.” Van’s leadership extends beyond his own pastures. As a board member of the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition , he shares what he’s learned with other producers. His credibility comes not from theory but from practice: restoring prairie, balancing cattle and wildlife, and proving that good grazing can rebuild diversity. Forbs, often maligned online as weeds, turned out to be some of the best forage. Research from NDSU’s Kevin Sedivec shows many native forbs grade out at 20–24% crude protein, rivaling alfalfa. Van sees it firsthand in his cattle: healthier animals, better gains, less need for supplements. Even the land itself responded. Old waterholes stopped filling — not because rain quit falling, but because the water was infiltrating instead of running off. Infiltration that once seemed impossible became normal. It’s a point worth emphasizing, especially amid the debates we see in our Facebook comments. Some insist weeds are useless. Others claim no-till or grazing systems don’t work in heavy soils. Van’s rangeland offers a living rebuttal. Diversity isn’t theory here — it’s a visible, measurable shift in plant communities, animal health, and wildlife. “Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy livestock, healthy people — it all goes together,” Van says. And he’s not speaking from theory. He’s speaking as a fourth-generation farmer, a conservation-minded grazier, and a leader helping other South Dakotans see their pastures in a new light. This post is part of a companion piece. There was too much to share in a single post, so we decided to separate them even though they form a whole. Be sure to read the other post here to get the full story. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Natalie Sturm By the Growing Resilience Team For decades, no-till has been hailed as a cornerstone of regenerative agriculture—an essential practice to protect soil while still producing food, feed, fuel, and fiber. However, a groundbreaking thesis by soil scientist Natalie Sturm, conducted at the Dakota Lakes Research Farm in central South Dakota, shows that no-till is only part of the equation. It’s not just about reducing disturbance. It’s about what you grow—and how you grow it. Natalie’s study examined nearly 30 years of data (1991–2021) across both irrigated and dryland cropping systems, all under long-term no-till. Her findings are clear: how you design your crop rotation—particularly how much residue you return to the soil and how diverse your system is—has an impact on soil health and grain yields. Key Finding #1: Residue and Diversity Are Game Changers for Soil Health Even under the same no-till management, rotations that included a greater proportion of crops with high carbon-to-nitrogen ratio residues (like corn, sorghum, and winter wheat) and greater diversity  (a mix of grasses, broadleaf crops, and cool/warm seasons) showed: Higher soil organic matter (SOM) , Better soil structure , measured by mean aggregate size, Stronger fungal communities and higher microbial diversity , Lower surface runoff and better infiltration . For example, the corn-corn-soy-winter wheat/cover-soy  rotation (C-C-S-W-S)—which included about 60% high-carbon crops and high diversity—produced better soil fungal populations and greater aggregate size than simpler systems like corn-soy  (C-S), which had only 50%  high-carbon crops and low diversity. Key Finding #2: You Don’t Have to Sacrifice Yield Some worry that adding more crops—or stepping away from simplified rotations—will reduce grain yields. But at Dakota Lakes, the opposite proved true. The first-year irrigated corn in C-C-S-W-S  averaged 212.2 bu/ac , outperforming both the corn-soy rotation (198.2 bu/ac) and continuous corn (183.5 bu/ac). It should be noted that second-year corn however, yielded 191.4 bu/ac. In dryland systems, wheat-corn-broadleaf and wheat-wheat-sorghum-corn-broadleaf  maintained or slightly improved wheat yields compared to a rotation with a broadleaf crop every other year while also building better soil—especially at deeper layers. Rotations with higher proportions of high-carbon crops consistently showed more yield stability over time , even in tougher years. In fact, the simpler corn-soy system only outperformed C-C-S-W-S in 4 of the 17 years  studied. Key Finding #3: Soil Health Is More Than Just Going No-Till Natalie’s work also revealed that diversity alone isn’t enough  if it doesn’t come with residue. High diversity with low biomass can leave soils biologically rich but chemically and physically degraded. Conversely, continuous corn , with 100% residue, built SOC but lacked the biological diversity needed for yield gains. The sweet spot? Rotations that balance diversity and residue —typically with 60–80% high-carbon crops and 2 or more functional crop types . Why This Matters Too often, no-till is promoted as a one-size-fits-all solution. However, as Natalie’s thesis demonstrates, no-till without thoughtful crop rotation is like building a house without a foundation . It helps, but it doesn’t finish the job. To truly regenerate soil, support yields, and prepare for weather fluctuations, crop rotation must be front and center in soil health conversations. Natalie’s full thesis, “It’s Not Just No-Till: Crop Rotations Are Key to Improving Soil Quality and Grain Yields at Dakota Lakes Research Farm,” is now available [ here ] Natalie’s video on this subject is at this link: https://dakotalakes.com/its-not-just-no-till-with-natalie-sturm/ Dakota Lakes 2020 Field Day is also an excellent Resource.  The full playlist (20 videos) can be found [ here ] ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

By:   the Growing Resilience Team A couple of weeks ago, we shared two posts that lit up our social media channels like never before. The topic? You guessed it: tillage. The first post was a short but controversial video of Dakota Lake Research Farm’s Dr. Dwayne Beck saying: “Grandpa had more organic matter than you do. All tillage tools destroy soil structure. All tillage tools decrease water infiltration… All tillage tools reduce organic matter…” The second was a graphic comparing tillage and no-till side-by-side. We posted these not to divide, but to spark conversation about something we care deeply about: soil stewardship. And boy, did it spark a discussion . Big time. As of May 21, the Beck video has received over 110,000 views, 659 likes , and 73 comments. The no-till vs. tillage image made steady rounds—but when it was shared to the Tillage Kings Facebook group, it truly took off: 81 likes, 99 laughing reactions, over 200 comments, and dozens of farmers weighing in from all corners of the country. We read every comment. And with the help of AI, yes, AI, to analyze the themes and trends in the comments , we sorted through hundreds of responses from more than 130 contributors. Why We’re Genuinely Listening One comment showed up repeatedly from no-till skeptics: “Where’s the peer-reviewed literature?” It’s a fair question. And it’s one we’re taking seriously. We’re now digging into the peer-reviewed literature—not to prove a point, but to bring clarity to a conversation that clearly matters to many of us. Much of that research comes in the form of meta-analyses and long-term field studies , and we’ll be drawing from those sources to try and address the themes raised in the feedback. This isn’t about saving face. It’s about honoring the moment and the people who showed up in it. If we want better stewardship, we need better conversations—rooted in respect, science, and experience. What We Heard The responses weren’t one sided—and that’s what made them so valuable. Here's how the perspectives broke down from our 131 commenters: 41% were clearly skeptical of no-till, citing yield declines, compaction, weed pressure, and doubts about the science. 7% were strongly pro no-till , especially when paired with cover crops, rotation, and systems thinking. 52% , fell into a middle ground , emphasizing flexibility, local context, and practical experience over ideology. From these discussions, eight key themes emerged: No-till can work—but is it at the cost of yield? Not necessarily. Some farmers reported no yield drag, and even yield gains. Both outcomes are real. The common thread? It depends on the soil, the system, and the willingness to adapt. Long-term no-till comes with real challenges. Several farmers described problems like compaction, poor emergence, and increased disease or weed pressure over time—especially in humid or poorly drained soils. Chemical dependency in no-till is a growing concern. Some voiced strong unease about no-till becoming synonymous with “spray-only” systems, especially where cover crops or diversity were missing. Most producers use a “toolbox” approach. Whether it’s strip-till corn, no-till soybeans, or shallow vertical tillage for wheat, many described adapting tillage to match the needs of each crop, season, and year. Context is everything. Commenters emphasized that soil type, rainfall patterns, drainage, equipment, and labor all shape what’s possible. One farmer put it simply: “You’ve got to farm the field you have.” Soil biology and regeneration matter to everyone. Across the spectrum, many expressed a desire to build better soil—not just manage inputs—and credited living roots, cover crops, and diversity as key to long-term productivity. Tillage isn’t evil—it’s a tool. Several folks defended strategic tillage as a necessary and legitimate part of their system, especially to manage residue or address compaction after wet years. Oversimplified messaging creates unnecessary division. Some pushed back against blanket praise of no-till, arguing that slogans like “all tillage is bad” ignore complexity and alienate those who are genuinely trying to do the right thing in tough conditions. What’s your experience? If you’ve got a story, a question, or a challenge to what we’re saying— comment and share. We’re listening. And we’re learning. Because what’s at stake isn’t a farming method. It’s the future of our land. Mind how you go, Buz Kloot & the Growing Resilience Team ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

By the Growing Resilience Team When we posted a video of Dr. Dwayne Beck explaining how tillage destroys soil structure and reduces infiltration, we expected a little pushback—but not hundreds of comments. What followed was one of our most active conversations yet, with producers from across the region offering both challenges and praise. It confirmed something we already suspected: There’s no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to tillage and yield. So, we did what we always try to do—go to the science. We reviewed two of the largest and most respected global studies ever conducted on no-till and yield. Both are peer-reviewed meta-analyses , which means they don’t rely on just one or two experiments—instead, they combine data from hundreds of field trials , across dozens of crops, climates, and countries. Think of it as the “aggregated wisdom” of years of side-by-side comparisons. Here’s what they found—and how it lines up with what farmers in South Dakota and beyond are already telling us. Study 1: Nature 2015 — “Productivity Limits and Potentials of Conservation Agriculture” This paper analyzed 5,463 yield observations from 610 field studies comparing no-till and conventional tillage across the globe. Published in Nature, one of the highest-impact journals in science, it set the tone for a decade of soil health debate. Headline result? On average, no-till yields were 5.7% lower than tilled systems. But here’s the catch: When no-till was combined with residue retention and crop rotation , the yield gap dropped to 2.5% , and in many cases, disappeared. In rainfed crops in dry areas (aridity index < 0.65, so that’s pretty much all of South Dakota) , no-till with good rotation and cover often outperformed tillage, thanks to better water retention and soil structure. In humid, cool climates, or when no-till was used without rotation or residue retention, yields dropped more significantly. Study 2: Field Crops Research  2015 — “When Does No-Till Yield More?” This second meta-analysis from the same lead author analyzed an even bigger dataset: 6,005 yield comparisons from 678 studies . It focused more closely on which conditions tipped the scales for or against no-till. It confirmed all of the above and added these important takeaways: In dry climates (so, most of South Dakota) , no-till outperformed tillage in 55% of cases —especially when residue was retained and crop rotation was practiced. In wet soils , tillage often helps dry and warm the ground, explaining its popularity in places like Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri . Time matters : No-till yields were often lower in the first 1–2 years—but caught up after 5–10 years in most systems. What This Means for Us on the Ground “Roughly speaking, there’s a ‘yield response line’ that follows the aridity index line of 0.65 , running northeast to southwest through western Minnesota , northwestern Iowa , and into eastern Nebraska and Kansas . West of the line , conditions are drier. No-till often wins here—especially when paired with the full system: rotation, residue, and sometimes livestock. East of the line , wetter soils and colder springs mean that a tillage pass may help get crops in the ground quicker, especially if residue or rotation are lacking. “We Can’t Do It With No-Till Alone” That’s what Dr. Dwayne Beck says at Dakota Lakes Research Farm , where they’ve been pioneering resilient systems for decades. No-till is just one tool. The real power comes from stacking practices: Diverse rotations (especially small grains) Cover crops Soil armor Reduced disturbance Livestock integration Farmers near the Missouri River—on both sides—are showing what this looks like in practice. It lines up with what both the science and the social media feedback we received tells us: no-till is a tool in our toolbox, best used with the other tools! Final Thought: It’s Not Just About Yield Many of you told us why you till. Some said it helped yields. Others said it helped get on the field in time. But still others told us that no-till gave them their time back —less time in the tractor, more time with family, fewer washouts, better infiltration. If that’s part of what stewardship looks like to you—we’re listening. Sources If you have trouble finding these documents online, we will post these two papers on our Free Resources site at https://www.growingresiliencesd.com/free-resources   Pittelkow CM, Liang X, Linquist BA, et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature . 2015;517:365–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13809   Pittelkow CM, Linquist BA, Lundy ME, et al. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research . 2015;183:156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020 ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

As a response to several requests for more peer-reviewed material on the economics of no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT), I went digging into the usual suspects — input costs, yield comparisons, and long-term trials. That’s when I stumbled on research from South Dakota State University’s Beresford Research Farm that made me realize: I had a bias . In an earlier blog , we cited a meta-analysis showing no-till yields averaging 5.7% lower  overall compared to conventional tillage [1]. Like many, I assumed this applied across the board, including soybeans. To my surprise (and delight), I was wrong. The Surprising Soybean Advantage At SDSU’s Beresford farm, Pete Sexton and colleagues tracked no-till vs. conventional tillage over 27 years . In the corn–soybean rotation, conventional tillage corn out-yielded no-till corn by 6.1 bu/ac  — right in line with national averages. But here’s where things got interesting: Soybeans yielded 1.8 bu/ac higher under no-till. Even more striking, when the team expanded into three- and four-year rotations  — adding small grains like wheat or oats — no-till corn not only caught up but edged ahead by 1.3 to 1.8 bu/ac , and soybeans gained 1.4 to 2.5 bu/ac  [2]. Natalie Sturm’s 2022 master’s thesis at Dakota Lakes Research Farm reinforces the pattern: when rotations included small grains and legumes, no-till yields improved alongside soil health [3]. It’s Not Just No-Till — It’s How You No-Till So why does the “no-till, no yield” slogan persist? Corn-Centered Thinking In the Midwest, corn is king. It’s the economic driver, the benchmark. But soybeans — less sensitive to cool soils and quicker to benefit from improved water retention and structure — often outperform under no-till. They just get left out of the story. Short-Term Focus No-till is not a plug-and-play swap. It’s a system change. Early years can show uneven corn performance, but over time, synergistic practices like longer rotations and cover crops help unlock the full potential. Framing in Research & Media Much of agronomic research — and almost all the headlines — focus on single-year, single-crop results , not long-term, system-wide gains. As Natalie Sturm put it in her thesis: “It’s not just no-till — it’s how you no-till.” Do Real Farmers see this, or is this just Theoretical? Jesse Hall, a no-till farmer in Kingsbury County, offers a clear example. By adding small grains to his rotation, Jesse saw soybean yields improve by 3 to 5 bu/ac  across his farm average. His success didn’t come from adding more inputs — it came from diversifying the system . The Big Question: What Will It Cost? Naturally, the next question farmers ask is: “If longer rotations improve no-till performance, what will it cost me?” It’s a fair question — and one we’ll dig into next. Early data from long-term trials at Brookings, South Dakota, suggest that diverse no-till rotations — even when they shift acres away from corn — can actually increase net income , thanks to lower input costs, reduced chemical use, and improved weed control. In short, stepping beyond the corn–soybean cycle may not be a cost — it may be one of the smartest profitability strategies on the farm . References 1.     Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., et al. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature , 517, 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13809 2.     Sexton, P., Rops, B., Stevens, R., Williamson, G., & Sweeter, C. (2018). Long-Term Rotation and Tillage Study: Observations on Corn and Soybean Yields – 2018 Season. In Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm Annual Progress Report: 2018  (pp. 21–24). https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/agexperimentsta_rsp/279 3.     Sturm, N. (2022). It’s Not Just No-Till: Crop Rotations are Key to Improving Soil Quality and Grain Yields at Dakota Lakes Research Farm (Master’s thesis). South Dakota State University. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd2/366   ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Jeff Hemenway, former Soil Health Conservationist, pointing out Roots in the Subsoil at 80” in a No-till, Cover-Cropped Field in Brookings, SD When a commenter wrote on one of our recent videos Dwayne Beck, no-till , he put it bluntly: “Without tillage water won’t penetrate. I rented 400 acres that was zero till for decades and it was like a concrete block.” That comment — echoed by others in our threads — hits at one of the most common criticisms of no-till. If the soil is hard, if water isn’t soaking in, surely tillage is the fix? It’s a reasonable assumption. But is it backed by the evidence? To answer that, I want to take you back to a visit I made with Dr. Tom Schumacher, retired soil scientist from South Dakota State University. Tom was one of the first people I met in South Dakota after starting my work on soil health, and I still remember standing beside his large rainfall simulators — the kind used for the Universal Soil Loss Equation — as he explained how he tested infiltration after different tillage treatments. Four Years After CRP — Three Systems, Big Differences Schumacher’s experiments compared land that had been in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), then managed for four years under three systems: Moldboard plow Chisel plow No-till Using time-domain reflectometry (TDR) probes, he tracked soil moisture at 10 cm (4 in) and 40 cm (16 in) during simulated rain events. The results were striking: The moldboard plow plots saw rapid runoff, with little moisture reaching 40 cm. Chisel plow plots performed better, but still lagged. No-till plots allowed deeper moisture movement, retained structure, and reduced runoff losses . Those findings were consistent with a body of work Schumacher and colleagues published through the 1990s on post-CRP management and tillage impacts on infiltration and erosion (Lindstrom et al., 1994; Lindstrom et al., 1998; Schumacher et al., 1995). Why No-Till Sometimes Fails at Infiltration If that’s the case, why do some producers — like the commenter — find that water won’t penetrate after years of no-till? Research suggests several reasons: Legacy compaction — Historic tillage pans or livestock traffic can persist for decades if not addressed with rotation, rooting depth, and biological activity (Kladivko, 2001). Low residue or cover crop use — Without a protective cover, raindrops can seal the surface even in no-till fields. Soil type and rainfall patterns — Fine-textured soils in arid or sub-humid regions may form crusts under certain conditions. Management plateau — No-till alone is not a silver bullet; gains accelerate when combined with diversity, living roots, and minimal disturbance (Basche & DeLonge, 2019). Peer-Reviewed Evidence: The Midwest Picture Multiple Midwestern and Plains studies reinforce Schumacher’s findings when no-till is part of a broader system: Kladivko (2001) found that continuous no-till in Indiana improved macroporosity and infiltration rates compared to conventional tillage, particularly when rotations and cover crops were used. Huang et al. (2012) reported higher steady-state infiltration rates in long-term no-till than tilled systems across multiple sites in the U.S. Basche & DeLonge (2019) synthesized data from 89 studies, concluding that cover crops (often paired with no-till) increased infiltration by a median of 35%. Pittelkow et al. (2015) cautioned that short-term no-till transitions may show neutral or negative infiltration benefits, underscoring the need for multi-year commitment. When Tillage “Helps” — and at What Cost There’s no denying that tillage can temporarily improve infiltration by breaking surface crusts and loosening compacted layers. But the effect is short-lived. Without protective cover, the newly disturbed surface can seal again after a few heavy rains — often within the same season (Lindstrom et al., 1994). Worse, repeated tillage accelerates organic matter loss, reduces aggregate stability, and increases erosion risk. In South Dakota’s climate, that soil is unlikely to come back in a farmer’s lifetime. Matching Management to the Ecosystem Back in 2013, I interviewed Dr. Dwayne Beck at Dakota Lakes Research Farm as the Atlas storm rolled in. His view still resonates: “No-till is just a tool to match the ecosystem. As soon as you do tillage, you can’t do that anymore. Cover crops and rotations are what you can do to build on that.” That’s the point Schumacher’s infiltration work makes so clearly — no-till works best when paired with diversity, residue cover, and living roots. Without them, it’s just one wrench in the toolbox. Bottom Line So, does no-till seal the soil? In poorly managed systems, yes — but that’s a management problem, not an inevitable outcome. The weight of the evidence from South Dakota and beyond shows that when integrated into a diverse, soil-covering, disturbance-minimizing system, no-till improves infiltration and helps keep both water and soil where they belong. We’ll dig deeper into the literature on soil-water dynamics in our next post. In the meantime, you can watch Dr. Schumacher explain his rainfall simulator work here (start at 0:37) . References Lindstrom, M. J., Schumacher, T. E., & Blecha, M. L. (1994). Management considerations for returning CRP lands to crop production. J. Soil Water Conserv. , 49(5), 420–425. Lindstrom, M. J., Schumacher, T. E., Cogo, N. P., & Blecha, M. L. (1998). Tillage effects on water runoff and soil erosion after sod. J. Soil Water Conserv. , 53(1), 59–63. Schumacher, T. E., Lindstrom, M. J., Blecha, M. L., Cogo, N. P., Clay, D. E., & Bleakley, B. (1995). Soil management after CRP contracts expire. In Clean Water Clean Environment 21st Century Conference Proceedings . Kladivko, E. J. (2001). Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil Tillage Res. , 61(1–2), 61–76. Huang, M., et al. (2012). Infiltration and runoff under different tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. , 76(6), 2094–2104. Basche, A. D., & DeLonge, M. S. (2019). Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with cover crops: A meta-analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv. , 74(6), 653–664. Pittelkow, C. M., et al. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature , 517, 365–368. ____________________________________________________________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page  for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page  to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience   Twitter - @GrowResilience_   Instagram - growingresilience.sd   4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

On our spring tour of South Dakota farmers integrating livestock, my partner in crime, Joe Dickie, and I left Huron, and a couple of hours later crested the rise where Ryan Urban lives. Ryan identifies himself as a fourth-generation Pukwana crop-and-cattle producer—he jokes that they’re “cattle people who farm on the side.” With a name like Urban, I half expected him to grab a guitar and sing us a country tune. Instead, he grabbed the keys to his pickup, and we rode out into the fields under a seventy-degree sky, Joe filming, Ryan talking, and me listening. Around us lay pastures of switchgrass and big bluestem, calving grounds that double as pheasant cover in the fall. A little further on, cereal rye stood ready to graze, stretching the feed window before the native range comes on. This rhythm—calves born in the grass, cows turned into rye, full-season cover crops in summer, aftermath and stalks in winter—spoke to a simple but powerful principle: every acre of farm ground, every year, sees a cow. Ryan’s words hung in the air: “Every acre sees a cow.”  It wasn’t just a slogan—it was an operating system. Grain fields, cover crops, corn stalks, even neighbors’ land without cattle—he brings livestock across them all. In his math, the returns are hard to ignore: grazing corn stalks netted him $86 an acre last winter. Add in the fact that his corn yields are up seventy bushels an acre while using a third less fertilizer, and you start to understand why he says the cows are working for him, not the other way around. On one site that was once a gravel pit, he sifted a shovelful of soil through his fingers, the story deepened. This was no gravel lot anymore—though it once was, back when the interstate was built. Years of no-till, cover crops, and cattle have coaxed back life. Organic matter on some fields tops eight percent, water infiltration has improved, and runoff is nearly gone. “I struggle to keep water in the dugouts now,” he laughed. “It all soaks in.” Critics often say livestock compact the soil. Ryan doesn’t dismiss it—he manages it. He moves cattle off when the frost comes out, uses sacrifice pastures, and times grazing to conditions. It’s not problem-free, but neither is it the obstacle some imagine. What he’s built instead is flexibility: cereal rye in spring, full-season covers in fall, grazing nearly eleven months a year. He measures success not in bags of feed bought, but in days he can graze a cow without opening the checkbook. Ryan’s story has a kinship with others we’ve heard on this tour. Like Cody Merrigan east of Vermillion, who bends his system to fit family life. Like Nate Hicks near Yankton, who treats cows as land managers as much as livestock. Each has carved out a system tuned to their place, their rainfall, their soils. Ryan’s version is rooted in Brule County, where water is scarce, winds are relentless, and resilience is currency. As we wrapped up, the sun slanted across fields where rye, cows, and calves stitched together the fabric of his farm. Ryan said it simply: “I can tell how profitable I’ll be with a cow by how long I can graze her, instead of feeding her.” That, in the end, may be the truest definition of livestock integration—not an add-on, but the living hinge of the whole operation. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

On the South Dakota Coteau, the Michalski family transformed marginal cropland into a thriving, diverse pasture. Discover their grazing strategies, land ethic, and how diversity drives both resilience and profit. It was July 2021 when Joe Dickie and I rolled up to the Michalski spread on the Coteau. Waiting to greet us were Darin, his wife Jessica, and their son Cutler. Darin cut a dashing figure — blue sleeveless button-up, well-worn jeans, cowboy boots planted in the ground, and a baseball cap pulled low. There was something in his stance — easy, alert, weathered by work — that reminded me, apart from the lack of a slouch hat, a little of an Australian drover. I do not doubt that the image he cut with his pasture in the background was the reason his videos attracted more than a few eyeballs on our social media page. I’ll own it now: this story should have been told long ago. Life and projects stacked up, and other deadlines jumped the queue. But sometimes, you need a few years to understand what you saw — to gather the science, the context, and the perspective that make a story worth telling. And now, with a summer full of conversations about forbs, diversity, and resilience, I see the Michalski place for what it is: a master class in the land ethic. A place made for pasture The Coteau isn’t a forgiving country for row crops. It’s rolling glacial ground — thin soils draped over old ice-scoured hills — where rain comes when it will, and water has its own mind. For years, parts of Darin’s operation were cropped, but the returns were thin, the soil tired. So he began converting marginal cropland back into pasture. Not out of nostalgia, but because grass, forbs, and legumes were what the land wanted to be. “We’re better able to utilize our resources — moving from cool seasons into warm seasons, letting them regrow, and getting more grazing time on each paddock,” he says. Diversity didn’t just happen When we stepped into Darin’s pastures, the first thing he did wasn’t talk about pounds of beef or bushels of grain. He pointed out plants. Leadplant, purple prairie clover, Canada milkvetch — and plenty of others that most folks might call weeds. He’s learned that timing is the lever that changes everything. “We’ve found that hitting those cool-season invaders hard in the spring really makes a difference. You knock them back, and suddenly those native warm-season grasses you hadn’t seen in years start coming back.” This wasn’t just good botany — it was good grazing. Those forbs and warm-season natives aren’t filler; they’re protein-rich, drought-hardy, and they stretch the grazing season deep into the shoulder months. More grass, longer seasons By rotating carefully and letting plants recover, Darin has not only rebuilt plant diversity — he’s extended the grazing window. “The latest we’ve had our cows out was February 1st. We didn’t run out of grass — we ran out of places to graze. That’s how much we’re able to extend the season now.” That’s not just a win for the cattle — it’s a win for the balance sheet. Less hay bought in, fewer tractor hours, more resilience in dry years. On the Coteau, that kind of insurance is worth as much as rain in July. Choosing diversity over the quick fix Darin learned the hard way what happens when you try to “clean up” a pasture with chemicals. “I sprayed all my pastures once years ago, then it turned dry, and it set my grass back so bad. There were no legumes or forbs. I went away from that, and now I’d rather manage weeds with grazing timing than wipe out the diversity.” It’s a lesson in patience — one that runs counter to the idea that faster is always better. In this country, it’s often the slower road that takes you where you want to go. The land ethic in practice When Aldo Leopold wrote about the “land ethic,” he described a shift from seeing land as a commodity to seeing it as a community — something you belong to, not something you own. On the Michalski spread, that ethic isn’t a plaque on the wall; it’s in the daily decisions, the rotation plans, and the way Darin talks with landlords about grass health. “We’re not perfect by any means, but we’re trying to improve the land — and that should be worth a lot.” It’s also in the way he sees cattle: not just as a product, but as the engine that turns sunlight, soil, and a mess of plants into food. “When you can take plants that people can’t eat and turn them into a nutrient-dense protein package, you’re converting something undervalued into something essential.” Right on time Yes, this story is late. But maybe it took two extra years and a July spent knee-deep in forbs to see just how much it matters. In a season when we’ve been talking about the value of diversity, the Michalskis are proof that it’s not theory — it’s what makes the land, the livestock, and the livelihood more resilient. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Soil Regeneration Spiral. Source: Anderson 2005 We pulled into the parking lot at the USDA-ARS facility in Brookings, South Dakota, cameras in hand, wind tugging at our jackets. I remember thinking—this may be a quiet campus, but something important was about to be said inside. Dr. Randy Anderson didn’t deliver a long lecture that day. In fact, the heart of what he shared lasted less than three minutes. But in those few minutes, he offered a bird’s-eye view of how soil health really improves—how one practice begets another, and how a small management decision can spiral into something much bigger. Randy is not a man of fanfare. He’s soft-spoken, precise, and deeply thoughtful—shaped by years of working in the semi-arid Great Plains. And what he described that day was what he calls the Spiral of Soil Regeneration : a framework that ties together erosion control, water management, nutrient cycling, plant health, weed suppression, and profitability. It all starts with no-till and surface residue. That residue conserves moisture. More moisture means more plant growth. More plant growth means more residue. That alone starts the cycle. But it keeps building. That extra moisture opens the door to more diverse, more frequent rotations. Those rotations add organic matter. Microbial life flourishes. Aggregates form. Infiltration improves. Nutrient cycling takes off. “No-tillers were reducing nitrogen by 25 to 35%, and in some cases phosphorus by up to 50%,” Randy told me. “Some even eliminated phosphorus altogether—and yields still went up.” Healthier soils brought more vigorous seedlings, earlier nutrient uptake, and fewer plant diseases—especially the belowground ones we often miss. One long-term study showed that growing corn just once every four years, instead of every two, led to a 15–20% yield bump under the same conditions, just by lowering root disease pressure. Then came something even more surprising: crops in regenerated soils were more tolerant of weeds. In a Pennsylvania study, corn grown in biologically active, cover-cropped soil could tolerate five times more weed pressure than corn in conventionally tilled ground—with no yield penalty. But Randy didn’t just stop at plant health. He pointed to a long-term economic assessment of Great Plains producers who embraced these regenerative principles. Their net returns were 3 to 5 times higher than those of conventional tillage operations. Fertilizer and herbicide use dropped. Soil organic matter more than doubled. “They were just simply getting more profit,” he said. This spiral isn’t a metaphor. It’s a high-level systems view—one that makes sense to farmers who live in the day-to-day details, but need to see the big picture too. In revisiting this interview nearly a decade later, and seeing the kinds of questions showing up in our social media comment threads, we realized this message still hits home. It gives producers—especially those feeling stuck—a 30,000-foot path forward that’s both grounded and actionable. That’s why we’ve worked hard to bring this back to life in video form. We’ll be releasing the full 3-minute version soon. In the meantime, we’ve created a <1-minute teaser to give folks a quick, accessible gateway into this story—and into the full article. And we’re not done. In a follow-up piece, we’ll share more of Randy’s work on rotational diversity and weed suppression—an area that’s becoming even more critical as herbicide resistance rises and costs mount. Further Reading: For an early visual representation of this concept, see Randy Anderson’s Spiral of Regeneration  diagram in Leading Edge , Winter 2005 (pp. 220–226): “Crop Residues & No-Till Stimulate a Spiral of Soil Regeneration.” ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com