Why do farmers start conservation agriculture? Will it become widespread?

[AgriAlice]

Hello everyone!

I am a masters student investigating the factors that influence farmers to use conservation agriculture or not and whether it is likely to become widespread. As well as interviews with farmers, researchers and (hopefully!) policy makers, the heart of the data will be responses to farmer surveys. So, if you are an arable farmer (irrespective of which agricultural practices you use) in the UK and have a some time to spare, please complete this 15 minute survey: www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/farmerdecisions . I would really appreciate any responses!

This research is primarily for my masters thesis, however I am collaborating with Rothamsted Research Centre in the hope that this the findings will aid the formulation of agricultural policy post EU CAP.

Thank you, Alice

 

[Brisel]

Done.

Some very thought provoking options in the later questions. I hope I haven't contradicted myself too much.

Interesting how you have put 2 categories together - I don't know many people who are using companion cropping other than our resident Nuffield on the subject @Andy Howard . I think most of the answers in that catregory will be for the crop rotation instead. The cover cropping & residue retention is a better match IMHO.

Good luck with your studies

 

[Adeptandy]

Done

 

[Goweresque]

I'm afraid I don't think this is a very well designed survey. Firstly if you want to know what people think about X, you (as the survey creator) need to define X, and then ask people questions about it. Not define X and then ask if people agree with your definition, because if they don't then how can they complete the rest of a survey about something they don't consider correctly defined?

Then it seems to me the survey is designed mostly to get information from people who already practise zero till and its associated techniques. Not people who don't use them at all, or maybe have tried them but decided they are not for them etc. I would consider that a survey on zero till should attempt to determine first whether any of the techniques being studied have been implemented by respondents, if so do they still use them, if not why not, if yes what advantages have they found from them. There should be a whole different raft of questions for a person who uses zero till to those to someone who has never used it, to someone who has tried it but given up on it, or indeed to someone who uses a similar but slightly different technique such as min till. Lumping those 4 categories of respondents into answering the same questions is not going to get a great deal of useful information, if the aim is to study the uptake of zero till and why people have or have not implemented it.

 

[AgriAlice]

I'm afraid I don't think this is a very well designed survey. Firstly if you want to know what people think about X, you (as the survey creator) need to define X, and then ask people questions about it. Not define X and then ask if people agree with your definition, because if they don't then how can they complete the rest of a survey about something they don't consider correctly defined?

Then it seems to me the survey is designed mostly to get information from people who already practise zero till and its associated techniques. Not people who don't use them at all, or maybe have tried them but decided they are not for them etc. I would consider that a survey on zero till should attempt to determine first whether any of the techniques being studied have been implemented by respondents, if so do they still use them, if not why not, if yes what advantages have they found from them. There should be a whole different raft of questions for a person who uses zero till to those to someone who has never used it, to someone who has tried it but given up on it, or indeed to someone who uses a similar but slightly different technique such as min till. Lumping those 4 categories of respondents into answering the same questions is not going to get a great deal of useful information, if the aim is to study the uptake of zero till and why people have or have not implemented it.

I have thoroughly thought through each question and there is a reason behind every one, obviously I cannot always state this as it may bias the results. I chose to add the question whether people agree with that definition because from conducting many interviews with farmers (including those who are not using CA, have used CA for over a decade and farmers who are just starting) a common thing that came up was that the definition is often contested and therefore if someone does not agree with the definition I asked them to define it how they would. However, I could't simply ask farmers to define it how they like and continue as the results would not be comparable as they would be about different things, which is why I added the (shortened) ECAF definition.

Obviously it is very difficult designing questions for both those who are currently practising CA and those who don't, however I have used words such as "would" to allow for those to answer about their perceptions of what the results would be if they decided to use it in the future. On the first page I ask respondents to identify whether they are currently using the practices, for how long and on how much of their land. Obviously this is important to know and refer to while analysing the rest of the results. Also, I encompass what the difficulties and motivations are in the final section to assess the reasoning (this will obviously be checked back with whether the farmer is doing the practice or not), the extra comment boxes were added for farmers to add any extra information.

Many of the questions (especially the multiple choice scale questions in part 3) have to be the same for all respondents for the statistical tests to be able to make an accurate comparison as using different questions for each group would not be comparable. One of the aims of the survey is to get comparable data for statistical tests, which can be used to accurately compare the different participant types. Also, I am not looking into min till because many of the farmers I interviewed and some of the literature does not believe this to be a form of CA as it continues to disturb the soil too much (I understand this is still contested but I decided to not include it).

I have struggled to try and word the questions as best as I can so that all can answer them and I definitely understand it may be odd for a farmer who doesn't use some of the practices to answer a question such as: "Please indicate how difficult you would consider the implementation of each of the practices to be on your farm". However, I didn't see a way around this for the purpose it has. Also, the survey is not the only form of data collection I am using for my study as I am conducting many interviews with farmers to gather more depth of detail such as the things you mentioned like if they tried it before and why did they stop and the advantages and disadvantages that farmers who are using CA are having.

I appreciate your comment and it is a limitation I already knew I would have to face that the majority of respondents will be those who are currently using the practices. I have tried to make the questions as user friendly as possible for farmers who don't use CA but I am unable to have entirely different questions as it would make the statistical analysis not comparable. If you have any suggestions as to how I can get around this I would be grateful, however I do think the way I have designed it is usable for all farmer groups.

 

[AgriAlice]

Done.

Some very thought provoking options in the later questions. I hope I haven't contradicted myself too much.

Interesting how you have put 2 categories together - I don't know many people who are using companion cropping other than our resident Nuffield on the subject @Andy Howard . I think most of the answers in that catregory will be for the crop rotation instead. The cover cropping & residue retention is a better match IMHO.

Good luck with your studies

Thank you for completing it I know the practices are very different, but I though it would take way too long for farmers to fill out the survey if I separated all of them. The reasoning behind the pairings was so it matched the three linked principles of CA:
1. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance. (No tillage)
2. Permanent organic soil cover. (cover cropping or residue retention)
3. Diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations. (Crop rotations or companion cropping)

So in the grand scheme of CA it doesn't necessarily matter if a farmer chooses to use companion cropping instead of crop rotations as both contribute to the 3rd principle. I do think it will be interesting to see how many farmers are using companion cropping though, which is why I separated all the practices at the start when asking which practices farmers use.

I did write: "In this section, some of the practices are grouped together (e.g. "cover cropping or residue retention"), here just answer the question based on the practice you would most likely use from the two." So I'm hoping people won't get too confused about it!

Yes, someone I interviewed had done a Sainsbury's bursary and was using companion cropping. Perhaps I will see if I can contact Andy Howard for an interview to see what he thinks about using it

 

[Goweresque]

Many of the questions (especially the multiple choice scale questions in part 3) have to be the same for all respondents for the statistical tests to be able to make an accurate comparison as using different questions for each group would not be comparable. One of the aims of the survey is to get comparable data for statistical tests, which can be used to accurately compare the different participant types. Also, I am not looking into min till because many of the farmers I interviewed and some of the literature does not believe this to be a form of CA as it continues to disturb the soil too much (I understand this is still contested but I decided to not include it).

I have struggled to try and word the questions as best as I can so that all can answer them and I definitely understand it may be odd for a farmer who doesn't use some of the practices to answer a question such as: "Please indicate how difficult you would consider the implementation of each of the practices to be on your farm". However, I didn't see a way around this for the purpose it has. Also, the survey is not the only form of data collection I am using for my study as I am conducting many interviews with farmers to gather more depth of detail such as the things you mentioned like if they tried it before and why did they stop and the advantages and disadvantages that farmers who are using CA are having.

I appreciate your comment and it is a limitation I already knew I would have to face that the majority of respondents will be those who are currently using the practices. I have tried to make the questions as user friendly as possible for farmers who don't use CA but I am unable to have entirely different questions as it would make the statistical analysis not comparable. If you have any suggestions as to how I can get around this I would be grateful, however I do think the way I have designed it is usable for all farmer groups.

Well your results are going to be statistically useless if you put off people who aren't using the process by slanting the questions to people who are using it. You'll be getting information from those who think its wonderful, and no-one else. I started to fill it in but the questions soon became irrelevant to me, or not applicable, so I gave up. For example the question 'Please indicate how difficult you would consider the implementation of each of the practices to be on your farm' does not ask the right question at all - lots of processes could be implemented on a farm very easily, the question is will they work and will they improve productivity and profitability? I could go out and buy a new direct drill tomorrow if I wanted, there's plenty of them out there. But that fact doesn't mean moving to zero till would improve my profitability so 'difficulty' doesn't come into it.

 

[AgriAlice]

Well your results are going to be statistically useless if you put off people who aren't using the process by slanting the questions to people who are using it. You'll be getting information from those who think its wonderful, and no-one else. I started to fill it in but the questions soon became irrelevant to me, or not applicable, so I gave up. For example the question 'Please indicate how difficult you would consider the implementation of each of the practices to be on your farm' does not ask the right question at all - lots of processes could be implemented on a farm very easily, the question is will they work and will they improve productivity and profitability? I could go out and buy a new direct drill tomorrow if I wanted, there's plenty of them out there. But that fact doesn't mean moving to zero till would improve my profitability so 'difficulty' doesn't come into it.

I can see how it seems useless and I am really sorry I put you off by the questions! However those questions are necessary for how I am analysing the results. The questions in part three follow the 'theory of planned behaviour' which suggests that the choice to do something or not to do something is based on 'attitude' (perceived likelihood of positive/negative outputs + overall perceived impact of outputs), 'subjective norms' (what those important to you think + how much they influence you), and 'perceived behavioural control' (perceived control of whether you can implement the action + perceived difficulty of the action).

The scales (very unlikely - very likely) will be converted to numerical scales and used to calculate the average value of each of those three parameters so that for each agricultural practice and for farmers who are or aren't using the practices, it can be shown which of the three is most influential for a farmer to make the decision (e.g. maybe farmers have positive 'attitudes' towards CA and may therefore want to do it, but they may have low 'perceived behavioural control', so if CA was to become more widespread, it would be important to help the farmers who want to do it feel they are able to use the practice and make it easier for them).

Maybe many of the practices will be shown as being seen as easy to implement, however I definitely can't just assume that if I want an academic paper to be accepted anywhere. I don't know if you stopped before the last section, but that bit was to see what makes CA more challenging and what would motivate you to use it, which is where something like profitability comes in. So far the most important challenge indicated is the 'uncertainty of results/profitability', like what you have mentioned. I also ask for further comments here so farmers can explain further. And as I said, I am conducting interviews too in order to get the information on the factors like this.

I hope you can understand why I separated the questions so much and I am definitely very aware of how complex this is! But please understand that I have thought through every question very carefully

 

[spin cycle]

whats 'conservation agriculture'....i started my stewardship back in 2010 because i enjoyed it and got paid....7 years on i'm not so keen and fed up with NE

 

[Brisel]

whats 'conservation agriculture'

Cover crops, soil health, low disturbance drilling - that sort of thing.

 

[Grabbist]

Hi Alice,
You have an interesting project, but it might be worth looking back to what happened to some of the practices that you are discussing when they were re-introduced back in the 1970s, and probably several decades before. I should say that the fact that they have been tried before does not mean that they are not relevant now, especially as the climate warms. But there are lessons from the past that you might find helpful now. For example "direct drilling" - "no till" had quite a following in the UK in the early 1970s. Bettinson and (if I remember correctly) International Harvester built very tough seed drills to do the work, and ICI got involved, as at that time Grammoxone (paraquat) was thought to be essential to the process. That was because in our climate weeds were in active growth in August and September when winter wheat was being drilled. IN drier climates weeds may not be a problem, but here they could clog seed drills and smother seedling crops if not controlled. After the crop was established slugs became a problem in damper climates as they could follow the grooves that the seed drill had made, finding seed more easily then after conventional cultivations. In the event a few farmers on well drained chalk or sandy soils in the SE of England continued to use Direct drilling, but on heavier soils and in the North and West of the UK direct drilling died out. I do know , however, from recent correspondence (Linked-in sustainable farming group may be useful) with farmers in warmer climates of Asia, Africa and America that "Min Till" is seen as essential to beating the long droughts that are frequent now. A lot of academic work was done at the Institute of Agricultural Engineering who had a long running experiment (in the 1970s and 80s) on Black Horse Field at Rothamsted! (I should know, I helped mark it out and supervise treatments a few times. Rothamsted soil nutritionists, and soil ecologists also worked on this project - should be a lot of information on worms and beetles! ). In the 1970s my Crop Production lecturer at Seale Hayne Agricultural College, Bob Toosey, who was a direct drilling enthusiast (writing at least one book on the subject - also on "Catch cropping" = growing short lived crops between main crops maximising land cover) , said that you should use the technique one year in seven, after which you worked in each of the next 7 years to correct the drainage, weed flora soil nutrients etc. before using the direct drill on the same field again. This suggests that it would be more use on larger farms where 1/7 of the arable acreage would be big enough justify the drill. Sorry, I wont take up any more of your time, but hope that you find this useful. Climate change means that we do need to do our bit to conserves carbon and water, and the techniques you are studying have a lot to offer.

 

[AgriAlice]

Hi! Thanks a lot for your input!
I am aware of the direct drilling movement in the 1970s, but you're right I should really look into it more! I actually think this movement and the fact that it didn't work well for everyone is one of the main reasons why many farmers are discouraged from trying it today even though the technology has changed and improved over the last 35-45 years. But then it does seem like it still doesn't work as well (or at least takes longer to show any change) with heavy clay soils. I have also heard from a few farmers that are using no-till that slugs have become more of a problem, at least in the short term. Surely direct drilling only one year in 7 won't really make much difference as you would need a few consecutive years for the beneficial mycorrhizal fungi and earthworms to come back into the soil as anytime you plough will kill them all again and break up the soil particles. Thanks a lot for all the interesting information! I will definitely look into it more

 

[Grabbist]

Hi! Thanks a lot for your input!
I am aware of the direct drilling movement in the 1970s, but you're right I should really look into it more! I actually think this movement and the fact that it didn't work well for everyone is one of the main reasons why many farmers are discouraged from trying it today even though the technology has changed and improved over the last 35-45 years. But then it does seem like it still doesn't work as well (or at least takes longer to show any change) with heavy clay soils. I have also heard from a few farmers that are using no-till that slugs have become more of a problem, at least in the short term. Surely direct drilling only one year in 7 won't really make much difference as you would need a few consecutive years for the beneficial mycorrhizal fungi and earthworms to come back into the soil as anytime you plough will kill them all again and break up the soil particles. Thanks a lot for all the interesting information! I will definitely look into it more

Hi Alice, Thanks for your reply. I agree that scientific knowledge has moved forward since the 1970s. For example little was known, then, about Mycorrhiza in the 1970s. (There was a scientific team - lead by Barabara Mosser - devoted to their study at Rothamsted in the 1980s) But the mycorrhiza species present in any particular area depend on the local geology, pedology, climate, altitude, aspect, and cropping history. Like other organisms they are influenced by what the farmer has to do to grow each crop in the climate conditions of a particular year. What was found in the 1970s was that while Direct Drilling worked well in the US prairies where crops are grown in a dry season, it worked less well in our moister summers. This is the same story as Roundup Ready crops, where on the prairies Roundup kills all weeds when the crops are sown onto moist soils, but there is little further weed germination (except those that become resistant because of the annual use of the same herbicide) as the soil surface dries during the growing season. In the UK, weeds germinate through out the summer because of the moisture, which also helps the slugs. We would have to apply post emergent herbicides, and slug pellets, and these would effect the soil flora and fauna to a greater extent than areas where crops are grown in a "dry season" without such additional treatments. While climate change will make summer droughts the rule, especially in East Anglia, where Min Till will come into its own, it is unlikely to be as beneficial further north and west, where climate predictions still anticipate moist summers
Min-Till (or Direct drilling ) is a great idea with a lot of benefits for the many farms that have problems that it can solve. For those farms there is the double benefit, of low cost seedling establishment and improved soil ecology, but it is not suitable for many farms. The question should be what conditions are suitable for Min-Til, rather than "why farmers are reluctant to adopt it". Most farmers are far more hard headed then that, if a techniques works in their area they are probably already doing it!
I think that Bob Toosey's one year in seven was a warning to those who jump into new techniques without some thought, though I think that it was based on experience. Ploughing eliminates most perennial weeds and buries many annual seeds which gradually die or are eaten by soil organisms before they can germinate. But if there are problems such as Black Grass direct drilling (and its associated herbicides) fails to check it sufficiently to protect the crop. So you have to eliminate such problems before you use min til - and that can take a long time. Also the flatter surface resulting from min-til can in some circumstances lead to erosion. (In some circumstances the opposite happens, and a lot depends on weather, slope and soil type, but once a problem develops it must be cured.

 

[yellow belly]

in the 1970 direct relied on burning straw
imho this starved the worms and the system was unsustainable without an increase in worms

 

[Simon Chiles]

What was found in the 1970s was that while Direct Drilling worked well in the US prairies where crops are grown in a dry season, it worked less well in our moister summers. This is the same story as Roundup Ready crops, where on the prairies Roundup kills all weeds when the crops are sown onto moist soils, but there is little further weed germination (except those that become resistant because of the annual use of the same herbicide) as the soil surface dries during the growing season. In the UK, weeds germinate through out the summer because of the moisture, which also helps the slugs. We would have to apply post emergent herbicides, and slug pellets, and these would effect the soil flora and fauna to a greater extent than areas where crops are grown in a "dry season" without such additional treatments. Whil Disarme climate change will make summer droughts the rule, especially in East Anglia, where Min Till will come into its own, it is unlikely to be as beneficial further north and west, where climate predictions still anticipate moist summers
Min-Till (or Direct drilling ) is a great idea with a lot of benefits for the many farms that have problems that it can solve. For those farms there is the double benefit, of low cost seedling establishment and improved soil ecology, but it is not suitable for many farms. The question should be what conditions are suitable for Min-Til, rather than "why farmers are reluctant to adopt it". Most farmers are far more hard headed then that, if a techniques works in their area they are probably already doing it!
I think that Bob Toosey's one year in seven was a warning to those who jump into new techniques without some thought, though I think that it was based on experience. Ploughing eliminates most perennial weeds and buries many annual seeds which gradually die or are eaten by soil organisms before they can germinate. But if there are problems such as Black Grass direct drilling (and its associated herbicides) fails to check it sufficiently to protect the crop. So you have to eliminate such problems before you use min til - and that can take a long time. Also the flatter surface resulting from min-til can in some circumstances lead to erosion. (In some circumstances the opposite happens, and a lot depends on weather, slope and soil type, but once a problem develops it must be cured.

You started off ok but this^^ bit is all twaddle. You'd be amazed how many farmers are frightened of change. I have many neighbour's who would tell you that direct drilling won't work yet have seen me plant crops and harvest crops for the last 17 years. It makes you wonder what they think when I'm on my third direct drill or even why I bought a new combine if the crops never grew like they say they do. If you look at soils they said were unsuitable for direct drilling in the 70's you'd see the land here is in the impossible camp.
I had a salesman who once said to me he couldn't understand why more farmers hadn't embraced direct drilling when it yielded so well. I asked him how he knew how well my crops yielded as I hadn't told him anything about the yield. He replied that he'd been sitting in the combine cab with me on several occasions and could see the yield meter with his own eyes.
Direct drilling and conservation agriculture can work in all soil types and all areas it's just a case of the farmer understanding how ( or even wanting to ) make it work.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Agreed Simon. My land is technically unsuitable for no till according to some of the data maps from the 70's. I reckon lots just don't want to do it, and the rest need to plough for spuds and roots

 

[DrWazzock]

A lot of people including myself can give up too early because of a legacy of compaction and slumping due to years of conventional cultivations that have beaten the living day lights out of the soil.

I found an old paraplow to be excellent at addressing compacted areas during the transition. It works far better than conventional subsoilers used ahead of the drill when it's reasonably dry. Best ever crop of stubble turnips and kale this year direct drilled after paraplow. Yes it's not pure zero till but result is much better for me.

 

[Grabbist]

You started off ok but this^^ bit is all twaddle. You'd be amazed how many farmers are frightened of change. I have many neighbour's who would tell you that direct drilling won't work yet have seen me plant crops and harvest crops for the last 17 years. It makes you wonder what they think when I'm on my third direct drill or even why I bought a new combine if the crops never grew like they say they do. If you look at soils they said were unsuitable for direct drilling in the 70's you'd see the land here is in the impossible camp.
I had a salesman who once said to me he couldn't understand why more farmers hadn't embraced direct drilling when it yielded so well. I asked him how he knew how well my crops yielded as I hadn't told him anything about the yield. He replied that he'd been sitting in the combine cab with me on several occasions and could see the yield meter with his own eyes.
Direct drilling and conservation agriculture can work in all soil types and all areas it's just a case of the farmer understanding how ( or even wanting to ) make it work.

Hi Simon, I should have included the qualities of management with pedology, climate etc! Another important factor is economics, and you were obviously in a position to buy new equipment at the beginning of a period of favourable years so that you could learn the technique and adapt it to your fields. I'm not making excuses, but simply continuing my theme that farms are different in very many ways, and what looks like "fear" in your words, or "reluctance" in Alice's words is actually a very hard headed analysis of the technique in relation to the facts of the individual farm. In the 80s I was part of a team that proved that on heavy clays, flinty clay loam overlying chalk and on sandy soils, you could produce 10 tonne per hectare yields of wheat (by conventional cultivations) , and yet the national average yield is still 20% below that. Part of the reason for that is that on particular farms the economics has never been right to pay for the inputs to get that yield. And in purely practical terms, if it rains for a week when you should be drilling, unless you don't choose the variety until the day you sow you will now that the total potential yield will be down 10% and wont justify the expense of some of the inputs anyway. And some farms will be too small to justify the expense of a direct drill anyway, or although having enough acres do not have a great enough proportion of their farm that is in suitable condition. Farmland is not uniform and farm management is never simple - except for PLCs who have never read about the American Dust Bowl or the West African Ground Nut Scheme.

But I should say congratulations on your achievements, which I feel sure that I have read about before! (I feel sure that you must have been fuming about the way Min-Till was discussed on "The Archers" recently!)

 

[AgriAlice]

But the mycorrhiza species present in any particular area depend on the local geology, pedology, climate, altitude, aspect, and cropping history. Like other organisms they are influenced by what the farmer has to do to grow each crop in the climate conditions of a particular year. What was found in the 1970s was that while Direct Drilling worked well in the US prairies where crops are grown in a dry season, it worked less well in our moister summers. This is the same story as Roundup Ready crops, where on the prairies Roundup kills all weeds when the crops are sown onto moist soils, but there is little further weed germination (except those that become resistant because of the annual use of the same herbicide) as the soil surface dries during the growing season. In the UK, weeds germinate through out the summer because of the moisture, which also helps the slugs. We would have to apply post emergent herbicides, and slug pellets, and these would effect the soil flora and fauna to a greater extent than areas where crops are grown in a "dry season" without such additional treatments. While climate change will make summer droughts the rule, especially in East Anglia, where Min Till will come into its own, it is unlikely to be as beneficial further north and west, where climate predictions still anticipate moist summers
Min-Till (or Direct drilling ) is a great idea with a lot of benefits for the many farms that have problems that it can solve. For those farms there is the double benefit, of low cost seedling establishment and improved soil ecology, but it is not suitable for many farms. The question should be what conditions are suitable for Min-Til, rather than "why farmers are reluctant to adopt it". Most farmers are far more hard headed then that, if a techniques works in their area they are probably already doing it!
I think that Bob Toosey's one year in seven was a warning to those who jump into new techniques without some thought, though I think that it was based on experience. Ploughing eliminates most perennial weeds and buries many annual seeds which gradually die or are eaten by soil organisms before they can germinate. But if there are problems such as Black Grass direct drilling (and its associated herbicides) fails to check it sufficiently to protect the crop. So you have to eliminate such problems before you use min til - and that can take a long time. Also the flatter surface resulting from min-til can in some circumstances lead to erosion. (In some circumstances the opposite happens, and a lot depends on weather, slope and soil type, but once a problem develops it must be cured.

No matter which species of mycorrhiza, they will always be harmed during ploughing, therefore more phosphorus needs to be added as the mycorrhiza won't be there to make it accessible from rocks. I don't know enough about the timings of weed germination to comment but I don't really understand your point about Round up to be honest. I met a farmer who direct drilled slug pellets at the same time as sowing his seeds which worked very well apparently.
Also, just a point that my research isn't on organic farming, but on conservation agriculture (no tillage, cover crops, crop rotations etc.) And I am definitely not asking "why farmers are reluctant to adopt it"! I'm just trying to identify what influences farmers decisions to adopt it or not, which includes if they feel if it is suitable or not for them
In terms of black grass it is often an initial problem with no tillage, but actually I've met farmers who used to have a big problem with it but after 5 or so years of direct drilling (so there may be troubles with initial yield slumps I guess) they have managed to completely eradicate it! This was because the seeds last for a long time in the soil so if ploughed the older ones come to the top and it keeps coming back, but they just sprayed it with glyphosate each time it came up (I can't remember when to be honest, maybe when they killed the cover crop off) until all the seeds close enough to the top have germinated and died. Of course if you plough it again it would bring the old seeds up again and it would start the whole thing again.
I really don't understand your point about how the flat surface can lead to erosion unfortunately. One of the main reasons for trying no tillage is to stop soil erosion as ploughing breaks up the soil particles so they are smaller and more likely to be blown away by the wind or washed away by rain. Also the presence of worms in direct drilled soil creates pores so it has better water infiltration so the water doesn't run off the top of the soil so easily, taking the organic matter with it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to preach about conservation agriculture! I just want to find out what influences the choices to use it or not, especially as most people are not using it It's also interesting now as well because all the policy will be changing

 

[AgriAlice]

"reluctance" in Alice's words is actually a very hard headed analysis of the technique in relation to the facts of the individual farm.

Please don't get me wrong! I completely understand it is a deliberate well thought about choice for a farmer to use CA or not, which is why my research is to find out what is influencing this choice