Back to Research Page

Final Report

Farmer/Grower Grants

Northeast Region SARE Program 1999,
Project #: Fne-250 

Project Title: Economic and Environmental Impact of No-Till
Processing Tomatoes vs. Conventional Processing Tomatoes

Background

Farmers are looking for ways to reduce imput costs, protect the environment, and still maintain profitability. Much attention to soil quality and soil health issues has revived interest in studying new ways to "sustain" the soil. Soil erosion is a serious problem for vegetable growers in a large portion of the Mid-Atlantic region. This project observed the No-till method of planting processing tomatoes into a cover crop, as a way to address the problems facing tomato growers as stated above. By collaborating with one of the largest food processors in the east, Furman Foods, Inc., Brubaker Agronomic Consulting Service, and another recognized tomato grower, I hope that the results of this project to be a stimulant for farmers, researchers, universities, and crop consultants, to do further replicated testing of type of system.

Project Overview

I no-till planted 20 acres of processing tomatoes and another grower, who's farm is located 15 miles northwest of my farm, planted approximately 50 acres of conventionally grown processing tomatoes. Furman Foods, Inc., located 150 miles north of my farm, no-till planted approximately 3 acres of processing tomatoes as well as several acres nearby planted conventionally. Brubaker Agronomic Consulting Service (BACS) scouted the fields and made recommendations for growing a crop of high quality processing tomatoes. 1999 was one of the driest summers on record. Then during the month of September we had a record breaking 18.8" of rain. Yields were low and the crop was of low quality overall.

Project Data

Steve Groff - No-Till

Yield per acre: 23.7

Average grade (percent usable): 92%

Establishment of cover crops in the fall of 1998: $50/ acre (hairy vetch/rye seed, and establishment)

All pre-plant field preparations: Roll cover crop twice. 2 x $8.50=$19/acre

Planting: $25

All post-planting field operations (cultivating, spraying, fertilizer applications): 9 sprays x $7.00/acre= $63.00/acre

Fertilizer/ herbicides/ fungicides/ insecticides: $123.94/acre

Total Imput costs: (only the imput casts related to this project were included) $280.94/acre

Erosion potential and actual erosion: Fields ranged between 2%- 12% slopes with average being 8%. No erosion noticed.

Comments: The custom operator stated that "It would have been nearly impossible to harvest these tomatoes if they hadn't been no-tilled." The mulch helped hold soil moisture during the drought and then kept the tomatoes off the soil when is got wet.

Other observations

The local "FAST Forecasting System for early blight" was monitored. (This system is an IPM tool to determine the intervals of fungicide applications for early blight and is based on weather conditions, rather than a standard weekly application method.) It called for 3 fungicide sprays for early blight. We did not have to spray for early blight because we used fungicides for some bacterial diseases in both systems.

I did not spray every time BACS recommended a fungicide treatment and I used low rates when I did spray. This is one reason why I had lower pesticide costs. I had no comparison to make a judgement on what the quality of the no-tilled tomatoes would have been like if I would have used the exact recommendations. This is one area that researchers need to test in order to make recommendations for lower pesticide rates in a no-tilled/cover crop system.

Furman Foods, Inc.- No-till/conventional

Yield per acre: The no-till and conventional field next to it together averaged 32.5 tons per acre. It was an awkward situation to keep the two separate. Visually the yields appeared similar.

Average grade (percent usable): 92%

Establishment of cover crops in the fall of 1998: $51.00/acre

All pre-plant field preparations

Planting: $25.00/acre

All post-planting field operations (cultivating, spraying, fertilizer applications): No hand labor or cultivation was necessary.

Spraying: 11 applications x $7.00/acre = $77.00

Total imput costs: (only the imput casts related to this project were included) $405.00/acre

Erosion potential and actual erosion: Very little potential erosion in this case. Non-HEL field

Comments:

Based upon my present experience, the costs are similar. Tillage and preceding cover crop for conventional is equal to cover crop costs and no-till cost for no-till. Fungicides and insecticides are the same. Herbicides are similar if you include the cost of a burndown for the vetch. In a more typical field I would expect to need to apply one more irrigation for a conventional tilled field versus a no-till field. One of the big questions is, in a field that would encounter more drought stress; can we get a yield bump from no-till? Also, can I control the weeds in no-till? We will need to continue on this for a few more years until we can get all the questions answered for our specific situation. The foliage on the tomatoes on the no-till plot was not quite as dark as those on the conventional field alongside of it.

Clyde Kreider -Conventional

Yield per acre: 21.34 tons per acre

Average grade (percent usable): 95%

Establishment of cover crops in the fall of 1998: none

All pre-plant field preparations: plowed 1 time, disked once, harrowed with packer twice. $45.60/acre

Planting: $20.00

All post-planting field operations (cultivating, spraying, fertilizer applications): 2 cultivation @ $8.10 an acre = $16.20/acre

# Of sprays 11 times $77.00

Fertilizer/ herbicides/ fungicides/ insecticides: $253.00/acre

Total imput costs: (only the imput casts related to this project were included) $411.18/acre

Erosion potential and actual erosion: 2 to 3% slope, moderate erosion.

Comments: Erosion is the biggest plus on hilly soil and the fruit laying on the old cover crop residue could help prevent rotting.

Brubaker Agronomic Consulting Service - Independent consulting firm that scouted the conventional and no-tilled processing tomato fields in Lancaster County.

Observations in the Comparison of No-till and Conventional Tillage Tomatoes

Weeds

Weed control in both systems was good. The conventional tillage tomatoes had fairly clean fields with a few lambsquarter, morning glory and burcucumber, come harvest, but not severe. The no-tilled tomatoes looked clean at first, but toward the end of the season he needed to treat 1 acre with Poast for grasses that had come thru. He also had some black nightshade at a few places and some morning glory. Weeds were less of an issue in 1999 since the weather was dry most of the season.

Insects

The conventional tomatoes had some aphid pressure on the late tomato fields and spraying was recommended. The no-till had bad spider mites especially on the 9422 variety and some tomato fruit worm pressure and aphid pressure as well. Colorado potato beetle pressure was light especially late in the season. I did not observe any beetles on any fields in either system. Overall, this year the no-tilled tomatoes had slightly higher insect pressure, but were never sprayed any insecticide.

Disease

Early blight pressure was lighter than normal, but was present at low levels in most fields in both systems because of irrigation, and became more prevalent late in season when plants were almost ready for harvest.

The conventional fields had some blossom end rot early on in fruit set. This was due to lack of water. The farmer was not able to irrigate these fields as much as he would have liked, or needed too, due to lack of water in his stream. The no-till did not have very much blossom end rot as he was able to keep more water on his tomatoes and his mulch helped keep soil moisture a little better than the bare ground tomatoes. Clyde also ran into Buckeye rot (Phytopthora) late in the season when it turned wet.

Steve had some buckeye rot at a few places, but overall lost very little fruit to this disease once conditions turned wet. Steve had some more fungal disease pressure on the plant leaves than Clyde. Steve also had some bacterial speck and possibly some bacterial canker that Clyde’s tomatoes didn’t have.

Weather effects

The dry weather was a problem on both systems. Steve did a good job irrigating and his cover of mulch probably helped conserve some soil moisture and decrease rate of water run off from irrigation. Plant size was normal or only slightly smaller than normal. When conditions turned wet fruit cracking and was an issue on both systems. Clyde had less water and was not able to irrigate as much early on so plant bush size was smaller, and fruit size was also smaller. Water evaporated faster from his ground since it was uncovered. When conditions turned wet since Clyde’s tomatoes were touching bare soil, they were more susceptible to buckeye rot.

Erosion

No erosion was observed at Steve Groff farm. Some erosion was seen in the conventional field of tomatoes especially on the hillier portion of the field. They were small gullies running perpendicular with the rows down the hill.

Yield

The no-tilled tomato fields were 23.7 tons per acre; the conventional grown tomatoes 21.3 tons per acre. Furmans Food, Inc. no-tilled field yielded 32.5 tons per acre. Average Lancaster County yields were 20.55 acres and did not vary a lot from early to late season.

Comments

I have heard that some of the straw in the tomatoes caused some inconvenience up at Furmans. The trash being wet was probably the main reason for the difficulty this year. Another challenge in this system is to get a big enough bush size early on. The main disadvantage of no-till seems to be the inability to produce a large plant bush size early on.

Several benefits of no-till observed this year were water holding from mulch, and reducing phytopthora by limiting tomatoes touching bare soil. There was some weed control help from the mulch.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this project and my past experience, my conclusion is that: