Recent global events have significantly impacted the price and availability of diesel fuel. Although the long-term outlook remains uncertain, rising fuel costs will affect many industries, including manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. On farms across the United States, diesel fuel powers nearly every field operation, from spraying and planting to fertilizing and harvesting. Among these activities, tillage operations are the most fuel-intensive and will likely represent the largest fuel expense during the 2026 growing season. With fuel prices increasing, this is an appropriate time for producers to evaluate the economic difference between conventional tillage systems and conservation agriculture practices such as no-till.
The traditional comparison between no-till and conventional tillage centers around well-documented metrics. These concepts include improved soil health, reduced soil erosion potential, and moisture/nutrient conservation, all of which are important when evaluating how different tillage systems fit within an array of farming operations. However, one of the most commonly overlooked benefits to no-till is the significant improvement in fuel savings. These savings are achieved through a reduction in fuel-intensive field passes that are more frequent in conventional tillage systems. This cost difference played a major role in the initial adoption of no-till across South Dakota and could be instrumental in future expansion of no-farm conservation efforts.
Investigating Fuel Costs
In a conventional tillage system, several field operations are carried out with a host of tillage implements. These implements include, but are not limited to, disks, chisel plows, and field cultivators, along with fertilizer incorporation and planting operations that involve a significant amount of heavy draft loading. The large pulling force required to move ground-engaging implements involves large horsepower tractors which ultimately increases fuel consumption. Comparatively, no-till systems omit a large percentage of these operations, saving on fuel in the process.
Sources from USDA-NRCS and Iowa State University Extension approximate average fuel use for conventional tillage systems at 6 gallons per acre, while continuous no-till is estimated at 2 gallons per acre (Hanna et al., 2001). This 4 gallon per acre difference, multiplied by the current (3/12/26) diesel price of $4.86/gallon, equates to $19.44/acre savings for no-till farmers. At a farm-scale, these savings are extremely evident (Table 1).
| Acres | Fuel Savings |
|---|---|
| 500 | $9,720 |
| 1,000 | $19,440 |
| 2,500 | $48,600 |
| 5,000 | $97,200 |
In addition to the fuel consumption requirements from tillage, these operation simultaneously introduce a significant amount of machinery wear in the process. An analysis done by University of Minnesota Extension showed that conventional tillage systems have roughly $15-$30/acre higher equipment costs due to the increased operations of equipment. These lead to surging tractor engine hours, implement wear, and result in higher equipment depreciation. Repair and maintenance costs alone increase 30-50% in multi-pass tillage systems compared with no-till (Dejong-Hughes, 2022). The recent increase in overall machinery and equipment witnessed over the last 5 years makes this increased wear an unfortunate consequence of conventional tillage systems.
Evidence of these fuel and equipment differences among management types has also been observed in South Dakota. A case study comparing neighboring conventional and no-till farms across four locations in the state found that conventional systems used nearly twice as much diesel fuel as no-till systems (5.4 gallons/acre vs. 2.8 gallons/acre). Meanwhile, this comparison also found that conventional systems required approximately $225 more equipment investment per acre (Bly et al., 2024; Table 2). These findings highlight the impact of additional tillage operations on machinery costs and equipment inventories.
| System | Diesel (gal/ac) | Equipment Investment ($/ac) |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional | 5.4 | 581 |
| No-till | 2.8 | 356 |
The Bottom Line
With the recent turmoil in diesel fuel prices, and the rising price of inputs across agriculture, it becomes abundantly clear that producers must evaluate the costs of conventional tillage systems. This evaluation may result in many questions: How many tillage passes are necessary each year? Can some of these operations be combined to save fuel? How could I implement a reduced tillage system, and could this improve profitability? Ultimately, examining these different factors can help producers identify opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining productive cropping systems.
While no-till and conservation systems are often discussed for their environmental and soil benefits, the economic advantages are becoming increasingly important in today’s farm economy. Rising fuel, machinery, and input costs highlight the value of reducing unnecessary field operations whenever possible. Through careful analysis of tillage practices, producers may identify opportunities to lower operating costs while maintaining productive and sustainable cropping systems.
References
- Bly, T. Wang, H. Klopp, D. Karki, Farming Practice Comparisons in South Dakota: A case study across the fence and implications for the future, South Dakota State University Extension, 2024
- J. Dejong-Hughes, Economics of Tillage, University of Minnesota Extension, 2022
- M. Hanna, G. Ayres, Fuel Required for Field Operations, Iowa State University Extension, 2001
- USDA-NRCS, Reduction in Annual Fuel Use from Conservation Tillage, Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), 2022
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Producer Price Index by Commodity: Agricultural Machinery and Equipment [WPU111]. Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed March 12, 2026
- U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Diesel Sales Price [GASDESW]. Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed March 12, 2026
