By Rebecca Stone

BASF crop protection specialists have published guidance on managing weeds and crop residue in no-till (a conservation tillage practice that leaves the prior season's plant material undisturbed on the soil surface) operations, according to coverage in No-Till Farmer magazine.

The conservation-tillage publication, which has tracked reduced-disturbance farming since the 1970s, hosted BASF field agronomists and technical staff for an exchange aimed at row-crop (commodity grain operations including corn, soybeans, and wheat) practitioners. The discussion addressed herbicide selection, burndown timing (the pre-planting window during which growers spray existing vegetation to clear the field), and tank-mix compatibility (whether two or more pesticide products can be combined in a single spray solution without reduced efficacy).

What does the guidance cover?

The published insights address the practical decisions facing growers who have eliminated or reduced mechanical tillage. BASF's team focused on herbicide program sequencing, including pre-emergence residual options (chemicals applied before crop emergence that remain active in the soil to control later weed flushes), post-emergence applications, and burndown planning where resistant weed populations have forced program changes.

How does this affect on-farm decisions?

For practitioners, the BASF recommendations matter because no-till changes the weed-control calculus. Tillage historically buried weed seeds and physically destroyed emerged plants; eliminating it shifts the entire burden to chemistry (chemical herbicide applications) and timing. That reality has pushed input makers (companies that manufacture seed, fertilizer, and crop-protection products) toward residual herbicide programs designed to extend the application window and reduce rescue treatments after the crop emerges.

Where does this fit in the broader market?

BASF competes with Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta in the row-crop herbicide segment, and the published guidance reflects the broader industry shift toward agronomic advice as a competitive lever (a strategic differentiator that influences grower purchasing decisions). Crop-protection companies increasingly treat technical support as part of the sale rather than an adjunct to it, responding to grower demand for label interpretation, regional compliance guidance, and resistance-management planning.

What remains unaddressed

The No-Till Farmer coverage does not specify which BASF products the agronomists recommended, or whether the discussion addressed state-level application cutoff dates that have reshaped burndown decisions in recent seasons. Practitioners seeking product-specific programs tailored to their region will need to consult BASF field representatives or local extension agronomists (university crop specialists who advise growers on production decisions) for label-compliant (meeting federal and state pesticide-label requirements) recommendations.

The broader question for the 2025 growing season is whether the residual herbicide emphasis will hold under continued margin pressure. Growers facing tighter budgets sometimes substitute cheaper single-mode-of-action (programs relying on one herbicide chemistry) approaches for layered residual programs, accepting higher mid-season weed pressure as a cost trade-off.

Growers should expect BASF to publish region-specific follow-up guidance through its representative network as planting decisions firm up over the coming weeks.