The comment by Heimlich correctly interprets the definition of the dependent variable, minimum tillage, in our analysis. The term minimum tillage did include the union of minimum tillage and residue management. The abbreviation to minimum tillage may have confused some readers. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the definition. However, the objection raised by Heimlich to this definition of the dependent variable is, in our opinion, without merit. The comment critiques 1977 data, collected under 1977 guidelines, with standards developed much later. The SCS 1977 National Resources Inventory (NRI) asked district conservationists to list conservation practices in effect in a given field. Residue management, including stubble mulching, and minimum tillage, including no-till, were two separate practices on the list they were to choose from. No national SCS definition for minimum tillage was available at that time. Instead, each state individually defined the practice. Residue management in 1977 included stubble mulching, although in the more recent SCS proposals stubble mulching is considered part of a conservation tillage system. Because the delineations between the two practices in the 1977 NRI were fuzzy, particularly with respect to stubble mulching, we analyzed the occurrence of minimum tillage or residue management. As the comment author indicates, this led to a broader inclusion of practices and a higher adoption rate than that reported by No-Till Farmer in some regions. We believe the misinterpretation of 1977 SCS definitions of residue management and minimum tillage by Heimlich has led to a definition which is too narrow to be useful. Minimum tillage, according to SCS, would have included some degree of residue management in all state interpretations in 1977. Consequently, many district conservationists would not have deemed it necessary to list residue management in addition to minimum tillage. In some regions, however, particularly where stubble mulching was important, residue management would have been listed in place of minimum tillage. Requiring both practices to be listed simultaneously in the comment model no doubt excludes legitimate minimum tillage activities. The Corn Belt adoption rates of 9%-12% in the comment model are considerably below the 25% adoption rate of minimum tillage and no-till systems reflected in data provided by Christensen and Norris for the Corn Belt in 1977. It is difficult to interpret the model results in the comment with such a narrowly defined dependent variable.