United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
              Great Lakes National
              Program Office
              536 South Clark Street
              Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA 905/9-87-001
GLNPO Report 87-01
January 1987
vvEPA
The Defiance County
Lost Creek
Demonstration
Project

-------
                                                            EPA 905/9-87-001
                                                            January 1987
            THE DEFIANCE COUNTY LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                                     by

                               ROBERT RETTIG'


                           PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
             THE DEFIANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
                            DEFIANCE,  OHIO 4351?
                              (GRANT S005553)
                                    FOR
                    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS
Ralph G. Christensen                                     John Lowrey
Project Officer                                          Technical  Assistant
                                GLNPO-#87-l
                    GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICER
               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,  REGION V
                        111 WEST JACKSON, 10th Floor
                          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                      Page

  I.   Executive Summary 	  1

      Lost Creek Subwatershed 	  1
      Lake Plain Soils	1
      Conclusion	2

 II.   Introduction	3

III.   Background	4

      Agricultural Activity 	  4
      Topography	7
      Stream Characteristics	7
      Soils	9
      Unique Characteristics	11
      Climate and Weather	11
         Deviation from Normal Weather	11
         Effects on Attainment of Project Goals .... 15

 IV.   Pro ject Purpose	16

      Selection as a Project Area	16
      Goals	17
      Grant Application	20
      Agency Roles and Responsibilities 	 21
      Funding Mechanisms	22
      Lake Erie Tillage Task Force	22

  V.   Operating Procedures	24

      Project Personnel 	 24
      Accounting	25
      Equipment	25
      Project Cooperator Guidelines 	 26
      Information and Education 	 28
      Reporting System - Data Collection	28
      Incentives Available	29
      Procedures for Providing Assistance 	 30


-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

                                                      Page

  VI.  Project Accomplishments	32

       Number of Participants	32
       Upper Lost Creek Subwatershed	33
       Lake Plain Soils	33
       No-till Crop Yields	36
       Ridge Tillage Accomplishment	36
       Information and Education 	  42
       Sediment Loading	44

 VII.  Conclusions	47

VIII.  Recommendations	50

       Agency Programs 	  50
       Future Programs 	  51

       References	52

       Appendices	53

       A. Vacancy Announcement
       B. 1985 Cooperator Guidelines
       C. 1984 Guideline for  Incentive Payments
       D. 1984 and Final Report:  Phosphorus Fertility
          Management Project  for Defiance Area Soils
          in Available Phosphorus

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES

!'a h I o
 No.                                                    Page

  1        Major Defiance County Crops 	    4
  2       ('ash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by
          Commodities,  by County, Ohio 1983	    5
  3       Cash Receipts from Farm Marketing and
          Rank of the Eight Major Commodities,
          by Counties,  Ohio, 1983	    6
  4       Most Common Defiance County Soils 	    9
  5       Temperature and Precipitation 	   12
  0       Freeze Dates in Fall and Spring	13
  7       Growing Season	13
  8       Growing Season Rainfall for Defiance Co..  .  .   14
  9       Summary of Overall Project Participation.  .  .   32
 10       Upper Lost Creek Watershed Participation.  .  .   34
 I I        Three-Year Soybean Yield Averages by
          Various Residues	37
 12       Three-Year Soybean Yield Averages by
          Soi 1  Group	38
 13       Three-Year Corn Average Yield by
          Various Residues	39
 I •!       Four-Year Corn Average Yield of All
          Residue Types 	   39
 IS       Three-Year Corn Yield Averages by
          Soil  Group	40
                       LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure

   1       U.S.  Counties in Lake Erie Basin	    8
   2       General Soils Map, Defiance County, Ohio.  .  .   10
   3       Shallow Tile Field Plan	35
                             - ill -

-------
I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Early in 1980,  the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation
District applied for a grant from the U.S Environmental
Protection Agency to demonstrate methods of improving water
quality flowing from non-point sources,  specifically
agricultural land.   The grant was awarded in August 1980 and
extensions of the grant were awarded in  February 1981 and
June 1984.  Federal funding terminated July 31, 1985.

    The Project proposed to demonstrate  and measure the
effectiveness of Best Management Practices in reducing
sediment and nutrient loss from agricultural land.  Best
Management Practices are soil conservation practices which
are expected to have a beneficial impact on water quality.

     Several unique and innovative practices were to be
demonstrated on the fine textured lake plain soils and the
suitability of these practices as they relate to crop
production was also to be evaluated.  An effective informa-
tion and education program was to be designed and carried out
to gain acceptance of the conservation program in the
Defiance County Project.

    The goals of the project were two-fold:

    1)  To introduce, through demonstration, the effectiveness
of Best Management Practices in reducing sediment loss from
agricultural land while maintaining acceptable economic
returns.

    2)  To gain farmers' acceptance of the Best Management
practices  and unique and innovative practices that are
effective in reducing sediment and phosphorus transport.

    LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED

    It was a goal to attain full conservation treatment on
cropland in the Upper Lost Creek subwatershed.  This area has
rolling topography and includes soils considered to be better
adapted to conservation tillage than the flat lake plain
soils in the county.  A stream monitoring station was
installed at the outlet of the watershed.  Heidelberg
College, Tiffin, Ohio, was awarded a contract to collect  and
analyze the samples taken.

    LAKE PLAIN SOILS

    1.  Ridge Tillage

    On the Defiance County lake plain soils, primarily the
Paulding and Latty clays, one of the unique and innovative
practices demonstrated was the ridge-till method of crop
                            -1-

-------
production.  This system involves the permanent establishment
of ridges in which each yearns crop is either no-tilled into
the ridge, or the top inch or two of the ridge is removed and
the crop planted into the uncovered ridge.

    To date, it is not known if ridge-till is a useable
system on the high clay content soils due to the lack of
conclusive results.  Some reasons why farmers of these soils
are reluctant to adopt the system are:

    1) Reduction of soybean yield compared to narrow row
       (7 inches) soybeans[l].

    2) Need for extensive change or additions to existing
       equ ipment.

    3) Results comparable to those of ridge-till can be
       attained with no-till at a lower cost for equipment
       modif ications.

    4) The farmer is financially unable to give the system
       the necessary three to five years reportedly needed
       to improve yields.

    5) Managerial ability appears to be beyond the scope of
       a majority of the farmers.

    2. Shallow Tile

    Another unique and innovative practice demonstrated was
the installation of shallow tile systems at close spacings on
Paulding clay soils.  Drainage of excess water from these
soils is necessary for successful conservation tillage.
While the installation of drainage tile at normal depths and
spacings is not a recommended practice on these soils,
installation at shallow depths has not been tested.  Shallow,
closely spaced tile appear to be a feasible means of
improving drainage thereby increasing the likelihood of
successful conservation tillage on fine textured soils.

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONCLUSION

    Considerable progress has been made in the adoption of
conservation tillage in Defiance County.  Practices such as
no-till on fine textured clay soils that were traditionally
not expected to be successful appear to have a place in
Defiance County agriculture, and to the contrary, the
adoption of practices such as ridge-till on Lake Plain soils
have not proven to be as successful as anticipated.
[l]See Ohio 1983-84 Agronomy Guide, pg. 49

                               -2-

-------
II.  INTRODUCTION

    The Defiance County Lost Creek Demonstration Project was
undertaken by the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation
District in August, 1980, under a grant provided by the Great
Lakes National Program Office of the United States
Environmental. Protection Agency.

    The program was developed to demonstrate and evaluate
methods for the reduction of sediment and related
agricultural pollutants, primarily phosphorus, in the Maumee
River and Lake Erie.  The approach taken in Defiance County
was to provide monetary incentives, equipment, and technical
assistance to gain the acceptance of Best Management
Practices by landowners.  The demonstration of the
effectiveness of several unique and innovative practices on
reducing sediment and nutrient losses on lake plain soils was
also a. Project objective.  To evaluate the effectiveness of
these practices, water quality monitoring and a rainfall
simulator study were used.

    While conservation tillage was promoted throughout the
county, areas receiving special attention were a subwatershed
on the west side of the county and also the fine textured
lake plain soils.  Farmers in the subwatershed were provided
special financial incentives for the adoption of conservation
practices.  Monitoring and evaluation of both water quality
data and tillage practices employed by these farmers were
used to measure the effectiveness of these practices.

    The lake plain soils, traditionally being problem soils
with low crop productivity and as sources of sediment and
nutrient transport were given special emphasis.  Ridge-
i i 1 I age pi~actices were demonstrated and evaluated both in
terms of water quality impacts and economic feasibility.
Since drainage of excess water from these soils appears to be
the limiting factor for the successful adoption of
conservation tillage,  various means of removing the excess
water from the land without degrading water quality were
d e in o n s t r a t e d .

    The information and education program was an important
phase of t.he Project.   This program was the key to
educating participants in the Project on the proper
techniques used in conservation tillage.  A major thrust of
the education program was to get media coverage of the
Project and to disseminate information gained from the
various programs in the Project.
                                -3-

-------
III.  BACKGROUND

     Defiance County is situated in northwestern Ohio
bordering the Indiana state line and approximately 20 miles
south of the Michigan state line.  It is located at 40
degrees, 17 minutes north latitude and 84 degrees, 21 minutes
west longitude.   Adjacent counties in Ohio include Williams,
Henry,  Putnam, and Paulding.  Defiance County has an area of
412 square miles or 263,680 acres and in 1982 had a
population of 39,127.

     The city of Defiance is the county seat with a
population in 1982 of 16,418.  Major industries in the city
include General Motors, three Manville plants, Zeller
Corporation, and Dinner Bell.  The per capita income in
Defiance County for 1981 was $7,743.

     AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY

     There are approximately 1,100 farms comprising the
217,000 acres of farmland in Defiance County with the average
size farm being 197 acres.  A farm is defined as having
annual sales of agricultural products of $1,000 or more.
                           TABLE 1

          MAJOR DEFIANCE COUNTY CROPS AND YIELDS*[2]


             1983                1982             1981
CROP
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
Hay
Tomatoes
ACRES
21,500
77
29
3
6

,800
,900
,000
,900
220
AVERAGE
YIELD
80.7
28
41
62
2
19
.1
.8
.3
.0
.1
ACRES
40,000
94
23
10
6

,000
,000
,700
,700
170
AVERAGE
YIELD
119.3
32
32
73
3
20
.0
.0
.0
.2
.6
ACRES
38
71
45
6
8

,100
,400
,000
,100
,000
130
AVERAGE
YIELD
95.3
20.0
44.4
72.0
2.3
16.2
     *A11 yields expressed in bu/ac. except hay and
      tomatoes which are in tons/ac.
 I2j0hio Agricultural Statistics 1982, 1983
                              -4-

-------
                                    TABLE 2
District Avg:
               CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM  MARKETINGS,
                   AND COMMODITY GROUPS*  BY  COUNTY*
                                   BY  COMMODITIES
                                    OHIO  1983
                                                                 03)
                              CASH RECEIPTS  FROM  CROPS

EXTENSION
DISTRICT

ALLEN
CRAWFORD
DEFIANCE
FULTON
HANCOCK
HARDIN
HENRY
LUCAS
MARION
MORROW
OTTAWA
PAULDING
PUTNAM
SANDUSKY
SENECA
VAN WERT
WILLIAMS
WOOD
WYANDOT
NORTHWEST


TOTAL

35*674
40*695
30,844
49,643
56*826
40*636
53,822
32*679
37*346
22,785
23*844
40,738
58,692
55,326
53,101
52,203
33,932
66,533
39,143
824,462


CORN

10*784
12,190
.6,915
17,956
14,310
13,100
16*045
6,428
13*006
9,204
3,381
10,636
13,427
10,737
13,780
16*179
11,106
19*097
9,123
227,404


SOYBEANS
"^ THOUSAND
15,912
20,442
17,108
18,164
29,118
18,422
24,820
9*426
17*934
9,961
11,989
21,410
26,221
19,938
24,961
26*349
14,709
28,254
19,628
374,766


WHEAT
D Ot. t A R~S~ -
4,763
5,178
4,202
3,886
8*929
6,608
6,586
1,724
4,782
1,864
2,239
6,445
7,901
3,053
5,921
7*223
4,599
11,161
6*610
103,674
OATS
AND
HAY

1,110
976
1*106
684
988
631
1,018
231
316
744
701
1*071
1*734
789
1*425
722
1,488
1,192
549
17,475

OTHER
CROPS*

3,105
1,909
1,513
8,953
3,481
1*875
5*353
14,870
1,308
1,012
5,534
1,176
9,409
20,809
7*014
1*730
2*030
6*829
3,233
101,143
^3,392
11,968
19.72H
5,^56
919
5,323
               *Includes  greenhouse and nursery,  fresh market,
                processing  and greenhouse vegetables,  potatoes,
                nuts, berries,  rye, tobacco, maple  products,
                seed crops,  mushrooms, popcorn, forest products
                and miscellaneous crops.
(3)  1983 Ohio Farm Income
                                      -5 —

-------
                                     TABLE 3
        CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM MARKETINGS* AND THE RANK OF THE EIGHT  MAJOR
           COMMODITIES BY RELATIVE  IMPORTANCE, BY COUNTIES, OHIO  1983
                                                                           (3)
              CASH          FIRST
 EXTENSION  RECEIPTS     COM-   PER-
DISTRICT   FROM SALES   MODITY  CENT
           (THOUS. S)
            EIGHT MAJOR COMMODITIES
            SECOND         THIRD
          COM-   PER-   COM-   PER-
         MODITY  CENT  MODITY  CENT
                       FOURTH
                     COM-   PER-
                    MOOITY  CENT
ALLEN
CRAWFORD
DEFIANCE
FULTON
HANCOCK
HARDIN
HENRY
LUCAS
MARION
MORROU
OTTAWA
PAULDING
PUTNAM
SANDUSKY
SENECA
VAN WERT
WILLIAMS
WOOD
WYANDOT
NORTHWEST

EXTENSION
DISTRICT
ALLEN
CRAWFORD
DEFIANCE
F~ULTON
HANCOCK
HARDIN
HENRY
LUCAS
MARION
MORROU
OTTAWA
PAULDING
PUTNAM
SANDUSKY
SENECA
VAN WERT
WILLIAMS
WOOD
WYANDOT
50,132
54,900
42, "363
83,136
67,139
57,226
68,410
37,203
48,186
34,034
26,330
46,980
85,665
64,518
68,422
62,218
54,224
74,329
48,672
1,074,987
FIFTH
SOYBEANS 32 CORN
SOYBEANS 37 CORN
SOYBEANS 40 CORN
SOYBEANS 22 CORN
SOYBEANS 43 CORN
SOYBEANS 32 CORN
SOYBEANS 36 CORN
OTHER CROPS40 SOYBEANS
SOYBEANS 37 CORN
SOYBEANS 29 CORN
21 WHEAT
22 WHEAT
16 HOGS
22 HOGS
21 WHEAT
23 HOGS
24 WHEAT
25 CORN
27 HOGS
27 DAIRY










SOYBEANS 46 OTHER CROPS21 CORN
SOYBEANS 46 CORN
SOYBEANS 31 CORN
OTHER CROPS32 SOYBEANS
SOYBEANS 37 CORN
SOYBEANS 42 CORN
SOYBEANS 27 CORN
SOYBEANS 3P CORN
SOYBEANS 40 CORN
SOYBEANS 35 CORN
SIXTH
COM- PER- COM- PER-
MODITY CENT MODITY CENT
OTHER LVSTK
DAIRY
DAIRY
OTHER CROPS
OTHER CROPS
DAIRY
HOGS
OTHER LVSTK
CATTLE
HOGS
DAIRY
HOGS
WHEAT
WHEAT
WHEAT
DAIRY
DAIRY
CATTLE
OTHER CROPS
8 OTHER CROPS 6
8 CATTLE 8
9 CATTLE 7
11 DAIRY . 7
5 CATTLE ' 3
8 CATTLE - 8
8 OTHER LVSTK 5
5 WHEAT 5
6 DAIRY 4
8 WHEAT 6
4 HAY & OATS 3
4 CATTLE 3
9 OTHER LVSTK 8
5 CATTLE 5
9 HOGS 7
5 OTHER CROPS 3
11 WHEAT 9
4 HOGS 3
7 DAIRY 5
23 WHEAT
16 HOGS
31 CORN



9 HOGS 9
9 HOGS 8
10 WHEAT 10
19 CATTLE 12
13 HOGS 9
12 WHEAT 12
10 OTHER CROPS 8
17 HOGS 5
10 WHEAT 10
12 CATTLE 11
13 WHEAT 9
14 OTHER LVSTK 4
13 OTHER CROPS11
17 DAIRY 6
20 OTHER CROPS10 DAIRY 9
26 WHEAT
21 HOGS
26 WHEAT
19 WHEAT
21 WHEAT
SEVENTH
COM- PER






-
MODITY CENT
DAIRY
OTHER CROPS
OTHER CROPS
WHEAT
DAIRY
OTHER CROPS
CATTLE
CATTLE
OTHER CROPS
OTHER CROPS
CATTLE
OTHER CROPS
DAIRY
HOGS
CATTLE
CATTLE
OTHER CROPS
DAIRY
CATTLE
6
4
4
5
2
3
5
1
3
3
3
3
7
3
5
2
4
2
4
12 HOGS 7
12 CATTLE 11
15 OTHER CROPS 9
14 HOGS 9
10 OTHER CROPS 9
EIGHTH
COM- PER-
MODITY CENT
CATTLE 6
OTHER LVSTK 2
HAY & OATS 3
OTHER LVSTK 3
OTHER LVSTK 2
OTHER LVSTK 1
DAIRY 4
DAIRY 1
OTHER LVSTK 2
HAY & OATS 2
HOGS 2
HAY J OATS 2
CATTLE 4
HAY & OATS 1
HAY 8, OATS 2
OTHER LVSTK 2
OTHER LVSTK 3
HAY & OATS 2
OTHER LVSTK 2
 NORTHWEST  HOGS         9

(3)  1983 Ohio Farm Income
DAIRY
CATTLE
OTHER LVSTK  3
                                    -6-

-------
     As shown in Table 2, the total cash receipts for crops
marketed in 1983 in Defiance County were $30,844,000 which
was  less than the average for the 19 counties in the
Northwest Ohio Extension District.  From Tables 1, 2, and 3,
it is aJso quite evident that soybeans are the most important
commodity in the agricultural economy of Defiance County.

     TOPOGRAPHY

     The highest elevation in the county is 874 feet above
sea  level while the lowest is 645 feet above sea level.  The
northwestern part of the county shows stronger relief with
Blount-Glynwood and Pewamo soils being predominant on the
rolling topography.  Several broad flats are representative
of much of the county.  Hoytville and Nappanee soils are
reprnsentat. i ve of the flat lake plains in the eastern portion
of the county and were formed in glacial till.  In the
central section, where clayey sediment was deposited in
glacial lakes, Paulding, Roselms, Latty, and Fulton soils are
dom i  nant, .

     STREAM CHARACTERISTICS

     Defiance County is centrally located in the Maumee River
Basin which drains into the western basin of Lake Erie.  Land
in the county drains into three major tributaries which all
eventually outlet into the Maumee River.

     The high point of the Ft. Wayne moraine separates
drainage in the northwestern section of the county from the
rest  of the county.  The St. Joseph River drains the
northwestern area and flows southwesterly into Ft. Wayne,
Indiana, where it joins the St. Mary's River to form the
Maumee River.

     Most of the north central portion of the county drains
southeasterly into the Tiffin River which joins the Maumee at
Defiance.   Also,  flowing northeasterly into the Maumee River
at Defiance is the Auglaize River which drains the
southeastern part of the county.

     Aside from the natural drainageways,  many miles of man-
made  channels  have been constructed over the years to drain
land  that was  once swampland.   During the late 1800's,  people
began to realize the agricultural value of the soil, and as a
result,  extensive earthwork and drainage construction was
initiated.   Maintenance and enlargement or extension of these
drainageways continues through the present day as excessive
water can severely limit agricultural productivity on most of
these; soi 1 s .
                              -7-

-------
I
00
I
                                     3  Maumee River Basin

-------
     SOILS
     The soils present in the county are largely the result
of the county being covered by glaciers and post-glacial
lakes.  The glaciers were responsible either directly or
indirectly for the deposition of glacial till, outwash,
and alluvium washed from these materials.   Lacustrine or
clayey and silty-water deposited material  were laid down in a
series of large shallow lakes that covered much of the county
after the glacier retreated.

     Two end moraines developed as the last glacier began
to melt and recede.  The Ft. Wayne moraine located in
northwestern Defiance County is the older  of the two.  The
Defiance end moraine, eroded by the action of lake water and
streams, is nearly level.

     The ten most common soils in Defiance County listed in
Table 4 comprise 76 percent of the land in the county.  The
soils in this group are considered medium  to fine textured
soiJs and the drainage ranges from somewhat poorly to very
poorly drained with most of the land falling in the latter
category.

                          TABLE 4
  NAME

HOYTVTLLE
LATTY
PAULDING
KOSELMS
FULTON
GLYNWOOD
BLOUNT
NAPPANEE
LENAWEE
HASKINS
              MOST COMMON DEFIANCE COUNTY SOILS
TEXTURE(1)   DRAINAGE(2)   AREA(Ac)
  MF & F
  F & MF
  F
  F
  F & MF
  MF
  MF
  MF &. F
  MF & M
  M & MF
(1) Texture Classification
     M  - Medium
     MF - Moderately Fine
     F  - Fine
VP
VP
VP
SP
SP
MW
SP
SP
VP
SP

Total

   (2)
 43,386
 36,663
 32,470
 26,886
 13,052
 11,444
 11,148
  9,216
  8,330
  8.081

200,676
% of County

    16.5
    14.0
    12.5
    10.0
     5.0
     4.5
     4.0
     3.5
     3.0
     3.0

    76.0
                       Drainage Classification
                        VP - Very Poorly
                        SP - Somewhat Poorly
                        MW - Moderately Well
                                -9-

-------
                            LEGEND*

                FINE TO MEDIUM TEXTURED SOILS ON LAKE PLAINS

                Pauldmg-Roselms Association  Level and nearly level, very
                poorly drained and somewhat pooriy drained soifs formed
                in fine textured  lacustrine sediment

                Laity-Fulton Association  Level and nearly level, very


                sediment
               Toledo-Fulton Association
               poorly drained and somewt
                                    Level a

                                       Level and nearly level, very
                                      ocrly drained so its formed
                                      lured lacustrine sediment
               Hoytwlle-Nappanee Association  Level and nearly level,
               very poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils
               formed in moderately fine textured and fine textured
               glacial till modified by water action

               MEDIUM TEXTURED SOILS ON BEACH RIDGES, LAKE
               PLAINS, DELTAS, STREAM TERRACES, OUTWASH
               PLAINS, AND MORAINES

               MermjJJ-HasJons-MilJgrove Association  Leva! and nearly
               level, very poorly drained and somevuhal poorly drained
               soils formed in moderately coarse textured to moderately
               fine textured glacial outwash and the underlying glacial
               Kibbie-Colwood Associate
                                     Nearly level and level, some-
                                    f poorly drained soils formed
                                    :o coarse textured glaciofluvial
       CD
       GUI
Blount-Glynwood-Pewamo Association  Level 10 sloping,
somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained, and

textured glacial till


moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained
soils formed m moderately fine textured glacial till

MODERATELY FINE TO MODERATELY COARSE
TEXTURED SOILS MAINLY ON KLOOD PLAINS,
STREAM TERRACES, AND MORAINES

    nl-Genesee-Oshtemo Association  Level to gently
    .ng, somewhat poorly drained and well drained


outwash

Genesee-Sloan Association  Level and nearly level, well
drained and very poorly drained soils formed in medium
           U. S  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
               SOIL CONSERVATION  SERVICE
        OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
        DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER

          GENERAL   SOIL   MAP

          DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO
                         Scale

                          0
                         i I
                1:190,080
                  1     2
                  I	I

-------
          jB CHAJRACTERJSTICS

     Due to the texture and poor drainage characteristics of
the Paulding and Latty soils, corn production is limited in
the central portion of the county where these soils occur.
Therefore, many farmers in this area are in a wheat, clover
for hay and seed, and soybean rotation.  Often at the optimum
corn planting time, these soils are too wet for planting.
Also, nitrogen application and harvesting can sometimes be
difficult due to wet soil conditions.

     CLIMATE AND WEATHER

     The climate and weather in Defiance County is cold in
winter and warm and occasionally hot in summer.  In the
winter, the average temperature is 25 degrees F.  and the
average daily minimum temperature is 17 degrees.  In summer,
the average temperature is 71 degrees and the average daily
maximum temperture is 83 degrees.

     Of the 30.08 total inches of average annual precipita-
t-iori, 19 inches or 60 percent falls in April through
September.  Thunderstorms occur on about 40 days per year and
are most frequent during the summer.  The average seasonal
anowfalJ is 27 inches and on an average of 27 days, at least
one inch of snow is on the ground.

     The average relative humidity at midafternoon is about
60 percent.  Humidity is higher at night with the average at
dawn being 85 percent.

     The prevailing wind is from the west-southwest, and the
average highest windspeed is in the spring at 11 miles per
hour.

     DEVIATIONS FROM NORMAL WEATHER

     Variations in year-to-year weather patterns affect crop
yieJds tremendously.  The weather during 1981 deviated from
normal patterns with more than 20 inches of rainfall during
the planting months of April, May, and June.  The months of
July and August were abnormally hot and dry, thus compounding
the problem of the already stressed crops.

     In terms of Project operation, the wet spring not only
delayed planting, but planting oftentimes occurred on soils
too wet for ideal planter operation.  Since soil moisture
conditions were usually too wet for conventional tillage, few-
plots had adequate tillage comparisons.

     The 1982 growing season was more normal.  Although
the planting season extended from April 24 to July 1, most
                              -11-

-------
to
 I
                                              TABLE 5 —TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION


                   [Recorded in the period 1951-78 at Defiance, Ohio.   Summaries are based  on Incomplete records]
Month
January 	
February 	


June 	
July 	
September —
October 	
Temperature
Average
dally
max Imum
°F
31.3
31.8
11.5
59.1
Tl.O
81.0
8U.6
82.9
76.1
61.6
November 	 18.9
December 	 36. 4
Yearly:
Average —
Extreme —
Total 	

59.6
	
Average
dally
minimum
Up
11.0
16.2
21.9
36.3
16.6
56.7
60.1
58.2
51.1
39.5
30.1
19.7

37.8
«._»
Average
dally
up
22.7
25.5
31.7
17.8
58.8
68.8
72.6
70.6
63.7
52.0
39.5
28.1

18.7
:::
2 years In
10 will have —
Maximum
temperature
hlRher
than —
op
58
62
75
81
91
95
98
95
91
85
71
63

	
98
Minimum
temperature
lower
than—
Up
-13
-9
1
19
29
11
18
11
33
22
9
-7

	
-13
Average
number of
growing
degree
days*-
Units
0
0
11
61
298
561
701
639
111
119
9
0

	
2,816
Precipitation
Average
In
2.01
1.77
2.61
3.17
3.18
3.12
3.10
2.90
2.71
2.26
2.61
2.38

	
33.08
2 years In 10
I will have —
Less
than —
In
.91
.82
1.51
2.13
2.18
2.03
2.21
1.18
1.12
.83
1.10
.86

	
28.35
1
More
than —
In
2.98
2.58
3.63
1.67
1.61
4.61
4.18
4.13
3.81
3.47
3.66
3.64

	
37.63
1
Average
number of
days wl th
0.10 inch
or more
6
5
7
8
8
7
7
5
6
5
1
Average
snowfall
In
6.9
5.6
4.6
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
7| 2.3
j
7

	
	 1
78 |
1
6.2

	
26.6
                IA growing degree day Is a unit of heat available for plant growth.  It can be calculated by adding  the
            maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sun by 2,  and  subtracting the temperature below which
            growth is minimal  for the principal crops in the area (50° F).
            (4)  Soil  Survey of Defiance  County,  Ohio,  p.  132

-------
            TABLE 6.—FREEZE DATES IN SPRING AND

         [Recorded In the period  1951-78 at Defiance, Ohio]
      Probability
                                     Temperature
                         or lower
                28° F
              or lower
                32° F
              or lower
     Last freezing
      temperature
      in spring:

       1 year in 10
       later than—

       2 years in 10
       later than—

       5 years in 10
       later than—
    First freezing
     temperature
     in fall:

      1 year in 10
       earlier than-

      2 years in 10
       earlier than-

      5 years in 10
       earlier than-
  April  21


  April  16


  April   7
October  17
October  22
October  31
    May   6
    May   1
  April   21
October  10
October   15
October   24
     May  18
     May  13
     May   4
September  24
September  29
 October   9
                   TABLE 7 .—GROWING SEASON
                    (4)
                [Recorded in the period 1951-78
                  at Defiance, Ohio]
Probability

9 years in 10
8 years in 10
5 years in 10
2 years in 10
1 year in 10
Daily minimum temperature
during growing season
Higher
than
24° F
Days
185
192
206
220
227
Higher
than
28° F
Days
164
172
186
200
207
Higher
than
32° F
Days
140
146
157
169
175
(4)  Soil Survey of Defiance  County,  Ohio,  p.  133
                                  -13-

-------
crops were planted during the three dry weeks from late
April to mid-May.  No-till equipment worked well during these
dry weeks with the only major problem being insufficient
rainfall to activate residual herbicides applied during that
time.  Several of the fields planted during this time had to
be cultivated or sprayed with post-emergent herbicides to
control escaped weeds.  Overall, 1982 was a good year for
crop production.

     Although the total rainfall for the 1983 growing season
was close to normal, rainfall during the months of April,
May, and June was above normal.  This delayed planting and
often caused planting in less than ideal soil moisture
conditions.  Accompanying cool temperatures in May slowed
crop emergence.  Similar to 1981, the wet spring was followed
by a dry and extremely hot summer.  Rainfall during
July, August, and September was 2.5 inches below normal and
there were many consecutive days when temperatures were over
90 degrees F.  Consequently, yields were reduced, especially
for corn.

     Rainfall patterns in 1984 were again far from normal.
April and May were wet months while June and July were
extremely dry.  During May, temperatures were low while near
normal temperatures were experienced during the remainder of
the growing season.  The cold wet weather during May provided
less than ideal planting conditions.  It reduced germination
and plant emergence making it necessary to replant several
fields.  However, replanting was to no avail as many of the
replants did not germinate due to the lack of moisture during
June.  With the reduction of stands, yields were less than
normal in 1984.
                         TABLE 8

         GROWING SEASON RAINFALL FOR DEFIANCE COUNTY
                          (Inches)
                Normal
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
3.47
3.48
3.42
3.40
2.90
2.71
2.26
                         1981 - 1984
      Total
21.64
 1981

 4.86
 4.28
12.13
 2.19
 1.64
 7.43
 3.82

36.35
                   1982

                   2.14
                   4.40
                   4.05
                   4.92
                                   1
                                   J
                     63
                     87
                                   0.99
20.00
 1983

 5.08
 4.21
 4.95
 2.91
 1.2]
 2.23
 4.00

24.59
                                   2.97
22.00
                              -14-

-------
     EFFECTS ON ATTAINMENT OF PROJECT GOALS

     Three out of the four years of the Project were less
than ideal for spring planting.  However, this did not seem
to detract from meeting the goals of the Project.  The
District supervisors and staff decided early in the Project
to establish the number of cooperators and/or acres that
could be serviced during the planting season taking into
account that ideal seasons do not seem to occur frequently.
When 40 to 45 applications were received, applications were
still taken, but no promises were made concerning equipment
availability.  This action was deemed necessary to prevent
signing up more participants than could be serviced.

     In some instances, the poor planting season helped reach
new cooperators.  Where tillage conditions were marginal,
occasionally a new cooperator would request use of a no-till
planter to get a crop planted.  Even though this was often a
last minute request and pre-planning did not occur, the
request was often honored if the field met the requirements
for a no-till demonstration plot.
       Signs -such  as  these were  posted  at most  of  the  con-
       servation tillage  demonstration  plots  soon  after
       planting each  year of  the Project.
                              -15-

-------
IV.  PROJECT PURPOSE

     The purpose of the Defiance County Lost Creek
Demonstration Project was to demonstrate and evaluate methods
to reduce the transport of sediment and related pollutants,
primarily phosphorus, from agricultural land to the Maumee
River and Lake Erie.  In Defiance County and throughout most
of the Maumee Basin, reducing soil loss to just the soil
tolerance ("T") level, the level at which long-term
productivity is maintained, will not reduce phosphorus levels
sufficiently to reverse the process of eutrophication of Lake
Erie.  The high clay content of the area's soils and the
buildup of phosphorus from fertilizer application have
resulted in high levels of soil absorbed phosphorus.
Therefore, water quality programs and measures need to attain
a higher level of erosion and sediment control than that
required to sustain a high level of crop productivity.

    SELECTION AS A PROJECT AREA

    The selection of the Defiance County Lost Creek
Demonstration Project was based upon two important areas
located in Defiance County, the Upper Lost Creek Subwatershed
and the lake plain soils which are high in clay content.
Geographically, the Upper Lost Creek Subwatershed is
approximately four square miles in area and was thought to
be of manageable size.  The topography and soils are adapted
to conservation tillage.  With about sixty landowners and/or
farmers, the number of cooperators was also manageable.
Thus,this watershed had the characteristics of being a good
watershed to promote conservation practices and measure to
their effect on water quality.

    The lake plain soils which comprise a large portion of
central Defiance County have been regarded as problem soils
in terms of conservation tillage and water quality.
No-tillage on many of these soils was not considered to be
economically feasible for the farmer.  Although these soils
are not highly erosive, their high clay content makes them
readily transportable once detached.  The detached clay
particle also carries with it the phosphorus ion, recognized
as a major contributor to water quality degradation.  Thus, a
number of unique and innovative practices were to be
demonstrated on these soils to prove their effectiveness in
improving water quality and maintaining crop yields.
Research in this area by universities and research stations
is rather limited or nonexistent.  Therefore, it was
important to involve these people in the monitoring of water
quality on fields where these practices were installed.

    There were two phases of monitoring on the lake plain
soils.  Water quality was monitored at nine locations, plus

                               -16-

-------
crop yields and production practices were monitored on many
sites.
    GOALS
    The goals of the Project were two-fold:
                             demonstrati
    1)  To introduce,  through
of Best Management Practices in reduci
agricultural land while maintaining
returns.
    2) To
Practices
ef fective
          gain farmers acceptance of
          and unique and innovative
    on, the effectiveness
  ng sediment loss from
acceptable economic
 the Best
practices
          in reducing sediment and phosphorus
Management
that are
transport.
    ACCOMPLISHMENT OF GOALS
    Instrumental in the attainment of these goals was a
comprehensive monitoring program.  One phase of that program
was the installation of a stream monitoring station in a
tributary of Lost Creek (morainal soils).

    The station was installed in August 1981 in cooperation
with Dr. David Baker of Heidelberg College to monitor the
effects of conservation treatment on runoff from the land in
the Upper Lost Creek Watershed.   It was the intent to collect
one year of base data before attempting to attain full
conservation treatment of this 2,400-acre watershed.  During
the succeeding two years, efforts were made to attain high
levels of conservation treatment, primarily conservation
tillage, in this watershed.  Tillage practices and crop
rotations were also monitored during 1982, 1983, and 1984.
In 1983, the Defiance SWCD contracted with the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, to provide aerial  photographs and interpre-
tations of the residue cover and tillage performed at
three specified times during the year.  Details and results
of this study are explained in a report prepared by Dr.
Baker.  Copies of this report are on file at the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois, or at the Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg
College, Tiffin, Ohio(10).

    On the lake plain soils, unique and innovative practices
were demonstrated and monitored.  These practices included
ridges and ridge-till systems, no- till planting under
various residue situations, and  shallow subsurface tile
drainage.  A rainfall simulator  was also brought to Defiance
County to measure runoff and nutrients under specific
tillage, residue, and rainfall conditions.
                               -17-

-------
    The monitoring of the lake plain soils was under the
direction of Dr. Terry Logan of Ohio State University (OSU).
Several field size plots have been monitored by OSU since
1974, and upon initiation of the Defiance County Lost Creek
Demonstration Project, these sites became a part of the
Project.  Also during the fall and winter of 1980,  three new
sites were established to monitor the effects of ridge
tillage on water quality.  Some of Dr. Logan's work also
included the rainulator study which is discussed next.  Some
of Dr. Logan's conclusions are as follows(5K

    1)  Runoff from Maumee River Basin soils was highest in
        the early spring and late fall as was tile  flow.

    2)  Sediment losses were highest from the Paulding and
        Roselms soils compared to the Blount and losses were
        generally correlated with runoff.

    3)  Dissolved and total phosphorus (P) losses were
        generally low because of the low use of P fertilizer
        on these soils and total P losses were correlated
        with sediment loads.

    4)  No-till generally reduced sediment concentrations and
        sediment and total P loads but had little effect on
        dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) losses and
        runoff.

    5)  Monitored watersheds gave lower runoff and loads than
        the smaller plot for Paulding soil.

    6)  Nitrogen losses were very low except for N03-N on
        Blount soil in 1981 when corn was grown.  Other crops
        grown, soybeans and wheat, had little or no N
        fertilizer additions.

     7)  Residue cover had no significant effect on runoff
        during the combined dry, wet and very wet runs and
        total runoff was 60-90 percent of applied rainfall.

     8)  Sediment loss on the rainulator study was inversely
        correlated with percent cover.

     9)  Total P losses were highly correlated with sediment
        loss  and were lowest on the old ridges with residue
        on  the ridge and in the furrow.

   10)  Residue in the furrow  alone was more effective at
        reducing soil and total P losses  than residue on the
        ridge alone.

   11)  DIP loss was highest on the old ridges and this
        effect  was due to the  higher  Bray PI extractable P in
        the surface  5 cm of soil  in the old  ridges.

                                  -18-

-------
     A more detailed explanation of these sites and the
monitoring results are included in a report prepared by Dr.
Logan.  This report is available from Dr. Logan at OSU in
Columbus, Ohio, or the GLNPO of U.S. EPA in Chicago,
Illinois(5) .

    Through a joint effort of the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District, OSU, Purdue University, and the U.S.D.A.
National Soil Erosion Laboratory, a rainfall simulator was
brought to Defiance County during the summer of 1983.   This
study was conducted to supplement the monitoring done by Dr.
Logan and to study some variables that could not be evaluated
in the monitoring program.  Primarily concerned with ridge
till systems on high clay content soils having less than one
percent slope, this study indicated that:(6)

    1) for all the tillage treatments compared, ridge
       sideslope erosion was three to four times greater than
       total soil loss, suggesting that transport capacity
       was the limiting factor.

    2) the age of the ridges has little bearing on the amount
       of soil loss.

    3) presence of residue on older ridge decreased soil loss
       six to sevenfold and on new ridges twofold.

    4) Residues placed only on the furrow bottom was as
       effective in reducing soil loss as residue placed over
       the entire ridge and furrow.

    5) Residue placed only on ridge sideslopes did not
       reduce soil loss significantly from treatments without
       residue.

    The technical report for this study is on file at the
National Soil Erosion Laboratory, U.S.D.A.-ARS, in West
Lafayette, Indiana, and at the GLNPO of the U.S. EPA in
Chicago, Illinois(6).

    The ridge-till and no-till on ridge systems were promoted
by the District primarily on the soils high in clay content,
i.e. Fulton, Latty, and Paulding.  These soils were targeted
as heavy contributors to water quality problems.  Also
previous research had identified these soils as having
a low yield potential under conservation tillage due to poor
drainage.  Ridge-tillage was promoted as a form of conser-
vation tillage that could overcome the drainage limitations
and improve water quality.

    Another unique and innovative practice demonstrated in
the Project was the installation of shallow, closely-spaced,
                               -19-

-------
subsurface tile drainage systems on two sites.   The reason
for installing these systems was to try and improve the
internal drainage of the field,  thereby improving the success
rate of conservation tillage on  high clay content soils.

    Probably the most important  phase of the Defiance County
Lost Creek Demonstration Project was the demonstration of no-
till crop production on Defiance County farms.   The Project
was aimed at showing farmers that under proper management,
no-till can produce equal or better yields than conventional
tillage on the better drained soils and that no-tillage on
the poorly drained soils can be  competitive with conventional
methods, although management becomes more critical.

   Also very important to the goals of the Project was an
effective information and education program.  Not only was
this program designed to work with landowners on a "one on
one" basis in developing their conservation programs but also
to effectively use mass media and printed materials.  Public
relations were important to the  ultimate goal of getting
conservation tillage practices adopted by Defiance County
farmers.

    GRANT APPLICATION

    During the late 1970's, several Defiance County farmers
were involved with a multi-county conservation tillage
Project sponsored by Maumee Valley Resource Conservation and
Development and Planning Organization. This Project had
stimulated some interest in the county, but was of short
duration and not designed to serve a large number of
cooperators in any one county.  Being aware of this, the
Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District Board of
Supervisors began to seek means of establishing a Project to
promote the conservation of natural resources in Defiance
County  and the improvement of water quality in the Maumee
River Basin.  Several meetings and tours were held
in Defiance County involving personnel from the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the Soil Conservation
Service  (SCS), Heidelberg College, The Ohio State University
(OSU),  Cooperative Extension Service  (CES), and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).

    Early  in 1980, the Board of Supervisors submitted a
proposal including a detailed plan of work and a budget  to
U. S. EPA.  After some modification of the proposal, in
August,  1980,  the District was awarded a grant of  $303,179
from U.  S. EPA to be matched with  $101,060 of local  funds for
a  two-year Project.  Realizing that the plan of work was
designed for a Project of more than two years duration,  and
that a  two-year Project  would have no  significant  impact  on
the  improvement of water quality,  the  District submitted  a
request for a  budget and time revision to  the original grant,

                              -20-

-------
late in 1980.  In February 1981, the District was notified
(hat 1 h«: amount, of the grant was increased by $342,875 and
I he tc rm i rmt.i on date was extended to July 31, 1984.  The rion-
I'ederal monies were increased by $1.14,292.  The total grant
was then $646,054 to be matched by $215,352 of non-federal
funds.

    In early 1984, the Board of Supervisors realized that the
work could continue through July 31, 1985, without additional
funding from U. S. EPA.  They, therefore, requested and
received an extension of the Project to July 31, 1985, with
no  increase in funding.

    AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILTIES

    The agencies and groups most directly involved with the
Project are the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation
District,  the Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service  (ASCS), The Cooperaa-
tive Extension Service, The Ohio State University, and
Heidelberg College.

    The Defiance SWCD, being the grantee and one of the local
agencies involved, was responsible for the overall admini-
stration and daily operation of the Project.  To assist the
District in these responsibilities, a Project Administrator,
Robert Rettig, was employed starting in November 1980.

    Working very closely with the District was the Soil
Conservation Service.  SCS personnel were instrumental in
getting the Project initiated and in serving in an advisory
capacity to the District.  During the life of the Project,
three individuals served as district conservationist and
two persons served in the capacity of soil conservationist in
Defiance County.  They were responsible for the conservation
planning and provided guidance in the location and
engineering of the monitoring sites.  They also assisted
farmers with the use of equipment during the busy planting
season.  At harvest, SCS personnel also assisted in the
collection of yield data.

    The information and education arm of the Defiance SWCD in
this Project was the CES.  They were contracted to provide a
person, Dennis Flanagan, to direct these activities.  It was
necessary  that this person work closely with the District to
at,tain maximum results from the education program.  A
contractual agreement was necessary due to the scope of the
Project and the shortage of personnel and funds in the
Cooperative Extension Service.

    The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
was involved by providing $32,000 of special cost-sharing


                               -21-

-------
funds during the five years of the Project to accelerate the
adoption of erosion control measures.  Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP) payments were also made to
cooperators qualifying for such payments when applying
conservation practices to the land.

    As mentioned earlier, The Ohio State University and
Heidelberg College were involved with the monitoring of water-
quality.  Both institutions were under contract to the
District through grant funds to provide their services.

    FUNDING MECHANISMS

    With the Defiance SWCD being the grantee, all funding for
the Project was administered by the District.  All
institutions under contract to the District, except the
Cooperative Extension Service, were required to provide the
25 percent local matching monies as required of the? District
in the grant agreement with U. S. EPA.  Matching monies for
all other costs incurred in the Project came from in-kind
services. In-kind services are services performed by
individuals or local units of government as contributions to
the attainment of Project goals at no direct cost to the
Project.  An example would be a cooperator planting a no-till
demonstration plot with his own equipment.

    Those agencies, under contract to the District, submitted
a monthly or semi-annual statement of expenses incurred as
well as documentation of the amount being cost-shared or
matched by the agency.  Statements were referred to the
Board of Supervisors for approval before payments were made.

    LAKE ERIE TILLAGE TASK FORCE

The Lake Erie Tillage Task Force was developed as a means of
providing some continuity among the many conservation tillage
demonstration projects initiated in the Maumee Basin.  The
meetings served to coordinate both agency heads and staff
persons working on the projects and provided for the
interchange of ideas in achieving the ultimate goal of
improving water quality in Lake Erie.

    Since the Defiance County Project was one of the earlier-
projects, the meetings provided a limited amount of
direction.  Some of the ideas presented could be incorporated
into the Project, but in many cases, Project goals and
objectives were previously established and were difficult to
change without causing problems with cooperators already on
board.  Also, the relationships between the  staff and
cooperators were different for each county;  therefore, making
it difficult to adopt a universal set of guidelines for the
entire Basin.


                               -22-

-------
    Adopting a common data sheet for each plot was an
excellent means of obtaining a broad data base for the
Project.  Even though every item on the sheet did not apply
to every plot, it gave a uniform means of reporting and
comparing data.
       Field days  and tours  were a major part of the  infor-
       mation and  education  program.   Approximately 90 people
       observed this  no-till nitrogen application in  action
       in 1983.
                              -23-

-------
V.  OPERATING PROCEDURES

    The Project permitted some activities to continue that
otherwise would have ended.  Small watershed monitoring by
Dr.  Terry Logan, OSU, and the conservation tillage program
administered by The Maumee Valley Resource Conservation
Development and Planning Organization (MVRCD&PO) were both
about to cease activities due to lack of funding.  The
awarding of the grant to Defiance SWCD permitted the
continuation and the expansion of both of these programs.

    The Project filled a void in the overall SWCD program and
complemented other District activities.   It came at a time
when there was a demand in the county for conservation
tillage equipment and demonstrations.  Project personnel and
recordkeeping were an addition to the ongoing District
program and Project records were kept separate from other
district activities.

    PROJECT PERSONNEL

    As part of the plan of work, a person was to be
employed by the District to manage the Project.  The person
filling this position was to have responsibility for the
administration of the Project including recordkeeping,
coordinating the contracts with the various agencies,
procurement and disposal of equipment, assisting with the
information and education program as well as providing
technical assistance to cooperating farmers.

    Soon after the awarding of the grant to the SWCD, a
vacancy announcement was prepared for the Project
Administrator position.  Copies of this announcement were
distributed to The Ohio State University, College of Natural
Resources, five neighboring SWCDs, Agricultural Technical
Institute of OSU, Northwest Technical College, and the
vocational instructors at each of the Defiance County high
schools.  A copy of the announcement is included as Appendix
A to this report.

    Several applicants responded to the announcement.  One
was interviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently
hired to fill the position.  Robert Rettig, who had worked
with the MVRCD&PO Project in Defiance and the surrounding
counties, was selected.

     From May 1 through mid-October in 1983 and 1984, intern
students from Clark Technical College, Springfield, Ohio,
were hired by the District to assist with the Project.  These
students were invaluable to the program since they were
involved with nearly all the planting season and most of the
                               -24-

-------
 harvest.  A pest  scout was  employed during  the  summers  of
 L982,  L983, and 1984  to  identify potential  insect,  weed, and
 stand  problems.   In June of 1984,  the person  employed
 as an  intern  in 1983  was hired as  a Project Technician.
 This person was employed to fill the vacancy  which  would
 occur  at  the  end  of July 1984 when the contract with the
 Cooperative Extension Service ended.  At various  times  during
 the Project,  other District staff  assisted  in various
 capacities on an  "as  needed" basis.

     ACCOUNTING

     The  Project  Administrator was responsible  for  managing
 the funding of the Project  under guidelines established by
 the grant proposal and the  Board of Supervisors.  Monies
 for the Project were  handled by the county  auditor's
 office.   A separate account was established.  Funds received
 from the  U. S. EPA were  deposited  into this account and
 expenses  were paid by checks issued by the  auditor.  Vouchers
 were prepared by  the  District secretary and submitted to the
 auditor for bills approved  for payment by the Board of
 Supervi sors.

    On a  quarterly basis, the Project Administrator prepared
 a Standard Form 270,  Request for Advance or Reimbursement,
 received  approval of  the  Board of  Supervisors,  and  submitted
 the form  to U. S. EPA  This form included total program
 outlays to date,  estimated  outlays for the  next quarter,
 funds already requested,  and funds requested  for  the next
 quarter.  Monthly payments  from U. S. EPA were  based on the
 information on this form.

    EQUIPMENT

    At various times during the life of the Project, various
 pieces of equipment were  purchased and sold.  The procedure
 followed  in the procurement of equipment was  according to
 guidelines set by the State of Ohio.   For any purchase or
 lease  that was expected  to  exceed  $2,000 in value, it was
 necessary to advertise for  sealed bids.  Two legal notices
 appeared  in the local newspapers at least fifteen days apart
 prior to the opening of bids.  Invitations  to bid,
 specifications and bid sheets were sent to  firms  in the area
 who might be able to supply the needed equipment.   At the
 date specified in the legal notice, the bids were publicly
 opened and read aloud by  the chairman of the Board of
 Supervisors.   In the purchase of equipment,  generally the
 lowest bid submitted was  awarded the sale.   However, in some
cases,  proximity of the dealership to the Project area,
specifications for the equipment,  and farmers acceptance were
considered.   The successful bidder was notified in writing
within fifteen days of the opening of the bids and usually
was given six to eight weeks for delivery.   When submitting a

                               -25-

-------
bid,  each bidder was required to accompany the bid with a
certified check or bid bond in the amount of five percent of
the bid so that a contract could be entered into and
performance thereof secured.

    The disposal of equipment followed the same basic
procedure.  Legal notices and classified ads were published
in periodicals covering the tri-state area.  Sealed bids were
received and opened on the specified date and the item was
sold to the highest bidder.

    Leasing of equipment was done on a very limited basis.
Early in the Project, several pieces of equipment were leased
to determine how well adapted they would be to the demonstra-
tion Project and whether cooperating farmers would accept the
equipment in their farm operation.

    During two planting seasons, a planter and tractor
were leased as a unit at a very reduced price.  However, at
other times when bids for leases were requested, it was
usually more economical to own equipment rather than lease
it.

    PROJECT COOPERATOR GUIDELINES

    Since 1980, with some changes, the basic guidelines
requested of the cooperators were:  to apply early for
participation, demonstrate two or more tillage practices in
the same field, keep accurate records, take yield checks,
permit tours of fields, and permit publication of data and
yields collected on fields in the Project.  A cooperator who
did not comply with the requirements risked being ineligible
for future participation in the Project.  A complete copy of
the 1985 guidelines can be found in Appendix B.

    At the start of the conservation tillage demonstrations,
the requirements for a cooperator were liberal because it was
unknown how much participation could be expected.  It was a
goal to attain maximum cooperation.  However, problems were
encountered such as using no-till equipment on conven-
tionally-tilled soil, and it was necessary to become more
specific  in what was expected of a cooperator.  In succeeding
years, the District realized that much more could be
accomplished with  the demonstrations if cooperators were
required  to provide comparison tillage plots and cultural
data.  Another reason for making the guidelines more
stringent was  to avoid a few cooperators  imposing upon the
Project at the expense of other potential  cooperators by
using equipment on more acres than originally requested.

    One requirement that was difficult to  enforce, but was
necessary for  efficient management and improving the
likelihood of  success, was  that of having  cooperators apply

                               -26-

-------
for participation in the Project prior to the planting
season.   Frequently, farmers attempted to use the Project as
a last resort.   If they could not accomplish their normal
tillage  practices, they would request the use of a no-till
planter.  Occasionally, these farmers were permitted the use
of Project equipment if their fields met the qualifications
for demonstration sites and the work load on the equipment
and staff permitted additional plots.  These late applica-
tions were discouraged as much as possible.

    Site selection processes were also modified over the life
of the Project.  Initially, not enough emphasis was placed on
the amount of residue left on the field at planting.  Several
fields had some fall tillage performed on them and were
planted  with no spring tillage.  The justification was to get
cooperators accustomed to doing no spring tillage, then
gradually move them into situations with more protective
cover on the fields.  By the spring of 1983, the guidelines
were modified to not allow any tillage on a field between the
harvesting of the previous year's crop and the no-till
planting of the demonstration plot.

    A basic concept of the Project was that the information
and education program could be much more effective if the
farmer's conventional tillage was performed in a side-by-side
comparison with conservation tillage and all data and yields
recorded.  This became a requirement of cooperators and
established a basis for comparing conservation tillage crop
production to the common conventional methods.

    As some cooperators became comfortable with conservation
tillage, they requested the use of no-till equipment on more
acres than would be considered as a demonstration plot.  This
prompted the need to limit the acres on which each cooperator
could use the equipment.  Considering the available manpower
and equipment,  the supervisors elected to limit each
cooperator to one day's use of the equipment.  This
usually  meant the limit was thirty to forty acres, but the
recommended plot size was five to twenty acres.

    H also became necessary to establish geographical
boundaries where the equipment was to be used.  Those farming
across county lines sometimes requested to use equipment in
other counties.  Even though it is a goal to get conservation
tillage  widely adopted, it was necessary to restrict useage
to Defiance County to facilitate Project management.

    A number of farmers requested the use of Project
equipment to replant conventionally-planted fields where crop
emergence was poor.  This is a good justification for owning
a no-till planter and was a means of getting more cooperators
involved but proved to be unmanageable.

                               -27-

-------
     INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

     The Defiance County Lost Creek Demonstration Project was
designed with a strong information and education system in
mind.  The Cooperative Extension Service of The Ohio State
University was given major responsibility for the educational
aspects of the program through the Defiance County Extension
Office.  An assistant county extension agent was employed to
handle this responsibility.  Dennis Flanagan, a 1980
graduate of The Ohio State University with a B.S. in
Agricultural Engineering, started work on November 17, 1980.

     The County Extension Agent, SCS District Conserva-
tionist, SWCD Project Administrator, and the SWCD Board of
Supervisors assisted the Assistant County Agent with the
planning of educational activities.  The Area Extension
Agronomist also served as an important resource for
information and assistance.

     The program itself consisted of contacts on three
levels:  individual, small group, and mass media.
Individuals were contacted within the county to explain the
Project, plan demonstration plots, and discuss crop progress.
Small groups of farmers and other interested persons learned
of the Project and conservation tillage through meetings,
tours, field days, workshops, and Project newsletters.  The
mass media was used to inform and educate people throughout
the Maumee Basin about the Project and related topics.
Newspaper articles were frequently used, as well as a limited
number of television and radio programs.  Brochures and
annual reports were also printed to inform county residents
and others of the Project.

     REPORTING SYSTEM - DATA COLLECTION

     Probably one of the more burdensome tasks of the Project
was obtaining plot data from cooperators.  For many of them,
the data requested was more specific than was normally kept
in their records.  Forms were developed for their use, but
during  the rush of the planting season, they were often not
completed.  Repeated visits or phone calls by staff personnel
were often necessary to get needed  information.  Occasion-
ally,  plots had to be deleted from  the data base because of
insufficient  information.

     Quarterly progress reports were prepared and submitted
to Mr.  Ralph  Christensen,  Project Officer, USEPA Region V,
the  Defiance  County commissioners,  and Mr. James Lake of the
Conservation  Tillage Information Center  (CTIC).  The purpose
of this  report was to give an account of Project activities
during  the preceding three-month period.   Included  in these
narratives were such things as:  number of cooperators
participating  for the year, planting accomplishments,

                               -28-

-------
planting data, tours, field days, and promotional activities.
Not, only did these reports serve to inform the above-named
peopJe of progress in the Project, but they also forced the
Project staff to keep abreast of the progress toward
achieving Project objectives.

    Annual reports were prepared in the form of a public
report and included all activities occurring during the year
with special emphasis on conservation tillage plot data.
This collection of information proved to be very useful to
the farmer contemplating conservation tillage.

     Generally prepared and printed during the winter months
for the preceding year, the annual report presented the
findings of the water quality monitoring program each year.
These summaries were submitted by Dr. Terry Logan, OSU; Dr.
David Baker, Heidelberg College; and Howard Neibling, USDA-
ARS, Purdue University.  Requests from throughout the United
States and the world were made for these reports, parti-
cularly the one on the rainfall simulator study.  Also
included in the annual report were summaries of the number of
cooperators participating in the Project each year, total
number of acres involved, and the equipment available from
the District for farmers to use.  Several of the reports
presented economic comparisons of various tillage methods
and also tips or guidelines for the person new to
conservation tillage.

     Although various staff people provided some input on
parts of the annual report, the major responsibility was
delegated to Dennis Flanagan, Assistant County Extension
Agent.  Each year 500 to 1,000 copies were printed locally by
a commercial printer and distributed primarily to farmers in
the Defiance area and to others upon request.

     INCENTIVES AVAILABLE

     To attract farmers to cooperate in the program, a number
of incentives were provided by several agencies.  The
incentives varied depending on what was being demonstrated
and where the plot was located in the county.

     Most of the cooperators were eligible to receive cost-
share payments from ASCS for conservation tillage practices.
Provided they were willing to follow guidelines established
by the Board of Supervisors, all cooperators were given the
opportunity to use Project planters, drills, cultivators, and
ridgers at no charge.  It was preferred that the ridgers be
used on lake plain soils only.

     When a cooperator used District equipment, the equipment
was delivered to his farm, hitched to his tractor if none was
provided with the planter, and field adjusted.  This usually

                               -29-

-------
meant Project personnel also assisted in putting fertilizer
and seed into the planter, followed it through the field
for a time to determine if everything was functioning
properly, and to check seed placement.  During the last
three years of the Project, a pest scouting service was
available at no charge for those who participated in the
program.

     For those in the Upper Lost Creek Watershed, additional
incentives were provided.  An incentive payment was made to
cooperators on a per acre basis for every acre under no-
till production.  Farmers were paid $40 per acre for row
crops or drilled soybeans and $10 per acre for cover crops,
wheat, or oats.

    These payments were provided for several reasons.  During
the later years of the Project, it was very important to the
monitoring program to have conservation tillage applied to a
large percentage of the land in this watershed.  Also, one
frequently-asked question concerned what is needed to
convince farmers to adopt conservation tillage.  The
incentive payment appeared to have minimal influence on the
level of adoption and may not have been the answer to
achieving large scale adoption of no-tillage.

     Another incentive provided solely to the Upper Lost
Creek Subwatershed cooperators was the free use of a disc-
chisel plow and tractor.  There was a stipulation that this
implement be used only on fields where sufficient residue was
present such as corn stalks or wheat stubble.

     To administer the incentive payment program, the Board
of Supervisors found it necessary to develop a set of
guidelines which are located in  Appendix C_.  These
guidelines spelled out how the field size would be
determined.  In cases where fields were on the watershed
boundary, payment would be made on the entire field if over
50 percent of the field was determined to be in the
watershed.  In accepting payment on a field, the farmer was
required to provide protective cover after harvest of the
crop.  He agreed not to moldboard plow in the fall, but
he could use the disc-chisel plow or similar implement on
corn or wheat stubble.  No fall tillage was permitted where
soybeans were grown unless a cover crop was established
following the tillage.

     PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING ASSISTANCE

     The level of assistance provided was dependent, on I,he
amount needed by the cooperator.  When a potential cooperator
expressed an interest in participating in the Project, he  was
first counseled on what he would be expected to do as a
cooperator and what services the District would provide.

                               -30-

-------
Planning for the demonstration plot usually began at the time
of application.  After obtaining information on the
cooperator's normal crop rotation and farming practices,
suggestions were made as to herbicide and fertility programs.
A Resource Management System was planned whenever possible.

    During late winter or early spring, an appointment was
made with the cooperator to visit the plot.  At this meeting,
specific pesticide and fertilizer recommendations were
usually made and Project procedures explained in more detail.
At planting time, the cooperator was to contact the District
office one or two days prior to the time he wanted to plant
his crop to schedule a planter.  Also at or just prior to
planting, pest scouting began on the field and continued
usually through July.

     At harvest, the cooperator was to contact the District
office and the staff would bring the weighing device to the
plot and assist with yield checks.   Informal planning of the
next year's program often began at this point.

     In the fall, those eligible and desiring to use the
disc-chisel plow would contact the office to schedule the
equipment.  At the scheduled time,  the tractor and disc-
chisel plow were delivered to the farm, instructions given on
operation, and assistance provided in field adjustments.
                              -31-

-------
VI.  PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

     NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

     The most rapid growth in the number of cooperators and
the number of acres involved in the demonstration occurred
between the first and second year (See Table 9).   WhiLe the
first year started out at a slow pace due to the "newness" of
the Project, rapid growth was experienced during the second
year.  The number of cooperators and demonstration plots
increased threefold during the second year of the Project and
the number of acres increased by two and one-half times.

     In 1983, the third year of the Project, the number of
cooperators remained about the same, but the number of plots
and acres in the Project increased by 36 percent and 16
percent respectively.  By this time, several of the original
cooperators had purchased and were using their own no-till
planters.  Although the total number of cooperators was the
same for 1982 and 1983, 26 or 44 percent of the total were
new participants in 1983.

     Again in 1984, the total number of cooperators remained
about the same as in 1982 and 1983 with approximately 25
percent of them being new cooperators.  The no-till acreage
planted with District equipment also remained about the same.

     Over the four years, 95 farm operations or cooperators
participated in the Project.  If a father and son used the
same line of equipment, even though they had separate farms*
or fields, they were considered to be one operation or one
cooperator.  Of the 95 cooperators, 41 participated one year,
25 participated two years, 19 participated three years, and
10 were involved all four years of the Project.  Twenty-four
(or 25 percent) of the 95 cooperators have either purchased
no-till planters or grain drills or modified their equipment
to plant no-till.

                           TABLE 9

          SUMMARY OF OVERALL PROJECT PARTICIPATION
   v£ Year

   1981
   1982
   1983
   1984

   Total
 20
 53
 58
 56.

187
20
35
26
ii

95
100
 66
 44
 25
  Acres
Planted with   Total
Dist.  Equip.   Acres

      681        851
    1,702      2,083
    1,545      2,495
    1.540      1.990

    5,468      7,419
                               -32-

-------
     UPPER LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED

     With regard to participation in the Upper Lost Creek
Subwatorshed,  it must be remembered that early in the
monitoring program it was an objective to keep the adoption
of conservation tillage at relatively low levels to obtain
base data for  water quality.  Therefore, conservation
practices were not enthusiastically promoted until 1983.
Starting in 1982, an annual inventory of land use was begun.
Before 1982, it would be safe to say that no-tillage crop
production was not practiced in the watershed.  However,
several farmers were using a very limited amount of reduced
ti 1.1 age.

     Of the 2,350 acres in the Lost Creek area, about 2,100
acres are in agricultural production. From the beginning of
the Project through 1984, the percentage of cropland in the
watershed with 30 percent or more residue after planting grew
from zero to 64 percent, as shown in Table 10.

     LAKE PLAIN SOILS

     On the fine textured lake plain soils, one of the unique
and innovative practices demonstrated was the installation of
shallow closely-spaced tile drainage systems.  Systems were
installed at two sites during 1983.  The theory behind this
practice is that water quality should be improved by
filtering more water through the soil to the tile rather than
removing it via surface runoff.  Also, the rate of success
with conservation tillage systems should be increased by
improving the  drainage on these soils.

     Three-inch diameter tile were installed with a field
tile drainage  plow with only 16 to 20 inches of soil covering
them.  A one-third section of the field had the lateral tile
spaced at 30 feet and another one-third section had them
spaced at 15 feet. The remaining one-third of the twelve-acre
fields had no  tile installed.  The widths of spacing will be
evaluated and  studied in the future as to which spacing, if
any, is most cost-effective.  No-tillage, ridge, and
conventional systems are being studied on the sites.  The
conventional system will vary from year to year as the farmer
is asked to use whatever system he would normally use on that
particular field.  It may be moldboard plowed, disc-chisel
plowed, offset disced, or tandem disced.  Figure 3 shows a
sample layout  of the fields.

     Having monitored the crop yields on these plots for only
one year, no conclusions can be drawn.  However, there was a
marked difference in the yields in 1984 with the closely-
spaced tiled sections producing the highest yield.  There is
a belief among local farmers that tile drainage on the fine


                               -33-

-------
                                                 TABLE 10

                                   UPPER LOST CREEK WATERSHED PARTICIPATION
                                            (2,100 Tillable Acres)
  Crop Year

    1981
    1982
    1983
    1984
    # of
Cooperators

     1
     3
    16
    14
 Acres
No-till
 Corn

   20
   59
  164
  306
 Acres
No-till
 Beans
 189
  99
 Acres
No-till
 Wheat
  76
  22
 Acres
Reduced
Tillage
  17
  71
 316
Total Acres
  Reduced
  Tillage

     20
     76
    500
    743
    Acres
  Protected
By Cover Crop
    215
    711
    596
  Acres
Protected
  Acres
  291
1,211
1,339
 i
u>
-P-
 i

-------
                                     FIGURE 3

                              SHALLOW TILE FIELD PLAN
15 Feet Spacing
30 Feet Spacing
No Tile
                                                LU
                                                CD
CD

-------
clay soils loses effectiveness over a period of time.  It
will be interesting to note whether or not this occurs over
the period of time these plots are studied.

     NO-TILL CROP YIELDS

     Averages of crop yields from the plots with comparisons
are exhibited in Tables 11 through 15.  Conclusions that can
be drawn from these tables are as follows:

     Soybeans

     1)  Soybeans grown after corn produce higher  yields
         than after most other crops.

     2)  No-till soybeans yield slightly less (1 to 2 bushels
         per acre) than soybeans grown under conventional
         tillage methods except when planted in growing
         wheat.

     3)  Soil type has little influence on the success of no-
         tillage versus conventional tillage.  There was no
         substantial decrease in no-till yields versus
         conventional on the poorly drained soils.
     Corn

     1)  No-till corn grown after soybeans gives the best
         advantage to no-tillage corn production.

     2)  Heavy residue situations tend to decrease no-till
         yields.

     3)  Even though corn yields tend to decrease as drain-
         age becomes poorer, corn production can be main-
         tained or improved slightly with no-till as compared
         to conventional tillage methods.

     Most of these tables indicate that conservation tillage
crop production can be economically competitive with
traditional production practices in Defiance County.  One
system not exhibited on the tables is continuous no-till corn
since  very little continuous corn is grown in Defiance
County.  Very few continuous no-till corn plots were involved
in  the Project.

     RIDGE TILLAGE ACCOMPLISHMENT

     Ridge-till or no-till on ridge systems are also not
addressed in these tables or graphs because not enough data
was collected to develop meaningful averages.  Annual
reports, particularly for 1983 and 1984, present the ridge
plot data for those seasons.  A major problem experienced by
the Project was persuading farmers to maintain the ridges for

                               -36-

-------
                             TABLE 11
55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

 5

 0
     37
35
                 THREE-YEAR SOYBEAN YIELD AVERAGES
                        BY VARIOUS RESIDUES
                              (BU/AC)
                  32
              31
                           27
                               25
                                            32
                      33
       In Corn
       Stalks
            Soybean
            Stubble
Growing
 Wheat
 Average of
All Residues
               No-Till
                                Comparison
                                  -37--

-------
                     TABLE  12

  THREE-YEAR SOYBEAN  YIELD  AVERAGES  BY  SOIL  GROUP
                      (BU/AC)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0







32
\
\
\
\
\
\
\X
33












33
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
is












28 28
\
O
\
v
\
\












Soil Groups Soil Groups Soil Groups
I & II III & IV V
{15 Plots) (28 Plots) (6 Plots)
             No-till
                Comparison
Group I -

Group II -
Group III
Group IV •
Group V -
Well drained soils (Glynwood,  Ottokee,
Seward)
Poorly drained but responds well to sub-
surface drainage. Response to tillage
similar to well-drained soils when
tiled  (Blount,. Colwood, Haskins, Kibbie,
Mermill, Millgrove, Nappanee,  Rimer, Tedrow,
Wauseon).
Poorly drained soils (Fulton)
Very poorly drained soils.  Response to
tillage similar to well drained soils when
tiled  (Hoytville, Latty, Lenawee, Pewamo,
Toledo)
Poorly and very poorly drained soils,
limited response to sub-surface drainage
(Paulding and Roselms)
                                -38-

-------
        TABLE 13
   3-YEAR CORN AVERAGE
     YIELD BY VARIOUS
         RESIDUES
          (BU/AC)
                                      TABLE  14
                                  4-YEAR  CORN AVERAGE
                                      YIELD OF ALL
                                      RESIDUE TYPES
                                         (BU/AC)
180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

 90

 80

 70
120
    117
                        116
  120
                   111
      119
       Soybean
       Stubble

       (53 Plots)
                 Sod, Wheat
               Stubble, Alfalfa
               Clover
               (12 Plots)
All Residues
(77 Plots)
                   No-till
                         Comparison
                                  -39-

-------
                          TABLE 15
          3-YEAR CORN YIELD AVERAGES BY SOIL GROUP
                           (BU/AC)
150

140

130

120

110

100

 90

 80
130
      128
                 116  116
                                  110
                                       104
           Soil Groups
              I & II
            (24 Plots)
                Soil Groups
                  III & IV
                 (46 Plots)
Soil Group
    V
 (5 Plots)
     Group I   - Well drained soils (Glynwood, Ottokee,
                 Seward)
     Group II  - Poorly drained but responds well to sub-
                 surface drainage.  Response to tillage
                 similar to well drained soils when tiled.
                 (Blount, Colwood, Haskins, Kibbie, Mermill,
                 Millgrove, Nappanee, Rimer, Tedrow, Wauseon)
     Group III - Poorly drained soils (Fulton)
     Group IV  - Very poorly drained soils. Response to
                 tillage similar to well drained soils when
                 tiled  (Hoytville, Latty, Lenawee, Pewamo,
                 Toledo)
     Group V   - Poorly and very poorly drained soils limited
                 response to sub-surface drainage  (Paulding
                 and Roselms)
                      No-till
                        Conventional
                                  -40-

-------
more than one year.  Thus, two major benefits of the ridge
system, increasing organic matter in the ridge and effective
crop residue cover were lost.  Wheat and clover are a part of
most of these farmers' crop rotations and the success and
management of these crops on ridges have not been evaluated.

     At first glance, ridge-tillage appears to be the salva-
tion to farming the lake plain soils.  Not only does it
propose to improve yields by providing a more ideal seedbed
and environment for plant growth, it provides crop residue
cover to reduce erosion, thus solving two major problems of
farming lake plain soils.

     After being readily adopted early in the Project, the
adoption rate by new cooperators fell to zero in 1985.

     Further data needs to be obtained before substantial
conclusions are reached in this area.  However, based on the
knowledge gained from working with the system for several
years,  the following reasons are offered as to why acceptance
and reliability are limited:

     1) Reduction of soybean yields compared to narrow row
        (7 inches) soybeans[l],

     2) Need for extensive change or addition to existing
        equipment.

     3) Comparable results can be attained with no-till at a
        lower cost for equipment modifications.

     4) The farmer is financially unable to give the system
        the necessary three to five years to improve yields.

     5) Managerial ability appears to be beyond the scope of
        a majority of the Lake Plain farmers.

Row width of soybeans has presented problems with the
ridge systems on the lake plain soils.  In conventional
systems, the trend is toward narrow-row soybeans, i.e. 7 to
8-inch  row widths.  On fine textured clay soils, growth of
the soybean plant is usually limited {12-18 inches high);
therefore, to obtain maximum utilization of sunlight, it is
advantageous to grow soybeans in narrow rows.  Ridge-till
systems are generally in 30-inch or wider row widths and do
not lend themselves to narrower rows.  To date, Defiance
County  data does not reflect enough advantage to the ridge
system  on high clay content soils to compensate for the yield
reduction due to row width for soybeans.
flJSee Ohio 1983-84 Agronomy Guide, pg.  49

                              -41-

-------
     INFORMATION & EDUCATION

     Meetings have been a very important part of the
educational program, with many different types being
conducted.  One very successful event has been the
"Alternative Tillage Systems Meeting" in March of each year
starting in 1982.  The past year's Project results were
presented at this meeting, as well as discussions on
conservation tillage, pesticides, fertility, and monitoring.
Attendance was normally around 70 people, except in 1984 when
a blizzard significantly reduced attendance.

     Each winter presentations on the Project and its results
have been made to groups attending meetings.   These have
included the Defiance County Agronomy Day participants,
Fairview Young Farmers, Ayersville Young Farmers, various
service clubs such as Kiwanis and Child Conservation League,
and no-till meeting participants in Henry, Fulton, and
Williams Counties.

     Special events have also been held for special
audiences.  Project cooperators have met with Project staff
and the SWCD Board of Supervisors to discuss equipment,
services, and educational programs.  Several meetings have
been conducted for farmers in the Lost Creek Watershed to
explain the Project and assistance available.

     Tours can be an excellent opportunity to show people
exactly what conservation tillage looks like, as well as
viewing some unique locations such as monitoring sites or
water quality laboratories.  Each June since the Project
began, demonstration tillage plots have been toured
throughout the county.  Average attendance for each tour has
been about 20 people.

     Field days  have been held each  year  in early September,
and some  fields  have been toured at  these events.  Equipment
is also displayed and demonstrated at annual field days.   In
1982, 10  pieces  of  ridging and no-till equipment were
demonstrated to  about 150 people.  In 1983, proper no-till
spraying  techniques, ridging, and no-till anhydrous ammonia
application were seen by  90  in attendance.  Publicity  and
sponsoring of a  meal by  local agribusiness  have  helped make
these events successful.

     Tours  from  other counties into  Defiance and from
Defiance  to  other areas  have also helped  to expand knowledge;
beyond  Project boundaries.   Numerous groups from around  the
world  including  people  from  the  Netherlands and  South  Africa,
Canadian  Conservation  Authority,  farmers  and  students  from
University of  Guelph,  Ontario, and Ohio  have  visited  Defiance
County.   Also,  in July  1984,  a group of  about  20 Defiance
 farmers,  SWCD  supervisors,  and Project  staff  visited

                               -42-

-------
Heidelberg College's Water Quality Lab and farmers in the
Honey Creek Project area.  In August, a group consisting of
Defiance SWCD staff and supervisors and Defiance County
farmers visited the Essex Region Conservation Authority in
Canada.  Several conservation projects were viewed and
conservation tillage fields were toured.

     Training was conducted mostly through individual
contacts as well as through some meetings.  Project
cooperators were trained in what pesticides and fertilizer to
use on their no-till crops through pre-planting visits with
Project staff.  These cooperators were also trained in proper
equipment operation when no-till or ridging equipment is
delivered to the field.  Project staff and the farmer set up
the planter or ridger and then the farmer was instructed on
proper planting depth and adjustment, planting speed, etc.
The farmer then planted the demonstration plot on his own.

     Training on the small group level was also incorporated
into many of the meetings when topics such as variety
selection, pest identification and control, and fertility
programs were covered.  Farmers attending Pesticide
Recertification Training sessions taught by the Assistant
County Agent were also instructed on special techniques and
problems that they need to be aware of in conservation
ti11 age.

     Newsletters have been an important method of
communication with those interested in the Demonstration
project.  Through June of 1982, existing Extension, SWCD, and
ASCS newsletters were used to reach county farmers, but in
July of 1982, a Defiance County-Lost Creek Demonstration
Project newsletter was initiated.  A mailing list was
compiled from people who had attended tours and meetings,
Project cooperators, and those who owned or farmed land in
the Lost Creek Watershed.  Currently, about 300 names are on
the list.

     Project newsletters covered current topics of importance
such as plot signup, equipment availability, pest problems,
and upcoming tours, and meetings.  The newsletter was
normally prepared and distributed on a monthly basis.

     Many other informational and educational activities were
carried out to reach as many people as possible.  A good
working relationship with the farm editor of the local
newspaper allowed excellent coverage of tours and meetings as
well as publication of articles and news photos.

     The Assistant County Agent worked into the television
schedule with other Extension agents and appeared on WTVG-TV
                               -43-

-------
Channel 13, Toledo, Ohio, periodically on noon news
broadcasts.  Through television, a large number of people
could learn of the Project and related topics.

     Early in the Project, several radio presentations were
made on WONW,  Defiance, Ohio; WBNO, Bryan, Ohio; and WOWO,
Ft. Wayne, Indiana, to explain the purpose of the program.
The radio media was also used to announce meetings and tours.

     Two brochures were printed and distributed to a LI county
farmers through the ASCS and SWCD newsletter mailings.  These
small fact sheets described the Project, its purpose, and
assistance available.  Brochures were printed in early 1981
and mid-1983, and sent to 2,600 people on the ASCS mailing
list and 1,400 on the SWCD list.  They were also distributed
at meetings and the fair booth.

     The SWCD booth at the Defiance County Fair was another
opportunity to inform more people about the Project.  Each
year at least a portion of the booth had pictures and
materials  on the Demonstration Project.  In 1983, the entire
booth's theme was the Lost Creek Demonstration Project with
an extensive photo series of Project activities.  Reports and
brochures  were also available, and the Assistant County Agent,
produced a slide-tape show that was on exhibit for several
days during the fair.  The Hiniker ridging cultivator and tho
grain-weighing device were on display at the  fair in  1983,
and in 1984 and 1985, the no-till drill was displayed.

     A very important information/education activity  was the
publishing of an annual Demonstration Report  that detailed
each tillage demonstration performed in the Project.  Data
shown  included tillage operations performed,  herbicide and
insecticide useage, seed varieties, and yields.  Overall
average yields and average yields based on soil type  and
residue type were also included.  Sections of each report
also deal  with no-till management, nitrogen and phoshporus
management and water quality monitoring.  Many reports were
distributed to interested farmers and others.

     In March 1984, two  no-till surveys were  sent out, one to
county farmers and one to area  farm equipment dealers.  The
purpose of these surveys was to get some  idea of the  trend of
area farmers toward using more  reduced tillage.  Response by
the equipment dealers  showed much higher  sales of no-till
planters  in the past four years.  Response by county  farmers
was low,  but most  of those who  responded  either were  using
conservation tillage or  were interested  in doing so.

     SEDIMENT LOADING

     Ground cover  and  residue management  are  effective means
of erosion control.  The  more cover you  have  on the  soil

                               -44-

-------
surface to intercept the rainfall,  the lower the erosion
rates.

     Cover management can be accomplished through rotations
that include small grains and hay,  no tillage crop production
and minimum tillage using such tools as the chisel plow and
field cultivators.

     The typical conventional method of tillage in the county
is the use of the moldboard plow after harvest.  This method
inverts the crop residue and exposes soil to the impacts of
rainfall and runoff.  As a result,  little or no residue
remains on the surface during the critical erosion periods.
A typical rotation of corn, soybeans, and wheat where the
primary tillage is fall moldboard plowing results in erosion
rates of an average of two tons per acre per year.  This is
on soils with slopes of less than two percent, typical of the
eastern three-quarters of the county.  On soils with slopes
of two to six percent found in the northwestern portion of
the county, this results in soil loss rates in the three to
10-ton range.  These losses are based on the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE), which computes average soil movement
from a given area in tons per acre per year.  The primary
factors involved in the equation are rainfall, soil type,
length and steepness of slope, and the tillage type used and
crop rotation.  It does not predict the amount of soil
transported to the receiving stream corridor.  The soil
particles that reach the streams, however, are major
contributing factors to water quality degradation.  Their
effect on water quality is mainly the result of the
composition of attached materials.

     Based on USLE calculation, the use of cover and residue
management in the study area has reduced soil movement by an
average of one-third, with a range of 28 to 50 percent.

     The higher the clay content in the soil profile,
generally the more chemically active and readily trans-
portable the soil particle is.  In Defiance County, over 90
percent of the soils have a clay content greater than 40
percent.  Once detached, the clay particles remain in
suspension for considerable distances, up to 100 miles or
more.  Thus, for example, the erosion of one ton of soil with
a high clay content may present a more serious threat to
water quality than a five ton loss from a soil that is higher
in sand and silt content.  The sands and silts require a
higher water velocity to move them through the stream
corridor and have smaller amounts of nutrients attached to
them.
                               -45-

-------
     More complete data relating to this section is discussed
in the reports from Dr. Terry Logan of OSU and Dr.  David
Baker of Heidelberg College mentioned previously in this
report.
     The trapezoidal flume was determined to be most
     ideal for measuring stream flow from the Upper
     Lost Creek Subwatershed.  The rate of flow is con-
     stantly being recorded and water samples are drawn
     every six hours except at high flow when they are
     collected hourly.
                               -46-

-------
VII. CONCLUSIONS

     How has the Defiance County-Lost Creek Demonstration
Project affected the adoption of conservation tillage in the
county?  There is no way to accurately determine what the
situation would be today if the Project had not been in
place, but the level of implementation would be substantially
less than the current situation.  There are no accurate
figures on the amount of conservation tillage that occurred
five years ago as the definition of conservation tillage has
changed since that time.  However, an estimate that
conservation tillage has grown from less than 1,000 acres to
a current level of 27,000 acres seems realistic.  When a
person drives about the county during May and June, it is
surprising to see the large number of farmers applying
conservation tillage to their land.  The county is by no
means at an acceptable level of adoption, but many farmers,
independent of the District office, are using no-tillage on
.some of their acreage.  More frequently than before, farmers
come into the District office requesting assistance or
information regarding a conservation tillage practice they
have been using or seeking advice concerning a new practice
they would like to add to their conservation tillage program.

     Since the beginning of the Project, various changes have
taken place with the several agencies involved.  It is
difficult to state whether these changes were a result of the
Project or the result of the national trend toward conserva-
tion tillage.  These changes may not have been something
concrete or tangible, but more or less a change in attitude
or program direction.

    One impact of the Project was on the Defiance Soil &
Water District itself.  Although one of the objectives of the
District in the past was to promote soil conservation
practices, many of the practices were drainage oriented.
Although drainage is still an integral part of the program,
the protection of the soil and water resources has gained
more attention.   More emphasis is being placed on erosion
control when drainage practices are installed.  For example,
where a structure or waterway might be installed to improve
drainage or to prevent a gully,  the cooperating farmer is
also encouraged to adopt other measures that will keep the
soil in place and reduce the amount of sediment entering the
streams and lakes.

     Although progress reporting in ASCS and SCS is now
geared toward the amount of soil saved by the installation of
conservation practices,  both agencies are beginning to
recognize the improvement of water quality as an objective in
their programs.   In Ohio,  the SCS is providing training in
water quality for both District and SCS personnel.   SCS is

                               -47-

-------
also emphasizing the development of complete Resource
Management Systems for cooperators.

     Probably the best example of intragency cooperation was
bringing the rainfall simulator to Defiance County.  The
SWCD, SCS, CES, USDA-ARS, and OSU were all involved in this
venture and each of them performed the task required of them
with no problem.  It has been this kind of cooperation that
has brought both national and international attention to the
efforts employed to improve water quality in Northwestern
Ohio.

     During recent years, approximately 2,000 to 2,500 acres
and 50 to 55 cooperators have been involved in the Project
annually.  This was about the maximum number that could be
handled effectively with the size of staff and number of
planters available and maintain accuracy.  Even at the level
of 2,000 to 2,500 acres per year, it was sometimes questioned
whether the Project had become an implementation program
rather than a demonstration project.  This was especially
true when several cooperators desired the use of equipment on
a major portion of their acreage.

     Early in the Project, equipment dealers were very
reluctant to become involved with the conservation tillage
effort.  However, with the slow farm economy, sales of large
equipment have declined and dealers began to realize that the
conservation tillage effort may help to promote the sale of
no-till planters.  Even though the financial conditions of
many of the farm equipment dealers is not the best, they are
now more willing to lend support  to conservation tillage both
in terms of providing equipment and in assisting with  field
days and educational meetings.

     One of the characteristics of the northwestern Ohio
farming community brought out by  the Demonstration Project-
was  that  farmers as a group are somewhat conservative  and
reluctant to make drastic changes in tillage practices.  They
are  slow  to change and perhaps rightfully so when  one
considers they  are being requested to change from  a
traditionally  proven system to one that  is  relatively  new arid
unproven  over  the long term.  Farmers are inquisitive  and
willing  to  try  new things, but  in general,  they will use a
system with which they are comfortable and  feel less
threatened  by  risk.  Over a period of time,  as they  gain
confidence  with no-tillage crop production,  it will  be
adopted  by  them on a  larger scale.

      Through  the  Project, many  farmers have become aware  that
conservation  tillage will have  a  place  in  their  farming
operation.  Under proper management,  most  farmers  can
 incorporate conservation tillage  into their farming
operations  and still  maintain economically  productive  levels.

                               -48-

-------
     Management  is the key to successful conservation
tillage.   Yield  checks on the conservation tillage plots
affirmed  some  common beliefs while disproving  others.  For
example,  no-till corn can be grown most successfully after
low residue  crops, particularly soybeans,  and  this holds true
on the very  poorly-drained as well as the well-drained soils.
Soybeans  grown after corn, whether no-tilled or
conventionally-tilled, are likely to produce higher yields
than when grown  after other crops.  As with corn, yields of
no-till soybeans on the poorly-drained soils were similar to
conventionally grown soybeans.

     In terms  of economics, the immediate profits for no-till
and conventional tillage systems are similar in  Defiance
County.  On  most farms, there is little difference in
yield and the  costs of production remain approximately the
same.  There is  less fuel consumed using no-till but this is
generally offset by the need to use a contact  herbicide to
control existing vegetation.  Even though many are using
conservation tillage, they have not accepted it  to the point
where they will  reduce their capital investment  by decreasing
the size  or  amount of equipment, thereby decreasing their
costs of  production.  One area where the farmer  will realize
an advantage is  timeliness of planting which could be
reflected in improved yields or the ability to farm more land
with the  same  line of equipment.
                                 TO  SWITCH TO
                                  NO-TILL,
                                 TWO THINGS
                                HAVE TO CHANGE...
                                      XQOR
                                      D AND YOUR
                                PLANTER/2
             \   /
                              -49-

-------
VIII.  RECOMMENDATIONS

     As previously mentioned, farmers are adopting
conservation tillage, but will the period of time it takes
them to convert be longer than the water quality goals set by
Congress and administered by USEPA?  Perhaps now is the time
to initiate a study to determine the agricultural community's
attitude toward conservation tillage and the water quality
problem.  Farmers in Defiance County have had access to
equipment and technical assistance for five planting seasons
with a good number of farmers participating in the
demonstration project.  Yet, it appears that the overall
adoption of the conservation tillage in the county is
relatively low.  Why haven't more farmers changed tillage
methods?  Are they in the process of changing now?  What
would it take to make them change?  Answers to these
questions and others need to be known before good
recommendations on future programs can be made.

     For the present, local units of government need to be
made aware of the importance of the conservation tillage
effort and that sometime in the future more responsibility
may be given them to improve water quality from nonpoint
sources.

     AGENCY PROGRAMS

     With respect to the roles agencies should play in the
future,  soil and water conservation districts should
continue working with cooperators as in the past, but need to
emphasize that their role is not that of a "planter jockey"
but the role of a conservationist.  Their overall purpose in
helping cooperators get started with conservation tillage
systems should be clearly defined.

     The educational program needs to be strengthened.  As
was stated earlier, the Cooperative Extension Service has
been cooperating, but conservation is just a part of their
overall program responsibilities.  More emphasis needs to be
placed on local media coverage of tillage activities in the
county either by CES or the District.  The educational
program is being assisted by farm periodicals which emphasize
conservation tillage through articles and commercial adver-
tisements .

     In the past, ASCS has provided cost-share payments to
farmers implementing conservation tillage on their farms.
While this was an encouragement for farmers to use the
practice, in many cases, it had little long-term effect.  If
this incentive is to be used in the future, it needs some
stipulation tied in to assure some long-term effect.  This
                               -50-

-------
stipulation could involve requiring a specific crop rotation
or requiring the funds be used toward the purchase of
conservation tillage equipment.

     FUTURE PROGRAMS

     As for the future of the Demonstration Project, the
District intends to continue to operate Project equipment,
probably at a reduced level during the next several years.
Several sources of funding are being investigated with county
and/or state government being requested to supply funding for
personnel to conduct the conservation tillage aspect of the
Project.  SCS has made a commitment to Heidelberg College to
assist in the continued monitoring of the Upper Lost Creek
Watershed.  This continued study will involve a closer
examination of impacts from the pesticides being applied in
this watershed.
                               -51-

-------
                        REFERENCES

(1)   Agronomy Guide 1983-84, Bulletin  472,  Cooperative
     Extension Service,, The Ohio  State University,
     February 1983

(2)   Ohio Agricultural Statistics J-9JH,  U.S.   Department of
     Agricultural, Statistical Reporting Service,  August
     1984.

(3)   Ohio Farm I ncome 1983, U.S.  Department of Agriculture,
     Statiscal Reporting ^ervice, November  1984.

(*)   Soil Survey of Defiance Cmanty^ Ohio,  U.S.  Department
     of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,  U.S.
     Government Printing Office,  Washington,  D,C.,  July
     1984.

(5)   Logan, T. J.f Corrbmuej Watershed Monitoring  and
     Rainulator Study, Volume  IV, The  Ohio  State Unniversity
     _____


(6)   Neibling, W. H., 0, R. Stein,  T.  J. Logan,  and W.  C.
     Moldenhauer. Slojj. L_oss» _from  New and No-Till Ridges on
     Low Gradient, Paulding Clay. National  Soil Erosion
     Laboifatory, USDA-ARS  in Cooperation with Purdue
     Agricultural Experiuroent  Station  West  Lafayette,
     Indiana, 1985

(7)  Defiance County-^Lost  Cjrejak  Demons_t_r_a_t ion Project 1981
     Demons tFaj^orf^epoFt ,~DeTTance Soil and Water
     ConservatTon™Di strict, February 1982.

(8)  Defiance Co_unty-L_o_s_t  C££ek  Demonstration Project 1982
     DemolTsTr'a t ion Report,  Defiance Soil and Water
     Conservation District, February 1983.
 (9)   Defiance County-Lost C_reek_ Demo n s^trj tj^qn Project 1983
      De_mons tr at ion Rego r t ,  Defiance Soil and Water
      Conservation District, February 1984.

(ID)   Baker,  Dr. David B. , Nutrient, Sediment and Pesticide
      Runoff  from the Lost Creek Watershed, Defiance County,
      Ohio."" Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College,
      Tiffin, Ohio, June 1986.
                                 -52-

-------
            APPENDIX   A
            VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
DEFIANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

-------
                                                     Defiance Soil and Water Conservation Distric
                           R R. 2, BOX 11,66 NORTH DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512 PHONE 782-8751
                            VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
Position Title
   Administrative Technician

Position Location
   Defiance, Ohio
   Defiance County
Salary & Benefits
Salary Negotiable
10 paid holidays
Blue Cross-Blue Shield Health Plan
80 hrs./yr. vacation leave
120 hrs./yr. sick leave
Public Employees Retirement System
Workmen's Compensation
Position Description
     The employee occupying this position will assist the District  Supervisors
and staff in carrying our their responsibilities as grantees of a water  quality
demonstration grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.   The em-
ployee will be directly responsible to the district board of supervisors with
existing staff providing guidance and assistance in daily operations.

     This position has been established to facilitate the implementation of a
water quality demonstration program.  General tasks are to:

          1)  Coordinate project activities with Cooperative Extension
              Service, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
              Heidelberg College and landowners in the project area.

          2)  Provide technical assistance to landowners applying conserv-
              ation practices in order to carry out project objectives.

          3)  Assist the project secretary in maintaining adequate  records
              to sufficiently document the grants requirement of 25%  local
              funding.

          4)  Assist the Assistant County Agent in developing and carrying
              out an information and education program.

          5)  Secure needed equipment and supplies necessary to carry out
              the project objectives.

          6)  Serve as the district's representative in all contract  nego-
              tiations required for the successful completion of the  pro-
              ject.

          7)  Assist in daily functions of the District.
Position Requirements
          1)  Education beyond high school, or high school graduate plus
              related agricultural experience.
                                     -54-

-------
Defiance SWCD - Vacancy Announcement
Position Title - Administrative Technician
          2)   Practical knowledge of agriculture and the ability to work
              with agricultural equipment.

          3)   Applicants must be able to effectively communicate in writing
              and verbally to individuals and groups.

          4)   The ability to gain the confidence and cooperation of land-
              owners in trying new and unadopted conservation practices.

          5)   Show initiation and the ability to plan programs.

          6)   The ability to interpret a variety of technical materials,
              to define problems, collect data and draw valid conclusions.

          7)   A valid Ohio Driver License.

          8)   Able to do field work that includes extensive walking and
              some manual labor.
Employment Conditions
     This position is full time - 80 hours per two-week pay period.  Hours of
work are flexible.  This position is subject to all conditions of the District
Personnel Employment Policy.  Attendance at occasional night meetings is re-
quired.
Salary
     Starting salary is negotiable based on experience and education, but
should be in the area of $12,000.
Method of Evaluation
     All candidates responding to this vacancy announcement will be evaluated
on their experience, educational background and special skills.  Those best
qualified will be interviewed by the board of supervisors.
How to Apply
     Individuals are asked to apply in writing to Albert Schroeder, Chairman,
Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District, Rt. 2, Box 11, 66N, Defiance,
Ohio 43512.  Applications with resume and references must be received by
5:00 P. M., Friday, September 19, 1980.

Applicants will be evaluated without regard to race, color, religion, sex or
national origin.
                                    -55-

-------
               APPENDIX   B






DEFIANCE COUNTY - LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT



                 1985 GUIDELINES






  DEFIANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

-------
           DEFIANCE  SOIL & WATER  CONSERVATION  DISTRICT

          ROUTE 2 • BOX 11  •  STATE ROUTE 66 NORTH • DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512 • (419)782-8751
       DEFIANCE COUNTY  -  LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - 1985  GUIDELINES
 GENERAL GUIDELINES

 1.  A signed application must be on file with the SWCD for a farmer to "be
     considered a project cooperator.

 2.  All plots will  have a comparison "between at least two tillage practices.

 3.  Cooperators shall keep records of all cultural practices on  demonstration
     plots, and allow tours of the crop, have a yield check taken and permit
     publication of  this information.  A cooperator will risk being ineligible
     for future equipment use should be not comply with these requirements.

 k.  The SWCD will schedule equipment for the good of the project.  Early and
     new applicants  will receive priority if scheduling becomes a problem.

 5.  Fields for demonstration plots shall be well-drained with no serious weed
     history.  Plot  sites are subject to approval by project personnel.

 6.  All fields shall have a recent (within 2 years) soil test from Ohio State
     University.  If a field does not have a current soil test, the SWCD will
     have a cooperator submitted soil sample analyzed at no cost  to the
     cooperator.

 1.  All demonstration plots will be included in a Pest Management Program at
     no charge.

 8.  The acreage limit for the planters will be ho acres per crop for each
     farm operation.  A fee will be assessed to the cooperator on acreages
     over hO acres per crop.  This fee will be $5 per acre where  the district
     planter is used and $10 per acre if a tractor is supplied with the
     equipment.  This guideline does not apply to land in the Lost Creek
     Watershed or to farmers demonstrating ridge-till on fine textured soils.
     (sandy clay, silty clay, clay)

 9.  The acreage limit for the no-till grain drill will be 1*0 acres per crop
     or one day.

10.  All equipment will be used in Defiance County only.
 MO-TILL GUIDELINES

 1.  Recommended plot size for no-till is 5 to 20 acres.

 2.  Planters  are  not available for replant except on fields  in  the plot
     program.
                                    -58-

-------
3.  Several no-till planters  and a no-till drill will be available  for  no-till
    corn or soybeans.   Planters are 6-30" rows,  and one can also plant  15"
    soybeans.

h.  Planters are to be used primarily for no-till, but may be used  to plant
    adjacent tillage plots to gain a uniform comparison.

5.  All planters are equipped for dry fertilizer, which farmer will supply.
RIDGING GUIDELINES

1.  Two pieces of equipment are available for ridging.  These are:  6 row
    disk ridger for forming ridges in the fall; and a 6 row cultivator for
    forming ridges during summer cultivation.

2.  Best results for fall ridging occur on a field that is plowed following
    wheat harvest, then worked and land leveled then ridged.

3.  Ridged plots should have a comparison between ridge and flat.

U.  Cooperators are encouraged to plant on the same ridge a minimum of two
    years.
FALL TILLAGE GUIDELINES

1.  The  district owned dick-chisel plow will be restricted to use in the
    Lost  Creek Watershed.

2.  Persons wishing to demonstrate conservation tillage  (chisel plowing)
    may  do so with their own equipment.  Project services, including yield
    checks, will be provided to these cooperators.
                                       -59-

-------
            APPENDIX   C

   1984 GUIDELINES FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS
                   IN THE
         UPPER LOST CREEK WATERSHED


DEFIANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

-------
           DEFIANCE  SOIL & WATER   CONSERVATION  DISTRICT
          ROUTE 2 • BOX 11  •  STATE ROUTE 66 NORTH « DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512  • (419)782-8751
1984 Guidelines for Incentive Payments in the Upper Lost Creek Watershed

Purpose;   Even though many  of the soils in the Upper Lost Creek Watershed
being monitored by the Defiance  Soil and Water Conservation District are
better suited for conservation tillage than others in the county,  the
Board of Supervisors has  decided to provide an incentive payment to those
landowners and/or farmers in the watershed who implement no-tillage
crop-production practices.  The  rationale for this decision is that with the
monitoring program in this  watershed, it is imperative that conservation
tillage,  particulary no-till, be implemented to the maximum so that its
effects on water quality  can be  measured.

Equipment:  District planting and tillage equipment is available at no cost
to cooperating farmers.   In the  scheduling of equipment, farms in the
watershed are given priority.

Payment Rate for No-Tillage:  Row Crops or Drilled Soybeans - $UO per acre
                             Cover Crops, Wheat or Oats    - $10 per acre

Time of Payment:  Spring  planted crops - August 198U

Determination of Field Size and  Eligibility:  Field size will be determined
from A.S.C.S. measurements  or actual field measurements if fields have been
split or boundaries have  changed.  If at least 50% of a field lies within
the watershed, payment will be made on the entire field.  If less than 50%
of a field lies within the  watershed, payment will be made on the basis  of
actual acres.  The Defiance SWCD Board of Supervisors have the final authority
in the question of any disputes  arising from field eligibility or size.

Fall Tillage on Fields Where Payment is made:  Where no-till corn is grown
in 198*4-,  the District's no-till  drill may be used to seed a cover crop.
Fall tillage will be limited to  light disking or disk-chisel plowing.

Where no-till soybeans are  grown in 198U, no fall tillage will be permitted.
If wheat  follows soybeans,  the District's no-till drill may be used to sow
wheat or if the 1985 crop will be corn, it is recommended that the farmer
consider  planting a cover crop.  The no-till drill may be used to seed the
cover crop or it may be flown on before bean harvest.

From this date on where no-till  wheat, oats, or spring or summer seeded cover
crop has  received incentive payment from the Defiance SWCD, fall tillage may
consist of disking or disk-chisel plowing.  If corn is expected to the the
1985 crop, no-tillage planting is encouraged.

In summary, it is the opinion of  the Board of Supervisors, that fall plowing
not be permitted on land  where incentive payments have been made.   S.C.S. and
District  personnel are more than willing to assist in planning an erosion
control program that will also be economically attractive to the farmer.

                                    -62-

-------
                 APPENDIX   D

                 1984 AND FINAL REPORT
PHOSPHORUS FERTILITY MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                          FOR
   DEFIANCE AREA SOILS HIGH IN AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS

                   MARION E, KROETZ

-------
                         1984 AND FINAL REPORT
             PHOSPHORUS FERTILITY MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION

                PROJECT FOR DEFIANCE AREA SOILS HIGH IN

                         AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS


OSU Research Foundation Project No. 714743


Accomplishments

     This report summarizes the data from the third and final year of the
phosphorus demonstration program and includes two and three year data when
appropriate.  Attached to this report are final reports for 1982 and 1983.

     Cooperators in the program were asked to compare three phosphorus rates
on soils with phosphorus test above 40.  Several of the locations had test
below 40 with the lowest test in the program 23 Lb. available phosphorus per
acre.  Treatment A was their normal phosphorus rate, Treatment B the recommended
rate in the Ohio Agronomy Guide which is crop removal or less for fields with
phosphorus test above 30, and Treatment C no phosphorus.  These rates were
selected to demonstrate that the recommendations in the Agronomy Guide provide
sufficient phosphorus with yield about the same for all treatments.  Most
cooperators normal  rate was about the same as recommended rate, and therefore
only have Treatments B and C.

     The demonstration was set up to be convenient for the cooperator and as a
result, some locations had two variables.  The easiest way to get the zero
phosphorus rate (Treatment C) was to shut off row fertilizer.  Therefore,
Treatment C has a phosphorus variable and also a row fertilizer variable at
most locations.  Plant analysis was used to determine if yield difference was
due to phosphorus or another nutrient supplied by row fertilizer.

     Ohio's research shows that optimium soil phosphorus test for corn is
40 Lbs. available phosphorus per acre and for soybeans 30 Lbs. per acre.  These
were the level  where yield was not increased by applying phosphorus or in-
creasing the phosphorus level in the soil.  The top of the phosphorus response
curve for wheat is  around 60 Lbs./acre.  Phosphorus recommendations in the
Ohio Agronomy Guide provides crop removal rates of phosphorus for corn and
soybeans with phosphorus soil test between 30 and 60, less than crop removal
between 60 and 90 and zero phosphorus when soil test is about 90 except with
very high yield goals.  Phosphorus recommendations for soils testing below 30
is the amount needed to produce the same yield as would be achieved with a test
above 30.  Phosphorus crop removal for 150 bu. corn is 60 Lbs. P90,-/acre and
60 bu.  soybeans 50  Lbs. P00C/A.                                   b
                         <- b
     Seven corn, two soybeans, and two wheat demonstrations were completed in
1984.   Four demonstrations were lost due to fertilizer spreading  and  harvesting
problems.  Twenty one (21) corn, 10. soybeans, and 2 wheat demonstrations were
completed during the three years of the project.  Table 1 list production
practices for all  15 locations in 1984.

                                    -64-

-------
                                                            Page 2


     Yield and related information for 1984 are reported in Table 2.   The
aveage phosphorus rate used on corn in Treatment B was 47 Lbs./acre which
is less than crop removal but more than recommended for an average test  of  88.
Corn yield for Treatment B was slightly higher than Treatment C, but probably
not significant.  Most of the yield difference for Treatment B occurred on
two farms, Colonial  Hill (location 75) and Clarence Oberlitner (location 76.)
Plant analysis (Table 4) shows the biggest difference between Treatment B and
C was potassium level at initial silk on these farms.  Since location 76 did
not have potassium in row fertilizer, this effect, if real, was probable due
to improved root system usually associated with row fertilizer.  Three locations
with visual difference observed from row fertilizer had no yield difference.

     Location 77 had a 2.6 bu. yield increase from row fertilizer.  Again,
plant analysis shows the biggest difference with  potassium level.   Manganese
deficiency was observed in Treatment C at this location and could be re-
sponsible for the yield difference if real.  Acidifying effect of row
fertilizer often prevents manganese deficiency.

     Response to phosphorus on wheat was associated with soil test level.
Phosphorus increased yield about 15 bu./acre at Wayne Dinius (location 21)
where soil phosphorus test was low and had no effect on yield at John Rettig
(location 42) where phosphorus soil test was high.

     Three year yield summary is listed in Table 3.  The yield difference for
the 21 corn demonstration was 3.:5 bu./acre favoring crop removal rate of
phosphorus over no phosphorous.  This small yield difference is primarily due
to 3 locations, the two locations previously mentioned from 1984 and one
location in 1982 with a 21.9 bu. increase from phosphorous (row fertilizer).
Plant analysis showed the increase  in  1982 was from nitrogen  in the row
fertilizer, not phosphorous.

     Three year summary for the 10 soybean demonstrations show no yield
difference from phosphorous and/or row fertilizer.  Treatment B had average
yield of 42.2 bu./acre and Treatment C 42.6 bu./acre.

     Plant analysis are summarized in Table 4.  Phosphorous level for both
corn and soybeans are similar for Treatment B and C.  The main difference
between Treatment B and C was potassium level.  As suggested earlier, this
could be .the effect on root development.  However, it could also be an
environmental or some other effect.

     Phosphorous soil test comparisons are listed in Tables 5,6 and 7.  Table
5 list six locations comparing 1982 and 1984 test.  Some individual farms show
big variation between the two years.  The summary shows very little difference
between 1982 starting test and Treatment C with no phorphorous for two years.
One year comparisons in Table 6 and 7 shows the same trend.

     Research at Purdue and other locations shows that the drawdown of
phosphorous in the soil is very slow.  The yield levels in this demonstrations
would draw down phosphorous soil  test about 3 Lbs./year according to Purdue's
research.  At this drawdown rate, it would take about 17 years to reduce the
phosphorous soil test from 90 to 40 Lbs./acre when no phosphorous is applied.
                                     -65-

-------
                                                            Page 3


     The data in Tables 5-7 illustrates the problem with making recommendations
from a single soil test.  Wide variations in results make dealers and other
reluctant to recommend less than crop removal  rates.  Average for all locations
tends to give more reliable information from soil  test, plant analysis, and
yield comparisons than individual farm data.  Farmers need to soil test every
1 to 3,years with multiple samples from a unit of land to determine the
actual soil fertility level for the farm.  With multiple samples, high phos-
phorous level farms can be identified and lower than crop removal rates of
phosphorous can be recommended with confidence.

SUMMARY

     This three year phosphorous demonstration program provided results
similar to Ohio's research showing corn and soybean yield did not increase
from fertilizer phosphorous when soil phorphorous level is above 40 Lbs./acre.
This should provide growers confidence in using recommendations that call
from crop removal rates or less when soil test are 30 or higher.

     Since we also had a row fertilizer is variable in this demonstration, we
do not want growers to conclude that row fertilizer should not be used.  While
the data suggests that there was no response to phosphorus in the row,  we
recognize the need to apply low rates of phosphorus  to maintain fertility
level on many farms.  Phosphorus should be placed  in the soil  rather than
on surface, especially in conservation tillage to avoid buildup of phosphorus
at the surface which could result in increase  phosphorus leaving the soil  with
runoff.  Also there are times when nitrogen in row fertilizer is needed for
early growth.  Therefore, row fertilizer is still  a good practice.

     Plans are to include this data in an Extension publication than can be
distributed throughout Ohio.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

     Special thanks to the farmers in Northwest Ohio for conducting these
demonstrations with their County Extension Agent, Agriculture.  Also thanks
to Dr. Terry Logan for laboratory and other support of the project and to
USEPA for their financial assistance.

PROJECT PERSONNEL:

     Marion E. Kroetz - District Specialist, Agronomy
     Bill Rohrs - Defiance County Extension Agent, Agriculture
     Bob Cole - Henry County Extension Agent, Agriculture
     Dave Reed - Fulton County Extension Agent, Agriculture
     Harry Freeman - Hancock County Extension Agent, Agriculture
     George Ropp - Van Wert County Extension Agent, Agriculture
     Terry Logan - Dept. of Agronomy, Ohio State University
REPORT PREPARED BY:

     Marion E. Kroetz

     February, 1985                  _66_

-------
Table 1.   Test Conditions  for Phosphorus  Demonstration,  1984.
Location
County
Soil Type
19R4 Crop
1983 Crop
Beginning Soil
Test Year
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
CEC
Drainage
Planting Date
Hybrid or
Variety
Seed Drop
Tillage
Row Fertilizer
Analysis
Row Fertilizer
Lb./A.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
Nitrogen Lb./A.
(Does not include
Row N)
Source of
Nitrogen
Date of Nitrogen
Application
Potassium Lb./A.
(Does not include
Row K
Herbicides
Insecticides
Phosphorus
Lb. P205/A.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
11
Defiance
Hoytville
Corn
Soybeans
1982
6.2
108 .
321
5230
449
19
Tile
5-14
Cargill
436
25900
No Till
6-28-28
_
171
137Vo-48
244
Anhydrous
6-12
_
Atrazine
1.5 qt.
Dual 1 qt.
2,4-D h pt
Banvel k pt
Nnnp
48
n
21
Fulton
Hoytville
Wheat
Soybeans
1982
7.0
47
335
5690
813
18
Tile
10-15
Caldwell
135 Ih.
Disk
6-26-26
275
275f-13-26
275#6-0-26
70
Ammonium
Sulfate
Sprine

None
Nonp
71
36
0
22
Fulton
Ottokee
Corn
Corn
1982
6.0
306
702
1960
355
8
Tile
5-16
Pioneer
3744
?6rooo
Fall Disk
9-23-11

200
200Vo-n
170
28
% Planting
J« Sidedres

Atrazine
Dual
TMmPt
46
0
24
Fulton

Corn
PIK
1984
6.9
260
269
4935
325
15
Tile
5-10
Rupp
1690
77,200
Spring Plow
19-17-0

200
0
, 168

Plantine

Bladex
Atrazine
Sutan
Counter
34
0
32
Hancock
Lenawee
Corn
Soybeans
1982
6.5
63
267
5220
860
19
Tile and
Surface
5-15
Landmark
733
?6, son
Fnll Ch1.se!
None
0
0
0
210
60// - 28%
,i50# - Anhydr
Planting an
Sidedress
90
Bicep
None
44
0

-------
Table 1.   Test Conditions for Phosphorus Demonstration,  1904.
Location
County
Soil Type
1984 Crop
1983 Crop
Beginning Soil
Test Year
PH
P
K
Ca
MR
CEC
Drainage
Planting Date
Hybrid or
Variety
Seed Drop
Tillage
Row Fertilizer
Analysis
Row Fertilizer
Lb./A.
Treatment A
Treatment 6
Treatment C
Nitrogen Lb./A.
(Docs not include
Row N)
Source of
Nitrogen
Date of Nitrogen
Application
Potassium Lb./A.
(Does not include
Row K
Herbicides
Insecticides
Phosphorus
Lb. P205/A.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
36
Hancock
Blount
Soybeans
Corn
1982
7.2
53
211
3390
877
12
Tile and
Surface
6-18
Asgrow
3127
220.000
Fall Disk
2-6-12
_
180
0

-
-
120
Dual
Lorox
None
11
0
37
Hancock
Hoytville
Corn
Corn
1983
7.3
38
308
5870
528
17
Tile
6-5
Asgrow
3127
130.000
Fall Plow
5-15-40
-
150
0

-
-
-
Sencor
Dual
None
22
0
'38
Hancock
Blount
Soybeans
Corn
1983
7.0
79
285
3890
656
13
Tile
6-7
Voris
339
175.000
Fall Plow
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
108
Lorox
Lasso

88
44
42
Henry
Hoytville
Wheat
Soybeans
1982
6.3
103
411
7050
688
25
Tile
10-10
Hart
120 Ib.
Fall Disk
-
-
—
-
_
-
-
40
-
—
78
39
0
47
Henry
Oakville
Corn
Soybeans
1984
6.5
38
194
1720
275
7
Tile
May 10
Bojac
451
28900
No Till
8-23-5
-
160
0
230
Anhydrous
Sidedress
138
Aatrex
Dual
Banvel
None
37
0

-------
Table 1.  Test Conditions  for Phosphorus  Demonstration,1984.
Location
County
Soil Type
Crop
Crop
Beginning Soil
Test Year
PH
P
K
Ca
MR
CEC
Drainage
Planting Date
Hybrid or
Variety
Seed Drop
Tillage
Row Fertilizer
Analysis
Row Fertilizer
Lb./A.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
Nitrogen Lb./A.
(Does not include
Row N)
Source of
Nitrogen
Date of Nitrogen
Application
Potassium Lb. /A.
(Does not include
Row K
Herbicides
Insecticides
Phosphorus
Lb. P205/A.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
48
Henry
Hoytville
Corn
Soybeans
1984
6.6
42 .
296
7020
840
24
Tile and
Surface
May 4
Cries
618
28.000
No Till
6-26-26

250
0
150
28
Sidedress
0
Atrazine
Bladex
Banvel
None
65
0
74
Van Wert
Blount-
Pewamo
Corn
Wheat
1984
6.8
23
223
6120
1035
20
Random
Tile
May 9
Pioneer
3744
25.900
Fall Plow
18-46-0

135
0
160
28
Anhydrous
42# Plantinj
118# Sidedrf
190
Atrazine
Bladex
None
62
0
75
Van Wert
Blount-
Pewamo
Corn
Soybeans
1984
6.4
45
271
4050
770
14
Tile
May 2
As grow Rx
777
25.000
Fall Plow
4-in-in

325
0
201
Anhydrous
ss Sidedress
0
Bladex
Aatrex
None
32
0
76
Van Wert
Blount-
Pewamo
Corn
Soybeans
1984
5.2
34
166
2770
620
16
Tile
May 7
Asgrow Rx
777
24,nnn
Fall dhfppl
in-34-n

185
0
170
Anhydrous
Sidedress
120
Atrazine
Dual
None
63
0
77
Van Wert
Blount-
Pewamo
Soybeans
Soybeans
1984
6.2
, 36
157-
3120
723
13
Tile and
Surface
May 17
Madison
?qnn
10/ft.
Fall CMspl
4-in-in

156
0
_
-
-
90
Lexone
Dual
None
16
0

-------
TABLE 2.  YIELD AND RELATED INFORMATION FROM PHOSPHORUS DEMONSTRATION 1984
Location

11 Bob Rettig
21 Wayne Dinius
22 Jared McClarren
32 Neil Harris
36 Darwin Searfoss
37 Ray Beck
38 Gerald Johnson
42 John Rettig
47 Bob Griteman **
74 Circle L *
JLJl.
75 Colonial Hill
76 C. Oberlitner**
77 Bob Reis **
Average
Average
Average
County

Defiance
Fulton
Fulton
Hancock
Hancock
Hancock
Hancock
Henry
Henry •
Van Wert
Van Wert
Van Wert
Van Wert



Crop

corn
wheat
corn
corn
soybean
corn
soybean
wheat
corn
corn
corn
corn
soybean
corn (7]
Early
Visual
Diff

no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no

soybeans (2)
wheat (2)
Startin
Avail .
P/A
Lb.
108
47
306
63
53
38
79
103
38
23
45
34
36
88
66
75
1 Phos. Rate
J2J P.05/A
|A B
\^ r " -l '- "-1 ]
Lb.
-
71
-
-
-
-
88
78
-
-
—
-
-
74
Lb.
48
36
46
44
11
22
44
39
37
62
32
63
16
47
27
37
Yield/A
ABC
jJu.
-
58.8
-
-
-
-
39.9
64.1
-
-
—


61.4
jBu.
108.1
57.4
171.4
160.0
35.2
-
39.6
58.1
178.2
163.3
181.9
183.7
45.2
163.8
40.2
57.7
Bu.
108.
43.
167.
154.
38.
-
-
61.
178.
166.
165.
170.
42.
158.
40.
52.
    * Old cooperator, New Location in 1984
   ** New Cooperator in 1984
Treatment A
Recommended
            - More than
Treatment B - Recommended
                                                         Treatment C - No P205
                                        -70-

-------
TABLE 3.  THREE YEAR YIELD SUMMARY FOR PHOSPHORUS DEMONSTRATION

1982
1983
1984
Average
CORN
Number
8
6
7
21
Treatment
B
Buo
127.3
105.1
163.8
133.1
C
Bu.
124.7
102.1
158.7
129.6
SOYBEANS
Number
2
6
2
10
Treatment
B
Bu.
47.3
41.1
40.2
42.2
C
Bu.
A7 n
• *
41.8
40.4
42.6





                                     -71-

-------
TABLE 4.  PLANT ANALYSIS FROM PHOSPHORUS DEMONSTRATION  1984
Location
11 Bob Rettig
22 Jared McClarren
32 Neil Harris
36 Darwin Searfoss
37 Ray Beck
38 Gerald Johnson
47 Bob Griteman
48 Jerry Waisner
74 Circle L
75 Colonial Hill
76 C, Oberlitner
77 Bob Reis
Average
Average
Crop
corn
corn
corn
soybean
corn
soybean
corn
corn
corn
corn
corn
soybean
corn
soybean
Treatment A
N
%
-
-
-
-
4.93
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
P
%
-
-
-
-
.46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
K
%
-
-
-
-
2.56
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
Treatment B
N
3.07
-
3.49
5.73
3.49
5.20
3.28
2.83
2.76
3.07
2.76
4.54
3.09
5.13
P
.27
-
.36
.41
.38
.37
.36
.30
.28
.30
.28
.37
.32
.39
K
1.51
-
2.97
2.15
2.26
2.27
2.56
1.43
1.46
1.87
2.05
2.26
2.01
2.20
Treatment C
N
3.00
-
3.25
5.41
3.62
-
2.97
2.66
2.79
3.01
3.11
4.71
3.05
5.06
P
.25
-
.36
.39
.39
-
.35
.30
.26
.31
.29
.38
.31
.38
K
1.72
-
2.34
2.06
2.19
-
2.14
1.46
1.34
2.08
1.80
1.62
1.88
1.84
                  Minimum Sufficiency Levels:
                                                      Corn
                                                      N  2.76
                                                      P   .30
                                                      K  1.90
Soybeans
4.25
 .30
2.00
                                           -72-

-------
TABLE 5.  COMPARISON OF SOIL PHOSPHORUS LEVEL  1982 - 1984
Location

11 Bob Rettig
21 Wayne Dinius
22 Jared McClarren
32 Neil Harris
36 Darwin Searfoss
42 John Rettig
Average (6)
Average (2)
Beginning
Test 1982
Lb.
108
47
306
63
53
103
113
75
1984 Test Treatment
A
<
Lb.
-
57
-
-
-
194
_
125
B
*
Lb.
50
57
231
68
45
124
96
90
C
Lb.
55
27
296
74
46
147
107
87










TABLE 6.  COMPARISON OF SOIL PHOSPHORUS LEVEL  1982 - 1983
Location

13 Bob Shininger
23 Wendell Sutton
31 Ray Beck
33 Jim Hulbert
34 Gerald Johnson
41 Tom Eggers
71 Circle L
Average
Beginning
Test 1982
Lb.
42
248
61
91
76
289
54
123
1983 Test Treatment
A
Lb.
-
-
-
-
-
260
-
. -
B
Lb.
54
. 104
48
74
28
234
54
85
C
Lb.
42
70
110
130
40
305
36
105










                                         -73-

-------
TABLE 7.  COMPARISON OF SOIL PHOSPHORUS LEVEL  1983 - 1984
Location

37 Ray Beck
38 Gerald Johnson
Beginning
Test 1983
Lb.
38
79
1984 Test
Treatment
ABC
Lb. Lb. Lb.
14 39
92 47
                                          -74-

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1  REPORT NO.
 EPA-905/9-87-001
                             2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                 5 REPORT DATE
                                                 January  1987
 The Defiance County  Lost  Creek Demonstration  Project
                                                 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

                                                  5GL
7  AUTHOR(S)
 Robert Rettig,  Project  Administrator
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Defiance
 R. R. 2,
 66 North
 Defiance, Ohio  43512
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                  GLNPO Report No. 87-01
                                                 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Soil and Water  Conservation District
Box 11
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.


   S005553-01
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
 Great Lakes National  Program Office
 111 West Jackson,  10th  Floor
 Chicago, IL 60605
                                                 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                    No-Till   1980-1985
                                                 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                    Great Lakes National  Program
                                                    Office-USEPA, Region  V
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 Ralph G. Christensen,  Project Officer
 John Lowrey, Technical  Assistance
16. ABSTRACT

 The purpose of this  project is to demonstrate methods  of reducing nutrient  runoff
 and improving water  quality flowing from non-point  sources to Lake Erie  specifi-
 cally from agricultural  land.

 The Project proposed to  demonstrate and measure  the effectiveness of Best
 Management Practices in  reducing sediment and nutrient loss from agricultural
 land.  Best Management  Practices are soil conservation practices which are
 expected to have a beneficial  impact on water quality.

 Several unique and innovative  practices were to  be  demonstrated on the fine
 textured lake plain  soils  and  the suitability of these practices as they relate
 to  crop production was  also to be evaluated.  Primary  conservation practices
 demonstrated were no-till  and  ridge till land management along with fertilizer
 and pesticide application.   Pest scouting was also  done.

 An  effective information and education program was  to  be designed and carried  out
 to  gain acceptance of the  conservation program in the  Defiance County Project.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
 Phosphorus
 No-Till
 Water Quality Practices
 Runoff
 Total-P
 Sediment Concentrations
 Erosion
                  Clay  Content
                  Ridge Till
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                 COSATI Field/Group
13, DISTRIBUTIPN STATEMENT. ,
 Document is a available  to  public through
 the National Information Service(NTIS)
 Springfield, VA 22161
                                    19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
              21  NO. OF PAGES

                84	
                                    20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
                                                               22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------