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)
------- |