United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-91-004
GL-02-91
c/EPA
Bean Creek Watershed
Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was created because of increasing
public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare
of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony
to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in
Chicago, Illinois to provide specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great
Lakes. The Section 108(a) Demonstration Grant Program of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-
500) is specific to the Great Lakes drainage basin and thus is administered by the Great
Lakes National Program Office.
Several demonstration projects within the Great Lakes drainage basin have been funded
as a result of Section 108(a). This report describes one such project supported by this
office to carry out our responsibility to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.
We hope the information and data contained herein will help planners and managers of
pollution control agencies to make better decisions in carrying forward their pollution
control responsibilities.
Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
EPA-905/9-91-004
February 1991
BEAN CREEK WATERSHED
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
(1982-1985)
by
JOHN MITCHELL
DENNIS HASKINS
TOM VAN WAGONER
HILLSDALE AND LENAWEE COUNTIES SOIL
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, MICHIGAN
GRANT NO. S005700
FOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ralph G. Christensen John C Lowrey
Project Officer Technical Assistant
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, (GLNPO)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the content necessarily reflects the views and policy of the USEPA nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Increased non-point source pollution in the form of nutrient enriched sediment with its
accompanying herbicide and insecticide residues need not be associated with modern
production agriculture.
Crop residue management is the key to reducing water runoff and its resulting soil
erosion.
By increasing the amount of crop residue that remains on the soil surface, primarily
through reduced tillage systems, non-point source pollution can be greatly reduced and
soil erosion kept within tolerable limits.
The following report will detail how the Bean Creek Conservation Tillage Demonstration
Project worked with land users to increase the adoption rate of conservation tillage
(primarily no-till) and the result of this four year program.
Dennis Haskins,
District Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Services
Hillsdale, Michigan
-------
PREFACE
Topsoil...it makes the United States the world's most productive country. It is the key
to the wealth of the Nation. As landowners, we have been entrusted with the stewardship
of this natural resource. On the farms of America must necessarily be decided the
farming practices that either conserve, or lay waste our most precious natural resources
of soil and water. Here, on the farms of America are the people with the first
responsibility to follow practices that conserve our soil needed to feed our children, and
their children, years from now.
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
HILLSDALE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LENAWEE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UNITED STATED DEPT. of AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE
U.S.D A. AGRICULTURE STABILIZATION & CONSERVATION SERVICE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Additional Thanks to:
AREA SEED CORN DEALERS
CONTRIBUTING IMPLEMENT DEALERS
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CONSERVATION TILLAGE INFORMATION CENTER
FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA
...and a very special thanks to the contributing farmers in the two county area who
provided their land, machinery, time, and knowledge.
THANK YOU
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ii
Preface iii
Acknowledgements iv
1. Introduction 1
2. Project Operation and Participation 3
3. Project Production Practices 5
Tillage Systems 5
Planting 5
Pesticides 6
Fertility 7
4. Environmental Impacts 9
5. Conclusion 10
6. Bean Creek Project Spinoff 11
7. Project Analysis 12
FIGURES
Watershed location
Project Growth
Phosphorus
.2
.4
.8
APPENDIX
Rainfall Data 1983
Rainfall Data 1984
Rainfall Data 1985
.14
.15
.16
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Bean Creek Watershed Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project was
funded in the U.S. in late 1981 with monies from the Great Lakes National Program
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This project, designed to accelerate
the adoption of reduced tillage systems, especially no-till, was administered at the local
level by the Hillsdale and Lenawee Soil Conservation Districts. Slated to run three years,
this project was one of the many similar projects throughout the Lake Erie Basin.
Cooperation between the two Soil Conservation Districts and the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service made possible the day to day operations of the project. The E.P.A. and the
National Association of Conservation Districts provide long range planning.
The United States Government, under an agreement with the Canadian
Government, arranged to take steps towards reducing the sedimentation and phosphorus
loading into Lake Erie. The Bean Creek Watershed was identified in the 1970's by the
Army Corp of Engineers as a possible study watershed. Out of these early beginnings
came the Bean Creek Project, along with the other Lake Erie Basin accelerated tillage
projects.
The Bean Creek Watershed (figure 1) is 203 square miles located in southern
Michigan, with a small portion in Ohio. The watershed is elongated, with approximately
55,000 acres of Hillsdale County, and 75,000 acres in Lenawee County, The average
width of the watershed is 9 miles, with a total length of approximately 25 miles.
Topography ranges from flat through the extreme southern portion to extremely rolling
in the central and northern portion of the watershed. The surface geology consists of
moraines and till plains. Due to the intensive row crop production, soil erosion is a
serious problem in much of the watershed. The major problem is sheet and rill erosion,
allowing excessive amounts of sediment in stormwater runoff. Soils with poor surface
and subsurface, and ditch and drainage ways in poor maintenance are also serious
problems.
-------
figure 1.
^u
-------
PROJECT OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION
The Hillsdale and Lenawee Soil Conservation Districts, to fulfill the goal of
demonstrating conservation tillage practices to farmers in the watershed, used
Environmental Protection Agency grant funds to purchase a John Deere 7000
Conservation planter. A truck for transporting the planter, a weigh wagon for yield
testing, and a ridge till cultivator were also purchased. This equipment, and the Project
Specialist became the crux of the tillage project.
To demonstrate no-till planting to farmers in the watershed volunteers willing to
try some no-till were sought. Using these volunteer farmers fields as demonstrations, and
compiling data from them, was the major thrust of the project.
The plot planning, technical advice, and recommendations were given by the
Project employee and the S.C.S. personnel in both counties. The actual planting and use
of the equipment was carried out by the farmers involved. The planter was rented to
participating farmers for five dollars per acre, and as was later discovered, was a very
minimal charge. Similar equipment normally commanded between ten and twenty dollars
per acre outside the watershed.
It is easiest to judge the acceptance of this Product by looking at it's growth. (See
figure 2). Participation was excellent, and request for assistance grew steadily, as did no-
till acreage both in the watershed and the entire counties involved.
Performance review was handled by the District Directors and the S.C.S. District
Conservationist in each county. The D.C. in Hillsdale was the Project Employees day to
day supervisor. Documentation was carried out by the Project employee and the District
Coordinators in the two counties. Reports of progress were submitted quarterly to the
E.P.A. for review. Although the overall operation of the Project was carried out by the
Project employee, the success of the Project was to a large degree dependent on the
support of assisting agencies. Agency and community support would be an important part
of any similar project. The Soil Conservation Service, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, and especially the local
farmers and agribusiness all combined to make this Project a meaningful one.
Farmer participation in the Project was, by necessity, the most critical factor to the
success of the Project. Since participation was on a volunteer basis, first year volunteers
were critical. As the bar graphs in figure 2 show, participation increased each year.
Initial interest was simulated primarily by farmers interest in finding lower cost methods
of production. Interest in saving soil was in general, a secondary consideration, but still
a substantial factor in making the final decision to try an alternate tillage system.
-------
Perhaps, because of the economics of the 80's, this was a very opportune time to
begin an accelerated tillage project. As the Project entered the second year it was obvious
that farmers had been watching with interest the fields of no-till planted by their
neighbors in the first year. Consequently, after the first year the promotion and
development of the Project was easier, and accelerated rapidly. An important part of this
participation included the fact that once the decision to try no-till was made, the practice
then became a regular part of the farmers yearly production system. In other words,
participants did not discontinue no-till after their initial attempt. Like many things, the
first time is the hardest, no-till is no exception.
LO
, (
1
CM
CO
CTt
T t
O
CM
00
co
cr>
< i
cr>
cvj
i
*d-
CD
CD
t 1
0
CO
LO
CO
C31
r 1
cn
i f
CM
co
CT)
i 1
CTl
CM
1
CO
co
CTs
i I
1^
CO
1
Ğ3-
co
cr>
i i
0
<3-
1
LO
CO
cr>
. i
in
CO
c_>
ro
CTi
t~^
CXJ
1
CM
CO
en
t i
to
cu
O
ro
O
ğ i
3-
i
CO
co
CTl
r i
t/1
CU
5-
O
ro
O
LO
en
1
Ğd-
CO
CTl
r 1
yi
i i
(/>
OJ
s_
O
rO
0
O
LO
1
CM
CO
en
i-H
in
cu
£_
0
fO
O
0
CM
t 1
1
CO
CO
cr>
r-H
in
CU
(J
fd
O
CP
O
vt-
1
^}-
co
CTl
I 1
in
cu
<~
o
rd
CD
O
0
LO
1
10
co
en
i i
Farm Cooperation Number of Plots
Acres of No-Till
in Project
Acres of No-Till
in Watershed
figure 2
-------
PROJECT PRODUCTION PRACTICES
TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Certainly, there would be no argument that there are many different kinds of
managers when it comes to farming, and for every kind of manager there is a different
tillage system. As the project progressed, it became clear that there is no single "best
system" for everyone. The importance of no-till for a particular farmer was measured
more on how it helped him develop efficiency on just the whole farm, than on just a
particular field or plot. There is a place for no-till on every farm, not on every field!
As far as the project was concerned, there is no stereotype that would describe a
farmer more likely to try no-till. Livestock farmer and cash-cropper, large acreage and
small, all have an interest in learning more about no-till as a production practice. The
key ingredient necessary for good no-till management was the participant's attitude, not
his farming methods. This attitude towards trying something new and unfamiliar, was the
most important factor in determining the success of his no-till plot.
PLANTING
In addition to the psychological attitude towards change, a number of more basic
crop cultural practices need to be done for successful no-till. A planter designed to place
a seed in good contact with the soil regardless of the amount of residue left from the
previous crop. All late model planters from the major implement manufactures will do
this in most conditions. Perhaps we have stressed the importance of special equipment
too much. Many of the older model planters will also allow a farmer to no-till, at least
on a portion of his farm. In any case, the important thing is not so much the planter, as
it is the ability of the planter to place the seed into good contact with the soil. Also
important is the ability of the operator of the planter to slow the ground speed of the
planter to the optimum speed. Too often the ground speed of the machines can have a
great effect on the seed placement. This change to a slower ground speed can be an
important ingredient in getting a good stand. Obviously, the major cause of this problem
with seed placement is crop residue. The benefits of which will be touched on later. The
problem however, is not only getting through it, but also getting the germinating seed
back up through it after putting it down there. Many no-till farmers are adjusting and
changing their planters to do a small amount of strip tillage to remove heavy excesses of
residue from over the row. This allows the' soil to warm faster, while also allowing the
germinating seeding to avoid twisting and turning to make it's way through the residue.
Obviously, in low residue situations such as soybean stubble this strip tillage is not
critical.
-------
PESTICIDES
It has been printed that the weakest link in most farm operations is in regards to
pesticide application. Experience during the Project also point to this as a weak area for
many farmers. The problems of proper calibration, carrier rates, product formulations,
tank mixes, surfactants nozzle size, agitation, ground speed, weed spectrum, and product
labels all combine to complicate spraying, regardless of tillage type. These problems are
not necessarily removed by hiring a custom applicator to do the spraying. Poor weed
control was rarely the result of a failure in the product being applied. With these things
in mind, one needs to strive for a better understanding of the procedures required for
accurate pesticide application. As we look to the future, one can see no immediate
solution for this problem. The number of pesticides, and the range of their use, grows
yearly. Continued training, certification of applicator, and increased awareness of the
problems, and needs to be emphasized.
In the Bean Creek Tillage Project, the primary difference between a farmer's
regular herbicide program, and his no-till program, was the use of a "burn down"
chemical to remove existing vegetation. This would be the vegetation removed by tillage
under more conventional systems. That burndown herbicide was most often Paraquat.
At a cost of four, to ten dollars, this product substantiates the claim that no-till herbicide
programs cost more. Yet, this cost is readily accepted in lieu of tillage. The fear of more
weed problems with reduced tillage did concern many Project cooperators, but no serious
weed problems were experienced, with the exception of alfalfa, under improper herbicide
timing. Certainly, the potential for weed problems to develop is always present, but no
more so in no-till than under other tillage systems. Indeed, there seems to be some
thought as to the depletion of weed seeds in the sprouting zone under no-till that would
be superior to soil inversion tillage systems.
A major change in weed spectrum can occur under no-till. With the increase of
later maturing perrenials, and woody perrenials being the usual change. These problems
vary farm to farm, and rotation to rotation, but do leave a very legitimate reason for not
eliminating tillage as a possibility on a rotational basis of some sort. Cover crop systems
used in conjunction with no-till were also used on some project plots. They presented no
unusual problems, but served as a reminder that it is advisable to kill the cover crop
before it becomes extremely heavy. This would especially apply to rye. They also serve
as a reminder that proper gallonage to insure adequate wetting of all green plant tissue
is important for good burndown of heavy vegetation.
-------
FERTILITY
A common question in discussions of reduced tillage, and no-till, is that of fertility
needs. Our experience during the course of the Project substantiate many of the ideas
already acknowledged by numerous University studies. Fertility plans in no-till crops
differ from needs under a conventional cropping system.
Of course, first and foremost, a representative soil sample from the fields in
question was required. In three years of testing and recommending maintenance levels
of P205 and K20, there was never a phosphorus or potassium deficiency observed in a
growing crop. On the other hand, nitrogen deficiency symptoms, characterized by "firing"
of the older leaves along the tip and midvein, was a common sight. From this evidence
one can draw the conclusion that nitrogen management is the major stumbling block to
proper crop fertility in no-till fields. This conclusion is backed up by research from our
major mid-west land grant universities.
Research tells us that UAN (urea, ammonium nitrate) solutions are subject to
volitization when exposed to dry, warm weather. When broad-cast over no-till residues,
rainfall is needed to carry them into the soil, and prevent volitization of the nitrogen as
ammonia gas. Since accurate prediction of the weather is still an imperfect science, one
runs the risk of losing nitrogen availability for the crop when using an over-the-top
broadcast system. However, because of convenience, this broadcast application method
was the most common for supplying nitrogen needs on the Project plots. This
"convenience factor" is especially important to first time no-tiller's, who are trying the
practice for the first time, and often on small acreages. The attempt to bias an argument
towards the benefits of injected or banded nitrogen is needed, but it is of more importance
to farmers as their no-till acreage increases. Farmers trying no-till for the first time, or
on small acreage, are concerned with more basic problems, like plant population and
weed control. Fine tuning one's nitrogen program comes later.
Broadcasting nitrogen can benefit a farmer by reducing the number of trips across
a field. This is possible by using the nitrogen solution as a carrier for herbicide
application. This "weed and feed" application technique is widely used in conventional
seedbeds as well as no-till fields. The threat of nitrogen loss is real, but in many cases
this method of application may still be the best choice for an individual farmer.
As the phosphorus graphs on the next page show, most of the soil test on our
project plots were more than adequate in terms of available phosphorus. Indeed,
phosphorus levels in soils state-wide are seen to be increasing. The nature of the no-till
seed bed is such that it remains cooler and wetter than a comparable conventional seed
bed. Since these conditions can limit the availability of phosphorus in the soil, a small
amount of starter phosphorus is recommended for banding if possible.
-------
The importance of soil testing for nutrient levels has already been mentioned. Yet,
because of the accumulation of nutrients in the upper surface of the soil under continuous
no-till, soil sampling becomes even more important. It is recommended to adjust the
sampling to two different samples. One from the upper 2 or 3 inches, and another from,
there or down to 8 or 10 inches. Also, a close monitoring of the surface ph is important.
A lack of soil inversion, and the acidifying effect of surface applied nitrogen can create
low ph conditions in the upper soil surface. The obvious detriment to crop growth, and
the reduced activity of some herbicides are two good reasons for addressing this potential
problem.
Phosphorus, as the major contributor to the eutrophication of Lake Erie, was an
important part of the Tillage Project. Because phosphorus is attached so closely to the
soil particles that surround it, any erosion carries with it soil, and attached phosphorus.
Data collection on phosphorus during the Project was limited to soil test levels on the
plots, and actual P205 applied for crop growth.
The bar graphs below show that levels of phosphorus in Michigan soils is
increasing. (Warncke, 1983) The average soil test levels on watershed farms was very
similar to the State average. This build-up of phosphorus levels would also increase the
phosphorus in sediment runoff.
Recommendations to Project Cooperators were made on the basis of the amount
of phosphorus used in one year by the crop to be grown. These "maintenance" levels of
phosphorus were used because most growers are unwilling to apply no phosphorus.
Michigan State University recommendations also suggest a minimum of 25 Ibs. of starter
P205, regardless of soil test levels.
pounds P x 2.3 = pounds P20S
-
-
A c
c
o
r-O
sr^
cr>
C< I
X
en
CTii-
>O
=COO
J
LUJ
00
00
CT)
i i
1
CO
I
o
.G
O
£
E
Q.
cr>
>
i i
I
(/>
i
O
u~>
-a
o>
i/>
S-
O)
4->
fO
3
C
r
Gl-
Cn
>
"~3
O
CL
c
o
-o
OJ
1
Q.
fO
CL D-
,
-0
o
o>
> £
0 !
E c
CU 1
t
Q_
J
.
cn
> J
<£.
CO
CNJ
3
J
V
/)
3
D
figure 3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The origin of the Bean Creek Project can be traced to a concern for the water
quality of Lake Erie. The quality problems were coming from the non-point source
sediment eroded off the Erie Basin farmland. The major off-site impact of soil erosion
is on water quality, and on the condition of streams, and lakes. Sediment derived from
soil erosion decreases water storage capacity in lakes and reservoirs, clogs streams and
drainage channels, causes deterioration of aquatic habitats, increases water treatment costs,
damages water distribution systems, and carries agriculture chemicals into water systems.
By volume, sediment is the greatest pollutant of surface waters in the United States.
The movement of plant nutrients and agri-chemicals with the erosion of farmland
is a major concern. The use of no-till and reduced tillage can eliminate the severity of
the erosion problem. Using the Universal Soil Loss Equation, the average soil loss on
Project plots with conventional tillage was 5.3 tons per acre. The average soil loss on
plots with no-till was 1.3 tons per acre. The crop residues, when left on the surface of
the soil, will reduce the erosion dramatically. Consequently, the sediment that carries
with it nutrients and agri-chemicals is also reduced.
As the growing concern for our nations topsoil continues, farmers will continue
to reduce their tillage operations. Economic pressures will also continue to pressure
farmers towards less tillage. This reduction in the tillage process will bring with it more
surface residues and less soil erosion. Less soil erosion will provide cleaner water, more
productive farmland, and a healthier environment for United States citizens.
In addition to soil loss from water erosion, wind erosion is
a serious problem on many soils.
-------
CONCLUSION
The questions can be asked: Will the rapid trend towards less tillage on
America's farms continue? Will no-till keep growing, or will problems eventually move
farmers back to the plow? Can the accomplishments in reducing soil through less tillage
be maintained? Statistics obtained from the Soil Conservation Service show that no-till
and minimum tillage together account for 33.7% of all cropland. This is a three-fold
increase in the last ten years. These events have been driven by many forces. Erosion,
economics, equipment; all have contributed in the shift to less tillage. These forces will
not go away in the years to come. Indeed, this shift of production practices will need to
be maintained if we are to continue to abate the loss of topsoil from our nation's
cropland. Pressure from the public over concerns with water quality will demand that
agricultural producers reduce non-point source pollution from their lands. Tomorrow's
farmers will be better stewards of the land than ever before, because times will demand
it. Government agricultural policy is already moving in the direction of helping to
preserve our more "fragile" croplands. As farmers adapt to less tillage, they will solve
the problems that arise with it. Necessity will be the force that drives the continued
switch to less tillage. No-till will also help sell itself, because it works!
Education and studies such as this will need to be continued. Knowledge will help
change the attitudes that slow reduced tillage adoption. Not only do farmers attitudes
need to be changed, but the agribusiness community as well. Community leaders, ag.
lenders, farm equipment people, farm supply salesman, and John Q. Public, all need to
realize the need for surface residues. The continued growth of Soil Conservation
Districts, which projects such as these stimulate, will also be an important link in the
strengthening of the composite soil conversation chain.
These are energetic times on America's farms. The "Great Agricultural
Shakedown" that began in the early eighties, has continued. The times, both good and
bad, are bringing change to our farms. Out of these turbulent times, agriculture will
emerge stronger, and more efficient. Reduced tillage, no-till, and less soil erosion, will
be the cornerstones of the continued growth of the world's most productive food
manufacturers, America's farmers!
10
-------
BEAN CREEK PROJECT SPINOFFS
It is estimated that approximately 6,000 acres of no-till crops are grown in the
watershed annually, and this acreage is increasing with each year.
The farmers ownership of no-till equipment has increased tremendously, since the
onset of the watershed project. Most new corn planters purchased by farmers, have no-till
capabilities, and many of them are trying no-till on their own.
In Lenawee County five new no-till drills for small grain, soybeans and legumes
have been purchased in the last year. One of the biggest spinoffs of the project was to
make observation of the farmers' adaptation of equipment and fine tune the system for
high yield crop production .
Dr. Asa Kelley, one of the original Bean Creek cooperators, designed a coulter
system that places two fluted coulters 7" apart in front of each row to loosen the soil for
optimum seed and fertilizer placement. Several units have been added on to other
farmers' corn planters. Truly an unique system.
In addition many of the cooperators have placed better coulters on their planters
for optimum placement. Sometimes two sets of coulters have been installed to put starter
fertilizer and all the nitrogen requirements on at planting time. The result has been
outstanding yield results.
The Bean Creek Watershed was selected as the first PL-566 Upland Protection
Project in the state of Michigan. The plan approved in the fall of 1984, was to release
funding for land treatment contracts with farmers having erosion problems. The Bean
Creek Tillage Project provided us with needed data, and prompted a close working
relationship with the farmers in the watershed, based on a good experience with the EPA
Project, thus making it easier for the SCS staff to implement contracting. Over
$150,000.00 dollars of funding have been allocated in land treatment contracts.
The Bean Creek Watershed Project provided assistance to many successful no-till
plots but there was a lack of side by side comparisons plots and economic data of the
different tillage systems. The Lenawee County Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot
was started in the spring of 1984 on the Kitty Kurtis location. The thirty acre plot
featured six-five acre tillage plots to include no-till, paraplow, chisel, ridge till, fall and
spring plow. The demonstration plot was funded by the Michigan State University, with
support from local agribusiness and Extension Service, Lenawee SCD, and Soil
Conservation Service. The four year plot will be completed in the spring of 1987. The
objective was to produce equal yields in each managed plot, the most economical way
possible.
One additional spinoff might be the formulation of the Lenawee County
Conservation Tillage Club now in it's second year, where nearly seventy regular members
meet four times a year to share their experiences and knowledge with their counterparts
in farming.
11
-------
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The use of conservation tillage especially no-till by producers in the Bean Creek
Watershed area has grown from a rare occurrence in 1981 to a common practice in 1985.
The tillage plot demonstration work was instrumental in encouraging producers
to experiment with reduced tillage methods on their own farms, especially plots that
continue to produce excellent results after two and three years of continuous use.
Naturally not all plots were successful and we referred to these as our "teaching
and learning" plots. There was always an obvious reason why a plot did not perform as
expected and we learned as much from studying our mistakes as we did our successes.
Prior to the "Tillage Project" the biggest obstacle to the adoption of reduced tillage
was the lack of available equipment. Machinery dealers in the area were unwilling to
lease no-till or ridge-till equipment and most farmers were unprepared to make equipment
purchases without being thoroughly convinced that reduced tillage would work in their
operations.
Today, the equipment availability problem has been all but solved with farmers
retrofitting their old equipment or purchasing new models. Machinery dealers also are
much more willing to stock reduced tillage equipment because it has become widely used
in both counties.
Another spin-off benefit of the project work was the interest in pursuing the Bean
Creek P.L. 566 Watershed Program. With the monies from this program many producers
were able to accelerate land treatment on their farms by installing structural measures
along with upland treatment.
Today the reduced tillage movement continues to grow with producers in both
Hillsdale and Lenawee counties forming "No-till Clubs" in coordination with the Soil
Conservation Districts. These organizations have taken the leading role in providing
information and education through winter meetings and spring and fall farm tours. The
ability of these clubs to influence and encourage farmers to adopt reduced tillage methods
is unequaled with many farmers no-tilling 100% of their crops.
Probably the most far reaching benefit was that it gave the Districts' confidence
in their ability to administer programs and provide leadership within the county. Since
then, both Hillsdale and Lenawee Districts have requested and received grants to pursue
land treatment and water quality protection projects in their counties.
12
-------
APPENDIX
13
-------
1983 Rainfall Data
Growing Season Months
o
c
°o
K
a
c.
o
c
z.o
2.6 -
2.4 -
2.2 -
2 -
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
n -
tfl
fl
I
n
U
n
n
. H
k
'
fi
n
10 July 20
1 10 Aug 20 31
14
-------
o
£
O
c
1984 Rainfall Data
Growing Season Months
i.o -
1.5 -
1.4 -
1.3 -
1.2 -
1.1 -
1 -
0.9 -
0.8-
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0 -
0
H R
lll!ft 1 Hill II Mllll
]
I
1
n
1 Illllllllllllll IIMM
fin
n n no
1
H
HHIIHI IIIIUIIIMIHI iiiniiiuiiiii
[
If 111) 11 HI IH
a
n n ll
iimmmimmii i
10M
-------
1985 Rainfall Data
Growing Season Months
QL
o
JC
0
c
l.u
1.4 -
1.3 -
1.2 -
1.1 -
1 -
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7-
0.6 -
0.5 -
0,4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0 -
iiinmimii
An
i|||
Full
a
mini imuiimiimiii
H I
i
rri 1 1 in 1 1 1 11 1 1 iTu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1
1 10 May 20 1 10June20 1 10 July 20
Illl
I
ll
i
I II Ğ
nllllTn
J
n I
iiiiiiiimnr
10Aug20 3
16
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the 'reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA- 905/9- 91-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Bean Creek Watershed Conservation Tillage Demonstration
Project
7. AUTHOR(S)
John Mitchell, Dennis Haskins and Tom Van Wagoner
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hillsdale and Lenawee County Soil Conservation District
3251 Beck Road
Hillsdale, Michigan 49242
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicaao. Illinois 60604
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5GL
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10, PROGRAM ELEMENT MO.
A42B2A |
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. |
S005700 '
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED I
Final - 1982-1985 \
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE I
GLNPO |
g
. 9
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph G. Christensen, Project Officer John C. Lowrey, Technical Assistant
116. ABSTRACT
This project was to provide technical assistance to the landowner in demonstrating
no-till tillage and residue management. No-till equipment was provided to the
landowner to plant corn and/or soy beans and compare growth and yields along side
conventional tilled and planted crops.
An increase in use of no-till and other conservation till methods resulted as co-
operators recognized the benefits of no-till is saving soil, toil and oil without
sacrificing crop yields.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Phosphorus
No-till
Water Quality
Runoff
Total-P
Erosion
Ridge-till
Conservation Tillage
Pesticides
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to public through the
National Technical Information Services
(NTIS) Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
16
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
17
------- |