United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
                  Great Lakes
                  National Program Office
                  230 South Dearborn Street
                  Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-91 -007
GL-08-91
&EPA
Otter Creek
Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project
(October 1987)
                                                    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 sediment erosion-control 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-905/9-91-007
                                                          February 1991
            OTTER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVATION TILLAGE
                      DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                                By
                           MARION SMITH
                       KATHY F. PIELSTICKER
                               For
       MONROE COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
                     MONROE, MICHIGAN 48161
RALPH G.  CHRISTENSEN                          JOHN C. LOWREY
PROJECT OFFICER                               TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
                                To
              U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
                   230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
                    CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

-------
                  DISCLAIMER





This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National



Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and



approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that



the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies



of  the  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency  nor  does



mention of trade names  or commercial products constitute



endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                      Page

  I. Introduction  	   2

 II. Background	   2
     Relationship to Lake Erie	   3
     Climate and Weather	   4
     Deviations  from Normal Weather  	   5

III. Project Purpose   	   8
     Grant Application	   8
     Agency Roles and Responsibilities	   8
     Funding Mechanisms 	   9

 IV. Operating Procedures 	   9
     Selection of Project Coordinator 	   9
     Accounting	10
     Equipment	10
     Selection of Project 	  11
     Guidelines  for Project Participation 	  11
     Technical Assistance 	  11
     Information and Education	11
     Incentives  for Participants	11
     Reporting System - Data Collection 	  12

  V. Project Accomplishments	12
     Number of Project Participants  	  12
     Acreages in Demonstration Plots	13
     Information and Education	14
     Erosion and Sediment Loading Reduction 	  16
     Phosphorus and Other Pollutant Reductions. ...  18

 VI. Conclusions	18
     Project Impacts	18
     Involvement of SWCD	21
     Interagency Cooperation	23
     Physical and Economic Adaptability of No-Till
        Application to the Land	23

VII. Recommendations	24
     Institutional Arrangement	24
     Agency Programs.  . V	25
     Future Programs	25
     How Will Project Accomplishments Be Maintained  .  26


     Appendices
     A.  Plot Data and Results
     B.  Conservation Tillage Technician Contract
                             •i-

-------
                  LIST OF  CHARTS AND TABLES

Chart
 No.                                                 Page

  1       Growing Degree Days 	    6
  2       Average Daily Temperatures and
            Precipitation Data	    7
  3       Conservation Tillage in Project Area and
            % Conservation Tillage/Total Cropland
            in Project Area	   19
  4       Conservation Tillage in Monroe County and
            % Conservation Tillage/Total Cropland
            in Monroe County	   20
Table
 No.

  1       Yearly Precipitation Totals 	    8
  2       Soil Saved on No-Till Plots	   16
  3       Average Soil Loss on Comparison Plots .  .   16
  4       Total Nutrients Saved on No-Till	   18
                          -11-

-------


-------
I.  INTRODUCTION

The Otter Creek Tillage Project is part of the Tri-State Tillage
Project being conducted by thirty-one counties in the Lake Erie
Basin.  The Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District
administers the project through a grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Phosphorus is a key nutrient necessary to crop production, but it
is also cited as the key nutrient responsible for pollution
problems in our streams and lakes.  Of all the Great Lakes, Lake
Erie is the most threatened by phosphorus pollution.  Abnormal
amounts of phosphorus entering the Lake have caused excessive
plant growth which in turn has depleted oxygen levels in the
water and killed or damaged fish and other aquatic life.

The source of phosphorus pollution includes point discharges
(such as sewage); atmospheric pollutants; and soil eroded from
cropland.  Since phosphorus is attached to soil particles, soil
erosion contributes not only sediment to our lakes and streams
but also phosphorus and other associated pollutants.  If soil
erosion can be reduced, even on soils that are already below
acceptable soil loss levels for long term crop production, then
water quality will be a major benefactor.

Our national commitment to improving water guality in Lake Erie
is indicated by a mutual agreement between the United States and
the Canadian Government.  Part of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 obligates the U.S. to control the diffuse
sources of phosphorus that are entering Lake Erie.  It is
estimated that as much as half of the phosphorus reduction called
for in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement can be achieved by
reducing phosphorus lost from agricultural land.  Conservation
tillage practices are considered the most effective method for
controlling these nonpoint sources of pollution.

The U.S. EPA, whose mission includes the protection of threatened
water resources, is concerned with the pollution problems in Lake
Erie.  The EPA therefore, is supporting conservation districts in
their efforts to promote conservation tillage in the Lake Erie
Basin.  As a result of the joint efforts of local conservation
districts and the EPA, conservation tillage demonstration
projects have been organized in all of the counties in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.

II.  BACKGROUND

Located in south-central Monroe County, the Otter Creek Watershed
encompasses 39,193 acres.  This land area is over 90% farmland,
devoted primarily to the production of corn, soybeans and wheat.
A large percentage of the county's tomato and vegetable crops are
also produced within this watershed.  This is an important factor
from the standpoint of water quality due to the more intensive
                             -2-

-------
use of fertilizers and pesticides on these crops than on row
crops.

The topography of this area is nearly level to gently sloping,
reflecting the recent geologic formation of the landscape from
lake plains, glacial outwash, till plains and ground moraines.

The soils in the watershed fall within two broad soil
associations; the Oakville-Tedrow-Granby association and the
Pewamo-Selfridge-Blount association.  These major soils comprise
the following percentages of the watershed:  Oakville-11%;
Tedrow-10.5%; Granby-9%; Pewamo-15.5%; Selfridge-9%; and Blount-
5%.  The total soil loss which these soils can tolerate each year
and still maintain long term crop production ranges between three
and five tons per acre.  This includes losses from both wind and
water erosion.

Wind erosion is a particular concern within the watershed.
Sixty-six percent of these soils, if left unprotected, are highly
susceptible to erosion by wind.  Erosion rates for unprotected
soils range from nine tons to 25 tons per acre per year.  Water
erosion is less severe than erosion from wind.  However, twenty-
one percent of the soils in the watershed are susceptible to
water erosion, and erosion rates range as high as seven tons per
acre per year.

Otter Creek, which has a discharge rate of 128 gallons per
second, outlets directly into Lake Erie at a point 3-1/2 miles
south of Bolles Harbor and 1-1/2 miles north of the City of Luna
Pier.  Major tributaries into Otter Creek are as follows:  South,
North, and Middle Branches of Otter Creek, Yarger Drain, Henry
Drain, Albain Drain, Duck Pond Drain, Lockwood Drain, Cooper
Snell and Ansel Drain, Summerfield and Ida Drain, Peters Drain,
West Bates Drain, Hitting Drain, Shobu No. 1 Drain, Rauch Drain,
Ida Drain, and Grauf Drain.  The numerous drainage ditches in the
watershed are spaced, on average, less than one-quarter mile
apart.  They typically have unstable side slopes of 1:1, are
overgrown with trees or shrubs, but are not stabilized with sod.
Nearly all the ditches are undergoing moderate ditch bank
sloughing caused by erosion around all individual tile outlets
(typically on a 75' spacing) which do not have outlet tubes.
Tillage operations are generally conducted to within a foot or
two of the ditch bank crest.

                    Relationship to Lake Erie

Monroe has the highest proportion of cropland (64%) of any county
adjoining Lake Erie, increasing the potential for sediment,
fertilizer and pesticide runoff.  The Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study Final Report  (Army Corps of Engineers, 9/82)
indicates that the flow weighted mean total phosphorus
concentration for Monroe County was calculated as 0.3 to 0.4
mg/1, the highest concentration of phosphorus for any Michigan
County that directly adjoins Lake Erie (LEWMS pg. 161-162).

                             -3-

-------
The State of Michigan Phosphorus Reduction Strategy also
indicates that the available soil phosphorus levels in the
Michigan portion of the Lake Erie drainage basin have increased
dramatically over the last 10 years.  Once the soils reach their
maximum P absorbing capacity (90-200 Ibs. of P/acre in this area)
there is a significant amount of downward movement of P.  The
median phosphorus soil test levels for Monroe for 1982-83 were
the highest (tied with those for Macomb)  of all counties within
the Michigan portion of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin.

The Land Resource Information Systems data upon which the LEWMS
was based, ranks Monroe County fourth among Michigan Counties
selected for the implementation of conservation tillage programs
to reduce phosphorus transport into Lake Erie.  The technical
supplement for State of Michigan Phosphorus Reduction Strategy
for the Michigan Portion of Lake Erie and Saginaw Bay lists
Monroe County as an "alternate" priority county for any
conservation tillage programs which are aimed at phosphorus
reduction (pg. 47).

Even though those ratings indicate a significant potential for
water pollution, the contribution by wind erosion to water
pollution, through the movement of soil directly into
watercourses, was not considered when Monroe County was given
this xalternative' priority rating.  No method currently exists
to quantify the impact of wind erosion on water quality.
Nevertheless, through the processes of siltation and surface
creep, a significant amount of soil (presumably carrying
fertilizer and pesticides) can annually be observed entering the
extensive system of drainage ditches within the watershed.  Since
few windbreaks or barriers exist on the 63% of the watershed's
cropland which is highly susceptible to wind erosion, and because
drainage ditches are on the average less than one-quarter mile
apart, the actual occurrence of sedimentation by wind erosion is
frequent and widespread.

                       Climate and Weather

In winter the average temperature is 27.6 degrees F, and the
average daily minimum temperature is 20.2 degrees.  The lowest
temperature on record, which occurred at Monroe on February 5,
1918, is -21 degrees.  In summer the average temperature is 71.6
degrees, and the average daily maximum temperature is 81.9
degrees.  The highest recorded temperature, which occurred at
Monroe on July 24, 1934, is 106 degrees.

The total annual precipitation is 31 inches.  Of this 17.91
inches, or 58 percent, usually falls in April through September,
which includes the growing season for most crops.  In 2 years out
of 10, the rainfall in April through September is less than 14.7
inches.  The heaviest 1-day rainfall during the period of record
was 4.08  inches at Monroe on September 9, 1917.  Thunderstorms
                             -4-

-------
occur on about 42 days each year, and most occur in June and
July.

Average seasonal snowfall is 32.9 inches.  The greatest snow
depth at any one time during the period of record was 20.0 inches
on December 3, 1974.  On an average of 34 days, at least 1 inch
of snow is on the ground.  The number of such days varies greatly
from year to year.

                  Deviations  from Normal  Weather

The growing degree day data in Chart 1 shows the deviation
between the years of the project and a comparison to other years
on record.  The amount of available energy to promote and
accelerate plant growth, as measured in growing degree days, can
only be considered favorable when the right amount of rain
(moisture) and favorable temperatures exist.

The amount of "growing degree days" accumulated thru the crop
season is only one indication to the kind of growing conditions
that existed on the plots.  In order to draw any conclusion as to
growing conditions over the various project years, growing degree
days, temperature, and precipitation, as well as other cultural
and field conditions (not related to weather) must also be
considered.  Those conditions which may have also increased or
depressed crop growth and development are:  fertility levels in
the soil; water availability; tile drainage systems; soil
compaction; and weed control or weed competition.

Precipitation and temperature charts for the years 1983 - 1986
are shown in Chart 2.  Yearly totals of precipitation for 1983-
1986 are shown in Table 1.

In 1983 we experienced a wetter than normal planting season.
April was 1.67 inches above normal and May was 2.46 inches above
normal.  Harvest season was also excessively wet in 1983.  In
October and November, rainfall exceeded the normal average by
4.93 inches.

The yearly average temperature and precipitation recorded in
Monroe for 1984 were very close to those reported for the 29 year
period, 1949-78.  However, within the growing season there were
some important variations from the average.  The spring, March
through May, was 1.6 inches above average in precipitation and
cooler than the average.  The summer months, June through August,
were 2.6 inches below average in precipitation and warmer than
the average.

The extremely wet harvest conditions in both 1985, 3.2 inches of
rain above normal, and 1986,  6.7 inches of rain above normal, had
several significant negative impacts on the Project.
                             -5-

-------
                             CEART  1
r
a

I
9
&
e
o
    aoo -
    TOO -
    eoo -
soo -
    4OO -
aoo -
    200 -
     100
April
                 GROWING  DEGREE DAYS (1)








x







1







|







3
a
H
7
/
/
/
/

1
Sf
I
1
K
X
x
X
X
X
X
X


/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
s
\
\
s
\
\
s
\
\
s
\
\
X
\
s
s
r ,
*l

\
1



1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X



7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
K
'


J
i

\
!
15
X
§

i
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X







/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
s
\
\
X
\
\
\
\
\
s
\
\
s
\
\
s
\
\
\
\
s
s
7;
/
y
\

I
k\N\VW^




t^

1
1
7^
X
X
X
x
x
X
x
P<
t<
x
X
^
X
x
X
r*




T
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
S
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
S
\
\
\
\
\
I
1

x /sxsx
X / \ X \ X
x /sxsx
x /sxgx
             May
              1963
                         June
                                        August  September
Qctaber
                          W7X  1964
     (1)   A growing degree day is a unit of heat available for
          plant growth.   It is calculated by adding the maximum
          and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by
          two,  and subtracting the temperature below which growth
          is minimal for the principle crops in the area  (in this
          case 50° F).
     Average = 1949-1978


     Source...Official U.S.  Weather Bureau data recorded at
              Monroe,  Michigan
                               -6-

-------
                             CHART 2
               AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE
QU
70 -

BO -

so -
u.
8
£ 4O -
3D -
20 -
10 -

m





s
/>
/
s
s
/
/
/
/
s
f<>
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\


%

i
1
?
X)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
'X



7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

^
x
\
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
\
X
X
X
y.

i
\
Y
-Sj
^
s;
1
1
1
V1

X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
^






7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
x
x
\
x
x
x
x
\
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
"s^
X
X
X
't
7;
f
V;

1
7.
'',

\
X
\
7]
^
7

7>

!
^
^
IV
|
^
|
§
1
!
^
§
X
K
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
•^
X
X,
x









7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
x
x
X
X
X
X
\
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
^
x
x
X
7
^
7,
''t
y
7,
^^<^^^^^xxxxxxx^^xxxxxxx^

h


^
5
1
X

!

^
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
k
X
X
X
y
r^
X
x
X








T

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

x
x
x
x
\
\
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
y.
\
X
x
X

71
i
7,

i
f
6,
^
1
X
1
i
1

x

x

x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
x
x
V
x
X
x







7
/
/
/
/
/
/
J
/
/
/

•^
x
\
\
X
X
x
^.
>
X
x
X
z
7.

\


Sj?
|x
1"
1*
^
1"
1
1

u l 1 1 I I I |
April May June July August September October
    Avg.
     19Q3
                  13S4
                                            13fiE
                     PRECIPITATION DATA
a -
7 -
6 -
s -
A -
3-

2 -



1 -


0 —







•1
^
/


'>
/ \p
Tj

' Np
. -k
r











3
d
1
1









__
^
^
it
s
's -f

s ^
-i-lp]





?
/ V
K / S
H / V

M ^ S
H ^ S
* s\

M p^S



'
•
^
y f i,
\
^ s \
\
1 / ^
\ n / K
X
H H / H
(«* /'
<
^ /\
1,
^ X s \
{
1,
** s*.
1 . ..



t
^
V
n r '
K / \
S K S \
s rt ^
S K S \
\
S M / H
s
S X S \
V
V n s \

S K f \
Jl ' 1



.
„
K /
K ^
K ^
^ K ^
S H /
^
S H /
SM S
\
SM /
s
SH ^
s

SK ^




H
^
^
\
\
\s\
\ / \
\s\
/ \
\ / \
/ \
^s
\'\

\/\
UfLl



X S,
X S
M 
K t\

K ^
1



^
l
K
S K
S K
y
S H
S H
*»i
SM
S H
S
SH
S
SK



i
s,
^
•,
s

•^ r* ^
S^S
Sr^\
/ S,
\/\
s^s
V/N

'x '^
1



•
•
K

X i
M /
K '

X f
K <
M •'

H '







* ^
p^ S
t \
f \
- f ^
Vr^S
S / S
\l^ V
i*1 S
s ^ >
r
H
x
x
X
^
X
X /
M '
H ^

x ^
K t
H /

* t




ri


N *s
N S
\ ^

N ^ \
\ * \
\ y* S

N ^ S
1





( y
^ 7 y
K x1 S
! i^ V

)( ^ >
X r^ V
X ^ S

X f S


n
|

(
t
i
^ r
H /
\ RI -^
\
i,
i K ^
^ K i^
(
K N /

\ H -^







H

/, H

'!H
/ (X
/ ^
/> X
^ ^
t * 1

        Jan
1771 Avg.
Feb  Mcrch  April   May  Juns  July August Sept  Qct
 [\7\|  1903
19S4
— 7 —
ES21  13QS
                                                     hfcv  Dec
                                                        1365

-------
                              TABLE 1

                    Yearly Precipitation Totals
                              (Inches)

                Average    1983   1984   1985   1986
                 31.00    37.17  29.20  38.55  41.57

 III.  PROJECT PURPOSE

 The purpose of this Project was two-fold.   It was designed to
 demonstrate to farmers the successful application of conservation
 tillage by other farmers in their community.  It was also
 designed to demonstrate the effectiveness  of conservation tillage
 for controlling soil erosion and thus preventing the runoff of
 soil and nutrients into Lake Erie.

 The demonstration plots were not intended  to be research plots
 although information obtained does  point the way to needed
 research efforts.   They are intended  to provide farmers a chance
 to experiment with various tillage  systems at a low cost and to
 allow others to benefit from their  experiences.

                         Grant Application

 In June of 1982,  the board of directors submitted a proposal

 i?0^11^ iv3? °f W°rk and a budget to U'S-  EPA'   In  September
 SPA 2S h    J1*  J1C*4.!?aS awarded a  9rant of $32,000 from the U.S.
 EPA to be matched  with $22,625 of local funds  for a three-year
 project.   In March of 1983  an amendment was made  to reduce  the
 matching local  funds  to $10,667.

 At the end of 1985,  the board of directors  decided  that  work
 could  continue through December  31, 1986 without  additional
 funding from U.S.  EPA.   They requested  and  received the  extension
     ^S pf°3ect to  December  31,  1986 without  an increase  in US.
     funding .
                Agency Roles and Responsibilities

The agencies and groups most directly involved with the Project
are the Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District  the
Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, and the Cooperative Extension Service.

The Monroe County SWCD, being the grantee and one of the local
agencies involved, was responsible for the overall administration
and daily operation of the Project.  To assist the District  a
technician was employed starting in March 1983.  The duties of
the technician did not encompass the compilation of tillage data
or the writing of the quarterly, annual,  or final reports.   The
District's Administrative Assistant managed the Project funds
                             -8-

-------
scheduled the no-till equipment use and compiled the data which
was provided to her.

The Soil Conservation Service worked closely with the District.
SCS personnel were instrumental in getting the Project initiated
and in serving in an advisory capacity to the District.  The
District Conservationist as part of his/her normal conservation
planning activities, provided training to the District's
Technician, met with farmers to answer agronomic questions,
conducted tours of the plots, assisted the Technician with
scouting, evaluated the technical data on the plots, and
organized and wrote the reports.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service was
involved by providing Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)
payments to cooperators qualifying for such payments when
applying conservation practices to the land.

                        Funding Mechanisms

With the Monroe County SWCD being the grantee, all funding for
the Project was administered by the District.  Matching monies
for 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.  Expenses were referred to the Board of Directors for
approval before payments were made.

IV.  OPERATING PROCEDURES

                 Selection  of Project  Coordinator

A new employee to serve as a "Project Coordinator" was not hired
by the District.  Instead a Conservation Tillage Technician was
hired under a personal services contract. The first Conservation
Tillage Technician was located through an advertisement placed
for three days in the local newspaper.  The ad read as follows:
"Conservation Tillage Technician.  Responsible for supervising
and planting no-till plots.  Farm background required."  Eleven
applicants were interviewed.

The person who was hired in March of 1983 for the position had
some horticultural experience, 20 years experience in farming and
in working with equipment,  and over a year's experience working
as a horticulture assistant at the Cooperative Extension Service.
Unfortunately in the midst of the first planting season the new
technician experienced health problems, and a temporary
replacement was located.

Later a new Conservation Tillage Technician with a working-farm
background was hired under a personal services contract. The
contract stipulated the particular duties to be performed during

                             -9-

-------
the year and the payment for each totaling $3,500 (see Appendix
B).

The District's full time administrative assistant managed the
project funds, scheduled the no-till equipment use and compiled
the data which was provided to her.

The District Conservationist as part of his/her normal
conservation planning activities, provided training to the
District's Technician, met with farmers to answer agronomic
questions, conducted tours of the plots, assisted the Technician
with scouting, evaluated the technical data on the plots, and
organized and wrote the reports.

                            Accounting

The District Administrative Assistant was responsible for
managing the funding of the Project under guidelines established
by the grant proposal, as directed by the District Board of
Directors.  Funds received from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency were deposited into the District savings account and
expenses were paid by check for bills approved for payment by the
Board of Directors.

As funds were needed and upon the direction of the Board of
Directors, the Administrative Assistant prepared a "Request for
Advance or Reimbursement" form and submitted it to the U.S. EPA.
This form included total program outlays to date, estimated
outlays for the advance period, funds previously requested, and
funds requested for the advance period.

                            Equipment

The purchase of the planter, valued at over $2,500, was
advertised for sealed bids.  Invitations to bid, specifications
and bid sheets were sent to dealers in the area who might be able
to supply the needed equipment.  The bids were publicly opened on
the specified date and read aloud by the chairman of the Board of
Directors.  The lowest bid submitted was awarded the sale.  The
successful bidder was notified in writing.  A second piece of
equipment, a small used drill, was purchased.  Project funds were
used for a portion (43%) of the purchase price  of the drill.
The cost to the Project was under $2,000 therefore, the bid
process was not used.

The District's large soybean drill was leased to the Project thus
assisting the District in its purchase.  Tractors for the
equipment were leased from a local dealer.  All of the District's
equipment was offered for lease/rental at a nominal charge.  In
all cases priority was given to Project participants.  The first
year saw the rental program used by a substantial number of
farmers.  Each succeeding year witnessed a decline in rentals as
participants in the Project purchased their own equipment.


                             -10-

-------
The Project permitted^ the purchase and subsequent lease/rental of
no-till equipment that otherwise would not have been possible for
the District to purchase.

                       Selection of Project

At a special meeting March 24, 1982 the board of directors
decided to apply for grant funds for a conservation tillage
demonstration project.  Representatives from the County Board of
Commissioners were invited to a meeting held March 30, 1982 to
select a watershed.  The Otter Creek Watershed was selected.
Fifty-eight percent of the Otter Creek Watershed's area contain
soils susceptible to erosion by water run-off.  The remaining 42
percent are vulnerable to wind erosion.  Taking these statistics
into consideration, conservation tillage is an effective practice
in reducing erosion caused by wind and water on the soils of the
Otter Creek Watershed.

Subsequent to the meeting and prior to submission of the
application the District received letters of support from the
Monroe County Board of Commissioners, ASCS,  Monroe County Drain
Commissioner and Cooperative Extension Service.  In June the
grant application was submitted and approved.

               Guidelines for Project Participation

The basic guidelines requested of the participants were to set
aside a 20 acre block of cropland for two 10 acre side-by-side
comparison plots, keep accurate records, take yield checks,
permit tours of fields and permit publication of data and yields
collected on fields in the project.

                       Technical Assistance

The Project Technician provided specific services which
encompassed maintaining the District's equipment, operating the
tillage equipment, reviewing the equipment use with the farmers,
answering general questions about fertility and pest management,
keeping records of equipment use, and assisting SCS staff in
collecting tillage data and yield data.

                    Information and Education

Educational activities, which included tours, news releases, oral
reports at annual meetings and annual project reports were
normally organized and prepared by the SCS District
Conservationist working with the District's Administrative
Assistant.  No information program was designed or formally
planned prior to the initiation of the Project.

                   Incentives for Participants

Incentives available to Project participants and for potential
participants were rather limited.  Most had already exceeded

                             -11-

-------
either their three years for ACP tillage cost-share or had
exceeded their 60 acre ACP limitation.  No special cost-sharing
funds were approved by ASCS to accelerate erosion control in the
project area.  Therefore participants did not have any economic
advantage over any other farmers in the county, with the
exception that District equipment was available to them to use
"at cost".

The problem with this arrangement was that most of those
interested in participating (at least by the second year) had
equipment of their own which was suitable for no-till.  Hence the
advantage to accrue to the individual was nil.  Furthermore, many
potential participants saw the public attention as a
disadvantage.  After the first year several participants declined
to continue after they had undergone the experience  of having
their crop yields distributed in the Annual Report and publicized
in news releases.

                Reporting  System -  Data  Collection

One of the more challenging tasks of the Project was obtaining
plot data from cooperators.  For many farmers, the data 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 persons were often required to obtain the needed
information.

Even when data was collected, it was often of limited value.  In
some cases data was not complete or was based upon the
cooperators best recollection or estimate.  In other cases valid
comparisons could not be made because the cooperator had altered
the inputs or some factor on one plot but not the other  (i.e.
planting date or fertilizer rates).  Additionally, extremely wet
harvest conditions in both 1985 and 1986 greatly limited the
cooperatorfs time available to do harvest checks.  To some
participants the necessity of harvesting their fields as rapidly
as possible conflicted with completion of the harvest checks.

Charts in Appendix A summarize the plot data and results compiled
in the four years of the Project 1983 to 1986.  This information
was provided to the U.S. EPA as a part of quarterly and annual
reviews of Project activities conducted by the District

V.  PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

                      Number of  Participants

A total of 15 different farmers participated in the Project in
the four crop seasons 1982-1986.  This number included:  10
participants in 1983; 6 participants in 1984; 7 participants in
1985; and 6 participants in 1986.
                             -12-

-------
                 Acreages in Demonstration Plots

A total of 657.4 acres were included in the demonstration plots.
The yearly acreages were as follows:  1983, 239 acres; 1984,
128.8 acres; 1985, 90 acres; and 1986, 199.6 acres.

Included in this total 337.7 acres of no-till were planted on the
demonstration plots; 118 acres in 1983, 67.9 acres in 1984, 54
acres in 1985, and 97.8 acres in 1986.

All of the demonstration plots involved a comparison between no-
till and another form of tillage which the farmer either used on
his farm or had used previously.  On 59% of the plots the
comparison plot was planted using a form of minimum tillage which
left more than 30% residue on the surface.  On 41% of the plots
the comparison used was some form of maximum tillage which left
less than 30% residue cover on the surface.

On 83% of the plots corn was the crop planted.  Soybeans were
planted only on 17% of the plots.  This selection of corn over
soybeans is attributable to the lesser acceptance and
understanding of no-till soybeans as compared to no-till corn.
                                      S  "t
                       OTTIRCRBK
                        NO TILL
                    DEMONSTRATION PR01ECT
  Each plot was  identified as part of the Otter  Creek Project
  with a sign visible  from the road.  The signs  included
  specific information on crop residue, tillage,  crop planted,
  date planted,  herbicides,  insecticides, and  fertilization.
                            -13-

-------
                    Information and Education

Tours give people the opportunity to see what conservation
tillage looks like.  Each summer demonstration tillage plots were
toured.  The average attendance for each tour was 25 people.
During 1985 and 1986 the Agricultural Agent for the local
Cooperative Extension Service assisted with the tours.

Additionally, in 1985 and 1986 county-wide meetings on
conservation tillage were held during the winter months at which
approximately 100 were in attendance.  Otter Creek participants
were especially invited to attend these meetings to improve their
management.

Newsletters have been an important method of communication.  They
covered current topics of importance such as plot sign up,
equipment availability, and upcoming tours and meetings.  A
mailing list was compiled of Project cooperators and those who
owned or farmed land in Monroe County.  Seven newsletters were
prepared covering the Project and distributed to the mailing list
of 2400 people.  On two occasions articles were also published in
the Michigan Department of Agriculture newsletter.
     Landowners viewing the Project's no-till plots in 1983
                             -14-

-------
Greater than 30% of the surface was covered with crop
residue on ?9% of the comparison plots.  Because residue
left on the soil surface (as shown above and «> J0^^ as
shown below) reduced wind erosion and the rate of surface
wate? runoff, fertilizers and pesticides removed from the
fields wSre also reduced.  This resulted in improved water
quality in the Project area.
 Soybeans are growing up through corn and weed residue which
 has not been touched with any tillage implements.  The
 amount of corn stalks left on the soil surface as a
 protective mulch can be seen between the soybean rows.

                           -15-

-------
A good working relationship with the farm editor of the local
newspaper resulted in excellent coverage of tours and meetings,
as well as publication of articles and news photos.  During the
life of the Project 12 news releases pertaining to the Project
were published.  The District's Annual Report, which is published
as a tabloid in the local daily newspaper, also provided an
excellent method of informing the public of the Project,
resulting data, and equipment availability.

Demonstration Project Annual Reports were published that included
data on tillage operations performed, herbicide and insecticide
usage, seed varieties, and yields.  Reports were distributed to
many interested farmers and others.

              Erosion  and  Sediment Loading Reduction

Based upon calculations using the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) for sheet and rill erosion and the Wind Erosion Equation
(WEE) soil savings on the plots totaled 2,298 tons over the four
year period.


                             TABLE 2

                   Soil Saved on jNo-Till Plots

                                   Tons
                           1983      697
                           1984      564
                           1985      483
                           1986      554

                          Total   2,298
                             TABLE 3

              Average Soil Loss on Comparison Plots

                                   Tons
                           1983       81
                           1984       87
                           1985       71
                           1986       56

                          Total     295

It should be noted that, contrary to pre-Project evaluation,
these soil losses include the calculated erosion rates for both

                             -16-

-------
water erosion and wind erosion.  Normally, when sediment loading
of streams and lakes is considered wind erosion is not thought to
play a major role.  Wind erosion, however, was included in our
calculations because of several unique features of Monroe County
and of the Otter Creek Watershed.

First, the severity of wind erosion must be examined.  Two-thirds
of the soils in the watershed fall within wind erodibility groups
one and two (those most susceptible to wind erosion).  These wind
erosive soils, rather than being concentrated in certain areas
are interspersed with the less erodible soils throughout the
watershed.  Additionally, fields in the area are larger open crop
fields with few tree lines and fence rows.  Under these
circumstances, wind erosion rates often reach the maximum rates
of 25 tons per acre.

Even extremely high wind erosion rates can have little impact
upon water quality.  However, several peculiar topographic
features of Monroe County contribute to the significant water
quality impact of wind erosion here.

The unusually flat poorly drained, lakebed soils in this area
have necessitated the installation of comprehensive surface and
subsurface drainage systems throughout the watershed.  Surface
drains can normally be found from 1/8 to 1/4 mile apart.

When wind erosion occurs 90% of the eroded soil rolls and bounces
across the soil surface until it hits an obstacle.  In most cases
in this watershed the obstacle that stops the moving soil is the
edge of a ditch bank.  Consequently most of the soil is deposited
directly in the surface drains or along its edge.

Frequently after a heavy windstorm, not only will newly deposited
soil be visible in the drainage ditch, but grains of fertilizer
are also seen deposited on the ditch edges.  After very severe
windstorms in April and May, some drainage ditches have been
filled entirely full with sediment.  During the spring of 1984
and 1985 Monroe County experienced some of its most severe wind-
storms in recent history.

The Otter Creek Watershed's proximity to Lake Erie is another
factor which influenced the importance of the soil savings which
were obtained.  Despite relatively low sheet and rill erosion
rates, a large percentage of the soil eroded from unprotected
fields will ultimately reach Lake Erie.  This is because the
distance to the nearest watercourse is short (typically 1/8 to
1/4 mile), and the distance of the eroding cropland to Lake Erie
is small (the maximum distance to the upper end of the watershed
is only 16 miles).  Meanwhile, the sediment delivery ratio
increases as distance to a watercourse decreases.  Additionally,
the delivery ratio is greater for phosphorus than for sediment in
general, since the fine sediment fraction is phosphorus-enriched
and does not readily settle out in the crop field.
                             -17-

-------
            Phosphorus and Other Pollutant Reductions

Soil savings calculations can be utilized to a certain extent to
calculate the phosphorus load reductions that may have been
achieved, as well as the nitrogen and potash savings that may
have been accrued.  Based upon calculations that 2 pounds of
Nitrogen (N),  3 pounds of Phosphate (P2O5) and 30 pounds of
Potash (K20) are lost with each ton of soil lost to erosion.1  We
can estimate the following reductions in pollutants.

                             Table 4

             Total  Nutrients  Saved  On No-Till  Plots

                    1983      1984      1985      1986     Total
                    Ibs.      Ibs.      Ibs.      Ibs.      Ibs.


Nitrogen (N)        1,390     1,130       966     1,108     4,594
Phosphate (P205)    2,091     1,695     1,449     1,662     6,897
Potash (K20)       20,910    16,947    14,490    16,620    68,967
Beyond the important water quality benefits that resulted by
retaining the soil and nutrients in place, a monetary value can
also be calculated for the farmers who saved these valuable
nutrients.  The estimated value of the nutrients saved over the
four years of the Project totaled $9,088.

Additionally, some sources estimate that when soil erosion
occurs, an equal value of organic matter is saved for each dollar
of nutrients saved.2

VI.  CONCLUSIONS

                         Project Impacts

One positive impact of the tillage project was that the District
has been able to make the no-till equipment purchased through
the Project  (International planter and a Tye drill) available to
other interested farmers throughout the county.  Additionally the
lease arrangement on the Lilliston Drill has made it less of an
economic hardship for the District to make such a drill available
to farmers throughout the county.  The results of this
arrangement has been an increase in no-till acres  county-wide
over the last four years.
1  Beasley, Erosion and Sediment Control, page 15.

2  Dr. Lynn Robertson, Soil Physicist formerly with MSU.


                             -18-

-------
                        CHART  3
       Conservation  Tillage in Project Area
      1933
1934
1933
                                                1936
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
 9
 3
 7
 6
 S
 4
 3
 2
 1
 0
      % Conservation Tillage/Total  Cropland
                      in Project Area
      1933
                    1984
              1933
                                                1935
                         -19-

-------
                            CHART 4
          Conservation Tillage  in  Monroe County
 t
     1O -
      S -
           1933
                                      19SS
                                                    19B6
,£
17
16
13
14
13
12
11
10
 9
 3
 7
 6
 S
 4
 3
 2
 1
 O
          % Conservation  Tillage/Total  Cropland
                          in Manrae Caunty
                         1934
                                 13SS
1936
                             -20-

-------
Another impact of the project has been an increased use of no-
till within the watershed by farmers who were not participating
in the Project.  There appear to be several reasons for this:  1)
many farmers already interested in no-till and who planted no-
till did not want to "be bothered" with planting side-by-side
comparisons (they just wanted to plant whole fields),  or they did
not want to keep track of the data we needed, to "fool" with
harvest checks when they were busy, etc.; 2) some potential
participants who were doing no-till in the watershed did not want
the publicity or the attention that participating in the Project
would bring; 3) other farmers in the vicinity apparently adopted
no-till after being impressed with the no-till results of their
participating neighbors.  SCS staff have observed (but not
measured) that a larger percent of farmers use no-till in the
vicinity of the Project than in other parts of the county.
Heavy winds in the spring of 1984 and 1985 resulted in severe
wind erosion, especially in the Project area which has a high
concentration of soil susceptible to wind erosion.  The crop
protection provided by no-till visibly illustrated to neighbors
of the Project participants one of the most important benefits of
no-till.

                       Involvement of SWCD

One key factor affecting the extent to which the SWCD has been
involved with the Project has been the availability of District
personnel to carry-out the various duties necessary to accomplish
project goals.

The first Conservation Tillage Technician, hired under a personal
services contract was located through an advertisement placed for
three days in the local newspaper.  Unfortunately, in the midst
of the first planting season the new technician experienced
health problems, and a replacement had to be urgently located.
Gerald Rogers, an active farmer and one of the District Board of
Directors, agreed on short notice to complete the field work for
the spring season and in September Marlene Rogers was hired to
complete the fall harvest checks.

The District succeeded under these difficult circumstances in
keeping their no-till equipment going and in completing the
necessary harvest checks.  The District owes this success to the
efforts of Director Rogers and his wife Marlene, since they
agreed, with little notice, to take time from their own farming
operations to assist the participants with the planting and
harvest of the plots.

A new Conservation Tillage Technician was hired under a personal
services contract which stipulated the particular duties to be
performed during the year and the payment for each.

The technician  provided specific services which basically
encompassed maintaining the District's equipment, operating the
tillage equipment, reviewing the equipment use with the farmers,


                            -21-

-------
answering general questions about fertility and pest management,
keeping records of equipment use, and assisting SCS staff in
collecting tillage data and yield data.  The duties of the
technician did not encompass the compilation of tillage data or
the writing of the quarterly, annual or final reports.  The
understanding was that this portion of the project activities
could be handled by the SCS District Conservationist and the
District's Administrative Assistant.

The District's full-time Administrative Assistant managed the
project funds, scheduled the no-till equipment use and compiled
the data which was provided to her.  The District Conservationist
as part of his/her3 normal conservation planning activities,
provided training to the District's Technician, met with farmers
to answer agronomic questions, conducted tours of the plots,
assisted the Technician with scouting, evaluated the technical
data on the plots, and organized and wrote the reports.

There are several observations that can be made about the results
of this particular staff arrangement.  First, because of the
first technician's unanticipated health problems, District Board
members (out of necessity) became directly involved with the
Project.  These circumstances allowed the Board to become
directly familiar with the Project, but at the same time placed
unexpected demands on the director's farming time.  In similar
situations, it would be prudent to make plans for contingencies
such as employee injuries, an employee resignation, or an
employee being dismissed.   Potential substitutes should be
available, since planting season cannot be delayed.

A second observation on the District involvement in the Project
pertains to the decision to handle Project activities with a
part-time technician working under a personal services contract.
Since the duties of this technicians position where limited
basically to data gathering in the field and to working with the
equipment, a large portion of the District's responsibilities for
the Project became the responsibility of the staff which the
District had already in their employ.  The District's permanent
staff is not technical but administrative/clerical and therefore
many of the technical aspects of the Project not within the
specified field duties of the District Technician had of
necessity to be completed by the SCS District Conservationist.

The success of this arrangement was essentially dictated by the
SCS's current staffing (i.e., vacancies, and staffing varying
between one and two) and workload demands from other programs.
As a result,  the District's involvement in the Project was at
times limited by the level of involvement of the SCS staff.
3  During the Project years, the SCS District Conservationist
position underwent a change in personnel.  Also the office
changed from a single person office in 1984 to a two person
staff.  However, this staff position also underwent a change in
personnel and a vacancy for nine months in 1985.


                             -22-

-------
Since the District did not hire District staff to carry-out all
aspects of the Project, but planned to utilize the technical
assistance of the SCS staff to complete some aspects, this
problem appears, in retrospect, to have been inevitable.

                     Interagency Cooperation

Positive attitudes between the agency personnel involved with a
project at the local level are essential for the success of any
project similar to Otter Creek.  This is made easier by existing
working relationships with other local agency personnel.

However, more than positive attitudes are needed.
For example, since the bulk of agricultural educational
activities have historically been handled by the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) the strong participation of the CES in
any agricultural information program can strongly effect its
visibility and success.  Unfortunately, during 1983 when the
project was organized, Michigan State University was not as
supportive of no-till farming as it is now.  The local offices of
the CES, an extension of the University, did reflect some of this
perspective.  Consequently, during the early stages when the
project was first set-up, valuable CES input and assistance was
tempered by the University's attitude.

As this Project, and many similar tillage projects throughout the
nation progressed, perspectives changed and CES support became
more visible.  Although the Project's information program was not
notably expanded,  some changes did occur in 1985 and in 1986
which increased CES involvement.  An additional Agricultural
Agent was added to the Monroe CES staff in 1985.  As a result CES
had more time to work with the District on projects.
Additionally, the new Agent brought to his job a strong
enthusiasm for soil conservation and an interest in working with
Districts.  Consequently CES co-sponsored and provided speakers
at the plot tours in both 1985 and in 1986, and assisted with the
publicity for the tours.

A spin-off of local CES interest in continuing their work with
conservation tillage has been a new joint effort by the CES, the
SWCD, the SCS, and MSU.  Starting in 1986, the four agencies
began work together on a Tillage Evaluation Plot which will
evaluate four different forms of tillage in a single plot over a
three year period.

          Physical and Economic Adaptability of No-Till
                      Application to the Land

One of the major obstacles to the adoption of no-till in Monroe
County has been the physical limitations of the county's soil
type.  Fifty-five percent of the soils in the county fall within
capability class 2W, thirty-four percent within class 3W, and
one-half percent within class 4W.   This obstacle can be overcome
by applying subsurface (tile)  drainage and/or surface drainage to

                             -23-

-------
these wet soil types.  In addition, nearly all of the soils found
in Monroe County are susceptible to wind erosion. By planting
crops using the no-till method, this problem can be virtually
eliminated.

The additional cost of herbicides, that are used to control
weeds, with no-till can be drastically reduced after the second
or third year of using this practice.  By not tilling the ground
weed seeds are not brought back up to the surface where they can
germinate.  Also, by continually using no-till, weeds, especially
annuals are brought under control so that rates of herbicides can
be reduced.  In this project the only difference in the herbicide
costs was the use of a burndown in the no-till plots, and this
cost was more than made up when we look at the cost of the
several tillage operations that were done in the comparison plots
(see Appendix A).

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

                    Institutional Arrangement

It became clear as the project progressed and as new personnel
became involved with the project, that a clear understanding and
agreement as to the various agency roles and responsibilities had
not been adequately worked out before the project began.  A work
plan had not been developed and agreed upon in advance.  Without
a clear written statement of responsibilities and without a work
plan that includes all agencies involved, changes in agency
priorities have the potential to negatively effect the
implementation of similar projects.

A clear and complete long range work plan, an annual work plan
and a workload analysis should be developed before any similar
project is started.  In the case of the Otter Creek Project, a
written commitment of staff time and responsibilities should have
been made by all agencies involved, and approved not just by
field staff but also by agency administrators.  More effective
implementation may have resulted had this been done.

Ideally, staff commitments should also stipulate the educational
background and experience required by each individual with
project responsibilities.  A description of the duties and
responsibilities of each staff person involved with the project
should be clearly spelled out in writing.  A training program for
project staff should be developed  (in written form) and carried
out within the first six months of the project (if it is to be a
short term project).  The job descriptions would be most useful
if  developed after completion of the work plan and  workload
analysis for the Project.

With this information, the District Board can then evaluate
whether or not they have a person(s) capable of fulfilling the
requirements and time to do the job well.  If a new employee is
to be hired, then the issue of availability and funding can next

                             -24-

-------
be evaluated.  Are people with the necessary qualifications
available in the District's vicinity?   Can they be attracted to
the position the District is offering?  Most importantly, are
adequate funds available to pay them throughout the entire
project?

It is a challenge for any agency or group to sufficiently address
these questions before applying for grant funding, since
application times are frequently very short.  Once grant monies
are approved projects are normally expected to be started
immediately.  The time required for careful analysis is
frequently not available, and staff availability to conduct such
analysis is usually limited.  Properly addressing these issues
before a project is started can help avoid otherwise inevitable
problems during implementation and/or evaluation.

                         Agency Programs

Numerous USDA programs now strongly support the nation's efforts
to control soil erosion and improve water quality.  The most
comprehensive of these is the recently implemented Food Security
Act of 1985.  This program combined with the long standing
nationwide Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and special
programs such as the Rural Clean Water Program to pave the way
toward fulfillment of our national commitment to improving water
quality in Lake Erie.  On the other hand, these programs have
expanded the responsibilities of our federal conservation
agencies, thus placing a greater challenge before local and state
agencies.  These agencies are increasingly being asked to provide
assistance in meeting the conservation demands of their
community.  Therefore, it is important when projects such as that
for the Otter Creek Watershed are considered by local agencies,
that previous program commitments of federal agency personnel are
fully considered.  The availability of the current staff of
participating agencies to assist with project activities needs to
be evaluated, as does the potential for additional staff to
provide assistance to the local project sponsors.

In the same light, federal agencies with a strong  commitment and
interest in water quality must evaluate previous staff
commitments before accepting the challenge of new projects.
Even field staff willingness to accept the new responsibilities
of a demonstration project needs to be weighed against the
realities of potential staff reductions, personnel changes, and
expanding commitments in other program areas.  Such evaluations
can most realistically be made at upper management levels in
federal agencies where the long range planning considerations are
better understood.

                         Future Programs

One clear impact of the Project on the District has been to make
the Board of Directors more judicious in the selection and
development of future conservation projects.   The Board's reason

                             -25-

-------
for caution is that in the Otter Creek Project there was
confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the
participating agencies.  As a result recruitment of new
participants, public information campaigns and preparation of
reports were not as efficient as the Board had hoped they would
be.

In the future, when similar projects are considered by the
District, a clear understanding of each agencyvs
responsibilities, and a realistic evaluation of each agency's
ability to perform (i.e. staff time, training and funding) will
be completed before beginning the initial phases of the project.

          How Will  Project  Accomplishment  Be  Maintained?

Currently the SWCD, the CES, MSU and the SCS are working together
on a three-year Tillage Evaluation Plot.  This plot which is
designed to evaluate no-till, ridge-tillage,  chisel tillage, and
moldboard plowing will help to carry out some of the objectives
of the Otter Creek Tillage Demonstration Project.  This new
evaluation plot, although not in the Otter Creek Watershed, will
continue to demonstrate to farmers the local application of
conservation tillage practices and demonstrate the effectiveness
of conservation tillage for controlling soil erosion.  The
Tillage Evaluation Plot will also help serve, as the Otter Creek
Project has served, as a focus for increased interagency support
and cooperation in the effort to preserve and protect our soil
and water resources.
   The planter,  shown here planting one of the Project's no-
   till plots was purchased with Project funds.   The SWCD will
   continue to promote no-till by offering the use of the
   planter and a no-till drill to Monroe County farmers who are
   interested in no-till.
                             -26-

-------
               APPENDIX   A
               PLOT DATA AND RESULTS
MONROE COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

-------
1983 Otter Creek Deionstration Project	


No-Till






Compari-
son




No-Till




Compari-
son



No-Till



Compari-
son

No-Till



Compari-
son

Cooperator:
Plot Size;
Crop
Lynn
Albring
10.0 ac.


Corn

16,0 ac.





David
Anteau
14,5 ac,

Corn
14,5 ac,




Diesing
Brothers
10,0 ac,
Corn
10,0 ac.


William
Heck
6,0 ac,
Corn
6.0 ac.


Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-14-83
Jacques
179




5-14-83
Jacques
179



5-26-83
Leader



5-26-83
Leader



5-11-83
Pioneer


5-11-83
Pioneer

5-18-83
Pioneer
3747

5-18-83
Pioneer
3747
Seed Drop

Stand
25,000


23,000




25,000


23,600



24,000


19,500


24,000


23,500


25,670


25.100

25,670


23,600
25,800


18,100

25,800


21,000
Row Width
and Tillage
Planter Equipient
30 in. None
Intern'tl
800




30 in, Plow, Disk
Intern'tl
800



30 in, None
Intern'tl
800


30 in, Disk
Intern'tl
800


30 in, None
Intern'tl
800

30 in, Plow
Intern'tl Disk
800
30 in, None
Intern'tl
800

30 in, Disk
Intern'tl Finishing
800 Disk
Residue
or
Cover
Soy-
beans





Cabb-
age




Corn




Corn




Corn



Corn


Corn



Corn


Soil
Type (1)
Selfridge Is
Pewaao cl





Oakville fs





Selfridge Is
Del Rey sil
Selfridge 1s-
Pewano cl

Selfridge Is
Del Rey sil
Selfridge 1s-
Pewamo cl
Lenawee sicl
Corunna si



Corunna si


Selfridge Is
Selfridge 1s-
Pewamo cl

Selfridge Is
Selfridge 1s-
Pewano cl
Drainage
Class (2)
S.W, Poor
Poorly





Hod. Sell





S.W. Poor
S.S. Poor
S.W, Poor/
Poor

S.W, Poor
S.W. Poor
S.W, Poor/
Poor
Poorly
Poorly



Poorly


S.W. Poor
S.W. Poor/
Poor

S.W. Poor
S.tf. Poor/
Poor
Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Pre-eierge:
Bladex 1 Ib,
Atrazine 1 Ib,
Lasso 2 qt.
Post:
Atrazine 1 Ib,
2,4-D 1/2 pt.
Pre-emerge:
Atrazine 1 Ib.
Lasso 2 qt,
Post:
Atrazine 1 Ib.
2,4-D 1/2 pt.
Lasso 1 qt. (8)
Bladex 1 qt,
Atrazine 2 pt.


Lasso 1 qt. (8|
Bladex 1 qt.
Atrazine 2 pt.


Paraquat 3/4 pt,
Atrazine 3 qt.


Atrazine 3 qt.


Lasso 5 pt.
Bladex 1-1/2 qt.


Lasso 5 pt,
Bladex 1-1/2 qt,

               -la-

-------
                                                Plot Data and Results	
                                                   Soil Loss                                                       Tine
               Fertilizer                 Yield     Avg/ac/yr  Tot,Soil   Change  in     $  Nutrients     $ Organic      Saved
Insecticides      N-P-K      Nitrogen       Dry       (Wind +   Saved on   Net  Profit      (N-P-R)        Hatter        per
 (rate/ac1/       (lbs/ac)    Source/s   Bushels (3)   Water)      Plot     per/ac  (4)   Saved/ac  (5)    Saved/ac  (6)   ac  (7)

    Hone       170-80-4028!Und     l39~hTHon     Z20~Ton-$13 JO        $2!U6         $~28J635  liii.
                             Starter






    Hone       170-80-40      28* and     150 bu,     23 Ton
                             Starter





  Dyfonate      126-64-232   Urea and     63 bu.       1 Ton     49 Ton     -$57.58        $13.21         $13.21      27,  rnin
   5 Ibs.                     Starter        (8)




  Dyfonate      126-64-232   Urea and     87 bu.       4 Ton
   5 Ibs,                     Starter        (8)




  Dyfonate      238-92-424   Ankydrous    139 bu.      1 Ton     61 Ton     +$11.74        $23.71         $23,71      11  lin.
   7 Ibs.                   and  Starter




  Dyfonate      238-92-424   Anhydrous    142 bu.      7 Ton
   7 Ibs.                   and  Starter


  Dyfonate      172-48-48     28* and     122 bu,      1 Ton     49 Ton      $74.46        $31,90        $31.90      23  iin.
   7 Ibs,                     Starter
Dyfonate     172-48-48
 7 Ibs.
                             28X and     105  bu.
                             Starter
9 Ton
                                                         -2a-

-------
                   1983 Otter  Creek Demonstration Project	

No-Till
Compari-
son
No-Till
Coipari-
son
No-Till
Coipari-
son
No-Till
Coapari-
son
Cooperator
Plot Size;
Crop
Glenn &
Dave
Lassey
15.5 ac.
Corn
15.5 ac.
(filbert
Hatthes
7,5 ac.
Corn
7,5 ac,
John
Metz
12,0 ac.
Corn
12.0 ac.
Donald
Newell
10.0 ac.
Corn
10,0 ac.
Planting;
Date
Variety
6-14-83
DeKalb
25A
6-14-83
Malb
25A
6-15-83
Great Lakes
422
6-15-83
Great Lakes
422
5-21-83
DeKalb
XL42
5-21-83
DeKalb
XL42
5-10-83
Pioneer
R26
3780
5-10-83
Pioneer
R26
Seed Drop
Stand
24,500
15,000
24,500
20,000
22,700
20,000
22,700
22,000
22,500
21,800
22,500
21,000
25,567 (10]
23,500
25,567 (10)
24,000
Row Sfidti
and
Planter
30 in,
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in,
Intern'tl
800
30 in,
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in,
Intern'tl
800
Tillage
Equipient
None
Chisel
Disk
None
Plow
Disk
Hone
Vibra-shank
None
Disk
Chisel
Drag .
Residue
or
Cover
Soy-
beans
Soy-
beans
Soy-
beans
Soy-
beans
Soy-
beans
Soy-
beans
Corn
Corn
Soil
Type (1)
Randolph cl
Channahon 1
Randolph cl
Channahon 1
Thetford Is
Ottokee fs
Granby Ifs
Thetford Is
Ottokee fs
Selfridge Is
Pewaao cl
Pewauo cl
Granby Ifs
Thetford Is
Belleville Is
Granby Ifs
Thetford Is
Belleville Is
Drainage
Class (2)
S.W. Poor
Well
S.W. Poor
Sell
SJ, Poor
Hod, Well
Poorly
S.W, Poor
Hod. Well
S.W. Poor
Poor
Poor
Poorly
S.W. Poor
Poorly
Poorly
S.W. Poor
Poorly
Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Roundup 1 qt.
Atrazine 2 Ib.
Lasso 2 qt.
2,4-D 1 pt,
Atrazine 2 Ib.
Lasso 2 qt,
2,4-D 1 pt.
Roundup 2 qt,
Atrazine 2 qt.
Lasso 2-1/2 qt,
Atrazine 2 qt,
Lasso 2-1/2 qt,
Roundup 2 qt,
Atrazine 1-1/2 qt,
Lasso 2-1/2 qt.
Atrazine 1-1/2 qt.
Lasso 2-1/2 qt.
Paraquat 3/4 pt.
Dual 1-1/4 qt,
Atrazine 1-1/4 qt.
Dual 1-1/4 qt.
Atrazine 1-1/4 qt,
3780
                                  -3a-

-------
                                                 Plot  Data  and  Results	


                                                    Soil  Loss                                                        Tine
               Fertilizer                 Yield      Avg/ac/yr   Tot.Soil   Change  in    $ Nutrients    $ Organic      Saved
Insecticides     ti-P-R      Nitrogen       Dry       (Wind  +    Saved  on   Bet Profit     (N-P-K|        Hatter        per
 (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)     Source/s   Bushels (3)    Water)       Plot    per/ac  (4)  Saved/ac  (5)   Saved/ac (6)   ac  (?)

    None       151-166-66   Urea and     45 bu.        1  Ton      42 Ton      -$37.58       $10,49         $10.49      31  nin.
                             Starter
    None       151-166-66   Urea and     66  bu.        4  Ton
                             Starter
 Seed Treat    203-18-24    Anhydrous    69 bu.        2  Ton      58  Ton      -$56.9?        $29.92         $29,92      43 sin.
                           and Starter     (9)
 Seed Treat    203-18-24    Anhydrous    100 bu.       9  Ton
                           and Starter     (9)
    None       180-24-24    Urea and     118 bu.       1  Ton      23  Ton      -$11.72        $7.42         $7.42       30 ain.
                             Starter
    None       180-24-24    Urea and     126 bu.       3  Ton
                             Starter
  Dyfonate    204-104-180   Anhydrous    111  bu.       I  Ton      79  Ton      -$33,99        $30.71         $30,?1      29 tin,
   7 Ibs,                  and Starter    (10)
  Dyfonate    204-104-180   Anhydrous    122 bu,      10  Ton
   7 Ibs,                  and Starter    (10)
                                                         -4a-

-------
                                                 1983  Otter  Creek  Demonstration  Project,
Compari-
   son

No-Till
Cooperator;
Plot Size;
Crop
William
Whittaker
17.5 ac,
Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-17-83
Super Cross
1940
Seed Drop Row Width
Stand Planter
27,000 30 in,
	 Tnfiarn'f 1
25,000 800
Residue
Tillage or Soil
Equipment Cover Type (1)
None Soy- Selfridge Is
beans Selfridge 1s-
Pewaio cl
Pewamo cl
Drainage Herbicides
Class (2) (rate/ac)
SJ, Poor Lasso 2 qt,
S,W, Poor/ Atrazine 1 qt.
Poor
Poor
                 Corn
Compari-
son
No-Till
17,5 ac,
Daniel
Secord
15.0 ac.
5-17-83
Super Cross
1940
5-28-83
Pride
8220
27,000
25,000
104,000
104,000
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
Disk
Cultivator
None
Soy-
beans
Corn
Selfridge
Selfridge
Pewamo
Pewamo
Selfridge
Randolph
Is
1s-
cl
cl
Is
cl
S.W. Poor
S.W. Poor/
Poor
Poor
S.W. Poor
S.W. Poor
Lasso
Atrazine
Paraquat
Lasso
Lorox
2 qt,
1 qt.
2 pt.
3 qt.
3 pt,
               Soybeans
                           5-28-83
                            Pride
                             8220
            186,057
                                       &

                                     10 in.
                                      Tye
                                    Pasture
                                    Pleaser
12,0 ac.     5-28-83    104,000  (11)    30  in
               Soybeans
 Pride
  8220
5-28-83
 Pride
  8220
                                   Intern'tl
                         97,763



                        200,000

                        150,000
   Plow
  Field
Cultivator
Cultivate
                                                Corn
 Randolph cl
 Ottokee fs
Selfridge Is
S.W. Poor
Hod. Well
S.W, Poor
Lasso 3 qt,
Lorox 3 pt.
                                                    10  in,
                                                     Tye
                                                   Pasture
                                                   Pleaser
**** Reference to commercial  products  or  trade  names  does  not  imply  endorsenent  by  the  Monroe  County  Soil  and  Water  Conservation
     District or bias against those  not mentioned,

(4j   "Change in net profit"  for  the  no-till  plot  vs,  the comparison  plot  is  the  difference  in  their gross  profit  iiinus  the
     difference in their  production  costs,   Gross profit was calculated by using their  yield difference  in bushel,  tines  the
     price per bushel.   Prices per bushel were  assumed  as  follows;   $3.00/bu.  for corn;  $6.00/bu.  for soybeans.   Production costs
     included the cost  of all field  operations,  fertilizers, herbicides,  and insecticides,  Costs  of  field operations  were  based
     upon costs published in  Custom  Work  Rates  in Michigan, Bulletin E-458 by  the HSU Cooperative  Extension Service,  August 1983,
     The custom rate for  using a spring tooth drag was  estimated  by  Paul  Marks,  Agricultural Extension Agent,  Monroe,
     Costs used for other items  were as reported  by each farier,

(8)   Soil pH 5.2.  Needed follow-up  weed  control,
                                                                  -5a-

-------
                                                 Plot Data and Results	


                                                    Soil Loss                                                        Tine
                Fertilizer                  Yield     Avg/ac/yr  Tot,Soil   Change in    $ Nutrients    $ Organic      Saved
 Insecticides      N-P-K       Nitrogen        Dry       (Wind t   Saved on   Net Profit     (N-P-E)        Hatter        per
  (rate/ac)       (It/ac)      Source/s    Bushels  (3)   Water)      Plot     per/ac (4)  Saved/ac (5!  *saved/ac (6)   ac (?)

     None        207-32-365    Anhydrous     92  bu.       1 Ton      116 Ton    -$32.21       $25.65         $25.65      24 rain.
                            and  Starter
     None        207-32-365    Anhydrous     110  bu.      8 Ton
                            and  Starter
     None         0-0-166                   39 bu.       1 Ton     45 Ton      t$.20        $11.67         $11.67      38 sin.
                 0-0-166                   48  bu.
     None         0-0-166                   47 bu.       4 Ton
                                           ill!
                 0-0-166
(9)   Average  pB.   5,9.   The  no-till plot was very wet while the eoiparison was tiled.

(10)  The  no-till  plot  was  the  first time the district planteer was in operation.  Poor stand.

(11!  10  inch  and  30  inch rows  on comparison plot were harvested together,
                                                          -6a-

-------
1984 Otter Creek Demonstration Project	

Mo-Till
Compari-
son
Mo-Till
Compari-
son
No-Till
Conpari-
son
(io-Tili
Compari-
son
Cooperator;
Plot Size;
Crop
Lynn
Albring
8,5 ac.
Corn
8,5 ac,
Diesing
Brothers
10. 0 ac,
Corn
10.0 ac.
Donald
Newell
9.5 ac.
Corn
S.5 ac.
Daniel
Secord
15,1) ac,
Corn
10,0 ac.
Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-7-84
Jacques
119
5-7-84
Jacques
179
5-10-84
Pioneer
2780
5-10-84
Pioneer
3780
5-10-84
Pioneer
3744
5-10-84
Pioneer
3744
5-12-84
Pioneer
3744
5-12-84
Pioneer
2744
Seed Drop
Stand
24,000
23,600
24,000
24,000
21,900
26,200
21,900
21,000
25,500
18,200 (8)
25,500
24,000
24,200
23,000
24,200
23,800
Row Width
and
Planter
30 in.
Kinzie
30 in.
Kinzie
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Intern'tl
800
30 in.
Allis
Chalaers
333
JO in.
Allis
Chalraers
333
30 in.
John
Deere
7000
30 in.
John
Deer
7000
Residue
Tillage or Soil
Equipment Cover Type (1)
None Corn Seifridge Is
Selfridge 1s-
Pewano cl
Hetea s
Plow, Disk Corn Selfridge Is
& Packer Selfridge 1s-
Pewarao cl
Pewamo cl
None Corn Corunna si
Plow Corn & Corunna si
Disk Small
Grain
None Corn Belleville Is
Thetford Is
Granby Ifs
Disk, Corn Belleville Is
Chisel, Thetford Is
Drag Tedrow Is
None Soy- Randolph cl
beans
Field Soy- Randolph cl
Culti- beans Ottokee-
vator varient fs
Drainage
Class (2)
S.W. Poor
SJ, Poor/
Poor
Well
S.W, Poor
S,W, Poor/'
Poor
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
S,». Poor
Poorly
Poorly
SJ. Poor
SJ, Poor
SJ. Poor
SJ, Poor
Hod, Well
Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Lasso 2 qt,
Bladex 2 Ib.
'Lasso 2 qt.
2,4-D 1/2 pint
Aatrex 1 ib.
Atmine 2 pt.
Paraquat 1/2 pt,
Atrazine 2 pt.
Lasso 2 qt.
Bladex 2 qt,
Paraquat 1 qt,
Lasso 2 qt.
Bladex 2 qt,
Bleep 4 qt,
Paraquat
1 1/2 pt,
Bicep 3 qt,
              -7a-

-------
                                                Plot  Data  and  Results,
                                                    Soil  Loss                                                        Tiie
               Fertiliser                 Yield      Avg/ac/yr   Tot,Soil    Change  in    $  Nutrients     J  Organic       Saved
Insecticides     H-P-K      Nitrogen        Dry       (Wind  *    Saved  on   (let  Profit      (N-P-K)         Matter         per
 (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)     Source/s    Bushels (3)    later)       Plot    per/'ac  (4)   Saved/ac  (5)    Saved/ac  (6)    ac (?)

  Lorsban      145-75-132    28X and      129  bu.       6  Ton      145"fon     -$23713       $8§700          $8570022~Bin~!
   6 Ibs.                    Starter
  Lorsban       145-75-132    m and      144  bu.      23  ton
   6 Ibs,                     Starter
  Dyfonate    170-119-455    Anhydrous     134  bu,       1  Ton      60  Ton      -$23.83       $30.00          $30.00       22  Bin,
 5 1/2 Ibs,                  4 Starter
  Dyfonate    170-119-455    Anhydrous     148  bu,       7  Ton
 5 1/2 Ibs.                  & Starter
  Counter     174-108-134    Anhydrous   100  bu,  (8)     1  Ton      89  Ton      -$19,53       $45,00          $45.00       24  Bin,
   7 Ibs.                   & Starter
  Counter     174-108-134    Anhydrous     110  bu,      10  Ton
   7 Ibs,                   I Starter
    None       199-96-180   Anhydrous     129  bu,       1  Ton      45  Ton      -$15,69       $15.00          $15,00       3  nin.
                            4 Starter
    None       199-96-180   Anhydrous     132  bu.       4  Ton
                            k Starter
                                                         -8a~

-------
                                                  1984 Otter Creek Demonstration Project	
Cooperates;
Dint- Ci «•/! '
j iUL U i 2>C (
Crop
No-Till Herbert
10.0 ac,
Corn
Planting;
fist o
yal/c
Variety
5-9-84
J?i)nL-n
f unifs
4342

Seed Drop
Stand
25,000
24,500

Bow Width
and
Planter
30 in.
\3\\ i f a
ffflltc
5100

Residue
Tillage or
Equipment Cover
None Soy-
beans

QAI 1
QOll
Type (1!
Selfridge 1s-
Pewaio cl
Blount 1


Dr£tlRil£6
Class (2)
S.W. Poor/
DA Al*
FOOT
S.W. Poor

.
Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Bladex 2 1/2 qt,
Lasso 2-1/2 qt,
Banvel 1/2 pt.

Compari-

No-Till




Coipari-



No-Till




Coupari-



	
9.0 ac,

William
llppt

5.9 ac.
Soybeans
5,9 ac.



Herbert
S'mi rh

9,0 ac.
Soybeans
8,0 ac.



	
5-9-84
4342
6-16-84
D-i f\vtf

2480

6-16-84


2480
6-12-84
Pun Ire

2450

6-10-84
n.._ i_ _

2450

25,000
24,500
74 Ibs.


168,000

74 Ibs.


150,000
101 Ibs.


170,000

101 Ibs.


130,000

30 in,
unto
5100
7 in,
r - 1 1 ' i

9680

1 in,
r * 1 1 • -t f

9680
7 in,
fill' 4-

9680

7 in,
fill' f-

9680

Chisel,
Till
None




Disk (2)


Cultivator
None




Plow, Disk
"Miv U'T; i i "
nix-N iiii
Field
Cultivator
Soy- Selfridge 1s-
besns PewESO cl
Selfridge Is
Corn Selfridge 1s-
n i
rewaso ci
Selfridge

Corn Selfridge Is-
Ti 1
rewaiO Cl
Selfridge is
Corn Selfridge Is-
ft i
rewano ci
Selfridge Is

Corn Selfridge Is-
n l
rewamo ci


S.W. Poor/
Poor
S.W. Poor
S.W. Poor/
TV
rOOF
S.W, Poor

S.W. Poor/
r.
roor
S.W. Poor
S.W. Poor/

Foor
S.W. Poor

S.W. Poor/
,,
Poor


Bladex 1 1/2 qt.
Lasso 2 qt.
Banvel 1/2 pt,
Lorox 2 qt.

uuai L pt.
Paraquat 2 pt,

Lorox 2 qt,
n l ,'
Dual L pt.

Lasso 2 qt,

oencor 1/2 Ib.
Eoundup 2 qt.

Lasso 2 qt.

Sencor 1/2 Ib,


(4)  "Change in net profit" for the  no-till  plot vs.  the  coiparison  plot  is  the  difference  in  their  gross  profit  linus  the
     difference in their production  costs,   Gross profit  was  calculated by using their  yield difference  in bushel,  times  the
     price per bushel.   Prices per bushel  were  assumed  as follows:   $2,90/bu.  for  corn;  J6.00/bu.  for  soybeans.   Production costs
     included the cost  of all field  operations,  fertilisers,  herbicides,  and  insecticides.  Costs  of field operations were based
     upon costs published in  Custom  fc'ork Rates  in Michigan, Bulletin  E-458 by  the  MS(J Cooperative  Extension Service, August 1983,
     The custon rate for using a spring  tooth drag was  estiiated  by  Paul  Harks,  Agricultural Extension Agent,  Monroe.   Costs  used  for
     other iteas were as reported by each  farmer,

(8)  Cjiwents:   Donald  Newell,  "Population on the no-till was  thin because I had problems getting  uy new planter  adjusted."

(9)  Consents:   Herbert Smith,  "The  no-till  plot was  planted  two  days  later than the  comparison."
                                                                  -9a-

-------
                                                Plot Data and Results	
                                                   Soil Loss                                                       Time
               Fertilizer                 Yield     Avg/ao/yr  Tot,Soil   Change in   j Nutrients    $  Organic       Saved
Insecticides      N-P-K       Nitrogen       Dry       (Kind +   Saved on  Net Profit     (N-P-Kj         Hatter         per
 (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)     Source/s   Bushels (3)   S*ater|      Plot    per/ac (4)  Saved/ac (5)   Saved/ac (S!    ac (7)

    fione        200-95-170      M  It       167 bu.      3 Ton     70 Ton     +$88.71      $35,00         $35,00       25 ain.
                              Urea




    None        200-95-170      2811  fc       140 bu.     10 Ton
                              Urea


    None         0-0-120                   24 bu,       6 Ton     100 Ton    +$0.62       $85,00         $85.00       28 ain.





    None         0-0-120                   26 bu,      23 Ton



    None        Applied/w                  34 bu,     3 Ton  (9)   56 Ton     -$71,11      $40.08         $40,00       45 ain,
                previous
               crop year



    None        Applied/w                  45 bu,      10 Ton
                previous
               crop year
                                                         -lOa-

-------
1985 Otter  Creek Deuonstration Project	



No-Till




Coipari-
son


No-Till



Coipari-
son

No-Till






Compari-
son




No-Till



Compari-
son

Cooperator;
Plot Size;
Crop
Lynn
Albring
10.0 ac,

Soybeans
3,0 ac,



Diesing
Brothers
10,0 ac.
Soybeans
10.0 ac.


Donald
Newell
9 ac.


Corn

5 ac.





Daniel
Secord
5 ac,
Corn
5 ac,


Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-7-85
Supp
2460


5-7-85
Eupp
2460

5-22-85
Agri Pro
200

5-22-85
Agri Pro
200
5-3-85
Pioneer
3744




5-3-85
Pioneer
3744



5-2-85
Pioneer
3747

5-2-85
Pioneer
3747
Seed Drop


Stand
80 pounds


188,500


80 pounds


193,000

130,000


116,000

130,000


104,000
25,500


25,100




25,500


25,100



26,700


26,000

26,700


26,000
Row Width
and
Planter
7 in,
Intern 'tl
5100


7 in.
Intern'tl
5100

30 in,
Intern'tl
400

30 in.
Intern'tl
400
30 in,
Allis
Chalners 333




30 in.
Allis
Chaluers 333



30 in.
J. Deere
7000

30 in.
J, Deere
7000

Tillage
Equipient
None




Moldboard
Plow, Disk
Field
Cultivator
None



Moldboard
Plow

None






Disk (3)





None



Chisel
Field
Cultivator
Residue
or Soil
Cover Type (1)
Bye (8) Selfridge Is
Pewaio cl
Oakville fs


fiye Selfridge Is
Pewaio cl


Corn Corunna si



Corn Corunna si


Corn Belleville Is
Granby Ifs
Tketford Is




Corn Belleville Is
Thetford Is
Randolph cl



Corn Selfridge Is
Pewaio cl


Corn Selfridge Is
Pewano cl


Drainage
Class (2)
S.K. Poor
Poor
Hod. iell


SJ. Poor
Poor


Poorly



Poorly


Poorly
Poorly
S,», Poor




Poorly
S.W, Poor
S.W. Poor



S,W, Poor
Poorly


S.W. Poor
Poorly


Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Paraquat 2 pt. (8)
Activator 90
Surfactant
Dual 2 pt.

Dual 2 pt,



Paraquat 1 qt.
Dual 1-1/2 pt.
Lorox 1-1/2 pt.

Dual 1-1/2 pt.
Lorox 1-1/2 pt.

Pre-eierge:
Dual 8E 1 qt,
Paraquat 1-1/2 pt.
Atrazine 4L 2 qt,
Post;
Crop Oil 1.1 qt.
Atrazine 4L 2 qt.
Pre-ercerge:
Dual 8E 1 qt,
Atrazine 4L 2 qt.
Post:
Atrazie 4L 2 qt.
Crop Oil 1.1 qt.
Lasso-
Atrazine 3 qt.


Lasso-
Atrasine 3 qt.

              -lla-

-------
                                                 Plot Data and Results	
               Fertilizer
Insecticides       N-P-K      Nitrogen
 (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)     Source/s
None      None,  applied     None
            in  spring
         1984  for 2  yrs,
    Yield
     Dry
 Bushels (3)

~5Thu7
                                                      Soil Loss                                                      Tiie
                                                      Avg/ac/yr  Tot.Soil    Change  in    $ Nutrients    $ Organic      Saved
                                                       (Wind +   Saved  on   Net  Profit     (N-P-K)        Matter        per
                                                       Water)       Plot    per/ac  (4)   Saved/ac  (5)   Saved/ac (6)   ac  (7)
                                                          1 Ton     160 Ton    +{18.92       $63.22
                                                                                                        $63,22      35 ain,
    None
 None,  applied
   in spring
S984 for 2 yrs.
                            None
                                        51 bu,
                 18  Ton
    None
9-22-22
                            None
                                        49  bu.
1 Ton     40  Ton      -$26.99      $15.90
                                                                  $15.
                                                                                                          2?  lin.
    Hone
               9-22-22       None
                                        56  bu.
                  5  Ton
Dyfonate   236-53-134  (9)     Urea       124 bu. (9)      4 Ton     63 Ton     -$5.21        $27.66
5,5 Ibs,                   Anhydrous
                          and Starter
                                                                                                           $27.66       45  lin,
  Dyfonate   190-63-134 (9)   Anhydrous     127  bu,  (9)     11 Ton
  5,5 Ibs,                  and  Starter
Agorox Seed
Treatment

Agorox Seed
Treatient

204-96-168 Anhydrous
and Starter

204-96-168 Anhydrous
and Starter

So (10) 2 Ton 10 NA $7,90 $7.90 23 nin.
Harvest
Check
Ho (10) 4 Ton
Harvest
Check
                                                         -12a-

-------
                                                  1985 Otter Creek Demonstration Project	


No-Till



Compari-
son

No-Till





Cooperator;
Plot Siee;
Crop
Edward
Ruehs
5 ac.
Corn
5 ac.


Herbert
Smith
15 ac.


Corn
Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-7-85
Pioneer
3744

5-7-85
Pioneer
3744
5-2-85
Bo-Jax
432



, Seed Drop

Stand
26,000


24,000 (11)

26,000


20,000 (11)
25,000


24,750



Row Width
and
Planter
30 in.
J, Deere
7000

30 in.
J. Deere
7000
30 in,
White
5100



Residue
Tillage or
Equipment Cover
None Soy-
beans (12


Disk Soy-
Pack beans (12

None Soy-
beans




Soil
Type (1)
Ottokee fs
Granby Ifs


Ottokee fs
Granby Ifs

Selfridge 1s-
Pewaio cl
Pewaio cl



Drainage
Class (2)
Hod, Well
Poorly


Hod. Well
Poorly

S.W. Poor/
Poor
Poorly



Herbicides
(rate/ac!
Bladex 1 pt.
Atrazine 1 Ib.
Dual 1 pt.

Bladex 1 pt.
Atrazine 1 Ib,
Dual 1 pt,
Pre-emerge:
Lasso 2 qt.
Bladex 2-1/2 qt,
Post:
Banvel 1/2 pt,
Atrazine 1 -1/2 qt.
Contpari- 4 ac.
son
5-2-85
Bo-Jax
432
25,000
24,900
30 in.
White
5100
Holdboard
Plow
Field
Cultivator
Soy-
beans
Selfridge 1s-
Pewamo cl
Pewamo cl
S.W. Poor/
Poor
Poorly
Pre-energe;
Lasso 2 qt,
Bladex 2-1/2 qt.
Post:
Banvel 1/2 pt,
Atrazine 1-1/2 qt.
(4)   "Change  in  net  profit"  for  the no-till plot vs, the comparison plot is the difference in their gross profit minus the
     difference  in their  production costs.  Gross profit was calculated by using their yield difference in bushel, times the
     price  per bushel,  Prices per bushel were  assuied as follows:  $2.55/bu, for corn; $5.02/bu, for soybeans,  Production costs
     included the cost  of all field operations, fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides.  Costs of field operations were based
     upon costs  published in Custoi Work Rates  in Michigan, Bulletin E-458 by the HSU Cooperative Extension Service, August 1983,
     The  custon  rate for  using a spring tooth drag was estimated by Paul Harks, Agricultural Extension Agent, Honroe.  Costs used for
     other  iteiis were as  reported by  each farraer.

(8)   Paraquat sprayed early  and  rye grew back to compete with soybeans initially.

(9)   Since  different rates and forms  of nitrogen were used on the plots yield comparisons are coipl
     See  'Nitrogen Source1 column.
                                                                  -13a-

-------
                                                 Plot Data and Results	

Fertilizer
Insecticides H-P-K Nitrogen
frate/ac) (Ibs/ac) Source/s
Counter 168-49-120 Anhydrous
10 Ibs.

Counter 158-49-120 Anhydrous
10 Ibs.

None 195-70-210 28* Weed
and
Feed
None 195-70-210 28* Weed
and
Feed
Soil Loss Time
Yield Avg/ac/yr Tot, Soil Change in $ Nutrients $ Organic Saved
Dry (lind + Saved on Net Profit (H-P-K) Batter per
Bushels (3) Water) Plot per/ac (4) Saved/ac (5) Saved/ac (6) ac (7)
Harvested 3 Ton 90 Ton NA $71.12 $71.12 15 tin.
for
Silage (13)
Harvested 21 Ton
for
Silage (13)
155 bu. 4 ton 120 Ton -$7.30 $31,62 $31.62 29 iin.


165 bu, 12 Ton


(10)  Extremely wet harvest conditions,  faner decided not to take tiie to do  check.




(Hi  Outworn daiage on both plots,  and  wind  erosion daitage on coiparison plot,




(12)  Very  little residue present since  1984  was a light stand of soybeans on  very  sandy  soil which underwent wind erosion in 1984.




(13)  Used  for silage because of severe  crop  daraage from hail and wind erosion.
                                                         -14a-

-------




No-Till







Coipari-

bun


No-Till




Coipari-
„
oUIr

No-Till




Compari-
BHfi
auu

No-Till





Compari-
a nr
bun




Cooperator
PI nf Q-i ITQ
riot oise
Crop
Michael
Hi 1 on
D J. 1 all
28 ac.


Corn

24 ac.




Diesing
n_. i-L p|,c
DiO tUci b
10 ac.
Corn
10 ac.



Drodt
P
rans
15 ac.
Corn
15 ac,



Glenn
Hnnnfiri"
nu v pel \j
5 ac,

Corn
5 ac.






; Planting;
' Hof A '
, uate,
Variety
5-3-86 (8)
p
uarno
3-10




5-3-86
f\
uarno
S-10

5-10-86
Di nftfiAT.
r Iullccr
3?37

5-10-86
-n ' „„ „ A_
r i u n c c r
3737
5-3-86
ft - 17 _ 1 I
OcftaiO
55A

5-3-86
DnffflJH
Uu&aiu
55A
5-16-86
T a nnn a c?
0 aHJUcS
151


5-16-86
T
Jacques
151



Seed Drop

Stand
26,500


25,250




24,500


24,000

21,900


20,000

21,900


21,000
26,000 (10)


19,700

26,000


21,300
22,000


20,000


18,000 (11)


16,000


1 M V V \J V VV«i. '
BOH Width
and
Planter
30 in,
T i. ( 1 1
intern ti
800




30 in,
T i. ) 1 1
iiii/crii ci
800

30 in.
Tnf »rn ' f \
i 11 \i C f II 1/1
400

30 in.
Tntoi»n ' f 1
intern ti
400
30 in,
T T\
j i i/eere
7000

30 in.
T HOG
w * i/eere
7000
30 in,
Al 1 i o
AlilS
Chalaers
333

30 in,
A 1 1 i 0
AlllS
Ciiainers

333
L/l^^tU U tj 111 VI 11 U V
TT 1 1 arfc
i mage
Equipment
Hone







Chisel
Tii ct
Uibll
Field
Cultivator
None




Disk
PI nu
r 10W

None




Field
n 1 4- ' -t
l/UitlVaLOr

None





Plow
Hi nlr
U1SE
Field
Cultivator
Cultivate

Residue
or Soil Drainage
Cover Type (1) Class (2)
Soy- Corunna si Poorly
L _ w
oeans





Corn Corunna si Poorly




Corn Corunna si Poorly




Corn Corunna si Poorly



Soy- Selfridge Is S,», Poor
U TI 1 Tt
ceans re»aio ci roor


Soy- Selfridge Is S,», Poor/
u n l ri
Deans rewano ci roor

Rye Selfridge Is S,», Poor
nil 'ill n l
BeneviHe is rooriy



Rye Hetea s Well
Q/\lp¥11/}f*n If! C! IJ T) r< JMi
beitridge is a.*, Poor
Belleville Is Poorly




Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Blade* 4L 3/4 qt,
r ft i
baSSO L qt .
Atmine 4L i/2 qt,
2,4-D l.v,
ester 1 pt,
1-17 1 qt.
Crop Oil 1 qt.
Blade* 4L 3/4 qt.
F n 0 t-
basso U cji,
Atrazine 4L i/2 qt,

Paraquat 8 oss.
* f IT ' if F 1 4-
atrasine iu i qt t


Atmine 4L i qt,



Lasso 1 qt,
0 1 A 0 1 1-
o iadex L i DS i
2,4-D 40, 1 pt.

Sutazine 3-1/2 qt.
. , . iii
Atrazine i IDS.
Crop Oil 1 pt,
Roundup 1 qt,
n . ,, . * j ,
i,4"U TU, J pt.
Atrazine 1 qt,
Crop Oil 1 pt,

2,4-D 40, 1 pt.
. , . . .
Atrasine 1 qt.
Crop Oil 1 pt.


-15a-

-------
                                               Plot Data and Results	
                                                   Soil Loss                                                       Tiie
               Fertilizer                 Yield     Avg/ac/yr  Tot.Soil   Change in   $ Nutrients    $ Organic      Saved
Insecticides      S-P-I      nitrogen       Dry       (Wind +   Saved on  Net Profit     (N-P-Kj         Hatter        per
 (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)    Source/s   Bushels  (3)   Water)      Plot    per/ac (4)  Saved/ac (5)   Saved/ac (6)    ac (7)
   Agorox
    Seed
 Treatment
 160-0-210       Urea
             115  bu.
              (8,9)
             2  Ton      84  Ton     +$13.58      $10.74
                                                 $10.74       38 ah,
   Agorox
    Seed
 Treatment
 160-0-210
Urea and
Anhydrous
130 bu,
 (8,9)
5 Ton
  Dyfonate
 5-1/2 IDS.
170-119-455    Anhydrous     134  bu.      I Ton     20 Ton     -$9.24
                                                            $7.15
                                                             $7.15       27 tin.
  Dyfonate
 5-1/2 Ibs.
170-119-455   Anhydrous     148  bu.      4
    None       157-29-149    Anhydrous     141  bu.
                           and  Starter     (10)
                                        5 Ton      105 Ton    -$1,87
                                                           $25,06
                                                             $25.06      8 ain.
    None       157-29-149    Anhydrous     146  bu,
                           and  Starter     (10)
                                       12 Ton
  Dyfonate     212-48-228    Anhydrous
   4 Ibs.                   and  Starter
                              bu.
                          1  Ton      65  Ton      +$26.36      $44.75
                                                             $44.75      46 tin.
  Dyfonate     212-48-228    Anhydrous     70  bu,       14 Ton
   4 Ibs,                   and  Starter     (II)
                                                         -16a-

-------
                                                  1986 Otter Creek Deicnstration  Project	


No-Till




Coipari-
SOJl


No-Till




Conpari-
son



Cooperator;
Plot Size;
Crop
Donald
Newell
9,5 ac.

Corn
9,5 ac.



Herbert
Smith
30 ac,

Corn
35 ac.




Planting;
Date;
Variety
5-2-86
Pioneer
3?3?


5-2-86
Pioneer
373?

5-3-86
Punks
4312


5-3-86
Funks
4312


Seed Drop

Stand
25,800


25,000


25,800


25,250

25,000


22,500


25,000


23,000


Sow Width
and Tillage
Planter Equipient
30 in. None
Allis
Chalmers
333

30 in. Chisel
Allis Drag
Chalners
333
30 in. None
White
5100


30 in, Modified
White Field
5100 Cultivator


Residue
or Soil
Cover Type (1)
Corn Belleville Is
Thetford Is
Tedrow Is


Corn Belleville Is
Thetford Is
Granby fs

Soy- Selfridge 1s-
beans Pewano cl



Soy- Selfridge 1s-
beans Pewaiio cl
Blount 1
Hillsdale cl
Pewaao cl
Drainage
Class (2)
Poorly
S.W. Poor
S.». Poor


Poorly
S.W. Poor
Poorly

S.W. Poor/
Poor



S.W. Poor/
Poor
S.W. Poor
Poorly
Poorly
Herbicides
(rate/ac)
Pre-euerge:
2,4-D 1 pt.
Post: (2)
Basagran 3/4 qt.
Crop Oil 3/4 qt.
(2)
Basagran 3/4 qt.
Crop Oil 3/4 qt.

Lasso 2 qt,
Bladex 2-1/2 qt.
Banvel (in 28*)
1/2 pt.

Lasso 2 qt,
Bladex 2-1/2 qt.
Banvel (in M\
ill pt.

(1)   Selfridge-Pewaao hyphenated indicates  the  Selfridge-Pewano  soil  contplex,   These  soils  are  so  intricately  nixed  that  it  was  not
     practical for soil scientists  to  nap  then  separately,

(2}   "8, If,  Poor" is an abbreviation  for  soiewhat  poorly  drained.

(31   Corn yields adjusted to  15. Sit  uoisture,  Soybean  yields  adjusted to  13, OX,

(4)   "Change in net profit'  for  the  no-till  plot  vs. the coiparison plot  is  the difference  in their  gross  profit  ainus  the
     difference in their production  costs,   Gross profit was  calculated by using  their  yield difference  in  bushel,  tines  the
     price  per bushel.  Price per bushel was  assuaed as  follows:   $l,50/bu.  for corn.   Production  costs  included  the  cost
     of all field operations,  fertilizers,  herbicides, and  insecticides.  Costs of  field  operations  were based upon  costs published
     in CastoB Work Rates in  Michigan, Bulletin E-458  by the  HSU  Cooperative Extension  Service,  August  1983,   The  custoa  rate  for  using
     a spring tooth drag was  estiaated by  Paul  Marks,  Agricultural Extension Agent, Monroe,  Costs used  for other  iteis were
     as reported by each farmer.
(5)   The  value  of  nutrients  saved  is based upon  calculations  that 2  Ibs  of Nitrogen  (Nj,
     and  3  Ibs,  of Potash, 1(2)0 are lost with each  ton of  soil  lost to  erosion,
     Source-  Beasley,  Erosion  and  Sediient Control,  p, 15.
                                                                                           Ibs,  of  Phosphate,  P(2)0(5),
(b'i   The value  of organic  natter  saved  is  based  upon  estiuates  that,  when  soil erosion occurs,  an  equal  value of  organic
     natter is  lost  for  each  dollar  of  nutrients lost.   Source-  Dr.  Lynn Robertson, Soil Physicist,  fomerly with
     Michigan  State  University.
                                                                  -17a-

-------
                                            Plot Data and Results	
                                                    Soil Loss                                                       Time
               Fertilizer                 Yield     Avg/ae/yr  Tot,Soil   Change in   $ Nutrients    $ Organic      Saved
 Insecticides     N-P-I      Nitrogen       Dry       (Kind +   Saved on  Net Profit     (N-P-K)         Hatter        per
  (rate/ac)       (Ibs/ac)    Source/s   Bushels (3)   Water)      Plot    per/ac (4)  Saved/ac (5)   Saved/ac (6)    ac (?)
     None
 230-63-134
   Urea
 Anhydrous
and Starter
130  bu.
4 Ton     70 Ton     t$lfl,13
                        $26.49
               $26,49
            21  rain.
None
230-63-134 Urea 128 bu.
Anhydrous
and Starter
11 Ton
     None
180-120-145
    281
130 bu,
  Ton
210 Ton    +$10.80
$25,
$25,06
10 mn.
     None
180-120-145
              128 bu,
            10  Ton
(7)   Time  savings  are  based  upon data  published in the 1983 Conservation Tillage Results; Allen County,  Ohio,  p.  8,

(8|   Probleis  with  plaater;  no-till was replanted,

(9)   Cocperator  applied  additional nitrogen to the comparison plot which invalidates their comparison,

(10)  Extremely heavy rains after planting caused drowning out of sone areas; more in no-till.

(11)  Used  new  planter, probleis with adjustment.  Started on comparison plot.

                                                   Soil Texture Symbols (i)

                                 fs—fine sand                   Ifs—ioany fine sand
                                  s	sand                          1—loai
                                 Is	loaiy sand                  sil	silty loan
                                 si—sandy loan                   el—clay loai
                                                                  sicl—silty clay
                                                          -18a-

-------
              APPENDIX   B
     CONSERVATION  TILLAGE TECHNICIAN CONTRACT
MONROE COUNTY  SOIL  AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

-------
         Monroe  County Soil and Water Conservation District
                     15621 SOUTH TELEGRAPH RD.      PHONE 241-7755
                              MONROE, MICHIGAN  48161
              CONTRACT  FOR  CONSERVATION TILLAGE TECHNICIAN  SERVICES

This agreement is made  this 1_4	day of Feb.     , 1984  by and between the Monroe
County Soil  and Water Conservation District  (hereinafter called the District) and
William E. Anson, 4490  Newburg  Road,  Carleton,  Michigan (hereinafter called the
Contractor).

The District agrees to  contract for and the  Contractor agrees  to provide technical
assistance for the  Otter Creek  Conservation  Tillage Project as described herein
and requested by the District.

The area within which the duties are  to be performed shall  be  the delineated bound-
aries of the Otter  Creek Watershed with the  District retaining the right to assign
duties outside of the designated Otter Creek Watershed demonstration plots.

Payment for  duties  performed on the Otter Creek Watershed demonstration plots
shall be as  follows:
     a)  $150 at the end of one week  of training as approved by the District.
     b)  $50Q when  one-half of  the planting  is  completed as approved by the
         District.
     c)  $500 when  the  planting is totally completed as approved by the District.
     d)  $150 after the completion of field  review in  June  as  approved by the
         District.
     e)  $150 after the completion of field  review in  July  as  approved by the
         District.
     f)  $500 when  harvest  is one-half completed as approved by the District.
     g)  $500 when  harvest  is totally completed as  approved .by  the District.
     h)  $500 when  one-half of  evaluation of project is completedas approved
         by  the District.
     i)  $570 when  evaluation of project is completed and is approved by the District.
     j)  Total contract $3,520.
                                     Ib

-------
Payment for duties performed outside of the designated  Otter  Creek  Watershed
demonstration plots shall  be $5 per acre planted.   Payment  will  be  remitted
to the contractor when a voucher is submitted  documenting acres  planted and
approved by the District.

Performance under this contract shall be in accordance  with the  following
conditions:
Specific Duties and Performance Requirements
     1.  Keep all District equipment in condition  for field operation.  This
includes providing service, maintenance, and repair on  equipment as often  as
needed.  A regular service and maintenance program should  be in  effect  at  all
times (grease, oil, etc.).
     2.  Assure that the equipment is safely and adequately stored  when not  in use,
     3.  Keep all tillage equipment, storage buildings, and desk in clean  and
neat condition.
     4.  In coordination with the district coordinator and  under supervision of
the district conservationist take soil tests as required.
     5.  In cooperation with the district coordinator,  and  under the supervision
of the district conservationist, receive and respond to requests by local  farmers
for use of equipment.  Coordination with the district coordinator and consulta-
tion with  the district conservationist will be essential to assure that the
request is of priority and to assure that the equipment is  available.
     6.  Upon approval by the district conservationist, make delivery of  the
requested  equipment to the farmer.
     7.  Review  the use and operation of the equipment with the farmer.  Be
.knowledgeable about the proper  setting, depth, spacing and other variables on
which  the  farmer will want  information.  Be able to make equipment adjustments.
                                     2b

-------
      8.   Provide  farmer  with  a  general  understanding  about  the  objective of
 the District's  program and  our  desire  to  record  and learn as  much  as  possible
 about his demonstration  plot.
      9.   Be  knowledgeable and equip  yourself with  enough information  about
 various  conservation  tillage  systems so that you can  answer at  least  the
 farmer's  general  questions  about  fertility, pest management,  and equipment
 operation.
     10.   Provide  district coordinator  with current, accurate  neatly written
 records  relative  to equipment used for her use in  charging rental  fees.
     11.   Assist the district conservationist and SCS  field staff in collecting
 tillage  data which must  be  recorded  on  prescribed  forms.  This  includes collect-
 ion  of yield data in  the fall.  (The weigh wagon and  moisture tester provided
 by  the project will be used to  collect  samples on  all priority  plots.)
     12.   A progress report  approved  by the board is required before advance
 payment  is made.
     13.   The contract can be terminated by the board  of directors  if performance
 of duties is not satisfactory at  time of submitting report for  advance payment.
 Supervision'
 As the contractor in this position, you are directly responsible to  the
 Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District board of directors.  However,
 your  daily activities will  be under  the supervision of the district conservation-
 ist,  SCS.  The Chairman of the Board will  serve as their representative for the
 overall daily management of the district.   You, the district conservationist
 and district coordinator are responsible to the Chairman of the Board.  Any
-difficulties that arise with your tillage  duties  that  cannot be resolved by the
 district conservationist will  be brought to the Chairman of the Board.
                                    3b

-------
Any disciplinary or other problems that arise and cannot be resolved will
be taken to the Board.

Work Hours
Office work hours are from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. (with one-half hour off
for lunch), Monday through Friday except during planting and harvest season.
If additional time is needed for lunch, the starting or ending time can be
adjusted accordingly.

There are times of the year when tillage and harvest operations require extra
hours and you will be asked to extend your hours accordingly.

The contractor shall perform the services requested of him by the district
with dispatch, in an efficient manner, and with a reasonable expenditure of
time in relation to the total values involved.

No services or assistance shall be performed by the contractor under this
agreement on any lands owned by him or in which he  has an interest, or for
any services for which he is retained or  reimbursed by a landowner.
The District shall  not be liable for any  damages claimed to have resulted
from services  rendered to any person under this agreement, and the  Contractor
hereby  accepts full responsibility for all actions  consequent to technical
determinations rendered by  him  under the  provisions of  this agreement.  The
Contractor will  endemnify and hold harmless  the  District.

This contract  shall be effective  immediately and  shall  expire  in the fall of
1984 after harvest  and evaluation  is completed and  approved  by the  District,
unless  extended  by  agreement  between the  Contractor and  the  District,  and
                                       4b

-------
may be terminated at an earlier date by either  party upon written notice

to the other.
              •JLJL^*=7
Monroe County Soil  & Water Conservation
District
                                                     Contractor
(Date)
                   fy
                                                    (Date)./  /
                               U.S. Government Printing Office : 1991 - 281-724/43565
                                         5b

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
/y'.'tJK read lK*iru^lior.\ or. fi, rrirnc bc'ori comp'ctuif
1 REPORT NC 2
EPA-905/9-91-007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Otter Creek Watershed Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project
7. AUTHOR(S)
Marion Smith
Kathy F. Pie! sticker
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monroe County Soil and Hater Conservation Distric
1523 North Telegraph Road
Monroe, Michigan 48161
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO
5. REPORT DATE
October 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
t
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S005721-01
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 1982 - 1986
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
GLNPO
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph G. Christensen, Project Officer
John C. Lowrey, Technical Assistant
16. ABSTRACT
The demonstration project was to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation tillage
for controlling soil erosion and thus preventing the runoff of soil and nutrients into
Lake Erie. It was designed to demonstrate to farmers the successful application of
conservation tillage by other farmers in their community. The Soil and VJater
Conservation District and Soil Conservation Service provided the technical assistance
to demonstrate the tillage practice.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Soil Phosphorus
Erosion Nonpoint Source
Conservation Tillage Sediment
No-Till Water Quality
Runoff
Fertilizer
Pesticide
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19.SECURI
Document is available to public through None
National lechnical information service, 20 SECURI
NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161 None
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group

TV CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
60
TY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------