United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/2-87-001
GLNPO Report No.87-05
April 1987
Allen County, Ohio
Tillage Report
-------
EPA-905/2-87-001
April 1987
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO
(FINAL REPORT)
BY
Beth A. Seibert
Donald M. Vigh
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District
219 West Northern Avenue
Lima, Ohio 45801
Srant Number S005553
(Section 103(a) Demonstration)
Ralph G. Christensen
Section 103(a) Program
John C. Lowrey
Technical Assistant
GLNPO # 87-05
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
111 West Jackson Street
Chicago, Illinois 50604
July 1986
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the C.^eat Lakes National
Program Office and Water Division of the 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.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protp'.tion 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
envi ronment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the USEPA was established
in Region V, Chicago, Illinois to provide specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes. The Section 103(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 polljtion control agencies to make better decisions in carrying
forward their pollution control responsibilities.
Valdas V. Adamkus
Administrator, Region V
National Program Manager for the Great Lakes
111
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword . i i i
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols viii
Metric Equivalents viii
Acknowledgment: ix
1 . Executive Summary . !
2. Introduction 3
3. Background 4
Physical Setting 4
Climatologies! Data/Weather Patterns .... 10
4. Conservation Tillage
a. Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project . 15
Purpose 15
Goals . ! 5
Scope 16
Grant Application !&
Organization 17
b. Conservation Tillage Operating Procedures . . 19
Project Administration 19
Technical Assistance 22
Information and Education 24
Incentives for Participants 26
Reporting System 27
c. Conservation Tillage Project Accomplishments 29
Number of Project Participants 29
Conservation Tillage Types 29
Information and Education 31
d. Conservation Tillage Conclusions 33
Project Impacts 33
Physical Application Of Conservation
Tillage To The Area 38
Economic Application Of Conservation
Tillage To The Area 53
e. Conservation Tillage Recommendations 67
Conservation Tillage Ap,j.ication 67
Institutional Arrangements . . 67
Future Demonstration Project . 68
How Will The Project Accomplishment Be
Maintained? 68
f. Conservation Tillage Testimonials 69
5. Rural Sewage
a. Rural Sew^ga Demonstration Project 71
-------
Table of Contents (cont. )
Purpose 71
Goals 71
Scope 72
Background 72
Grant Application 72
Organization 74
b. Rural Sewage Operating Procedures 75
Project Administration 75
Information and Education 76
Incentives for Landowners 76
c. Rural Sewage Project Accomplishments 77
Number of Project Participants 77
Agricultural Runoff vs. Sewage Effluent . 77
Pollutant Loading Reduction 79
Effects By Small Rainfall Events 80
Bacteriological Study 82
Biological Study 84
d. Rural Sewage Conclusions 89
Project Impacts 39
Physical Adaptability Of Sewage
Improvements 90
Economic Adaptability Of Sewage
Improvements 90
e. Rural Sewage Recommendations 91
Problems Encountered 91
Agency Programs 92
Project Maintenance . . . . , 92
Future Demonstration Projects 92
On-Site Treatment Of Sewage Wastes ... 93
Bibliography 94
Glossary 96
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Allen County land use 5
2 Maumee River Basin 8
3 Allen County rainfall 12
4 Total project participation as compared to new
participants 30
5 Growth of no-till in Allen County 36
6 Growth of mulch tillage in Allen County 37
7 No-till management example 40
8 Five year average of corn yields by tillage type 42
9 Corn yield success rate by tillage type 43
10 Highest yielding tillage system, on the average,
by project year 44
11 No-till corn yield comparison with the county
average yield 45
12 No-till corn yield comparison with the highest
system , 46
13 Average yearly no-till corn yields related to
residue cover 47
14 Five year average of soybean yields by tillage
type 49
15 Soybean yield success rate by tillage type . . . 50
16 No-till soybean yield comparison with the county
average yield 51
17 No-till soybean yields related to residue cover . 52
18 Corn fertilizer cc^ts per acre by tillage system 54
19 Corn herbicide costs per acre by tillage system , 55
20 Corn tillage costs per acre by tillage system . . 56
21 Total corn costs per acre by tillage type . . * . 57
22 Corn returns per acre by tillage type 59
23 Corn return success rate 60
24 Soybean fertilizer costs per acre by tillage system 61
25 Soybean tillage costs per acre by tillage system . 62
26 Soybean herbicide costs per acre by tillage system 63
27 Total soybean costs per acre by tillage system . . 64
28 Soybean returns per acre by tillage type 65
29 Soybean return success rate by tillage type ... 66
30 Watershed boundary of the project area 73
31 Location of the biological sampling stations . . 85
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Allen County Area Measurements 4
2 1984 Cash Receipts for Farm Commodities in Allen
County 6
3 Major Allen County Crops 6
4 Ranking by Cash Receipts from Sales of the Eight
Major Farm Commodities in Allen County 7
5 Annual Soil Erosion by Agricultural Land Use on
Nonfederal Land 9
6 Allen County Rainfall Data 1981-1985 12
7 Demonstration Plot Acreages by Crop 30
8 Demonstration Plot Acreages by Tillage Type ..... 31
9 No-till Farmers 37
10 Comparison of Corn Plot Yields by Tillage System ... 4!
11 Comparison of No-till Corn Yields by Residue Cover . . 47
12 Comparison of Soybean Plot Yields by Tillage
System 48
13 Comparison of No-till Besn Yields by Residue Cover . . 52
14 Comparison of Corn Plot Returns by Tillage System . . 57
15 Comparison of Bean Plot Returns by Tillage System . . 65
16 Summary of Proposed and Actual Budget 73
17 Status of Private Sewage Disposal Systems 78
18 Average Chemical Concentration in Goodman Ditch
Upstream and Downstream from the Long Acres
Subdivision 79
19 Phosphorus, Nitrate and Ammonia Concentration
Export Before and After Sewage System
Improvements SO
20 Effects of Light Rain on Phosphorus 81
21 Effects of Light Rain on Nutrient and Sediment
Concentrations 51
22 Results of Dissolved Oxygen, Biochemical Oxygen
utzin-:*ciCi * r e c a .L v^Oiiiorm a n *-i F e c a i Streptocci
Measurements 83
23 Average Dissolved, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
Bacterial Counts During Low Flow Periods at the
Downstream Station 83
24 Macroinvertebrate Taxa Collected at the Three
Stream Stations on July 30, 1981 86
25 Macroinverteorate Taxa Collected at the Three
Stream Stations on August 22, 1985 87
26 Macroinvertebrates Collected 88
VI
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
ac .
A.C.G.H.D.
A.C.P.
ft • O • l_r • O •
avg.
B.O.D.
bu./ac.
C.E.S.
cone .
C.T.I.C.
D. C .
D.O.
F.
F.F.A.
P.O.
ft
G.L.N.P.O.
g
gal
hr
1
L.S.D.
m3
[Tig
ml
N.A.C.D.
N.R. I .
0. A.R.D.C.
0.A.S.S.
phos .
S.
S.C.S.
std. dev.
S.W.C.D.
tons/ac.
U . S . D . A .
U.S. E.P.A.
vo-ag
SYMBOLS
General Health District
Conservation Program
Stabilization and Conservation
demand
-- acres
-- Allen County
-- Agricultural
-- Agricultural
Service
-- average
-- biochemical oxygen
-- bushels per acre
-- Cooperative Extension Service
-- concentration
-- Conservation Tillage Information Center
-- District Conservationist
-- dissolved oxygen
-- Fall
— Future Fa rm e r s of Am erica
-- field office
-- feet
— Great Lakes National Program Office
-- grams
-- gallons
— hour
-- liters
— least significant difference
-- cubic meters
-- milligrams
-- milliliters
— National Association of Conservation Districts
— Natural Resource Inventory
-- Ohio Agricultural Research and Development
Center
-- Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service
-- phosphorus
-- Spring
-- Soil Conservation Service
— standard deviation
— Soil and Water Conservation District
— tons per acre
— United States Department of
— United States Environmental
— vocational agriculture
Agriculture
Protection Agency
-- percent
METRIC EQUIVALENTS
1 acre = 0.404 hectares
1 ft. = 0.304 meters
1 ton = 0.907 metric tons
1 liter = 0.264 gallons
1 mile = 1.609 kilometers
1 inch = 2.540 centimeters
1 bushel = 35.238 liters
1 gram = 0.035 ounces
VTM
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Three men, Ralph Christensen, John Lowrey and Carl Wilson who
represented the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V were instrumental in administering and providing
technical assistance to the water quality demonstration project.
Locally, the project was administered by Don Vigh and Beth
Seibert, District Technicians with the Allen Soil and Water
Conservation District and Steve Davis, District Conservationist,
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. Guidance was provided by the Allen Soil and Water
Conservation District Board of Supervisors.
The cooperation of the farmers of Allen County is gratefully
acknowledged. With the sincere interest in applying conservation
tillage on their farms, this project was able to strive forward
and achieve its objectives. Perseverance in making conservation
tillage succeed is one of the area farmers greatest qualities.
Funding received from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency greatly accelerated conservation tillage in Allen County.
The monies were used to increase the manpower and equipment
available to area farmers. A study on rural sewage disposal
systems was also initiated from some of these funds.
Technical expertise from the U.S.D.A. - Soil Conservation
Sf-rvice, the Ohio Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, and the Cooperative Extension Service - Ohio State
University was a great asset to the Project. With their inputs
and continual support, the Project was able escalate. Cooperation
from area agri-businesses was also appreciated.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Allen Soil and Water Conservation District (S.W.C.D.)
applied for * grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. E.P.A. ) at the start of 1980 to demonstrate and evaluate
methods for the reduction of sediment and related pollutants in
the Maumee River and Lake Erie. The grant was awarded and the
Water Quality Demonstration Project got its official start on July
11, 1^80. The Project addressed two different areas: conservation
tillage, and rural sewage.
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Over its five year span, the Tillage Project demonstrated to
farmers throughout uhe county, on a voluntary basis, the effects
and economics of sound >_ conservation. An intensive educational
program xas executed, equipment made available, and technical
assistance provided, These incentives encouraged landowners to
test conservation tillage on their own land.
The response to the adoption of these practices was
outstanding. Two hundred and thirty two farmers gained hands-on
experience as they committed 16,173 acres to 1,308 conservation
tillage demonstration plots. At the end of the project a definite
growth in the use of conservation tillage practices could be seen.
No-till acreage in the county had increased by twenty times and
mulch tillage by three. The Soil Conservation Service (S.C.S. )
estimates that 64,534 tons of soil were saved as a result of the
•demonstration project.
RURAL SEWAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The remaining twenty-four percent of the grant monies was
spent on this section of the Water Quality Project. The Allen
S.W.C.D. addressed the situation of improving water quality where
a high concentration of failed rural, residential sewage systems
existed. The area selected was a small watershed with apparent
substandard residential sewage disposal systems releasing effluent
into the stream that drains the site. The upstream end of the
watershed ia basically in agricultural production.
Monitoring of the stream for pollutant and sediment loading
was performed upstrecjn and downstream of the residential area.
The results showed that inputs of sewage effluent were evident in
the stream.
-------
Upon evaluation of all sewage disposal systems in the area,
any that were unable to meet the parameters of the Home Sewage
Disposal Rules of the Ohio Sanitary Code were required to be
updated and improved to come into compliance. Monies were
available to assist home owners in the installation of the
required systems.
Once all substandard systems were improved, additional
monitoring of the stream took place. The results show significant
reduction of inputs of sewage effluent into the stream system.
The export of sewage effluent downstream was also reduced. Any
improved stream characteristics within the watershed was not noted
due to the lack of any stream flow during the final monitoring
per iods .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONCLUSION
The Water Quality Project; had a very positive Impact on Allen
County, and was 3. valuable learning experience for all those
involved. The growth in acceptance and usage of conservation
tillage practices was outstanding, but mcot impcrtant of all is
the fact that conservation tillage m e t h o d c were proven to yield a?
well as ror.vent icral tillage. The rural oewage portion of the
Project reinforced the concern of area health agencies to the need
for regulation pertaining to sad the monitoring of residential
sewage systems.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
The Allen S.W.C.D. began their Water Quality Demonstration
Project in July of !?30. The project was funded primarily by a
grant from the U.S. E.P.A., Great Lakes National Program Office
(G.L.N.P.0. / . The Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project
developed trom the need to reduce the amount of phosphorus
entering Lake Erie through the Maumee River Basin. Large inputs
of phosphorus were causing the lake quality to degrade. Much of
this phosphorus was found attached to the sediment particles that
were being eroded from agricultural land. It was estimated that
water quality could be improved if the amount of soil loss was
reduced. One means of achieving soil erosion control is by using
conservation tillage practices that leave a protective cover of
residue on and near the soil surface all year round.
Over its five year span, the Project demonstrated to farmers
throughout the county, on a voluntary basis, the effects and
economics of sound conservation. An intense educational program
was executed, equipment made available and technical assistance
provided, all as incentives for landowners to test conservation
tillage on their own land. The response to the adoption of these
practices was outstanding, proving the success of the Project.
A second part of the Water Quality Project was a Rural Sewage
Demonstration Project which stemmed from an increasing concern to
reduce the amount of contaminants entering Lake Erie. The Allen
S.W.C.D. addressed the situation of improving water quality where
a high concentration of failed, rural, residential sewage systems
existed. The combined Allen County General Health District worked
with the residential home owners to correct the deficient septic
systems. Water quality monitoring, before and after the
renovation process, was conducted of the ditch that the sewage
systems drained into.
This report attempts to briefly tell the story of the
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project and Rural Sewage
Demonstration Project in Allen County, Ohio and what was learned
from the efforts of the Allen S.W.C.D., area farmers, the
residential home owners, and all cooperating agencies.
-------
SECTION 3
BACKGROUND
PHYSICAL SETTING
Location
Allen County lies in the northwestern section of Ohio, within
the eastern confines of the mid western corn belt. It is in the
central lowlands and straddles the till plain and lake plain areas
of west central Ohio.
The county has a total land area of about 403 square miles or
about 260,500 acres (Table 1). The 1984 population of the county
was approximately 112,250, 43 percent (47,630) of which reside in
the county seat of Lima. Lima is located near the center of the
county and is the largest town. Smaller towns include Delphos,
Bluffton, Beaverdam, Cairo, Spencervi1le, Elida, Lafayette and
Harrod.
TABLE 1. ALLEN COUNTY AREA MEASUREMENTS
Nonfederal Land and Small Bodies of Water 258,700 ac
Federal Land 600
Census Water (Large Bodies of Water) 1,200
Total Surface Area 260,500 ac
Taken from the S.C.S. county level National Resource Inventory
(N.R.I.) data, published 1985.
Natural Resources
Agricultural Activity--
Agriculture is a major enterprise in Allen County. In a
study of the county's economy for the Allen County Commissioners,
Woolpert Consultants identified agriculture as a primary industry
The report identified that manufacturing related to agribusiness
accounted for 23 percent of Allen County's manufacturing base, as
compared to six percent for the State of Ohio as a whole.
-------
ag:
A large percentage of the work force is engaged in
"icuiture related activities. County Business Patterns Data for
1982 provided by the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service (C.E.S.)
identified ten areas of employment related to agriculture. These
ten areas accounted for approximately 14 percent of the county's
civilian work f:
-------
which is important to note because according to local S.C.S.
calculations, a corn and soybean crop rotation is subject to the
most damaging effects from erosion compared to other rotations
regardless of the tillage system (Tables 3 and 4). This
accentuates the need to apply conservation tillage to the land to
leave a residue covering on the soil's surface throughout the year
and help reduce the amount of erosion.
TABLE 2. 1984 CASH RECEIPTS FOR FARM COMMODITIES IN ALLEN COUNTY
CROP
RECEIPTS*
Soybeans
Corn
Wheat
Oats and Hay
Other Crops
Livestock
$16,836
3 , 5 ! 6
3,676
1 , 1 27
2,903
1 9.592
Total $52,655
1 Taken from 1984 Ohio Farm Income, Ohio Agricultural research and
Development Center (O.A.R.D.C.)
* in thousands of dollars
TABLE 3. MAJOR ALLEN COUNTY CROPS
CROP
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
Hay
1985
ACRES
61 ,800
78,300
20,000
3,100
7 , 400
1985
AVERAGE
YIELD*
128.7
41 .6
69.8
1 00.0
3.5
1984
ACRES
60 ,000
74,500
23,000
3,000
7,000
1984
AVERAGE
YIELD*
127.0
39.0
48.0
68.2
2.5
1983
ACRES
48,500
66,200
24,800
3,200
6,700
1983
AVERAGE
YIELD*
65.3
28.7
52.7
75.0
3.0
i Taken from the 1984 and 1985 editions of the Ohio Agricultural
Statistics, Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service (O.A.S.S.)
* All yields expressed in bu./ac. except hay which is in tons/ac.
-------
Ti*BL£ 4. RANKING BY CASH RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF THE EIGHT MAJOR
FARM COMMODITIES IN ALLEN CO.1
RANK
COMMODITY
PERCENT
!
2
3
4
5
6
T
3
Soybeans
Corn
Hogs
Other Livestock
Wheat
Other Crops
Dairy
Cattle
32
16
15
1 2
7
6
5
5
1 Taken from 1984 Ohio Farm Income, O.A.R.D.C.
Topography—
The county is covered by material left from several glaciers.
These glacial deposits range from a few feet to several hundred
feet thick .-and overlie limestone bedrock.
The relief is nearly level to gently sloping (0-6% slope) as
mapped by the S.C.S. in the county's soil survey. Steeper areas
are found in places along streams and the three end moraines which
traverse the county. These end moraines run across the county
from east to west, and are among the areas where erosion is most
severe. A level area is located in the northwest corner of the
county, in an area which is a remnant of the old glacial lake bed.
Stream Characteristics—
Most of the county is part of the Maumee River Basin.
However, a small part of the upper Scioto River watershed does
extend into the very eastern edge of the county. The streams of
the county include the Auglaize River, the Ottawa River, Sugar
Creek, Cranberry Creek, and Riley Creek. These all flow north to
the Maumee and then to Lake Erie. Besides the natural drainage
ways, many miles of rnanmade channels have been constructed over
the years to assist in draining the land.
Relationship to Lake Erie—
Allen County is located in the southeastern portion of the
Maumee River Basin which drains into the western basin of Lake
Erie (Figure 2). Allen County has three major tributaries which
flow northwesterly and eventually outlet into the Maumee River.
The Ottawa and Auglaize Rivers join near Kalida toward the western
edge of Putnam County. The Auglaize then empties into the Maumee
River at Defiance.
-------
8
-------
Soils--
Relationship to agricultural production — 75 percent of the
soils in the county are classified as Morley, Blount or Pewamo.
Morley is a moderately well drained soil; under good management,
conservation tillage will yield as well or better than
conventional tillage on this soil type. Conservation tillage in
Blount soil will yield nearly equal to conventional under good
management, provided that the soil drainage has been improved by
surface or random subsurface drainage. Pewamo soil may yield less
with conservation tillage since it is naturally very poorly
drained. Conservation tillage results will be more favorable if
this type of soil is systematically tiled. The soils of the
county are deep, fertile and highly productive, but according to
local S.C.S. figures, 44 percent of the cropland is eroding at a
greater than acceptable rate. The acceptable rate for erosion is
defined by the S.C.S. as the maximum rate of soil erosion termed
"soil loss tolerance", that will allow a high level of crop
production to be sustained economically and indefinitely. These
values, commonly known as "T" factors are expressed in terms of
tolerable soil loss per acre per year and ranges from 3 to 5
tons/acre/year for soils in Allen County.
Erosion-- Soil erosion is a continuously occurring natural
process that loosens and transports soil particles. Erosion
occurs slowly on undisturbed forest land and areas with adequate
permanent vegetative cover. Soil losses are quite high on sloping
cropland that is continually cultivated and left unprotected
during several months every year. It is estimated that an average
of over 716 thousand tons of topsoil erode from Allen County
agricultural land annually. Almost 99 percent of the erosion
occurs on cropland. The average soil loss on cropland is 3.6
tons/acre/year. Table 5 depicts erosion amounts and rates for the
various rural land uses in the county.
TABLE 5. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
ON NONFEDERAL LAND
LAND USE
ACRES
TONS
TONS/AC.
Cropland
Pastureland
Forest Land
Other Rural Land
194,300
4,700
14,800
10,300
707,300
800
5,300
3.300
3.6
0.2
0.4
0.3
TOTAL 224,100 716,700
AVERAGE 3.2
1 Taken from S.C.S. county level N.R.I, data, published 1985.
-------
Application to sewage disposal systems-- The soils present in
the area of the Rural Sewage Demonstration Project are of the
Blount and Morley soil series which represent 52 percent of the
soils in Allen County. These soils are characterized as generally
not suited for a soil absorption disposal field system.
Unique Characteristics of the Area--
Many interesting aspects Involve the formation of Allen
County soils. The county was covered by several glaciers, but the
Late Wisconsin drift covered all material left by former glaciers.
The county is covered by glacial drift, which ranges from a few
feet to several hundred feet In thickness. This mantle of glacial
drift overlies limestone bedrock throughout the county; and in
several placss there are outcrops of limestone. Quarries were
established at the mere prominent outcrops at Bluffton> south of
Delphos? and east of Westminster. Thare is also a large quarry at
Lima.
The relief of the county is primarily nearly level "Co
undulating, but areas adjacent to the streams or in the morainic
areas are steeper. The major part of the county is a till plain,
but there are three end moraines in ths county. In the morainic
area, the relief is more pronounced ?nd t'.be erosion is more severe
than on the plains. The end moraines *-«
-------
June, and the smallest amount falls in February. A large part of
the precipitation in the winter is in the form of rain. The rain
often falls on ground that is not frozen. Because Ohio is located
on the eastern edge of the interior plains, it is spared the
violent fluctuations of wetness and drought that characterize some
areas to the west and south. Precipitation is favorably
distributed for the production of crops. In spring an ample
amount of moisture is usually available for the germination of
seed and the growth of plants. The driest season coincides with
the harvesting period.
The average annual temperature in Allen County is 51.4
degrees Fahrenheit. Annual rainfall averages 36.6 inches. The
average growing season, or that period normally free from
temperatures as low as 32 degrees, is 161 days. It extends from
May 3 to October 11. The season normally free from temperatures
as low as 36 degrees, when light frost can occur, extends from May
16 to September 29. A period from April 19 to October 24, 188
days, is free from temperatures as low as 28 degrees. The growing
season is ample for growing such crops as corn and soybeans
without having to plant on dates when the risk of a later freeze
exceeds 25 percent.
The moisture in the soil also goes through a seasonal cycle,
which is generally favorable for crop production. Winter is the
normal recharge season, and most soils are saturated with
moisture, or nearly so, by the start of the growing season. If
rainfall is normal in the spring, current and stored moisture is
generally ample until mid-July, but a moderate shortage develops
during August and September.
Early in the afternoon, the average relative humidity is
about 50 percent in the summer and as high as 70 percent in the
winter. It rises into the 80's and 90's at night throughout the
year. In summer the sun shines about 70 percent of the possible
time as compared with 40 percent or lower in the winter.
Tornadoes have occurred on rare occasions in Allen County, usually
during the spring months. Damaging hailstorms occur much less
frequently than states to the west and south.
Deviations From Normal
The 1981 - 1985 growing seasons all proved that there is no
such thing as an "average" year, which is illustrated in Table 6.
Figure 3 graphically displays the rainfall measured during the
season by year.
1981 Growing Season—
The 1981 growing season was abnormal, record breaking and
discouraging to farmers. The winter of 1980 - 1981 was drier than
normal, and March was relatively dry and warmer than usual. In
April the rains came and never seemed to stop. April, May and
June were among the wettest months on record. The growing season
rainfall averaged 30.6 inches compared to the normal 22.4 inches,
which was 37 percent above normal. The fall was wet and the first
killing frost occurred on October 3rd.
1 1
-------
TABLE 6.
ALLEN COUNTY RAINFALL DATA
1981-1985
Jan-
Hac
1981
1982 1
1983
1984
1985
COUNTY
MORH
3.9*
1 .6
3.6
5.3
5.6
7.8
Apr
4.8
1 .8
3.8
5,2
1 .1
3.6
Hay
4.9
6.0
4.0
3.6
4.1
3.6
June Julv AUK Sept
8.3
3.9
3.0
2.6
3.7
4.0
2
2
1
3
2
3
.4 2.1
.5 2.6
.8 .8
.6 2.2
.9 4.6
" '
4.1
3.4
2.2
3. 1
1 .1
2 9
Oct-
8.7
1 0.6
16.7
7,7
10.7
7,4
% of
Total Normal
39
42
35
33
33
35
.3
.4
.9
,3
.8
.5
111%
1 19%
1 01 %
94%
95%
i Data collected from the Lima Wastewater Treatment Plant; Vernon
Neff, farmer; and Ray Burkholder-j weather observer.
* Data listed in inches
22
20
Allen County Rainfall1
Mo> Throug'- August
_c
"a
a
a
16 -•
t4
10 -4
-'' -\
1981
'5.0
t9S2
9.5
12-0
f
r
'
.
,.'.•' -'' \
'• / -\
1983 1964
>eor Of °rogrcm
-•j
_^---'-i -1^1,-'-
1985 NORM
1 Data
collected from the Lima Wastewater Treatment Plant; Vernon
Neff, farmer; and Ray Burkholder, weather observer.
Figure 3. Allen County rainfall.
12
-------
1982 Growing Season--
The 1982 cropping season began with a wetter than normal
winter. Most of this rainfall occurred in March. April and early
May were quite dry, but heavy rains did come the last part of May
and early June. Rainfall during the remaining months was
adequate. Fall harvest was interrupted frequently by rain and
occasional cool periods. The first killing frost occurred very
late in the season.
1983 Growing Season—
Most of the county was plagued with a severe drought during
the 1983 growing season. The winter of 1982/1983 was very dry but
replenishing rains fell in April and May. Rainfall started to
diminish toward the end of June. Little or no rainfall was
reported across the county for most of July and all of August.
October and November experienced more than twice as much rainfall
as normal.
1984 Growing Season—
The winter of 1983/1984 was drier than usual, but the April
rainfall made up for it. Adequate precipitation fell in May and
early June. A brief dry spell was encountered near the end of
June. Rain throughout the rest of the season was relatively
timely. A couple of brief, high temperature, low moisture stress
periods occurred primarily at the end of July and again at the end
of August. Early fall had extensive wet periods.
1985 Growing Season—
Less precipitation than normal was measured during the winter
of 1984/1985. Dry weather and warm temperatures allowed farmers
to start Spring field work in mid-April. Considerable rainfall
occurred in the later part of April and was followed by a brief
cool period. Field work resumed the beginning of May. Moisture
was adequate and timely throughout the growing season for the most
part. Harvest was interrupted by rain from time to time. Some
crops still required harvesting in December due to excessive
rainfall in mid-November.
Effects on Conservation Tillage Project Operation--
Weather had a major influence on the operation of the
Project, particularly wet conditions. A lot of rain in the spring
would limit the number of days suitable for planting. In such
cases, the Allen S.W.C.D. staff had to make sure that the
equipment was circulating around the county constantly in order to
meet the demand of the program's sign-up. It was not unusual
under such circumstances to have to return to a particular area
because a certain field or fields were not ready to plant due to
rain. This created more road travel and added wear on the
equ ipment.
The same thing would happen with the mulch tillage tools if
wet weather persisted in the fall. There would be less time to
accomplish the planned work load and therefore the pressure to
complete the work would be greatly increased. Consequently, in
some cases less attention was paid to detail.
13
-------
Effects on Attainment of Conservation Tillage Project Goals—
Of the five growing seasons during the project period, none
were alike. One year was droughty, another was quite a bit wetter
than normal, and each one of the other three was different yet.
But instead of a hindrance to the Project, the varied seasons were
most likely a benefit. It enabled conservation tillage to be
tested in literally all weather conditions. The demonstration
plots were subject to longer growing seasons, shorter growing
seasons, a drought, an extremely wet growing season, wet springs,
dry springs, v.-?t harvests ^nc dry harvests. Conservation tillage
practices did hold their own against conventional methods i'i all
types of weather' ,
Effects on the Rural Sewage Project Operation--
The weache" experienced during the period of tne Rural Sewage
Project had little effect on it's operation. During or:n sampling
period, heavy rains washed a Kster sampling station downstream
resulting in the loss of information at this aite for several
hours uncil it was replaced.
The installation of sewage systems was affected very little
by any adverse weather. Most systems were put in on a timely
manner working around any inclement weather conditions.
Effects on Attainment of Rural S'ewage Project Goals--
An exceptionally dry period experienced during the two final
monitoring periods rasuJted in very low flow conditions in the
stream. Mere rainfall would have provided additional stream flow,
and provided more data on the effectiveness of the systems.
1 4
-------
SECTION 4a
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PURPOSE
The Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project developed from
the need to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering Lake Erie
through the Maumee River Basin. Much of this phosphorus was found
attached to the sediment particles that were being eroded from
agricultural land. It was estimated that water quality could be
improved if the amount of soil loss was reduced. One means of
achieving soil erosion control is by using conservation tillage
practices. Conservation tillage is any tillage system that
creates a suitable environment for a growing crop while leaving a
protective cover of residue on or near the soil surface throughout
the year.
The actual purpose of the Project was to accelerate the
adoption of conservation tillage practices in the Maumee River
Basin. The strategy was to demonstrate the effects and economics
of sound conservation to farmers through "hands on" experience in
hopes that they would voluntarily and more readily adopt the use
of conservation tillage in their own farming operations. It was
thought that if intensive educational training was offered,
equipment made available and technical assistance provided, the
general acceptance of the practices would occur much sooner.
GOALS
Seven objectives were established at the beginning of the
Project, and achievement of each was deemed necessary for its
successful completion. They are as follows:
1. To demonstrate that conservation tillage systems are a
profitable and reliable alternative to conventional
tillage systems on soil types which comprise a large
portion of the Maumee Basin.
2. To demonstrate how to get farmers to readily adopt
conservation tillage on a voluntary basis.
3. To demonstrate a program which could serve as a model for
treatment of other critical areas within the Lake Erie
Basin.
15
-------
4. To demonstrate several types of alternative conservation
tillage systems and to evaluate the degree of erosion
protection afforded by each system. To demonstrate which
of these systems provide acceptable erosion control
benefits and which provide preferred erosion control
benefits.
5. To obtain information on the changes in insect and weed
pressures and pesticide uses when there is a high
concentration of conservation tillage in an individual
area.
8. To obtain other technical and economic information which
Hill improve existing water quality, and aid other
agencies in their currc-;;t programs that address
agricultural sediment reduction.
7. To bridge the gar between planning fc.r redactions in
agricultural sediment loadings and actually seeing it
happen on the land.
SCOPE
The original project, prcposal ?.united the project size to two
particular area?, in the courty which ineludad a total of 10,240
acres. Tha areas were identified as critically eroding, ar.d
together they represented 3,? percent of the local lanO ar-? including personnel, fringe benefits,
t purchases;, office supplies, contractual
other, "'lie "other'" category trivolved such- items
purchase of tools, squipnant rents! 5.
r. ir.g expenses, displays, tasi, result publications,
and tc'urs. field days and educational meetings.
«
-------
ORGANIZATION
Agency Roles and Responsibilit lea
The Allen S.W.C.D. was the sponsor and administrative agency
for the Project. The Allen S.W.C.D. Board of Supervisors guided
the Project through the establishment of project goals and
procedural guidelines, approval of financial expenditures and the
evaluation of periodic progress reports. The Board of Supervisors
hired a Project Coordinator to direct the project operation within
the policy and procedural agreement established by the Board.
Assistance was also utilized from the existing Soil and Water
Conservation District staff in carrying out the project activities
during peak workload periods.
The local S.C.S. staff, specifically the District
Conservationist (D.C.), provided technical guidance and planning
expertise to the Project Coordinator, S.W.C.D. Board of
Supervisors and the other agencies.
The Allen County C.E.S. contributed educational assistance,
encouraged the use of conservation tillage throughout the county,
and helped carry out various educational activities, tours and
field days.
The county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (A.S.C.S.) encouraged farmers to participate in the
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project. Since the Allen
S.W.C.D. did not charge for the use of the equipment, the Allen
County A.S.C.S. County Committee did not offer any cost-sharing
incentives over and above their regular Agricultural Conservation
Program (A.C.P.).
Local agribusinesses contributed valuable assistance to the
Allen S.W.C.D. in securing equipment, helping execute special
hybrid and herbicide test plots, and providing other services
needed to help make conservation tillage a success in Allen
County. many also contributed financially to field day, meal
expenses.
Funding Mechanisms
The U.S. E.P.A., G.L.N.P.O. provided 74 percent of the funds
for the total project budget while the Allen S.W.C.D. furnished
the balance of the resources to carry out the Project. No income,
as such, was generated from the project operation. Equipment was
available to the farmers at no cost unless the use went beyond the
guidelines that were established each year. There was also a
charge for pest scouting services outside the demonstration plots.
The money generated from these two items, however, was a very
meager amount.
Labor or equipment which a farmer or another party
contributed to help establish and promote the Project was
considered "in-kind" contribution and the value was credited to
the project. Rates were established at the start of the project
as to the value of each type of service or operation performed as
part of the local "in-kind" match.
17
-------
Accountability
On a quarterly basis, the Project Coordinator prepared a
Standard Form 270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement and
submitted the form to the U.S. E.P.A. The form included total
program outlays to date, estimated outlays for the next quarter,
funds already requested, and funds being ^equested for the next
quarter. Payments from the U.S. E.P.A. were based on the
Information en this form.
All. grant monies received by the Allen S.W.C.D, from the U . :3
E.P.A , » G.L.N.P.O. were deposited xnto an ac. count, with tne count}
which »as administered by the Alle;n Court"cy Auditor. Aft^.r r,L«
Allen S.W.C.D. Heard of Supervisors approved payment uf all
acqjirad bills .st their monthly raett ir.g, t s."3i-: bills wer-e G^Lr-.-V'-'i
to the Auditor ' o .iff ice for payment.
The Allan S,W,C.D. kept a coF.plete *"e;-cr'.-.! o- -ill pr-r.j^i.-",
receipts and expenditures. Each month fie Auditor prepared a
report of the account status and s?:-*)t. : 4 co h'!.e Allsn c" „ U , L , L..
The entire process provided for e-~ of -..-necks and h.^ia-ic.-s o
the system,
18
-------
SECTION 4b
OPERATING PROCEDURES
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Relationship to Existing Programs
The Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project complemented
the Allen S.W.C.D.'3 existing programs very well. Erosion control
had always been a high priority with the Allen S.W.C.D. Three
years prior to the award of the U.S. E.P.A. grant, the Allen
S.W.C.D. began a conservation tillage promotion program
addressing agricultural sediment pollution. The program relied on
voluntary cooperation and farmer owned equipment, and was operated
with limited resources. Primarily, encouragement, individual
assistance and educational meetings were used in the promotion.
The U.S. E.P.A. grant allowed for an expansion of that
program and provided the means to involve more people. Many
farmers, who would not have otherwise, participated in the
Project. The Allen S.W.C.D. secured 59 new cooperators who had
never had any association with the District before. Many of these
people, once acquainted with the Allen S.W.C.D.j requested
assistance with other problems, such as the installation of sod
waterways.
Selection of Pro.iect Coordinator
A member of the Allen S.W.C.D. staff accepted the duties of
the Project Coordinator, which were to direct the project
operation within the policy and procedural guidelines established
by the Allen S.W.C.D. Board. This individual was responsible for
contacting the landowners, setting up the demonstrations, and
providing technical assistance to the participants. The Project
Coordinator also obtained and maintained the conservation tillage
equipment and coordinated its use, collected and summarized
project data, conducted educational meetings and tours, and
reported progress to the Allen S.W.C.D. Board. Much of this was
accomplished with the help of other S.W.C.D. employees.
Additional Project Staff
After the start of the Project, the Allen S.W.C.D. hired an
additional employee. A major portion of this person's time was
devoted to assisting with the Water Quality Project. He performed
such duties as moving and setting up equipment, weighing crops at
harvest and collecting data as needed. The rest of his time was
spent on other Allen S.W.C.D. programs.
19
-------
The other existing Allen S.W.C.D. staff members lent
assistance to the Project as needed. The Allen S.W.C.D.
secretary performed the Project's secretarial duties.
The S.C.S. D.C. assisted in the operation of the Project and
provided valuable technical expertise. Soil Conservation trainees
assigned to the Lima, Ohio Field Office worked with the Project as
part of their learning experience.
Additional employees were hired during the growing season as
pest scouts to regularly check for weed and insect problems and
chart the progress of the plots.
Fund (Grant) Management
Quarterly, the Allen S.W.C.D. submitted a request for
advancement of funds from the U.S. E.P.A. The request form
indicated the amount of money that the District desired each
month. Upon receiving a check from the U.S. E.P.A., the Project
Coordinator deposited it into a special account established with
the Allen County Auditor.
The Allen S.W.C.D. Board approved all project expenditures.
The Project Coordinator submitted any bills and a request for
payment to the Auditor monthly. Then upon his approval, the bills
were paid from his office.
The Project Coordinator kept a record of all receipts and
expenditures which was checked against a monthly statement from
the Auditor's office for any discrepancies.
All major purchases were approved by the U.S. E.P.A.,
C.L.N.P.O. Project Officer. A biennial budget was also submitted
to him for approval, indicating the Allen S.W.C.D.'s spending
intentions for the two-year period.
Equipment Purchase or Lease and Management
Early in the Project, more leasing of equipment was done
because of the need for improved performance on many pieces.
Purchases were made once the equipment performed satisfactorily in
the field. Tractors were leased each Spring to operate the Allen
S.W.C.D.'s no-till planters, and in the Fall to pull the offset
disc, coulter chisel plows, and any other pieces of mulch tillage
equipment. The leasing of tractors was a very big expense to the
Project, but it made a big difference in getting work done quickly
and in a timely manner. However, it was often found that
purcnasing tillage and planting equipment was more economical than
leasing.
At various times during the life of the Project, pieces of
equipment, such as planters, weigh wagons, and mulch-tillage tools
were purchased and/or sold. The procedure followed in the
procurement of equipment was according to guidelines set by the
State of Ohio. For any purchase or lease that was expected to
exceed $2,000 in value, it was necessary to advertise for sealed
bids. Two legal notices were placed in the local newspapers at
least fifteen days apart prior to opening of bids. Invitations to
bid, specifications and bid sheets were sent to farm implement
dealers in the area who might be able to supply the needed
20
-------
equipment. On the date specified in the legal notices, the bids
were publicly opened and read aloud by the chairman of the Board
of Supervisors. In the purchase of equipment, generally the
lowest bid submitted was awarded the sale. However, in some
cases, proximity of the dealership to the Project area,
specifications for the equipment, and farmer acceptance were
considered. The successful bidder was notified in writing within
fifteen days of the opening of the bids and usually was given six
to eight weeks For delivery. When submitting a bid, each bidder
was required to accompany the bid with a certified check or bid
bond in the amount of five percent of the bid so that a contract
could be entered into and performance thereof secured.
The disposal of equipment followed the same basic procedure.
Legal notices indicating farm equipment for sale were published.
Announcements were also sent to area farm implement dealers and
various farmers. Sealed bids were received and opened on the
specified date and the item was generally sold to the highest
bidder.
Where procuring and disposing of equipment was concerned, the
Allen S.W.C.D. did reserve the right to reject any or all bids and
to waive any discrepancies in favor of the District.
Selection of Pro.iect
The Allen S.W.C.D. recognized the tremendous potential of
conservation tillage. Research by the C.E.S. showed that 70
percent of Allen County soils would produce at existing or greater
yield levels under reduced tillage methods. The reduction in soil
erosion that conservation tillage provides as compared to
conventional methods was very impressive. Savings in time and
labor have also been substantiated.
All indications were that conservation tillage would be
successful in Allen County. The benefits of these methods needed
to be proven in order to be accepted by the area farmers who were
comfortable with their current, traditional tillage methods. In
securing the U.S. E.P.A. grant, the Allen S.W.C.D. took the lead
in demonstrating to farmers in the county that conservation
tillage is an economically sound practice.
Guidelines for Pro.iect Participation
Cooperators were encouraged to apply early for participation,
demonstrate two or more tillage practices in the same field, keep
accurate records, take yield checks, permit possible tours of
fields, and allow publication of data and yields collected on the
demonstration plots. A project participant who did not comply
with the requirements, risked being ineligible for future
involvement in the Project.
At the start of the Project the guidelines were more relaxed
in order to build participation. However, many problems were
encountered and it became necessary to establish more stringent
guidelines each year.
21
-------
A few farmers abused the Project. It became merely a
convenience for some who were only interested in the use of free
equipment. There were others who wanted to use the equipment as a
last resort if they were behind schedule in either getting their
crops planted or tillage work done, or if it was inconvenient for
them to transport their own equipment to a. particular field. Many
of these people were involved as project participants year after
year. Because of this abuse, a gradual tightening of the
guidelines occurred each year.
As a result, quite a few of these people were lost in the
final year of the Project because use of the equipment was limited
to first and second year participants in order to involve more new
people. A participant definition was also created to exclude
family operations who were signing up more than one member.
Acreage limits were hard to enforce but were necessary for maximum
service to all project cooperators.
Side-by-side comparisons were very important in determining
the success of conservation tillage practices, but many did not
want to take the time and work part of a field differently if they
could just go in with one tool. In several cases the comparisons
between tillage systems in the same field were not treated equally
due to differences like previous crop, hybrid planted, or rates of
fertilizer, chemicals or seeding to name a few. Therefore, the
results from such plots could not really be directly compared. A
few years into the Project, the District allowed farmers to
establish conservation tillage plots without comparisons, but
after some time it was felt that little was being proven without a
direct comparison. Therefore, in the last year, comparisons were
required and full compliance by the participants was given.
The Allen S.W.C.D. planted some double-crop no-till soybeans
in wheat stubble the first few years of the Project. The District
soon stopped because it caused added wear on the planters. The
practice was not promoted after that because it was used more as a
convenience than for erosion control. Land is rarely worked after
wheat is harvested in this area just to plant soybeans.
Generally, double crop soybeans are planted using a no-till
method. Replanting was performed only in no-till fields planted
the first time with project equipment.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Lake Erie Tillage Task Force
The Lake Erie Tillage Task Force was developed as a means of
providing uniformity and continuity among the many conservation
tillage demonstration projects initiated in the Maumee Basin.
They developed standard definitions, interpretations and criteria
which assisted in guiding the various conservation tillage
demonstration projects. Their meetings served to coordinate
between agency representatives and project staff, and provided for
the interchange of ideas in achieving the ultimate goal of
improving water quality in Lake Erie.
Since the Allen County, Ohio Project was one of the earliest
22
-------
initiated, the Task Force provided a limited amount of direction.
Some of the ideas presented could be incorporated into the
Project, but in many cases, project goals and objectives had
already been established and were difficult to change at the later
stages of the program without causing problems. Also, the
relationships between the staff and cooperators were different for
each county, therefore, making it difficult to adopt a universal
set of guidelines for the entire Basin.
A common data sheet was used for each plot in the Lake Erie
Basin. This was an excellent means of obtaining a broad data base
from all the demonstrations projects, even though every item on
the sheet did not apply to every plot, it provided a uniform means
of reporting data.
Eligibility Requirements for Technical Assistance
Any Allen County farmer interested in demonstrating
conservation tillage on his land was eligible to participate in
the Project. The only requirement was compliance with the
guidelines established by the Allen S.W.C.D. Board of Supervisors.
If a farmer indicated interest and agreed to follow the
guidelines, technical assistance was provided.
Technical Assistance Provided
District employees attempted to follow a definite procedure
with each farmer. After it was determined that the farmer wanted
to try conservation tillage, contact was made with him by the SWCD
staff. The test site was selected and evaluated for site
suitability and chances for success and then the herbicide,
fertility and variety programs were planned. The staff and farmer
monitored the field in the Spring to determine when it was ready
to plant. When conditions were favorable for planting, an SWCD
employee delivered the planter, which was pulled by a tractor
leased by the District, adjusted and set it up for the farmer and
made sure it was operating properly before leaving the field. The
farmer was required to operate the equipment himself. The
District staff kept the equipment working properly and moving
constantly from one participant's farm to the next. The equipment
was provided to the farmers at no cost, but they were required to
replace the fuel that they used.
In the case of the mulch-tillage tools that were used in the
fall, the process was essentially the same. The District
wupluyHfcsa would help the farmer select the site and advise him on
which direction the field should be tilled. The staff would
deliver and adjust the equipment, which was also furnished with a
tractor, when he was ready to use it. Since the ground had been
tilled, these plots could be conventionally planted, and the
farmers used their normal planting practices.
Field office staff members and pest scouts followed up by
regularly checking the demonstration plots throughout the season
for emergence, weed control, insect pressure and other problems
that might affect the normal growth of the crops. Weigh wagons
were made available to the farmers at harvest. A District
23
-------
employee assisted in weighing the grain and determining the yield.
Supplied with the cultural data from each field, the District
staff estimated the net return for the crop. The results and
observations from the entire project were then published each
year. These reports titled, "Conservation Tillage Test Results -
Allen County, Ohio", were published annually from 1981 through
1985.
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Information and Education Program Design
Mass exposure was a primary project approach which was
attained through an intensive education and information program.
Two audiences were targeted, one being landowners in the county
and the other the general public. The object was to increase
awareness and spark concern over erosion, and then offer
conservation tillage, augmented by available equipment and
assistance, as a solution.
News Media—
The program was also designed to inform and update people in
the county as to the progress of the demonstration plots. Area
radio and television stations were utilized along with newspapers
to effectively "spread the word". Several tours and field days
received local television coverage. Radio stations and newspapers
were also very cooperative, especially when personally contacted
about the nature and importance of news releases and activities.
The Allen S.W.C.D. published a newsletter four to six times a
year, which was mailed to approximately 1,300 cooperators. Every
issue contained information updating the District cooperators on
the status of the Project. A listing of guidelines and an
application for participation in the demonstration project was
included at least once each year. A special harvest issue was
prepared late in the fall or early in the winter listing
individual yield results for all the plots.
Meeting and Tours—
Meetings and tours were held throughout the year to update
those interested in the progress of conservation tillage in the
county. These were also effective tools in developing higher farm
management skills required to make the systems successful. The
first meetings of the year were held midway through the winter.
Results and observations from the previous year's demonstration
plots were reviewed as well as the guidelines established for the
coming season. A meal, sponsored by area chemical representatives
was included with this meeting. Promotions of this nature
generally contributed to higher attendance for any activity.
A series of workshops were conducted late in the winter to
review the results from the past year and offer selected
management tips. A field day was held in early summer which
featured no-till herbicide, variety and hybrid plots. A charcoal
-------
grilled, steak dinner was provided, compliments of the area
chemical representatives. This activity was usually held twice
each year, once on the east side of the county and then again on
the west side.
Early in September the Allen S.W.C.D. hosted an Agronomy Tour
in cooperation with the Allen County C.E.S. The group would
either travel in buses to the designated tour stops or caravan
in their own vehicles. Highlights of the tour would include
comparisons in tillage methods, herbicide applications, hybrids,
varieties, residue and fertilization. The tour was followed by a
meal, sponsored by the area chemical representatives.
Management Guides--
Several Management aids, including a farmer checklist for
successful no-till management, were prepared and printed by the
District or reproduced from other sources. New participants
especially, benefited from this type of material. Many farmers
reported feeling more comfortable with the conservation tillage
method or methods they had chosen to demonstrate.
Scouting Program—
The scouting program taught farmers and agency personnel much
about insect and weed pressure related to conservation tillage.
It was certainly worth the time and money invested. During the
project period, 6,892 reports were left with farmers. The data
collected convinced the Allen S.W.C.D. and the Allen County C.E.S.
that scouting of no-till fields is important. Farmers and agency
personnel were able to learn what pests to look for at different
times during the growing season.
Fair Display and Other Promotions--
The Allen S.W.C.D. attempted to make the Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project as visible as possible. The District had
been setting up a display at the county fair for many years.
After the start of the Project, conservation tillage became the
focal point of the District's display at the county fair. The
tillage equipment and no-till planters were on hand for viewing
and a pictorial narrative exhibit explained the use of the
equipment. Applications for participation in the coming year's
demonstrations were available. One year a model farm was
constructed that showed various tillage methods and other
conservation practices. Soil loss from different tillage methods
was depicted with actual piles of soil two years.
"Allen S.W.C.D. Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project"
was painted in bold, attractive lettering on the weigh wagons.
Another promotional tool was plot signs that the District had
professionally made. The signs were posted in the demonstration
plots making them highly visible to passersby.
25
-------
Staff Commitment to Information and Education
In 1980, the onset of the Project saw much skepticism from
some Allen County farmers. The staff and other agency personnel
realized the great importance of a strong and effective
information and education program. The combination of
demonstration and education was much more successful than
demonstration alone would have been. Publicity brought awareness
to conservation tillage methods. Without such a commitment from
the staff, the Project might not have enjoyed the acceptance that
it did.
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPANTS
Incentives Available
A voluntary approach was utilized in getting conservation
tillage practices accepted in Allen County. An intensive
educational program and technical assistance provided together
with available equipment, offered at no cost, were the only
incentives used. Another bonus was the chance for farmers to test
a new system that could save them fuel, time and manpower. During
the course of the Project many farmers had to evaluate their
current operations for inefficiencies due to the poor farm
economy.
Eligibility Requirements for Incentives
There were no special eligibility requirements for
incentives. A participant had to agree to follow the standard
guidelines established by the Allen S.W.C.D. Board each year.
Those farmers who purchased their own conservation tillage
equipment were still eligible for technical assistance if they
requested it.
Procedure for Providing Assistance to Project Participants
In order for a participant to receive technical assistance
and the use of project equipment, he had to sign up as a District
cooperator, if he wasn't already one. He also had to farm land in
Allen County and make application for participation in the
Conservation Tillage Project.
Special Plots--
Throughout the Project, several farmers were asked by the
Allen S.W.C.D. and the Allen County C.E.S. to put out hybrid and
variety plots. These plots were located throughout the county and
particular farmers were selected due to management abilities, the
site characteristics, and locale in the county. Seed for the
plots was donated by area seed dealers.
-------
One or two separate herbicide comparison plots were put out
each year. If two were established they were normally placed in
different areas of the county. Area chemical representatives
donated the chemicals for these demonstrations. Farmers were
chosen primarily for their management ability, but the site that a
farmer had to offer was an important factor as well.
REPORTING SYSTEM
Data Compilation
The Project Coordinator strived for accuracy in the
collection and reporting of data 'from the demonstration plots.
The Conservation Tillage Information Center (C.T.I.C), located in
Fort Wayne, Indiana, provided all the Districts in the Maumee
River Basin with field data sheets for compilation of data.
The C.T.I.C. is a clearinghouse for information on conservation
tillage, established as a special project of the National
Association of Conservation Districts (N.A.C.D.) and administered
in cooperation with agricultural industry, governmental agencies
(including U.S.D.A. and U.S. E.P.A.), private foundations,
organizations and farmers.
The Allen S.W.C.D. collected the necessary information to
complete the data sheets and then returned them to C.T.I.C. The
C.T.I.C. used the information to evaluate the activity in the
entire Basin, and the District used the same form for their own
records.
To collect the data, pest scouts and other District staff
would obtain a population, or stand count, in a growing crop at 3
to 8 weeks after planting. At the same time, a measurement of
residue cover was taken. After spring planting was completed, the
Project Coordinator filled out a form for each plot with as much
information as he could. Then, the form was sent to the farmer,
who added the rest of the needed data and returned it to the Allen
S.W.C.D.
After harvest, yields were collected and the net returns were
calculated for each plot. A copy was made of the completed data
sheets for the project files and the originals were sent to
C.T.I.C.
Quarterly Progress Reports
Two reports were compiled and sent -co the U.S. E.P.A.,
G.L.N.P.O. Project Officer quarterly. The first was a narrative
account of project activities for the quarter. New developments
were listed, along with a progress report. Meetings, tours and
other landowner gatherings for the Project were reported as to
their nature and attendance.
The second report was a request for advance of grant monies.
It listed total program outlays to date and also the amount being
requested. Each report had to be approved by the Project Officer.
27
-------
Field Reviews bv Proiect Officer
As time and travel permitted, the Project Officer would meet
with the Allen S.W.C.D. staff and discuss progress, procedures and
other activities of the Project. This was an excellent
opportunity to discuss any problems in the operation of the
Project and to keep all parties up to date. Letters, reports and
telephone conversations are not nearly as informative and
clarifying as personal visits.
Annual Reports
Each year a booklet was compiled and published to show the
results of the conservation tillage demonstration plots. General
information pertaining to the Project, the type of growing season
for the year and its effect, soil erosion and its relation to
water quality, economic comparison guidelines and the conditions
for technical assistance and use of equipment were all included.
Plot results were listed by crop. Selected cultural data for
each demonstration plot was listed along with the yield, value and
net return. At the end of each crop section were tables,
summarizing the data. An additional table contained the average
yield and return for each tillage method demonstrated for all the
years of the Project. No-till yields in relation to residue cover
were also compared for each year of the Project. Other tables
summarized tillage production costs, and time and fuel amounts
used for each tillage type. Observations on yield and economic
data followed the tables.
Final Report
The publication of this final report by the Allen S.W.C.D.
was included in the conditions of the grant. It is to thoroughly
review the project program, background of the county, project
operating procedures and accomplishments, conclusions and
recommendations. In short, it was to tell the story of the Allen
S.W.C.D. Water Quality Project. The annual reports were primary
sources of information in the compilation of this report.
28
-------
SECTION 4c
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
NUMBER OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The Project attracted 232 different Allen County farmers td
participate during its five year course. Figure 4 represents the
total number of farmers who participated in the Project by year»
and the percentage of those who were new participants. The graph
reflects a sizeable number of farmers participating the first
year. In 1982, participation was up due to the interest created
by the first year, and fifty-nine percent of the total number of
those farmers were new to the project that year. The third and
fourth years show successive declines in the total participants.
New people continued to set up demonstrations, but compared to
total involvement, the rate was much lower. The final year
reflects a considerable decrease in total participation but a
significant increase in the percentage of new cooperators. The
District had evaluated the project direction and revised the
guidelines to allow maximum opportunity for new cooperators to
participate and to eliminate those farmers who had been using the
project as a convenience. The result was a more manageable
project year with emphasis on quality instead of quantity.
CONSERVATION TILLAGE TYPES
Four tillage types were compared in the demonstration plots.
They were no-till, chisel plowing, offset disking, and
conventional methods. No-till, chisel plowing and offset disking
represent conservation tillage practices. Conventional methods
used in the plots were for comparative purposes and included fall
moldboard plowing, spring moldboard plowing, tandem disking, and
field cultivation, or any other method that disturbed the soil
enough to result in less that 30 percent residue cover.
AcreaF.es in the Demonstration Plots
Tables 7 and 8 list acreages for the demonstration plots by crop
and tillage type respectively. Annual acreages are listed along
with the totals for the entire project period. A grand total of
16,178 acres were involved over the five years of the Project.
The total project budget ($672,880) includes both the federal and
nonfederal shares of outlays, and amounts to a total cost of
$41.59 per acre.
29
-------
Tillage Project Participation
1 10
n
a
a.
"v
t
o
a.
-O
E
3
Z
1981
New PartlclpcnH
1982
1983
1984
Pro|ect_Year
|'\xsi Prior Partlclpcn-fs
1985
Figure 4. Total project participation as compared to new
participants
TABLE 7. DEMONSTRATION PLOT ACREAGES BY CROP
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Totals
Corn
2,195
1 ,924
1 ,662
1 ,105
1 .450
8,336
Soybeans
1 ,943
1 ,308
1 ,331
1 ,227
1 .476
7,285
Wheat
99
0
298
160
0
557
Tot^}.
4,327
3,232
3,291
2,492
2.92$
16,178
30
-------
TABLE 8. DEMONSTRATION PLOT ACREAGES BY TILLAGE TYPE
Year
1 981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Totals
M^ Till
no 1 1 j. j.
839
640
652
263
554
2,948
Chisel
PlOH
781
617
469
147
61 9
2,633
Offset
Disc
454
277
234
136
- 215
1 ,366
Conventional
Comparison
2,163
1 ,698
1 ,886
1 ,946
1 ,538
9,231
Total
4,237
3,232
3,291
2,492
2,926
16,178
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Meetings and Training Seminars
Over the project period, ten meetings and seminars were held.
The purpose of these gatherings was to update the farmers on the
results obtained from the plots to date and to inform them of the
latest conservation tillage management techniques. Local farmers,
area equipment dealers, Ohio C.E.S. specialists, and S.C.S.
representatives were called upon for presentations at these
meetings and seminars.
Field Tours
Field days and tours were an ideal way for farmers to get a
closer look at the demonstration plots. A total of eleven were
held for the Project. Various resource people were called upon
to discuss such topics as variety and hybrid selection, fertility,
herbicide programs, equipment, and insect pressure.
Newsletters
The Allen S.W.C.D. publishes four to six newsletters each
year. The mailing list included anyone who was signed up as a
District cooperator and others who specifically requested to be on
the list. Twenty newsletters published during the project period
included information on the demonstration plots.
Young Farmer Presentations
Five local school districts sponsor adult education classes
for farmers. They meet weekly, in the evenings, from December to
April. The S.W.C.D. and S.C.S. staff members gave thirteen
presentations to the various Young Farmer chapters over the five
years of the Project. As a result, many new participants were
acquired.
31
-------
Vocational Agriculture Plots
The District made the project equipment available to all
vocational agriculture (vo-ag ) departments in the county. Four
departments participated during the Project and put out a grand
total of 313 acres. The farmland involved was either owned by the
school or the township. The vo-ag departments were either given
the land to farm and maintain or they rented It, Operating
expenses came from their Future Farmers of America ;. F „ F , A . )
chapter treasury. All profits were used to support chapter
activities.
The demonstration plots established on these lands were used
to teach the vo-ag students about conservation tillage practices.
Approximately 253 high school vocational agriculture students were
exposed to these particular plots.
32
-------
SECTION 4d
CONCLUSIONS
PROJECT IMPACTS
The Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project had quite a
positive impact on agriculture in Allen County and the agencies
directly involved with the demonstrations.
Agency Programs
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District—
The biggest impact that the Project had on the Allen S.W.C.D.
was the number of new cooperators it attracted. Sixty-nine of the
farmers (29.7%) participating in the demonstrations had never had
any prior contact with the Allen S.W.C.D. As a result of their
involvement in the tillage plots, many requested further
assistance from the District for other conservation practices.
The funds from the grant paid for the basic needs of much of
the program. The District responded in kind with increases in
staff and equipment to accommodate the Project operations. An
additional employee was hired, two vehicles were purchased, and
more office space and equipment was procured. These acquisitions
were retained after the completion of the Project for use in
continuing the conservation tillage efforts and other District
programs.
The Project also resulted in a close working relationship
between the District and area agribusinesses. Very little
interaction had taken place prior to 1980.
Early in 1985, as the Project came to an end, the District
leased approximately 170 acres of farmland from the Allen County
Commissioners. The purpose of the new venture was to demonstrate
conservation farming on a long term basis. The farm equipment
that remained from the Project, along with the considerable
knowledge and experience that had been obtained, enabled the
District to operate this county land as a Demonstration Farm.
Soil Conservation Service--
The Project provided valuable field experience for S.C.S.
trainees. Four trainees received considerable first-hand
knowledge of conservation tillage while stationed in Allen County,
and others gained experience through short training details.
Compared to the other counties in the Lake Erie Basin, with the
exception of Defiance County, the Allen S.W.C.D. Water Quality
Project was a bit unique, especially considering the amount of
equipment involved.
33
-------
Allen County Cooperative Extension Service—
The agriculture agent initiated the pest scouting program,
which brought about the awareness that no-till crops, require
regular scouting visits. Through the Project, the Extension
Service expanded their corn hybrid plots to include no-till
trials. The C.E.S. also increased their educational efforts in
the area of conservation tillage. Speakers and resource people
from the Ohio State University were secured for various meetings,
workshops and field days that were held in cooperation with the
Allen S.W.C.D. Literature as well as crop planning assistance
were made available to the farmers . Field visits were also made
to view problems and check the progress of the crops.
Allen County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service—
The A.S.C.S. was making one-time payments to farmers trying
no-till for the first time. Farmers could receive ten dollars per
acre on a maximum of ten acres. This program was discontinued
after the start of the Allen S.W.C.D.'s Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project. Since the District was offering the use of
no-till planters and other conservation tillage tools at no charge
to any interested farmer, the A.S.C.S. committee decided not to
offer any A.C.P. cost share for conservation tillage. As a
result, additional A.C.P. monies were freed for cost-sharing of
related conservation projects.
Agribusiness--
Most agribusiness firms benefited from the Conservation
Tillage Demonstration Project with increased business and sales.
Conservation tillage brought about increased chemical sales.
According to the C.T.I.C. in Fort Wayne, Indiana, farmers spent
four to twelve additional dollars per acre in no-till for the
application of a contact herbicide. Most farmers who did their
own chemical spraying had the contact herbicide custom applied on
no-till fields.
Opportunity arose for more custom work such as planting.
Implement dealers and individuals performing custom planting
usually had all the business than they could handle, if not more.
Rental of conservation tillage tools was also in demand. Few
farmers were willing to go out and buy such equipment without
first trying it for a season or two.
The demonstration plots provided a place for the area
chemical representatives to put out herbicide test plots. Direct
comparisons were made from one brand to another. Application
timing was also compared.
As the Project progressed, area weed, seed and feed dealers
expanded and updated their equipment to meet the needs of the
conservation tillage farmer. Like the participating farmers and
S.W.C.D. staff, the agribusinessmen learned much about the
application of conservation tillage in Allen County.
34
-------
Inter-agencv Cooperation
The agencies worked well together, and were always willing to
offer assistance or other input. The Project benefited
significantly from this existing inter-agency cooperation. For
many of the agencies, the Project served as an introduction to
each other and several of the associations that were established
have continued through other programs.
Implementation of Conservation Tillage
The project saw a definite growth in the acceptance of
conservation tillage practices over the years. The adoption of
no-till, in particular, was influenced the most by the
demonstration project. From 1980 to 1985, no-till acres in the
county increased from 0.3 percent to 6 percent of the farmland in
the county (Figure 5). Mulch tillage increased from 10 to 30
percent of the total acres of farmland in Allen County (Figure 6).
Since 1980, the sales of mulch-tillage equipment, such as
chisel plows and offset discs have skyrocketed. Much of this is
due to the fact that in comparison to a moldboard plow, the
operation of these tools requires less fuel, and often decreases
time spent in the field. Even though they will also significantly
aid in the reduction of erosion under proper management, the key
factor in their sales has been the savings the farmers realize in
fuel and time. Considering the number of mulch-tillage tools
throughout the county though, the total number of acres under
conservation tillage should be much higher than it is. One
problem is that the farmers tend to work the ground "one extra
pass" and to bury more of the residue before planting. For
reduced-tillage practices to effectively reduce erosion and even
be considered as conservation tillage, there must be a minimum of
30% residue cover left on the soil surface at planting. In many
cases, residue at planting falls short of this. Our challenge
is to convince the farmer to leave the minimum 30 percent residue
cover required for erosion control.
No-till is so much more clearly defined than mulch-tillage,
so measuring the amount of acres under this practice in the county
is easier. In the past few years we have seen a steady increase
in the number of no-till acres in production. Figure 5
illustrates the growth of no-till in Allen County over the past
eleven years. It is obvious from the chart that the most growth
occurred the year the demonstration project began planting no-till
(1981). In the 1984 and 1985 especially, many no-till planters
were sold in the area and almost as many farmers adapted their own
planters for no-till use. Table 9 indicates the number of no-till
farmers in the county and whether or not they participated in the
Project. In 1985, each no-till farmer planted an average of 56
acres. Sixty-eight percent of the farmers who no-tilled in 1985
were involved in the Project at some time during its course.
Figure 6 shows the growth in reduced tillage applied to Allen
County farmland over the past eight years. Sixty-five percent of
the farmers in the county now use mulch tillage tools in their
farming operation. On the average, each operator farms 118 acres
35
-------
by reduced tillage methods. Only 38 percent of those 781 farmers
were involved in the Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project.
It is clear to see that the demonstration project influenced the
adoption of no-till more than mulch tillage.
f>
sn C
c c
*- m
12
11 -
1O
9 -
)
)
8-?
'-I
5 -j
I
4 J
3 -!
!
2 -i
i-l
3f/
A
No-Till In Alien County1
Growth Rate - 1975 to 1985
44X58
971.5
7772
58ZS
3933
5C-
nc- 195 255
7-» 78 7&
79 £0 e i
To-fcl Acres Nc. -Til)
62
83
85
1 Developed from records maintained by Allen S.W.C.D. staff
Figure 5. Growth of no-till in Allen County.
36
-------
TABLE 9.
NO-TILL FARMERS
TOTAL * OF
FARMERS
NO-TILLING
IN ALLEN CO.
% OF THOSE
HAVING
DIRECTLY
PARTICIPATED
IN THE PROJECT
X OF THOSE
WHO DID NOT
DIRECTLY
PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROJECT
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
98
139
175
206
236
87%
82%
73%
73%
68%
13%
18%
27%
27%
32%
6O
50 -I
to-
O
Mulch Tillage In Allen County1
Role
to 19S5
54J04
"58290
.,-•4'
sops-
46632^
19^30
,__ I
1980
19S1 1982 1983
Told Acres Of Mjleh Tillage-
1984
1985
1 Developed from records maintained by Allen S.W.C.D. staff.
Figure 6. Growth of mulch tillage in Allen County.
37
-------
Conservation tillage practices have proven themselves in
Allen County and their acceptance is obvious through the
increasing number of acres being managed under these methods and
equipment purchases each year. No-till, at this time represents
6% of the cropland in production in Allen County, and the mulch-
tillage acreage stands at approximately 30 percent. Therefore, 36
percent of the farmlanc is currently being maintained under
conservation tillage practices. The S.C.S. estimates that 64,534
total tons of Allen County soil have been saved on the
conservation tillage demonstration plots as a result of the
Project.
Negative farmer attitude was the biggest barrier when the
Project was initiated. Conventional tillage has been a tradition
in this area. There's just something about a well-tilled field
that leaves a sense of satisfaction with most farmers. Some would
tell you, "I've been doing it this way for years..." in response
to any suggestion to change. Others couldn't bear the sight of a
no-till field from the time it was planted until the crop canopies
over the residue because it "went against their grain". However,
the most significant effect the project had was its abil ity,^ break
this barrier and begin to change the thinking of many farmers in
the county. Many farmers are simply comfortable with their
current operation and considering the fact that the average age of
the area farmer is 50, it is not realistic to expect a mass change
from a method they have been practicing for over 30 years. We
believe that more conservation tillage practices will be applied
to the land in the future, especially as equipment wears out and
must be replaced. The current farm economy demands that farmers
increase their efficiency. Many will change over as they search
for new ways to cut costs and improve productivity. Eventually we
will see attitudes changing, but it will take time.
PHYSICAL APPLICATION OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE TO THE AREA
After conducting 1,308 individual demonstration plots, the
Allen S.W.C.D. concludes that conservation tillage practices can
successfully be applied to Allen County soils. The tests have
shown that in both corn and soybean production, chisel plowing,
offset disking and no-till will yield competitively with fall and
spring moldboard plowing.
The District was very pleased with the results from the
demonstrations as a whole, but it is important to note that this
was a demonstration project of farmer proven techniques, not a
research project with controlled conditions. For the purpose of
this report and for our own use, we have drawn some conclusions
from the data obtained over the Project's existence. We suggest
that those reviewing this final report should thoroughly evaluate
its contents and then draw their own unbiased conclusions.
38
-------
Influencing Factors
Weather influenced the project results more than anything
else, but that was beyond anyone's control. Where farmers were
concerned, their personal farm management ability had the most
effect on the success of conservation tillage practices
demonstrated on their own land.
For example, farmers no-tilling for the first time were
encouraged to try planting corn into soybean stubble or soybeans
into cornstalks, because an inexperienced no-tiller would most
likely have better luck with one of these situations. No-till
corn planted into wheat stubble, on the average, has not proven to
yield as well as the same crop planted into soybean stubble. But
a good manager, who considers all factors involved when planning a
crop, and then proceeds accordingly, can get an excellent yield
from a no-till corn crop planted into wheat stubble.
Figure 7 compares the yields of one such Allen County farmer
(Farmer X) who planted no-till corn into wheat stubble on the same
farm for seven consecutive years, to the county's average yields
for the same condition and the average yields of all no-till corn
crops from the demonstration plots. The illustration shows that
this particular farmer's yields were well above the others in each
of the seven years. Therefore, we believe that management ability
has a lot to do with the continued success of no-till.
Many variable factors influenced the success, or failure, of
the test plots besides differences in management ability from farm
to farm. Soil type, drainage, seed variety or hybrid,
fertilization, herbicide programs, and planting and harvest dates
varied quite a bit. This too should be taken into consideration
when evaluating the results.
Significant Difference and Success Rate
Two terms are used in the following text: significant
difference and success rate. The expression, significant
difference is used by the Allen S.W.C.D. when evaluating yields
and returns. When comparing two numbers, it denotes a
difference of greater than five percent. Significant difference,
as the Allen S.W.C.D. uses it, is not a true calculated least
significant difference (L.S.D.) figure, but an arbitrary five
percent figure that they selected as being representative in view
of the way the demonstrations were carried out. Considering the
large number of variables involved, a difference of five percent
or less is deemed trivial by the District. Success rate is
defined as: the number of times a system was equal to or surpassed
its comparison, relative to the total number of times that it was
tested.
39
-------
X
in
"i
£
in
3
CD
•a
v
o>
a
*
>
Management Example
Variation In Yield* Du« To Mcnaa.«m«nt
/
/^
VA
TTS.
/A
7A
\
. "•J/,'1
\ V ' \
s v'A
^/A
:$'ti
'
•r
Y'<- -
r' ^x
\
"
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
County average
no-till corn
yield planted
into wheat
stubble
Yecr Of Progrcrr.
? County average
no-till corn
yield regard-
less of
residue
1985
Fanner X
No-till corn
planted into
wheat stubble
Figure 7. No-till management example.
Corn Production
Table 10 compares the average corn yields by tillage system
for each year of the Project. It also gives the average corn
yield for the county as reported by the Ohio Crop Reporting
Service. Figures 8 and 9 show the five year averages of corn
yields and success rates respectively by tillage type.
Fall plowing and chisel plowing resulted in the highest
average yielding system of the five that were compared during the
Project (Table 10 and Figure 8). They yielded significantly
higher than the other three systems.
As seen in Figure 9, spring plowing had the highest success
rate, but it should be noted that it was only tested 19 times
(Table 10). There was a significant difference between it and
second ranked chisel plowing. With the exception of no-till,
which had a 48 percent success rate, all four of the other systems
were successful over half the time.
Each type of tillage tested, with the exception of offset
disc, provided the highest average yield in at least two of the
40
-------
five Project years (Figure 10). With the exception of four
systems in 19835 which was a drought year, and the no-till yield
in 1984, the average yearly corn yield for the county was lower
than the average yield of any of the tillage systems tested (Table
10). A total of 868 different corn plots were established during
the Project.
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF CORN PLOT YIELDS BY TILLAGE SYSTEM
FALL
NO-TILL
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
137*
122(
66(
144(
1 09(
(7)
4 )
12)
17)
22)
PLOW
151 (
158(
49(
137(
136(
5)
3 )
9)
14 )
17 )
SPRING
PLOW
141(6)
--
25( 1 )
142(6)
139(6)
OFFSET
JilSC
140(
137(
48(
136(
1 19(
5)
4 )
1 0 )
8 )
1 1 )
COULTER
CHISEL
146(
156(
49(
148(
123(
5)
3)
15)
13)
15)
COUNTY
AVG.»
129
127
65
129
1 01
Project
Average
1 16(
62)
126(
48 )
1 12( 19)
1 16(
38)
124(
51 )
Success
Rate
30/62
35/48
16/19
20/
38
40/51
* as reported by the Ohio Crop Reporting Service
+ yields reported in bushels/acre
( ) number of tests
41
-------
£
o
a.
e
•C
n
CD
C
Corn Yields By Tillage Type
Five Y«or Average
NO-TILL
126
v '
1 12
F. PLOW
S, PLOW
Tlllcge Type
1 16
DISC
124
v/////
•'// A
\ ////. "
Y/////\
CHISEL
Figure 8. Five year average of corn yields by tillage type.
42
-------
1OO%
n
Vt
9
O
o
3
C
V
90* -
SO* -
70% -
60* H
50% -
Corn Yield Success Rate
Five Year Average By Tillage Syrtem
48%
30% -
20% -|/'/ ///\
73*
0*
NO -TILL
84%
5396
'///// \
s r r J , f I
F, PLOW S. PLOW DISC
Tillage S>stem Used
78%
„... ,..., , 7
/ / //' / .
Y/////*
• •' / s / /
'/
s s ,
/ / /
V.
/
' /' X
'/////\
y///A
f////A
\ /
CHISEL
Figure 9. Corn yield success rate by tillage type.
43
-------
«
o
OL
w
01
_c
T!
Highest Yielding Tillage System
By Prolcci Year
£-W —
190 -
180 -
170 -
16O -
15O -
140 H
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
7O -
5O —
50 -
4O -
30 -\
20 -
O •-
1«r rt
39
y/y//s\
'.-'. //
"a. •'' t '
,J X ^>
'' - U. ' ' '
•*' - *•* S* '
i ^O '
,' c. , •
} / n /
•' / _
C -•''•'
•r-
/ • fe- '/,
/ °° / ,
'" ''
/',/ ••'. ''/ t
1981
148
!/y -'' ''•'''•
\/' / ,2 j ,\
/.' . •'.•]
1 .' • ' /' A
''"<' ' ' -\
r/ s •'.-{
'/
'/. z -.- \ 66
,•'•*-' J -' / ' ,'
•' / i -• - Y •' ,' ' ••"'
•• / z ••' t V •'
.' ' \ / ' r™* -
* ,-' i / ' T~
r /'' "oJ ' j •''.+*'
(• -• w A y i •
tj/ 5 ' - H [.-• z
[ - • - -( i •
1982 1983
158
r.
i/i * i
•2 'A
o / ,H
-o -'A
c ^
(TJ
151
I"
° V
"i •. 1
« ' .-I
' /I
.'•^
/ j
1985
Figure 10.
Highest yielding tillage system, on the average, by
proj ec t year.
No-till--
Much more emphasis was placed on no-till in this Project than
on mulch tillage. This was because mulch tillage does not differ
significantly from conventional methods, whereas no-till
represents a drastic change. Mulch tillage was already considered
a successful practice in the county, but it needed to be promoted
to increase its usage and adoption. It was estimated that mulch
tillage was being applied to ten percent of Allen County farmland
in 1980. No-till, on the other hand, was only being applied to
0.3 percent (0.0032) of the farmland. The District decided that
no-till crop production merited more of their time and effort.
The average no-till corn yields compare quite favorably to
the county's average yield, as Figure 11 indicates. Figure 12
compares the average no-till yield to the highest yielding
system's average. There was not a significant difference between
the two in 1982 or in 1985. No-till was the highest yielding
system in 1983, a drought year, and in 1985.
-------
Residue cover-- Residue cover has been shown to have an
affect on no-till success, and this can be seen in Table 11 and
Figure 13. No-till corn was most successful when planted into
soybean residue. Very high and very low yields were experienced
with no-till corn crops planted into wheat stubble. The District
found that planting no-till corn was least successful when
planting into cornstalks.
c
0
«
a.
in
£.
3
as
c
-~
T)
]|
£
£-\J\J T
190 -j
180 -|
1^0 -j
1
160 |
150 --}
140-
130 -
12O -
1 10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
5O -
40 -
30 -
20 -
1 17
-' -'71
/ / A iot
, '"'/ .--trr^
• ' -I J
r S Xt 'v "* ' 1
/ / Y' ?•- '1
''•''' i \ ^
.- .-'-t -• i
''--''•'I ""'^
/•'X^' \S
'X /' ,^i'\ s '.i
^ / j \ ^ -^
•::;;j<>j
No—Till Corn Yield Comparison
By Project Year
140
1 29
130
127
66 55
/' •' ^
* s /
,^''.^'
— ,_ — ,. —
1 \ ••
\x\\
\\\
A\:'
1981
. No-Till Yi
-------
one test needs to be taken into consideration. Wheat stubble
residue was second with four tests and was significantly higher
than the average of the 20 plots planted into soybean stubble.
When comparing the Project's average for each type of cover
though, soybean stubble is slightly in the lead over the other two
types (Table 11).
No—Till Corn Yield Comparison
No-Tlli Vs. HJgh«*i Ylsioln$ System
4.W
190 -
180 -
170 -
160 -
«, 1 50 -
| 140 -
130-
5. 120-
£ 110 -
x 100 -
m
3 90 -
a:
80-
7O -
•a
"i 60 -
^ 50 -
4O -
30 -
20 -
TO -
G -
1 17
" ,/v,,.
// /
'-"' //
''/'/,.
/ •' S
19
158
148 fx-x^l 152 151
i to 1 4O n — * — \NN K/>xN"x
LX'S"N i-''-- /TX' \ '''-',-*••. ^J k^VfCsx"--
xx \i i -' / ,4, • , . .-' ,' T vx x! i ' .-' ,k \ x'
X,\ ] \ / - | X , | ^ '',•'/)> " • ^ 1 *' '' \ X\''
'xvx/-| »-'' --"'_' --I /• xi [xx/r^x^-j K , V-i'x x; -| ^'.-x'x>"'\"xNN
81 1982 1963 198-* x, 1985
X
Program \ecr ^
. No-Till \lelc
Figure 12. No-till corn yield comparison with the highest
-------
TABLE 11. COnP&RISOM OF MO-TILL CORH YIELDS BY RESIDUE COVER
CORM
jt£AB SZAL&S
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
AVERAGE
180*
121 i
56 (
125 (
101 (
1 17 (
( 1 )
1 1 )
1 1 )
6)
7)
36)
WHEAT
STUBBLE
148
142
54
136
105
1 17
( 4)
(10)
( 16)
(25)
(19)
(74)
SOYBEAN
STUBBLE
139
139
72
143
128
124
(20 )
(18)
(16)
(19)
( 5)
(78)
+ yields reported in bushels/acre
( ) indicates number of tests
No —til! Corn Yields By Residue
«
D
*.
t
a.
6*;
p
£.
ff!
3
^
TJ
,£
1 OV
170
160
150
130
120
1 10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
i
™!
j
j
i
!
1_ jvj-X]
XA
-$// f/vf^r.-
i/.-t./ Ix~vi
• / T •• •• r • • •
'••'.IXK
4^ •,!•'' i r -,t \Tr.'
| X i, •,•!'• >
' i ' T '
~r .' '• ^ T' '.' ' k ,' 1 '> '•>{•,'•'
J't V:
1 ^ ' yT' ( x C / ' "J
4'''K''i'.:: i
1 ,t. •'.].' ,J
4 •' ^ J- ••'•
r -' i \ T ' '-]
-4 y ' i\. '4 ;••.,]
^/^K^.t-X'']
/ 1- * ' '
."I -J, ,
' •» I ' ' '
''']'"*
•''•'''. \
''"•t..'\
,' » •> ^
^ /' 1 \ V
•' '' I \ \
-'' ^[' \
' '''4,^ T'X/.'i / A N
T/-J \.t>;>-i r'/'iv
-> '-,/_'_Ljr N 1^ id k'-./_LX .1
1951
El] Bee-, Stub.
1 ', ' '
.-- ^
t
f
\ >'
Y •
1-
^i i:/
^ !••:
•i&'A _ _li.
1982
Pr=
CS Wnccl
1983
/ /
!',t,
*•' ']'--. ^/
\ • A. \J -•
i •l^t-;
//f.\
1985
Figure 13,
Average yearly no-till conn yields related to
residue cover.
47
-------
Soybean Production
Four hundred and forty different soybean plots were operated
over the course of the Project. Table 12 compares the average
soybean yields by tillage system for each year of the Project. It
also gives the average soybean yields for the county as reported
by the Ohio Crop Reporting Service. Figures 14 and 15 show the
five year averages of soybean yields and success rates
respectively by tillage type.
We are inclined to believe that soybeans are insensitive to
tillage. Five years of tests indicate little difference in yield
by tillage type. On the average, no-till, fall plow and chisel
plow showed the highest yield, but offset disc was not
significantly lower. Spring plow followed behind with a seven
percent difference compared to the three top ranked systems. Each
tillage system tested provided the highest yield on the average in
at least one of the five Project years (Table 12). This includes
those systems that did not show a significant difference in yield.
Fall plow had by far the highest success rate. All five of
the systems were successful well over half the time. The average
yearly county soybean yields were lower than any of the five
tillage system averages except for 1983, which was a drought year
(Table 12).
TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF SOYBEAN PLOT YIELDS BY TILLAGE SYSTEM
FALL
NO-TILL
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
44^
47(
34(
41 (
39(
4 )
8 )
13)
12 )
9 )
PLOW
52(
45C
34(
41 (.
34(
7 )
8 )
1 4 )
7 )
7 )
SPRI
NG
PLOW
44(
41 (
23(
46(
36(
3)
3 )
1 )
7 )
2 )
OFFSET
DISC
43( 4 )
45( 7 )
27< 1 7 )
45t 1 3 )
39 ( 9)
COULTER
COUNTY
£JLLSEL AVG.»
47(
44(
29(
47(
36<
12)
7 )
1 1 )
1 2 >
8 )
42
39
29
39
29
Project
Average
41 (
46)
41 (
43 )
38t
16)
40t 50 )
41 (
50 )
Success
Rate
29/46
34/43
1 0/1
fe
33/bO
31 /
bO
* as reported by the Ohio Crop Reporting Service
+ yields reported in bushels/acre
( ) indicates number of tests
48
-------
o
a.
w
x
SB
3
CC
Soybean Yields By Tillage Type
Five Year Average
F. PLOW
S. PLOW
Tillage Typ*
DISC
CHISEL
Figure 14. Five year average of soybean yields by tillage type.
49
-------
100*
Soybean Yield Success Rate
By Tillage Typ«
a
u
3
(fi
C
*
2
V
a.
80% ~i
70% -
6O% -
50% -
40% -
63%
30% ^'/////
////A
2O% -
' '~s\
\
-------
o
k.
a.
*
sn
3
£E
No—Till Soybean Yield Comparison
By Project Year
1981
1982
No-Till Average
1983
Program Yeor
rr\i
i--,t- — -J
1984
Couniy Average
1985
Figure 16.
No-bill soybean yield comparison with the county
average yield.
No-till--
Figure 16 depicts a significant difference, in favor of no-
till, between the average no-till yield and the county's average
yield in each of the Project years, with the exception of 1984
when the county average yield exceeded the no-till yield by three
bushels.
Residue cover— Table 13 compares the average yields from the
three most common types of residue cover (Figure 17). Soybeans
planted into cornstalks has the highest average yield. In fact,
it was the highest yielding in all five of the years concerned
including 1981, when there was no significant difference between
it and the top yielding soybean stubble residue. Soybean stubble
and wheat stubble follow cornstalks respectively. It should be
noted that cornstalks had five to seven times the total number of
tests than the other two did.
51
-------
TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF NO-TILL BEAN YIELDS BY RESIDUE COVER
WHEAT
.XEAJB
1
1
1
1
1
985
984
983
982
981
AVERAGE
STUBBLE
^ ^
26 (
12 (
33 (
32 (
26 (1
5)
4 )
4 )
3)
6)
SOYBEAN
STUBBLE
39
34
27
38
40
36
+ (
(
(
(
(
(
7)
10)
3)
2)
6)
28)
CORN
STALKS
50
40
29
45
38
40(
(
(
(
(
(
1
9 )
29)
37)
31 )
18)
24)
+ yields reported in bushels/acre
( ) indicates number of tests
Weed-control-- We did learn that good weed control is crucial
when producing no-till soybeans. Considerable experience and
knowledge is still needed in this area.
No —TIM Soybean Yields By Residue
60
c
a
r
"5
£
11
3
CD
30
-
r.—1
f I • '•!
i- - i •<
r, i T
20
10
jvt- {-I
•V >'[• •-[.:-;
0
]-''•! jiJ
1961
A''
A-.
- r i
-f V
1982
1963
Projec-t >
Bscr C'tjb.
1
1
V-l-r-
r •
198^
l ,
\ '
r
t .
\ '' T'"'-
1965
Wheat Slut,
Figure 17. No-till soybean yields related to residue cover,
52
-------
ECONOMIC APPLICATION OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE TO THE AREA
All of our tests indicate that the conservation tillage
practices being applied to Allen County soils are economically
feasible and the increase in usage of these practices is a direct
reflection of that fact. Farmers today are looking toward
efficiency and sound economics to survive in production
agriculture. The following text takes a look at costs and net
returns. The figures were developed on a per acre basis. Costs
included all crop inputs such as seed, fertilizer, tillage, fuel
drying, trucking, harvesting, etc...
Costs for the plots reflect an average of all the plots for a
given year. A mean average was derived from the total of all five
years. The farmers reported to the District the products and
procedures and the rates applied to their plots. With the help of
area agribusinesses and the C.E.S., an average value was
established for each unit. Therefore, the cost figures used in
this and other reports by the District, were determined by the
Project staff.
In establishing the net return for a plot, the District
multiplies the dry yield per acre by an average price per bushel
for the county. This price is determined with the help of area
grain elevators, and is an average price during harvest season.
The production cost per acre is subtracted from the value and the
result is net return. This figure represents what was left for
land, labor and profit.
Corn Production
Costs--
Figures 18, 19 and 20 show the average fertilizer, herbicide
and tillage costs for each tillage system. The total costs, by
tillage type, are illustrated in Figure 21 . An additional
category, not graphically pictured, is included in the total cost
figures. This miscellaneous grouping includes a nominal charge
for seed interest and land. It also includes fixed costs for
planting, harvesting, trucking, insecticide, and anything else not
included in the other three categories. These fixed costs are
based on tillage type, yield and possible residue cover.
Chisel plow had the lowest fertilizer cost (Figure 18). No-
till and offset disc reflect considerably higher fertilizer costs.
It is possible that farmers increased their fertilizer usage in
their no-till plots, especially that, which was broadcast. The
only explanation that we can offer for the difference between
chisel plow and offset disc is that it is due to management levels
and other factors that vary from participant to participant rather
than requirements or differences due to tillage.
No-till had a higher herbicide cost than the other systems by
about eight to ten dollars per acre (Figure 19). The application
of a contact herbicide accounts for most of the increase. Offset
disc had the lowest cost, but chisel plow and moldboard plow were
only two dollars/acre higher.
53
-------
C
k.
V
Q.
o
C)
$100
Corn Fertilizer Costs
Project Average By Tillage Type
NO-TILL
PLOW
DISC
CHISEL
Figure 18. Corn fertilizer costs per acre by tillage system.
With respect to tillage costs, no-till was considered to have
no charge (Figure 20). Moldboard plow had the highest cost, and
offset disc and chisel plow were equal. They had lower tillage
costs than moldboard plow primarily because it costs approximately
$1.50 to $1.75 an acre less to operate a chisel or disc than a
plow.
The miscellaneous category was fairly consistent, with the
following average costs by tillage type: no-till, $85/acre» plow,
»82/<*cre» disc, $81/acre; chisel, $82/acre.
There was no significant difference between the totals for
each system (Figure 21). No-till showed the lowest total cost,
while plow and disc had the highest, with a difference of nine
dollars. The District considers these cost differences as being
insigni ficant.
Net Returns—
The yearly net returns are listed according to tillage type
in Table 14. Quite a bit of variance can be seen between years
and tillage systems. All of the systems but offset disc were the
highest returning in at least one of the five Project years.
54
-------
*
a.
c
o
Corn Herbicide Costs
Projeci Average By Tillage Type
$35 -
$30-
$25-
$28
//////A
$15
v//////x
V/<-'///A
$10 -V,/// ' '-'/^A
Y//.- /'/'/I
'iii
$0 -kr-i^
NO-TILL
$20
.-' ,-'-•' / ///I
,' / ' / // A
PLOW
$18
DISC
$20
'///////
CHISEL
Figure 19. Corn herbicide coats per acre by tillage syaten.
55
-------
V
o
V
a
•*-
B
o
o
$40
$35-
$30-
$20-
$15 -\
$10 -|
$5 H
Corn Tillage Costs
Projed Average By Tillage Type
$25
Y/////A
'''A
•'/A
PLOW
$22
I /////; A
\ //,•'//*
\ //////\
^L^LZ-^LZ^LL
DISC
$22
• . .' / x
/ / / // /A
CHISEL
Figure 20. Corn tillage coats per acre by tillage system.
56
-------
$250
Total Corn Production Costs
Project Averoge By Tillage Type
$187
$240 -I
$220
$200
$180 -
5 $160-
D
IK "^
•
* $120-
H
<3 $100 -j,yy/'/''>l
*80 i'
( 9)
(14)
(17)
(48)
27/48
SPRING
PLOW
* 84 (
—
-92 (
47 (
66 (
* 26 (
7/1
6)
1 )
6)
6)
19)
9
OFFSET
Ujsc
$ 94
1 R?
-15
13
23
* 53
(
(
( 1
(
( 1
5)
4 )
0)
8)
1 )
(38)
15/38
COULTER
CHISFI
*124
206
-20
37
54
* 80
( 5)
< 3)
(15)
( 13)
( 15)
(51 )
28/51
£ returns reported in dollars/acre
( ) indicates number of tests
57
-------
Table 14 also gives the average return for each tillage type
for the entire Project period. Coulter chisel produced the
highest average return. Fall plow was second highest with no
significant difference between it and chisel plow. The no-till,
offset disc and spring plow returns followed respectively. Spring
plow may have fared a little better if it had been tested in 1984,
since that was the highest returning year for all of the other
systems. Figure 22 portrays this same data in graphic form.
Success rate is illustrated in both Table 14 and Figure 23.
The net return success rates were a little more consistent than
the yield success rates. Fall plow and chisel provided the
highest net returns slightly more than half the time when
evaluated with their direct comparisons.
Soybean Production
Costs--
Figures 24 through 26 show the trends of the soybean
production costs. Overall, no-till had a significantly lower
total production cost (Figure 27). There was no significant
difference between the other three systems.
No-till and plow had the lowest average fertilizer cost
(Figure 24). Chisel and disc, with $8 per acre, reflect the
higher fertilizer cost.
Each system had significantly different tillage costs (Figure
25). No-till, having no tillage, was the lowest while plow
reflected the highest average cost per acre.
58
-------
$1OO -
$90 -
m
a.
c
Corn Returns
Project Average By Tillage Type
$78
NO-TILL
$80
//////
y///y
'/////
'/////
'/////
/ / / / /
/ ////
/
/ / A
/ / \
' •
s. PLOW
DISC
CHISEL
Figure 22. Corn returns per acre by tillage type.
59
-------
Corn Return Success Rate
Project Average1 By Tillage Type
c
O)
o
c
V
V
*
Q.
ion*
90% -
80% -
70* -
60% -
50* -
40$ -
30% -
10% -
56* 55%
• • ''/// • i ^ >'••'/ ,
45% ' / • '" • ' / Y • / ' •
•'•'//// I . / / • / ,
' •' ,•',', \ ,• •' •' / / \ „ , \ / / •' / /
' .' ' .: / /" \ .- / / .' A ,' S ..' S ,' ,'\ [,' / .' ,' / A
/////,\ Y////A V////A '////A Y/'///)
'///'/'A \ •'''.•'' /'/, A •'' /'/'/ A //'' /j //A y ///'/',-
'>'/'// '* {'////A \7/-'A \-'4'/'A V
-------
Soybean Fertilizer Costs
Project Average By THIoge Type
5
(^
a
V.
0
+ £.\J
$19
$!8
$5-?
$16
$15
$14
$13
$12
$11
$10
$9
$s
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
..
-
-1
-i
1
-1
H
-1
I
1
-
H
J *7 **
-
-
^ / ' '^ S \ \ ' ' ' ' ' *\
-'//A V / / /\
<• / / /\ Y / ''/A
'' /~ .' - ; f 'i
7 :- •'• >i |vy:-i
1''<:X1 b''/;1
-j/.'-'X j i/ -' •' J
_/ / • | f / / ;- \
\ \
NO -TILL PLOW
$e
/•' f " s '
' f/ / /*
' f / /
' / /r//
,' s _f ,
/ /' /
''///
' / / '
' ///
' / / /'
$s
/ / / >
// /
''.'//
''' //A
/.••'/ A
HI
''/'//\ ... i
DISC CHISEL
Figure 24. Soybean fertilizer costs per acre by tillage syst«
-------
V
a
L.
«
0.
o
O
$60
$50 -
$40 -
$30-4
$20 -j
$10 -j
$0
Soybean Tillage Costs
Project Average By THIoge Type
$24
$27
NO-TILL
PLOW
DISC
CHISEL
Figure 25. Soybean tillage costs per acre by tillage system.
A significant difference between systems was again indicated
in the herbicide cost category (Figure 26). No-till was the
method showing the highest average cost per acre. As was noted in
the corn production cost section earlier, the application of a
contact herbicide on no-till plots represents the majority of this
increase. The plow system had the lowest cost, and there was no
real difference between disc and chisel.
The miscellaneous category was fairly consistent. The
following averages resulted: no-tillj $65/acre; plow, $64/acre;
disc, *62/acre; and chisel, $61/acre.
62
-------
Soybean Herbicide Costs
Average By Tillage Type
$60 -
$50-
$40 -
•
o
^
I $30-
•*»
«
o
$40
' X X /'
•'''//•'
/ / /
? / /
/'•' X
y -' /
0 '••'•>'/'
$^•0 — f ,•• / ^/
f '' / ''J
VA
$ 1 0 -f .' /'' /
f 'X ' -^
V/'/ s
k'/>'"xi
Y///
to ^ / /^/
/ / /' ,
/ i y
L_ L/V '
$28
"•///',
; ^ •/ '
'///
'..•//>
* •'' / •''
'''///
''// '/
? / ' ' '
'•' // ' /
/ / / .'
/ -r /
'//A
$29
'//A
/ * '
//////,
/ / /
'///''
'X/x/
y v j*
<• / / /
//A
// / *
/ s' / \
/ /A
NO-TILL
PLOW
DISC
CHISEL
Figure 26. Soybean herbicide costs per acre by tillage syst<
63
-------
o
c
a.
Soybean Production Costs
Project Avcrogs By Tillage Type
^ 1 t»v —
$170 -
$160 -
$15O -
$ 1 4O -
$130 -
$12O -
$ 1 1 0 -
$100 -
$90 -
$80 -
$70-
$50 -
$50-
$40 -
$124
$112
' ,-'/' /j
/ / A
/ ' ' >* ^
y / / •'}
'.-'/' -1
/ / / >
•// / /
' ///\
f .' s ' /
/ ' /' /
' •' / \ '' ••' •'.'
/ .' / \ \ •','.'
' •' / \
•'/'A
'.'-'/ A
A-'/A
$30 4 '/ ''\
$20 -[ ;'-;Xj
I , ',''',*
/ s
s ' *
r' /' S •'
'"' / • •'
'' ^ * /'
JO — ''- -<•---- 1 ~j •••-t—L-
$122 *125
/ <'' / /
^///f
'/ / ./^
' S ' ^ / '
'' ^ / '
'•'/,•
/ <
','''•' '
' '"'j
/ i
! •;':•.':
' / '
''/ / •'
''//A
^ / /,
/ / . *
'' / / ''
''/ //
:%;;]
'''//', A
'/'/'A 'l
' , ' ' x/ ' J
'' ' , '
' / ,- J
•//,\
1 / / ' ' ' , ' f / I
t
NO-TILL PLOW DISC CHISEL
Figure 27.
Total soybean production coata per acre by tillage
system.
Net Returns--
The yearly net returns are listed according to the tillage
system in Table 15. A large variation can be seen between tillage
systems. Each system, except for spring plow, had the highest net
return in at least one of the five Project years.
Table 15 also gives the average net return for each tillage
type for the entire Project period. Figure 28 portrays this same
data in graphic form. No-till produced by far the highest net
average return.
Success rate is illustrated in both Table 15 and Figure 29.
Offset disc had the highest success rate compared to the other
systems. There was no significant difference between disc, chisel
and fall plow. Every system tested was successful at least half
the time.
-------
TABLE 15. COMPARISON OF BEAN PLOT RETURNS BY TILLAGE SYSTEM
FALL
NO-TILL
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
Avg .
$ 84£(
174 (
185 (
95 (
1 17 (
4)
8)
13)
12)
9)
SPRING
PLOW £LQH
$127
147
168
79
81
(
(
(
(
(
7)
8)
14 )
7 )
7),
$ 89 <
1 1 0 (
80 <
111 <
96 <
: 3)
: 3)
: 1 )
: 7)
: 2)
OFFSET
JLLSC
$ 78
129
131
113
116
( 4)
( 7)
(17)
(13)
( 9)
COULTER
CHISEL
$ 97
136
128
1 19
94
(12)
( 7)
(11)
( 12)
( 8)
Project
Average $131 (46) $120 (43) $ 97 (16) $113 (50)
Success
Rate 23/46
23/43
8/16
28/50
$115 (50)
27/50
£ returns reported in dollars/acre
( ) indicates number of tests
i
a
c
_2
"»
$150 -
$1 40 -
$130 -H
$120 -
$1 10 -
i
$131
"* TV,
/. /.\
, • I
, I
r ' .' j
$100H ' -'\
i i
$9O -! , i
I . i
$80 -
$60 --J
$20
$10
Soybean Returns
Projeci Average By Tillage
$120
$113
vti
NO -TILL
F, PLOW
S. PLOW
iy; ;,j
DISC
v' ''A
/ •' A
f'/~< j
CHISEL
Figure 28. Soybean returns per acre by tillage type,
65
-------
V
Ol
_o
"c
V
o
h_
e
Q.
too*
Soybean Return Success Rate
Project Average By Tillage Type
80% -
70% -
50%
50%
>'/•
30% -{••/•{
20* 4'V'V'j
K //']
0*
NO-TILL
53*
' -
'.-'/''j
-A
'
F. PLOW
S. PLOW
^/-•^
j^:^_{_.
DISC
*<*
'/
tx / .1
\ •• f\
, ' \
--A
CHISEL
Figure 29. Soybean return success rate by tillage type.
-------
SECTION 4e
CONSERVATION TILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSERVATION TILLAGE APPLICATION
We have learned the basics and we know that conservation
tillage practices can be successfully applied to Allen County
soils. Now we need to refine these practices and improve upon our
ski 11s.
Mulch Tillage
The primary task ahead in mulch tillage is to convince
farmers to leave the minimum 30 percent residue cover after
planting that is required to effectively control erosion. We
estimate that thirty percent of the farmland in the county is
currently being maintained under reduced tillage practices.
No-till
Much more refinement is needed in this area compared to mulch
tillage. No-till equipment, especially planters, has seen
considerable modification during the Project's course, But even
more improvements are required for better performance in the
field. The District needs to keep apprised of the progress and
changes in conservation tillage tools.
We also have much to learn about weed control, particularly
in no-till soybeans. Excellent control for an economical price is
critical.
Better residue management must be achieved. For example,
fields with a soybean stubble residue sometimes fall short of the
minimum 30 percent residue cover after planting. Again, farmer
cooperation will be essential.
It is an established fact that no-till requires increased
production skills for success. Even though the U.S. E.P.A. funded
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project has ended, the District
will continue to educate themselves and others, particularly Allen
County farmers, and provide technical assistance upon request.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Erosion control has been, and will remain, a priority of the
Allen S.W.C.D. Since conservation tillage practices have shown to
provide cost-effective erosion control, the District will continue
to strongly promote and encourage its use and implementation. The
67
-------
encourage its use and implementation. The District will promote
conservation tillage in the county, and will continue to use
the Project equipment to further adoption of the practice.
FUTURE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The Allen S.W.C.D. has leased approximately 170 acres from
the Allen County Commissioners for a demonstration farm. The
farm's operation highlights the use of various conservation
practices, including no-till and mulch tillage. The land has been
secured through a ten year lease. District staff will perform the
necessary labor.
The farm is an opportunity for the District to do some
extensive testing. We know that not everything we try will be
successful. Rather than ask area farmers to take such risks on
their own farms, we now have a place to demonstrate alternative
techniques and evaluate the results.
It is the goal of the District to interest and involve the
entire county, rural and urban, in the demonstration farm.
Through field days, tours and other planned activities, we believe
that the demonstrations and exhibits will draw much attention and
gain much exposure which will further conservation throughout the
county.
HOW WILL THE PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENT BE MAINTAINED?
At the time that this report was written, the Allen S.W.C.D.
was beginning the revision of their long range plan. Since much
time and money were invested in the Project, the District is
definitely planning to carry on in order to maintain the
accomplishments.
We will continue to share the data that has been obtained and
evaluated with anyone who is interested. This includes the yearly
reports, this final report, and individual plot information if
needed.
It is possible that the District staff will seek cultural
data from area farmers who are using conservation tillage
practices. Farmers would be contacted in the early summer to
determine interest and the necessary information would be
collected late in the fall, after harvest. A simple publication
of these results would be developed by the District and made
available to the public.
The District Board at this time is not making the equipment
available to area farmers. They want to see how heavy the
workload at the demonstration farm is before they commit
themselves to anything else. The majority of the farm's acreage
will be planted using the no-till method. If they do offer the
use of the farm machinery in the future, it will most likely be
limited to farmers who did not participate in the Project. With
as much custom planting and equipment rental as is available to
Allen County farmers, the District does not feel that they are
"abandoning" anyone.
68
-------
SECTION 4f
TESTIHONIALS
" I want to continue to farm and I want to leave something for
future generations to farm. Conservation tillage is one of the
best things I believe I can do to insure both."
- Jay Begg, area farmer
"In no-till corn, I made the same money as conventional and saved
soil."
- Richard Bixel, area farmer
"I feel that the program has been very successful in that farmers
could see, first hand, that these methods will work and also how
to handle the problems that might come up."
- Marlin Burkholder, area farmer
"We really appreciated the efforts of the District to work with
us. This has been a valuable learning experience for our
instructors and students."
- .James Cooper, Agricultural Supervisor, Apollo
Joint Vocational School
"Farmers are seeing that they have to use different methods to
control wind and water erosion, I see more ground worked with a
chisel plow or offset disc every year."
- Bob Ernest, area farmer
"Even if a guy isn't conservation minded, the savings of time and
fuel will be enough to make a person switch. I feel more people
would be using conservation tillage now if it weren't for the
present state of the farming economy and the fact that the cost of
the needed equipment stops many of us."
- David Hefner, area farmer and Allen S.W.C.D.
Board Member
"This I feel was an excellent program. It gave farmers a chance
to see how conservation tillage works without jumping into it all
at once and taking a gamble that it will work."
- Brian Jostpille, vocational agriculture student and
F.F.A. member, Elida High School
69
-------
"No-till is not something you just jump into without some kind of
help or knowledge. It is deceiving. You think you know how to do
it right and you're completely wrong. The Allen S.W.C.D. really
helped me on this."
- Dennis Kahle, area farmer
"We use conservation tillage now and get good yields and I like
the way it protects and prevents the loss of more soil."
- David Moser, area farmer
"Conservation tillage gave me more time to do my other work."
- Jim Pohlman, area farmer and attorney
"Thanks Allen S.W.C.D. for the introduction to no-till farming.
Test plots are nice to look at, but until a farmer personally no-
tills for 2 or 3 years he can't be convinced."
- Doug Post, area farmer
"Not enough farmers realize they are to be stewards of the soil"
- Joseph Schmersal, area farmer
"This project offered us the opportunity to try equipment that we
wouldn't have been willing to buy on a trial basis. We also
received much advice and assistance from the S.W.C.D./S.C.S.
staff."
- Tom Schumacher, area farmer
"The tillage project was operated in a very businesslike and fair
manner and was open to all who showed an interest in it."
- Don Spallinger, area landowner
"We need to conserve our soil. We have taken out too many fence
rows and wood lots and the water runs wild, taking the soil with
it ."
- Rodney Stratton, area farmer
"The more efficient farmers will be able to stay in the farming
business. No-till can make a farmer more efficient than a
conventional farmer because of the substantial savings in
investment."
- Jon Troyer, area farmer
"People are becoming more conscious of the erosion problem we have
and are becoming more willing to do something about it."
- Jim Weaver, area farmer
70
-------
SECTION 5a
RURAL SEWAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PURPOSE
With the ever increasing concern to reduce contaminants from
entering Lake Erie, the U.S. E.P.A. sponsored several projects to
demonstrate ways to achieve Imp-roved water quality within the Lake
Erie drainage basin. A conclusion of one such study, the Black
Creek Project in Allen County, Indiana, was that sewage effluent
contributed to water quality problems within the Maumee Drainage
Basin of Lake Erie. From this study, funds were granted to tha
Allen S.W.C.D. in Allen County, Ohio to demonstrate a means of
achieving improved water quality in areas where a high
concentration of failed individual sewage systems exists.
GOALS
Specific goals of the project were as follows:
1. To monitor the existing condition of the project
area and quantify the existing effects on water
quality.
2. To monitor the project area after replacement of
the failed systems and quantify improvements in
water quality.
3. To demonstrate administrative and procedural
arrangements for bringing about replacement of
the failed systems.
4. To serve as a model program which could be
carried out in other problem areas within the
Maumee Basin.
5. To evaluate the relative phosphorus and nitrogen
contributions of agricultural run-off versus
domestic sewage sources within the project area.
71
-------
SCOPE
The Allen S.W.C.D. felt an intensive program on a small scale
would be the most cost effective with the monies received from the
Grant. At a public planning meeting conducted for the Project, the
Allen County General Health District (A.C.G.H.D.) recommended that
the Goodman Ditch (Bath Township Ditch «787-1938> would meet the
needs for this study. Their office had received a number of
complaints of the streams condition from residents in the area
and had also observed evidence of raw sewage in the water.
The scope of the Project was to monitor the existing water
quality of the stream upstream and downstream of the Subdivision.
Once completed, chemcical evaluations of all the septic systems in
the Subdivision were performed and any unable to meet state
standards were required to be improved. Afterwards, additional
monitoring took place and the data compared to determine the
effects of the sewage improvements on water quality.
BACKGROUND
The watershed of the Goodman Ditch consists of approximately
590 acres located in Section 5 and 6 of Bath Township, Allen
County, Ohio. The stream discharges directly into Sugar Creek.
Further downstream Sugar Creek joins the Ottawa River which then
flows into the Auglaize River and finally into the ttaumee.
The watershed of the project site consists of basically two
distinct areas: one being cropland with a few residential homes
and the other a subdivision of homes. The cropland area,
representing 512 acres, is farmed mostly by fall plowing the
ground, working it smooth in the Spring and planting it to a crop
using a corn-soybean-wheat rotation. Two sets of railroad tracks
as well as a portion of Lutz Road and Stewart Road are included in
the area (Figure 30). The subdivision covers 78 acres with houses
on lots of 1/2 acre to 4 acres in size. The houses ranged in age
from 5 to over 40 years old with most still having their original
sewage disposal system. All the properties ultimately drain to
the Goodman Ditch, an open drainage ditch flowing through the
subdivision.
GRANT APPLICATION
The portion of the Allen S.W.C.D. grant allocated to the
Rural Sewage Demonstration Project was to be budgeted into three
categories: construction, monitoring, and the health department
(Table 16). The monies from the construction account were to
provide funds on a cost-sharing basis to the landowners in the
amount of 75 percent of the cost installation of a new sewage
disposal system. The Allen S.W.C.D. contracted with Heidelberg
College, Water Quality Laboratory, Tiffin, Ohio to perform the
necessary stream sampling which was paid from the monitoring
account. The health department account was set up to cover the
cost to the A.C.G.H.D. in its services provided to the Project.
72
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AND ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE RURAL
SEWAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Actual Budget
Account
Proposed
Budget
In-kind
Expenses Contributions
Total
Construction
Monitoring
Health Dept.
Total
$120,000.00
48,500.00
6.500.00
$175,000.00
$ 77,169.57
30', 472. 22
0.00
$25,723.18
7,618.29
5.460.00
$102,892.75
38,090.51
5.460.00
$107,641.79 $38,801.47 $146,443.26
LONG ACRE
GARDEN
SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
Figure 30. Watershed map of rural sewage project,
73
-------
ORGANIZATION
Agency Roles and Responsibilities
The agencies directly involved with the Project were the
Allen S.W.C.D., the A.C.G.H.D. and the Heidelberg College. The
Allen S.W.C.D., being the grantee, was responsible for the overall
administration and budgeting of the Project while the \.C.G.H.D.
and Heidelberg College were under contract with the District to
provide their respective services.
Funding Mechanisms
All funding was administered by the Allen S.W.C.D. The
Heidelberg College, under contract with the Allen S.W.C.D., was
required to provide 20 percent matching monies toward their cost
of services. This had been reduced from 25 percent due to a
limited budget at Heidelberg College. The landowners and the
A.C.G.H.D. were required to provide 25 percent matching monies
toward the completion of the Project. The A.C.G.H.D. actually
donated all their time and services (100 percent) toward the
Project due to the overwhelming public support of their work and
the good working relationship between the Allen S.W.C.D. and the
A.C.G.H.D.
Accountabilitv
The A.C.G.H.D. and Heidelberg College were required to report
to the Allen S.W.C.D. on their work completed and any expenses
incurred. The A.C.G.H.D. reported quarterly while Heidelberg
College reported after each group of studies were completed.
74
-------
SECTION 5b
RURAL SEMAGfc O-ERATIMG PROCEDURES
t P e 3 >2 ,~ v ir f-: ?, > •''
f a c 11 i 1 a r e p:" o p e r
len -,W.C !', c'.:•'. .,-_:._ tod with the Water Qurlicy
of '-.d^I "•''£ College to pert'-I'm the Hater sampling of
Goodmu,-' Ditch- Dr. ^--vrd Baker of Heid-slberg College K,I?,S to
c versa'' +'h
ouna; •-•:.£.•' '-u botr: before- su-d .?fter the sewage systems were updated,
'. ~. V-" " • <: f"'-^^ *-c measure nutrients> suspended solids} biochemicai
,.'.,yge;, '"errand, fecal colifor^, fees] streptococcus bacteria, flow
- -d stsr.i? of the- stream, and macro invert ebrates,
Two sairrol ing stations, one upstream and the other cownstream
•~>-" the SL^bdi v is ion, were set up by H&idelberg College (Figure 30).
Preliminary water sampling was taken during four 6-day studies
between September, I960 and September !98'' . Three studies were
done when the ditch was in low floH conditions and one during a
high flow,
Additional sampling was performed after all the approved
systems were installed. Three studies were contracted for but
only two were performed due to scheduling conflicts with
Heidelberg College. It is important to note that these two
studies were done during low flow conditions in the ditch. The
upstream sampling station was in the same location but the
downstream station was moved *00 feet further downstream due to
home construction at the original site. The sampling was done
during 5--day studies in late August and early October of 1984.
CLoni.r^j2±_wJjtb_AL^
The Allen S.W.C.D, contracted with the A.C.G.H.S, to conduct
sewage ef'f 1'ie-nt testing ,„ f a L J houses in the subd " vis ic r, and t.h*i.\
3uper'.'ise the installation o ' ar, / new sewage syctc-m, 1 r. 2
A . C , u , H . D . w.9s to evc4iuat.: tf.e operation and performance of the
y^w-ige disposal 3ys-er;s .if th- sixty homes. Upon de tr-^rnin ing the
outlet of their p-e^fcnt aysteni, either by asking the Ian-downers or
by using a tracar dye, samples were taken to determine sewage
effluent quality. The effluent produced from the systems were
75
-------
required to meet the Home Sewage Disposal Rules of the State of
Ohio. The standards for off-lot discharge of sewage effluent
ara (A)Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.) -the arithmetic mean of
two or more effluent samples taken at intervals of not less than
twenty four hours shall not exceed twenty milligrams per liter,
and (B )Suspended Solids - the arithmetic mean of two or more
effluent samples taken at intervals of not less that 24 hours
shall not exceed forty milligrams per liter.
A household unable to meet these standards was required to
upgrade or replace their existing system. A 3-way agreement was
then signed by the landowner, the A.C.G.H.D., and the Allen
S.W.C.D. explaining the responsibility of each party in correcting
the substandard sewage system. The A.C.G.H.D. provided the
landowners with technical plans of an alternative system suitable
to their needs. A certified contractor hired by the landowner was
required to install the system within 90 days after notice of
violation was given. The A.C.G.H.D. supervised the installation
of the systems and notified the Allen S.W.C.D. when each
installed system was completed for cost-sharing payment to be
made.
Bills submitted for work on installing the systems were
approved by Bill Kelly, Director of Environmental Health at the
A.C.G.H.D. This was dene as a means to prevent any overcharging
of work to cover the landowners share of the payment. The bills
were then approved by the Board of Supervisors of the Allen
S.W.C.D. for payment with a check made out jointly to the
landowner and the contractor.
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Prior to the start of the project work, the A.C.G.H.D. sent a
letter to all landowners in the subdivision stating what the
project was to accomplish. No other educational program was
planned due to the acceptance of the project in the area. This
high acceptance was probably because of the cost-sharing
incentives.
INCENTIVES FOR LANDOWNERS
Although landowners with malfunctioning systems were required
by law to comply with the standards, assistance was available to
provide a favorable responseu The A.C.G.H.D. did cooperate with
the necessary landowners in suggesting alternative systems, and
providing engineering plans and follow-up to the proposal. The
Allen S.W.C.D. also provided 75 percent of the cost of
installation of these new systems with the landowners only having
to provide the remaining 25 percent.
76
-------
SECTION 5c
RURAL SEWAGE PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
NUMBER OF f ROJ , 'CT PART I C 1 - aK I'S
A'1" L^e
Sub j ' •,' i 13 i or .
sy".;it"-na that
: '~ » ?nd ?
a) systems.
,{v s^andii'-d
ty: ~ of system
"cje-.t in the Long Acre Garden
it-<<~ilinE« already h-nd aeration disposal
i ,;,v r t -ted by the A.C.G.H.D. Upon
•-; ^'? * -3>..epi3, five dwellings had
: s> =•!. ~.r~ " : «ight dwellings h*7d systems
Ff-1-t discharge th-it could .? ~nfca:u i nate
were classified as ha .'ing substandard
u
f
eiia ware ordered to be improved. The
the State of Ohio is one that produces
•V : V r
t:.-,t d'.i -,
."hc-> GOOCLT.. ;
sewage disj
The 3-
P r e f f; r r e d
T off--lc:; d.'.fic har g<-> ;, f effluent., Such systems have a septic
.", 'L, a l^a-Mrz tile ^iaid of «p o -ox iraa tely ^^SOO to 1D;COD
• ••--, ;ap'-:- <" , et baaed on household si,2,e ca larger than normal leaching
f!;,-ld M,^:-; requirad hers due to the soil type in the area), and
curtain drains along the perimeter of the leaching field to
;n.-;rease soil drainage. These systems must also be installed at
least 50 feet from any Kater supply. Twenty-one properties did
havs adequate lot size to install this type of system while the
remaining 13 were required to install aeration systems which
produce an off-lot discharge acceptable to state guidelines (Table
17).
RELATIONSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF TO SEWAGE EFFLUENT
Within the Project area, two sampling stations ^ere operated,
One station was located upstream of the Long Acre Gardens
Subdivision which samp Ltd water drain i ••,>% pr 3 rr.ar i ] s fro:r-
agricultural land witr.h a fen rural farr house" , and tba other
was downs -ream of
udvisior
the -uhdivi3i"n a long
x
whic- sampled drainage
ith the inp;. t of the
he nouses iu
il tur al ar'ea. Axtcr the sewage iinproveivienf.s uere per
ring was performed only at ths dowi
-------
TABLE 17. STATUS OF PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Pre-installation Post-installation
period period
Type of Home On-lot Off-lot On-lot Off-lot
Treatment Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge
Aeration units -- 13 -- 26
Adequate septic tank/
sand filter systems --5 --5
Adequate septic tank/
leach bed
Substandard
systems
systems
Total
8
0 34
8 52
29
0
29
0
0
31
Four sampling periods were performed before any improvements
to the sewage systems were made and the results are listed in
Table 18. Water flowing out of the subdivision was enriched with
nutrients as compared to the upstream sampling station. These
amounts are a strong indication of septic tank effluent entering
the stream between the two sampling stations. Septic tank
effluent is characterized by high soluble reactive phosphorus and
ammonia. Chloride and conductivity also showed large increases
probably due to the extensive use of water softeners in the
Subdivision.
The nitrate concentrations also increased between the two
stations although the septic tank effluents themselves contain
very little nitrate. Upon reaching the soil and atmosphere,
ammonia from the septic tanks is oxidized to nitrate.
All three low flow studies clearly showed evidence of sewage
effluent pollution in the stream. The one study conducted during
a high flow period more nearly typified agricultural runoff
conditions. Most of the concentrations were reduced because of
the dilution effects of the increased water flow. According to
Dr. Baker, Heidelberg College Water Quality Laboratory,
agricultural runoff is characterized by high nitrates and low
ammonia which this one study shows. Also noted is that the
proportion of soluble phosphorus to total phosphorus is lower in
the "agricultural runoff period" verses the low flow periods. The
low flow period averaged 84% soluble phosphorus to total
phosphorus while the high flow study was only 46%.
Actual quantities of phosphorus or nitrates produced per year
from the agricultural area versus the Subdivision could only be
78
-------
obtained through a more lengthy sampling of the watershed area
which this P r o. e c t was not intended to entail.
TIBLE 18. ivr*|f> C&EH ;*! COrESTEiTiCi !t GQ'cVi! C1TCI IPSTiEiB ISO OOilSTBEiH FI03! TIE LD0G 1C1ES CiiDEIS
JESOITISIOI.
Sis-iy 'or^tics t.wf,:r f'iat .• "•*»': lltrs'.s tear,!*:.* Cl'sri'/t Ccsdsctirity Sssp.
Per.r ' of ?-":' . "r * t > Solid
jaap'ss ; s. Sitrito
~': 2.3? ;./f T
75 4.3? S to 73;
'."4i
5C&2
-------
systems were inadequate whereas 21 of these were improved to
produce no off-lot discharge. The remaining 13 were installed to
an aeration disposal system which when added to the remaining 18
properly functioning aeration systems comes to 31. The table does
show that both phosphorus and ammonia concentrations in the ditch
were higher in the post-treatment period while nitrate forms were
reduced. Possible the most important fact of this graph is that
the loading or export of these nutrients from the area were
reduced significantly. All three pollutants, phosphorus, nitrates
and ammonia were reduced by 69%, 96% and 62%, respectively.
Although this does only represent two short periods of time it
does demonstrate that the export of pollutants can be
significantly reduced by proper on-site treatment of residential
sewage. A more in depth study, which was no the intent of this
Project, could possibly substantiate this data further.
TABLE 19. PHOSPHOROUS, NITRATE AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATION EXPORT
BEFORE AND AFTER SEWAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.
Phos. Phos. Nitrate Nitrate Ammonia Ammonia
Study FloH cone. export cone. export cone. export
Period m3/hr mg/1 s/hr aiK/l g/hr mg/1 g/hr
Pre-1
10/5/80- 6.7 3.5 23.2 4.9 32.3 3.2 54.9
1 0/6/80
Post-2
10/1/84 1.5 4,8 7.3 0.9 1.4 13.8 20.7
1 0/6/84
change -78% +37% -69% -82% -96% +68% -62%
EFFECTS BY SMALL RAINFALL-RUNOFF EVENTS
Small rainfall events in the Subdivision increased the stream
flow. These occurred during the pre-treatment period on September
18 and 19, 1981 and during the post-treatment period on August 22,
1984. During both of these periods phosphorus concentrations
decreased at the downstream station as stream flow increased
(Table 20). The average nutrient concentration during these small
storm is shown in Table 21 .
80
-------
TABLE 20. EFFECTS OF LIGHT RAIN ON PHOSPHORUS
Date _"• line
8/2 >_• .4 1 • .
"- 0 i]
•_0
• • o
1 700
21 00
3/23/34 100
5f,Q
^no
°2no
8/24/84 200
600
900
1 300
1600
flow
01 3. /h»"
c
! .0
2 *3 Q , .
^ "- t-
38. 30
' n.80
, 7 0
9 , '"• /
7 , rr;
2.66
5.22
4.16
4.48
1 1 .60
8.23
Soluble
Phos.
mg/1
4
4
!
1
i
'i
i
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 33
.82
. 30
. 23
.53
.31
.- 55
- -? ;
.51
.85
.67
.56
.57
.21
. 15
Total
Phoa.
rag/1
5
5
4
P
1
I
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
.00
.66
.31
.22
.92
.69
.85
,93
.82
.44
.23
.27
.27
.60
.62
Phos.
Export
g/hr
4
10
98
96
73
18
12
19
1 3
9
16
13
14
30
21
.90
.67
.70
.57
.54
.25
.40
.24
.65
. 15
.86
.60
.65
.16
.56
TABLE 21. EFFECTS OF A LIGHT RAIN ON NUTRIENT AND SEDIHENT
CONCENTRATIONS
P re- treatment
Mean
Std. Dev.
Post- treatment
Mean
Std. Dev.
Soluble
Phos.
mg/1
period
1 .97
0.75
period
1 .89
0.56
Total
Phos.
mg/1
9/18/81 (
1 .96
0.27
8/22/84
2.61
0.75
Solids Nitrates
mg/1 mg/1
0200) to 9/20/81 (1300)
10 2.1
2 1.0
(0900) to 8/24/84 (1600)
45 1.6
84 0.5
Ammonia
mg/1
5.0
1 .5
4.5
1 .0
81
-------
Dr. Baker explains that "Although total phosphorus
concentrations decreased the total phosphorus loading increased
greatly since the stream flow increased by a much larger factor
than the concentrations decreased. It is likely that the
phosphorus exported during these events was derived from septic
tank sources since it is largely composed of soluble reactive
phosphorus and is accompanied by relatively high ammonia
concentrations.
It is possible that the stream system itself, upstream from
the monitoring site, provides a significant processing area and
temporary sink for phosphorus. However phosphorus temporarily
stored in the stream system would be exported primarily as
particulate phosphorus during runoff events. The increase in
phosphorus export observed during the small runoff events in this
study was primarily soluble phosphorus, suggesting off-site home
sewage as the source of the increased loading rates.
The above data indicates that rainfall/runoff events are
significant in the transport of pollutants from off-lot disposal
systems to stream systems and that base flow transport rates in
stream systems do not reflect the total loading rates from the
septic tanks. Consequently measuring total phosphorus loading
rates from septic tanks in housing developments such as this one
require both storm flow and baseflow studies. The storm flow
component would have to be done on a year round basis. Such a
study is beyond the scope of the current investigation."
BACTERIOLOGICAL STUDY
The measurement of Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.), B.O.D., and Fecal
Bacteria are shown in Table 22. Dissolved Oxygen was relatively
low throughout all the testing periods. During Pre-1 and Pre-2,
D.O. was reduced from the upstream station to the downstream
station. These levels sometimes dipped below levels suitable for
some aquatic organisms. In Pre-2 water temperature were low (5 to
0 degrees Celsius), whereas oxygen solubility increases as
temperature drop and consequently the oxygen concentration were
higher. During Pre-4, the D.O. was high due to the agitation of
the increased flow in the stream. In both Post studies, D.O. was
extremely low. This is probably due to the very low flow which
resulted in stagnant pools.
The B.O.D. is usually associated with concentration of
organic matter. In the pre-treatment studies, little variation
was evident between the upstream and downstream sampling. This is
indicative that organic wastes are present throughout the stream
system. Pre-4, a high flow condition, just reduced the
concentration of B.O.D. The B.O.D. in the samples were lower
during the post-treatment period (Table 23). This could be
attributed to either improved sewage treatment in the aeration
units or to oxidation of organic matter in either the storm sewers
leading to the stream or the stream itself.
82
-------
TABLE 22. iESILTS OF DISSOLIED OIYCEI, IIOCIEHICAL QXYGEI OElttlD, FECAL CQLIFOKI AID FECAL STREPTOCOCCI
SEASyRESEITS.
0-0,
>e-i
••M >' -. ^
•V>~2
0*1 tL'- 7.r;
Fre-3
"OP flu* 5.2
Pre-4
high rios ?J
TABLE P3.
Period
Pre-1
Pre-2
Pre-3
Post-1
Post-2
ilirgai StjUog Dcmgatraai SjbatiQt
Fecsl i- *: Fecal Fecal
' ,8. Colifora "t- -p- D-0. B.O.D. Colifom Strep.
. f 2!, *•)!" ,. 7< Lb 16,6 ,.?.".: 3.710
J' 3.3 23.0 t.l'X 3,52?
..i * -M J(^7 2^ 25,7 4,740 4,550
-.2 J,i8f- ),
-------
In general, the results showed extremely high fecal bacterial
counts at both the upstream and downstream sites. This indicates
that fecal material from human and/or other warm blooded animals
is entering the streams.
Ohio standards for secondary contact recreation such as
wading in the stream, require that fecal coliform counts shall not
exceed 5,000 per 100 milliliter in more than 10% of the samples
taken during any 30 day period. At the upstream and downstream
sites, these values were exceeded 37% and 60% of the time,
respectively. These high counts can be attributed to both
effluent within the subdivision and agricultural sources upstream.
During Pre-4 a large increase in fecal coliform downstream could
directly reflect septic wastes within the area. A more rapid
transport of sewage effluent could be expected in the spring
season or under high stream flows because the effectiveness of
septic tank leach fields would be diminished.
Fecal coliform in the Post-treatments averaged out very
similar to the Pre-treatment studies. The lack of additional
sources of water prcoable resulted in these nigh counts. Fecal
Streptococci bacteria showed similar characteristics as fecal
coliform.
BIOLOGICAL STUDY
An evaluation of the macroinvertebrates within a water source
can provide information on the extent of contamination by septic
tank effluents. Two studies were conducted within the Goodman
Ditch, one before and one after the septic system improvements
were made. The pre-installation study was conducted on July 30,
1981 and sampling was done at stations 1a, 1 b and 2 (Figure 32).
The station 1a was upstream of all inputs of effluent, while 1b
was receiving some sewage inputs. Station 2 was located
downstream of the Subdivision. The post-installation study was
conducted on August 22, 1984 and used stations 1a, 1b and 3 in its
sampling. Station 3 was different from the pre-installation site
because of the inaccessibility of station 2 at the second study
period.
Replicated core samples of stream sediments were taken at
each station. The samples were sieved of sediments to determine
the type and densities of animals present. Table 24, 25, and 26
show the results of the samples.
From the standpoint of concentrations of invertebrates in the
pre-installation study, evidence of organic enrichment at station
1b is provided by a 14-fold increase in the numbers of oligochaete
worms (sludge worms) and the 27-fold increase in midge larvae
compared to station 1. At station 2 the abundance of midges and
worms were only one-third of their station 1b abundances,
indicating that the extent of enrichment decreased downstream with
an accompanying change toward the biological conditions present at
station 1a (Kreiger 1982).
The upstream habitats appeared to be essentially the same in
1984 as in 1981. The species richness (number of kinds of
animals) also appeared very similar. In 1981 station 1a revealed
84
-------
LON6 ACRE
6ARDEH
SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
Figure 31. Location of biological sampling stations.
16 different taxa and in 1984 it revealed 20. At station 1b there
were 24 taxa in 1981 and 14 in 1984. The differences in these
numbers at each station probably reflect, random variation due to
sampling rather than real environmental differences. A direct
comparison of station 2 and 3 cannot be made because they were not
in the same location. However, their habitats were similar, and
indeed the number of taxa collected were similar with 22 at
station 2 and 20 at station 3 (Baker 1 985 K
The density of oligochaet.es and ch ir 0*1 om ids» and the species
comprising these two groups, are important facts for interpreting
the quality of sediments in lakes and streams. Even xhe highest
densities recorded in Goodman Ditch Here below those which are
usually considered to be indicative or degraded coaditiona due to
pollution by sewage. Under such conditionrj -. the number of
Oi.LgOCiiaeu.es j-ii at S t i €.:J 1 0 n G 0 u ~-'«i s»-;j«re iue<~er
'• Baker 1985).
In conclusion, both studies found that the biological
degradation of the study area was minimal.. At station 'b, which
had appeared to be most affected by septic tank effluent in 1981 ,
the number of both the oligochaete worms and the c-hir oncmides were
much lower in 1984. This change is due to the reduction of septic
tank effluents (Baker 1985).
85
-------
TABLE 24. MACROINVE^TEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED 47 THE THREE STREAM
STATIONS ON JULY 30, 1981.
Taxon
Station
J_a JLb 2
Taxon
Station
JLa JLb 2.
Oligochaeta xxx
Insecta
Diptera
Chironomeidea, larvae
Crvptochironomus sp. x
Chironomus sp. x x x
Psectrotanvpus sp. x x
Stictochironomus sp. x x
Pentaneurir.i x x
Procladius sp. x
Polvpedilum sp. x
Rheotanvtarsus complex x x
Pupa, unidentified x
Syrphidae? x
Culicidae, larvae
Anopheles punctipennis x x
Culex guinquefasciatus x
Ceratopogonidae x
Dixidae, Pixella sp. x
Hemiptera
Corixidae x x x
Nepidae x
Veliidae, Microvelia x
Gerridae, Gerris sp. x x x
E p h em eroptera
Baetidae, Callibaetis
sp,
XXX
Odonata
Lestidae, Lestes sp. x x x
Libellulidae, Plathemis sp. x x
Libellulidae, Libellula sp. x
Cordul1iidae, Tetragoneuria
sp. xxx
Aeshnidae, Aeshna sp. xxx
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae, Hvdroporus sp. x x
Dytiscidae, Laccophilus sp. x
Dytiscidae, Ag.abus sp. x
Hydrophi1idaet Tropisternus
sp. x
Ostrocoda xxx
Decapoda x
Mollusca
Physidae, Phvsa sp. xxx
Planorbidae, Gvraulus sp. x
Sphaeriidae, Pisidium
casertanum x
Total Taxa
16 24
86
-------
TABLE 25- MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED AT THE THREE STREAM
STATIONS ON AUGUST 22, 1985
St*:, on
Station
Oligochaeta (worms)
Nematoda (
I nsecta
Diptera ( f li ^ >
Chironomid;r -•
Chironomus sp . x x
Procladius sp. x x x
Pseudochironumus sp. x
Psectrotan.yp.ua sp. x x
Stictpchironomus sp . x
Tanvtarsus sp. x x
Culicidae, gulex sp. x x x
Ceratopogonidae x x
un ID Family A x
un ID Family B x
Psychodidae, Psvchoda? x
Tabanidae, Chrvsops sp . x
Hemiptera (bugs)
Corixidae, Sigara sp. x
Gerridae, Gerris sp. x
Ephemeroptera( may f 1 ies )
Baetidae, Callibaetis x
Heptageniidae x
x
X
X
Taxon
x
X
X
x ,< K Odonata ( dragonf lies, damselflies)
Caloptergidae, Caloptervx x
Corduliidae, Somatochlara x
Aeshnidae, Aeshna sp.
Lestidae, Archilestes sp.
Coenagrionidae, Ischnura ?
Anisoptera x
Coleoptera (beetles)
Elmidae, Optioservus x
complex, larva
Haliplidae, Peltodvtes sp. x x x
Dytiscidae
Hvdroporus sp., adult x
Laccophilus sp., larva x
Helodidae? x
Trichoptera (caddisf1ies) x
Mollusca (snails, clams)
Ferrissia sp. x
Fossaria? sp. x
Phvsella sp. x x x
P i s i d i urn sp. x x
Total taxa
20 14 20
87
-------
TABLE 26. MEAN NUMBERS PER SQUARE METER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES
COLLECTED IN THREE CORE SAMPLES FROM EACH OF THE THREE
STREAM STATIONS ON JULY 30, 1981 AND AUGUST 22, 1981
Taxon
01 igochaeta
I nsecta
Diptera
Chironomidae , larva
Crvptochironomus sp .
Chironomus sp.
unidentified
Psectrotanvpus sp .
Stictochironomus sp .
Tanypodinae ,
unident i f ied
Procladius sp .
Rheotanvtarsus complex
Pentaneurini
Pupa, unidentified
Syrphidae
Culicidae, Anopheles
punctipennis
Culicadae, Cullex sp.
Ceratopogonidae
Hemiptera
Corixidae, juveniles
Odonata
Anisoptera, < 2mm
Plathemis sp .
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae, Cal libaetis
sp.
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae, Hvdroporus
larva
Helodidae?, larva
Ostracoda
Mollusca
* Sphaeriidae,
unidentified
Sphaeriidae, P i s i d i urn
c asertanum
Planorbidae, Gvraulus
sp.
July 30. 198
Station
J_a ±b
151
226
75
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
75
0
75
75
75
0
2,113
6,036 2
0
3,471
754
754
604
75
75
75
226
75
75
0
75
151
75
0
377
226
1 ,207
0
0
151
1
2.
754
,264
0
604
302
604
75
0
0
302
377
0
0
75
0
0
0
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
Amtu$^ 22,1984
Station
la JJb ,3
753 75 2,147
678 226 1 ,808
0 0 678
0 0 75
0 0 377
0 0 75
0 0 75
678 151 527
0 75 0
0 0 75
0 0 75
0 0 75
Total 754 10,563 3,244 1,431 376 4,180
88
-------
SECTION 5D
RURAL 31MAGE CONCLUSIONS
PROJECT IMPAC TS
Environmental Effects
The Proj act Has able to reduce the export of phosphorus and
nitrates from the study area. This was primarily achieved by the
use of on-site disposal systems which do not release any effluent
into the Goodman Ditch. Therefore, without this loading the
amount of pollutants released from the subdivision as a whole was
reduced.
The concentration of pollutants in the ditch was similar to
the start of the Project. As far as a health standpoint, the
ditch had not improved. The low volume of water in the ditch due
to the installation of on-site disposal system may have a adverse
effect on the concentration. Without the dilution effect from
additional water entering the ditch a ponded situation was created
and evaporation may have increased the concentration. Both Post
studies were conducted in a low flow conditions of late Summer and
early Fall with little rainfall during the study periods.
Economic Impact
The Project did improve the economic value of the area. It
can be assumed the houses with the improved sewage systems could
have increased in value although no actual dollar figures were
directly obtained. Also the fact that all the houses now have
approved sewage disposal systems could mean a increase in value of
the area as a whole.
Agency Acceptance
Most- of the people in the area had never worked with the
S.W.C.D. or the A.C.G.H.D. before this Project. This Project did
boost exposure of both of these agencies. From personal
conversations with the landowners, the participation of the
agencies with the landowners was well received. Cost-sharing was
a big influence to their cooperation. Without the use of cost-
sharing in this area, the success of installation would have been
slowed drastically.
89
-------
PHYSICAL ADAPTABILITY OF SEWAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Many factors can influence the tyoe of sewage system that is
needed. The biggest limiting factor that was encountered was the
amount of area available to install a septic tank/leach bed
disposal system. This type of system is most favored with the
A.C.G.H.D. due to the fact there is no off-lot discharge. These
systems must have an area of approximately 7,500 to 10,000 square
feet of ground area for a two and three bedroom house,
respectively and also be at least 50 feet awry from a water well.
Soil type in the area also influenced the size needed for the
leach bed. A heavy clay soil would require a larger area to
dispose of the effluent in comparison to a sandy or loamy soil
which is more permeable. If any of these requirements could not
be met, an alternative system must be used. Thirteen of the total
34 houses with substandard systems were unable to meet these
requirements and an aeration type system was installed.
ECONOMIC ADAPTABILITY OF SEWAGE IMPROVEMENT
An advantage of this Project was the use of cost-sharing
funds at the rate of 75% of the total cost of sewage system
improvements. Without the use of this, acceptance probably would
not have been as favorable. The actual economic situation of the
landowners in the area could have influenced acceptance. Some of
the individuals may not have been able to pay the entire amount
though required by law.
The price of the systems installed varied. Aeration systems
were less expensive to install because a leach bed field is not
necessary. On the average aeration systems cost $2,914 while
septic tanks with leach beds were $3,09t>, a difference of $182.
Although aeration systems are more economical to install? they do
have continuous maintenance costs of electricity and minor repairs
of the motor and other moving parts. A fee is also required by
the A.C.G.H.D. to cove." an annual inspection of these systems.
According to the A.C.G H.D., these systems can under proper
maintenance last up to 25 years or more. A septic tank/leach bed
system usually have a life expectancy of 20 to 30 years because of
the tendency of the leach bed to lose its effectiveness from
plugging with particulate matter. Maintenance and actual volume
input can greatly influence these results.
90
-------
SECTION 5E
RURAL SEWAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Two of the 34 landowners were unwilling to install the
required improvements in their substandard sewage systems. A
stern letter from the A.C.G.H.D. explaining the deficiencies found
and the requirements or he law was sent to these individuals who
eventually did comply Wit.'i the Project. The poor health condition
of the ditch _ou3d ha-/e prompted many of the residents to be
cooperat: ve .
The poor cralna-j.e grade of the Goodman Ditch provided many
stagnant pools withi": the area. Although the average grade of the
entire portion of dl':th through the subdivision is .4%, quiet
adequate to drain away water. Many portions were extremely flat
resulting in a ponded condition. Without continuous inputs of
water into the ditch, the pools would remain and could experience
evaporation concentrating their pollutants. An improvement of
grade in the ditch would be beneficial as far as a health
standpoint and would reduce the nuisance within the residential
area.
According to state standards on residential sewage systems
the parameters to be met are only B.O.D. and suspended solids.
Other pollutants such a phosphorus and nitrates are not addressed
in the effluent standards. Without such standards, off-lot
discharges of effluent can still be unacceptable in these other
water quality parameters. According to the National Sanitation
Foundation, the effluent produced from an approved aeration sewage
treatment plant has no reduction of total soluble phosphorus and
produces high rates of nitrates. Therefore, acceptable aeration
systems do release phosphorus and nitrates. Without standards set
for such pollutants the adequate control of residential sewage
system can not be maintained. The aeration systems installed on
26 sites did meet state standards but were unable to treat or
reduce phosphorus export on an individual basis.
The Heidelberg College was originally contracted to perform
three post-treatment studies that were to be conducted during
Spring high flow, Summer low flow/high temperature, and Fall low
flow/low temperature conditions. Only two studies were performed,
both during low flow conditions. Scheduling conflicts and other
interest forced the College to be unable to perform its work as
originally proposed. The additional high flow study could have
provided much more aata from both the agricultural area and the
effects of dilution on effluent.
91
-------
AGENCY PROGRAMS
The information from this Project reinforced the opinion of
the A.C.G.H.D. of the rural sewage problem in this county. Their
office has stated that they will strive to offer strict
enforcement of the state standards. Limited funding and manpower
could be its biggest drawback According to the 1980 Census, over
22% (9,271 of 41,846) of residential dwelling in Allen County are
serviced by individual sewage disposal systems.
With this Project, the Allen S.W.C.D. has become more aware
of the causes and effects of effluent in open drainways. A large
portion of the Districts work is in rural area and with this
awareness we may be able to better provide technical assistance to
concerned individuals. The Allen S.W.C.D. has also agreed to
continue to be supportive of the A.C.G.H.D. in its efforts of
control of rural sewage problems.
PROJECT MAINTENANCE
According to the Sewage Disposal Regulation of the
A.C.G.H.D., all septic tank-leaching systems installed after
November 1, 1974 and all aerobic type treatment systems installed
after July 1, 1972 are required to pay a yearly permit fee. This
fee is to provide monies for inspection purposes of these systems.
All aerobic systems installed after July 1 , 1972 are inspected
annually due to the constant maintenance requirements and the
direct discharge of effluents into public waters. Septic tank
systems are spot inspected when a complaint arises , says the
A.C.G.H.D. The 26 aeration system within the subdivision are
involved in the inspection program. The five other septic systems
with off-lot discharge installed before the mandatory inspection
program was passed, and the 34 on-site disposal system will only
be spot checked when a complaint arises, says the A.C.G.H.D.
FUTURE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Additional information on the effects of the sewage system
improvements for an entire year would be important. This would
demonstrate total export for a year representing both high and low
flow periods. The bio-accumulation of pollutants within the soils
of the ditch may also have had some influences on the
concentrations found. A bufferiig effect from the already
contaminated ditch many be experienced for a number of years. A
question may be asked if there is such an accumulation and how
fast it can be naturally reduced after sewage system improvements
are made.
Cost-sharing on the installation of improvements was a big
attribute to the public acceptance to this Project. Even with the
regulations in the la.^, many homeowners would not have been able
to afford to upgrading their systems due to the cost burden of
such work. Any additional studies would greatly benefit by the
use of cost-sharing func\: .
92
-------
ON-SITE TREATMENT OF SEWAGE WASTES
Accordiiv to Bill Kelly of the A.C.G.H.D., the on-site
disposal treatment of sewage wastes is the recommended method in
rural areas. It should be noted that (Kreiger) the effectiveness
of a on-site septic tank system depends not only on its ability to
remove solids and to disperse the effluent, but also on the
ability of the underlying soil to remove pathogens and phosphorus
during percolation. Jones and Lee explain that phosphate and
ammonia ions generally are strongly adsorbed by soil particles,
where as nitrate is poorly adsorbed and readily transported in
groundwater. This explains that on-site treatment of residential
sewage is effect in reducing phosphorus and ammonia export from
the site by either surface or ground water. However, it is very
important to emphasize that proper management methods of the
septic tanks is crucial to their effective operation.
93
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1984 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1985. 72pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1983 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1984. 64pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1982 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1983. 72pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1981 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1982. 72pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1980 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1981. 56pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1979 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1980. 33pp.
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District, "1978 Conservation
Tillage Test Results," Lima, Ohio, 1979. 40pp.
Baker, D.B., Ph.D, "Water quality in the Goodman ditch prior to
the Allen County Rural Seuage Demonstration Project,"
Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio, 1982. 42pp.
Baker, D.B., Ph.D., "Water Quality in Goodman Ditch: Effects of
the Allen County Faral Sewage Demonstration Project. Final
Report," Heidelbe-g College, Tiffin, Ohio, 1985. 85pp.
Hayes, W.A., "Minimum Tillage Farming," No-till Farmer, Inc.,
Brookfield, Wisconsin, 1982. 166pp.
Jones, R.A., and G.F. Lee, "Septic Tank Disposal Systems as
Phosphorus sources for Surface Water," EPA-600/3-77-129,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D . C . . 1977.
62pp.
Kreiger, Kenneth A., "Pollution of Surface and Ground Waters by
Septic Tank Systems -- A Literature Review," Heidelberg
College, Tiffin, Ohio, 1982. 12pp.
National Association of Conservation Districts, "Lake Erie
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects: Evaluating
Management of Pesticides, Fertilizer, Residue to Improve
Water Quality," 198*?. 20pp.
94
-------
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, "1983 Ohio
Farm Inconse " Department Series E.S.O. 1134, Columbus, Ohio,
1984. c .,, p.
Ohio Department of Health, "Ohio Sanitary Code," Columbus, Ohio,
1977.
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, "Allen
Soil and Water Conservation District Resources Inventory,"
No. 561-897/21677, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washingtoi , D.C., 1 °3cr 17pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, "Soil
Survey, Allen County, Ohio," Series 1960, No. 24, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1965. 138pp.
U.S. Department of Agric 'Iture - Economics, Statistics and
Cooperatives Service, "Ohio Agricultural Statistics 1983,"
Columbus, Ohio, 1984. 56pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economics, Statistics and
Cooperatives Service, "Ohio Agricultural Statistics 1982,"
Columbus, Ohio, 1983. 56pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce - Bureau of Census, "1982 Census of
Agriculture, Preliminary Report, Allen County, Ohio,"
AC82-A-39-009CP), U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1983. 4pp.
Young, H.M. Jr., "No-tillage Farming," No-till Farmer, Inc.,
Brookfield, Wisconsin, 1982. 166pp.
95
-------
GLOSSARY
aeration system: A sewage disposal system which utilizes the
principle of oxidation in the decomposition of sewage by the
introduction of air into the sewage or by surface absorption
of air for a sufficient period of time to effect adequate
treatment.
basin! A region drained by a single lake or river system.
bedrock: The solid rock that underlies all soil, sand, clay and
loose material on the earth's surface.
biochemical oxygen demand: The amount of dissolved oxygen
required to meet the metabolic needs of microorganisms in a
water environment rich in organic matter.
cooperator: an individual or group that has signed an agreement
stating they would be willing to work with and participate in
the Soil and Water Conservation District programs.
conservation tillage: Any tillage system that creates a suitable
environment for a growing crop while leaving a minimum of 30
percent residue cover on or near the soil surface throughout
the year.
contaminant: A material that makes a substance unfit or
undesirable.
conventional tillage: Any tillage system that creates a suitable
environment for a growing crop but leaves less than a 30
percent residue cover on or near the soil surface throughout
the year.
cost-sharing: A method where two or more parties divide the
expenditures for goods or services.
crop rotation: A method of maintaining and renewing the fertility
of a soil by successive planting of different crops on the
same land.
crop land: Land that is suited or used for crops.
cultivate: A method to control weeds and aerate the soil in a
growing crop.
curtain drain: A subsoil drain that prevents the entrance of
ground water into the area of the household sewage disposal
system.
96
-------
District: Another name for Allen Soil and Water Conservation
District,
Distrrn Co 3. rrvationist: The head Soil Conservation Service
pei son assigned to e c i Soil Conservation Service field
office
drain way: A channel or depression that carries away surface
water.
drift: Rock debris depos;ted by a glacier.
effluent: The discharge of waste'from a sewer.
erosion: The process in which soil material is transported from
the earth's surface by either water or wind.
glacier: A huge mass of laterally limited, moving ice originating
from compacted snow.
growing season: The time period from the last killing frost in
the Spring to the first killing frost in the Fall.
herbicide: A chemical applied to control unwanted vegetation.
hybrid: The offspring produced by breeding plants of different
varieties, species or races.
in-kind: The value of labor or usage of equipment that is
contributed to help establish and promote a common cause.
lowlands: A area of land that is low in relation to the
surrounding county.
mantle: The layer of rock between the crust and the core of the
earth.
monitor: To observe and check the quality of a particular
process, activity or subject.
moraine: An accumulation of boulders, stones, or other debris
deposited by a glacier.
mulch-tillage: Another name for conservation tillage excluding
no-till. (Also reduced-tillage)
no-till: A crop planted into a protective residue cover where no
soil disturbance has been made except in the immediate area
of the seed at planting.
nutrients: A nourishing substance that promotes growth.
97
-------
off-lot discharge: The sewage effluent that is released from its
original point of origin and treatment.
outwash: Rock material that is deposited by the melt water of a
glacier.
pest scouting: A service that is provided to monitor a crop
during the growing season.
phosphorous: A chemical compound applied to certain crops to
enhance their growth.
pollutant: A waste material that contaminates the air, water or
soi 1.
Project Period: The length of time the Allen S.W.C.D. CQnducted
its demonstration program which was from July, 1980 to July
1985 and included the growing seasons 1981 to 1985.
quarry: An open excavation or pit from which stone is obtained.
relief: The variations in elevations of an area of the earth's
surface.
residue: The material remaining in a field after the harvest of a
crop .
run-off: Rainfall that is not absorbed by the soil.
sediment: Material suspended and/or deposited in water.
sewage system: A group of devices used to treat or improve waste
materials.
soil absorption disposal field: A series of subsurface drains
that is used to giadually release into the soil the effluent
of a sewage system.
significant difference: In comparing two numbers, it denotes a
dissimilarity of greater than five percent.
soil series: Soils that have similar characteristics in sequence
of natural lavers or horizons from the soil surface down to
the parent material.
soil survey: A index of the soils, their rnaracteristics, and
uses for a particular region, typically on a county-wide
basis.
subsurtace drainage: A conduit, such as a tile, pipe or tubing
installed beneath the ground surface to collect and/or
convey drainage water.
98
-------
success rate: "he number of times a system was equal to or
surpasse< ts comparison, relative to the total number of
times th i'c was tested.
surface drainage: An open ',-hannel that is capable of removing
drainage v ter.
till plain: A area composed jf glacial drift material.
topsoil: The surface layer oc soil.
topography: The physical feacures of a region.
tributary: A stream or river flowing into a larger stream or
river.
variety: A taxonomic category forming a subdivision of a species
consisting of naturally occurring characteristics.
water quality: The state or condition of a water supply.
watershed: A region draining into a river, river system or
a body of water.
yield: The amount produced; the profit obtained from an
investment.
99
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
I Please read Inilntctwni, on the reierse before completing)
REPORT NO
EPA-905/2-87-001
4 TITLE A,\D SUSTI TLE
Water Quality DeiTion strati on Project-Allen County,
Ohio
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5 REPORT DATE
April 1987
7 AUTHOR(S)
Reth A. Seibert
Donald M. Vigh
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Report No. 87-05
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District
219 West Northern Avenue
Lima, Ohio 45801
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
S005553
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
rinal 1981-1986
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
USEPA-GLNPO 5GL
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Section 108(a) Program Demonstration Project
Ralph G. Christensen - Project Officer
16. ABSTRACT
The project demonstrated to farmers throughout the county, on a voluntary basis,
the effects and economics of conservation tillage. An intense educational progran
was provided, no-till equipment made available and technical assistance was also
provided to the farmer as incentives to test conservation tillage on their lands.
The response to the adoption of conservation practices was outstanding.
A second part of this demonstration was the evaluation of rural sewer systems.
The Allen County General Health District worked with the residential home owners
to correct the deficient septic systems. Uater Ouality monitoring, before and
after the renovation process, was conducted of the ditch that the sewage systems
drained into. A description of the work is included.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Water quality
Soil erosion
Conservation tillage
No-till
Septic Systems
Economics
Sewage
Local cooperation
Agriculture
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI field/Group
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
21 NO OF PAGES
99
Service (NTIS) Springfield, VA
20 SECUDITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
•h U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE' 1987 - 744-6
------- |