905-2-87-002
April 1987
vvEPA
Oswego County/
Lake Ontario Water
Quality Demonstration
Project
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was created because of
increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution
to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the USEPA was established
in Region V, Chicago, Illinois to provide specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes. The Section 108(a) Demonstration
Grant Program of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) is specific to the Great
Lakes drainage basin and thus is administered by the Great Lakes National
Program Office.
Several sedimenb erosion-control projects within the Great Lakes drainage
basin have been funded as a result of Section 108(a). This report describes
one such project supported by this Office to carry out our responsibility
to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.
We hope the information and data contained herein will help planners and
managers of pollution control agencies to make better decisions in carrying
forward their pollution control responsibilities.
Val-das V. Adamkus
Administrator, Region V
National Program Manager for the Great Lakes
-------
ff .
°J EPA-905/2-87-002
o April 1987
OSWEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
John DeHollander
Mike Townsend
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
Oswego, New York-
Grant No. S005722
Section 108(a) Demonstration Project
Ralph G. Christensen John C. Lowrey
Project Officer Technical Assistance
GLNPO # 87-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Groat Lakes National Program Office
?30 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
September 1986 Regio!^ "
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program
Office and Water Quality Standards Section, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V 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 rec-
ommendation for use.
11
-------
OSWEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Dear Cooperator;
The Directors of the Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation
District proudly present this final report at the conclusion of the Oswego
County/Lake Ontario Water Quality Demonstration Project. Experiences and
findings from four years with no-till in Oswego County can be located here.
The overall success of the project has relied upon the working
relationships of everyone involved. Through the desire and committment of
agency people, farmers, dealers and commercial sales people a joint effort
in solving water quality issues has been recognized and stimulated. With
the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes
National Program Office, the practice of no-till has been proven as an
erosion control and management tool for the landowner.
The lessons learned
farmers new to no-till.
efforts regarding no-till
Sincerely,
from this project will be available to acquaint
The District looks to the future with continued
and its associated measures.
Jerome Fones
Oswego County SWCD
This project has been financed (in part) with Federal funds from the
Environmental Protection Agency under grant number S005722-01-0. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
OSVEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ELIZABETHTOWN
Lake Ontario
Location Map
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
BY
REDUCING SOIL EROSION
THROUGH
CONSERVATION TILLAGE
iv
-------
OSWEGO COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Jorcir.e Femes, At-Large Kepreoentative Chairman
Marshall Minot, Grange Representative Vice Chairman
Sani Weber, Jr. , Far.r: 3urc-r.ii; Representative Member
Theodore Jerrett, County Leg is lat i ve Representative Member
Vernon Randall, County Legislative Representative Member
Cooperating Agencies
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Great Lakes National Program Office Ralph Christensen
Project Officer
Osw«.:
-------
The tol Lowing is a list, of individuals withou
corn'ii \ t tmont, suppor t and pa r 11 c iu.it ion in the
project, the goals and lessons learned would
District Staff
Honald Kaplewicz
Joiin Flanagan
Jonn DeHollander
/jicni.le Bailey
Monty Curtis
C : i1. d y M o x 1 e y
No-Till Committee-
Robert Shearer
Ronald Kaplewicz
Keith Severson
Larry Meyer
Al Hawkins
Chevron Chemical
Mark Testerman
Scott Anderson
District Board
George Loomis
J e r o m e F o n e :--
Vernon Randall
J i ni B i sho[j
E a w a r d F r a w 1 e y
Ted Jerrett
Sa;n We be r , Jr.
Agway
John DuBoi£
Tom Prouty
FMC Corp.
Nick Halford
Julie Griffen
Aerial Applicator
Loren Shestak
t whor," concerned
no-t i 1 1 ce ;!.<; nst ration
not havi> been acheived
ASCS Committee
USDA - SCS
Paul v,'_-bb
Paul Mitchell
John J e f f r e d o
Mike Townsend
David Hoyt
Kevin Harris
Equipment Dealers
Halsey's Equipment
Kraki-iu Implement
Jorolemon & Sons
Precipitation data compliments of US Weather Observers John Ferlito,
Robert Sykes and the US Department of Commerce.
A special appreciation ana thanks to all the farmers who participated
throughout the project.
-------
OSWEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. The Setting page 1
B. The Problem page 4
C. The Process page 5
D . The Response page 9
E. The Results page 13
F. The Lessons Learned page 15
G. Attachments page 16
#1: Oswego County Target Watershed
12: Monthly Precipitation Data
#3: Soils Information
#4: News Article
#5: Workshop Agenda
#6: Preapplication For Farmer Participation
#7: Field Information Form
|8: Waiver Form
19: Field Data Sheet
#10: Yield Comparison Data
#11: Summary of No-Till Acres
#12: No-Till Acres Planted vs. Years
#13: No-Till Tour Information
vi i
-------
THE SETTING
Oswego County, New York State
Oswego County is located near the eastern end of the Great Lakes System, having
Lake Ontario as its northern border. A large drainage area in Central New York
State flows through the county by means of the Oswego River. There are also
many other streams draining directly into Lake Ontario (see attachment #1).
Of the 619,520 acres in the county, approximately 90%, or 557,500 acres drain
directly into Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario provides a variety of resources: recreation, drinking water,
commercial shipping and other industrial uses. The metropolitan area of
greater Syracuse, NY is located just south of Oswego County. The City of
Syracuse and its suburbs rely quite heavily on Lake Ontario for their municipal
drinking water supply.
Field of hay being
converted to a no till
plot.(note spray
skips due to inadequate
marking of spray line)
-------
The majority of Oswego County's acreage is in woodland (52%). Wetlands and
water (13%) and cropland (17%) are the other major land uses. The agricultural
community is made up of dairy, cash crops, vegetables, fruit, beef, sheep and
horses. Of the county's cropland acreage, approximately 4,000 acres of truck
crops are irrigated; 2,000 acres in oats; 17,000 acres in corn (85% is silage);
400 acres in wheat and 30,700 acres in hay.
Oswego County has a humid-continental climate that is broadly representative of
the northeastern part of the United States. Lake Ontario is a major influence
on climate in the county. It moderates the temperature, reducing heat in summer
and extreme cold in winter. Lake Ontario significantly affects precipitation in
winter. Snowfall is often very heavy inland and occurs in bands of varying
width and depth (see attachment |2).
The frost-free season is about 180 days in the vicinity of Oswego, about 160
days in the southeastern part of the county, and about 150 days in the
northeastern part.
Elevation in the county ranges from 200 feet above mean sea level in the swampy
areas that border Lake Ontario to 1,750 feet on the Tug Hill Plateau in the
northeast corner of the county. In the western two-thirds of the county, relief
is fairly uniform. The most pronounced relief in the western part of the county
occurs on drumlins. These drumlins were formed by glaciers that moved down
over the area and formed long narrow or oval, smoothly rounded hills of
unstratified glacial drift. The advancement and retreatment of these glaciers
markedly influenced the topography and soils of Oswego County.
-------
A number of agencies have responsibilities and programs which impact
on water quality within trie county. These include: Oswego County Soil and Water-
Conservation District, USDA-Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural
Stabilization & Conservation Service, County Health Department, NYS Department
of environmental Conservation, US Environmental Protection Agency, St.
Lawrence Eastern Ontario Commission, Tug Hill Commission and Cooperative
Extension Service.
Recent trends in the county have been similar to nationwide trends; fewer
farmers but actual farming acreage remaining fairly constant. There has been
some increase in acreages o£ organic soil farms in recent years. The county's
population has been estimated during the last decade to be growing at a rate of
25%.
Sine" the initial passage of Section 208 of the Federal »\ater Pollution Control
Act (Puolic Law 92-500), efforts have been made to establish the objectives of
fishable, swimmable and drinkable waters by the mid-1980's. Additional
statutes, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act
and the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act underscore the public concerns
for an improved environment. Oswego County has been an active partner with the
federal and state government in meeting public demands fot a cleaner and safer
env i r oni'ient.
-------
THE PROBLEM
Excessive Nutrient Loading into Lake Ontario
Excessive amounts of phosphorous, nitrogen and sediment were reaching Lake
Ontario at rates which were having detrimental effects on water quality.
The EPA No-till Demonstration Project complimented the objectives set forth to
control nutrient loading by the International joint Commission US/Canada
Agreement in reducing the phosphorous contribution into the Great Lakes.
The application of manure and commercial fertilizer;; at high amounts were
attributed as potential sources of pollutants in drainage areas directly
associated with Lake Ontario. During the recent decade or two, many
municipalities along or near Lake Ontario have installed sewage treatment
facilities in attempting to reduce point source loadings.
Excessive erosion on agricultural lands, higher production recommendations,
intensified farming on sensitive soils, and urban expansion also contributed to
the overall problem (see attachment #3).
The effects of this problem could be seen in excessive sedimentation into our
streams, rivers and lakes. Waters were becoming nutrient enriched; increasing
plant growth, lowering oxygen levels, increasing water treatment costs, and
reducing recreational utilization. It had readied a point where it was
affecting not only the aquatic resource but also the public, in general.
The goals by which the Soil ami Water Conservation 01. trict operated remained
consistent with federal and state objectives in obtaining swimmable, fishable
and drinkable waters.
4
-------
THE PROCESS
No - Till Demonstration Project
During 1982, the Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District applied for
and received through the Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National
Program Office, an $80,000 grant for what was to be known as the Oswego
County/Lake Ontario Water Quality Demonstration Project. The local District was
awarded this grant due to the large agricultural drainage area associated
directly with Lake Ontario and its potential for reducing phosphorus
contr ibutions.
White corn planter purchased
by SWCD to do no-till
demonstration projects
Public announcements were made via county wide newspapers, agricultural
bulletins and radio (see attachment #4). The agricultural community was
informed from the beginning by the formation of a No-till Committee which was
comprised of the SWCD, USDA-SCS and ASCS, Cooperative Extension, County Health
Department and the County Planning Department. These members provided direction
and the plan of action needed to carry out the program's objectives.
-------
The study scope was to evaluate the agricultural related sources of non-point
pollution and their impact upon total phosphorus contribution to Lake Ontario.
It concluded that a reduction in the total phosphorus contribution can be
achieved by accelerating the rate of no-till farming. A minimum of 900 acres
was set as a goal to effectively demonstrate the programs objectives.
Watersheds were chosen as identified in the "Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
Study" (see attachment §1).Local resource information indicates that there is
concentrated agricultural activity in the lower portions of these watersheds
which may contribute phosphorus and other -pollutants to Lake Ontario. Because
there are also larger portions containing minimal agricultural activity, these
watersheds did not qualify as a whole in the "Drainage Basin Study".
Lilliston seeder
purchased by District to
do no-till seedings in
sod or small grain
stubble
The SWCD operated the project. Each year of the program, winter/spring
workshops were held to review and explain objectives/goals to interested
farmers (see attachment #5). Prospective farmers who wished to participate
signed up at this time. Specific fields were qualified based upon fertility,
-------
drainage, soil loss and water quality impact. The No-till Com/nit bee would then
review and approve designated demonstration sites which included a
conventionally tilled plot for yield comparison. In addition, cost-share monies
through ASCS ^ere provided as an incentive for implementation of no-till.
Prior to installation of any of the no-till, the site was analyzed and
individual project plans were prepared for each landowner (see attachments #6-
8). The no-till portion of the project included an evaluation of the
demonstration plot to be installed and also a conventional check plot for yield
comparison. Some of the information gathered during this time were: acres in
the demonstration site, acres in the conventional site, soil types, slopes,
date of planting, hybrid used, fertilizer applied, etc. (see attachment #9).
Evaluations of these sites took place throughout the growing season.
Each participating farmer was given herbicide, fertilizer and management
recommendations by Cooperative Extension and the Soil Conservation Service. The
3WCD provided, through the grant, a no-till corn planter, a no-till seeder
and the personnel to insure the installation of the no-till practices.
Yield checks were taken
on conventional plots and
no-till plots to give
comparisons for further
evaluation .
-------
Planted fields were then scouted throughout the growing season for any possible
adverse growing conditions. Scouting responsibilities were divided up among
agency representatives of the No-till Committee. At harvest, yield comparison
checks were calculated between no-till and conventional corn plots (see
attachment #10). After harvest,data on all fields were tabulated for review and
analysis (see attachments #11,12). This data has been utilized as a training
tool when convincing farmers and other interested parties of the value of no-
till.
The SWCD sponsored no-till tours for the general public to see the practice
of no-till farming. These tours proved to be a valuable publicity tool
(see attachment #13), in not only showing the practice of no-till and its
benefits, but ^Lso the successful cooperative effort among local agencies and
all involved particpants.
-------
THE RESPONSE
The No-till Demonstration Project was funded under a grant from US-EPA
with technical assistance by the USDA-SCS (see attachment #1 for designated
watersheds). No effort was made to monitor the impacts of the project on
pollutant loadings to streams and lakes.
In 1981, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation published a Stream
Stressed Segment Analysis for Oswego County identifying nutrient runoff from
NFS as a potential water quality problem.
Education on the practice of no-till has been achieved through actual on site
demonstrations, farm visits, and tours for the general public, legislators
and agencies; presentations at various agency sponsored public meetings; and
intra-agency support for the practice throughout the county and state.
Technical assistance in implementing the project at the local level came from
the Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA-Soil Conservation Service,
which complimented these agencies' normal operations with the landowners.
Farmers and Agri business
touring a no-till plot
on the Richard Potter
farm.
-------
Direct financial assistance to the SWCD was provided by EPA ($80,000 for
machinery, labor and administrative costs) and the USDA-ASCS ACP Program of
$121,700 for cost share incentives to landowners. In-kind non-federal
contributions of local agencies and landowners totaled approximately $276,000.
Education, technical assistance and cost share support were components of the
project that were coordinated through the SWCD.
Technicial and financial assistance was provided to willing and interested
landowners within designated watersheds. These particular, watersheds were
identified due to their intensified farming practices on erodible soils
within the drainage basin of Lake Ontario. One significant program element
which was implemented was the use of fertilizer recommendations based on recent
soil tests. Factors that were considered by the SWCD, USDA-SCS and
Cooperative Extension Service in selecting no-till fields were water quality,
soil erosion, economics, drainage and level of management. In addition to the
no-till practice, area landowners have been installing terraces, cover crops,
water management control structures and conservation tillage to further reduce
soil erosion.
Rye seed being aerial
applied as a cover crop
in standing corn.
-------
Funding of the no-till project began in October of 1982. Sixty-five per cent of:
project funds were from US-EPA and thirty-five per cent from local matching
funds, totaling $123,125. In addition, federal cost-share money was provided
through the USDA-ASCS as a Special Project specifically to compliment the no-
till grant. A financial penalty of forfeitting one's federally approved cost-
share dollars was agreed to for not fulfilling the no-till program
requirements. This penalty agreement was made between the SWCD and the ASCS Co.
Committee. During the term of the project this never became an issue. During
the four year program, existing staff of the SWCD was used to implement this
project. The following is a listing of estimated man hours per agency: SWCD -
4900; SCS - 1900; ASCS - 480; Coop. Extension - 960.
The SWCD took the lead role in conducting the project, initiating the No-till
Steering Committee, which is comprised of the SWCD, USDA-SCS & ASCS, Coop.
Ext., and the County Planning & Health Departments. These agencies entered into
an informal cooperative agreement to assist in the project. Cooperative
Extension was responsible for education, herbicide & fertilizer
recommendations; USDA-SCS was responsible for site selection based upon soils &
drainage and assisting w/herb. and fert. recommendations; USDA-ASCS provided
federal cost-share funds; and the SWCD was responsible for administering
program and implementing project demonstration plots. The County Health and
Planning Departments represented the non-agricultural viewpoint of the project
and provided valuable information on the county's groundwater resource.
11
-------
As the project got underway, the need for cost-share incentives was evident to
promote the practice of no-till. Through planning and education, the landowners
acceptance of conservation tillage seemed to have the greatest impact on a
successful program. The project proved itself many times to participants,
thereby lessening the need for additional incentives. The multi-jurisdictional
nature of the project is an asset, bringing a closer understanding and working
knowledge between local agencies and landowners. It promotes a wiser use of
agency resources, eliminating duplicative efforts and further enhances
individual growth among all interested parties.
12
-------
RESULTS
The attainment of our goal of reducing erosion and associated phosphorous has
been greatly assisted by the no-till demonstration project. The use of soil
tests as a basis for recommending fer.tilizer application rates resulted in a
40% reduction of actual applied fertilizer as compared to what landowners would
have applied without the use of tests. In addition, erosion has been reduced by
75% on most agricultural lands where no-till has been demonstrated, thus,
reducing nutrient loading. The water Quality Demonstration Project has
stimulated a change in attitude toward the effective utilization of
fertilizers and an improved awareness of the effective and prescribed use of
pesticides.
As a result of effected changes in the agricultural support system, many
changes have occurred in Oswego County. The demand for special mix or blended
fertilizers was met by local fertilizer dealers. A new equipment dealer made
conservation tillage equipment available to area farmers on a rental basis.
Crop yields have remained stable as compared to convential tillage sites. Farm
landowners realized economic gains with no-till by reducing time, fuel, and
machinery costs.
Corn seedling emerging
through residue left
from previous years
corn crop (note that
cover is greater
than 80%).
-------
Shortly into this project the potential for nutrients leaching into the
groundwater became a great concern. Locally, various attempts were made to
receive federal or state funded grants for investigative research studies of
no-till and its relationship to groundwater quality. Just this year, a NYS
funded study through the state's Land Grant college (Cornell) will be
implemented to investigate the potential effects, if any, of chemical/nutrient
loading of groundwater in a no-till vs. conventional situation. In addition,
the United States Geological Survey has applied for funding of a five year New
York State study to analyze the movement of chemicals through various soil
types under no-till conditions.
14
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
The project has provided many satisfying experiences. These experiences can be
regarded as key ingredients towards a successful program. The most important
key points learned are:
1) Working with landowners having the willingness to participate fully with
program requirements. This came about through education and being candid with
the puul ic tLom the beginning regarding the program's objectives and goals.
2) The overall cooperative effort between agencies. All agencies involved made
a committment to see that the project goals would be carried through from
start to finish. This cooperative atmosphere was a vital factor in the success
of the project.
3) Good, thorough communication among all parties. Agencies, private sector
and landowners all gained respect for each other based upon the projects
informational network.
4} Good data base to work from. Having learned from others through their
experiences in working with no-till gave us a better understanding and
foresight to manage a program of this magnitude and scope.
Important facets that could be utilized to improve similar projects
include: cooperation among all parties; keeping good, factual records; and
keeping the landowner (participant) and general public informed.
we feel that the overall performance and operation of the project could
have been improved in only two specific areas. Our scouting program might
have been accomplished more effectively by hiring an individual strictly to
perform these responsibilities. Secondly, the lack of time curtailed
opportunities in demonstrating various fertilizer and insecticide application
rates on the comparison plots.
15
-------
OS1JEGO COILTY TAP3ET WATERSHED
(C^l DZS1G:!AT10:JS)
LA.V2: ONTARIO
-------
MONTH
TOTAL
Attachment #2
FREC I p I Tt-iT I 0; 1 PE.-.C'! M C- 5
FOP
LIT i OF OSMEGO .MEM , OF r
1*34
APRIL
MM*,
JUNE
JULV
MlJGUS
SEPTE
OCTOB
T
riBEP
ER
cr
4
1
^
4
t-
3
_ 7
. 6
. ^
.0
. 0
. '6
. '"'
2
V
3
^
1
~"
tr
3
r
^i
-.
5
a
1
.44
1
.06
. 60
-~ -
. 0 4
. I'2
1
.*'
3
^_
-
3
3
.44 3.32
.15 2.66
. 30 4 . 70
.50 2.*4
.13 3.27
. 20
. 5 9'
3: _ _; g
3 . SO
2.34
-1 > '- '"*''
- . C1 3
I . * 4
^' . '*' S
2
3
^i
~'
^i
^
3
. 9 1
.04
.43
. 64
. 6*
. -'3
.30
25.34
19.31
PRECIPITATION READINGS
26 -,
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
T)
o:
17 YEARS
-------
ATTACHMENT S3
SOILS INVOLVED IN NO-TILL
DEMONSTRATIONS
AgA: Alton gravely fine sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes
This is a deep, well drained to excessively drained, medium to
moderately coarse textured gravelly soil. It occupies level areas
of glacial outwash terraces, karnes and beach ridges. Unlived it
is strongly acid to medium acid in the upper solum and moderately
acid to neutral in the lower solum. Permeability is moderately
rapid in the solum .Available water capacity is low v.o moderate.
Natural fertility is low. This soil is well suited to all of the
crops commonly grown in the county. The main problems are a
tendency to be droughty and coarse fragments in the surface may
interfere with cultivation and harvesting of some crops. The
capability subclass is Us.
AgB: Alton gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.
This is a deep, well drained to excessively drained, medium to
moderately coarse textured gravelly soil. It occupies gently
sloping areas of glacial outwash terraces, kames and beach
ridges. Unlimed it is strongly acid to medium acid in the upper
solum and medium acid to neutral in the lower solum. Permeability
is rapid in the solum. Available water capacity is low to
moderate. Natural fertility is low. This soil is well suited to
all of the crops commonly grown in the county. The main problems
are a slight erosion hazard, a tendency to be droughty and coarse
fragments in the surface may interfere with cultivation and
harvesting of some crops. Capability subclass is Us.
AoB: Alton gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
This is a deep, well drained to somewhat excessively drained,
medium textured gravelly soil. It occupies level and gently
sloping areas of glacial outwash terraces, kames and beach
ridges. Unlimed it is strongly acid to mediuim acid in the upper
solum and medium acid to neutral in the lower solum. Permeability
is moderately rapid in the solum. Available water capacity is low
to moderate. Natural fertility is low. This soil is well suited
to all of the crops commonly grown in the county . The main
problems are a tendency to be droughty and coarse fragments in
the surface may interfere with cultivation and harvesting of some
crops. Capability subclass is Us.
-------
#3 cont'd
AvB
Amboy very fine sandy loam, 2to 6 percent slopes
This is a deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured soil
which has a fragipan at 15 to 30 inches. It occupies level to
yently sloping areas of wind or water deposited silts and very
fine sands. It is associated with glacial deposits primarily.
Unlimed it is very strongly acid to medium acid above the
fragipan. Available water capability is moderate. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly
grown in the county. The main problems are an erosion hazard when
cultivated and maintaining lime and nutrient levels. Most areas
are used to grow crops in support of dairying. Capability
subclass is lie.
AwC3
Amboy-Williamson complex, rolling, severly eroded.
These soils occur together in a pattern so intermingled that
mapping them separately was impractical. These soils are deep,
moderately coarse textured and have fragipans. Amboy is well
drained and Williamson is moderately well drained. They occupy
areas of wind or water deposited silts aand very fine sands. They
are associated with glacial deposits primarily. Unlimed they are
very strongly acid to medium acid above the fragipan.
Permeability is moderate above the fragipan. Available water
capacity is moderate to low. The choice of crops that can be
grown on these soils is limited. Erosion has stripped much of the
surface off and in places exposed the subsoils. Gullies and hills
are common. This soil is best suited to woodland or pasture. The
main problems are the erosion hazard, damage from past erosion
and steepness of slopes. Capability subclass is IVe.
CHC
Colton-Hinkley complex, rolling.
These soils occur together in a pattern that makes mapping these
separately impractical. These are deep excessively drained,
coarse textured gravelly soils. They occupy undulating and
rolling areas of outwash plains, terraces, kames and eskers.
Unlimed they are very strongly and strongly acid in the solum.
Permeability is rapid. The available water capacity is low and
very low in tnese soils. Natural fertility is low. Farmed areas
are used for silage corn, hay and pasture. Most areas are idle,
reforested or in hardwoods. The main problems are the
droughtiness and stoniness. Capability subclass is IVs.
19
-------
D3 cont'd.
DeB: Deerfield loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well drained, coarse textured soil. It
occupies level to gently sloping terraces, deltas and outwash
plains. Unlimed it is very strongly acid to medium acid through
out. Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is low.
Natural fertility is low. This soil is suited to crops, hay and
pasture. The main problems are slight wetness in the spring and a
tendency to be droughty during the growing season. Capability
subclass is IIIw.
EpB: Empeyville gravelly fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes.
This is a deep,moderately coarse textured soil which has a
fragipan at 14 to 22 inches. It occupies gently sloping areas of
glacial till in the uplands. Unlimed it is very strongly to
slightly acid in the solurn. Permeability is moderate above the
fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural fertility
is low. This soil is suited to cropland, hay and pasture. Much of
this soil is in woods. The main problems are a slight wetness in
spring, a shorter growing season due to elevation and an erosion
hazard. Capability subclass is lie.
HeB: Herkimer shaley silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes.
This is a deep, well drained, medium textured soil. It occupies
level and gently sloping alluvial fans composed of material from
sandstone and dark colored shale. Unlimed it is strongly acia to
neutral in the solum. Permeability is moderate. Available water
capacity is high. Natural fertility is medium. This soil is
suited to crops, hay and pasture. The main problem is a slight
wetness in the spring when the water table is high. Capability
subclass is lie.
HkB: Hinckley gravelly loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes.
This is a deep, excessively drained, coarse textured gravelly
soil. It occupies level and gently sloping areas of outwash
plains, terraces, deltas, kames and eskers. Unlimed it is
extremely acid to medium acid. Permeability is very rapid.
Available water capacity is low to very low. Natural fertility is
low. Farmed areas are used for silage corn, hay and pasture. Many
areas are idle, reforested or are in hardwoods. The main problems
are droughtiness and stoniness. Capability subclass is Us.
?0
-------
#3 conf d.
IrA: Ira gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well drained, moderately coarse
textured soil which has a fragipan at 20 to 40 inches. It
occupies level areas of glacial till plains. Unlimed it is very
strongly acid to strongly acid in the surface and strongly to
medium acid above the fragipan. Permeability is moderate above
the fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is suited to cropland, hay and
pasture. The main problem is a slight wetness in the spring.
Tilled areas are used to grow crops in support of dairying. Much
of the area is in permanent pasture, woodland or idle. Capability
subclass is IIw.
IrB: Ira gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well drained', moderately coarse
textured soil which has a fragipan at 20 to 40 inches. It
occupies gently sloping areas of glacial till plains. Unlimed it
is very strongly to strongly acid in the surface and strongly to
medium acid above the fragipan. Permeability is moderate above
the fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is suited to cropland, hay and
pasture. The main problems are a slight wetness in the spring and
a slight erosion hazard. Tilled areas are used to grow crops in
support of dairying. Much of the area is in permanent pasture,
woodland or is idle. Capability subclass is IIw.
IrC: Ira gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well drained, moderately coarse
textured soil which has a fragipan at 20 to 40 inches. It
occupies sloping areas of glacial till plains. Unlimed it is very
strongly to strongly acid in the surface and strongly to medium
acid above the fragipan. Permeability is moderate above the
fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural fertility
is low. This soil is suited to cropland, pasture and hay. The
main problems are a slight wetness in the spring, a moderate
erosion hazard and steepness of slopes. Tilled areas are used to
grow crops in support of dairying. Much of the area is in
permanent pasture, woodland or idle. Capability subclass is Hie.
-------
#3 cont'd.
IsC: Ira-Sodus gravelly fine sandy loams, colling..
These soils occur together in a pattern that makes mapping them
separately impractical. These soils are deep and moderately
coarse textured. Sodus is well drained and Ira is moderately well
drained. They both have fragipans. They occupy rolling areas of
glacial till plains. Unlirned they are strongly to medium acid
above the fragipan and medium to slightly acid in the fragipan.
Permeability is moderate above the fragipan. Available water
capacity is low to moderate. Natural fertility is low. These
soils are suited to crops, hay and pasture. Most crops are grown
in support of dairying. The major problems are an erosion hazard
and steepness of slope. Capability subclass is Hie.
Mn: Minoa very fine sandy loam.
This is a deep, somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soil. It
occupies level and gently sloping deltas of former glacial lakes.
Unlimed it is strongly acid to neutral in the solum. Permeability
is moderate. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is suitable for crops, hay and
pasture or woodland. Prolonged wetness limits the choice of crops
that can be grown. Erosion is a hazard. Most cultivated areas are
used for grain and grassland. Capability subclass is Illw.
OaB: Oakville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes.
This is a deep, somewhat excessively drained, coarse textured
soil. It occupies outwash plains,lake plains, moraines, sand
dunes and beach ridges. Unlimed it is slightly acid to neutral in
the solum. Permeability is very rapid. Available water capacity
is low to very low. Natural fertility is low. These soils are
suited to crops but are severely limited because of droughtiness.
Most areas are idle or in woods. When cultivated small grain and
hay are grown. Capability subclass is IVs.
RaB: Raynham silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes.
This is a deep, poorly to somewhat poorly drained, medium
textured soil. It occupi.es level and gently sloping areas of
water deposited silts and very fine sands. Unlimed it is strongly
acid to slightly acid in the solum. Permeability is slow.
Available water capacity is high. Natural fertility is low. When
drained it is suitable for crops, hay and pasture. Undrained it
is best suited to hay and pasture. Many areas are idle or in
woods. Capability subclass is IIIw.
22
-------
#3 cont'd
RhA
Rhinebeck silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.
This is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. The surface is
medium textured and the subsoil is fine textured. It occupies
level areas of lake laid silt and clays. Unlimed it is slightly
acid to neutral in the surface and neutral in the subsoil.
Permeability is moderate in the surface and slow in the subsoil.
Available water capacity is high. Natural fertility is high. This
soil is suitable for crops, hay and woodland. Prolonged wetness
limits the choice of crops that can be grown. Erosion is a
hazard. Most cultivated areas are used for grain and grassland.
Capability subclass is IIIw.
RhB
Rhinebeck silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes.
This is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. The surface is
medium textured and the subsoil is fine textured. It occupies
level areas of lake laid silt and clays. Unlimed it is slightly
acid to neutral in the surface and neutral in the subsoil.
Permeability is moderate in the surface and slow in the subsoil.
Available water capacity is high. Natural fertility is high. This
soil is suitable for crops, hay and woodland. Prolonged wetness
limits the choice of crops that can be grown. Erosion is a
hazard. Most cultivated areas are used for grain and grassland.
Capability subclass is IIIw.
ScB
Scriba Very Fine Sandy Loam,0 to 8 percent slopes
This is a deep, Somewhat poorly drained, moderately coarse
textured soil that has a fragipan at 12 to 18 inches. It occupies
level and gently sloping areas of glacial till in the uplands.
Unlimed it is very strongly acid to slightly acid above the
fragipan and strongly acid to neutral in the fragipan.
Permeability is moderate above the fragipan. Available water
capacity is moderate. Natural fertility is low. The main problems
are a prolonged wetness in the spring and maintaining lime and
nutrient levels. Most tilled areas are used for hay and pasture.
Other areas are in woods or idle. Capability subclass is IIIw
SgB
Sodus Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam,3 to 8 percent slopes
this is a deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured soil
which has fragipan at 20 to 53 inches. It occupies gently sloping
areas of glacial till plains. Unlimed it is strongly acid to
medium acid above the fragipan and medium acid to slightly acid
in the fragipan. Permeability is moderate above the fragipan.
Available water capacity is moderate. Natural fertility is low.
This soil is suited to cropland,hay and pasture. Most crops are
grown in support of dairying. The major problem is the erosion
hazard when cultivated. Capability subclass is lie.
23
-------
#3 cont'd
WIB
Williamson very fine sandy loam, 2 To 6 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well drained, medium textured soil
that has a fragipan at 15 to 24 inches. It occupies level and
gently sloping areas of lake plains and uplands where wind or
water deposited silts and very fine sands. Unliir.ed it is very
strongly to strongly acid above the fragipan. Permeability is
moderate above the fragipan. Available water capacity is
moderate. Natural fertility is low. This soil is well suited to
all crops commonly grown in the county. The main problems are an
erosion hazard when cultivated and maintaining lime and nutrient
levels. Most areas are used to grow crops in support of dairying.
Capability subclass is lie.
WnB
Windsor loamy fine sand, undulating.
This is a deep, well drained to excessively drained, coarse
textured soil. It occupies level to undulating sand plains and
terraces. Unlimed it is very strongly to strongly acid in the
solum. Permeability is rapid or very rapid. Available water
capacity is low to moderate. Natural fertility is low. This soil
is best suited to hay and pasture. The main problem is
droughtiness. Cultivated areas are used for pasture primarily.
Most areas are idle or wooded. Capability subclass is Ills
WnC
Windsor loamy fine sand, rolling.
This is a deep, well drained, coarse textured soil. It occupies
rolling sandy plains and terraces. Unlimed it is very strongly to
strongly acid in the solum. Permeability is rapid or very rapid.
Available water capacity is low to moderate. Natural fertility is
low. This soil is best suited to hay, pasture or woodland. The
main problems are droughtiness and complex slopes. Some areas
aree in hay and pasture. Most areas are idle or wooded.
Capability subclass is Vis.
WoCK
Worth gravelly fine sandy loam, rolling.
This is a deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured soil
which has a fragipan at 18 to 30 inches. It occupies rolling
areas of glacial till plains. Unlimed it is very strongly and
strongly acid above the fragipan. Permeability is moderate above
the the fragipan. Available water capacity is moderate. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is best suited to cropland, hay and
pasture. The main problems are the complex slopes, the moderate
erosion hazard and the somewhat shorter growing season due to
elevation. Most cultivated areas are used to grow crops in
support of dairying. Much of this soil is in woodland. Capability
subclass is Hie
24
-------
No-Till Acres Are Growing In Oswego County
By KEITH SEVERSON
In 1983 Cooperative Extension,
Soil and Water Conservation
District, Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service and Soil
and Water Conservation Service
represented a unified effort to
provide assistance for farmers
interested in trying no-till on forage
crops.
In 1983 the Oswego County Soil and
Water Conservation District applied
for a grant through the
Environmental Protection Agency
A portion of the funds from this
grant were to be used tor the
promotion and demonstration of no-
till forage and grain crops in Oswego
County. The Oswego County
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service also made
application for special funding
which could be applied for by
farmers participating in the no-till
projects. Cooperative Extension
that, they could obtain information
about fertilizer, lime population,
weed control, insect control,
equipment and economics of no-till
from other farmers in the county
who have grown no-till, his
Cooperative Extension Agent and
equipment and chemical
representatives. These meetings
were well attended and provided
basic information for getting
started. After a soil sample was
obtained, the farmers could sign up
with the A.S.C.S. office to receive
cost sharing and if they didn't have a
planter, could make arrangements
with the Soil and Water
Conservation District to have it
planted with their machine. The
farmers received information on
lime, fertilizer and pesticides from
his field representative or
Cooperative Extension Agent after a
field visit was made to observe the
weeds present. After the field had
The planter which was purchased by the "District" in '83 was a
four-row Seed Boss no-till planter
tx_>came involved early in the project
providing the other agencies with
recommendations on the agronomic
requirements, economics, and
holding meetings to introduce and
explain the project to our farmers
This project as viewed through the
farmer's eyes, might appear like
this A regional meeting was held in
the community and would discuss
how to sign up to be a cooperator in
the m>-'i:i oroiect In addition to
received all of the preplan!
herbicides, fertilizer and lime, the
farmer was informed of the date the
tractor and planter would be
arriving The farmer was able to
observe the way the planter worked
and ask questions of the operator
while they loaded fertilizer and lime
into the planter Individuals stopped
In 1S83 300 acres of no-till corn was planted and 120 acres of hay
were seeded with the no-till equipment owned by the Oswego County
Soil and Water Conservation District.
-*=$
This Liffiston no-till seeder was one of the first ones purchased and
used in New York State. Farmers who participated in the project
had their fields planted and were only charged a smail fee for Juel
and use of the tractor which was rented to the "district" by the
Haisey Machinery Company.
at the fields to observe plant
populations, weeds, insects, and
relay our observations and
recommendations to the farmer A
tour of the county provided farmers
with an opportunity to discuss with
the machine operators how the
equipment was working now that
they have been in various field
conditions and observe other farms
FiELD CROP'S ISSUE
that participated in the project
Yields were established for the corn
fields as bushels of gram and tons of
silage.
Success rates on the seedmgs will
be more accurately evaluated when
we see how they look in '84 Winter
meetings will be held to summarize
1983's results and allow farmers
another chance to ask questions of
the oarticipatmg farmers and 'he
farm agencies involved
-------
Attachment
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
2 Erie Street - Oswego. New York 13126 - (315) 343-0040
-- AGENDA --
LANDOWNER WORKSHOP ON NO-TILL
February 19, 1986
Cooperative Extension Office, Mexico, N.Y.
1:00 PM - Welcome and Introductions
1:10 PM - John DeHollander, SWCD: Program review & no-till corn
1:30 PM - Mike Townsend, SCS: No-till seedings
1:50 PM - Scott Anderson, Chevron: Economics of no-till
2:15 PM - BREAK
2:30 PM - John DuBois, Agway: Fertilizer and sprayer forecast
2:50 PM - Larry Meyer, ASCS: Special project area and cost Share
3:10 PM - Questions and answers
3:30 PM - Adjourn
26
CONSERVATION - DEVFLOPMFNT - SELF GOVERNMENT
-------
^-"^
Attachment #6
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
2 Erfe Street - Oswego. New York 13126 - (315) 343-0040
PREAPPLICATIOi! FOR FARMER PARTICIPATION
1) NAME PHOriE NUX3EPV
ADDRESS
TOWNSHIP
2) LOCATIG.'! OF PROPOSED SITE: Draw a sinple location map and please identify nearest
roads (please keep in mind that we need 10-15'acres for demonstration and an adjacent
conventional plot).
3) I'm interested in ( )corn ( )seeding ( )small grain
(check one or more)
4) Is rov/ width for your corn plantings flexible? ( )yes ( )no
If no, v/hat are your maximum and minimum row spacings?
5) Previous crop (example; corn grain, corn silaqe, hay, etc.)
5; I !'..y/<: .1 cjrrcr.t soil test. ( )ys ( )no (1?31 or i::ore recent is considered c
7) In yo'jr .-sti nation -./li,it is the dr.T i n.-:or? condition of the fi"M? (e\,iroli%: Cr-'ur.l
,.^ii or/M ::), r.-occritoly '..ell «.;ra i nod, poorly Groined, artificuillv drained, etc.!
27
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
-------
Attachment #7
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
2 Erie Street - Oswego. New York 13126 - (315) 343-0040
LANDOWNERS NAME PHONE
ADDRESS
TOWNSHIP
1) Soil Test/Field Number (cross reference for extension files):
2) Soil Test Results: (amount recommended for crop)
P Ibs/Ac K Ibs/Ac N Ibs/Ac pH tons/Ac
3) Field Number on Conservation Plan (for soils information)
4) Acres of No-Till (per field): , ,
a) Acres of Conventional
5) Approximate Planting Date:
6a) Cropping and Tillage History-Demonstration Site
Last Years' Crop
Tv/o Years' Ago Crop
Three Years' Ago Crop
*Type of Tillage Number of Trips
*i!ote if performed in Fall,
List any Weed Problems: Annual
Perennia 1
List any Insect Problems:
Herbicides Applied ('./hat,how rucn and v/hen)_
28
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF GOVERNMENT
-------
Attachment
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
2 Erie Street - Oswego. New York 13126 - (315) 343-0040
OSWEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO WATER QUALITY
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
WAIVER FORM
I,_ , would like to participate in the Oswego County
Soil and Water Conservation Districts' no-till demonstration project. I would like
to use the tillage equipment available through the project on a portion of my land.
I agree to reimburse the Soil and Water Conservation District for the use of the
tractor and also to provide all fuel for the tractor while on my farm.
I recognize that this effort is for demonstration and educational purposes and will
not hold the project or any of its representatives responsible for any loss, damage,
personal injury, or liability resulting from the use of the equipment and/or recomm-
endations by representatives. I agree to abide by all recommendations of the repres-
entatives. The representatives include the Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation
District, its employees, its Directors, and all agencies affiliated with the no-till
project.
Signature of Farmer (Tenant) Date
Address County
Approved for the SWCD Board Date
29
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT . SELF GOVERNMENT
-------
Technicians name
District phone no.:.
FIELD DATASHEET
ATTACHMENT *<
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PLOT
1. Cooperators Name:.
2. State: , County: Year-
3. Plot Number: (Assigned by District)
4. Acres in Plot:
5. Comparison Plot Number(s): , , .
(Complete another sheet on each comparison plot)
6. Predominant Soil Series (Enter only one) Example Blount
Slope: (Circle one) 0-2, 2-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18+.
Erosion: (Circle one) Slight, Moderate, Severe.
Drainage: (Circle one or more) Undrained, Random tile, Systematic tile, Surface.
Soil loss: Average annual soil loss (USLE) with farmers normal rotation T/Ac /Yr.
7. Soil Test Result pH: , Available? Ibs., Available K Ibs.
8. Crop Planted. (Check one) Corn , Soybeans Other (list)
9. Previous Crop: (Check one) Corn , Soybeans Other (list)
10. Date Planted: / / Type planter or drill used.
11. Planter Seed Drop per Ac., Variety:
12. Row Width: inches.
13. Tillage Planting Method: (Check one or more)
No-till Ridge till , Conventional Chisel
Disk Other (list)
14. Residue Type: (Check one) If cover crop used, list
Corn , Soybeans Sm. Grain , Sod , Sm. Gram'Green manure
Other (listL
15. Percent Soil Cover immediately after planting (Circle one)
Less than 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75+%.
16. Emergence/Stand population (3 weeks after planting)
17. Ridge Height (3 weeks after planting) (Check one)
Less than 3" _, 3-6" 6"+ .
18. Cultivation (Number of times for) Weed control Dates.
Ridge Building Dates .
-------
19. Nitrogen Applied (Fill in as appropriate)
a) Anhydrous Ammonia Ibs. actual N (Circle one)
Fall applied,
Date applied.
Spring preplant, side dress, other (list)
b) 28%,. __lbs. actual N (Circle one) Injected preplant, Injected sidedress, Broadcast,
Dribbled in band. Other (list)
c) Urea
Date applied
/_
Ibs actual N. (Circl
- (list)
te (Circle)
0 (Circle)
le one) Broadcast,
a) liquid,
a) liquid.
dry.
dry.
Incorporated D
Ibs. actual N, t
b) broadcast,
b) broadcast.
late applied / /
Date applied / /
injected.
injected.
20. Total Ibs. P205
21. Total Ibs. K20
22. Row Starter fertilizer (Do not include above)
Actual N Ibs., P205 Ibs.,
K20_
.Ibs.
23. Herbicides-
Product Check-
Date Applied Rate/Ac. Form
Carrier
Gal/Ac.
Applied
Farmer Custom
24. Insecticides'
Product
Check-
Applied
Date Applied Rate/Ac. Form Farmer Custom
* Check here for those pesticides NOT normally used in your conventional cropping operation.
25 Other Pesticides (List Rodenticide, Fungicide, Product name, etc.)
Applied
Product Date Applied Rate Farmer Custom
26 YIELD:
.bu./Ac. "DRY"
27. Pest management monitoring by (Check appropriate)
Grower Consultant Extension Rep. SWCD Rep.
Other (list).
No Monitoring done.
28 Limiting Factors (Circle one)
Drainage, Herbicide Mngt., Insect Mngt., Fertilizer Mngt., Equipment, Weather,
Other (Explain)_ _'
29 Rescue treatment used (describe)
30. S
/bu.
Estimated production cost for this system by farmer (if known).
31
-------
YIELD DATA-1983
NO-TILL
ATTACHMENT tflOa
COOPERATOR
PLOT s:
I LACK
tons/ ac
SCOTT, ROBERT
SCOTT, ROBERT
PATANE,FRED
SUflMERVILLE, WILLIAM
RUMSEY, FRED
GEORGE, THOMAS
MCDONALD, ROBERT
ROGERS, LEEANN
JONES, ROBERT
GEER, DAVID
RICE, ROBERTA
TOMPKINS, JIM
CLARK, GARY
WEBER, SAM JR.
GRANGER, RONALD
LOOM IS, HOWARD
KOMM, WILLIAM
DRAKE, PHILIP
MATT I SON, SAM
POTTER, RICHARD
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
TOTAL ACRES
3 NO-TILL
4 NO- TILL,
38 NO-TILL
16 NO-TILL
3 NO-TILL
18 NO-TILL
1 NO-TILL
A NO-TILL
B NO-TILL
15 NO-TILL
8 NO-TILL
10 NO-TILL
3B NO-TILL
14 NO-TILL
1 NO-TILL
13 NO-TILL
5 NO-TILL
3B NO-TILL
3 NO-TILL
11 NO-TILL
A NO-TILL
B NO-TILL
13 NO-TILL
14 NO-TILL
16 NO-TILL
12 NO-TILL
*NO CONVENTIONAL PLOTS FOR COMPAR
SEE COMPARISON YIELD SHEETS FOP Y
17
16
11
15
11
N/
16
16
21
16
17
21
15
18
18
16
14
14
11
23
22
15
13
16
23
16
16
I SON I
LARS 8
DRY
CORN
bu/ac
.0
.8
. 1
.3
.5
A
.8
.5
. 2
.5
.0
. 3
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 3
.5
.8
.7
. 5
.5
.5
.8
.0
.5
.7
N 83
4,85
102
109
92
80
80
78
81
104
90
81
110
75
76
70
90
78
73
69
99
110
90
87
79
140
100
89
AND 86
AVERAGE
STAND
20000
21500
23000
18000
24000
21000
26600
25600
28000
28000
24500
17000
30000
19000
23000
23000
18000
25000
25000
25000
23000
25000
26000
17000
23175
ACRES
5.3
20.1
6.4
16.0
15.5
17.0
11.0
6.7
7.7
12.0
1.0
9.0
16.0
12.0
19.9
9.8
9.4
12.0
12.0
9. 0
7.0
4.5
11.6
8.5
16.2
4.6
280.2
-------
ATTACHMENT #10b
PAGD 1 OF 2
YIELD COMPARISON DATA-1984
NO-TILL VERSUS CONVENTIONIAL
COOPERATOR
CLARK
,GARY
PLOT
14-NO-TILL
14 -CONV
15-NO-TILL
15-CONV
DRAKE
NURSE
,PHIL
,3UD
GRANGER, RON
HOFFMAN, EARL
KOMM,
BILL
JERRETT , TED
JONES
KLEBS
LOOM I
GEER,
, DONALD
, CHARLES
S, HOWARD
DAVID
MATTISON,SAM
MI NOT
, MARSHALL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
SILAGE DRY CORN
tons/ac bu/ac
19
15
21
20
23
25
18
21
23
16
21
18
21
25
19
17
14
15
21
22
23
23
26
10
12
12
12
22
CONV
4
4
-NO-TILL
-CONV
19
21
.6
.8
.2
.5
.5
.0
.9
.8
.3
.0
.2
.0
.9
. 3
.7
.0
.2
.0
.5
.5
.8
.5
.8
.5
.1
.0
.5
.0
.6
.6
.4
.8
.2
.0
.5
.5
90
68
84
89
108
110
72
78
88
0
81
0
76
61
78
0
121
0
90
76
48
25
78
67
110
0
80
87
71
99
52
40
98
0
99
96
AVERAGE
STAND
25000
25000
26000
26000
23000
23000
22000
22000
21000
0
28000
0
21000
21000
2^000
0
22000
0
26000
26000
26000
26000
26000
26000
23000
0
23000
21000
23000
23000
22000
25000
23000
0
26000
26000
ACRES
10
10
11
10
12
16
14
10
10
10
10
7
11
10
18
24
4
5
.8
.7
.0
.0
.0
.7
.8
.6
.5
.5
.4
.4
.0
.0
.9
.8
.8
.6
33
-------
#10b cont'd.
PAGE 2 OF
YIELD COMPARISON DATA-1984
NO-TILL VERSUS CONVENTIONIAL
COOPERATOR
PLOT
SILAGE DRY CORN
tons/ac
O'CONNOR, JAMES
POTTER, RICHARD
1
1
1
-NO-TI
-CONV
-NO-TI
LL
LL
24
22
20
1-CONV
ROGERS, LEAHNE
SG&S
RICE, ROBERTA
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
-=NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TI
-CONV
NO-TI
-CONV
-NO-TI
LL
LL
LL
13
15
18
19
23
1-CONV
SUMMERVILLE, WILLIAM
TOMPKINS, JIM
PARKHURST, EDWARD
PATANE,FRED
PETRO, JOHN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-NO-TI
-CONV
-NO-TI
-CONV
-NO-TI
-CONV
-NO-TI
-CONV
LL
LL
LL
LL
17
25
19
12
18
21
-NO-TILL
1-CONV
RUMSEY,FRED
SCOTT, ROBERT
TOTAL ACRES
AVERAGE YIELD OF CO
AVERAGE YIELD OF NO
AVERAGE EMERGENCE
AVERAGES ARF WEIGHT
2
2
1
1
1
1
NV
-T
ED
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
-NO-TILL
-CONV
PLOTS
ILL PLOT
25
26
18
19
. 7
. 5
.5
.0
.9
. 9
.8
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.0
.4
.9
. 8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
. 3
.2
.1
.6
bu/ac
1
03
100
126
1
1
1
0
98
06
82
64
18
23
75
0
93
109
1
1
1
1
1
97
05
79
0
03
0
32
0
78
75
12
18
93
96
87
92
AVERAGE
STAND
21000
24000
24000
0
24000
24000
28000
28000
22000
22000
20000
0
21000
21000
29000
29000
24000
0
21125
0
26000
0
25000
25000
23500
27000
27000
27000
24627
ACRES
7
26
2
1
1
6
8
1
0
5
21
2
1
1
1
41
9
5
5
4
5
4
1
.8
. 3
.0
.0
.0
.7
.0
.1
.2
.0
.9
.8
.5
.4
.2
34
-------
ATTACHMENT #10c
PAGE 1 OF 2
YIELD COMPARISON DATA-1985
NO-TILL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL
COOPERATOR
CLARK, GARY
DRAKE, PHIL
DROUGHT, KENNETH
FOWLER, JOE
GRANGER, RON
HOFFMAN, EARL
JERRETT, GEORGE
JERRETT,TED
JONES, DONALD
KLEBS, CHARLES
LOOMIS, HOWARD
MANDIGO,DAN
MATTISON,SAM
PLOT SILAGE
tons/ac
14-NO-TILL
14-CONV
15-NO-TILL
15-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
NO CONV
1-NO-TILL
NO CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-NO CONV
2-NO-TILL
2-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
15-NO-TILL
15-CONV
16-NO-TILL
NO CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
18
16
15
15
16
12
13
17
16
12
20
17
14
15
13
20
18
21
20
21
16
17
25
22
19
15
14
DRY CORN AVERAGE ACRES
bu/ac STAND
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.8
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.2
.0
106
115
121
95
94
51
71
88
80
67
82
82
79
127
109
96
101
68
85
65
67
114
110
115
100
95
93
86
24000
24000
22000
21000
24000
24000
14000
14000
22000
22000
31000
31000
18500
22800
27700
27700
26700
26700
24000
24000
24000
23000
23000
30500
30500
30500
23700
23700
11.1
11.1
12.7
10.8
19.9
12.6
14.2
8.3
11.1
11
7.7
11
10
14
12.3
21.9
35
-------
#10c cont'd.
PAGE 2 OF 2
YIELD COMPARISON DATA-1985
NO-TILL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL
COOPERATOR
PLOT SILAGE
tons/ac
MINOT, MARSHALL
O'CONNOR, JAMES
POTTER, RICHARD
ROGERS, LEANNE
SG&S FARMS
SOULE, ROBERT
SUMMERVILLE , WILLIAM
TOMPKINS, JIM
WEIGHTED AVERAGES ARE
AVERAGE YIELD OF NO-T
AVERAGE YIELD OF CONV
1-NO-TILL
NO CONV
2 -NO-TILL
CONV
3 -NO-TILL
CONV
4 -NO-TILL
NO CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-IIO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
NO CONV
2-NO-TILL
NO CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
1-CONV
1-NO-TILL
NO CONV
BEING USED
ILL PLOT
PLOTS
12
24
21
20
22
18
16
16
21
17
20
18
11
14
13
17
16
17
16
DRY
CORN AVERAGE ACRES
bu/ac STAND
.5
.2
.5.
.0
.5
.4
.3
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.2
.3
58
117
104
108
120
110
127
127
88
71
105
98
71
71
105
115
98
96
101
30000
260QQ
26000
30000
30000
27000
26000
31000
23600
23600
23400
23200
22000
22000
24400
24400
22000
22000
28000
23196
22353
8.2
5.3
5
5.6
7.8
25.9
15.2
1U.5
20.5
22.5
14.7
20.9
362.3
CONVENTIONAL PLOTS ARE + OR - ONE ACRE
36
-------
ATTACHMENT #10d
GEER,STEVE
GEER,STEVE
GEER,STEVE
GEER,STEVE
GEYER,AL
JERRETT,GEORGE
JERRETT,GEORGE
JERRETT,TED
KOMM,BILL
LOOMIS,HOWARD *
MATTISON,SAM
MINOT,MARSHALL
MINOT,MARSHALL
MINOT,MARSHALL
MINOT,MARSHALL
MINOT,MARSHALL
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
2 NO-TILL
2 CONV
3 NO-T.TLL
3 CONV
4 NO-TILL
4 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
2 NO-TILL
2 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
1 NO-TILL
1 CONV
2 NO-TILL
2 CONV
3 NO-TILL
3 CONV
4 NO-TILL
4 CONV
5 NO-TILL
5 CONV
:s .o
15.-:
21.5
12.5
9.5
N/A
N/A
13.1
N/A
10.4
N/A
30.7
23.0
13.8
20.0
17.5
18.5
24.8
24.5
12.1
N/A
14.0
15.2
10.4
9.5
16.5
N/A
18.3
14.3
21.8
N/A
17.3
N/A
12.5
N/A
55
65
75
120
91
76
N/A
86
N/A
83
N/A
121
111
91
110
82
72
98
101
84
N/A
63
77
56
51
84
N/A
91
76
113
N/A
86
N/A
80
N/A
24700
24700
23000
23000
23000
24600
23000
22900
22900
22300
22300
20700
20700
19300
19300
20700
24300
24300
26800
26800
20400
27200
27200
24600
28000
25200
19.1
11.2
18.3
5.1
4.9
16.1
4.0
8.7
8.5
10.0
10.0
21.6
6.2
5.4
10.9
5.5
8.2
37
-------
#10d cont'd.
OCT 28,1986
PAGE 2 OF 2
YIELD COMPARISON DATA-1986
NO-TILL VERSUS CONVENTIONIAL
COOPERATOR
PLOT SILAGE DRY
CORN AVERAGE
ACRES
tons/ac bu/ac STAND
NURSE, BUD ***
O'CONNOR, JIM **
POTTER, RICHARD
POTTER, RICHARD
SG&S FARMS
SHELDON, GORDON
SHELDON, GORDON
SUMMERVILLE,BILL
TOMPKINS,JIM
WEIGHTED AVERAGES
AVERAGE YIELD OF
AVERAGE YIELD OF
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
ARE
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
COHV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
NO-TILL
CONV
BEING USED
NO-TILL PLOTS
CONV
PLOTS
6.5
7.5
9.8
17.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.1
N/A
23.0
N/A
15.3
23.1
38
39
27
77
109
N/A
119
96
97
84
139
N/A
143
N/A
101
N/A
95
N/A
88
76
17332
17332
22000
22000
24000
26600
26600
19700
19700
19700
19700
20700
28600
22313
22.1
6.1
17.0
7.0
21.6
10.3
14.0
14.8
19.9
342.2
NOTES:
* DENOTES PLANTED BY FARMER WITH OWN EQUIPMENT
** DENOTES WEED PROBLEM
*** DENOTES WATER MANAGMENT PROBLEM
CONVENTIONAL PLOTS ARE + OR - ONE ACRE
38
-------
Attachment #lla
CO r->
en co
CO LO
CNJ
CNJ
3-
(_>
C_J
00
CNJ
3- O
CNJ ,t
O)
cc
ol
o
oo
CO
OO
LU
c:
<
_i
i
^
1 c
o r
C£
LU
O 00
LU
CD
: oo
Lf)
O
o
>-
c:
LU
Q.
i/o
O
ur>
LT>
Q.
O
O
Q-
o
o
o
(_>
-C
4-)
5
-a
c
^
o
to
CNJ
y- Qj ^>
i CT) _O
i-n -r- oo
C OO
S- 4J
O fl o
O O
C_J
/J CJ if
uo oo oo
39
-------
OSWUGO COUNTY
NEU YORK
36 Cooperators
KEY
1984 SUMMARY OF NO-TILL ACRES
AND
TYPE OF RESIDUE COVER
CROP_
Corn
Alfalfa
Timothy & Clover
Timothy, Trefoil,
Alfalfa & Clover
Sudangrass
Alfalfa & Trefoil
Alfalfa, Trefoil & Timothy
Alfalfa & Timothy
Trefoil & Timothy
Spring Wheat/Alfalfa
Clover
TOTALS
cs
82.1
t
2.9
85,
-------
Attachment *llc
oo
LU
CX.
rn ot oovoomvDOrHCM-cjt-- ir\
CM
V£>
oo
O\OLrNt t^COt rHLTNGNOONCOr OA LTN
C\J m n C\J CM CM CM rH
o -z
0\ ON.
CM
CO
un
CO
oo
UJ
C£.
O n^
=C LU
1 O
1 o
r LU
i rs
O Q
21 > «
oo
l_l_ i ' '
O &L
>- u.
o: o
g LU
5: Q.
Z3 >-
00 r
CO
O1
. t
O
l_J
^^_
OO
o
rH O O
<
ON CO LTN
\Q CM
rH
r-H
OJ
o
OJ
ON OO O O O O \£> rHCM f LTN t
o
o
oo
»
t rH t t 00 CO rH ONO COt ON
O C\J rH C\J rH
rH
o
1 1
n
CM
oo _a-
00
t_>
. .
LTN. ON
CO
r-»
.
«3-
ON
cd tn
tO W Si
H O tO QJ tO
OrH ffj "tO
S^OrH Si >>>>O rHOiSl
ji: a) 'H toc^r^ i -HSntu
-P SioSO 0) -PO OU>
OfHtMg -O tuOJO
E tOO) O dEoa 0)3rH
H " K Si Si < ' Si r-i O
E^ todc-i PQ tn C3 E-i >j EnCQ
tO S-i W C^_ Si P 08
08 dUoS oBaJrH-dcd "-
S-,t3 Ji < r-1 C 0) >)«>-.
ddOS-idSidtO 'Hd,C f, u f^
^^cDd^ajinC "Ocj> -P>-p
C ddE^d>drtnt"rOA;tn OOO
Si t-H^oo-
r
^
ZD v:
O o:
e_> o
>-
O
O 3
LU LU
2 12
O
Si
0
-p
aj
J_(
CD
ft
o
o
0
rH
0~
CL
O
t-
O
O
o
XJ
c:
Z3
o
s_
in en
-^:
r QJ
ro cn
-I-J ro
O
O
41
00
t_)
-------
Attachment #lld
co
w
U
<^
l_J
t_3
M
EH
1
0
Sz;
CL,
O
X
Oi
jr
^)
CO
^
CO
2
a:
tq
^>
O
U
DJ
3
Q
I-H
CO
W
a;
Du,
O
Cd
a,
>H
"
CO CN m en O CN O VO CN
DJ . . . ^H .
fV| CNl 1 ^r I-H co
M*
U IsO
O CO
"^O
CO
CO
>H H
fcj tu K 33 Ct-, 3:
a. sbt o co b ii
'O O J CJ U
W 3 U H II \
CO 2 <3< O U CO CO
O CN EH X U CJ
42
-------
Attachment #lle
co
a
&.
u
< cd
K>
-J O
M U
EH
I Cd
O £3
2 Q
O M
a:
x
ct: en
cu
CO X
EH
VD
CO
en in^o>int--c'oom'HinrHCM'qinu3cr>ocMcr\cM 10 ,-H .H
W M . . . . CM ...... ^ M- ..... T*I
a; cnroLD r~ co r- co o> o cr> co r-~ o> o CM CNVD^T m cr\ 01
U in m CM n m CM ro i rH i CM i i
°^
3" rH CM ^
iH
r^cM^co m oooo o^
. . . CM
rH c^ cr> M- oo m
0 rH CM CM rH CM
m ^
-cr\cMoor^r^r~-u3 rH rH
-------
ACRES PLANTED
m Lhl
o r
-------
st?
ACRES PLANTED
o
Oj
03
OJ
CO
-F-
o
I
o
o
en
o
o
o
n
>
:D
CD
co
CD
Ca
n
Ui
o
\
o
o
o
r~
m
m
o
-------
Attachment til'
NO-TILL TOUR
SEPTEMBER 14, 1984
We'll begin at BOCES in Mexico, New York at 10:30 A.M. (cars can be left in
the parking lot).
10:30 A.M. The White corn planter and the Lilliston seeder will be on
display for your inspection. Representatives from various agencies
and businesses will be on hand to answer your questions.
11:15 A.M. Board the bus. Box lunches will be provided for you to enjoy
at your convenience as we travel. We'll take the country road
tour on the way to our first stop.
11:45 A.M. Our first stop will be at the farm of Mike Williams in the Town
of New Haven. This 9 acre no-til 1.seeding into a sod was planted
on July the 13th.
NOON Board the bus.
12:15 P.M. The farm of Jim Tompkins should be an interesting stop. This
21 acre field of corn was planted into a rye cover on June 12th.
Shestak Aviation of Fulton, New York will provide the excitement
as he aerially seeds a winter cover crop on this New Haven farm.
12:45 P.M. Board the bus.
1:15 P.M. This is the second year of no-till corn on this 12 acre field
owned by Phil Drake of Richland. See what a difference a year
can make. We'll also take some time to estimate yields.
1:40 P.M. Board the bus.
1:45 P.M. One last stop at a field seeded in 1983. This 23 acre alfalfa
seeding owned by Sam Mattison of the Town of Albion illustrates
well the potential for no-till seedings.
2:00 P.M. Board the bus for the ride home.
2:30 P.M. Return to BOCES.
46
-------
A K E
T A R I 0
i \rT7X
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(A) MIKE WILLIAMS
(B) JIM TOMPKINS
(C) PHIL DRAKE
(D) SAM MATTISON
NO-TILL TOUR ROUTE
SEPTEMBER 14, 1984
ROUTE
NO-TILL DEMONSTRATION SITE
FARM DESCRIPTIONS ON BACK
-------
FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
A) Mike Williams:
B) Jim Torapkins:
C) Phil Drake:
D) Sair. Mattison:
9 Acres of alfalfa, timothy and trefoil planted on a sod on July
the 13th; pH 6.0; herbicide applied on 7/9/84 was 2 quarts of
roundup per acre; starter fertilizer applied was 300s of 0-24-24.
21 Acres of corn planted into a rye cover crop on the 12th of June;
pH 6.0; planter seed drop 35,000; stand population 29,000+; row
starter fertilizer N-3Clbs., P2°5 ~ 60 lbs; K2° ~ 60 Ibs.; herbicides
applied pre-emerge 6/12/83 were 1 quart of paraquat, 2 quarts of
bladex, and 1*5 quarts of dual; insecticide applied at time of
planting was 5 Ibs/acre of 15g furadan.
Our second year of no-till corn on this field planted on May the
17th. pH 6.0; planter seed drop of 25,000; stand population 23,000+;
row starter fertilizer N-201bs, P205 - 40 Ibs, K20 - 20 Ibs.; herbicides
applied pre-emerge 5/13/84 were 1 quart of paraquat, 2 quarts atrazine,
2S quarts of bladex, % pint banvel, h pint 2,4-D per acre; insecticide
at time of planting was lOlb/acre of 15g furadan.
23 Acres of oats and alfalfa planted into corn stubble on the llth
of May 1983; pH 6.7; seed drop of 2 bushel oats and 14^ Ibs/Ac of
alfalfa.
OTHER NO-TILL DEMONSTRATION SITES
1) Gary Bowering:
2) Jim French:
3) Roberta Rice:
4) Steve Geer:
5) Ed Parkhurst:
6,7) Gary Druce:
8) Ted Jerrett:
9) Gary Clark:
10} Sam Weber:
11) Ron Granger:
12) Howard Loons :
13) SGSS Farms:
14) Marsnall Minot:
IE ,1~;Charles Klebs:
11 acres of seeding into an old sod planted on 7/23/84.
13 acres of seeding into an old sod planted on 8/3/84.
11 acres of corn into a sod planted on 6/21/84.
19 acres of corn planted into corn residue planted on 5/25/84.
15 acres of corn into an old sod planted on 6/8/84.
11 acres of seeding into an old sod planted on 6/9/84.
9 acres of corn into corn residue planted on 6/10/84.
10 acres of corn into a rye cover planted on 6/6/84.
22 acres of corn into an old sod planted on 6/13/84.
4 acres of seeding into an old sod planted on 6/13/84.
12 acres of corn into a sod planted on 6/19/84.
10 acres of corn into corn residue planted on 6/14/84.
21 acres of corn into corn residue planted on 6/7/S4 .
10 acres of corn into an old sod planted on 6/7/84.
1£ acres cf corn into an old sod pointed or. S/18/34.
48
-------
A1,1 a
CT,
t-(
1
-3 H
£i 2
W }]
1- O
I/I 0
STfilSD
POPULATION
IHbLC-'IlClUI.:,
U.'.ED PER
ACW:
HERBICIDES
v:,r.D FKR ACRE
(Post Plant)
USED PER ACW:
(Pre Plant)
ADDITIONAL
NiTP.or.rrj db', . )
!
1-" XI
c
^- X)
^
u.
(N
a
a
c
o
cC
w
^
n
1
(N
(N
0 +
O
0
m
fN
o
a
&
-
in
v*.^
c:
c >
;T
j^
r
-X
^
c..
TT
«
s «-* >i
O n'
QJ 4" ^"
-< JTJ Lf,
^ t^ 4J 1;
fi -5 ^ ^
c
Ifl (.f
" Jj
t-l
tl4
1
1
1
|
1
n- cr -H
._«
D -M X
cC < to
1
1
1
£
J,
1
'
0 +
o
0
1/1
(N
o
1
m
ci
^
^
r
^_ _ __
-^
t
""
cc
r
;
C )
TH
;
:T
0
d'j
r:
n.
, . . __ . ^
i
i
]
,
j
i
i
j
i
,
i
i
j
^
-------
OSWEGO COUNTY/LAKE ONTARIO
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FACT SHEET-1981* TOUR
cf
n
8
9
-j-i
10
11
12
13
14
Cl
T!
o
5.
Ted Je r r e tt
j a ry Clark
Sam Wober
Donald
Granger
loward Loom
,G&S Farm
.irshall
M i not
o
Cor n
Corn
Corn
Alfalf
C lover
Corn
- Corn
Corn
Torn
Corn
: '"*
6/5/84
6/13/84
6/13/84
6/13/84
6/18/84
6/14/81
6/6/84
6/5/84
6/6/84
-j >
r' n
^ i/i
o
10.5
10.7
1
10.8
7.3
12
10
21
5.6
4.8
CO
0
n
r-
^
rt'i 1 1 Lam-
son
Will iam-
son
Ira
Kill iam-
son &
R.iynham
Ira
Scriba
Raynham
William-
son
Deerf icl'
j. ?
c
c
p
Rye
Sod
Sod
Sod
Corn S,
Sod
Corn
Corn
Sod
Sod
fH:
o o
c
26,000
26,000
26,000
13 Ibr
28,300
24,000
25,000
27,000
27,000
n n t
»H * J.
S P T -1
Sr* ^
ra
LO
r-
,3
30-60-60
17-52-70
17-52-70
0-80-80
45-45-45
20-40-20
30-60-60
18-36-108
45-24-36
O ?]
1C O
!: '-] o
u ^ 3
60 Ibs
30 Ibs
30 Ibs
15 Ibs
10 lb-,
50 Ibs
30 lb%
c
. en
M o
(T
13
tJ M
Paraquat Iqt
Lasso Iqt
Atrazine 4qt
Bladex 2qt
2-4D Ipt
Atrazine 4qt
nladox 2qt
?-4D Ipt
Roundup 2qtc
Paraquat Iqt
Atrazine 4qt.c
Lasso 2qtr
Atrazine ISqt
nindox 2qt-
Paraqui t Iqt
Dual BE 2pt
A tra?.ino
(U.) ISqt
r incop
Atrarino 4qt
Paraquat Iqt
,-lSio ISqt
trazine 4qt
araquat Iqt
Lasso ISqt
13 01 t
2 SS
r* »-
"3 r
CJ tr
D 3^ 10
rf O
Danvel Spt
Banvel Spt
Banvel ijpt
3- C »~
f) W 7
h u r-
r
13 >
»-
t
r
f
Fur a dan
7 Ibs
Furadan
7 Ibs
Furadan
7 Ibs
Fur a Jan
7 Ibs
Furadan
7 IDS
Fur.vMn
7 lb^
Furadan
7 Ibs
P °
H
M
i
22,000
26,000
25,000
21,000
23,000
22,000
26,000
23,000
SPECIAL
COMMENTS
This field was
sprayed for army
worms
This field was
also sprayed for
orry worrrs
Poor Wood Control
This field was
sprayed for army
worms
LO
O
n
o
s
-------
'.RIO
FACT S!i£E7-I?3^ TOUR
g
A-
tnl6
A
8
D
0
G
Klobs
San
Mat ti son
Michael
Wi 1 lia-is
J an TOT>, in*.
S.ir
i
n
6
n
D
i
[
Corn
Corn
Tre foi 1
Timothy
Alfalfa
Corn
5/18/9-1
5/20/84
7/13/84
6 '12/34
73 >
r o
S is
r:
c
24.8
9
21.1
I
".iti <. * '11/3 j
23. 1
J
j
n
O
M
z
^ P
K .;
c
Alton
Ira
William-
son
Windsor
Rye
Sod
Rye
Corn
r* °
<-. ?-.
r: ^
O H
o
25,000
18 Ibs
35,000
} bu.
14.5 of
M f 1 1 f ,1
^ > w
f: n c
G t*
0 f- 1 tl
Mr H
01 f
O -H U
C X t-
- - c
C ^«
X ^
15-30-15
0-77-77
30-60-60
50 Ibs
60 Ibs
c r.
M y 6
"3 r
>- x r.
a r
3 > '.
s si
f n
D n
3 r~* L";
rf ^
> c ^
is ^
n *-
C H
S §
H
L* 3
i.
j
Atr.ir ine 4-; *:
..ai-^o ^ ^'j
A trasine 4qt
Roundup 2qt
Roundup 2qt
Paraquat Iq t
Dual ISqt
Blndox 2qt
Para raat Iqt
Prinvol Hpt ]
~> ' "i V. »-, *- i
SFECIAL
i
i
8 ]r-s
F u r a ;i 3 n
7 Ibs
Fura } in
5 Ibs
10 11^
22,000
29,000
23,000
Very stony field
r,o-till on this
f ; r : J
5cc-onJ yc.ir of
field
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
rrad IXLU-.I. ti<".: w. /'.. renn, hdon C:
EPA-90S/2-87-00
4 TITLE AMU SU6TULC
Oswego County/Lake Ontario Hater Quality Demonstration
Project
3 RECIPIt NTS ACCESSIOWNO
6. REPORT DATE
Aoril 1987
« PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5GL
7 AUTHOR(S)
John Dellol lander
Mike Townsend
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
GLNPO f 87-6
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District
120 hast 1st Street
Oswego, New York 13126
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
irCONTRACT/GRANT NO
Grant No. S005722
12. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final- 1982-1986
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Great Lakes National Program
Office, USEPA, Region V
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph G. Christensen, Project Officer
16 ABSTRACT
The demonstration project was to evaluate the agricultural related sources of nonpoint
pollution and their impact upon total phosphorus contribution to Lake Ontario. The
use of no-till and conservation tillage equipment to reduce sediment runoff from
cropland was part of this project. ASCS cost shared the no-till practice with farmers
while the Soil and Water Conservation District and Soil Conservation Service provided
the technical assistance to demonstrate the tillage practice. The Extension Service
provided the educational link to informthe farmer of the benefits of conservation
tillage. The residue left on the surface of the soil does reduce the erosion and
phosphorus runoff to Lake Ontario. A savings in time, equipment, cost and soil are
benefits of tne conservation tillage management practice.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Soil
Uater qua 1ity
Erosion
Runoff
Agriculture
No-till
Conservation tillage
Phosphorus
Fertilizer
Pesticide
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI [-K-ld/Group
DISTPIHJID', STATEMENT
Document is available to public through
the National Technical Information Service
(NT1S), Springfield, VA 22161
19 Sf CURITY CLASS (Thl< Kifio
21 NO OF PAGES
64
20 SECURITY CLASS (7hn pagi /
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |