United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/2-87-004
GLNPO No. 87-09
July 1987
vvEPA
Accelerated
Conservation Tillage
Demonstration
Program 1981-1985
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 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 wi,i-help planners and
managers of pollution 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
-------
EPA-905/2-87-OU4
July 1987
GLNPO Report No. 87-09
ACCELERATED CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM 1981-1985
FINAL REPORT
by
Ed Crawford
Jerry Wager
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio 43224
Section 108A Demonstration Program
Grant No. S005692
Ralph G. Christensen John C. Lowrey
Project Officer Technical Assistance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
December 1986
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, J ;braiy
77 West Jac<< on Boulevard. 12th Fto*
Chicago. JL £:604-3590
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Auglaize SWCD Mercer SWCD
Crawford SWCD Ottawa SWCD
Fulton SWCD Paulding SWCD
Hancock SWCD Putnam SWCD
Hardin SWCD Sandusky SWCD
Henry SWCD Seneca SWCD
Huron SWCD Van Went SWCD
Lorain SWCD Williams SWCD
Lucas SWCD Wood SWCD
Medina SWCD Wyandot SWCD
PROJECT STAFF
Jerry Wager, Program Manager
Ed Crawford, Field Coordinator
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report could not have been completed without the assistance of
the following members of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
Larry Vance, who provided departmental guidance; Paul Baldridge, who
helped develop and guide the project's quarterly financial-match reporting
system; Ed Crawford, who provided local leadership and supervision to
the SWCDs on project management and Diane Browning who typed the report.
Thanks are also due to the following individuals for their technical
expertise: Bruce Julian of the SCS, and Jim Lake of the CTIC who were
instrumental in developing the project's plot data reporting sheets, as
well as the analysis and reporting of the data; Ralph Christensen of the
USEPA who provided quarterly project review and understanding supervision
of the grants; John Lowery, SCS-Liasion to USEPA whose advice was
invaluable to success of the project; and Dr. Donald Eckert of the
Cooperative Extension Service - OSU, who provided assistance to the
project administrators and participated in numerous workshops and tours.
Although the research described in this report was supported in part
by grants from the Great Lakes National Program Office, USEPA, the
agency makes no claim concerning the scientific accuracy of the information
presented in this report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v
I NTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1 - AREA BACKGROUND 5
CHAPTER 2 - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 17
CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS 30
CHAPTER 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY 52
APPEND ICES 53
IV
-------
TABLES
Page
1. Cooperating Agencies 5
2. Agricultural Profile of ACT Counties 8
3. Average Annual Growing Season Conditions in the ACT
Project Area 10
4. Corn and Soybean Yields for Various Soil Types 16
5. Average Soil Phosphorus Levels 1961-1985 16
6. ACT Project Financial Summary 21
7. Summary of Project Participation 30
8. No Till Acres 1981-1985 32
9. Ridge Till Acres from 1983-1985 for the ACT Counties 33
10. No Till and Conventional Acres, 1982-1985 35
11. Information and Education Programs during ACT 35
12. Average Yields and Net Returns for Corn and Soybeans (No Till
vs. Conventional) 1982-1985 38
13. Estimated Erosion and Phosphorus Reductions Using No Till 40
FIGURES
1. ACT Project Area 6
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes contain the world's largest supply of fresh surface
water. Lake Erie is the southernmost of the Great Lakes, the shallowest,
and the lake with the most urban shoreline. These features have contributed
to its current water quality problems. Lake Erie has a surface area of
10,000 square miles with a drainage area of about 12,000 square miles in
Ohio. The State of Ohio controls approximately thirty percent of the
Lake surface, including 240 miles of shoreline. Lake Erie contains 95
percent of Ohio's impounded waters. Twenty-five percent of the State's
registered watercraft are used primarily on Lake Erie. In 1983,
750,000 anglers spent 9.8 million hours fishing its waters. The Lake
serves as a water supply for more than two million Ohioans and is
enjoyed by over thirteen million visitors through use of lakeside
beaches, resorts and parks. Lake Erie represents one of Ohio's greatest
economic, recreational and environmental resources, thus deserving to be
one of Ohio's major environmental protection priorities (Ohio Phosphorus
Reduction Strategy for Lake Erie, 1985).
Lake Erie is experiencing a "comeback" from the decades of the
1950's and 60's when national media announced its "death" due to excessive
pollution. Problems associated with municipal sewage, industrial
effluents, disposal of dredged spoils and land runoff eliminated or
reduced many species of fish and aquatic organisms, closed beaches and
contaminated water supplies. The most signficant water quality problem
affecting the Lake was excessive inputs of phosphorus from urban and
rural sources. Phosphorus contributed to large increases in algal
populations, which created severe oxygen depletion in Lake waters as a
result of decomposition. By 1965, over 5,000 square miles of Lake Erie
1
-------
had oxygen levels less than 2 mg/1; thereby eliminating all but the most
pollution tolerant life forms.
The degraded quality of Lake Erie, as evidenced by excessive algal
growths, oxygen depletion and contaminated near shore areas, was the
compelling reason why the governments of the United States and Canada
signed a supplement to Annex III of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in October 1983. The supplement calls for reducing annual
phosphorus loads from more than 13,000 to 11,000 metric tons based on
research indicating that such a level will return the Lake to a mesotrophic
status and reduce the water quality degraded (oxygen depletion) area to
less than 10 percent of the total Lake.
While initial efforts at phosphorus control focused on municipal and
industrial waste treatment, current programs are now aimed at nonpoint
source pollution control, principally agricultural runoff. The infusion
of over $7.7 billion in federal funding since 1972 has reduced municipal
discharges of phosphorus to Lake Erie from 11,900 metric tons to under
3,000 today. Municipal and industrial point sources contributed over
seventy-five percent of all phosphorus in 1970; however, by 1984 these
sources represented less than thirty percent. Today, agricultural
runoff contributes nearly two-thirds of all phosphorus inputs into Lake
Erie. Most of the nonpoint phosphorus transported to the Lake by its
tributaries is attached to sediments eroded from intensively farmed
cropland.
Conservation tillage, particularly no-till has the potential of
decreasing total phosphorus loading to Lake Erie by over 2,000 metric
tons per year (LEWMS, 1982). This amount of phosphorus control has the
potential of achieving the international phosphorus loading reduction
objective of 11,000 metric tons annually. More precisely, in the
western basin of Lake Erie, conservation tillage, particularly no-till
2
-------
methods, could reduce the annual gross erosion by 70 percent. Approximately
53 percent of the United States' Lake Erie Basin cropland is considered
economically suitable for no-till and 80 percent is considered economically
suitable for some form of conservation tillage.
In view of this, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Great Lakes National Program Office (6LNPO) provided over one million
dollars to twenty counties in Ohio between 1981 and 1985 to accelerate
adoption of no-tillage and ridge-tillage systems. The Division of Soil
and Water Conservation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, administered
the Accelerated Conservation Tillage (ACT) Program. Technical and
educational assistance were provided by county soil and water conservation
districts and coperative extension service offices, with coordination
from the National Association of Conservation Districts' Conservation
Tillage Information Center (CTIC). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
and Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service (ASCS) of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assisted the efforts of local
agencies. USDA efforts include the provision of Agricultural Conservation
Program cost-sharing for conservation tillage and other best management
practices. In addition to these efforts, Ohio's colleges and universities
conducted a variety of investigations relevant to soil conservation and
Lake Erie's water quality problems.
The primary objective of the ACT Project was to promote the adoption
of no till and thereby reduce phosphorus delivery to Lake Erie by
reducing cropland erosion. Through the project, soil and water conservation
districts (SWCDs) were to:
1) make no till and ridge till equipment available for farmers,
2) provide on-site technical assistance to individual farmers to
assist them in using new tillage techniques and equipment,
-------
3) carry out an "accelerated information" education program
including workshops, field days, tours, etc., and
4) evaluate the effectiveness of the program with respect to
farmer participation, phosphorus and sediment load reductions
and cost of treatment by comparing the cost of production for
no till to conventional tillage on various soils.
The Cooperative Extension Service complemented the activities of SWCDs
by providing information on pesticide and fertility management, as well
as assisting the overall education effort.
-------
CHAPTER I
AREA BACKGROUND
Physical Setting
The Accelerated Conservation Tillage (ACT) project was conducted in
all or portions of 20 counties in north central and northwestern Ohio.
Two additional counties in northwestern Ohio, Allen and Defiance carried
out similar conservation tillage programs under separate grants from the
Great Lakes National Program Office of USEPA. The specific counties
included in the project and cooperating agencies are listed in Table 1.
The project area encompassed approximately 6,600 square miles of cropland,
the runoff from which eventually enters Lake Erie (Figure 1).
Table 1
Cooperating Agencies
Soil Conservation Service
Cooperative Extension Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
National Association of Conservation Districts
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Auglaize SWCD Mercer SWCD
Crawford SWCD Ottawa SWCD
Fulton SWCD Paulding SWCD
Hancock SWCD Putnam SWCD
Hardin SWCD Sandusky SWCD
Henry SWCD Seneca SWCD
Huron SWCD Van Wert SWCD
Lorain SWCD Williams SWCD
Lucas SWCD Wood SWCD
Medina SWCD Wyandot
-------
Figure 1: Ohio Accelerated Conservation Tillage Project Area
-------
The project area is drained by several major rivers including the
Maumee, Portage, Sandusky, Vermilion, Huron, Black, and Rocky Rivers.
These rivers generally originate in Ohio's moraine region and flow north
through the lake plain prior to entering Lake Erie. The two major
tributaries, the Maumee and Sandusky, drain most of the project area.
These streams are fed by smaller tributaries, the flow of which is
derived from surface runoff and an extensive network of artificial
surface and subsurface field drains.
Land Use
The predominant land use in the project area is crop production,
including both cash grain and mixed farming enterprises. Only one
county, Lucas (which includes the city of Toledo), can be classified as
predominantly urban. Seventy-five percent of the farmland in the
project area is used for the production of corn, soybeans, and soft red
winter wheat; and although the specific crop mix varies somewhat between
counties, most farmers follow a corn-soybean or corn-soybean-wheat
rotation. Livestock farming is not important to the region as a whole;
however, two important dairy areas are centered in Mercer/Auglaize and
Lorain/Medina Counties. Commercial vegetable production (pickles and
tomatoes) is important in Sandusky, Wood, Henry, Ottawa and Putnam Counties.
An agricultural profile of ACT counties is provided in Table 2.
-------
Table 2
Agricultural Profile of ACT Counties*
County
Auglaize t
Crawford t
Fulton
Hancock
Hard in t
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina t
Mercer t
Ottawa
Paulding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Total
No. of
Farms
1020
760
1290
1310
620
1290
1090
1080
580
930
1080
660
790
1600
1080
1540
980
1080
1520
840
21,140
Lands jn
Farms
(Thousands
180
171
227
295
135
244
249
150
89
99
188
121
229
290
214
310
252
217
320
232
4,212
Crop
Acreage
Corn Soybeans
of Acres)
47
50
78
81
35
78
59
25
25
21
51
23
52
70
67
78
51
55
105
53
1,104
57
66
64
134
51
100
80
53
38
14
60
56
92
120
86
120
102
64
122
92
1,571
Wheat
19
19
19
48
16
31
20
10
8
5
20
12
37
43
15
30
20
26
52
31
481
* Data from Ohio Crop Reporting Service 1983
t Estimated,as portion of county within Lake Erie drainage basin
Cropping Practices
Conventional tillage practices, including fall plowing, are dominant.
The lack of perceptible erosion problems and the pervasiveness of poorly
drained soils has inhibited the use of conservation tillage. For
example, in 1981 prior to the onset of the ACT program, only five
counties in northwestern area reported more than five percent no till
corn, and only two reported more than one percent no till soybeans.
-------
Soils
Soils and topography of the project area can be divided into two
rather well defined regions, the glacial lakebed region and the moraine
and till plain region surrounding it. The lakebed region includes all
or portions of Ottawa, Sandusky, Lucas, Wood, Henry, Fulton, Putnam,
Paulding, and Van Wert Counties. The remaining counties are in the
moraine and till plain region.
The lakebed region is characterized by very level topography with
very poorly drained, fine-textured soils. Several areas of sandy soils
are also found within and surrounding the lakebed. The predominant
soils are associated with the Hoytville, Paulding and Toledo series.
These soils normally require drainage improvements for optimum crop
production, particularly under conservation tillage. If these soils are
provided with improved drainage, no till corn produces yields comparable
to those achieved by moldboard plowing (conventional tillage). No till
soybeans can be successful if phytophthora root rot pressures are not
too great and appropriate steps are taken to manage the disease.
The moraine-till plain region borders the lake plain, mainly to the
south and east. Topography is rolling to level; and soils of silt loam
to silty clay loam texture are predominant. The major soil series of
this region are associations of Morley-Glynwood-Blount-Pewamo and
Alexandria-Cardington-Bennington-Pewamo. ElIsworth-Mahoning soils are
present at the eastern end of the project area. Most individual fields
consist of associations of two or more soils and require drainage
improvements. Where drainage is installed, all but the most poorly
drained fields can produce no till yields comparable to those obtained
with conventional tillage.
-------
C1imatological/Weather Conditions
The general climatic patterns across the project area are shown in
Table 3. Data were taken from the weather stations at Toledo, in the
west-central area of the project, and from Cleveland, just east of the
project area. The climate is generally quite similar across the entire
area; however, a slight trend toward cooler and wetter conditions occurs
from west to east.
Average climatic conditions are quite favorable for crop growth
under most tillage systems. Adequate rainfall occurs throughout the
growing season, which is approximately six months long. Spring field
work and planting may be delayed intermittently by wet soil conditions,
but fall weather is generally quite favorable for grain harvesting.
Table 3
Average Annual Growing Season Conditions in the ACT Project Area
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Total
Precipitation
Toledo
2.9
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.1
2.5
2.1
20.3
Cleveland
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
2.3
2.6
21.6
Growing Degree Days4
Toledo
166
352
546
652
614
430
243
3003
Cleveland
165
342
523
629
596
432
256
2943
Source: Ohio Crop Reporting Service
=f GDDs represent heat accumulated and are calculated based on average
daily temperature
10
-------
Each of the ACT project years 1982-1985 were quite different, but
not atypical of general growing conditions. The following yearly
summaries describe general weather conditions during the ACT project.
1982
It first appeared that spring would be late and be a repeat of the
cold, wet conditions in 1981. However, about mid April warm weather
appeared and continued through late May. Farmers had almost six
weeks of uninterrupted field work. These warm conditions had some
drawbacks - soils became very dry about mid May, delaying planting.
The lack of rainfall hindered herbicide effectiveness and allowed
weeds to geminate later in the season. Showers came later in May
and were timely all summer long. Growing temperatures as measured
by growing degree days were above normal; this factor, in combination
with the early planting dates, produced record yields of corn and
beans in many areas.
1983
This was a frustrating year for farming. Starting in April, constant
precipitation kept soil moisture at a surplus until mid June. Corn
acreage was reduced considerably by the PIK Program . The wet
spring further reduced corn planting. Immediately following this
wet season was a period of high temperatures and drought that
persisted all summer. Harvest was delayed due to a wet fall.
Statewide yields were down substantially.
Payment-In-Kind (PIK) Program was a federal program implemented to
reduce acreage devoted to several crops including corn.
11
-------
1984
Almost a repeat of 1983, with a very wet spring which delayed
field work and depressed soil temperatures until mid May. The
cool wet spring changed to hot dry weather in June and July.
Most crops received adequate moisture, but some experienced
drought conditions. Weed control in soybeans was inconsistent
and generally poor. Wet fall weather prohibited timely harvest,
with some crops left standing. Statewide yields were above
average.
1985
Planting started mid April and went on uninterrupted through
May. Many farmers delayed planting until moisture levels
increased. Herbicide effectiveness was hindered due to lack of
rainfall, resulting in weed pressure later in the season.
Rainfall returned in June and was adequate throughout the
growing season. Crops matured earlier and were harvested in
October. Rain came in November; in fact only a couple days
were without rain, and unharvested crops were left standing.
Yields were above average and better than 1982.
The 1982 and 1985 growing seasons were identical in that farmers had
6-8 weeks of uninterrupted field work. Both years farmers complained
about the lack of soil moisture needed for germination. In some cases a
neighbor using conventional tillage would lose soil moisture because of
excessive tillage, while next door a no-tiller was planting. The no
till crops got out of the ground more quickly and looked better all
season.
12
-------
Weather was not the only reason farmers were becoming interested in
no-till. During this four year period (1982-1985), the profitability of
crop production dropped drastically as interest rates and production
costs increased. Many farmers were forced out of business, while others
looked for cost cutting measures. To cope with falling prices and
rising production costs, farmers sought ways to reduce time, capital and
energy necessary for crop production. The search for more efficient
production methods helped increase interest in reduced tillage.
Field Selection and Yield
Field selection is an important part of selling a conservation
tillage system. Most soils in Ohio can be successfully converted to
conservation tillage if managed properly. However, factors such as
drainage, residue management, crop rotation, nutrient management,
planting dates, variety selection, etc. become more problematic in
poorly drained soils. In the ACT project area, 86% of the soils are
poorly drained, with 44% being very poorly drained and 42% somewhat
poorly drained.
To see how various forms of tillage responded to various soil types,
analyses of yield by soil type and tillage type were performed: two
major groups of soils, lacustrine and glacial till, which are common in
the project area were studied. Typical lacustrine soils are Paulding
and Toledo which are very poorly drained (VPD); glacial till soils are:
Blount - somewhat poorly drained (SPD); Hoytville - very poorly drained
(VPD); and Glynwood - moderately well drained (MWD). The data in Table
4 compare no-till and ridge till corn yields to those of conventional
tillage on various soil types. Although these results do not necessarily
reflect side-by-side field tests, the data clearly demonstrate the
ability of no-till to do well on even some very poorly drained soils.
13
-------
Sediment and Nutrient Transport
Several characteristics of the northern Ohio portion of the Lake
Erie Basin have significant water quality impacts. Although much of the
Basin in Ohio is relatively flat (less than 2% slope), fine textured
soils and a dense drainage network result in very high transport of
sediment and nutrients to the Lake. A nationwide survey of land uses
and stream nutrient levels (Omernik 1977) indicated the following mean
values for phosphorus and nitrogen export:
Watershed
Land Use
>_ 75% Agricul
>_ 90% Agricul
However,
ture
ture
total
Ortho-
phosphorus
kg/ha/yr
0.094
0.118
phosphorus
Total
phosphorus
kg/ha/yr
0.255
0.266
export rates
Inorganic
Nitrogen
kg/ha/yr
3.26
7.81
Total
Nitrogen
kg/ha/yr
5.54
9.54
for the northwestern Ohio water
sheds are four times higher than the mean values in the nationwide
survey. Likewise, the orthophosphorus and inorganic nitrogen export
rates are two - three times higher than the mean value in the nationwide
survey (Lake Erie Wasterwater Management Study, 1982, p. 98).
For example, total phosphorus loads for the Sandusky and Maumee
Rivers were 2.34 kg/ha/yr and 1.86 kg/ha/yr, respectively, in 1984.
Suspended sediment loads for these rivers in 1984 were 843 kg/ha and 669
kg/ha, respectively. In 1984, nitrate-nitrogen area loads were 22.1
kg/ha for the Sandusky and 21.7 kg/ha in the Maumee.
High unit area loads result from intensive cropping, the lack of
crop residue, very high soil phosphorus levels, fine textured clay
soils, and a well developed artificial drainage system.
14
-------
Fertilization
Another characteristic of the Lake Erie Basin affecting water
quality is fertilization practices. Since the 1960s, phosphorus,
nitrogen and potassium have been applied to cropland in ever larger
amounts. Phosphorus levels in soils throughout Ohio increased over 300%
between 1961 and 1985 according to data assembled by the Ohio State
University Research Extension Analytical Laboratory (REAL) in Wooster,
Ohio. Table 5 indicates the increase in phosphorus levels in the ACT
counties between 1961 and 1985. Average soil phosphorus levels in the
ACT counties are consistently higher than the state as a whole, but have
increased at a comparable rate. It should be noted that average soil
phosphorus levels in the ACT counties now exceed the recommended level
of 60 Ibs/acre by nearly 30%, with several counties having levels in
excess of 100 Ibs/acre.
15
-------
Table 4
Corn and Soybean Yields for Various Soil Types
No-Till
Conventional
Ridge-Till
Soil Type
Glynwood (MWD)
Blount (SPD)
Hoytville (VPD)
Paulding (VPD)
Toledo (VPD)
Glynwood (MWD)
Blount (SPD)
Hoytville (VPD)
Paulding (VPD)
Toledo (VPD)
numbers in ( ) indicate the number of test plots providing data. Data
represent weighted average yields from side-by-side demonstration plots
(1983-1984).
Corn (bu/a)
95 (54)1
99 (340)
125 (138)
105 (147-)
115 (17)
34 (38)
32 (196)
38 (92)
28 (27)
37 (51)
104 (171)
97 (205)
117 (87)
90 (19)
118 (15)
Soybeans (bu/ac)
35 (12)
33 (89)
38 (62)
33 (29)
35 (30)
101 (19)
116 (32)
91 (22)
107 (12)
32 (4)
38 (24)
35 (18)
30 (11)
County
Table 5
Average ACT County Soil Phosphorus Levels,* 1961 - 1985
1961
1971
1980
1983
1984
*Bray P test, expressed as Ibs/acre
Source: OSU, OARDC Research Extension Analytical Laboratory
16
1985
Auglaize
Crawford
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paul ding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Project Avg.
State Average
21
21
43
25
22
22
21
14
82
20
30
27
19
25
23
19
31
24
26
22
26
! 18
31
36
64
43
41
50
51
26
67
30
36
49
29
49
52
37
40
42
50
37
43 63
35 58
61
56
97
62
55
84
66
49
86
41
68
79
42
60
70
67
56
65
60
54
66 77
60 67
62
59
94
67
54
86
52
47
123
49
66
61
42
50
78
61
67
65
73
64
77
70
76
57
129
78
59
85
68
49
133
47
67
80
54
107
93
66
62
77
98
65
58
52
121
58
61
105
141
47
109
56
73
84
46
67
101
52
71
80
109
61
-------
CHAPTER 2
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation, administered the ACT program in Ohio and was the
recipient of federal funds. ODNR passed funds through to county soil
and water conservation districts for program implementation. Each
district was given the latitude to tailor its program to achieve the
following goals: the planting of ridge or no till demonstration plots
ranging from 10 to 20 acres with 25 different farmers the first year, an
additional 20 farmers the second year, and 15 more farmers the third
year; with project goal of 40 cooperating farmers using no till or ridge
till techniques as a routine practice in each county. As a long term
goal, the project was aimed at continuing conservation tillage programs
in each district, using trained personnel and equipment acquired as a
result of the project.
Technical assistance and equipment were provided by districts to
help demonstrate and teach the fundamental skills and principles necessary
to successfully implement no till and ridge till crop production.
Expertise of soil and water conservation districts was utilized to
select cooperating farmers with soils and drainage conditions suited for
no till and ridge till methods.
Each of the 20 soil and water conservation districts established a
local tillage task force to help develop and oversee the program.
Districts provided no till and ridge till equipment to farmers for 10 to
20 acres of side-by-side comparison plots. District employees provided
one-on-one technical assistance regarding site selection, soil testing,
17
-------
planting techniques, and yield checks. District and county extension
agents initiated information and education programs to emphasize conservation
tillage systems and pest management, as a complement to the demonstration
plots. Stronger local involvement between the district and other
agricultural agencies insured project goals and objectives were met.
Agency Roles and Responsibilities
Seldom have so many agencies worked together on a single conservation
project of this size in Ohio. This multi-agency approach had a common
goal "to accelerate the adoption of conservation tillage" to help combat
the water quality problems in Lake Erie. The following briefly summarizes
each agency's involvement.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) - SCS assisted in promoting
conservation tillage in conjunction with conservation planning,
training and supervising district staff, and providing technical
assistance on the installation of erosion control practices.
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) -
ASCS provided cost-sharing on tillage demonstration plots to offset
costs of equipment rental and pesticides. They also provided lists
of potential cooperators to assist districts in mailing information
to landowners.
Cooperative Extension Service - County extension agents and agronomists
provided information on nutrient and pesticide management. Extension
analyzed soils for their suitability for no till and made fertility
recommendations. The Department of Natural Resources, as part of
the project, subcontracted with CES for help in conducting educational
meetings, field days, grower workshops, and other activities.
18
-------
ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation - In Ohio, the Division
is responsible for soil and water conservation and agricultural
pollution abatement. The ACT project was administered by the
Division, which passed through federal funds to 20 SWCDs. Division
staff at the state and area level provided a variety of assistance,
including fiscal accounting, recordkeeping, preparation of annual
reports and collecting tillage data.
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) - NACD helped
coordinate the ACT project on a regional level for Ohio, Indiana,
and Michigan. The NACD Conservation Tillage Information Center
(CTIC) at Ft. Wayne, Indiana, collected and disseminated conservation
tillage information obtained from the projects. It also served as
liaison between soil conservation agencies, USEPA, agricultural
organizations and private industry.
Project Funding
The ACT program began in 1981 with the award of $500,000 by the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation. The Division used these funds to contract with nine
SWCDs, and created the position of a regional field coordinator. Twenty-
four thousand dollars was provided to CES (OSU) to expand tillage
education programs and publish technical information. In 1982, USEPA
provided an additional $420,000 to the Division to contract with 11
additional SWCDs. In order for all district projects to end at the same
time (December 1985), USEPA provided an additional $100,000 to extend
the program of the nine original counties through the 1985 planting
season. Total federal funds were $1,020,000.
19
-------
The Division signed three year contracts with each SWCD, which then
prepared a three-year financial plan to purchase, rent or lease equipment
and/or hire personnel. Special Tillage Accounts were established by the
districts. ODNR provided at least one quarter's anticipated funding
needs so districts would have funds on hand with which to pay personnel
and make equipment purchases.
District financial records were maintained and financial statements
were submitted quarterly to the ODNR field coordinator who checked,
compiled and published them in a quarterly progress report which the
Division submitted to USEPA. These reports were reviewed and approved
by USEPA, 6LNPO officials during visits to the Defiance Area Office.
Maintenance of "in-kind" contributions of office space, personnel,
etc. were a responsibility of each district. Since the grant required a
local match of 25 percent, standard rates were established for time and
materials contributed by the district and documented on bi-weekly time
sheets. Time contributed by cooperators and supervisors was also
utilized as match. Monthly time sheets were maintained for each cooperator
and supervisor.
Table 6 summarizes federal, state, and district financial contributions.
It is significant that the $1.02 million in federal funds actually
"bought" a program whose total value was over $2.4 million, with the
State of Ohio and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts contributing
over 58% of total program costs.
State contributions included personnel, supplies, and office space.
Contributions by districts included personnel, equipment, office space,
materials and cooperator tine. From a cost effectiveness point-of-view,
federal funding of demonstration projects through soil and water conservation
districts makes sense. Districts have very low overhead costs and
20
-------
Table 6
Accelerated Conservation Tillage Project
Financial Summary
Soil & Water
Conservation Districts
Auglaize
Crawford
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paulding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
OSU Cooperative
Extension Service
Div. of Soil &
Water Cons.
Total Project Cost
District/State
Share
$89,833
35,452
59,699
47,755
53,105
53,990
44,668
48,711
29,896
105,506
56,506
79,156
45,179
58,347
35,730
31,065
47,598
89,594
65,997
53,477
249,658
47,644
$1,428,487
$2,448,487
Federal
Share
$34,200
58,300
32,000
58,300
58,300
30,000
58,300
58,300
30,000
58,300
30,600
29,600
30,000
58,300
30,000
58,300
44,500
32,000
30,000
58,300
24,000
118,400
$1,020,000
State/Local 58.3%
Federal 41.7%
21
-------
usually contribute more resources to projects than they receive from
federal grants.
Project Evolution
Most SWCDs in the project area have much in common: similar soils,
drainage problems, level to gently rolling topography, and a preponderance
of cash grain farming. Assuring adequate surface and subsurface drainage
is a common programmatic concern of districts in northwestern Ohio.
Several districts have large ditch maintenance programs, while others
work closely with county engineers on group and/or petition ditches to
improve agricultural drainage. District staff are highly trained in
surface and subsurface drainage, which is a necessity when 95 percent of
farmers' requests concern drainage. Drainage problems are foremost in
supervisors minds. In lake bed soils for example, drainage improvements
are usually a prerequisite to profitability.
Although drainage problems are a chief concern of most districts, in
the late 1970's staff began to work with farmers on conservation tillage.
Shifting priorities was slow, but as districts got into the ACT program,
more of them began to understand and promote water quality related
practices.
As technical advisor to districts, SCS, also began to shift its
emphasis from drainage to more erosion oriented programs to improve
water quality.
Since the beginning of the ACT program in 1981, all twenty SWCDs
have shifted their priorities and goals to address conservation tillage
and water quality in their long range programs. (Districts' long range
programs identify conservation needs and opportunities to develop
natural resources within each county.)
22
-------
Project Staffing
Staffing of the ACT program differed from past demonstration efforts.
The districts received only "seed money," rather than a large grant.
Therefore, they were not able to add a full time experienced staff
position. Districts received a total of approximately $35,000 for their
three years of involvement. Several district boards were concerned
about hiring individuals on "soft money" that would prevent retaining
employees at the end of the project. Counties used a variety of approaches
to overcome this problem; for example, Seneca and Crawford districts
pooled their funds to retain an experienced project coordinator.
Using county appropriations and project funds, Fulton, Henry, Huron,
Lorain and Williams districts hired full time technicians to work as
tillage specialists. However, most districts utilized existing staff.
Although most technicians were trained mainly for engineering survey
and design work, they adapted well to working on conservation tillage
practices on a day-to-day basis. Because of their work with farmers on
waterways and other engineering practices, most technicians could
establish rapport with farmers and introduce them to the benefits of
conservation tillage. Since basic training in conservation tillage was
needed, training became an on going priority of state and federal
support agencies.
At the state level, the Division's position of the Pollution Abatement
Specialist for the northwestern Ohio area was expanded to serve as
regional program coordinator. This person was charged with overseeing
fiscal management, recordkeeping and project reporting. Other duties
included training of district staff on planter adjustments, weed identification,
soil testing, integrated pest management, general agronomy and program
procedures. The project coordinator served as the link between ODNR,
23
-------
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, and USEPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office.
Equipment Management
SWCD boards arranged for use of no till equipment after consulting
with cooperating agencies and others on the type of equipment (drills,
planter with splitter, tractors) needed. Boards purchased or leased
equipment by inviting local dealers to submit competitive bids. Arrangements
varied from district to district on whether the district or the dealer
moved the equipment. An insurance policy was provided to cover liability,
theft, damage, etc. in either case. Some districts felt it was important
to lease a tractor to stay with the planter to minimize drawbar and
counter adjustments.
Project Guidelines
The guidelines for the ACT Project were listed as terms to be met
by participating districts. The following summarizes the general
responsibilities of the Boards of Supervisors and their staffs:
1. The Board shall create and/or cooperate with a conservation
tillage task force in the development and operation of a no
till and/or ridge till demonstration program. Such task force
should involve representatives of pertinent agricultural
agencies, farmers, agricultural and chemical industries,news
media, and other representatives deemed helpful by the Board.
2. The Board will implement a tillage demonstration program with
multi-agency involvement, providing information and education
equipment and technical assistance.
3. The Board will secure or arrange through gift, lease, loan, or
purchase the necessary no till and ridge till planting and
24
-------
cultivation equipment, yield evaluation equipment or other
equipment necessary to aid in demonstrating the use and effect
of these methods of planting on cooperating farms.
4. The Board will recruit, employ in accordance with the employ-
ment policies of the Board and/or use existing personnel as
most appropriate, and prioritize time of technical staff as
necessary to operate an effective tillage demonstration program.
Such program shall include, but not be limited to, soliciting
cooperating farmers, teaching the fundamentals of no till
and/or ridge till systems, equipment use, and fertilizer and
pesticide management and assist with adjustment, calibration
and operation of spraying, planting, fertilizer, and pesticide
application equipment, assist with and/or arrange for adequate
pest monitoring programs, and assist with and/or arrange for
the evaluation of crop results and yield comparisons.
5. The Board and its staff will gather information, assemble data,
and publish information in such a manner to be useful in
promoting conservation tillage systems and in such form that
results can be assembled and compared with data from other
districts carrying out similar projects.
6. The Board and its staff will maintain adequate accounting and
fiscal reports which fully disclose the amount, receipt, and
disposition of the grant assistance provided and the total cost
of the project, including the amount and identification of that
portion of the cost of the project supplied by the district,
the supervisors, cooperating farmers, other non-funded personnel
and sources to provide the 25 percent local match; submit
quarterly reports to the Chief or his representative within
25
-------
seven days of the end of each calendar quarter; and assist with
project evaluation, summarization and final report of achievements.
7. The Board and staff will promote adoption of conservation
tillage in the critically erosive areas of the county. These
critically erosive areas are identified by their potential soil
loss according to their characteristics as outlined in the soil
survey and other related studies.
8. The Board and staff will provide cooperating farmers with
educational materials from Extension, et. al., on the latest
information on fertilization, soils, pest management, and
equipment use; and conduct training seminars jointly with
various federal, state and local agency personnel.
9. During the growing season, the Board and staff will monitor
demonstration plots, conduct tours, field days, and workshops
to allow other farmers an opportunity to benefit from the
program; and perform soil tests and provide results to the
cooperator at little or no cost.
10. The Board will publish an annual report of comparisons and
findings for distribution.
Agreements were drawn up by the districts with cooperating farmers,
which included criteria on equipment use, maximum and minimum acreage to
be planted, liability, acreage charges, and contribution of fuel for
tractor after planting. The agreements emphasized the installation of
side-by-side comparison plots planted under similar conditions. Instructions
on proper seod, fertilizer, insecticide selection and application,
record keeping and how to check yields were also a part of the agreements.
Uniform criteria for these agreements were developed for all ACT
counties:
26
-------
1. Planting will be done by the no till or ridge till method.
2. A conservation plan should be developed so all fields would not
exceed acceptable soil loss value.
3. A minimum of 30 percent residue cover should be on the surface
after planting. Measurements will be made within three weeks
after the crop is planted.
4. The conservation treatment unit will be properly drained for
the tillage system used.
5. Any other standards and specification for ridge till and no
till planting in the individual states will apply.
6. The soil on each conservation treatment unit will be tested
annually with fertilizer applied according to recommendations
of the County Extension Agent.
Lastly, specific responsibilities were identified for district
staff, including:
1. making contacts with fanners on a one-to-one basis in order to
enroll active participants,
2. taking soil tests and weed inventories in plots;
3. helping with field selections (soils and drainage) and monitoring
fields for weeds, insects, and disease before, during, and
after the growing season,
4. helping farmers with the field adjustments and operation of
equipment, and
5. promoting the program through tours, news articles, radio
programs, fair displays, yield and soil loss reduction contests.
27
-------
Project Funding
Over the four year project period three increments of federal funds
were received by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation totalling
$1,020,000. Table 6 summaries federal, state, and district funding.
It is significant that the $1.02 million in federal funds actually
"bought" a program whose total value was over $2.4 million, with the
State of Ohio and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts contributing
over 58% of total program costs.
State contributions included personnel, supplies, and office space.
Contributions by districts included personnel, equipment, office space,
materials and cooperator time. From a cost effectiveness point-of-view,
federal funding of demonstration projects through soil and water conservation
districts makes sense. Districts have very low overhead costs and
usually contribute more resources to projects than received from federal
grants.
The Lake Erie Tillage Task Force
During the first year of the Project (1981) a Lake Erie Tillage Task
Force was set up to exchange technical and administrative information
among federal, state, and local officials, provide interagency coordination
and insure data collection and presentation were compatible to enable
evaluation and comparison among projects.
The following agencies and institutions were invited to serve as
members of the task force:
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA Region V Assignee from SCS
USEPA Region V Assignee from CES
USEPA Headquarters Water Planning Division
28
-------
SCS State Conservationists from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan
SCS Area Conservationists from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan
SCS Headquarters, Water Quality Project Implementation Officer
ASCS State Directors from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan
USACOE Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study Director
State Pollution Control Agencies from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan
State Soil and Water Conservation agencies from Ohio, Indiana, and
Michigan
State Cooperative Extension Service Directors from Ohio, Indiana,
and Michigan
Area Extension Agents from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan
National Association of Conservation Districts
Michigan State University
The Ohio State University
Purdue University
From this committee, four subcommittees were established for Training,
Residue Cover, Agronomic Monitoring, and Water Quality Monitoring.
Each county set up their farm assistance guidelines using the technical
criteria drafted by the Lake Erie Tillage Task Force. The Agronomic
Monitoring Committee developed a set of uniform data collection sheets
for districts. A calendar of events also was drafted so counties could
organize their project activities in a coordinated fashion.
29
-------
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Project Participation
Each ACT county had a primary goal, "to accelerate the adoption of
conservation tillage". To accomplish this, they were given a specific
objective of working with 20-25 farmers the first year; 15-20 farmers
the second and 10-15 farmers the third year. This objective gave each
district a common goal.
The counties experienced an overwhelming interest in the program,
prompting many districts to create "standby lists" for farmers requesting
assistance, but who were not able to be assisted during the initial
stages of the project. From 1982 through 1985, the districts worked
with 2159 cooperators (Table 7), averaging 32 cooperators per year, per
district, over the last three years.
Table 7
Summary of Project Participation
Year
1982*
1983
1984
1985
No. of
Cooperators
216
625
684
634
No. of 1st
Time Coop.
194
418
355
294
No. of
Plots
415
1,014
1,251
983
Total
Acres
4,053
10,968
14,443
11,875
No.
Adopting**
92
226
290
240
Total 2,159 1,261 3,663 41,339 848
*only 9 counties in project
**farmers continuing use of no till beyond the project's termination
30
-------
Technical Assistance and Training
Ohio DNR staff took responsibility for setting up training for
district, extension and SCS staff in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, since
the majority of participating counties were in Ohio. A two day technical
training seminar was held in March 1982, followed by one day annual
conferences for the tri-state area. A conservation tillage manual for
a'l 1 field staff was developed with the help of the project's Training
Committee. Attendance at the tri-state sessions was generally in the
150-200 range.
Technical assistance to fanners and training of both staff and
farmers were the most significant aspects of the project. Assistance
i ncluded:
Site Selection - analysis of drainage, soil type, fertility, past
insect or weed pressure, type and amount of previous crop residue.
Fertility Program - soil testing with recommendations for nitrogen,
phosphorus, potash.
Herbicide Program - recommendations on substances, rates, methods of
application, etc.
Integrated Pest Management - training of farmers to assess crop
damage and use of pest scouts and district staff.
Equipment Use - teaching equipment adjustment to insure proper
spacings and depth.
Calibration of Spray Equipment - setting up equipment or working
with grain elevator personnel on custom applicator training.
Seed Variety Selection - encouraging use of hybrids that rated high
in performance trials the previous year.
Grower Workshops - assisting County Agents and agricultural industries
in providing farmers with updated chemical and fertility information.
Tours - holding tours following planting to get other farmers
involved, and to show stand, weed control, and protective crop
residue.
Harvest Checks - recording yield measurements.
Publications - preparing news articles and brochures to disseminate
information and gain support of interested farmers.
Media - performing broadcasts on local radio and TV stations to
inform the general public about the importance of the project, its
results, and upcoming events.
31
-------
Conservation Tillage Adoption
Table 8 indicates the total acres of no till from 1981 (prior to
ACT) through 1985 in the 20 ACT counties for all farms. These county
totals are based on estimates by SCS, SWCDs and other agricultural
agency field personnel. Since 1983 they have been reported annually by
the Conservation Tillage Information Center (CTIC) in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
As shown in Table 9, the ACT counties also experienced a rapid
growth in ridge till acres, particularly in Auglaize, Hancock and Wood
Counties,
Table 8
No-Till Acres, 1981-1985 For ACT Counties
1
County
Auglaize
Crawford
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paul ding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Totals
1981
4405
5321
1700
1200
7800
1450
4163
5000
50
1944
2000
-0-
95
1870
119
4600
2092
2000
1050
5530
1982
9553
8910
4000
3680
7800
3650
4744
6500
500
2850
4050
1012
500
2570
613
8000
2592
2050
1450
9400
1983
16000
18600
4175
3300
7850
4300
21600
6650
1550
7155
7100
1700
2300
4600
2923
15500
1875
4300
3350
13000
1984
22200
32750
13060
20700
11060
5300
26800
18000
3220
22220
9050
9640
3530
5200
7040
26750
2060
7001
10650
25300
1985
17400
36640
26735
19346
12790
5139
35600
23700
2550
21375
9840
17950
3923
6350
9900
21750
3800
12550
11510
25725
Change
From 82-85
+ 7847
+ 27730
+ 22735
+ 15666
+ 4990
+ 1489
+ 30856
+ 17200
+ 2050
+ 18525
+ 5790
+ 16938
+ 3423
+ 3780
+ 9287
+ 13750
+ 1208
+ 10500
+ 10060
+ 16325
52,389 84,424 147,828 281,531 324,573 +240,149
1) Source: 1981 & 1982 - OSU Bulletin MM 399 "Tillage Practices &
Equipment Used in Corn, Soybeans & Forage Products"; 1983-1985, CTIC,
"National Survey Conservation Tillage Practices for Ohio".
32
-------
Table 9
Ridge Till Acres, 1983-1985, for ACT Counties
County
1983
1984
1985
Auglaize
Crawford
Fulton
Hancock
Hard in
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
fiercer
Ottawa
Paul ding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
150
100
-0-
800
300
600
-0-
-0-
50
55
20
202
3500
400
644
1300
225
350
1000
1290
1200
400
300
1905
1000
1000
-0-
-0-
50
-0-
300
100
5280
550
1003
1650
500
1100
1600
200
3665
275
-0-
2819
675
765
200
-0-
100
55
800
-0-
4013
200
1600
1550
750
400
2050
200
From '83-'85
+ 3515
+ 175
+ -0-
+ 2019
+ 375
+ 165
+ 200
+ -0-
+ 50
+ -0-
+ 780
- 202
+ 513
- 200
+ 956
+ 250
+ 525
+ 50
+ 1050
- 1090
Total s
10,986
18,138
20,117
+9,131
1 Source: 1983-1985, CTIC, "National Survey of Conservation Tillage
Practices for Ohio."
Overall, the ACT program was very successful in accelerating the
adoption of no till throughout northwestern Ohio. Table 10 compares the
growth of no till in the ACT counties to the state as a whole. Although
no till increased substantially in Ohio from 1982 to 1985, the ACT
adoption rate was two and one half times higher. The existence of the
ACT county tillage program during those years appears to be the major
contributing factor for the large rate of adoption.
33
-------
Information and Education
The information/education program was conducted by the Cooperative
Extension Service in conjunction with SWCDs and SCS. All counties
conducted educational programs, though the distribution of activities
differed somewhat between counties. A summary of project wide activities
is given in Table 11.
Information meetings for farmers consisted of planned programs
generally held during the winter and early spring. Meetings dealt with
all aspects of conservation tillage; however, some counties offered
sessions on specialized topics such as sprayer calibration, fertilization,
etc. Meetings for discussion purposes among project participants were
also held in several counties.
Field tours included planned group visits to a farm or series of
farms on which project plots and/or demonstrations were located. These
tours (field days) were conducted during June and August and allowed
farmers to observe and discuss the results of conservation tillage
practices in the field. Tours often included presentations by state and
area extension specialists, as well as technical representatives from
agribusiness. Hands-on experience dealing with planter and sprayer
calibration were included as a part of many of these events.
Press releases and articles included material prepared for mail
distribution to farm operators and to local newspapers. Radio programs
included both printed material sent to, and interviews on, local radio
stations. Media efforts were quite important in that they reached a
large group of farmers and others which would not otherwise participate
in programs. Although a media audience count cannot be determined, it
is conservatively estimated to be double the audience listed in the
table.
34
-------
Table 10
No Till and Conventional Acres
1982-1985
Ohio
ACT Counties
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
Percent
Change
No Till Conservation Tillage No Till Conservation Tillage
568,470
671,180
1,106,207
1,263,351
122%
2,529,298
2,719,914
3,323,716
3,722,901
84,424
147,828
281,531
324,573
284%
751,370
730,805
825,377
1,114,529
Table 11
Information and Education Programs Conducted During ACT
Activity Number
of events
Meetings 180
Field Tours 140
Press Releases & Articles 650
Radio Programs 200
TV Programs 15
Total estimated audience at meetings and tours 16,000*
* does not include mass media
35
-------
Television is a relatively new outlet for Extension programming.
Use often depends on the interest of local broadcasters and the availability
of public service air time. Several counties utilized television as a
part of their ACT programming, while others had no access to the medium.
In addition to county originated programs, state and area Extension
specialists produced a yearly series of television programs dealing with
crop production, which included several segments dealing with conservation
tillage and water quality. These half hour programs were broadcast
weekly throughout the winter from Bowling Green, Ohio and coverage
included most of the project area.
In general, the information and education programs were quite
successful in generating awareness and teaching the fundamentals of
conservation tillage. The level of audience attendance and participation
were quite encouraging, considering the historically limited interest in
conservation tillage in the project area. Many of the County Extension
Agents have commented, not only on the success of the program itself,
but also upon the closer working relationships they have developed with
their SWCDs as a result of the project.
36
-------
Increased Farm Income
An issue facing anyone changing from an "old" established system to
a "new" one is: "What are the costs, and is the system tested and
proven?" "Can we no till on flat poorly drained soils without hurting
farm income?" To answer these questions, the ACT program was set up to
work closely with farmers to demonstrate workable conservation tillage
methods that provided water quality benefits while enabling farmers to
maintain or increase farm income.
The data in Table 12 reflect work done in Seneca County. The
statistics shown here are not scientific or replicated, but are valuable
in convincing farmers how no till performed in their county.
The measure of success in any new tillage system is net return.
Table 12 data demonstrate that no till yields for corn and soybeans were
consistently as good or better than conventional; and, in both cases,
net returns for no till systems (corn & beans) were higher than conventional
Profitability is a critical issue with farmers as they consider
switching to conservation tillage. A survey of farm participants in the
ACT program indicated that 73% would use conservation tillage (no till
or ridge till) if these practices did not differ in profitability from
conventional tillage. Thirty-two percent (32%) indicated they would
make the switch if the net return of conservation tillage were within
$10/acre of conventional. These survey results underscore the importance
of careful record keeping to prove cost and net profit differences
between conservation and conventional tillage.
37
-------
Table 12
Average Yields and Net Return for Corn & Soybeans
(No Till vs. Conventional) Seneca County 1982-1985
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
Average
Corn Demonstration Plots
No Till
Yield (bu/ac)-
137
111
121
149
o
Net Return ($/ac)-
78
119
85
88
Conventional
Yield (bu/ac)
142
106
116
144
Net Return
75
93
58
62
T$/ac)
129 bu/ac
$92/ac
127 bu/ac
$72/ac
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
Average
Soybean Demonstration Plots
No
Yield (bu/ac)
38
39
45
49
Till
Net Return ($/ac)
73
173
125
108
Conventional
Yield (bu/ac) Net Return ($/ac)
33 66
39 177
39 94
50 116
42 bu/ac
$119/ac
40 bu/ac
$113/ac
1
Yields are weighted averages
2 Costs include seed, lime, fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, and
interest
38
-------
Erosion and Phosphorus Reductions
The 1985 Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for Lake Erie estimated
that 16 million tons of soil erodes each year from cropland in the Ohio
portion of the Lake's watershed. Based on ACT demonstration plots,
expanding conservation tillage, particularly no till, to an additional
1,000,000 acres could result in as much as a 60% reduction in gross
erosion on these acres. Besides water quality benefits, erosion control
reduces the cost of dredging Lake Erie's harbors. For example, the
Maumee harbor, at Toledo, Ohio, has an annual dredging cost of $8,500,000,
which is incurred by the Army Corps of Engineers for removing 1,215,000
tons of sediment each year.
Erosion rates are influenced by rainfall amounts, distribution, soil
erodibility, percent and length of field slope, erosion control practices
and surface cover. The last factor is one which farmers can most easily
control through some form of conservation tillage. Demonstration plot
data indicate an average reduction of slightly over 2 tons/acre in soil
erosion on no till and ridge till plots compared with losses on conventional
plots. Table 13 shows the estimated erosion and phosphorus reductions
in the ACT counties from 1982 through 1985. Erosion estimates are based
on differences in gross erosion between no till, ridge till and conventional
tillage on ACT demonstration plots, 1983-1985. Values for 1982 were not
available; therefore, 1983 erosion values were used to project 1982
erosion and phosphorus savings. Phosphorus reductions are based on
estimates developed by Purdue University and reported by GLNPO and CTIC
(1985), of 2 pounds per acre when conventionally tilled cropland is
converted to conservation tillage.
39
-------
Table 13
Estimated Erosion and Phosphorus Reductions Using No Till
ACT Counties, 1982 - 1985 (tons)
1982 1983 1984 1985
Erosion Reductions 143,521 268,775 628,304 817,264
Phosphorus '
Reductions 84 159 300 345
While the ACT demonstration plots themselves did not produce significant
phosphorus reductions, the acceleration of no till usage throughout the
ACT counties did, annually reducing phosphorus loading by approximately
345 tons by 1985. Assuming that the ACT project was responsible for the
disproportionate rate of increase in no till adoption in the project
counties (284%) in relation to the entire state (122%), the ACT project
may have been responsible for a significant portion of the Basin's total
phosphorus load reduction.
It should be noted that conservation tillage increased from 751,370
acres to 1,114,529 acres during these same years. While sediment and
phosphorus reductions are by no means as large on reduced tillage acres
when compared with no till, nevertheless significant phosphorus reductions
occur as a result of this practice. If phosphorus reductions from
conservation tillage represent only a quarter that of no till, nearly
three hundred tons of additional phosphorus load reduction occurred in
1985.
Given the large acreages yet to experience some form of conservation
tillage in the Basin, it seems likely that an annual load reduction of
1000 metric tons is achievable through changing tillage practices on
cropland.
40
-------
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The ACT project capped several years of tillage system demonstrations
in the Lake Erie Basin. State and federal agencies, particularly USEPA,
recognized the need to address agricultural pollution during the mid-
1970's. Using the findings of the PLUARG (Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group) Report in 1978, the Black Creek Project in
Indiana, and special demonstrations in several Lake Erie Basin counties,
a large scale region-wide application of conservation tillage practices
was envisioned in 1980. Thirty-one counties in Ohio, Indiana and
Michigan were enlisted to employ the methodologies developed by earlier
demonstration projects.
While earlier projects were intensive, highly funded efforts, the
ACT project was designed to demonstrate transition, making conservation
tillage adoption a more routine activity with acceptable public costs.
Although the characteristics of soil and nutrient movement, the
effects of conservation tillage, and the difficulties in securing
adoption of the practice were largely known, the size and level of
participation in the ACT project made it unique, and helped shape its
outcome. The following summarizies the major conclusions of the project
and offers recommendations for use by several levels of government in
the design and implementation of future demonstration projects.
Conclusions
The United States and Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Strategies for Lake
Erie rely on the widespread adoption of conservation tillage to meet the
Lake's phosphorus loading goal of 11,000 metric tons/year. Although
previous studies, particularly LEWMS, indicated the feasibility of this
41
-------
approach, the ACT project has confirmed soundness of this strategy. By
significantly influencing adoption rates in Northwestern Ohio and
incorporating conservation tillage as a program priority of state,
federal and local agencies, the ACT project provided the foundation for
an ongoing, long term reduction of sediment and phosphorus transport.
Adoption of conservation tillage has not expanded at the rate
envisioned by LEWMS; however, given the modest level of federal program
funding for the ACT project, phosphorus reductions were significant.
The ACT project, in combination with increased emphasis on conservation
tillage nationwide, may already account for significant annual reductions
in phosphorus loads to Lake Erie. Based on data developed by ACT and
other projects, the conservation tillage strategy for achieving load
reductions appears workable.
Another major outcome of the project was the broadening, and therefore
strengthening, of soil and water conservation district programs.
Districts have proven to be effective, low cost implementors of a
variety of nonpoint source pollution control strategies. Their active
involvement in agricultural pollution control in the Lake Erie Basin has
proven to be a worthwhile state and federal objective. In the case of
ACT, investment of federal demonstration funds not only resulted in a
reordering of local conservation priorities, but also multiplied project
dollars when matched with state and local personnel, equipment and
materials. With limited funding in the federal future, the willingness
of state and local agencies to match pollution control dollars should be
a major criterion in pollution control planning and demonstration
project selection.
The ACT project proved that existing district personnel can handle
most special projects, with some specialized training. This finding is
42
-------
significant in that it demonstrates that projects do not always require
large sums to provoke a change. Small amounts of funds spread over
several years help infuse project priorities into districts' long range
programs. The key element of program maintenance occurs when Boards of
Supervisors incorporate conservation tillage programs into the districts'
overall conservation programs.
Attacking a pollution issue at such a broad level geographically and
programatically also brought about a degree of interagency cooperation
and focus unmatched previously. The Extension Service, SCS, ASCS, ODNR
and districts were all involved in carrying out various parts of the
program or providing complementary activities.
Chemical usage associated with no till is a major concern of environ-
mentalists, and farmers as well. The ACT project, because of its length
and geographic scope allowed local technicians to significantly improve
their understanding of chemical use. As a result, recommendations for
fertilizer use have become much more conservative. Evaluations of
herbicide use on some 3,800 plots demonstrated that types and amounts
used in no till were nearly the same as conventional tillage systems.
Although the primary motive of the farmer is to reduce chemical input
costs, a beneficial side effect of reduced chemical use will be improved
water quality.
Project technicians also emphasized the need to reduce phosphorus
fertilizer application by using proper soil testing programs to meet
crop needs. On the average, farmers who did not get a soil fertility
test, applied more than twice as much phosphorus as those who did. In
one ACT study, participants who had soil tests applied an average of 24
pounds per acre, while those who did not applied an average of 55 pounds
per acre. More than one-half of the farmers who had their soil tested
elected not to apply any phosphorus fertilizer.
43
-------
The project confirmed that significant erosion reductions occur
under conservation tillage systems, even in flat, Northwestern Ohio.
Actual no till field soil losses averaged 2 tons less per acre, or less
than one-half the amount of conventionally tilled fields. Keeping the
soil in place reduced delivery of sediment and phosphorus to streams and
Lake Erie.
And, no till yields of corn and soybeans proved to be comparable
with conventional tillage, in addition requiring less planting time and
fuel consumption. While this finding came as no surprise to long term
users of conservation tillage, it did prove the point to many who felt
the practice should be restricted to hill ground and/or poorer soils.
Prior to the project, questions were continually raised as to how
conservation tillage affected yields. Too many times it was assumed
farmers could not use no till on flat fine textured soils without
depressing yields by ten to fifteen (10-15) bushels per acre. As a
demonstration project, ACT project participants set out to see if this
was fact or fiction. Four years later, results from 3800 field plots
demonstrated that no till can be successfully practiced. On a four year
average, no till corn and bean yields were within one bushel an acre of
conventional yields. Also, by rotating the crops, significant yield
increases were observed. For example, no till corn in soybean stubble
on a four year average was twelve bushels per acre higher than corn
following corn, and no till soybeans in corn stalks on a four (4) year
average were three bushels per acre higher than beans following beans.
44
-------
Recommendations
Nearly ten years have passed since agricultural demonstration
projects and intensive tributary monitoring began in the Ohio portion of
the Lake Erie Basin. Much has been learned about nutrient and sediment
export and farm practices, which both increase and reduce their movement.
Conservation tillage has come of age, and is now an integral part of
local technical assistance programs. Lake Erie water quality has
improved beyond expectations, resulting in a boom of expanding recreation
and commercial development.
However, significant environmental problems remain, presenting
challenges for public policy-makers and private landowners alike.
Severe sedimentation, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides and
loss of riparian habitat, all threaten the water achievements of the
70's.
Solving the environmental problems of Lake Erie in the future will
require significantly greater investment resources by government. The
nature of problems have changed, and traditional sources of funding have
dried up. Nonpoint source problems will not be solved by quick fixes,
or short term programs. A long term program of lake management, integrating
the lake and its watershed, is essential. Continued improvement of the
lake's ecosystem will also require consistent policies by federal, state
and local governments. Otherwise, improvements in agricultural pollution
may be offset by environmental losses brought about by near shore
development.
The following recommendations focus on agriculture, attempting to
reduce this source of pollution to acceptable levels. However, it is
equally as important to develop a coastal management program to complement
the efforts of the Lake's rural community.
45
-------
Implementation of rural nonpoint pollution control should continue
to rest with local agencies, primarily soil and water conservation
districts. However, districts will require a variety of types of
assistance from both state and federal government to meet agricultural
pollution control expectations. Specifically,
1) Continued financial support, targeted for agricultural pollution
control. While "no strings" program financing is necessary to
maintain basic district services, special efforts aimed at
critical areas and/or accelerated adoption of specific management
practices should receive additional state and federal financial
support. It is unrealistic to expect districts to expand their
pollution control efforts in the face of declining local
revenues, as well as the loss of federal demonstration funding
which helped create pollution control priorities in the first
place.
Financial support should be stable and adequate to support the
equivalent of a staff position in each SWCD, for the duration
of Ohio's Phoshorus Reduction Strategy (1992).
As a companion to program support, state and federal government
should provide cost sharing or other incentive funding for
installation of practices which have only long term benefits
and/or require significant financial risk during trial periods.
46
-------
2) Enhanced pollution abatement education aimed at farmers, must
be a cornerstone of Extension programs and agricultural ciricula
in Ohio. Pollution control responsibilities have often been
taught grudgingly as something that farmers must do at a
particular moment in time, rather than an essential part of
earning a living on the land. Environmental ethics should
be incorporated into university and high school vocational
programs. Current farmers, and would-be farmers, need to
understand that fertility and pesticide management, erosion
control and manure utilization are cost effective practices
that should be intergrated with their total farming operations.
Greater liability for off-site damages, increased competition
and lower government price supports dictate maximizing use of
farm inputs while minimizing the risk of farming in a more
complex society.
When major demonstration projects are initiated, extension and
university programs should be heavily involved, providing
guidance and data collection and reporting, farmer education
programs, and planning periodic seminars and workshops to
disseminate project fundings.
Farm industries and organizations need to be at the forefront
of the education movement. Throughout the 70's and early 80's,
these groups nervously watched the expansion of environmental
regulation, often actively opposing incursions into the agricultural
sector. However, both state and federal agencies have taken
47
-------
the voluntary approach to agricultural pollution problems,
focusing on the provision of assistance to the farmer rather
than across-the-board regulation. Increasingly, farm organizations
realize there is less to fear from these programs and more to
be gained through cooperation. Public program managers need to
build bridges with farm groups and solicit their involvement
early in the project planning stage.
If grain and livestock associations, chemical manufacturers and
distributors, and general farm organizations help devise
management programs, they will feel more a part of any subsequent
project and help publicize it.
Closer to home, local agencies can do much to foster the use of
conservation practices. Demonstration plots, formation of
local project steering committees comprised of farmers and farm
distributors, and initiation of conservation tillage clubs all
help expand knowledge about conservation programs.
Survey after survey of farm attitudes show that a majority of
farm information cornes not from public agencies, but from farm
magazines, equipment and chemical distributors and farm organizations,
Project and pollution abatement information should be directed
through these outlets as much as possible.
48
-------
3) Tracking pollution control progress needs to be given more
attention by both state and federal agencies. Since conservation
tillage is the cornerstone of Ohio's phosphorus reduction
strategy, a reliable method is needed to assess adoption rates
and their relative locations, the degree of residue cover being
achieved, and the total chemical inputs in tributary watersheds.
Several agencies need to cooperate in achieving more reliable
data including the Cooperative Extension Service, the Soil
Conservation Service, ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
and soil and water conservation districts. Because of their
contact with farmers and tillage assistance programs, districts
should undertake the responsibility to collect data, within
state guidelines. Information can then be provided to USEPA,
ODNR and Ohio EPA for use in judging the effectiveness of
control programs and determining areas where additional efforts
are needed. Both the USEPA and Ohio EPA should share responsibility
to help fund data collection efforts.
4) Identification of critical areas for application of resource
management practices. Although adequate data exist to implement
pollution abatement practices in the Basin, further refinement
of critical problem areas should continue. Such areas should
not be limited to areas of high gross erosion, but focus on
areas which are sources of significant sediment and chemical
loading, as well as areas which are not sources of pollutants,
but can significantly reduce the delivery of pollutants if they
are adequately protected, e.g. stream corridors.
49
-------
Ohio EPA, ODNR and districts should cooperatively improve the
state's delineation of critical areas to enable targeting of
technical and financial assistance. Future technical assistance
and financial resources should be directed at critical areas to
maximize benefits and reduce treatment needs.
5) Federal and state support for research and monitoring must
continue. A variety of research needs arose as a result of the
ACT project, principally understanding the environmental
consequences of increased use of conservation tillage. Although
the demonstration plots indicated that pesticide use does not
materially increase with conservation tillage, there is concern
that the practice will increase total chemical use and accelerate
the movement of chemicals into groundwater. The impact of
conservation tillage on groundwater should be a major research
priority over the next few years.
Secondly, the overall impact of herbicides on the ecosystem,
particularly in tributary streams and nearshore areas should be
examined. Understanding the complex interrelationships between
chemicals and the environment, particularly in regard to
chronic effects, requires long term research effort. Paired
watershed research, as proposed by Heidelberg College and Ohio
EPA, may help evaluate the comprehensive effects of changing
tillage technology.
Extensive tributary monitoring should continue. Without this
effort, there will be little ability to determine if changing
50
-------
and management practices produce the qualitative changes as
anticipated. It is a responsibility of both state and federal
government to help support such monitoring. Continued support
by GLNPO of the Lake Erie tributary monitoring program is
essential. On the stateside, Ohio EPA should continue its
support of USGS tributary stations and expand its overall
monitoring program to address nonpoint source pollution issues.
6) Demonstration projects should continue to be a cornerstone of
federal and state pollution abatement programs. Demonstration
projects help focus agency attention on critical areas and
resource issues which usually are not adequately addressed by
on-going efforts. In designing future projects, program
managers should make multi-year project commitments. At least
one year is necessary to just put effective project management
in place and begin to realize results of initial project
publicity. Several years are necessary to incorporate changes
into farm rotations and build a sense of program continuity and
working relationships with cooperators. Multi-year commitments
also are necessary to get maximum benefit from training farmers
in new techniques, and to build momentum.
51
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, David B., 1982, Fluvial Transport and Processing of Sediment
and Nutrients in Large Agricultural River Basins, Heidelberg College,
Tiffin, Ohio.
Beasley, David B., 1985, "Final Report of the Modeling Component Tri-
State Tillage Project", Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
33 pp.
Great Lakes National Program Office, 1985, Lake Erie Conservation
Tillage Demonstration Projects: Evaluating Management of Pestici
Fertilizers, Residue to Improve Water Quality, Chicago, Illinois.
Ohio EPA, 1985, State of Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for Lake
Erie, Columbus, Ohio.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982, Lake Erie Wasterwater Management
Study, Buffalo, New York.
52
-------
APPENDICES
Conservation Tillage Definitions
Field Data Sheet for Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plots
Four Year Yield Summary for Corn and Soybeans (All ACT Plots)
53
-------
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEFINITIONS
Conservation Tillage - Any tillage or planting system that maintains at
least 30 percent of the soil surface covered by residue after planting
to reduce soil erosion by water; or where soil erosion by wind is the
primary concern, maintains the equivalent of at least 1,000 pounds of
flat grain residue on the surface during the critical erosion period.
Types of Conservation Tillage Systems
1) No-till - The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting.
Planting is completed in a narrow seedbed approximately one to three
inches wide. Weed control is accomplished primarily with herbicides.
2) Ridge-till - The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting.
Approximately one-third of the soil surface is tilled at planting
with sweeps or row cleaners. Planting is completed on ridges
usually four to six inches higher than the row middles. Weed
control is accomplished with a combination of herbicides and cultivation.
Cultivation is used to rebuild the ridges.
3) Strip-till - The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting.
Approximately one-third of the soil surface is tilled at planting
tine. Tillage in the row may consist of a rototiller, in-row
chisel, row cleaners, etc. Weed control is accomplished with a
combination of herbicides and cultivation.
4) Mulch-till - The total soil surface is disturbed by tillage
prior to planting. Tillage tools such as chisels, field cultivators,
disc, sweeps, or blades are used. Weed control is accomplished with
a combination of herbicides and cultivation.
5) Reduced-till - Any other tillage and planting system not
covered above that meets the minimum 30 percent residue requirement.
54
-------
Technicians name:.
District phone no.:.
FIELD DATA SHEET
CONSERVATION TILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PLOT
1. Cooperators N ame:.
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. Grain/Green manure
Other (list)
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: / / , / /
55
-------
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, Ibs. actual N, (Circle one)
. Date applied.
j L
d) Other (list).
20. Total Ibs. P205
21. Total Ibs. K20
(Circle) a) liquid,
(Circle) a) liquid.
dry.
dry.
Ibs. actual N, Data applied _ .. / /
b) broadcast, injected.
b) broadcast, injected.
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*
Date Applied
Rate/Ac.
Form
Applied
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
Other (list).
Consultant.
Extension Rep.
No Monitoring done.
SWCD Rep..
28. Limiting Factors (Circle one)
Drainage, Herbicide Mngt,
Other (Explain)
Insect Mngt., Fertilizer Mngt., Equipment, Weather,
29. Rescue treatment used (describe)
30. $ i__/bu. Estimated production cost for this system by farmer (if known).
56
-------
ACT Data for Corn & Soybeans during 1982 - 1985 (all plots)
Tillage System
1982
CORN
Yield bu/ac ( no of plots )
1983 1984
1985
& Rotation
NoTill Corn after
Corn
Soybeans
Sod
Small Grain
120 (59)
141 (48)
136 (22)
121 (77)
No-Till all Rotations 123
Conventional
Ridge Till
Co. Stat. Report
135
126
112
101 (103)
101 (215)
85 (39)
83 (75)
97
95
96
90
123 (76)
139 (216)
135 (65)
139 (100)
134
132
113
121
139 (65)
151 (245)
134 (45)
144 (66)
145
142
141
130
SOYBEANS
Tillage System
& Rotation
NoTill Soybean
after :
Corn
Soybeans
Small grain
NoTill, all
Rotations
Conventional
Ridge-Till
Co. Stat. Report
1982
39 (41)
40 (16)
36 (10)
38
41
53
33
Yield bu/ac
1983
35 (202)
34 (121)
21 ( 29)
34
34
42
35
( no of plots )
1984
40 (122)
35 ( 96)
37 ( 47)
37
39
33
37
1985
46 (121)
40 ( 44)
37 ( 21)
45
46
44
41
4-Yr. Average
121
133
123
122
125
126
119
115
4- Yr. Average
40
37
33
39
40
43
37
57
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PUase rcaJ Inunctions or. the reverse before completingl
1 REPORT NO
EPA-905/2-87-004
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf»NO.
A TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Accelerated Conservation Tillage Demonstration Program
1981-1985, OHIO
5 REPORT DATE
July 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5GL
7 AUTHOR(S)
Ed Crawford
Jerry Wager
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
GLNPO No. 87-09
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Division of Soi I ana Water
Onil Department of Natural
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio 43224
.
Conservation
Resources
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant Mo. 5005692-01
12. SPONSORING AGENCY 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 Report 1981-1985
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Great Lakes National Program
Office, USEPA, Region V
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph Christensen-Project Officer
Section 108A Great Lakes Demonstration Grant
16 ABSTRACT
This project involved twenty counties in northwest Ohio to demonstrate no-till
and conservation tillage methods to the farmers. Local Soil and '.later Conservation
District personnel were contracted by the Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Soil and K'ater Conservation to demonstrate conservation tillage methods with
their District farmers. Comparison fields of conventional and conservation tillage
were done side-by-side and the data collected over a period, of four years to
evaluate yields, costs, time savings, fertilizer and pesticide use. Districts were
allowed to purchase no-till equipment to be used in this project. The demonstration
effort was to show sediment and phosphorus reductions in the runoff as result of the
tillage practice to improve the water quality in Lake Erie.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Tillage
No-till
Conservation Tillage
Conventional Tillage
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Planters
Erosion
Water qua! 1$ft*$ft
Sediment
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT , . . , , , .
Document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service(NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
68
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987 - 744-956
------- |