OCLC17829175
       DEFIANCE   COUNTY
LOST CREEK

DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT
  1983 DEMONSTRATION  REPORT
                              DEFIANCE SOIL & WATER
                              CONSERVATION DISTRICT

                            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
                              PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                                                      Defiance Soil and Water Conservation D
                             R.R. 2, BOX 11, 66 NORTH  DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512 PHONE 782-8751
The Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District is pleased to present the
report of the 1983 Defiance County-Lost Creek Demonstration Project activities.
Not only are the results of the conservation tillage demonstrations being
reported, but also the results of the water quality monitoring are updated.
1983 was the third year of a four year intensified effort to introduce and
assist Defiance County farmers with conservation tillage.  One more season will
be funded by the U.S. E.P.A. from the original grant to the Defiance Soil and
Water Conservation District.
Although we realize there are many in the county who have not yet examined the
possibility of no-tillage fitting their crop production system, we are pleased
with the response received from those who are trying conservation tillage
systems on their land.  These are the people who really need to be commended
for taking the initiative to try something new and to take the extra time and
effort to cooperate with our program so that county wide data can be collected.

The Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors and staff
are encouraged by the number of farmers expressing an interest in conservation
tillage.  However, we also realize that there are many acres within the  county
in need of conservation treatment to decrease the amount of sediment and nutrients
leaving our farms.

Hopefully, after reviewing this publication, you will want to try a test on
your farm.

Sincerely,
Donald Rethmel, Chairman
Defiance Soil and Water
Conservation District

-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY - LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

            1983 DEMONSTRATION REPORT

               PROJECT REPORT FOR
                GRANT S005553 01

   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   REGION V, GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
                 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

                        BY

 THE DEFIANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
               DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO


               COOPERATING AGENCIES:
   COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
   HEIDELBERG COLLEGE
   PURDUE UNIVERSITY
   THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
        AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
        AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
        SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

                  FEBRUARY 1984

-------
             DEFIANCE SWCD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

             Don Rethmel,  Chairman

             Greg Garmyn,  Vice-Chairman

             Robert Heisler,  Secretary-Treasurer

             Brian Rohrs,  Board Member

             Louis Shininger,  Board Member
                        PROJECT STAFF

             Robert Rettig,  Project Administrator, SWCD

             Dennis ^lanagan,  Assistant County Agent, CES
                         DEDICATION

This report is dedicated to P.S. Nair, an OSU graduate student
working with the rainfall simulator study, who died in a
tragic automobile accident in July of 1983.
             Thanks to Tammy Groll and Betsy Hart for typing
             this report.
 DISCLAIMER:  While Trade names of some products have been used,
 no endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar
 products not mentioned.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                          Page

INTRODUCTION 	       1

1983 DEMONSTRATIONS  	       2

LOST CREEK WATERSHED 	       3

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES 	       3

1983 GROWING SEASON  	       4

WATER QUALITY MONITORING
     I.  USDA-ARS and PURDUE UNIVERSITY  	       5
    II.  THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY	     11
   III.  HEIDELBERG COLLEGE  	     18

1983 DEMONSTRATION PLOTS 	     21

   CORN PLOT LOCATION MAP	     22
   1983 CORN DEMONSTRATIONS	     24
   1983 CORN YIELD SUMMARY	     35

   SOYBEAN PLOT LOCATION MAP	     42
   1983 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATIONS 	     44
   1983 SOYBEAN YIELD SUMMARY  	     56

   WHEAT PLOT LOCATION MAP	     64
   1983 WHEAT DEMONSTRATIONS 	     66
   1983 WHEAT YIELD SUMMARY  	     67

   1983 OBSERVATIONS	     68

   ECONOMIC COMPARISONS  	     69

   SOIL LOSS AND WATER QUALITY	     lk

PHOSPHORUS MANAGEMENT  	     76
     Cover Photos:   Top - No-till corn planted in soybean stnbble
     is a very successful conservation tillage practice, suitable
     to most soil types.
     Bottom - No-till soybeans planted in cornstalks were a popular
     demonstration in 1983.   This field was planted in 15" rows and
     yielded over 40 bushels/Acre.

-------
        DEFIANCE  COUNTY - LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                                INTRODUCTION

   The Defiance County-Lost Creek Demonstration Project is  a unique
opportunity for Defiance County farmers to obtain "hands-on" experience
with conservation tillage systems. The Project also has an  extensive
monitoring program to determine the effect that different  tillage  practices
have on soil erosion and downstream water quality.

   Through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District manages  the Project.
Other agencies have also played an important role in making the  program
a success.  The Soil Conservation Service provides technical support  on  all
conservation practices.  The Cooperative Extension Service  is responsible
for the agronomic, educational, and informational aspects of the Project.
Heidelberg College and The Ohio State University conduct the water quality
monitoring programs, and in 1983 the Agricultural Research  Service and
Purdue University performed a rainfall simulation erosion study  to assist
the Project in obtaining more water quality data.   The  Agricultural Research
Service is also assisting the Project on a shallow tile study.   The Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conservation Service provides cost-share money
to farmers for eligible conservation practices.

   The Project provides conservation tillage equipment  to county farmers
willing to compare no-till, no-till on ridges,  or reduced tillage  to
their conventional tillage practice.   A summary of  the  three year  activities
of the Project are shown in Table #1.
THREE YEAR PROJECT SUMMARY
                                                                       Table 1
Year
1981
1982
1983
Total Farms
Cooperating
18
59
60
Total
Demon-
strations
43
124
169
Total^
Acres
851
2083
2495
No-till Planting
Equipment
3 planters
4 planters
1 drill
4 planters
1 drill
Other
Equipment
1 disk-ridger
1 ridging cultivator
1 disk-ridger
1 ridging cultivator
1 disk-chisel plow
1 disk-ridger
2 ridging cultivators
1 disk-chisel plow
  * Includes demonstration plots planted with farmer-owned  equipment.

-------
                             1983 DEMONSTRATIONS
   Listed in Table 2 are the numbers, kinds and acres of plots in 1983.
No-till corn and no-till soybeans were the most demonstrated.  Information
on each of the individual plots and yield summaries can be found in the
Corn, Soybean, and Wheat Demonstration Plots Sections of this report.

   The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) had 4 no-till planters
available in 1983:  John Deere; Hiniker; International Harvester; and
White (with add-on 15" row splitter).  A Crust Buster no-till drill was
also leased for planting no-till soybeans and wheat.  Several farmers
used their own equipment when planting their demonstration plots.  SWCD
planters were used on 103 plots.
                                                Table 2
1983 Demonstrations
No-till corn
Ridge corn
Disk-chisel corn
No-till soybeans
Ridge soybeans
Disk-chisel soybeans
No-till wheat
Disk-chisel wheat

// Farms
31
3
6
32
8
8
7
1
Total

// Plots
65
3
7
54
13
16
9
2
169
# Acres
888
39
105
722
284
272
149
36
2495
   Two other demonstrations should also be mentioned.  In the fall of 1982
a new tillage tool was tried in Defiance County.  The Paraplow is designed
to lift and crack the subsoil to a depth of 14 inches using legs which
fracture the soil at a 45° angle.  The theory is that internal soil
drainage will be improved without disturbing the soil surface, thus
improving the chances for successful no-till plantings on poorly drained
soils.  The Paraplow was used on 7 fields having a high percentage of
clay content, and in most cases no yield advantage was seen.  More
research should be done with the implement to determine what soils
can benefit from its use.
   Another new demonstration was the installation of two shallow tile
systems on Paulding clay soil in August.  The tile were placed at a
depth of about 21 inches at spacings of 15 and 30 feet.  There is also
an untiled section in each field.  In the future, tillage comparisons will
be conducted at each to determine any benefits of the tile.  Tile durability
will also be studied.

-------
                            LOST CREEKJJATERSHED
   An increased effort was made to obtain as much conservation tillage
as possible in the Upper Lost Creek Watershed, located in Milford Township.
A large stream structure monitors the runoff waters from this 2400 acre
watershed, and the Project hopes to be able to detect a change in water
quality through increasing the use of conservation tillage.
   Sixteen (16) farms in the Watershed planted 38 fields under some form
of conservation tillage, totalling 542 acres.  This is approximately one
third of the estimated farmable land.  In 1984 the Project hopes to have
at least half of the farmable land planted under either no-till or reduced
tillage.
                           EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

   Educational programs are very important as they allow many people to
learn about conservation tillage practices and how these practices are
working for their neighbors.
   In March of 1983, the second "Alternative Tillage Systems Meeting" was
held.  A panel of county farmers discussed their experiences with no-till
and ridge tillage systems.  Several speakers also covered research on ridge
tillage, soil compaction, and water quality monitoring, and management
of no-till systems.
   Two driving tours of no-till and ridge fields were held in June, covering
Western and Eastern Defiance County.  A special tour and meeting on August
9 was held for Watershed farmers and landowners.
   A successful No-till/Ridge Field Day on September 14 had an excellent
demonstration of the correct way to spray no-till fields.  Ridge formation
and no-till anhydrous application were also discussed and demonstrated.
About 90 people attended this event.
               About  20  farmers  attended this tour of no-till and
            ridge  crops  on June  29.   Here the group is viewing a
            field  of  soybeans  on new ridges.

-------
                              1983 GROWING  SEASON

   Most  crops  suffered  from  some type  of weather  related  stress  in 1983.
 Rainfall was above normal  in April, May, and  June,  delaying  plantings.
 Wet  soil conditions  and accompanying cool  temperatures  in May  slowed
 crop growth.   Some areas of  Defiance County received  especially  hard
 pounding rains,  heavily crusting the soil  and reducing  yield potential.
   Following the overly wet  spring, Defiance  County was subjected  to an
 extreme  drought.  Rainfall in July, August, and September was  a  total of
 2.5" below normal.   Crops  that had poor root  structures due  to the wet
 weather  were then damaged  by the dry,  hot  (100° F)  weather in  August.
 Corn was especially  hard hit,  and yield results show  this.
   Some  areas  of the county  were fortunate to receive much needed  rainfall,
 but  most corn  and soybean  yields were  reduced.  Wheat yields ranged from
 good to  excellent.
                   1983 DEFIANCE COUNTY RAINFALL   (inches)
                                                                         Table 3


April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Total
Hicksville

5.36
3.86
4.29
2.86
0.91
1.79
3.66
22.73
Ney

5.58
4.37
6.43
3.02
1.49
2.87
4.04
27.80
Defiance

4.31
4.40
4.14
2.84
1.24
2.03
4.31
23.27
County
Average

5.08
4.21
4.95
2.91
1.21
2.23
4.00
24.59
Normal*

3.41
3.74
3.73
3.51
2.76
2.66
2.45
22.26
County
Deviation
from normal
+1.67
+0.47
+1.22
-0.60
-1.55
-0.43
+1.55
+2.33
*Normal - Average precipitation for Northwest Ohio from 1941-70 from OARDC RB #1139.

-------
                           WATER QUALITY MONITORING

 I.   USDA-AGRICULTURAL  RESEARCH SERVICE  and  PURDUE  UNIVERSITY


                       SOIL LOSS FROM RIDGE-TILL SYSTEMS

 INTRODUCTION

    Public  concern has  recently been focused on both on-site damages in the
 form of  reduction in  cropland  productivity  from soil erosion and off-site
 damages  due to  accumulation of deposited sediment  and sediment-bound chemicals
 in  lakes and rivers.   In  the Lake  Erie  basin in particular, the area of
 major concern has been the impact  of high levels of soluble and soil-
 bound phosphorus  in runoff from agricultural fields on down-stream water
 quality.
    Only  a  fraction of  the sediment detached by rainfall and flowing water
 actually leaves  farm  fields.   Both the  quantity and size distribution of
 sediment leaving  source areas  are  important when assessing the impact of
 erosion  on downstream  water quality and off-site damages from sedimentation.
 The ratio  of sediment  delivered to sediment produced,  a delivery ratio,
 is  dependent upon many factors that influence deposition of sediment en-
 route to receiving water  bodies.   Some  of these factors include land use,
 slope shape,  distance  from source  area  to receiving body,  number and arran-
 gement of  permanent flow  channels  and presence of  grassed  waterways,
 terraces or other control structures.   Deposition  in furrows or other
 flow channels occurs whenever  the  sediment  available to be transported
 exceeds  the transport  capacity of  the  flow.
    A field study  using a  rainfall  simulator was conducted  in the summer
 of  1983  to meet  the following  objectives:
      1.  Measure  runoff rates  and  soil  loss from bare  and  residue-
         covered  row sideslopes for both no-till and recently formed
         ridges.
      2.  Measure  the effectiveness  of residue  on sideslopes,  furrows,  or
         both, for reducing downslope transport of  eroded  soil.
      3.  Measure  soil  loss  and runoff rate  from no-till  ridges,  recently
         formed ridges and  moldboard plow followed  by  single  disking.
      4.  Measure  deposition rates  of various  sizes  of  sediment  of  the  furrow
         area for  bare and  residue-covered  furrow and  sideslope  combinations.

    Another  important objective  of  the study,  to  be  reported by Dr. T.J.
Logan  in a  separate report was  to evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  residue  for
reduction of phosphorus loadings from both no-till  and recently-formed ridges.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

   The study was conducted in the summer of  1983 on a 0.1 to 0.3% slope
Paulding clay soil northwest of Defiance, Ohio.  Two cultivation histories
were used:    (1)  No-till ridges  formed after  moldboard plowing in the fall
of 1980,  with no-till  soybeans  in 1981 and no-till  corn in 1982 and  (2)
 new ridges" formed in the fall of  1982  after moldboard plowing.  One block
of the new  ridge area  was  disked early in the summer of 1983 to provide
a leveled check  area more  typical of conventional tillage in the area.

-------
                Here the rainfall simulator is shown at the experi-
             ment site applying a 2.3 inch/hour rainfall to the soil.
    Seven treatments were tested, using rainfall applied at approximately
 2.3 inches per hour with a programmable rainfall simulator developed at the
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National
 Soil Erosion Laboratory in W.  Lafayette, Indiana.  The treatments were-
      1.
      2.
      3.
      4.
      7.
No-till ridges with all the corn residue in place
No-till ridges with all corn residue removed
New ridges with no corn residue added  (bare ridges and furrows)
New ridges with corn residue added to both ridges and furrows
at the rate of 2.5 tons per acre.
New ridges with corn residue added at 2,
ridges only.
New ridges with corn residue added at 2,
only.
Moldboard plowed and disked (bare surface).
                                                 .5 tons per acre to

                                                 .5 tons per acre to furrows
    Each treatment was  replicated  three  times,  giving a total  of  21 plots.
 The ridge/furrow plots were  each  2.5  feet wide (ridges on  30-inch centers)
 and 35  feet  long, with a  furrow in  the  center  of  each plot.   The moldboard
 plow plots were 30  feet wide by 35  feet long,  a standard rainfall simulator
 plot.   Small 30-inch by 30-inch plots were  installed upslope  of  each  test
 furrow.  These plots provided a measure of  the soil  eroded  from  the short
 slopes  on each side of the furrow.
    The  run sequence applied  to each furrow  was an initial one-hour run,  a
 30-minute run with wet initial moisture conditions,  a 30 minute  run with
 very wet initial moistoire conditions and then  the addition  of five levels
 of  inflow at  the upper end of the furrow to simulate additional  slope
 length.  A 60-minute interval with no rainfall separated the dry and wet
 runs, with a  30-minute interval separating  the wet,  very wet and inflow
 series  of runs.  The inflow was added sequentially in 15 minute  steps for each
 rate, with no break between  rates.  Flow rates of  20,  80, 160, 320 and 640
 Ib/min  of water were used.  Only the dry, wet, and very wet runs were applied
 to  the  small 2.5 x 2.5 foot  interrill plots.   Furrow slope, cross-sectional
 shape,   percent cover,  and moisture content  at  0-6 and  6-12  inches  depths
were all measured before each run and after the final  run.  All  measurements

-------
but furrow slope were also taken for. the small Interrill areas.
   Measurements taken during each run included runoff  rate,  sediment  concen-
tration and samples for phosphorus determination as a  function of  time.
Three samples during the dry run, and two each during  the wet, very wet
and each of the five inflow periods were collected for undispersed sediment
size distribution.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
                                  Soil Loss
   Soil loss values for each treatment in tons per acre per hour of rainfall
applied are shown in Table 4 for the dry, wet and very wet runs.  Data  from
the small 2.5 ft square interrill plots and the runs where additional water
was added at the top of the furrow to simulate additional slope length  have
not been analyzed.

Table 4   Soil loss (Tons/acre per hour) from ridge-till and moldboard  plow
          plots on Paulding clay.
Run
Type
Dry
Wet
V Wet
No- till
Residue
Removed
1.50
1.96
1.88
Ridges
Residue
In-Place
0.20
0.24
0.24

Ridge-B*
Furrow-B
1.19
1.64
1.42
New
Ridges
Ridge-C Ridge-B
Furrow-C Furrow-C
0.76
0.80
0.68
0.72
0.76
0.68

Ridge-C
Furrow-B
0.95
1.32
1.08

Moldboard
Plow
0.82
1.18
1.12
* B = bare
C= covered with corn residue
                               Residue Placement

   On the no-till ridges, the presence of the previous year's corn residue
reduced the soil loss relative to bare conditions by approximately a factor of
eight.  On the new ridges, the corn residue added to both ridges and furrows
reduced soil loss relative to bare conditions by 1.5 times on the dry run, and
by approximately a factor of tw,o on the wet and very wet runs.  The residue on
the no-till furrows was more effective in controlling erosion because it was
weathered and matted more closely in contact with the soil surface than the
residue applied by hand.  Although the total quantity of residue was nearly the
same, more of the residue was located in the furrow in the no-till case, rather
than being uniformly distributed across both furrow and ridge areas for the new
ridge case.

   Another important finding was that soil loss was nearly the same from new
ridges when both ridge and furrow were covered as when the furrow alone was
covered.  Although more soil was detached from the bare ridge area, the residue
in the furrow area slowed runoff sufficiently to deposit all of the excess
detached soil.   The transport capacity of the flow in the furrow then became

-------
8
 the limiting factor for both treatments, thus producing nearly identical soil
 loss values.  This finding has great significance for the design and operation
 of tillage equipment.  It would appear that on these flat slopes and heavy
 soils, the ridge area can be tilled and left bare, with erosion control main-
 tained as long as the majority of the residue in the furrow area remains.
 This would obviously not apply if the tillage tool pushes loose soil into the
 furrow where it could be eroded by flowing water.

                   Conventional vs. No-Till and Yearly Ridges

    Table 4 also allows comparisons between the amount of soil loss measured
 from each of these tillage systems.  Approximately five times more soil loss
 was measured from conventional tillage with moldboard plow followed by one
 disking than from no-till ridges with residue left in place.  Ridges formed
 the fall preceding a crop, or newly constructed ridges, showed 44, 39, and 25%
 more soil loss than moldboard plowing and disking for the dry, wet, and very
 wet runs, respectively, although statistically no difference in soil loss
 between the two treatments can be detected.  The key to erosion control with
 the ridge-till system  appears to be in maintaining enough crop residue in the
 furrows to slow runoff and induce deposition of the large soil material.

                           Sediment Size Distribution

    Preliminary sediment discharge data for dry, wet, and very wet runs on no-
 till ridges with and without residue in place are shown in Figures 1 to 3.  In
 each run, over 90% of the sediment discharged from the 35 foot long furrow is
 35/urn in diameter or smaller.( l//m = 1 micrometer = 0.000039 inches)  This
 small sediment is active chemically, acting as the major transporter of sedi-
 ment-bound agricultural chemicals.  Any reduction in the discharge of this
 small sediment should also reduce the level of soil-bound  agricultural chem-
 icals discharged from the field.  In Figure 1, no reduction in clay discharge
 less than 2 /*m size was measured.  However, a considerable reduction in the
 2-10/4m and 10-20/4m size fractions was measured.  The difference in discharge
 rates represents the rate of sediment depositing among the pieces of cornstalk
 residue along the furrow.  Similar sediment discharge patterns were seen for
 the wet and very wet runs as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

    From a water quality standpoint, any of the tillage systems that leave
 residue in furrows to induce sediment deposition will be quite effective in
 reducing the soil-bound agricultural chemical discharge from a field.  The
 turbidity level in downstream water bodies may also be reduced by deposition
 of the fine silts and clays within farm fields.


 CONCLUSIONS

    Based on preliminary analysis of data collected from the experiment, the
 following conclusions can be made:

 1.  No-till ridges significantly (by a factor of 5) reduced the quantity of
     eroded soil transported from low slope, heavy clay soils in comparison to
     Moldboard plow-disk tillage.

 2.  The presence of cornstalk residue in furrows decreased soil loss signifi-
     cantly  (by at least a factor of two) on newly constructed ridges and by
     up to a factor of eight on no-till ridges.

-------
3.   Significant  amounts C?f  fine  silt  and  clay are deposited within furrows with

     residue present.   Deposition of this  small,  chemically active sediment

     within farm  fields should improve downstream water quality.
                                              DRY

                                     Bare ridges and furrows
                                 	 Restdue-covered ridges and furrows
                                   Part i c
            Size,  ur
              Figure "< .  Sediment discharge rate,  Ibs/hour, for each size  fraction  for  the

                      dry run on 0.1-0.3$ slope no-till ridges on Paulding clay.
o
CO
rH
CD
4-1
(§
O)
Ml
J-J
<0
u
CO
o
J_>
imeni
CD
CO
800
703
600 -
500-
400-
300 -

200-
100-
0-

WET
' 	 Bare ridges and furrows
	 Residue—covered ridges and furrows


- A
-/ \
*'^^ \
"\ \
\ \
\ V

                                I
                               Q
I
IS
ry
I
in
—    (\j
I     I
Q    in
in    nj
                                                           ca
                                                           Q
                           S
                           SI
                                                               IS
                           IS
                           s
                                  Partic1e Size,
             Figure Z. Sediment discharge rate, Ibs/hour,  for each size  fraction  for

                     run on 0.1 to 0.3* slope no-till ridges on Paulding clay.

-------
10
M
•C
r-l
A
 / \
*x \

/ \ \

* \
\ \
\ \
\ ^t
\ \.
\ X.
(MSCBinGJinSSSgS
** vn(vj(*)in(sjH*S»wi9
i i i i — t\i in 8 S> 
-------
II.   THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
                                                                              11
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS DATA FROM RAINULATOR STUDY

   In the summer of 1982, OSU, the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation
District and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory at Purdue
University conducted a study on the effects of ridge tillage on phosphorus
and sediment losses using simulated rainfall.  The National Erosion
Laboratory rainfall simulator produces a standard amount and intensity
of rainfall and the resulting runoff is measured  and sampled as it leaves
the end of the plot.  The experiment was located on a Paulding soil on
SR 15 Northwest of Defiance and the following treatments were evaluated:

1.  No-till ridges with all the corn residue in place
2.  No-till ridges with all corn residue removed
3.  New ridges with no corn residue added (bare ridges and furrows)
4.  New ridges with corn residue added to both ridges and furrows
    at the rate of 2.5 tons per acre.
5.  New ridges with corn residue added at 2.5 tons per acre to ridges
    only.
6.  New ridges with corn residue added at 2.5 tons per acre to furrows
    only.
7.  Moldboard plowed and disked (bare surface).

   The sediment and runoff flow analysis is being done by the National
Soil Erosion Laboratory and total phosphorus and dissolved inorganic
phosphorus (DIP) have been analyzed by The Ohio State University.  Tables
5 and 6 give the mean concentrations of total P and DIP in runoff from the
seven treatments with the standard rainulator runs.  These runs are conducted
in sequence and include:  dry(D), wet(W), very wet (VW), and up to five
additional runs (X1-X5) where extra water is applied to the soil at the
head of the plot to simulate increased runoff from upslope.

Table 5.  Mean concentration of total P in micrograms per milliliter (pg/ml)
          from ridge-till and moldboard plow plots on Paulding clay
Run
Type
Dry
Wet
V Wet
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
No-till
Residue
Removed
5.344
6.682
5.518
4.189
1.830
1.245
0.903
0.381
Ridges
Residue
In-Place
1.732
1.768
2.162
1.529
1.396
0.610
0.469
0.234

Ridge-B*
Furrow-B
5.397
5.693
5.188
1.503
0.961
0.361
0.997
0.088
New
Ridge-C
Furrow-C
3.384
2.696
2.436
1.391
0.647
0.269
0.366
0.049
Ridges
Ridge-B
Furrow-C
3.578
2.679
2.955
4.278
0.598
0.513
0.488
0.147

Ridge-C
Furrow-B
4.853
4.513
2.622
1.670
0.382
0.171
0.171
0.147

Moldboard
Plow
5.767
3.643
3.345
2.904
1.480
1.399
0.529
—
 * B = bare   C= covered with residue

-------
12

 Total P concentrations are highly correlated with sediment concentrations and
 Table 5 shows that highest concentrations were obtained from the plowed
 treatment and ridges where residue was completely removed.  Lowest total
 P concentrations were found for the ridges with complete residue cover.
 Raindrop impact seemed to be more  important (runs D, W and VW> than
 extra runoff (X1-X5) in loss of total P.(l jzg/Kl = 1 mg/1 = 0.133 oz./lOOO gal)
 Table 6.    Mean concentration of dissolved inorganic P (DIP) in micrograms
            per milliliter (pg/ml)  from ridge-till and raoldboard plow
            plots on Paulding clay.
Run
Type
Dry
Wet
V Wet
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
No-till
Residue
Removed
0.207
0.222
0.263
0.269
0.230
0.176
0.220
0.154
Ridges
Residue
In-Place
0.192
0.328
0.227
0.168
0.187
0.116
0.131
0.125

Ridge B*
Furrow B
0.077
0.068
0.064
0.061
0.026
0.003
0.001
0.000
New
Ridge C
Furrow
0.091
0.060
0.052
0.069
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.000
Ridges
Ridge B
C Furrow C
0.071
0.075
0.059
0.049
0.027
0.005
0.000
0.000

Ridge C
Furrow B
0.089
0.084
0.085
0.036
0.044
0.000
0.003
0.000

Moldboard
Plow
0.144
0.122
0.136
0.143
0.186
0.151
0.173
	
    * B = bare
C = covered with residue
  DIP  concentrations were  only  a  fraction  of  the  total  P  concentrations  and  were
  highest  on  the  plots with  complete  residue  cover.   This is  in  keeping  with the
  concept  that  no-till reduces  total  "  hut may  actually increase DTP.  DIP
  concentrations  did not change markedly between  runs,  and this  supports the
  concept  that  DIP  concentrations are controlled  by  desorption of labile P
  from the soil.

  MONITORING  OF THE SHININGERj7pjQ_,_JALrjW^                  (901)  WATERSHEDS
  IN 1982-198T

     These three watersheds  were  established  in 1981 on Paulding soils.
  The Shininger site is  in corn-soybean rot;u,e :  ••-•  111 ridges,  the Baldwin
  site is  fall-plowed  and  the Rethmel site has  ridges reformed every year.
  The sites are equipped with H-flumes, stage recorders,  pump samplers and
  recording rain gauges.   Samples are analyzed  for flow,  sediment DIP and
  total P, nitrate  and ammonia.  Because of sporadic problems of keeping

-------
                                                                                          13
 the pump  samplers in operations,  all  events  on all  three  sites could not
 be  monitored in  1982 and 1983.   Major events for which data is available  for
 the three sites  is presented here to  illustrate differences among  the
 treatments.  Tables 7-9  summarize the results.  As  with the other  sites,
 precipitation and runoff were  low in  1982 and 1983  and so were sediment,
 nitrogen  and phosphorus  losses.   A comparison of sediment yields from the
 three sites for  the December 24-25, 1982 event shows  a much higher  load from
 the plowed site  (330 kg/ha) and  the site with ridges  made each year (300
 kg/ha) than from the no-till site (30 kg/ha).   Total  P loads were  proportional
 to  the sediment  loads, btit dissolved  inorganic P loads were highest on  the
 no-till site.  This confirms the preliminary findings of  the rainulator
 study.


 Table 7.  Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Shininger (701) watershed in 1982-83.
Precipi- Sediment
Month Date
tation Flow FWM
	 cm 	 (tig/ml)
Load
(kg/ha)
Filtered Reactive P
FWM
(lig/ml)
Load
(kg/ha)
NH4-N
FWM Load
(Mg/ml) (kg/ha)
N03-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)
Total P
FWM
(Mg/ml)
Load
(kg/ha)
                                             1982
May
May
July
November
November
November
December
December
December
December

April
April
April
April
27
28
10
2
20
24
4
5
25
27

2
9
10
13


1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
—
—
.40
.65
.05
.30
.75
.35
.85
.35

.65
.30
.20
.51
0.06
0.17
0.06
0.27
0.52
0.28
0.20
0.40
0.86
0.40

0.18
0.26
0.18
0.30
1833
118
1167
74
173
179
200
2
349
175

389
308
278
367
11
2
4
2
9
5
4
150
30
7

7
8
5
11
1.833
1.588
0.667
0.222
0.231
0.214
0.200
0.275
0.002
0.125
1983
0.333
0.192
0.167
0.300
0.011 — <0.
0.027 — <0.
0.004 — <0.
0.006 — <0.
0.012 — '0.
0.006 — <0.
0.004 — '0.
0.011 2.5 0.
0.198 — <0.
0.005 — <0.

o.ooe — 
-------
14
   Table 9.  Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Rethrael (901) watershed m 1982-83.
Month

May
November
November
December
December
December
March

March
March
April
April
Date

27
23
29
3
25
27
17

21
27
6
13
Precipi-
tation Flow
	 cm 	

__
1.40
3.17
0.76
2.79
1.02
1.14

1.27
1.14
0.89
0.90

0.08
0.03
0.02
0.20
1.12
0.02
0.01

0. 19
0. 17
0.03
0.27
Sediment
FWM
( UK/ml)

__
_-
--
400
2679
--
—

105
765
333
3000
Load
(kg/ha)

28
<0.1
-0.1
8
300
2
1

2
13
2
81
Filtered Reactive P
FWM
(Mg/ml)
1982
__
—
--
1.10
0.089
--
--
1983
0. 105
--
-~
"
Load
(kg/ha)

0.001
'0.001
'0.001
0.022
0.010
'0.001
'0.001

0.002
'0.001
'0.001
'0.001
NH4-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

'0.
'0.
'0.
',0.
'-0.
'0.
<0.1

'0.1
'0.1
'0.1
<0.1
N03-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

0.1
'0.1
'0.1
-0.1
0.9 0.1
<0.1
<0.1

<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total P
FWM
(Vlg/ml)

—
—
--
0.50
3.12
—
—

0.53
1.18
--
5.56
Load
(kg/ha)

<0.01

-------
                                                                                      15
  erosion occurred  in May 1982  and June  1983,  but losses were much lower than
  in  previous years.   Phosphorus and nitrogen were very low throughout 1982
  and 1983.
      There was very little surface runoff  on the Blount site in  1982 and none
  in  1983.  This  can also be  attributed  to the drought.  This soil has less
  slope and better  drainage than either  the Roselms  or Paulding  soils and
  very little runoff would be expected under these dry conditions.   Because
  of  the drought, it is difficult to evaluate the effect of no-till on erosion,
  but an examination of March and May 1982 data show low soil losses (80 and
  870 kg/ha, respectively) for  the amount  of runoff  produced.  Phosphorus and
  nitrogen losses in surface  runoff were similar to  previous years under
  soybeans.  Tile flow on the Blount soil  was directly related to  rainfall
  distribution and   evapotranspiration,  being greatest in March, November and
  December.  Sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen loads were low.   Runoff from the
  Paulding site was higher than from the other two sites and this  follows the
  trend of the last seven vears.  Most of  the rainfall runs off  of this fine-
  textured, poorlv-structured soil and tile flow is  low compared to that of
  the Blount soil.   Because of  che clrought, however,  sediment loads were low
  compared to previous vears.   Phosphorus  loads were comparable  to previous
  years, but the  small increase in nitrate in May, 1982 was somewhat higher
  than usual.  Increased nitrate concentrations in tile drainage were also
  noted in July,  1982, although these are  low for soils in cultivated crops.
Tab I
        Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Hammersmith Roselms (111) watershed in 1982-83. Surface runoff.
Month
Precipi-
No. of tation Flow
Events 	 cm 	
Sediment
FWM*
(yg/ml)
Load
(kg/ha)
Filtered Reactive P
FWM Load
(ug'ml) (kg/ha)
NH4-N
FWM Loac
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)
NO3-N
FWM Load
(Ug/ml) (kg/ha)
Total P
FWM
(ug/ml)
Load
(kg/ha)
  January
  February
  March
  April
  May
  June
  July
  August
  September
  October
  November
  December
                                            1982
 3.38
 6.66
 7.66
 8.53
10.82
 6.60
 9.88
 3.00
 4.02
 1.02
19.08
 9.05
5.74
3.61
4.54
0.41
2.05
0.21
0.25
0.36
 180
  92
 531
5951
9930

6004
5680
3444
 103
 33
 241
 244
203?

 128
 142
 124
0.062
0.020
0.001
0.002
0.000

0.000
0.04
0.000
0.036
0.007
0.003
0.001
0.000

0.000
0.001
0.000
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.4

0.9
8.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
3.5
                                            0.3
8.0
0.0
1.1
0.4
o.:
0.1
0.7
0.2
o.o
                                            1983
                                                                               0.29
                                                                              0.00
                                                                                     0.17
                                                                                     0.00
January
February
March
April
May
June
—
1
2
4
2
1
2.22
1.20
5.30
8.26
12.76
8.80
--
0.11
0.43
1.73
1.58
3.02
—
2727
1651
2954
1987
4351
—
30
71
511
314
1314
-_
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.380
0.030
	
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.060
0.009
	
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
	
0.0
0.0
1.2
5.1
1.0
	
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.3
	
—
—
1.45
2.03
3.08
	
—
—
0.25
0.32
0.93
  • Flow weighted mean concentration.

-------
   16
Table  11.   Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Heisler Blount (401) watershed in 1982-83.  Surface runoff.
Month

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

January
February
March
April
May
June
No. of
Events

1
—
4
—
1
	
2
—
—
—
—
~

0
0
0
0
0
0
Precipi- Sediment
tation Flow FWM Load
	 cm 	 (yg/ml) (kg/ha)

6.58 3.97 25 10
4.44
9.34 9.01 89 80
3.08
10.98 5.38 1617 870
2.46
2.14 2.02 965 195
4.24
4.86
1.75
19.32
8.86

1.84 0
2.26 0
4.17 0
9.74 0
13.77 0
1 1 . 38 0
Filtered Reactive P NHd-N NCH-N Total P
FWM Load FWM Load FWM Load FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha) (ug/ml) (kg/ha) (ug/ml) (kg/ha) (ug/ml) (kg/ha)
1982
1.0 0.4 2.0 0.8 0.20 0.08
— — — — — — —
0.058 0.052 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5
—
0.059 0.032 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1
__ __ __ — — — — "
0.119 0.024 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 1.26 0.25





1983






 Table 1<-«  Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Heisler Blount (402) watershed in 1982-83.  Tile drainage.
Month

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

January
February
March
April
May
June
No. of
Events

2
3
12
5
2
4
3
—
—
—
7
8

I
2
4
7
5
1
Precipi-
tation
	 cm

6.58
4.44
9.34
3.08
10.98
2.46
2.14
4.24
4.86
1.75
19.32
8.86

1.84
2.26
4.17
9.74
13.77
11.38
Sediment
Flow

2.04
2.60
7.69
2.77
2.06
0.94
1.80
—
—
—
3.71
5.87

0.13
0.57
0.84
5.10
2.23
0.20
FWM
(Ug/ml)

44
a
55
181
150
96
83
—
—
—
237
320

77
175
238
378
372
250
Load
(kg/ha)

9
2
42
50
31
9
15
--
—
—
88
188

1
10
20
193
83
5
Filtered Reactive P
FWM
(ug/ml)
1982
0.010
0.000
0.040
0.061
0.112
0.074
0.050
—
--
—
0.310
0.133
1983
0.000
0.105
0.060
0.075
0.099
0.100
Load
(kg/ha)

0.002
0.000
0.031
0.017
0.023
0.007
0.009
—
—
—
0.115
0.078

0.000
0.006
0.005
0.038
0.022
0.002
NH4-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

0.0
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
~
—
0.3
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
0.1
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
NO3-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

4.9
1.2
1.4
4.7
2.4
3.2
1.1
—
—
—
3.0
0.9

0.0
0.2
2.4
0.6
1.3
0.0

1.0
0.3
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
—
—
—
1.1
0.5

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
Total P
FWM
( ug/ml)

0.20
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.43
0.02

—
—
—
—
0.67
0.50
Load
(kg/ha)

0.04
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.16
0.01

—
—
—
—
0.15
0.01

-------
                                                                                                                                       17
Table  13.   Precipitation, How and nutrient loads by month from the Speiser Paulding (501) watershed in 1982-83. Surface runoff.
Month

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

January
February
March
April
May
June
No. of
Events

1
2
6
3
1
1
—
—
1
3

—
—
1
1

Precipi-
tation
	 cm

4.16
6.90
6.73
5.60
11.75
9.02
11.20
3.16
8.72
1.20
18.22
9.43

2.20
1.49
4.32
8.97
13.38
5.68
Sediment
Flow

10.75
6.89
6.70
5.17
5.91
0.61
—
—
1.26
10.44

—
_-
7.61
6.72

FWM
(yg/ml)

92
65
477
309
1261
656
--
—
381
1222

-
	
1862

Load
(kg/ha)

99
45
320
160
745
40
"~
~~~
48
1276

-

1417

Filtered Reactive P
FWM
(yg/ml)
1982
0.008
0.032
0.030
0.014
0.081
0.000


0.000
0.011
1983
—

0.004
0.039

Load
(kg/ha)

0.009
0.022
0.020
0.007
0.048
0.000


0.000
0.011

—

0.003
0.026

NH4-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0


0.0
0.1

—

0.0
0.3


0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.0


0.0
0.1

—

0.0
0.2

N03-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

0.0
1.6
1.7
1.7
9.3
18.0


4.8
0.3

—

0.7
0.6


0.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
5.5
1.1


0.6
0.3

—
	
0.5
0.4

Total P
FWM
(ug/ml)

0.20
0.22
—
	
	
0.18

—
	
1.61

Lioaa
(kg/ha)

0.21
0.15
—
_„
_„
0.19

—
-_
1.08

  Table li*. Precipitation, flow and nutrient loads by month from the Speiser Paulding (502) watershed In 1982-83.  Tile Drainage.
Month

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

January
February
March
April
May
June
No. of
Events

1
1
5
2
2
2
1
—
—
—
7
7

—
2
2
5
3
1
Precipi-
tation Flow
	 cm 	

4.16
6.90
6.73
5.60
11.75
9.02
11.20
3.16
8.72
1.20
18.22
9.43

2.20
1.49
4.32
8.97
13.38
5.68

0.24
0.50
1.33
0.70
0.40
0.39
0.30
—
—
—
4.11
3.90

—
0.33
2.14
1.72
0.66
0.13
Sediment
FWM
(ug/ml)

42
20
128
700
125
51
100
—
—
—
294
503

—
242
154
273
—
—
Load
(kg/ha)

1
1
17
49
5
2
3
—
—
—
121
196

—
8
33
47
—
—
Filtered Reactive P
FWM
(yg/ml)
1982
—
0.060
0.038
0.071
0.325
0.128
0.167
—
—
—
0.058
0.0'33
1983
—
0.030
0.056
0.029
0.061
0.077
Load
(kg/ha)

—
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.013
0.005
O.OOS
—
—
—
0.024
0.013

—
0.001
0.012
0.005
0.004
0.001
NH4-N
FWM Load
(ug/ml) (kg/ha)

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
0.2
0.3

—
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
0.1
0.1

—
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
N03-M
FWM Load
(yg/ml) (kg/ha)

0.0
0.0
0.8
2.9
5.0
0.8
20.0
—
—
—
7.8
1.5

—
6.1
4.7
2.9
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
—
—
—
3.2
0.6

—
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Total?
FWM
(yg/ml)

0.21
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.02
0.15

—
—
—
0.35
0.76
0.77
Load
(kg/ha)

0,005
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.01
0.06

—
—
—
0.06
0.05
0.01

-------
18
 III.  HEIDELBERG COLLEGE
                         UPPER  LOST CREEK RUNOFF  STUDIES

    During  the 1983 water year (October 1, 1982  - September 30,  1983)  the
 Water Quality Laboratory of Heidelberg College  analyzed nutrient  and  sediment
 concentrations in more than 800 samples from  the Lost Creek Watershed.  The
 patterns of stream flow and of sediment and nutrient concentrations for the
 year are illustrated in Figure A.  A summary  of the total export  of sediment
 and nutrients for the year is shown in Table  15.
  Table 15. Summary of nutrient and sediment export in stream flow from the Lost Creek Watershed
during the 1983 water year.
Parameter
Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Reactive
Phosphorus
Nitrate + Nitrite-N
Total Kjeldahl-N
Chloride
Number
of
Samples
749
741
759
760
754
760
Flux Weighted
Concentration
mg/L
347.
0.603
0.061
3.21
2.43
12.86
Material
Short
Tons
2093.
3.63
0.37
19.53
14.70
78.09
Export
Metric
Tons
1900.
3.29
0.33
17.72
13.33
70.86
Unit Area
Ibs/acre
1744.
3.03
.31
16.28
12.25
65.08
Yield*
kg/ha
1957.
3.39
.34
18.25
13.73
72.97
  *0btained by dividing the material export by the total watershed area of 2400 acres (971 hectares).
    (1 mg/1  =  1 milligram/liter  = 0.133 ounce/1000  gallons)
                  q.DEFIRNCE  FLOW 1983
                  o"
                  o
10
(n
^-.<=>.
O°°
u.
o
q
o~
ro
	 i
^
iiJi/5"
a:
z
o.







.
OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JRN ' FEB ' MRR '
NITRflTE



J



MVrv^^^v-~^4^^A^_r^



I



. I Jl lJ_
flpp1 MOT ' JUNE: juir RUG ' SEP •
B
1
L i
vJJl
	 . 	 1 	 1 	 l^"1 "p— 1
                     OCT  NOV DEC JRN

-------
                                                                                 19
                  TP
                                     Iv
                    IT  NOV 'DEC 'JflN 'FEB ' MRR ' RPR ' MRT ' JUNE' JULY' RUG 'SEP
                o SUSPENDED SOLIDS
o§
CM
tn
a
5°.
(Do
O
00
LU
O-
(no












d


I 1
AjW pr* ft i»...-/i



1.
11.







J








1

fl


il

II .. ,
               en
                  SRP
              CL
              OC
              (D
                ' OCT 'NOV 'DEC 'JRN FEB 'MRR 'RPR 'MRT  JUNE JULT RUG SEP
                0
                o
                                               V
                   OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JflN ' FEB ' MflR ' RPR  MOT  JUNE JULT flUG  SEP

              Figure h t Stream flow and concentration patterns for nutrients and sediments
                from October 1982 through September 1983.  (A - stream flow in cubic foet p^r
                second; B - nitrate + nitrite nitrogen; C - total phosphorus; D - suspended
                sediment; E - soluble reactive phosphorus and F - total Kjeldahl nitrogen.)

   The  runoff event with the highest discharge occurred in  early May  (Figure
4 )• Most of the  runoff activity for the year occurred  in the late March,
April and early May period.  Smaller runoff  events occurred in November,
December,  June and July.   Elevated concentrations of suspended sediments  (SS)
accompanied all of the  runoff events, but  the highest suspended sediment
concentrations occurred during  the relatively small runoff  events of  June  and
July.
   Concentration  patterns for total  phosphorus (TP) and total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) were very similar to  the patterns  for suspended solids.  Much
of the  phosphorus and organic nitrogen is  bound  to sediment particles.   Since
conservation tillage  will reduce erosion and sediment losses, the losses
of total phosphorus and organic  nitrogen from farmland  in the Lost Creek
Watershed should  be significantly  reduced  by adoption of  conservation
tillage.

-------
20
    For  the Lost  Creek Watershed, most  of  the  nitrogen  losses  are  in  the  form
 of  nitrate  (Table 15 )„ The highest nitrate  concentrations  occurred during
 storms  of June and  July.  Nitrate concentrations  frequently exceeded the
 safe  levels  for  drinking water  (10 mg/L).   the  combined  nitrate and  TKN
 losses  from  the  Lost Creek Watershed amounted to  28.5  Ibs  N/acre  over the
 entire  watershed.   Since, in  any one year,  nitrogen  fertilizers would
 probably be  applied to less than one half of  the  watershed acreage,  it is
 evident that nitrogen losses  in surface  runoff  from  the  watershed are
 equivalent to a  significant proportion of the applied  nitrogen fertilizers.
    Approximately sixty samples  were analyzed  for  pesticides.  Peak concen-
 trations were as follows:  atrazine, 31  ug/L; metribuzin (Sencor), 6.9
 ^ig/L; alachlor  (Lasso), 34 ug/L; linuron (Lorox,  Linurex) , 4.1 ^ig/L;
 metolachlor  (Dual), 13.3^tg/L,  and cyanazine  (Bladex), lO^^g/L. For
 most  of the  above,  the peak concentrations  occurred  on June 6 or  June 7,
 1983.   Many  of  these herbicides were observed in  the public drinking water
 of  northwestern  Ohio cities which use  rivers  as sources  for public water
 supplies,  (l jig/L = 1 microgram/Liter  = 0.133 ounce/1000000 gallons)
    At  the  conclusion of the 1984 water year studies, a more comprehensive
 report  on  pollutant export from the Lost Creek  Watershed will be  prepared.
 It  will include  comparisons of  the 1982,  1983 and 1984 water  year data.
 Rainfall data for  the watershed will also be  examined  for  the final  report.
                This large stream structure on a tributary of
             Upper Lost Creek measures flow and automatically
             collects water samples.  Samples are analyzed by
             Heidelberg College for sediment, nutrients, and
             pesticides.

-------
                                                                             21
                          1983 DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
   During the fall and winter preceding spring planting, farmers applied
to the SWCD to use the no-till equipment.  As many cooperators as possible
were contacted by Project staff to help plan their demonstrations.

   Farmers usually contacted the SWCD one to two days ahead of when they
needed the planters.  The planters and drill were delivered and adjusted
by Project staff, with the farmer planting the plot.  A comparison between
the demonstration tillage and conventional tillage, and yield checks were
requested in every field.  To obtain a fair comparison the same planters
were used in both the no-till and comparison strips whenever possible.

   Cooperators were asked to report all cultural data to the SWCD, and to
schedule a yield check.  The Project employed a pest scout to monitor
insects and weeds in no-till fields.  In several cases postemergent herbicides
were needed.  Very few insect problems arose.

   The following maps and tables describe all of the conservation tillage
plots involved with the Lost Creek Demonstration Project.  The sections
are divided by crops:  Corn, Soybean, and Wheat.  Yield summaries of
comparison plot data can be found at the end of each crop section.  At
the end of the entire plot summary are sections on general observations,
economics, and soil loss from the fields.
               Yield checks are needed on every demonstration
            plot.   The Project's grain weighing device is shown
            here weighing corn from a measured area.

-------
DEFIANCE  COUNTY-LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
  SR 249  '
                                                               to
                                                               NJ
   - LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED
                               1983 CORN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
1 Arrowsmith

-------
                                                                              23
                         1983 CORN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
     Richard Appel & Sons #1
     Richard Appel & Sons #2 and #7
     Richard Appel & Sons #3 and #5
     Richard Appel & Sons #4
     Arnold Bok #1
     Arnold Bok #4
     Paul Bok #1
     Paul Bok #5
     Ray Bok #3
     Ray Bok #4 and #5
     Ray Bok #6
     Virg & Gloria Cameron #1
     Bob & Bruce Colwell #1
     Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
     Bob & Bruce Colwell #3, #4, #5
     Bob & Bruce Colwell #6
     Bob & Bruce Colwell #7
     Ray Conkey, Jr./Larry Zeedyk #1
     John Crites
     Dave Culler #1 and #2
     Jim Donze #2
     Jim Donze #4
     Jim Conze #5
     Vernard Heisler
     Luther Hetrick #1
     Luther Hetrick #2
     Luther Hetrick #4
     John & Dick Hoshock
     Bob & Jerry Hoshock
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55!
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Waldo Imbrock #1, #2, and #3
Frank & Leonard Jesse #1
John Koerner
Don Lehman
Don & Jim Meyer #1, #2, and #3
Don & Jim Meyer #4
Dallas Osmun
Dan Pahl #1
Walter & Gary Pierce #1
Walter & Gary Pierce #2
Walter & Gary Pierce #3
Ted Pohlmann #1 and #2
Don & Bob Rethmel #1
Clyde Rettig
Dallas & Robert Rettig #1 and #2
Albert & Keith Schroeder #1
Albert & Keith Schroeder #2
Bob Shininger #1
Bob Shininger #2
Bob Shininger #3 and #4
Bob Shininger #5, #6, and #7
Bob Shininger #8
Louis Shininger #5
Louis Shininger #6
Earl Sinn
Wendall Stephens
Clete Vetter #1 and #2
Roger Zeedyk, Jr.
CJ - A circle denotes plots within the Lost Creek Subwatershed.

                      NOTES ON THE INDIVIDUAL PLOT TABLES

    The tillage/planter columns correspond with the variety,  population,
 %H_0, and yield columns.
    Under herbicides, Paraquat is used only on the no-till sections unless
 otherwise noted.   A non-ionic surfactant is always used with Paraquat.
    Soil types are listed  in the order of largest to smallest area in the
 field.
    Fertilizer is  usually  listed in the order of broadcast, row,  then
 sidedress applications.   If 28% was sidedressed, this is indicated by the
 term "injected" under the listing.
    Several fields do not  have yields listed, for several reasons.  The two
 major reasons are that the entire field was harvested as silage,  or
 the farmer did not arrange a yield check with the SWCD.   Some hand yield
 checks  were made  by Project staff,  and some farmer estimates of  yields
 are included in the plot  comments,  when available.   Neither  method is
 reliable enough to list in the yield column.
    All corn yields  reported have been adjusted  to 15.5% moisture  content.

-------
1983 CORN DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                                                                        Table  15
Coopera tor ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Richard Anpel
& Sons
-'1
Mav 12
Richard Appel
& Sons
Mav 11
Richard Anpel
& Sons
"3
May 11
Ricnard Aopel
& Sons
Jl 4
June in
Richard Apnel
& Sons
''5
April 11
Richard Aonel
& Sons
'<7
Mav 13

Tillage/Planter
\o-till/White
No-till/White
Disk/White
No-till/Whice
No-till/ ID
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
roterra/
Farmer' s IH
Fall chisel,
sp. disk,
field cult./
Farmer' s IH
Residue
Soybean
Sovbean
Wheat/
clover
Alfalfa -
first
cutting hav
renoved
Wheat
Wheat
Soil Type
Blount
nlvnwood
Blount
pewamo
C- 1 vnwood
Blount
r.lvmjood
Blount
CUvnwooJ
Blount
(, 1 vnwood
Pewamo
^Ivnwood
Dewamo
Herbicides
Soot sprav
1 qt/A Roundup
Preemergent
1 at/A Paraquat
2 
Banded over row
7' /A Counter
Planter box
J oz/hu Aprox
";one
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20

250/' 8-32-16
189'' 82-0-0
Total 175-80-40
250'' 8-32-16
189A 82-0-0
Total 175-80-40
250'' 8-32-16
i«5- 82-0-0
Iiital 180-80-40
183'1 82-0-0
Total 150-0-0
250" 8-32-16
1Q5» 82-0-0
Total 180-80-40
235'' 8-22-31
643'' 28-0-0
Total 200-52-73
Plot Comments
Roundup soraved to
control quackgrass
patches. Fleld hurt by
drought .
No major weed or insect
problems in this field.
Field had moderate
grass pressure (crabgrass
panicum, foxtail). Yield
hurt hv drought.
Had trouble seeing
planter mark. Field hurt
bv severe drought in late
summer.
Used SWCD disk-chisel
in fall of 1982. Was to
be comparison for plot #3.
but weather delaved plant-
ing and a different
hvbrid used.
Landmark variety test
plot. Field hurt by
drought. Average yield
of 9 varieties was 82.9
bu/A. Yield data
courtesy Williams Landmarl-

\ ariety
or
Hvbrid
P.A.C. 181
Rupp 1634
Rupp 1690
P.A.G. 177
Landmark 733
Landmark 433
533
550
626
633
699
733
11 747
" 744
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26000/24200
26000/21400
26000/19600
26000/24000
26000/25000
25000/ 	
25000/ 	
"H20
16.2
15.0
15.2
16.7
18.0
19.3
15.8
17.8
17.8
17.7
18.4
18.7
20.6
22.3
22.9
Yield
(bu/A)
1'JU.O
107.0
90.3
89.7
42.5
87.7
102.8
100.8
83.4
78.9
76.7
59.7
75.1
77.6
91.2

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
"Arnold Bok
•1
Mav 13
Arnold Bok
'It
June 13
Paul Bok
•'1
Mav 16
Paul Bok
•5
••lav 18
Ra\ Bok
"3
Mav 20
Ray Bok
Hit
Mav 20
Rav Bok
"5
May 20
T;llat,e,'rlunter



Snr me n 1 ov ,
disk, drat1
(2x)/ ID
No-til 1 ' '!>
Fal 1 chisel,
disk & drae
( 2x) ^Farme r ' s
IH
No- till '
Farmer ' s ID
No-till/
Farmer ' s JD
No-till/
Fanner' s JD
Resiuue
IJheat +
weeds
Alfalfa -
1st cuttlnc
hav removed
Corn
Crrn
Sovbeat
Soybean
Soybean
Soil Tvne
Olvnwood
Blount
Clvnvood
" 1 • n > i > ' c'
1 nuc1'1''
I d-.r-
r'il ton.
Toledo
• 1 I '"ord
Ted row
Gilford
Herbicides
1 at/A "araauat
3 at/A Atrazine
2 at/A Lasso
1 n t ;A Paraauat
I-: nt/A Paraauat
2 Ib/A Atrazine
SOU1
'; nt/A Banvel

3.2 rt -'A Eiren
3.- n*. \ BLE..P
3 v /ft ^icen
3 at /A Bicep
k Tit/-\ 2,-^-D
3 nt/A Bicep
^ nt/A 2,4-D
Insecticides
planter box
oz/hu Isotox D
None
Dlanter box
DL+
Banded over row
7. 5' ''A TK fonate
Banded over rov
7 . 7' Itvf (>nat e
None
Nnne
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K-JQ
I50y 9-23-30
125'' 6-24-24
122J1 82-0-0
Total 121-64-75
150* Q-23-30
125J' 6-24-24
200'' 82-0-0
Total 186-64-7^
50; 21-0-0
75 7 3-5° 0
175 0-0-60
lOQ- 8-32-16
^40 8"1 0 0
T.-tal 225-71-121
175 0-0-60
100- 18-46-0
322 28-0-0
1^5 8 ^5 3
1^5 82-0-0
Total 238-77-109
25H 9-23-30
1^2 16-41-6
220' 82-0-0
lotal 225-116-8:
250' ^-23-30
142/' 16-41-6
220J' 82-0-0
Total 225-116-8:
250'' 9-23-30
142' 16-41-6
220- 82-0-0
Total 225-116-8:
Plot Comments
Field had initial poor
kill with contact herbi-
cide, and a severe weed
problem the rest of vear.
Severe grasses and nut-
sedge.

to rest of field to be
picked. Yield hurt by
drought .
Had problems getting
consistent seed depth due
to hardness of ground and
ru ts from previous vear s
harvest . Also , 5 Ib/A
zinc sulfate applied to
fiP.ld.
Field in Lost Creek
Watersned in which SWCD
disk-chisel plow was used .
Yield hurt by drought.
Farmer used own JD 7000
no- till planter. Heavy
rootworm beetle infes-
tation.
Moderate rootworm beetle
infestation, and light
corn borer. No yield
check taken in this field.
Some light grass pressure .
Overall clean field.
Light to moderate corn
borer infestation.
Variets
or
i i % D r i d
P.A.n. 275
P.A.n. 239
P.A.R. 239
Callahan 766
Rupp 1639
Jacques 151
Mixture of
several
varieties
Stauf f ers
Popula tion/A
(Dron/Stand)
25200/21000
25200/19000
25200/18700
27000/21200
26500/ 	
29900/30600
29900/30400
29900/32200
T!h;0
24.5
38.2
30.0
26.8
18.0
18.5
	
18.0
Yield
(bu/A)
39.5
78.5
75.2
76.4
g? g

116.0
	
137.0

-------
ON
Coooerator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Rav Bok
6
Mav 19
Virg & Gloria
"1

Mav 12

Boh 6 Bruce
Coluell
•"1
April 21
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
«2
April 27
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
/'3
Mav 13
Bob & Bruce
Coluell
''4
May 17
Bob & Bruce
Coluell
/'5
May 16


No- till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/IH


Disk (2x)/IH

\o-till/IH
Fall Chisel,
roterra/ IH
No-ti 11,'TH

Sp. field
cult. (2x)/IH
No-till/IH
Sp, field
cult. (2x)/IH


No-till/IH

No-till/IH
Residue

Soybean

Rye cover
sown in
sovbean




Sovbean


Sovbean





Corn

Sovbean
Soil TVDC

Lattv
Fulton

Hovtville
Merrnill




}\o\ tville
Naonanee




Hovtville
Raskins

Hovtville

Mermlll
Raskins
Hovtville
Herbicides

3 q t /A Bleep
11; pt/A Paraauac
1 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
Post emergent



2 at/A Bladex
I1; pt/A Dual
pos temereent
-2 ot/A Banvel
2 qt/A Blade*
Ik pt/A Dual
pos temereen t
-2 Pt/A Ranvel
2 qt'A Bladei
1'j nt/A Dual
': Pt/A 2,4-D

2 at/A Bladex
2 qt/A Lasso
2 pt'A 2,4-D
2!i qt/A Bladex
l'-5 pt/A Dual
^ pt/A Banvel
1 pt/A 2,4-D
Insecticides

None
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
2-wav

over row
2*/A Sevin
Planter box
2 oz ' :nj Agrox

planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox

Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
Banded over rsw
8.7«/A Counter
Planter box
2 oz/bi Agrox
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
142/' 16-41-6
122// 82-0-0
Total 123-58-8
364/.' 28-0-0
214// 28-0-0
inj ec ted


Total 178-42-56
311'' 28-0-0
100" 9-23-30
300' 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 180-23-30
280' 0-0-60
321' 28-0-0
138' « ^3 30
311' 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 198-55-239
200) 0-0-60
375'' 28-0-0
238*' 9-23-30
300/-' 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 210-55-191
2501' 0-0-60
718// 28-0-0
238// 6-24-24
Total 215-57-207
250*' 0-0-60
407# 28-0-0
2381' 6-24-24
300* 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 212-57-207
Plot Comnents

Light cocklebur infesta-
tion. Moderate corn
borer. Overall clean
field.
Field had manv problems.
Poor =prav apolication of
Paraquat reauired post-
emergent spray to control
rve, Armv worins reouired
rescue treatment. Also,

Heavy aphid reeding and

Clean field overall.
Some moderate aphid feed-
ing. Yield hurt by
drought.
Overall clean field.
Moderate aphid infestation

Agronomy Club Test Plot.
Individual yields of each
variety shown in separate
section of report.
Overall clean field.
Overall clean field with
no insect or weed problems
Yield likely reduced by
nitrogen deficiency and
drought.
Overall clean field. No
yield check arranged by
farmer .
Va r i e t v
or
Hvbrid
Stauffer 5602

Bojac 432




Landmark 733

Great Lakes
592

Average of
11 varieties

Great Lakes
592
Mixture

Population/A
(Drop/Stand)

29900/29600
26000/23400


26000/22000

30000/18800

30000/ 	
30000/25800

30000/22600
30000/27500
30000/28500

30000/22200

30000/26400

'.h,0

18.0
18.6


20.1

16.5

17.2
23.5

23.7
19.6
18.2

18.0



Yield
(bu/A.)

112.0
44.2


40.6

69.9

63.3
88.4

85.7
102.5
113.5

72.8




-------
Cooperacor ,
Plot,
Planting Dace
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
/'6
Mav 16
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
'17
Mav 18
Rav Conkey Jr.
Larrv Zeed\k
'1
Mav 12
John Crites
Mav 21

Dave Culler
••'1
Mav 11
Dave Culler
/;2
Mav 11
Jim Donze
''2
Mav 15
Tillage/Planter
No-till/IH
Sp. field
cult. (2x)/IH
F. chisel, sp.
field cult.
(2x) roterra/
Farmer' s 1H


No- til :/ 'D
Sp. Cni^el,
d i SK . roterra/
•D
\'o-till/JD
Sp. cnisel,
dk , roterra/ "0
No- till/
Hiniker
No- till/
Hiniker
Sp. field
cult. (2x)/
Hi ni ker
Mo- till/
Farmer's TH
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Ulieat ''
Clo'-er
Con
removes is
s ilaee
Wh u a t /
clover
Sovbean
Soybean
Soil Type
Haskins
Merroill
Hoy tville
Hovtvi lie
Rimer
Haskins
•Uvnwomi
Blount
Pew a -no
1 .it t
"e^l.
PPUMTO
BK'urt
Hovtville
Herbicides
2 qt/A Bladex
2 qt/A Lasso
4 pt/A 2,4-D
Spot sprav
4 pt/A Banvel
3 at/A Bladex
3 at 'A Lasso
! Dt ' \ Paraauat
2 1 T \ Atrjzine
2 at \ Lasso
1 nt''\ Banvel
J -i " \ 1 ir.inuac
: .'• '\ Ua.ie :
.It ' JrTT P "
I nt '- ^oundun
I ot ' \ "',irrif U.IL
; it '"' \,ic*'ex
2 n t \ assn
1 it. f \ "'aranuat
2 n t ' V I a s s o
1 q t ' \ Vtrazine
1 at ; X Bladex
1 qt/A Oual
Insecticides
Planter box
2 oz/bu A^rox
Jandetl over row
7 ' /A Dvf onate
Planter "HIV
: P7 bi. X^r^x
TL+
Bandpt; over row
'.0 ' \ Counter
M lanter box
1 oz/bu \erox
Banded . »ver row
8 -'A Count or
PlanUT fjov
J o/ /bu \«r.ix
N'one
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P2O5-K20
200*? 0-0-60
428^ 28-0-0
321# 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 222-48-168
150// 19-19-19
428# 28-0-0
268/^ 28-0-0
inj ec ted
Total 223-28-28
200'' 6-J6-26
200 ' S2-0-D
Total l/b-52-52
200 L8-46-0
100 0-0-hO

lot 23S-1?'1-135
200' 9-23-30
200 ' rS-18-n
[95,1 82-0-0
I'ot.il 190-82-72
200' 9-23-30
200 ' h-18-6
1Q5 82-0-0
total 190-82-72
400" 9-23-30
200-' 8-25-3
191" 82-0-0
Tot 209-1W-12&
Plot Comments
Overall clean field with
no problems. Heavy
density of aphids on
about 5% of plants.
Farmer used disk-chisel
plow in fall of 1982. No
comparison of tillage
provided.
Light amount of nutsedge
and ragweed in field.
Overall clean field, but
vield hurt bv drought.
Field had no- till and
chisel comparisons on two
senarate soil types, which
had a significant effect
on yield. Hiniker culti-
vated once in an attempt
to forn a ridge.
Field had heavy infesta-
tion of nutsedge and
panicum, not controlled
by herbicides.
Oood weed control and no
insect problems.
Field had good weed
control. Had 35% corn
borer feeding in early
Julv. Two vield checks
taken in field averaged
to 189.1 bu/A.
Van ety
or
Hybrid
Great Lakes
592
Great Lakes
516
Pioneer 3780
Funks 4323
Landmark 733
Landmark 733
Jacques 7780
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
28000/25300
28000/ 	

27000/ 	
T58Qo/'75000

No-till
26100/25000
Chisel

24300/18200
24300/19600
24300/19300
28500/19200
"h-,0
17.7
18.9
20.0
°0 3

13.3
18.0
17.5
17.0
24.0
21.8
19.5
18.4
18.4
Yield
(bu/A)
108.5
114.8
73.3
83.4
59.6
59.2
97.2
ss. a
80.6
94.1
99.9
199.8
181.2

-------
ho
CO
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Jim Donze
J' 4
May 16
Jim Donze
"5
May 27
Vernard Heisle
Mav 28
Luther Hetrick



Ma\ 12

Luther Hetrick
''2
Mav 12


/<4
June 20
John 1, Dick
Hoshock

April 27
TillajWrianter
Xo-till/

Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
/Farmer's IH










NO- till,' in


Disk (2x)/JD
No-till/IH

Disk (2x)/IH
Residue

Corn


Corn
Timothv &
clover sod
Sovoear



VTheat /
ciover
Sovnea.i


Hay - 1st
cut tine
removed

Soybean

Soil Tvoe

\appanee
Hovtville

Shoals


O^horne

"TTWOO<-



ili:n.
M 1 1 i ^.' c' t
ianev


.1 VTIWIHH!
llount
'ewano



Herbicides
Spot Sorav
1 q t /A Roundup
Broadcast
1 nt/A Atrazine
1 qt/A Bladex
1 at/A Dual
1 pt/A Parquat
1 qt/A Bladex
1 qt/A Dual
2 nt 'A Pnraruat
2\ Qt/A Lasso


- Z. * ' \trirjne



! p: . 'Vra^ at
"t 'A \n-a-iTu
J ^ t ' \ I a=,^l.


I Dt. ' \ naranua t
1;. Ib 'A Atrazinf
I'.. l')/\ Bladex
1 q t ' A Atrazine
1 at/A Bladex
Pos tenors'ent
':. p t /A Banvel
-; nt/A 2,--D
Insecticides

In Purr ow
1 1/3 qt/A
Furadan
Banded over row
10" 'A Counter
planter box
2 oz ^m: Hcnt=3-
L n 1 o r
Hantie J ove r rov

— •- — - — ^— ^!—

- - . ^ '» ^ iracian

'->nu'
Fianded ever rov
on 1 M f i e 1 d :
8. 7"/A Counter
1/3 field:
&. 7-" /A Furadan
Planter DOX
5 oz 'by Li ndane

Fertilizer
Applied
Total N"-P205-K?o
200/1 0-0-60
300/ 8-25-3
183^' 82-0-0
Total 174-75-12
214' 28-0-0
225' 8-32-16
200.' 82-0-0
Total 242-72-36
215'' 28-0-0
300' 10-26-26
! 61' 82-0-0
Total 140-78-78
214- 28-0-0
_>Sj- 6-26-26

s t u b b 1 e

In vheat/cluver
214 " 2H-0-0
inj ectec
214- 28-0-0
300 6-26-26
1^6' S2-0-0
Total 198-78-78
150' 0-0-60
300" 8-34-17
110/; 82-0-0
Tot 114-102-141
236/' 28-0-0
230// 6-24-24
450/' 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 206-55-55
Plot Corments
Entire field row cultivate
Farmer had problems with
till section - noted that
it was not as effective
there. Also, there was
a lower stand in no-till.
Overall clean field with
good stand. Yield hurt bv
drought.
Good weed kill and good
crop stand. Emergence was
not even. Yield hurt by
late planting and drought.
Total of 197-74-74 of
fertilizer on soybean
residue and 13 7- / 4- 74 in

[bv stalk borers. Clover

calculated overall vie Id
at 73,9 bu/A.
Excellent field with good
^tand and weed control .
Fanner noted that rest of
field yielded better than
test strip .
Planted after hay removed.
Field had moderate to
severe amounts of foxtail,
barnyardgrass , and alfalfa
No yield check arranged
by farmer.
Post emergent spray to
control bindweed and
thistles. Clean field
problems. Yield hurt by
drought.
Var 1 1 1;
or
H\bnd




Jacques 151

Stauffers 5650
Stauffers 6389



replant with

Stauffers 5650


Mixture
O's Gold 6882
o*

DeKalb 484
Population/A
(Drop 'Stand)
28500/ 	

2 85007 	

27500/25800

27200/25600

24200/18400




24200/25600


24200/ 	
28000/27000

28000/26300
/,H20
18.8

18.4

24.0

25.0
	



	

19.0



17.8
16.2
15.9
Yield
(bu/A)
90.2

110.9

125.0

70.7
	





107.9

-~

101.4
83.0
91.5

-------

Plot,
Planting Date
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock
April 25
Tom & Joe
Hoshock
April 27
Waldo Imbrock
III
May 17
Waldo Imbrock
It 2
May 20
Waldo Imbrock
#3
May 20
?rank & Leonarc
Jesse
#1
May 18
rillage/Planter
ilo-Cill/IH
Disk(2x)/IH
fio-till/IH
Disk(2x)/IH
N»-till/IH
No-till/IlI
Disk (2x)/IH
So. row cult.
ridges/Hin.
F. field cult.
so. field cult
/Hln.
No-till/Hin.
No-till/Hin.
No-till/ ID
Residue
Soybean
Sovbean


Oats, poor
alfalfa
Oats, poor
alfalfa
Sovbean
Soil Type
Mermill
Rimer
Hovtville
Ilovtville
Haskins
Paulding
pauld me
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Herbicides

2 Ib/A Atrazine
2 Dt/A Dual
1 at/A Atrazine
1 at/A Bladex
Postemergent
^ nt/A Banvel
4 pt/A 2,4-D
I1; Ib/A Atrazine
l'< Ib/A Princep
1 nt/A crop oil
1 nt/A Paraquat
3 at /A Sladex
1 nt/A Dual
1 at/A Daranuat
3 at/A Bladex
1 nt/A Dual
Spot Sprav
2 at/A Roundun
Broadcast
2 qt/A Aatrex
I1-} Dt/A Dual
1 ot/A 2,4-D



? oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Dlanter box
5 oz/bu Lmdane
None
None
None
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
ATOit 0-0-60
2500 11-52--0
10S ZnSOi
11* MnS04
Z1V,' 28-0-9
253" 32-0-0
300? 6-24-24
214# 28-0-0
213# 82-0-Q
Tot. 253-72-72
Tot. 260-101-10:
236# 28-0-0
230I/ 6-24-24
450,'' 28-0-0
inj ected
Total 206-55-55
4 ton liquid
manure
214// 28-0-0
1. 1 ton liquid
manure inlected
Total •>-•>-'
160# 9-23-30
214* 28-0-0
Total 74-37-48
160// 9-23-30
214* 28-0-0
Total 74-37-48
750// 28-0-0
300# 6-26-26
Total 228-78-78
Plot Comments
Sohigro yield challenge
test plot. High fertilit)
section also had 28/'/A of
Borate 68. Last test
strip in table had an
additional 120# of 6-24-24
rect planter setting.
Yield data show no differ-
ences due to tillage or
excessive fertilization.
Varietal difference
showed largest yield

Postemergent sprayed to
control bindweed and
thistles. Overall clean
field.
Previous crot> was corn on
ridges harvested as
silage. Hand check show-
ed 122 bu/A on ridge, and
83 bu/A on flat. Corn
was noticeably better on
ridges. Moderate corn
Borlr.
Moderate nutsedge infes-
tation. Silage hand check
showed 61 bu/A. Vield
hurt by drought and pos-
sibly nitrogen deficiency.
Moderate panicum, alfalfa,
and pigweed infestation.
Field harvested as silage-
no yield check arranged.
Roundup spotsprayed to
control quackgrass natches
Light weed pressure.
Yield hurt by drought.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Sohigro 48
Sohigro 4S.
Sohigro 54
-Snhigre 54
L*uiinark 733
O's Gold 6882
Bojac 432
DeKalk 484
DeKalb 484
Landmark 733
Pioneer 3747
Pioneer 3747
Pioneer 3747
Pioneer 3744
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
No-till
28000/27600
Disk
28000/20300
28000/20200
28000/20300
26200/23000
26200/25300
26200/24800
26200/22200
29900/25600
%H20
19.3
19. L
L7.9
17.6
19.7
~2l.4 "
16.4
15. 6
15.7
16.0
17.7

	
	
22.9
Yield
(bu/A)
154.7
154.3
143.4
.149.1
U3~9
161.0
143.7
144.0
' 135.6
91.0
81.2

	
	
89.0

-------
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
John Koerner
May 11
Don Lehman
May 26

Meyer
#1

May 18

Don & Jim
Meyer
#2
May 18
Don 4 Jim
Meyer
#3
May 18
Don & J im
Meyer
#4
May 18
Dallas Osmun
#1
May 17
Tillage/Planter
F. chtsel, sp.
disk, roterra/
Fanner's IH
F. chisel,
offset disk,
sp. disk, ro-
terra/Farmer s
No-till/Hin.
Sp. field cult
(2x)/Hiniker

No-till/
v dinner s in



No-till/
Fanner's IH


No-till/
Farmer T s IH

No-cill/
Farmer's IH

F. chisel, sp.
disk & drag(3x)
/Farmer's JD
F. olow, sp.
disk & drag(2x)
/Farmer's JD
Residue
Wheat/
clover
Soybean

Clover sod




Soybeans


Soybeans

Clover sod



Soil Type
Glynwood
Blount
Paulding
Roselnts

Fulton




Wauseon


Fulton

Paulding



Herbicides
Ik Ib/A Atrazine
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ib/A Bladex
2 pt/A Dual

4 qt/A Aatrex

1 qt/A Roundup


1 3/4 qt/A Aatrex
l»i pt/A Dual
l>i pt/A 2,4-D

1.9 qt/A Aatrex
1.9 Pt/A Dual
1.9 pt/A 2,4-D

4 qt/A Bronco
4 qt/A Aatrex

2 Ib/A Atrazine
2 qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
None
None
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Banded over row

Broadcast
1»/100# cMgnnrol
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Banded over row
40/A Dyfonate
Banded over row
4///A Dyfonate
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Banded over row
4#/A Dyfonate
BandeM over row
5#/A Furadan
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
300# 6-15-40
183# 82-0-0
100# 8-25-3
Total 176-70-123
325# 19-19-19
536# 28-0-0
Total 212-62-62
268# 28-0-0
290# 6-24-24
150# 82-0-0

Total 215-70-70

268# 28-0-0
290# 6-24-24
1500 82-0-0
Total 215-70-70
268# 28-0-0
290# 6-24-24
150# 82-0-0
Total 215-70-70
268# 28-0-0
150// 82-0-0
Focal 215-70-70
250* 16-16-16
171# 82-0-0
Total 180-40-40
Plot Comments
Slightly more grass in
section of field using
only disk-chisel plow in
fall. Farmer estimated
yield at 115 bu/A.
Attempted to ridge no-till
section with Hiniker cult-
ivator but ground was too
hard. Yield hurt by
drought .
Herbicides applied in
tank mix with 28Z N, did
not kill nutsedge -
required respraying.
Slugs attacked field in
May and June - required
use of Mesural baited
rectly set.
Population rate incor-
rectly set - overplanted.
60Z corn borer feeding in
July, No weed problems.

Population rate incor-
rectly set - overplanted.
No weed or insect
problems.

No weed or insect
problems. Yield hurt by
drought.

Farmer used SWCD disk-
chisel plow in Lost Creek
Watershed. No yield check
ted yield at 90 bu/A fall
plow, 100 bu/A fall
chisel.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Sohigro 39
Asgrow 777

Landmark 733




Landmark 733


Voris 2491

Landmark 550


Cries
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26000/ 	
27000/28200

34000/23000




34000/37700


32000/36600

30000/21600

25000/ 	
25000/ 	
%H20
	
24.7
24.7

25.0




21.1


26.0

19.9

	
	
Yield
(bu/A)
	
72.2
68.2

103.8




107.6


116.3

48.9

	
	

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Dan Pahl
#1
May 8
Walter & Garv
Pierce
.'.'1
Mav 14
Walter i Garv
Pierce
:(9
Mav 14
Walter & Garv
Pierce
«
Mav 14
Ted Pohlmann
#1
April 26
Ted Pohlmann
112
April 27
Don & Bob
Rethmel
n
Mav 16
'lllage/Planter
Fall chisel,
sp . disk/
Farmer's JD
'lo-tlll/Whlte
^o-tlll/White
No-tlll/Whlte
•;o-tlil/JD
_Fie,ld_cult/.JD_
Nc-till/JD
rield cult/JD
No-tlll/JD
Field cult/JD
No-till/
Fanner's J'
+Paraplow/
Field cult &
drag/Farmer' s
5 ID
Residue
Corn
Soybean
Sovbean
Sovbean
Sovbean
Sovbean
Sovbean
Soil Type
Tedrou
Gilford
Blount
Glynuood
Blount
Olvnwood
Pewamo
Glvnwood
Blount
Hovtville
Mermill
Ottokee
Ottokee
Hovtville
Lenawee
Herbicides
1 qt/A Aatrex
14 qt/A Bladex
14 pt/A Paraquat
3% at/A Bleep
1'- ot 'A "aranuat
3'-2 qt/A Bleep
I1; o t ' \ "araquat
3'-2 qt/A Biceo
1'j pt/\ Aatrex
1 qt/A Bladex
14 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
1% qt/A Atrazine
2'^ qt/A Lasso
On no-till onlv
1 qt/A 2,4-D
Insecticides
Planter box
5 oz/bu Diazi-
non
Banded over row
13"/A Furadan
Banded over row
6"/A Furadan
Banded over row
7-'8-0-0
1501/ 0-0-60
120I/ 0-0-22
145!' 6-24-24
514!/ 28-0-0
in j ec ted
Total 228-35-151
3000 gal manure
75* 0-0-60
161'* 28-0-0
IW 28:^0°
inj ected
Total 174-51-45
Plot Comments
Farmer used SWCD disk-
chisel plow in fall of
1982. No yield check
arranged. Farmer estimat-
ed yield at 120 bu/A.
MH^ applied before plant-
ing. Furadan aoplied on
only part of field. Some
quackgrass patches in
field. No serious pest
problems .
NH,. applied before plant-
ing. Uneven aoolication
of Furadan. Light to
moderate amount of fall
panicum.
NH applied before plant-
ing. Some quackgrass and
ragweed patches. No
major weed or insect
problems.
Also applied 22"/A Sulfur
and 18///A Magnesium.
Entire field row cultivat-
ed once.
Also applied 26"/A Sulfur
and 22''/A Magnesium.
Entire field row cultivat-
ed once. No weed or in-
sect problems.
Paranlow used in fall of
1982. Yield checks show
no advantage from paraplow.
No oest oroblems.
Variety
or
Hybrid
DeKalb XL32A
Sohigro 48
Sohigro 48
Sohigro 48
Pioneer 3747
Pioneer 3744
Pioneer 3747
Dairvland 1007
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)

26100/ 	
25800/23000
25800/25200
25800/25600
No-till
27700/26600
Comparison
27700/24700
27700/28200
27700/ 	
26100/22200
26100/22000
"H20
	
23.2
24.6
23.7
21.0
23.7
20.4
19.6
18.0
17.3
24.6
24.0
21.7
Yield
(bu/A)
	
91.0
104.6
88.8
104.6
88.8
132.5
138.5
141.2
144.2
64.5
64.7
70.3
u>

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Clyde Rettlg
in
May 12
Dallas & Rober
Rettlg
in
May 11
lallas & Robert
Rettlg
if 2
May 12
Albert & Keith
Schroeder
III
April 26
Albert 4 Keith
Schroeder
112
April 25
Bob Shininger
#1
May 13
Tillage/Planter
Jto-till/IH
F. cult./IH
No-till/IH
No-till/IH
+Paraplow/IH
Mo- till + fai:
Paraplow/IH
Fall chisel,
so. field
cult./IH
;:o-till/!U
Fall-chisel,
so. field
cult./IH
No-tlll/IH
No-till/Frm JC
F. cult/Frm JT
\'p-till/Fm JI
F. cult/Fra IE
No-till/Frm JE
No-till/Fm JE
.'lo-tili/Frm Tr
^0-r.i 11/Frm JE
r. plov, STTT.
f. cult/Frm IB
\'0-tlll/
Farmer's IH
Residue
Soybean
Soybean
\vheat
Soybean
Sovbean
Soybean
Soil Type
Hovtville
Hovcville
Raskins
IKn-tvil'p
x"Toneir~37&0 ~
Pioneer 3780
Cargill 892
Cargill 872
Cargill 872
Cargill 872
Cargill 862
Cargill 921
Pioneer 3518
Rupp 1690
~Boj~ac~432~
Pioneer 3389
Pioneer 3551
Pioneer 3318
Jacaues 97
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
25020/24800
25020/26700
25020/30600
No-till
250"20726000
No-till & Para.
25020/24300
Fall chisel
25020/24000

No-till
26100/24000
Comparison
26100/23700
26100/26000
26100/23300
26100/24300
2610^/20000
2500C/18400
%h20
15.6
15.5
15.8
YLT~
15.2
17.6
17.8
17.2
17.4
17.1
18.0
17.9
18.4
15.0
15.3
16.0
15.1
17.1
17.5
17.0
16.8
18.8
15.1
Yield
(tm/A)
118.7
106.7
91.1
~"967T""
93.7
85.6
76.1
72.7
72.6
63.0
50.8
64.1
65.1
132.4
TZ8-5
148.6
138.9
156". 3 ~~
172.5
154.0
154.2
131.4
77.2

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Bob Shinlnger
J2
April 27
Bob Shininger
#3
May 21
Bob Shinlnger
if U
May 13
Bob Shininger
05
Mav 14
Bob Shininger
#6
May 18
Bob Shininger
it 7
May 17
Bob Shininger
#8
Mav 21
Tillage/Planter
No-till/
Farmer's IH
No-till/
Farmer's IH
Stale seedbed/
Farmer's IH
No-till/
Farmer" s IH
No-till/
Farmer's IH
No-till/
Farmer's IH
No-till/
Farmer's IH
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Clover
Clover
Soybean
Clover
Corn
Soil Type
Paulding
Rose 1ms
Fulton
Rose 1ms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Herbicides
1.3 Ib/A Atrazim
9-0
2k at/A Lasso
1 qt/A 2,4-D
Postemergent
1 pt/A 2,4-D
1.1 Ib/A Atrazim
9-0
2% qt/A Lasso
2/3 pt/A 2,4-D
1. 7 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
24 at/A Lasso
1 at/A 2,4-D
Postemergent
4 Pt/A 2,4-D
1 Dt/A Paraquat
1.7 Ib/A
Atrazine 9-0
24 qt/A Lasso
1.1 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
24 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A 2,4-D
1 pt/A Paraquat
1.7 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
24 at/A Lasso
Postemergent
4 pt/A 2,4-D
1 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
24 qt/A Lasso
1 Dt/A 2,4-D
Insecticides
None
Banded over row
7#/A Counter
None
Banded over row
9/'/A Counter
None
Banded over row
8.70/A Counter
Banded over row
W/A Counter
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
245// 10-26-26
1000 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
245* 10-26-26
1000 82-0-0
Total 124-64-64
245# 10-26-26
100# 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
2450 10-26-26
100* 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
245# 10-26-26
100# 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
2450 10-26-26
1000 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
245# 10-26-26
100# 82-0-0
Total 106-64-64
Plot Comments
Liquid dairy manure appli-
ed to depth of 3/4 inch ii
fall of 1982 on part of
field. Planter populatioi
incorrectly set too high.
Overall field clean-some
nutsedge in low spots.
Low spots in field drown-
ed out. Overall good
weed control ,
3/4 inch of liquid dairy
manure applied to poor
clover field in sunnier of
1982. Field disked and
leveled in August 1982.
Heavy infestation of
dandelions.
Soil conditions too wet ir
low ground. Rained 4/10
inch 2 hours after plant-
ing, and field had heavy
crust. No pest problems.
Drought hurt field.
Had trouble planting in
crusted soil-seed not
placed or covered well due
to wet subsoil. Harvester
as silage, yielded about
7 ton/A silage.
Field was soft at planting
and still soft on June 1
when postemergent herbi-
cide sprayed. Some moder-
ate foxtail patches.
Field too wet at planting,
but rain was forecast.
Light foxtail and panicum
patches. Field yielded
about 9 ton/A silage.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Pioneer 3747
Sohigro 48
Sohigro 48
Jacques 97
Pioneer 3389
Landmark 733
Sohigro 48
Jacques 151
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
30000/22800
25800/21600
25000/21600
25000/ 	
25000/17600
25000/17000
25000/19000
%H20
18.2
28.6
27.1
19.8
19.5
	
22.7
	
Yield
(bu/A)
78.5
83.2
84.9
55.9
72.8
	
62.0
	
OJ

-------
Cooperacor ,
Plot,
'lanting Date
Louis
Shininger
#5
May 16
Louis
Shininger
#6
May 12
Earl Sinn
May 17
Wendall
Stephens
May 18
Clete Vetter
#1
May 21
Clete Vetter
#2
May 17
Roger Zeedyk,
Jr.
April 27

tillage/Planter
No-till on
ridge/Farmer's
JD
No-till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/JD
F. plow, s. flc
cult. + drag
(2x)/JD
No-till/JD
T.~pTow ~s. Tic
cult & drag
(2x)/JD
No-till/White
to-till on
ridge/Farmer's
IH
F. plow, sp.
fid cult., rot
erra/Farmer's
No-till/
Farmer' s IH
Fall plow,
field cult,
roterra/
No-till/
Farmer's JD
So. field cul
/Farmer's JD

Residue
Soybean
Soybean
Soyb ean
Clover,
grass sod
Corn
Corn
Soybean

Soil Type
Latty
Fulton
Fulton
Latty
Blount
Glynwood
Glvnvood
Blount
P ewamo
Lenawee
Del Rev
Lenawee
Del Rev
Nappanee
Raskins
Mermill

Herbicides
2 Ib/A Atrazine
'ostemergent
2 Ib/A Bladex SOW
5 Ib/A Atrazine
1. 2 pt/A Paraquat
2 Ib/A Aatrex SOW
2 qt/A Lasso
2 pt/A Paraauat
3.2 qt/A Aatrex
3 qt/A Bladex
2 Ib/A Bladex
2 qt/A Lasso
On no-till onlv
1 Dt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A 2,4-D
2 Ib/A BLadex
2 qt/A Lasso
3 qt/A Bleep

Insecticides
None
None
Planter box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Planter box
2 oz/hu Agrox
DL+
Banded over r,ow
8'' /A Counter
Banded over row
9///A Furadan
Sanded over row
13'//A Furadan
Banded over row
4'
-------
                           1983 CORN YIELD SUMMARY
                                                                              35
I.   NO-TILL YIELDS BY SURFACE RESIDUE
                                                          Table 16
In soybean stubble or light residue
Richard Appel & Sons //2
Bob & Bruce Colwell #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
Bob & Bruce Colwell //6
John Crites
John Crites
Dave Culler #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock
Bob & Jerry Hoshock
Dick & John Hoshock
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Don Lehman
Ted Pohlmann #1
Ted Pohlmann //I
Ted Pohlmann #2
Don & Bob Rethmel #1
Clyde Rettig
Albert & Keith Schroeder //I
Albert & Keith Schroeder #1
Albert & Keith Schroeder #2
Earl Sinn
Earl Sinn
Average

No- till
107.0
69.9
88.4
108.5
59.6
97.2
94.1
154.7
143.4
83.0
91.0
72.2
117.1
132.5
141.2
64.5
96.2
132.4
148.6
154.2
80.1
82.6
105.4
Comparison
90.3
63.3
85.7
114.8
59.2
88.8
99.9
154.3
149.1
91.5
81.2
68.2
123.1
138.5
144.2
70.3
93.7
128.5
138.9
131.4
82.4
73.7
103.2
                                                          Table 17
In sod
Arnold Bok //4
Dallas & Robert Rettig #2
Average
No-till
78.5
59.8
69.2
Comparison
75.2
64.1
69.6
    In corn stalks
No-till
                                                          Table 18
                                                        Comparison
     Jim Donze //4
     Clete  Vetter #2
                                  Average
  90.2
  70.8

  80.5
110.9
 94.8

102.8

-------
36
                                                            Table 19
In rye cover
Virg~& Gloria Cameron #1
No-till
44.2
Comparison
40.6
                    1983 AVERAGE YIELDS OVER ALL RESIDUE TYPES
                             No-till
Comparison
                               98.6
   98.4
       In 1983 the average yield over all residue types vas the same for
  no-till as the comparison.  However, if one looks at the averages for
  the preceding tables, some difference can "be observed.  One must also
  realize that in cases where there are very few plots averaged or when
  yields are extremely low, the average yields may not be projecting a
  true picture.
 II.   AVERAGE NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS & RESIDUES
      As classified by OARDC Research Bulletin 1068

      Group   I - Well drained soils, should show yield increase with no-till.
                  (Glynwood, Ottokee, Seward)
      Group  II - No-till yields comparable to conventional,  with improved
                  soil drainage.  (Blount,  Colwood, Haskins,  Kibbie,  Mermill,
                  Millgrove, Nappanee,  Rimer,  Tedrow,  Wauseon)
      Group III - Poorly drained soils, may yield less with no-till than
                  conventional.   (Fulton,  Roselms)
      Group  IV - Very poorly drained soils, may yield less with no-till
                  than conventional.   No-till more favorable  than deep
                  spring tillage.  (Hoytville,  Latty, Lenawee, Pewamo, Toledo)
      Group   V - Very poorly drained soils, no-till not recommended.
                  (Paulding)

                                                                     Table 20


RESIDUE


Soybean or
light residue
Sod
Corn stalks
Rye cover
OVER ALL
RESIDUES
Soil Groups
I & II
N


10
1
—
-
11
1
No-till i Comp.
"

I
116.3 . 112.9
78.5 1 75.2
	 i 	

112.9 1 109.5
1
III & IV
N


11
1
2
1
15
No-till ' Comp.

1
98.5 ' 97.6
59.8 1 64.1
80.5 'l02.8
44.2 | 40.6
89.9 ' 92.3
V
N


1
-
_
-
1
No-till


72.2
	
Comp .


68.2
	
	 	
	
	 1
72.2
	
68.2

-------
                                                                               37
HI.   TWO & THREE YEAR AVERAGE HEL^

      In soybean stubble or light residue
Table 21
TV
Year
1983
1982
1981
jo year
Number of plots
22
18
2
average (82 & 83)
year average (81, 82, 83)
No-till
105.4
135.1
124.3
118.8
119.1
Comparison
103.2
130.0
130.2
115.3
116.0
      In sod
    Table 22
Year
•1983
1982
Number of plots
2
4
Two year average (82 & 83)
No-till
69.2
118.3
101.9
Comparison
69.6
140.6
117.0

Year
1983
1982
Number of plots
1
7
Two year average (82 & 83)
No-till
44.2
157.5
143.3
Table 23
Comparison
40.6
154.9
140.6
        Over all residue types
                                                    Table 24
Year
1983
1982
1981
Number of plots
27
29
2
Two year average (82&S3'
Chree year average (81, 82,83'
No-till
98.6
138.2
124.3
119.1
119.3
Comparison
98.4
137.5
130.2
118.6
119.0
        Again with the tables in section III, one must take into consideration
   the number of plots making up the average for each type of residue cover.
   However, it does appear at this point that lesser amounts of residues
   are showing the greater yield advantage.   The three year average over  all
   residue types is an average of 58 plots and does show that overall yields
   with no-till have equaled the comparison.

-------
38
    IV.   NO-TILL CORN PLOTS WITH NO COMPARISONS
         In soybean stubble or light residue
                                      In sod
                              In corn stalks
                                                        Table 25
                                    Overall average     45
Number
29
13
3
Yield
114.9
67.3
91.4
                                                     99.6
         Much of the reason for the large number of plots without comparisons
    lies in the fact that several of the cooperating farmers own their own
    equipment and have adopted no-till as the production practice on a good
    percentage of their corn acreage.  Therefore, they do not have comparison
    plots but do provide yield data.  Also, many of these same farmers plant
    and yield check more than one hybrid in a field, but use only one in the
    comparison tillage plot.
     V.  OVERALL NO-TILL CORN AVERAGES
         In soybean stubble
                     In sod
             In corn stalks
                     In rye
                                                               Table 26
With comp.
105.4
69.2
80.5
44.2
Without comp.
114.9
67.3
91.4
Overall average
Average
110.8
67.5
87.0
44.2
99.2
                                                                    N = 51
                                                                    N = 15
                                                                    N =  5
                                                                    N =  1

                                                                    N = 72
   VI.
PARAPLOW DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                               Table  27
Jo-till versus No-till with Paraplow
Don & Bob Rethmel //I
Dallas & Robert Rettig //I
Residue: soybean Average
No-till
64.5
76.1
70.3
NT with P
64.7
72.7
68.7
                                                                           Table  28
fo-till with Paraplow versus Conventional Comparison
Don & Bob Rethmel #1
Dallas & Robert Rettig //2
Residue: Rethmel - soybean Average
Rettig — wheat
NT with P
64.7
72.6
68.6

Comp.
70.3
63.0
66.6


-------
                                                                                    39
      V.   NO-TILL CORN VARIETY PLOTS  (Yields courtesy Defiance County Agronomy Club)
           BOB & BRUCE COLWELL #3:  No-till corn in soybean  stubble
    Variety

 Callahan  766
 Migro HP470
 Stauffer  6595
 Great Lake
 Sohigro 48
 Bojac 432
 Landmark  733
 Voris 2491
 Jacques 179
 Gutwein 2610
 Pioneer 3358

 AVERAGE

NO-TILL
Stand
.6 26000
) 30000
i95 27000
; 592 26000
30000
28000
(3 30000
27000
) 25000
.0 25000
•8 29000
27500
TRIAL
%H20
16.5
18.9
17.9
17.6
21.6
16.8
20.3
18.8
22.0
19.8
25.1
19.6
                                                                          Table 29
Yield

110.2
107.4
106.1
105.8
104.0
103.
103.
101.
 99.
 97.
 89.3
102.5
                                                            SPRING  FIELD  CULTIVATE  TRIAL
Bojac 432
Stauffer
Landmark
Voris 2491
Sohigro 48
AVERAGE
.ety
'470
2610
179
12
• 6595
: 733
>91
48
i 766
ikes 592
3358

Stand
30000
30000
29000
28000
30000
26000
29000
29000
28000
28000
26000
28500
%H20
17.3
18.2
20.5
15.2
17.2
17.3
17.8
20.0
17.3
17.8
21.9
18.2
Yield
123.4
119.7
118.9
116.4
116.4
116.1
113.4
113.0
110.1
107.4
93.6
113.5
           ROGER ZEEDYK, JR;  No-till corn in soybean stubble
                                                                           Table  30
                NO-TILL TRIAL
                       SPRING FIELD CULTIVATE TRIAL
    Variety

Bojac 432
Jacques 179
Migro HP470
Sohigro 48
Pioneer 3358
Gutwein 2610
Voris 2491
Landmark 733
Stauffer 6595
Great Lakes 592
Callahan 766

AVERAGE
Stand
26000
24000
23000
27000
27000
24000
25000
27000
23000
26000
28000
25509
%H20
18.3
21.9
20.1
21.8
20.1
21.6
18.9
20.9
21.3
19.6
21.9
20.7
 Yield
 155.4
 154.9
 148
 143
 141
 139
 139
 138
 138.0
 134.9
 130.0
 142.2
Variety
Migro HP470
Jacques 179
Callahan 766
Pioneer 3358
Gutwein 2610
Sohigro 48
Bojac 432
Stauffer 6595
Landmark 733
Great Lakes 592
Voris 2491
Stand
29000
24000
32000
29000
26000
30000
24000
26000
27000
27000
24000
%H20
20.1
22.0
20.6
21.8
20.3
21.9
19.1
21.0
21.8
21.4
20.0
Yield
159.2
157.5
157.0
156.4
154.5
152.9
149.7
148.7
148.9
147.2
139.8
                                                    AVERAGE
                  27100
20.9
                                                  152.0

-------
   40
     CLETE VETTER #1:   No-till corn on old corn ridges
                                                                         Table 31
   Variety

Jacques 151
Landmark 433
Rupp 1690
Cargill 861
Gutwein 2180
Bojac 14
Pioneer 3707
Gutwein 2610
Sohigro 39
Cries X500
Stauffer 5340
AVERAGE
NO-TILL
Stand
2900U
26000
25000
27000
27000
28000
30000
27000
28000
27000
28000
TRIAL
%H20
16.1
15.1
17.6
15.6
15.1
15.2
16.2
21.3
18.6
18.0
18.2

Yield
75.5
73.7
70.8
68.8
68.3
67.7
66.3
66.3
65.5
65.4
64.4
                                                             FALL PLOW TRIAL
27500
17.0
68.4
                                  Variety
                               Jacques  151
                               Cries X500
                               Gutwein  2
                               Landmark
                               Rupp 1690
                               Bojac 14
                               Sohigro  39
AVERAGE
ty
3707
2610
861
151
00
2180
. 433
0

39
5340
_._.
Stand
30000
30000
26000
30000
30000
27000
26000
27000
25000
27000
26000
27600
%HZO
15.5
19.9
14.9
15.5
17.3
15.1
15.3
18.1
14.5
18.0
17.3
16.6
Yield
81.7
81.5
80.5
79.7
78.6
78.3
76.3
76.6
73.8
74.1
70.0
77.4
        When examining the corn variety plot yields, one must remember to only
     compare the yields within either the no-till or the comparison plots.  Do
     not compare varieties between tillage systems as plot size allowed the
     possibility of land variation affecting yields.  In the Vetter plot,
     nitrogen application date and placement differed between the two trials,
     making any comparison between the no-till and conventional section more
     inaccurate.
        When selecting varieties for no-till, it is important to choose ones
     that have performed well in the Ohio Corn Performance Tests and/or the
     County Agronomy Test Plots.

-------
                           1983 CORN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS




                    COMPARISON YIELDS BY TILLAGE & SOIL GROUPS
                                                                                 41
Table 32
4->


rH
0)
tn
•H
{•^
o

rH
i-H
cfl
Pn
3
O
rH
P

M
C
•rl
\-t
P
CO
1—1
cu
en
•H

o

M
c
•H
t-l
P
CO
o

^
en
•H
^

M
C
•H
j^
P
CO
13
rH
0)
•H
M-l

M
C
•H
)_l
P
CO


42
4-1
•H
[3

rH
rH
•H
4-1
1
O
52


^
0
rH
C-
tO
^4
BJ
P


                                                                                      I
                                                                                      o
Soil Groups I & II
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Arnold Bok #4
Bob & Bruce Colwell #6
John Crites
Dave Culler #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock
Bob & Jerry Hoshock
Ted Pohlmann #2
Albert & Keith Schroeder #2
Earl Sinn #1
Earl Sinn #1
Soil Groups III & IV
Virg & Gloria Cameron #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell //I
Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
John Crites
Jim Donze #4
John & Dick Hoshock
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Ted Pohlmann #1
Ted Pohlmann //I
Don & Bob Rethmel //I
Clyde Rettig
Dallas & Robert Rettig '/I
Dallas & Robert Rettig #2
Dallas & Robert Rettig //2
Albert & Keith Schroeder //I
Albert & Keith Schroeder #1
Clete Vetter #2
Soil Group V
Don Lehman









131.4
82.4
73.7

















94.8
















63.3


110.9







63.0
64.1







78.5

































88.8











59.2
















90.3




154.3
149.1





40.6




91.5
81.2















114.8

99.9


144.2






85.7




123.1
138.5
70.3
93.7



128.5
138.9


68.2






















64.7

72.7
72.6







107.0
75.2
108.5
97.2
94.1
154.7
143.4
141.2
154.2
80.1
82.6

44.2
69.9
88.4
59.6
90.2
83.0
91.0
117.1
132.5
64.5
96.2
76.1

59.8
132.4
148.6
70,?

72.2

-------
DEFIANCE  COUNTY-LOST  CREEK  DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                           LAKE
                              SOILS
 ICKSVILLE /
    - LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED
  SR 249 '
                                                           LAKE PLAIN
                                                            SOILS
                                 1983 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
1 Arrowsmith

-------
                                                                                43
                        1983 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
Richard Appel & Sons #6
Francis Baldwin
Arnold Bok #2
Arnold Bok #3
Paul Bok #2
Paul Bok #3
Paul Bok #4
Ray Bok #1
Ray Bok #2
Virg & Gloria Cameron #2
Virg & Gloria Cameron #3
Virg & Gloria Cameron #4
Bob & Bruce Colwell #8
Bob & Bruce Colwell #9
Ray Conkey, Jr./Larry Zeedyk #2      (52]
Steve Coolman                        53.
Ken Crites                           54.
Lynn Davis #1 and #2                 55.
Steve Diller //I                      56.
Steve Diller #2                      57.
Jim Donze //I                         58.
Jim Donze #3                         59.
Greg Garmyn/Derrill Kline            60.
Roger Grandey                        61.
Rick & Don Hall #1 and #2            62.
Rick & Don Hall #3                   63.
Bob Heisler //I                       64.
Bob Heisler #2 and #3                65.
Bob Heisler #4                       66.
Jim Helmke //I                        67.
Jim Helmke #2                        68.
Luther Hetrick #3                    69.
Art Hoellrich #1                     70.
Art Hoellrich #2                     71.
Art Hoellrich #3                     72.
Phil & Denny Hornish //I              73.
Phil & Denny Hornish //2              (74^
                                     75.
                                              Phil & Denny Hornish #3
                                              Robert & Roger Husted
                                              Frank & Leonard Jesse #2
                                              Charlie Kruse #1 and #2
                                              Tom & Bob Leeper
                                              Don & Jim Meyer #5
                                              Don & Jim Meyer #6
                                              Dave Neidhardt
                                              Dallas Osmun #2
                                              Dan Pahl #2
                                              Dan Pahl #3
                                              Dan Pahl #4
                                              Tom, Tim, & John Pendleton #1
                                              Tom, Tim, & John Pendleton #2
                                              Walter & Gary Pierce #4
                                              Ted Pohlmann #3
                                              Ted Pohlmann #4
                                              Don & Bob Rethmel #2
                                              Dallas & Robert Rettig #4
                                              Dallas & Robert Rettig #5
                                              Bob Riepenhoff
                                              Doug Rupp
                                              Bob Shininger #9 and #9P
                                              Louis Shininger //I
                                              Louis Shininger //2
                                              Louis Shininger #3
                                              Louis Shininger #4
                                              Orville Smith
                                              Bill Temple
                                                           #3
                                                           #4
Clete Vetter
Clete Vetter
Al Weber //I
Al Weber #2,
Al Weber #5
Al Weber #6
Zane Zeedyk //I
Zane Zeedyk #2
Zane Zeedyk #3
                                                           #3, and #4
   - A circle denotes a plot in the Lost Creek Subwatershed.

                       NOTES ON THE INDIVIDUAL PLOT TABLES

   The tillage/planter columns correspond with the variety, population,
      and yield columns.
   Under herbicides, Paraquat is used only on the no-till sections, unless
otherwise noted.  A non-ionic surfactant is always used with Paraquat.
   Soil types are listed in the order of largest to smallest area in the
field.
   Several fields do not have yields listed.  The major reason is that the
farmer did not arrange a yield check with the SWCD.  Some farmer estimates
of yields are included in the plot comments, when available.  These
estimates are not accurate enough to include in the yield column.
   All soybean  yields reported have been adjusted  to  13.0%  moisture  content.

-------
1983 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                                                                          Table 33
Cooperacor,
Plot,
Planting Date
Richard Appel
and Sons
16
June 1
Francis
Baldwin
June 9
Arnold Bok
n
May 30
Arnold Bok
*3
June 1
Paul Bok
n
May 30
Paul Bok
#3
June 1
Tillage/Planter
F. chisel, sp.
disk (2x),
rot/Frm drl.
F. plow, sp.
disk(2x), roty
Frm/drl.
No-till/CB drl.
Sp. Disk (2x)
Drag, Harrogatt
& Roll/Fanner's
30" row planter
No-till/White
No-till/White
Sp. Plow, disk
& drag/White
No-till/CB drl
No-till/CB drl
Residue
Com
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Soybeans
Corn
Soil Type
Glynwood
Blount
Peuamo
Paulding
Rose 1ms
Blount
Glynwood
Glynwood
Pewarao
Blount
Glynwood
Glynwood
Blount
Herbicides
2 pt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
1*5 pt/A Paraquat
2>i qt/A Lasso
1*1 pt/A Sencor
1 qt/A Roundup
2 qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A Lorox
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A Lorox
4 qt/A Bronco
1 pt/A Roundup
5/8 Ib/A Lexone
DF
4 qt/A Bronco
1 pt/A Roundup
5/8 Ib/A Lexone
DF
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
Planter Box
1*4 oz/bu Agrox
2-way
Planter Box
1*4 oz/bu Agrox
2-way
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
None
150* 0-0-60
Total 0-0-90
100# 6-24-24
Total 6-24-24
100* 6-24-24
Total 6-24-24
500 0-46-0
126 // 0-0-60
Total 0-23-76
None
Plot Comments
.Farmer did not arrange
yield check. Estimated
yield was 35 bu/A with no
noticeable difference
>etween plow and chisel.
nressure; foxtails, rag-
weed, smartweed, etc., not
controlled by preemergent
lerbicides. Farmer esti-
mated yield at 22 bu/A for
no-till, 28 bu/A comparison
Planted with White 15"
row planter. Low rate of
loundup did not fully
control quackgrass.
Planted with White 15"
row planter. Moderate
iroadleaf weed pressure.
Low spots in field drowned
)Ut.
Bronco did not completely
control quackgrass. Field
ilso had heavy amounts of
ragweed and other broad-
Leaves.
Sronco did not completely

Variety
or
Hybrid
Agripro 26
Peterson 3081
Vickery
Beeson 80
Callahan 2260
Callahan 7302R
Population/A
(Drop /Stand)
7 s#/_ 	

90#/i76400

100#/153300
100///188200

88#/163400
170000/124100
ZH20


11.5
12.2
12.0
11.3
11.1
Yield
(bu/A)



27.8
38.5
30.4
30.9
25.4
• i ~

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Paul Bok
#4
June 1
Ray Bok
#1
June 2
Ray Bok
in
June 3
Virg & Gloria
Cameron
It 2
May 27
Virg & Gloria
Cameron
93
May 28
Virg & Gloria
Cameron
#4
June 14
Tillage/Planter
No-till/CB
drill
Sp. Chisel,
disk, field
cult/CB drill
No-till/
CB drill
Sp. Disk/
CB drill
No-till/
CB drill
Fall plow, sp.
field cult./
CB drill
No-till/CB drill
Disk/CB drill
No-till/CB
drill
Disk (2x)/CB
drill
N'o-till/White

+Paraplow/Wh.
Vo-tlll/White
No-till/White
Residue
Corn
Corn
Corn
Sovbean
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Blount
Glynwood
Latty
Latty
Fulton
Hoytville
Hoy tville
Hoytville
Herbicides
4 qt/A Bronco
1 pt/A Roundup
1/3 Ib/A Lexone
DF
3/4 pt/A Lorox,
4L
None
On no-till only:
1 qt/A Blazer
. pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Sencor DF
1 qt/A Dual
Spot spray
ot/A Basagran
^opevick
Roundup
pt/A Paraquat
> Ib/A Lorox
'ostemergent
1 qt/A Basagran
I'-S oz/A Butyrac
Fall 2 p/A Surf Ian
bD .
r~q"t/A Paraouat
2/3 Ib/A Sencor DF
t-1 qt/A tlual
Spring
L qt/A Paraquat
2/3 lh/A Sencor D
1 nt/A Dual
Insecticides
Planter Box
14 oz/Bu Agrox
2-way
None
None
Check
4 pts/A Ridomll
h pt/A Ridomll
1 pt/A Ridomil
2 p_ts/A Ridomil
2 pts/A Ridomil
Check
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
2-way
.i.pJ:/A-Sidomil_
Check
(All Aserow
3127 were treat
ed with 2oz/5u
Agroi 2-way
in olanter box)
Commercial Anron
__Che£k 	
Aoron A
Apron B
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
None
None
None
None

None
Hone

Plot Comments
Bronco not completely
effective against quack-
grass. Heavy rainfall
hurt this field. Also,
large amount of volunteer
corn.
Field severely damaged
by heavy rains. Torn up
and replanted convention-
ally.
Heavy rains prevented
application of preemergent
herbicides. Light to
moderate weeds overall.
Ridomll test plot.
Rates shown in insecticidt
column. Field uneven, so
compare only adjacent
yields. Agrox 2 way seed
treatment also used at
2 oz/bu.
Drill holes plugged in
this field due to seed
treatment. Postemergent
spray to control hedge
bindweed.
This field had 4 types
of comparisons; herbicide,
Ridomil, Apron, and Para-
plow. Ridomil and Apron
treatments shown in insec-
ticide column. Rate of
Apron is 2 oz/100* seed.
Apron B'ls a more con-
centrated compound than
Apron A, and both are mix-
ed at planting in the
planter box. Results show
no advantage to fall Surf-
Ian, Paraplow, or Ridomil.
Apron showed yield adv.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Asgrow 3127
Washington 5
Voris 339
with Apron
Vi ckery
Vickery
Asgrow 3127
Funks 3236
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
170000/84900
170000/ 	
85#/ 	
85#/ 	
85#/ 222200
85///156800
85///196000
850/222200
75#/ 	
75#/ 	
ZH20
12.6
14.4
	
14.0
14.0
11.6
12.4
11.8
11.9
12.0
12.4
12.4
8.9
10.6
13.9
14.0
14.0
14.7
14.6
13.1
13.0
13.3
13.0
Yield
(bu/A)
16.1
17.8
	
40.4
40.4
28.9
30.6
31.9
33.5
35.6
33.9
33.6
44.3
45.5
27.8
29.5
28.9
31.9
31.9
31.1
28. -t
29.1
29.4

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
#8
June 1
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
P9
May 27
Ray Conkey Jr .
Larry Zeedyk
If 2
May 28
Steve Coolman
June 17
Ken Crites
June 20
Lynn Davis
in
June 17
Lynn Davis
#2
June 17
Tillage/Planter
Fall chisel,
Sp. field cult
(2x), roterra/
Farmer's IH
Fall plow, Sp.
field cult (20
roterra/Farmefe
Fall chisel, Sp,
disk, field
cult. , roterra
Farmer's IH
Fall plow, Sp.
disk, field
cult. , roterra
No-till/White
No-till/CB
drill
Field cult. ,
larrogate (2x)/
CB drill
No-till/CB
drill
Disk (2x),
roterra/ CB
drill/4 replant
No-till on
ridge/Farmer's
AC
Disk (2x) &
harrogate/
Farmer's AC
No-till on
ridge/Farmer' s
AC
Residue
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Hoytville
Hoytville
Glynwood
Blount
Pewamo
Paulding
Ro s e 1m
Hoytville
Paulding
Rose 1ms
Paulding
Roselms
Herbicides
1*5 pt/A Dual
1*5 pt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
14 pt/A Lorox
2 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 Ib/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
h Ib/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
2 pt/A Paraquat
% Ib/A Sencor
2% qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
DF
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
DF
2 qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
None
None
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
BL+
None
None
None
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
None
None
None
2500 0-0-60
Total 0-0-150
None
None
None
Plot Comments
Farmer used own IH
planter with 15" skip
row system.
Fall plow plot was
lost due to highway con-
15" skip row system.
Farmer did not arrange
yield check. Estimated
yield of 26 bu/A.
Field hurt by heavy
rainfall and heavy infes-
tation of ragweed and
smartweed. No yield check
arranged. Overall field
yielded 12 bu/A.
Field hurt by heavy
rainfall - conventional
section had to be re-
planted. Moderate
patches of foxtail
and smartweed.
Ridges have lost most
of height due to weath-
ering and no cultivation
to reform them. Check
strip was row cultivated
once.
Same as Plot //I
Variety
or
Hybrid
L-Soy 265
Vickery
Landmark 2770
Voris 295
Funks 3236
Asgrow 3127
Asgrow 3127
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
87$/ 	



80#/135900
9Q#/ 	

Ql.it/ _

100000/ 	
100000/ 	
%H20
11.7
11.6
10.6
	
	
11.6
13.7
11.9
12.7
13.0
Yield
(bu/A)
38.4
41.8
33.0
	
	
16.1
17.8
25.6
24.5
21.3

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Steve Diller
III
June 14
Steve Diller
#2
June 14
Jim Donze
#1
May 20
Jim Donze
#3
May 20
Greg Garmyn/
Derrill Kline
May 18
Roger Grandey
June 21
Rick & Don
Hall
01
May 26
Pillage/Planter
No-till/White
No-till/White
No-till/CB
drill
Fall plow,
field cult.
(2x)/CB drill
No-till/CB
drill
No-till/CB
drill
Field cult.
(lx)/CB drill
No-till/IH
New ridges /IH
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soybean
Corn
	
Soil Type
Glynwood
Pewamo
Blount
Blount
Pewamo
Hoytville
Hoytville
Nappanee
Blount
Glvnwood
Pewamo
Glynwood
Latty
Fulton
Herbicides
6 pt/A Bronco
1 pt/A Roundup
Lexone
Post:
1 qt/A Basagran
6 pt/A Bronco
1 pt/A Roundup
Lexone
h pt/A Butyrac
2 pt/A Lorox
1 qt/A Dual
Spot Preemergent:
1 qt/A Roundup
Post Emergent*
4 qt/A Dvanap
^ pt/A Butyrac
2 pt/A Lorox
1 qt/A Dual
Pos temergent :
4 qt/A Dvanap
21-} qt/A Roundup
On no-till only-
1.4 gal/ADyanap
On comparison
onlv
2 qt/A Basagran
2 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 pt/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
2 pt/A Paraquat
0.8 Ib/A Sencor
DF
2*5 pt/A Prowl
Insecticides
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox i
DL+ j
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox *
DL+
None
None
None
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
None
Fertilizer
Applied
rotal N-^C^-^O
200// 0-0-60
Total 0-0-120
1500 0-0-60
Total 0-0-90
None
None
None
200// 4-23-23
Total 8-46-46
1400 6-24-24
+ 27. Mn
Total 8-34-34
Plot Comments
Too low of rate of
Bronco used. Basagran
sprayed to control severe
cocklebur infestation.
^o yield check arranged.
Too low of rate of Bron-
co used. Field suffered
from Phytophthera root
rot. No yield check
arranged. Overall yield
of field 1 and 2 together
was 19 bu/A.
Field hurt by extremely
tieavy rainfall causing
crusting problems. Also,
severe thistle and giant
ragweed patches in no-till
section.
Field hurt by extremely
heavy rainfall, and partly
replanted. Farmer estima-
ted yield at about 22 bu/A
Wet weather prevented
planned application of pre
emergent herbidides. Dyan
ap applied at cracking to
no-till section. Basagran
applied postemergence to
rnnmar 1 sot! . LiSht -WPPflS.
Planted in 30" rows
with IH planter. Fairly
clean field.
Formation of new ridges
followed fall chisel, and
disking twice in fall of
1982. Ridges were also
row cultivated with Hin-
1983. 	
Variety
or
Hybrid
Landmark FFR
224
Landmark FFR
224
L-Soy 265
Vickery
Vickery
Vickery
L-Soy 265
Williams 79
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
80///104500
80C/156800
670/196000
670/143700
67///91500
900/137200
80.0/95800
209100/144600
%H20
—

11.8
11.8
—
10.2
10.9
14.5
12.8
Yield
(bu/A)



28.8
48.9
—
32.2
36.0
25.2
36.3

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Rick & Don
Hall
02

May 27
Rick & Don
Hall
#3
June 9
Bob Heislcr
»1
Hay 13

Bob Heisler

If 2

May 13


#3
May 13

Bob Heisler
ft

May 18


Jim Helmke
#1

May 25


Tillage/Planter
New Ridges/IH
No-till/IH
No-till 4
Paraplow/IH

No-till/CB
drill

No-till/CB drl
F. chisel, gp.
field cult.,
cultlmulch/
CB drill



No-tlll/CB
drill



No-till/CB
drill


No-till/CB
drill



sp. field cult.
(2x) /Fanner' s
JD planter
Fall disk, sp f
field cult (2x)
/Farmer's JD
olanter
Residue
	
Soybean
Soybean


Wheat Cover
Crop

Wheat,
auackgrass




Soybean




Soybean


Wheat





Corn




Soil Type

Latty



Latty

Blount
Glynwood



Blount
Glynwood




Glynwood


Blount
Glynwood




Hoy tville




Herbicides
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso



1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Paraquat
H Ib/A Sencor DF
2 pt/A Prowl

2 qt/A Roundup
'-} Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso



2 qt/A Roundup
^ Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso


2 qt/A Roundup
4 Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso


1 pt/A Paraquat
Ll Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso
Pos temer gent
1 pt/A Poast &
Oil


12 Ib/A Amiben




Insecticides

None



None

None




None




None


None





None




Fertilizer
Applied
Total N~P205-K2o
140# 6-24-24


Total 8-34-34
250# 7-26-26

Total 18-65-65
300* 0-0-60
Total 0-0-180
300 // 0-0-60




Total 0-0-180
300* 0-0-60


Total 0-0-180

None




66# 9-18-9
% pt/A Calciun

ese
Total 6-12-6

Plot Comments
Field hurt by heavy
rains then extreme drought.
Phytophthera root rot
damaged no-till section
especially hard. Ridge
formation & cultivation
same as plot #1.

No comparison plot due
to wet soil conditions.
Good field with good
weed control.

Moderate weed pressure
from broadleaves (ragweed,
smartweed) and grass
(foxtail, barnyardgrass) .

Roundup applied to
control quackgrass. Heavy
infestation of ragweeds.
Yield hurt by drought
and weeds .



Roundup applied to
control quackgrass.

Field had moderate weed
pressure from ragweed,
foxtail, barnyardgrass,
quackgrass, and clover.
Poast & oil applied to
control grass - did good
lob.

Had trash plugging in
field cultivator in disk
strip. Good weed control.




Variety
or
Hybrid

Vickery



Vickery

Vickery



Vickery





Vickery


Asgrow 3127





Asgrow 2575




Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
209100/170800
209100/ 	
209100/—


261400/189500

90///241800
90#/ 	


90#/209100





90///271800


90#/241800





50#/— -




%H20
12.0
12.8
12.0


11.0

11.0
10.2


11.3





10.5


13.3




12.2





Yield
(bu/A)
29.5
22.6
27.1


33.8

32.7
26.8


17.8





31.5


35.6




42.5






-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Jim Helmke
May 27
Luther Hetrick
/I3
June 2
Art Hoellrich
#1
May 25
Art Hoellrich
It 2
May 25
Art Hoellrich
May 24
Phil & Denny
Hornish
#1
June 1
Phil & Denny
Hornish
#2
June 1
Tillage/Planter
Fall chisel,
Field cult.
(2x) /Farmer's
JD planter
F. disk, Field
cult. (2x)/
Farmer's JD ol
No-till/White
Fall chisel,
spr. field
cult. (2x),
harrogate/
Farmer's drill
Fall chisel,
spr. field
cult. (2x)
harrogate/
Farmer's drill
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
(2x), harro-
&ate/Drill
Fall plow, SD .
field cult.
(2x), har./Drl.
No-till on
ridge/ IH
No-till/IH 30"
rows
No-till/IH 15'
rows
Field cult.Ox
/Farmer's drl.
Residue
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Soil Type
Hoytville
Me rail!
Haskins
Digby
Millgrove
Oshtemo
Paulding
Hoytville
Rimer
Mermill
Wauseon
Paulding
"aulding
Hoytville
Haskins
Herbicides
% Ib/A Sencor DF
% field:
1 pt/A Dual
% field:
1 Ib/A Surflan
1 Pt/A Paraauat
2/3 Ib/A Sencor
DF
2 at/A Lasso
20 Ib/A Amihen
20 Ib/A Amiben
20 Ib/A Amiben
1 pt/A Paraauat
10 Ib/A Amiben
banded over row
2 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Sencor
DF
2*5 cit/A Lasso
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K2o
200* 0-0-60
55# 9-18-9
33* 9-18-9
+ 10#/A Sulfur
Total 8-16-128
150# 0-0-60
Total 0-0-90
None
None
None
None
200# 0-0-60
Total 0-0-120
Plot Comments
Tillage comparison lost
due to use as variety plot
Average yield of all
varieties was 32.0 bu/A.
Excellent field with
good weed control. Yield
decreased by drought.
Farmer did not arrange
yield check. Estimated
yield at 49 bu/A.
Farmer did not arrange
yield check.
Farmer commented that
increased crop residues
on soil surface helped re-
tain moisture. Farmer
did not arrange yield
check.
Recommended herbicides
not applied. Field had
serious ragweed and fox-
tail problem. Row
cultivated once on west
side.
IH planter double-
backed to obtain 15" rows
Light weeds overall.
Variety
or
Hybrid
19 varieties
Century
Hobbit
Vickery
Vickery
Vickery
Gold Tag 1250
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)






100#/ 	


174200/ 	
174200/ 	
209100/ 	
got/ 	
**
	
13.0


	


13.0
13.0
13.4
13.4
Yield
(bu/A)
	
35.6


	


11.4
32.4
34.5
34.0

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Phil & Denny
Hornish
#3
June 2
Robert 4 Roger
Rusted
May 21
Frank & Leonard
Jesse
*2
June 17
Charlie Kruse
#1
May 24
Charlie Kruse
#2
May 24
Ton & Bob
Leeper
May 27
Don & Jim
Meyer
#5
June 7
Tillage/Planter
No-till/IH
30" rows
No-till/IH
15" rows
Field cult. (2$
roterra/drill
No-till/White
Field cult.
(2x) /White
No-till/CB
drill
Disk/CB drill
Sp. chisel,
disk, harrogatf
(2x) /Fanner's
p_lanter
Sp. plow, disk,
harrogate (2x)/
F. chisel, disk
harrogate (2x)/
Fanner's planter
Fall plow, disl
harrogate (2x)/
Farmer's lianter
No-till/White
Disk <3x)/
White
No-till/
Fanner's IH
Residue
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Soil Type
Hoytville
Digby
Blount
Pewamo
Fulton
Roselms
Hoytville
Nappanee
Nappanee
Hoytville
Nappanee
Mermill
Paulding
Roselms
Herbicides
2 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Sencor
DF
2*5 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 pt/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A 2,4-D ester
2 qt/A Roundup
2 pt/A Lorox
1*5 pt/A Dual
2 qt/A Lasso
Postemergent :
2 pt/A Blazer
2 qt/A Lasso
Postemergent
2 pt/A Blazer
1 pt/A 2,4-D ester
2 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Sencor
2)5 pt/A Dual
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Sencor
1*5 pt/A Dual
Insecticides
None
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Isotox
or
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
None
None
None
None
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
None
None
None
200# 0-15-42
Total 0-30-84
200* 0-15-42
Total 0-30-84
None
None
Plot Comments
IH planter double-
backed to obtain 15" rows
Field had moderate
quackgrass infestation,
not controlled by herbi-
cides. No yield check
arranged. Overall yield
about 31.0 bu/A
Fjccellent emergence of
soybeans. Yield was
reduced by drought, and
no yield check was
arranged.
No yield check arranged
Farmer estimated yield on
chisel at 24 bu/A and on
plow section at 19 bu/A.
No yield check arranged
Farmer estimated yield on
chisel at 28.5 bu/A, and
on plow at 28.0 bu/A.
Excellent field with
good emergence and weed
control. 2,4-D applied
over 1 week ahead of
planting to control
broadleaves.
Field hurt by heavy
rains, then drought.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Asgrow 3127
Vickery
Sprite
Gold Tag 1250
Gold Tag 1250
Vickery
Voris 202
Voris 207
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
174200/ 	
209inn/ 	
90/
-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Don 6. Jim
Meyer
#6
June 7
Dave
Neidhardt
June 4
Dallas Osmun
12
May 30
Dan Pahl
tz
May 27
Dan Pahl
*3
May 26
Dan Pahl
ft
Tom, Tin 4
John Pendleton
#1
May 14
Tillage/Planter
No-till/
Farmer's IH
No-till/White
Fall chisel,
disk (2x), roll
drag/Farmer's
planter
Fall chisel,
field cult.
(Ixy Farmer's
drill
Fall plow,
field cult.Ux
/Farmer's drill
Fall chisel,
disk, drag/
Farmer's JD
Fall plow,
disk, drag/
Farmer's JD
Fall chisel
Fall plow
No-till/CB
drill
Disk (2x)/CB
drill
Residue
Soybean
Oat stubble
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Paul ding
Roselms
Glynwood
Glynwood
Mermill
Blount
Mermill
Ottokee
Rimer
Tedrow
Gilford
Mermill
Hoytville
Rimer
Haskins
Mermill
Paulding
Blount
Herbicides
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Sencor
Vj pt/A Dual
2 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 Ib/A Lexone
SOW
2 qt/A Lasso
1/3 Ib/A Sencor
DF
*5 pt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
1.5 ot/A Dual
5 qt/A Amiben
1.7 pt/A Dual
1.5 pt/A Lorox
llj pt/A Dual
1*5 pt/A Lorox
	
1 pt/A Paraquat
1>5 Ib/A Lorox
2 pt/A Prowl
Insecticides
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+
None
None
None
	
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
None
125* 10-10-10
Total 12-12-12
125# 5-20-20
Total 6-25-25
None
None
	
None
Plot Comments
Field hurt by heavy
rains then summer drought,
Farmer did not arrange
yield check.
Field had severe grass
infestation (foxtail,
barnyardgrass, quackgrass)
Weeds and drought greatly
reduced yield.
Some herbicide damage on
slopes from Sencor runoff
No yield check arranged.
Farmer estimated yield
at 28 bu/A.
Farmer noted that fall
chisel section had less
wind erosion of sand.
No yield check arranged.
Farmer estimated yield at
25 bu/A with no dif ferenc<
between two sections.
Field not planted due
to enrollment in P.I.K.
program.
Field had some spots in
disk section drowned out.
Farmer did not arrange
a yield check. Estimated
yield at about 31 bu/A.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Voris 315
Voris 295
SRF 307P
SRF 307P
L-Soy 265
Gold Tag 1250
Gold Tag 1250
Harrosoy


Agripro 26
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
90#/ 	
90#/ 	
80)i>/104500
179700/ 	
90#/ 	
90#/ 	
90#/ 	
60/V 	
60*/ 	


720/84900
T.H-,0

13.0
	
12.3
11.9
11.2

	

Yield
(bu/A)

14.8
	
41.3
42.0
44.3





-------
Ol
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Tom, Tim 4
John Pendelto
ft 2
May 16
Walter 4 Gary
Pierce
tit
May 25
June 17
Ted Pohlmann
#3
May 20
Ted Pohlmann
#4
May 31

Rethmel

112
June 13
)allas-4 Robert
Rettig
#4
June 12
)allas. 4 Robert
Rettig
115
June 12
Tillage/Planter
No-till/CB drl
No-till/White
No-till/CB drl
4 replant with
White
No-till on
ridge/ IH
Fall chisel,
Field cult (2^
roterra/
Fanner's drill
No-till/
Farmer's JD
field cult (2x)
roterra/
Farmer',; .TT)
No-till/White
No-till with
F. Para/White

sp. field cult.
2x) harrogate
Cultipack/Wh.
No-till/White

o-till/White
isk, field
ult/White
. plow, sp.
isk, field
ult. /White
Residue
Corn
Soybean
Corn
Corn




Corn

Soybean



Corn

Soil Type
Blount
Belmore
Raws on
Glynwood
Glynwood
Blount
Pewamo
Hoytville
Latty
Oshtemo
Millgrove






Raskins
Hoytville
Nappanee


Boy tville

Herbicides
4 qt/A Bronco
1*5 Ib/A Lorox
2 pt/A Paraquat
0.6 Ib/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
\ Ib/A Sencor DF
2 pt/A Prowl
1 pt/A Paraquat
1/3 Ib/A Sencor •
DF
2 pt/A Prowl
No-till
3 qt/A Dyanap
2 qt/A Lasso

Comparison
2.5 qt/A Lasso
2/3 Ib/A Lexeme DF
14 pt/A Paraouat
1 qt/A Dual
Postemergent
2 pt/A Blazer
2 oz/A 2,4-DB

L^ pt/A Paranuat
'os temergent
2 pt/A Blazer
2 oz/A 2,4-DB
Insecticides
None
None
None
Planter Box
2 oz/bu Agrox
DL+



1 oz/bu Agrox


None


None

Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K2c
None
300* 5-20-20
with 2>5 % Mn
Total 15-60-60
150* 3-12-30
Total 4-18-45
200# 0-0-60-
50 It 0-46-0
Total 0-23-120




Total 0-0-75
2100 0-23-30
Total 0-48-63
210* 0-23-30

Total 0-48-63
100* 0-0-60
Total 0-0-60
Plot Comments
Comparison between no-
till drill and White 15"
row planter. Drill workec
better in heavy residue.
Emergence better behind
planter.
Heavy rains soon after
planting badly hurt emer-
gence. Field replanted
with White planter.
Field hurt by extremely
heavy summer rains, then
drought. Narrow drill
rows were able to better
compensate for stress.
Test strip along fence
row; poor comparison.
>y farmer.

Paraplow strip showed no
yield advantage. Some

Yields hurt by drought.

Severe weeds: ragweed
and smartweed. Postemer-
gent treatment not com-
pletely effective.
Phosphorus drawdown plot,
1982 Bray P-l soil test
was 108 Ib/A P 1983 soil
tests: with P strip - 104
50 Ib/A.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Agripro 26
Callahan
and replant
with SRF 307P
Gutwein 331
Asgrow 3127




Vickery


Beeson 80


Beeson 80

Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
72#/ 	
1211 	
75///174200
165500/146400
165500/143800
165000/ 	




80#/ 	


104#/226500
1040/219500
1rt/./f /

104/// 	
%H20
11.4
11.4
11.0
12.5
12.6
	
	



11.0
10.8

16.1
12.2


12.2
Yield
(bu/A)
38.7
40.9
26.7
28.2
32.1
	
	



33.7
37.0

17.5
30.4


32.7

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Bob Riepenhoff
July 11
Doug Rupp
May 27
Bob Shininger
#9
.June 21

Bob Shininger
#9 P
June 21
Louis
Shininger
#1
May 21
Louis
Shininger
12
June 1
Louis
Shininger
May 27
Tillage/Planter
No- till/
CB drill
Disk, land-
level, ridge/

No-till/CB drl.
TPara./CB 7rTll
FaraT ~S ^o7 Tic
cult. t4x)/
/CB drill'
F. .pTow.., sp.TIJ
c. (2x)7Farfc.dra
Fall plow, sp .
field cult.
(2x)/ Farmer's
IH drill
No- till on
ridge /Farmer's
JD
No-till on
ridge/Farmer's
JD
New ridges/
Farmer's JD
No- till on
ridge/Farmer's
JD
Residue
Hay, weeds


Corn




Corn
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Paulding


Paulding
Haskins

Paulding

Paulding
Rose 1ms
Latty
Fulton
Paulding
Reselms
Paulding
Roselms
Herbicides
2 pt/A Paraquat
1*5 pt/A Paraquat
2*5 qt/A Lasso
h Ib/A Sencor DF
2 qt/A Lasso

>5 Ib/A Sencor DF

1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Lorox
1 pt/A Dual
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
None





None

None
None
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P2C>5-K20
None
400# 0-0-60
200* 0-45-0
Foliar:
10///A Mn
Total 0-90-240

None

None
Total 0-0-D
200* 0-46-0
Total 0-92-0
IOOII 0-0-60
Total 0-0-60
110* 0-0-60
Total 0-0-66
HO// 0-0-60
Total 0-0-66
Plot Comments
Sprayer missed strip
in field. Clover and
grass patches reduced
yields, as well as droujjt
Not a recommended no-till
practice.
Excellent weed kill.
Field hurt by drought.

Paraplow test plot.
Farmer used own drill at
lower seeding rate on fal
plow sections. Paraplow
showed little to no yield
advantage.
Second year for phos-
phorus drawdown plot. 198
soil test was 42 Ibs P^/A.
1983 tests: with P added
section-54 Ibs Pj^, no P
added-42 Ibs P}/A. Leaf
tissue analvsis showed
0.40% P in botn sections.
Field had excellent
emergence and early growth
was hurt by heavy July
rain and Phytophera Root
rot, and then drought.
Row cultivated (2x) to
rebuild ridges.
New ridges formed fol-
lowing plowing, working
& leveling field. No
yield check arranged.
Overall field yield was
about 16 bu/A. Other
comments same as plot #1
Row cultivated twice to
rebuild ridge. Field
hurt by drought.
No yield check arranged
Overall field yield about
24 bu/A.
Variety
or
Hybrid
Wayne
Vickery
Landmark 224



Vickery

Vickery

Voris 339
Asgrow 3127
Gold Tag 1250
Voris 339
Voris 295
Population/A
(Drop /Stand)
85#/ 	


120#/ 	

bom 	


139400/151600
156800/128900
156800/160300
60#/ 	
%H20
	


16.4
~16\7
16.1
16.4
16.4
16.3
11.7
10.6

	
Yield
(bu/A)
	


26.9
26.8
" 28.6
25.3
29.1
32.6
30.0
26.5
25.8

	
Ln
U>

-------
U1
-P-
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Louis
Shininger

04
June 1
Orville Smith



May 17
Bill Temple
May 28
Clete Vetter
03
May 14
Clete Vetter
(M
May 13
Al Weber
#1
June 9
Tillage/Planter
NT on ridge,
FI₯mi₯li-J^x)/
'•
"
Sp. disk i bar.
(2x) roterra/
Farmer s drill
No-till/CB drL
Disk (2x)/
CB drill
No-till/CB drl.
Disk (2x)/
CB drill
No-till on
ridge/JD
Disk (3x)/JD
No- till/
Fanner's IH
No-till on
ridge/Farmer's
fPar^plowAlH
FaTl~chisel,
sp. field cult.,
roterra/IH
So-till/White
ti
ti
ti
)isk (3x) /White
Residue









Soybeans
Corn

Soybeans
Corn
Soil Type

Roselms
Paulding
Fulton

Bigby
Ross
Haney
Landes

Paulding
Hoytville
Fulton

Del Rey
Shoals
Genesee
Seward
Kibble
Spinks
Herbicides
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso


1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Lorox
Aerial .
Postemergent
6 pt/A Rescue
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Sencor
2^ qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A 2,4-D ester
2 qt/A Lasso
h lb/A Sencor DF
1 pt/A 2,4-D ester
1 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 lb/A Sencor
DF
2 qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A 2,4-D este
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 lb/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
Apron seed trt.
Check
2 oz Ridomil
Check
4 02 Ridomil
Check
2 at /A Ridomil
Check

Planter Box
2 oz/bu Diazinon


None
None

None
None
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
1200 0-0-60
Total 0-0-72


2251' 0-0-60
111/' 0-45-0


Total 0-50-135
250; 0-15-40
Total 0-38-100
1501, 4-10-10
Total 6-15-15
150* 4-10-10
Total 6-15-15
None
Plot Comments
Ridomil check plot in
field with bad Phvtophtherc
rout rot history. ^ oz anc
4 oz granular Ridomil
apj-iieu through planter
insecticide boxes. Liquid
.LiuOi.il cU'i'liid at coo
section. Data courtesv
OARDC.
For romoarnson purposes,
trie no-till check Yields
and compared to J5.1 bu/A
Grilled.
No-till section had
giant ragweed. Recommend-
ed herbicide not applied


Farmer attempted to
double back with JD plant-
er to form 15" rows. Used
Hiniker cultivator once
in ridge section. Yield
hurt by drought and weeds
(foxtail, cocklebur)
2,4-D ester sprayed
preplant to control broad-
leaves. Overall clean
field. Planted to 30"
rows .
2,4-D ester sprayed on
no-till preplant to con-
plow used in fall of 1982
Herbicide incorporated on
comparison strip. Also,
all beans row cult. (2x).
Excellent field with
good weed control and
stand. 2,4-D ester ap-
plied before planting to
control perennial broad-
leaves (vines).
Varietv
or
Hybrid

Shawnee


Landmark 3442




Wayne
Peterson 3081

Peterson 3081
Pioneer 2480
LM HS265
Williams 79
Pioneer 3481
Pioneer 3481
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
600/129300
600/112200
600/130500
600/129100
600/125100
600/123200
1000/373400
1000/294200
No-till
550/143700
Comparison
550/137200

60S/18820Q
600/ 	
500/111500

600/115000
80
-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date

Al Weber

t!2

June 18

Al Weber
"3

Al Weber

at,
June 18
Al Weber

If 5

June 19


Al Weber

II 6

June 18


Zane Zeedvk
n
Mav 30

Zane Zeedyk


Mav 8

Tillage/Planter

No-till/CB

Sn. disk (2x),
cultimulch/
CB drill

No-till/CB
drill
Sp. disk (2x),
cultimulch/CB
drill


No-till/CB
drill

No-till/CB
drii:


So. disk C2x),
cultimulch/
CB drill
No-till/CB


Sn. disk (2x),
cultimulch/
CB drill

No-till/CB
drill
Sp. disk,
field cult.,
cultimulch/

^all chisel,
so. disk,
field cult.,
cultimulch/
drill
Residue


Soybean
Weeds



Clioped
Wheat



Clioned
Wheat










Soybean





Soybean



Corn



Soil Type


"ulton
Toledo



Toledo
Ilaskins
Paulding



Toledo



Latty
Del Rev




Paulding
Rose 1ms
Ottokee
Rimer



Clvnwood
Dewamo



Blount



Herbicides
No-till
3 qt/A Bronco
1 qt/A Rounduo
2 pt/A Lorox
Comnarison
2 ot/A Lorox
2 ot/A Lasso
Mo-till
3 qt/A Bronco
1 qt/A Roundun
2 nt/A Lorox
Comparison
2 pt/A Lorox
2 qt/A Lasso

3 nt/A Bronco
1 at /A Roundun
2 pt/A Lorox

'lo-till
3 qt/A Bronco
1 qt/A RounduD
2 pt/A Lorox
Comnarison
2 nt/A Lorox
2 nt/A Lasso
No- till
3 nt/A Bronco
1 nt/A Roundun
2 nt/A Lorox
Comnarison
2 pt/A Lorox
2 at/A Lasso


1 pt/A Paraquat
1 lb/A Sencor
2 at/A Lasso


1 lb/\ Sencor
50W


Insecticides



None



None



None











None




None



None



Fertilizer
Applied
otal N-P205-K2o







None



None




None





None





None



None



Plot Comments

from fully established
perennial broadleaves
and grasses. Roundup
applied to control quack-
grass & other perennials.
Yields hurt by weeds.
Roundup applied to
control heavy quackgrass
infestation. Light weed
oressure later, but also
by drought.


Same comments as Field
#3.

Roundup snrayed to
control heavy thistle
infestation. Good emer-
gence and stand in no-
till section. Check
strips accidently harves
ted - no yield data.
Roundup sprayed to con
trol heavy auackgrass in
festation. Most of fiel
had to be reolanted due
to heavy rains rip.ht af-
ter olanting. llo-till
gec^icn survived rain


Light weed pressure
overall. Yields reduced
by drought.


Two fields in Watershe
in which SWCD disk-chise
plow was used.


Variety
or
Hvbrid



William 79



Williams 79



Williams 79




Fella





Pella





Vickery



Washington 5



Population/A
(Drop/Standl



94/(/ 	



«„_



9W 	




94#/ 	





94^7 	





750/215600

gn#/ 	



qo#/ 	

H20





17.fi

17.6
17.6


17.5

	




	

14.6




1A.5
10.


10.
12



12.

Yield
(bu/A)





7.2

19.0
14.4


25.1

	




	

20.5




14.8
36.1


39.0
36.7



37.6

Ln
Ui

-------
56
                           1983 SOYBEAN YIELD SUMMARY
      NO-TILL YIELDS BY SURFACE RESIDUE
                                                  Table 34
In corn stalks
Arnold Bok #3
Paul Bok #4
Ray Bok #2
Virg & Gloria Cameron #3
Ken Crites
Jim Donze //I
Don & Bob Rethmel #2
Dallas & Robert Rettig #5
Bob Shininger #9
Orville Smith
Orville Smith
Al Weber //I
Average

No-till
38.5
16.1
40.4
44.3
16.1
28.8
35.6
30.4
26.9
29.1
25.6
43.8
31.3
Comparison
30.4
17.8
40.4
45.5
17.8
48.9
37.0
34.0
29.1
37.8
37.7
40.2
34.7
                                                  Table 35
In soybean stubble
Virg & Gloria Cameron #2
Greg Garmyn & Derrill Kline
Phil & Denny Hornish #2
Phil & Denny Hornish #3
Tom & Bob Leeper
Al Weber #2
Al Weber #6
Zane Zeedyk #1
*No-till 15" rows Average
Comparison-drilled
No-till
35.6
32.2
34.5*
35.8*
51.0
6.0
20.5
36.1
31.5

Comparison
33.9
36.0
34.0
34.2
49.2
7.2
14.8
39.0
31.0

                                                   Table  36
In wheat stubble
JBob Heisler #1
No-till
32.7
Comparison
26.8
                                                   Table  37
In clipped wheat cover
lo. Weber #3
No-till •
19.0
Comparison
14.4
                   1983 AVERAGE YIELDS OVER ALL RESIDUE TYPES
                              No-till
                               30.9
Comparison
   32.1

-------
                                                                             57
     Although all the yields on the plots need to "be considered since
they were a part of the trials, three of those planted in corn stalks
had severe problems with crusting or poor weed control.  If those yields,
showing 12 or more bushels difference between the no-till and comparison,
are deleted when computing the average yields in cornstalks, the
average yield for no-till and the comparison are both 32.U bushels per
acre.
     Again when there are few plots under a particular residue category
as in the case with wheat stubble or  clipped wheat cover and when the
yields are extremely low, one must be careful in making generalizations
concerning the data.
 II.   AVERAGE NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS & RESIDUES

      As classified by OARDC Research Bulletin 1068

      Group   I - Well drained soils, should show yield increase with
                  no-till.   (Glynwood, Ottokee,  Seward)
      Group  II - No-till yields comparable to conventional  with improved
                  soil drainage.  (Blount,  Colwood,  Haskins,  Kibbie,
                  Mermill,  Millgrove, Nappanee,  Rimer, Tedrow,  Wauseon)
      Group III - Poorly drained soils may  yield less  with no-till than
                  conventional.   (Fulton, Roselms)
      Group  IV - Very poorly drained soils, may yield less  with no-till
                  than conventional.   No-till more favorable than  deep
                  spring tillage.   (Hoytville, Latty,  Lenawee,  Pewamo,
                  Toledo)
      Group   V - Very poorly drained soils, no-till not recommended.
                  (Paulding)
                                                                      Table  38


RESIDUE

Corn stalks
Soybean stubble
Wheat stubble
Wheat cover
UVcjix xvLjlj
RESIDUES
Soil Groups
I & II
N | No-till
5 1 30.6
2 1 34.2
1 ' 32.7
-! -
8 j 31.8
Comp.
32.8
37.5
26.8

33.2
III & IV
N
5
5
_
1
Nor- till
32.0
34.3
""**"" 1
19.0 |
11 31.8 1
Comp.
37.3
34.0

14.4
33.7
V
N
2
1
_
-
3
No-till
31.2
SO. 5
,»—
—
27.7
Comp.
33.0
14.8

—
27.0

-------
58
 III..  TWO YEAR AVERAGE YIELDS
       In corn stalks
                                             Table 39
Year
1983
1982
Number of plots
12
6
Two year average (82 & 83'
No-till
31.3
40.6
34.4
Comparison
34.7
41.1
36.8
       In soybean stubble
                                             Table 40
Year
1983
1982
Number of plots
8
7
Two year average (82 & 83,
No- till
31.5
37.5
34.3
Comparison
31.0
38.9
34.7
       In wheat cover
                                             Table 41
Year
1983
1982
Number of plots
1
1
Two year average (82 & 83]
No-till
19.0
39.7
29.4
Comparison
14.4
42.1
28.2
       Over all residue types
                                             Table 42
Year
1983
1982
Number of plots
22
14
rwo year average (82 & 83]
No-till
30.9
39.0
34.0
Comparison
32.1
40.1
35.2

-------
                                                                             59
IV.   NO-TILL SOYBEAN PLOTS  WITH NO  COMPARISONS
               In soybean stubble
               In corn stalks
               In wheat cover
               In small grain stubble

                     Overall average
Table 43
Number
9
10
2
2
Yield
26.2
35.6
29.4
23.0
23
30.3
 V.  OVERALL NO-TILL SOYBEAN AVERAGES
      In corn stalks
      In soybean stubble
      In wheat cover
      In small grain stubble
                Table 44
With comp .
31.3
31.5
19.0
32.7
Without comp.
35.6
26.2
29.4
23.0
Overall average
Average
33.3
28.7
26.0
26.2
30.6
                            N
                            N
                            N
                            N
                         22
                         17
                          3
                          3
                                                                       N = 45
 VI.   NO-TILL SOYBEANS  ON  RIDGES
                                               Table 45

Lynn Davis //I
Ted Pohlmann #3
Louis Shininger #4
Bill Temple
Clete Vetter #4
Average
NT on Ridge
25.6
28.2
31.0
21.7
33.9
28.1
Comparison
24.5
32.1*
35.1*
21.6
35.9
29.8
     *Comparison plot drilled

      A big  question  with  ridge  systems  is  whether  the  benefits  of
 ridges will compensate  for  sacrificing  of  narrow-rowed "beans.   With  the
 few plots in 1983  the drilled beans  were about  four  bushels  better.
 However, if the  the  ridge systems  can over a period  of years prevent
 some replanting, this needs to  be  considered.
VII.  SOYBEANS ON NEW RIDGES
                                                Table  46
New ridges versus
Mo-till on flat
JRick & Don Hall #2
New ridge
29.5
No-till
22.6

-------
60
   VIII.  PARAPLOW DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                                      Table  47
^o-till versus No-till with Paraplow
Virg & Gloria Cameron #4
Rick & Don Hall #2
Don & Bob Rethmel #2
Bob Shininger #9
Residue: Hall-soybeans Average
Others-corn
No-till
31.9
22.6
35.6
26.9
29.2
No-till w/Paraplow
31.9
27.1
33.7
26.8
29.9
                                                                   Table 48
No— till with Paraplow versus
Conventional Comparison
Don & Bob Rethmel #2
Bob Shininger #9
Residue: Corn Average
No-till w/Paraplow
33.7
26.8
30.2
Comparison
37.0
29.1
33.0
                  The Paraplow uses legs which crack the soil at a
               45° angle to depth of 14 inches.   This implement may
               help improve internal soil drainage on compacted soils.
               Yield results in Defiance County show no significant
               benefit on clay soils in 1983.

-------
IX.  PHOSPHORUS DRAWDOWN PLOTS
                                                                           61
                                                                      Table 49

Dallas & Robert Rettig #5
Bob Shininger #9P
Average

Bray P-l
Soil Test
108*
42**
75
Pounds of
P205 added
48
92
70
Yield
With P
34.0
30.0
32.0
Without P
32.7
32.6
32.6
     Conventional tillage
     *1982 soil test  **1981 soil test
      The phosphorus drawdown plots are a part of a multi-county study.
 This being the second of a three year study, the Defiance County plots
 are included for 1983.  For more information on Phosphorus Management
 please refer to the section at the back of this report.
 X.   DISK-CHISEL PLOW PLOTS
                                                 Table 50

Bob & Bruce Colwell #8
Jim Helmke //I
Dan Pahl #2
Residue: corn
Average
Fall chisel
3P.i
42.5
42.0
41.0
Comparison
41.8
42.7
44.3
42.9
XI.  RIDOMIL PLOTS
     A.   Virg & Gloria Cameron //2
         Variety:  Vickery
         Residue:  Soybean
                                                                   Table 51
Tillage
No-till
tl
If
It
tt
Disk
ii
Treatment
Check
4 PTS/A RIDOMIL
% PT/A RIDOMIL
1 PT/A RIDOMIL
2 PTS/A RIDOMIL
2 PTS/A RIDOMIL
Check
Yield
28.9
30.6
31.9
33.5
35.6
33.9
33.6
                                   Note:  Drainage in field varied - only
                                          compare adjacent yields.

-------
62
                                                                             Table 52
    B.   Louis Shininger #4

        Variety;   Shawnee
        Residue:   Soybean

Tillage
NT on
it
it
Disk,
ridge


roterra, drill
Treatment
Apron seed trt.
2 oz. Ridomil G
4 oz. Ridomil G
2 QT/A Ridomil L
Yield
With
34.9
37.6
38.8
44.6
Without
32.1
31.3
30.1
35.1
    C.  Virg  & Gloria Cameron #4

       Tillage;  No-till
       Variety:  Asgrow 3127
       Residue;  Corn
                                                      Table 53
Treatment
1 PT/A RIDOMIL
CHECK
Yield
27.8
29.5
   D.  Virg & Gloria Cameron #4
       Tillage;  No-till
       Variety;  Funks 3236
       Residue:  Corn
Table 54
Treatment
Check
Apron A
Apron B
Ctommercial Apron
Yield
28.4
29.1
29.4
31.1
      Ridomil is a systemic fungicide that has been used for many
 years in southern states to protect tobacco crops.  Recently, the
 possibility of using Ridomil to protect soybeans from Phytophthera root
 rot has been under study.  Since no-till increases soil moisture and
 the chance for increased Phytophthera root rot, the potential is great.
 Apron is a seed treatment of Ridomil, used to reduce "damping off" of
 soybean seedlings.
      The yields shown here are also part of university and industry field
 trials.  In each case where the Apron seed treatment was used with a
 Phytophthera-tolerant soybean variety, a slight yield increase was seen.
 The Ridomil treatments on Cameron's fields show little or no advantage,
 while at Louis Shininger's field, every Ridomil treatment gave a
 significant yield increase, indicating a severe Phytophthera infestation.

-------
\->. vT 0 0
« 1- 0
(D 1 (r*
cr K, j-
ro n> H- w o
l-t B 0 0 (B
•a H- cr <
=tte M 0 H-
O* (D OQ ^ CD
fl) 0>
H ft =*fc
^Ef ^
vo n>
to
to
vo

co
•
0


M to to
00 ON en
to
en
•
CO

to to
M en
^4 ON
to co
ON co
* •
oo »si
to to co
O ON en
en vO ON
(-> SiSlrtH-t-' M H ?T OQOQOQ J fl> S3 H- H- OQ M O M
(D (D fO CO Q3 ^d i?1 PC O O (?* W (D H~* ("* '"d PC H"*
o crer coo tytyroc'Oi-t «?>(?>c^o o NCTI-'K-'IBIOOWCU o
H fO(D0 CDOOOOtO O 1OOI-' HOOO M M ^
=«!pcj 00=s= a> I B B  H- M
^.(0 H-H-tOMSfDO) I-1 M
rtOJCD M^ili-IM I-1
ftcrsr ooo<5 ^
H- =a= 0 0 0 «
OQ =«= =*fe 00 M
CO 10 =«= =!b =«= H-
=fe *- CO tO 0
Cn <"
U) •{> -P- *> *« *•
j> to oo M O •>
• • • • • *
O en vo 00 *• CO
co co co -C- to
en to oo to ON
. . • • •
vo I—1 -^ O 00
to
•
CO
o
•
I-1
-g
•
oo
|_i (jj f~ I-" *»CO COJ^COCO
^.^jCn vo ^J enco voO"»J^J
... . . •• ....
•p-tot-1 to 00 Cnvo Oto^JOO
CO CO v**
*• *• ON
tob b
to
vO
•
Cn
co co to
co i-1 oo
• * •
VO O to
to co
^J I-1
* •
SON g £££ KS&t ^^eUS o^SKS ^r^otol
OO •> OOOCn ONOOI-' vOCOON4> H>OOON|-> ^JtoMCn
H
pi
cr
h-1
n>
en
7a
?a
Ya
Sp
Sp
Sp
Sp
Nei
No
No
T

Spring field
  cultivate

New ridges


No-till on ridge


No-till with
  paraplow
                       8
                       *
Fall plow




Fall chisel


Fall disk


Spring plow


Spring chisel




Spring disk
H
en
O
a

Kj
1— 1

@
en
3
H
tr1
i
M
(?•
en
O
H
ir1

O
o
vo
oo
co

en
q
Kj

5
^
M
o
en
H
H
n
O
*
f
O
H
en

                       en
ON
Co

-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY-LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION  PROJECT
                       LAKE  PLAIN
                        SOILS
   - LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED

-------
                                                                                65
1.  Beck Brothers
2.  Paul Bok (A)
    Paul Bok (B)
    Ray Bok (A)
5.  Ray Bok (B)
O
                         1983 WHEAT DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
                                               Roger Grandey
                                               Darwin & Darrell Hancock (A & B)
                                               Bob Heisler
                                               Gary Mavis
                                               Zane Zeedyk
- A circle denotes a plot in the Lost Creek Subwatershed.
                       NOTES ON THE INDIVIDUAL PLOT TABLES

      The tillage/planter columns correspond with the variety, population,
   %H20,  and yield columns.
      Soil types are listed  in the order of largest to smallest area in the
   field.
      All wheat yields have been adjusted to 13.5% moisture content.
                 No-till wheat emerged well in the fall of 1982.
              The soybean stubble and the growing wheat helped to
              reduce erosion by providing substantial soil cover.

-------
                                                                                                                           a*
1983 WHEAT DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                                                                          Table  56
Cooper a tor ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Beck Brothers


October 1982


Paul Bok

A

October 5, 1982

Paul Bok
B
October 5, 19B2

Ray Bok
A
October 1982

Ray Bok

B
October 1982

Roger Grandey
October 1982


Tillage>Plante
No- till/
CB drill


Disk/CB drill

No-till/
	 CB_dr.ill_
No-till/CB drl

Disk (2x)/
CB drill


No-till/
CB drill


No-till/
CB drill
Disk (2x)/
CB drill



No- till/
CB drill


No- till/
CB drill
Disk (2x)/
CB drill


Residue


Soybean





Soybean




Soybean



Soybean



Soybean


Soybean



Soil Type


Hoytville




Blount
Glynwood




Glynwood



Latty



Latty
Fulton


Glynwood
Blount



Herbicides


None





ne




None



None



None


None



Insecticides


None v





None




None



None



None


None


Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
150* 6-26-26
214* 28-0-0



Total 69-39-39
304* 7-17-20
193* 28-0-0
Total 75-53-60
304* 7-17-20
86* 28-0-0
60* 2-6-30
Total 46-57-78
300* 9-26-20
257* 28-0-0

Total 99-79-60
250* 9-23-30
179* 28-0-0

Total 72-58-75
250* 9-23-30
179* 28-0-0


Total 72-58-75
200* 16-16-16
222* 45-0-0

Total 132-32-32

Plot Comments

Excellent field with
good stand and yield.


Field hurt somewhat by
wet, damp spring weather.
Separate check strip with
additional 6 ton/A hog
manure yielded 65.8 bu/A.
Also 12 Ib/A S on entire
field.

Good field with good
stand and emergence.
In Lost Creek Watershed.


Good emergence and
stand. Farmer well
pleased with results.



Same as Plot A.


Very sloping field with
some severe gully problems.
Emergence and stand good on
no-till. Farmer did not
arrange yield check. Farm-
er estimated disk section
yielded only 35 bu/A. Over-
all field yielded 47 bu/A.
Variety
or
Hybrid


Titan





Callahan 118




Callahan 115



Titan



Titan


Hart



Population/A
(Drop /Stand)


ISO*/ 	





l^uf/




120*/ 	



120*/ 	



120*/ 	


HO*/ 	



ZH20
14



14

12.7
"lI.T



12.7

14.0


14.0

14.6


17.8


—

	

Yield
(bu/A)
74.0



74.0

41.8
~37~2



45.0

53.7


61.1

55.7


47.0


~^fcfc

	

-------
Cooperator ,
Plot,
Planting Date
Darvin &




Sept. 24, 1982
Bob Heisler
October 1982

Gary Mavis
October 8, 1982
Zane Zeedyk



3ctober 8 1982

Tillage/Planter
Fall chisel/dr]

Fall disk/drill

Fall chlsel/drl
Fall plow/drill
No-till/
CB drill
CB drill
Disk (2x)/
Farmer's drill
No-till/
CB drill
Disk (3x)/
CB drill
No-till/
CB drill



Disk/CB drill
Residue


Oats




Soybean

Soybean




Soybean


Soil Type


Latty



Blount
Fewamo
Glynwood

Glynwood
Blount




Blount
Glynwood


Herbicides


None




None

None




None


Insecticides


None




None

None




None


Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20

250* 10-16-16
150* 46-0-0


Total 109-40-40
300* 10-26-26
133* 45-0-0

Total 90-78-78
220* 9-23-30
290* 28-0-0
Total 101-51-66
3000 9-23-30
357* 28-0-0



Total 127-69-60
Plot Comments
Two fields in which

performed primary tillage,

reported. Farmer estimated
yield at 33 bu/A with no
difference seen.
Field had good emergence
and stand. Hurt somewhat
For comparison purposes,
the two disk yields were

Good emergence and stale
in dry fall. Some quack-
grass in no-till section
reduced yield there.



Excellent emergence
and stand.


Variety
or
Hybrid


Pioneer 76




Arthur

Arthur




Pioneer 76


Population/A
(Drop/Stand)


120*7 	




150*7 	

ISO*/ 	




150*7 	


7.h20
	




	
14.6
12.9
13.6
	
	
12 9




12.8
Yield
(bu7A)
	




	
56.8
52.0
62.2
47.4
53.6
33 6




37.3
                        1983 WHEAT YIELD SUMMARY
I.  HP-TILL WHEAT FIELDS WITH COMPARISONS
Table 57
Beck Brothers
Paul Bok
Ray Bok
Bob Heisler
Gary Mavis
Zane Zeedyk

Residue: Average
No- till
74.0
37.2
61.1
56.8
47.4
33.6
51.7

Comparison
74.0
45.0
55.7
57.1
53.6
37.3
53.8

      Soybean stubble
 II.  NO-TILL WHEAT FIELDS WITH HO COMPARISONS




           Average yteld - 50.3 bu7A    H - 2






III.  OVERALL NO-TILL WHEAT AVERAGE       Table  5o
With conparison
51.7
Without comparison
50.3
Average
51.4
                                                                                                             N - 6
                                                                                                                                  N - 2
                                                                                                                                                 N - 8

-------
68


                               1983 OBSERVATIONS
       In 1983 we observed a marked increase in the number of farmers
  indicating an interest in no-tilling soybeans.  This is in part due to
  the fact that more farmers are becoming aware that soybeans can be raised
  successfully with no-tillage.  However, the PIK program also played a
  major role.  Many farmers who had applied to the SWCD to plant no-till
  corn changed to beans after entering the PIK program.

       One point that cannot be overstressed in no-till soybean produc-
  tion is the importance of weed control at planting and throughout the
  season.  If broadleaf growth has attained a size that control by contact
  herbicide is questionable, it is an absolute necessity that 2,h-D ester
  be applied one week to ten days prior to planting.  Although post-emergent
  soybean herbicides have been a tremendous boost to soybean production,
  they will not give adequate control of large weeds and they are much
  more expensive that a 2,U-D pre-plant treatment.

       Another possible aid to improve weed control in soybeans is fall or
  early spring applied Surflan.  Surflan has a relatively long life in the
  soil, therefore the most benefit can be gained with early application.
  In some cases, it may eliminate the need for a contact herbicide.

       The number of acres ridged for the 1983 growing season were rather
  limited, primarily due to wet soil conditions in the fall of 1982.
  However, for 198^4 many more ridges have been built.  One of the major
  questions regarding the ridge systems is soybean row width.  During the
  first years of the project, we encouraged farmers to plant the comparison
  plots in thirty inch rows, the same row width as the ridges.  This meant
  that the tillage was the only variable entering the study and is the only
  accurate means of checking the effect of tillage on soybean production
  in ridge systems.  However, as narrowing soybean row width has been
  effective in improving soybean yields, we have reconsidered our position
  and where a farmer normally drills his beans or plants in narrow rows, we
  encourage him to do so on his comparison plot.  While this allows two
  variables, row width and tillage, it is probably more realistic for the
  farmer.

       Over the term of the project, we have had to develop guidelines to
  accomplish certain predetermined goals while treating the cooperators
  equally and fairly.  In those guidelines we have requested that each of
  the plots have a comparison tillage plot and a yield check, with few
  exceptions.  For the most part, cooperators have complied with those
  requests, but there have been several who have not.  Without the compar-
  ison tillage and yield checks, both the cooperator and the District have
  invested time, effort, and money without attaining the benefit of knowing
  whether the conservation practice is profitable for the farmer.

-------
                                                                            69


                            ECONOMIC  COMPARISONS
     The economics of no-tillage is  a difficult  item to  discuss  because  of
the many variables that can be considered.   Land costs,  material costs,
amount of tillage necessary to prepare a seedbed, and the chemicals  preferred
by each farmer vary from one plot to another within the  county.   Therefore,
to simplify the economics section and get down to dollars gained or  lost
with no-tillage versus some form of  conventional tillage, only the costs that
vary when changing tillage methods were considered in the following  tables.
For example, the use of a contact herbicide with no-till is an additional
cost and was considered.  However, items such as fertilizer and seed do  not
vary much from one tillage system to another and were not considered.

     Yields used in the computations were the 1983 average for each  crop
under the various residue situations.

     Market prices for wheat, soybeans, and corn were determined by  averaging
the market prices at two local elevators on five randomly selected dates
during July for wheat, October for beans, and November for corn.  The prices
used were: wheat - $3.32, beans - $8.29, and corn - $3.35.

     Material costs were determined by contacting several local establishments
and attaining in season costs of the products for 1983.

   '  Machine costs were based on the bulletin, "Farm Custom Rates Paid in
Ohio, 1983", provided by the Cooperative Extension Service.

     The chemicals and tillage operations used were selected by what would
be typical in most situations for planting the crop into a particular residue.
Of course, in reality it may occasionally be necessary to work the seedbed
one more time in conventional tillage or to use another herbicide due to a
particular weed problem in the no-till situation.

     By determining the difference in the value of the crop produced on the
no-till and on the comparison plots and combining this figure with the
difference in input costs of the two systems, a net advantage can be calculated.
If the figure at the bottom of the "advantage" column is positive, it means
that the no-till system was more profitable than the comparison.  Of course,
if that figure is negative, the opposite holds true.

     As could be expected, no-till corn in soybean stubble was  again the most
profitable corn production system, followed by corn in sod and  lastly corn in
corn stubble.  The value of the crop, which is based on  the yield, has  the
most effect on the profitablity of the no-till practice.  Consequently, yields
need to be maintained, or in some cases, if there is a substantial reduction in
tillage, a slight decrease in yield will still keep no-till on  the positive
side of the ledger.  Again, one must remember that several of the average
yields used in these tables are based on a very limited  number  of plots.

-------
TO
       In regards to soybean production,  everything discussed concerning
  corn in the preceding paragraph applies  to  no-till soybeans also.

       With no-till soybeans on ridges, there was  a slight disadvantage to
  the ridges in 1983.  The average yields  of  the  comparison plots included
  both narrow and wide-rowed beans.  If there had been enough plots to
  warrant averaging these separately, perhaps the  economics would work out
  differently.

       Since there are no chemicals  involved  with no-till wheat production,
  there is almost an equal trade-off of one disking for a more expensive
  drilling operation.  Therefore, if yields are maintained at nearly the same
  levels as the conventional method, no-tilling wheat looks good from an
  economic viewpoint.

       The economics of using the disk-chisel plow were not calculated since
  there is likely to be very little  difference  in terms of yields and input
  costs with this system as compared to conventional tillage.

       There are several factors that need to be  considered with the economics
  of no-tillage, but are very difficult to measure in terms of dollars and
  cents.  For example, no-tilling wheat during  bean harvest could be a
  tremendous labor savings and permit more timely soybean harvest.  Or in the
  case of spring planting, actual dollar  figures  cannot be measured accurately
  if no-till allows crops to be planted at the  optimum time and an increased
  yield results.

       Even more difficult to measure are the benefits of keeping the soil
  in place.  How can one establish a dollar figure for lost productivity in
  the future because of the loss of  topsoil and nutrients?  Will the benefit
  of less sub-soil compaction due to less traffic on fields eventually show
  some advantage with better root penetration,  resulting in increased yields?
  Precise answers to these questions may  never  be known, but they do deserve
  some consideration.
                               COSTS USED IN COMPARISONS


              MATERIALS

                            Herbicides               Cost

                            Paraquat              $UU.OO/gal.
                          2, U-D ester              lU.OO/gal.
                          2, U-D amine              11.50/gal.
                            Banvel                1*7.00/gal.



              MACHINE COSTS

                                                 Cost/Acre
                              Plow                 $10.00
                         Field Cultivator              7-00
                              Disk                   6.50
                         No-Till Planting             13.00
                        Conventional Planting            9.25
                             Spraying                 3.50
                           Row Cultivate               5-50

-------
              TILLAGE SYSTEMS PROFIT COMPAEISOH FOE COBN
                                                                                   Table  59


Previous
Crop
Tillage
Yield bu/Ac
Value of Crop $

Material Costs
Paraquat
2,!*-D+Banvel

Total Material $
Machine Cost
Plow
Field Cult.
Disk
Plant
Spray


Row Cult.
Total Machine $
Net Advantage
for No-Till $



SOYBEAN
No-Till 1 Comparison j
105.!* J 103.2
353.09 ' 31*5.72


5.50


5.50



(2X) 13.00
13.00 9.25



5.50
13.00 27.75
1
|
•
Advantage
for No-Till


1
1
1 7.37


1
1
1
| -5.50
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
I l1*. 75
I
1
1 16.62



SOD
No-Till 1 Comparison •
1 *
69.2 | 69.6 1
231.82 | 233.16 |

|
11.00 *
2.20 '
1
13.20 |
1
10.00
1 7.00
6.50
13.00 1 9.25
3.50 *
(2.U-D+ I
Banvel)
1 5.50
16.50 | 38.25 1
• •
| I
1 I
Advantage
for No-Till




-1.31*





-13.20









21.75

7.21



CORN
No- Till * Comparison
'
80.5* | 102.8 j
269.68 | 3M.38 J

• 1
5.50 • i
1 '
I 1
5.50 , ,
1 1
• 10.00 |
7.00 ,
1 6.50 1
13.00 I 9.25 |
1.
1
• j
1 5.50 .
13.00 | 38.25 1
; j
! i
Advantage
for No-Till



1
1
i -7^.70


|

1
I -5.50
1


1





25.25

-5l+. 95
*This data represents only two plots and may not be typical

-------
                                                                                                                                   I\D
                          TILLAGE SYSTEMS PROFIT  COMPARISONS  FOR  SOYBEANS
                                                                                                                      Table 60

Previous
Crop
Yield bu/Ac
/alue of Crop $
Material Costs
Paraquat
2,1*-D ester
Total Material
Machine Costs
Plow
Field Cult.
Disk
Planter
Spray
Row ..Cult .
Total Machine $
Net Advantage
for No-Till
Advantage
for No-Till
SOYBEANS
No-Till I Comparison 1 	
31.5 | 31.0 |
261.13 ' 256.99 | it. I1*
11.00 *
1
t
11.00 | -11.00
1
7.00 .
6.50 •
13.00 9.25 •
1
1
13.00 22.75 | 9.75
in (
1 2.89
1
Advantage
for No-Till
CORN
Bo-Till I Comparison '
31.3 I 3l*. 7 |
259.1*7 | 287.66 . -28.19
11.00 1 !
1 '
11.00 1 | -11.00
J 10.00 i
• 7.00 I
I 6.50 1
13.00 i 9.25 |
13.00 | 32.75 1 19-75
	 1— 1
| 1 -19.1*1*
1 1
Advantage
for No- Till
WHEAT
32.7 1 26.8 -
271.08 j 222.17 j W.91
11.00 . i
s
lit. 50 • | -lit. 50
1 10.00 1
1 7.00 |
1 6'5° !
13.00 9.25 1
3.50 1 |
16.50 | 32.75 | 16.25
1 1
1 I 50.66
1 1

RIDGED • BEANS
OR CORN
No-Till 1 Comparison i
1 1
28.1 | 29.8* |
232.95 * 21+7.02 .
11.00 J j
1 1
11.00 - |
1 1
I 10.00 i
: 7.oo 1
• 6.50 |
13.00 | 9.25 |
1 1
5.50 1 1
1 1
18.50 | 32.75 |
1 1
1 1
1 1
Advantage
for No-Till
1
1
-11*. 07
1
-11.00
\
1
1
1
lit. 25
-10.82
•This average included both narrow and wide-rowed beans

-------
                                                                      73
       Tillage System Comparison for Wheat in Soybean Stubble
                                                     Table 6l

Tillage
Yield bu/A
Value of Crop $
Machine Costs
Disk
Planting
Total Machine $

Net Advantage
for No-Till


No-Till
51.7
171.61*


13.00
13.00




1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|


1

Comparison
53.8
178.62

6.50
9.25
15.75




Advantage
for No-Till

-6.98



2.75


-h.23

   No-till soybeans on old corn ridges  are shown above.
The ridge helps  to elevate the plants above flooded soil
conditions,  and  possibly allow earlier  planting.  The
corn residue reduces sediment loss  from the fine clav
soils.

-------
                       SOIL LOSS AND WATER QUALITY


    This section will discuss the soil loss and water quality benefits  of no-
tillage systems.  Table 62 represents the average soil loss  estimates  from
all plots with the same previous crop, crop planted,  and slope range.   Two
slope ranges were selected:  The gently sloping Blount-Glynwood soils,.common
to the northwest portion of Defiance County, and the  remaining nearly  level
soils of the County.

    Type of surface residue (previous crop), percent  of surface cover,  soil
type, slope, length of slope, and cropping sequence directly affect  the rate
of soil loss.  Previous crop, percent surface cover,  and cropping sequence
are the factors that can be managed by the farmer.

    As the percent of surface cover is increased, soil loss  decreases.   Mulches
(residues) on the surface intercept the falling raindrops so near the  surface
that drops regain little velocity before contacting the soil.  This  sub-
stantially reduces the amount of soil detached by raindrops.  In addition,
the mulch on the surface obstructs runoff flow and reduces the sediment trans-
port.  Therefore, anything done to change, reduce, or eliminate tillage to
keep more residue on the surface will reduce soil loss.

    Cover (residue or crops) on the soil surface during winter and spring is
very important to control soil loss.  Preliminary findings from the  monitoring
program show that a large portion of the total yearly soil loss occurs  during
winter and spring on unprotected soils.  Therefore, avoiding fall plowing
could significantly reduce soil loss and improve the  water quality.

    The cropping sequence is the remaining factor that the farmer can  manage
to influence soil loss.  By keeping more meadow, small grains, and corn in
the rotation, as opposed to soybeans, soil loss is reduced.   Soybeans  are one
of the most erosive crops grown.  When growing soybeans, soil loss can be
reduced by planting narrow rows, preferably 7-8 inch rows.  This gives a
quicker canopy cover over the soil, intercepting the  raindrop, thus  reducing
soil loss.

    Phosphorus is the major nutrient thought to be responsible for the de-
gradation of our lakes and streams.  Since phosphorus is attached to soil
particles, soil erosion contributes not only sediment to our lakes and
streams, but also the attached phosphorus and other associated pollutants.
Therefore, it stands to reason if soil erosion can be reduced, even on those
soils that are already well below the acceptable soil loss, water quality
should be the major benefactor.

    The following table lists the average erosion predicted by the Universal
Soil Loss Equation for the specific conditions and for the 1983 crop in each
category.  The data readily shows the effectiveness of reduced tillage and
no-till in reducing erosion.  Note the figures shown are averages of several
plots in each category.  For example, under soybean residue, no-till soybeans,
gently sloping soil, the soil loss shown is an average of 9 plots.  In an
effort to show a true comparison of soil loss as affected by previous  crop,
present crop, and tillage, these estimated soil losses were calculated.  Those
figures are shown in parentheses (  ).,

-------
                 Soil Loss Comparisons:  Tons/Acre/Year
    75

Table 62

No-Till
Reduced
Till I/
Conventional
2/

Gently Sloping Soils
Northwest Defiance County
Corn Residue
Corn
(1.0)*
1.7
(2.3)
(5.6)
Soybean
(1.3)
1.8
(2.3)
3.1
(5.0)
U.U

Soybean Residue
Corn
(2.5)
2,2
(5.7)
(6.6)
5.7
Soybean
(2.6)
2.2
(5.0)
(6.0)
5-7
Small Grain Residue
Corn
(.5)
.6
(3.2)
(6.0)
Soybean
(.5)
.8
(2.5)
(6.7)
*Soil loss in parentheses ( ) based on model3.
 Other numbers based on actual field conditions .

No-Till
Reduced
Till I/
Conventional
2/
Nearly Level Soils
Corn Residue
Corn
(.5)*
.1+
(.8)
.8
(2.0)
1.1;
Soybean
(.5)
.6
(.8)
1.3
(1.8)
1.3
Soybean Residue
Corn
(.9)
.9
(1.8)
(2.3)
1.6
Soybean
(.9)
1.2
(1.8)
(2.2)
2.U
Small Grain Residue
Corn
(.5)
.3
(1.2)
(2.1)
Soybean
(.5)
.5
(.9)
(2.U)
*Soil loss in parentheses ( ) based on model^.
 Other numbers based on actual field conditions4.
I/ Soil losses calculated under reduced till had at least 30$ residue cover
   remaining on the soil surface after planting.

2/ Conventional included fall plowing.

_3/ All soil loss figures shown in ( ) are calculated on a constant slope, length
   of slope, residue, % cover in each soils range.  USLE factors used for the
   gently sloping soils were:  2% slope, kOO ft. length of slope, K=.U3> 70$ cover
   for corn and small grain residue (No-Till), 30$ cover for soybean residue
   (No-Till), 30$ cover for corn and small grain (Reduced Till), and 20$ cover for
   soybean residue (Reduced Till).  USLE factors for the nearly level soils were:
   0.2$ slope, 1000 ft. length of slope, K=.28.   All factors for cover were the
   same as the gently sloping example.
U/ Figures shown are an average of all 1983 Plots under the indentified treatment.

-------
76
                              PHOSPHORUS MANAGEMENT

       Phosphorus is a key nutrient necessary to crop production, "but it is
  also being cited  as  the key nutrient responsible for pollution problems
  in our stream and lakes.  There is some concern that farmers may be add-
  ing more phosphorus to farmland than is economical or necessary for opti-
  mum crop production, thus adding to phosphorus loading of waterways.
  Agronomists are indicating the  optimum Bray Pj_ soil test levels to be
  30, 1*0, and 55 pounds per acre for soybeans, corn and wheat respectively.
  The optimum level is that level at which additional phosphorus fertilization
  does not improve yields.

       In 1982, a total of 330 soil samples from Defiance County were analyzed
  at the OAEDC Research Extension Analytical Lab.  In 1983, ^32 samples were
  analyzed.  The following table lists the number of samples falling in
  various ranges of phosphorus readings.
                              SOIL PHOSPHORUS TESTS
Table 63
Bray PX

Soil Tests
0 - 19 #
20 - 39 #
1*0 - 59 #
60 - 79 #
80 - 99 #
100 -119 #
120 -131* #
135+ #
Total
# of
1982
Samples
21*
76
72
60
3k
18
Ik
32
330
# of
1983
Samples
146
151
Ik
61
27
18
17
38
1*32
       If a  farmer desired to maintain his phosphorus levels optimum for wheat
  production, he  should maintain a level of 55 pounds per acre.  In 1982, 158 or
  about k8%  of the samples analyzed exceeded 60 pounds per acre.  Thus, almost
  half the samples tested had phosphorus levels higher than necessary for the
  crop requiring  the greatest optimum phosphorus reading.  In 1983, l6l or  37%
  of the samples  exceeded 60 pounds per acre.  This appears to be an improvement
  over 1982, but  this trend needs to be observed over a number of years for it
  to be meaningful since most fields are not tested annually.

       6U or 19$  of the samples were excessively high with readings of 100
  pounds per acre or greater in 1982.  The number of samples above 100 pounds
  per acre in 1983 was 73 or 11%.  Over the years phosphorus fertilization  has
  been stressed on phosphorus-poor soils.  However, many of these soils have
  now become enriched to the point that continued high phosphorus fertilization
  is not only poor economics, but may also be a contributing factor in phosphorus
  pollution.

-------
                                                                           77
    The method of applying phosphorus fertilizer also needs to be con-
sidered since most phosphorus in streams is leaving fields via run-off.
Hence, unless a field is unreasonably low in phosphorus, surface applica-
tions should be avoided.  Also, it should be noted that the fertilizer is
most efficiently used by the plant if it is placed in a band to the side
and below the seed zone.

    In most no-till situations it is recommended that a starter fertilizer
be applied.  If phosphorus levels are at or slightly above optimum levels,
a maintenance program of approximately O.H pounds phosphate per expected
harvested bushel be applied.  Thus, if a field tested Uo pounds per acre
phosphorus and the corn yield goal was 150 bushels per acre, 60 pounds of
phosphate should be sufficient to maintain the ^0 Ib/A phosphorus test.

    To demonstrate the effect of phosphorus applications on yields and
fertility levels over several years, the Project has set up several
phosphorus drawdown plots.  In the tables below, Bob Rettig #1P is the
exact same plot as Dallas and Robert Rettig #5.  Bob Shininger #2P is also
the same plot as #9P.

     The average yields for both years show no difference between the
sections with and without phosphorus added.  In 1983, soil tests and plant
tissue analyses on the with and without P sections were also run.  Tissue
analysis showed no significant difference in phosphorus content of the plants,
Soil test Bray P]_ levels were:  Rettig #5 - with P section I0h Ib/A, without
P section 50 Ib/A;  Shininger #9 - with P section 5^ Ib/A, without P section
U2 Ib/A.
                                                               Table 6U
1982: Corn Plots
Bob Rettig #1P
Bob Rettig #2P
Bob Shininger #1P
Bob Shinineer #2P
Average
Bray P-l
Soil test
108//
31*
61#
420
60
Pounds of
P?0s added
41
55
69
69
58
Yi

126.4
93.1
98.2
114.9
108.2
eld

114.6
105.0
91.0
115.1
106.4
                                                                 Table 65
1983: Soybean Plots
Dallas & Robert Rettig #5
Bob Shininger #9P
Average

Bray P-l
Soil Test
108#
42#
75
Pounds of
P205 added
48
92
70
Yield
With P
34.0
30.0
32.0
Without P
32.7
32.6
32.6

-------