OCLC17829197
DEFIANCE COUNTY
LOST CREEK
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
" fgf^lfe ^s
'-'l*~-' '"
1982 DEMONSTRATION REPORT
DEFIANCE SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Defiance Soil and Water Conservation Disl
R R. 2, BOX 11, 66 NORTH DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512 PHONE 782-8751
To Defiance SWCD Landowners:
We are pleased to present you with the results of the 1982 Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project. The information is the results of the tillage plots on
farms throughout the county and represents our second year of comprehensive til-
lage demonstrations. The District has been involved in limited tillage demon-
strations since 1978. The farmers who participated in the project need to be
commended for the time and effort they contributed to the project. Without
their assistance and interest, this program would not have been possible.
Conservation tillage is a fairly new practice in this area and up until a few
years ago it was not thought of as a viable practice because of our soils.
Recent refinement of no-till planters and the introduction of ridge planting
has opened a new frontier for conservation tillage on poorly drained soils as
well as on the better drained soils.
The Defiance SWCD realizes there is a long way to go in this area of conserv-
ation. We have many problems to overcome to make conservation tillage a
widely accepted practice. The funds provided by the U. S. EPA grant will aid
us a great deal in solving these problems. But, all the money in the world
will not get this practice adopted without the cooperation and dedication of
farmers in Defiance County.
After reviewing this publication, we hope you will want to try a test on your
farm.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Rethmel, Chairman
Defiance SWCD
-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY - LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
1982 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
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
FEBRUARY 1983
-------
DEFIANCE SWCD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Robert Heisler, Chairman
Brian Rohrs, Vice-Chairman
Albert Schroeder, Secretary-Treasurer
Greg Garmyn, Board Member
Don Rethmel, Board Member
PROJECT STAFF
Robert Rettig, Project Administrator, SWCD
Dennis Flanagan, Assistant County Agent, CES
Thanks to Tammy Groll and Miriam Hoshock
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
INTRODUCTION
NEW DEMONSTRATIONS . .
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
1982 GROWING SEASON .
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
I. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 5
II. HEIDELBERG COLLEGE 6
1982 DEMONSTRATION PLOTS 13
CORN PLOT LOCATION MAP 14
1982 CORN DEMONSTRATIONS 15
1982 CORN YIELD SUMMARY 38
SOYBEAN PLOT LOCATION MAP 46
1982 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATIONS 47
1982 SOYBEAN YIELD SUMMARY 60
1982 OBSERVATIONS . 65
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS 67
SOIL LOSS AND WATER QUALITY 75
RIDGE TILLAGE SYSTEMS 79
NO-TILL MANAGEMENT 80
NITROGEN MANAGEMENT 85
PHOSPHORUS MANAGEMENT 87
Cover Photos: Top - No-till on ridges may help solve some of
the drainage and erosion problems of the flat, poorly drained,
clay soils in Defiance County. Here, the Project's Interna-
tional Harvester is planting no-till soybeans on old corn
ridges. Bottom - Dr. David Baker, of the Water Quality Lab
at Heidelberg College, explains the stream structure and water
sampling devices during a Watershed meeting on August 11.
-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY - LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
1982 was the second year for the Defiance County Lost Creek Demonstration
Project. Started in the fall of 1980, the Project addresses the problem
of sediment and phosphorus pollution of the Maumee River and Lake Erie.
The major objectives of the program are to demonstrate and monitor various
soil conservation practices, especially conservation tillage, on a wide
range of soil types throughout Defiance County.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency provides major funds
for the Project. Cooperating agencies include the Defiance Soil and Water
Conservation District, the Soil Conservation Service, the Cooperative
Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Heidelberg College, and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
During the first year of the Project (1981), 18 farms cooperated, plant-
ing 43 tillage demonstration plots. Most of these fields were planted
late and did not have comparison check strips due to an extremely wet
planting season. Specific information on 1981 plots and yields can be
found in the 1981 Demonstration Report.
The Project greatly expanded in 1982, largely due to greater interest
in the county, and better weather. 59 farms cooperated, with over 2,000
acres included in some type of demonstration. There were 58 fields of no-
till corn (948 acres), 23 fields of no-till soybeans (220 acres), 23 fields
of ridged corn or soybeans (505 acres), and 20 fields which used the disk-
chisel plow as their primary tillage (410 acres).
More equipment was also available in 1982, consisting of 4 no-till plant-
ers, 1 no-till drill, a disk-ridger, a ridging cultivator, and a disk-chisel
plow. The planters were a John Deere Max-Emerge, Hiniker Econ-0-Till,
International Harvester Early Riser, and White Seed Boss. All planters
were set for six 30 inch rows. The International and Hiniker came equipped
with a tractor. The White planter was purchased with an add-on 5 row splitter,
to allow planting of 15" narrow row soybeans.
The CrustBuster no-till drill was available through a cooperative effort
with CrustBuster Inc. and Chevron Chemical Company. The drill was set for
22 eight inch rows, and eqaipped with 1 inch fluted coulters.
This report contains information on the demonstrations carried out in
1982. There are also sections on water quality monitoring, economic
comparisons, ridge tillage, no-till management, and nitrogen management.
Equipment for 1983 will consist of the same planters, an improved no-till
drill, the same ridging equipment and disk-chisel plow. In addition, a
heavier ridging cultivator will also be available.
Farmers interested in participating in the Project are urged to contact
the Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District.
-------
NEW DEMONSTRATIONS
Some new demonstrations began in the fall of 1982. These were the
Paraplow, no-till wheat, and shallow tile. The Paraplow is a new tillage
tool designed to lift and crack the subsoil, improving internal drain-
age while not disturbing the soil surface. Originally developed in
England, the implement is being tested in the United States for pos-
sible marketing by the Howard Rotavator Company. The Paraplow used in
Defiance County had four legs that extended at 45 degree angles to a
depth of 14 inches in the soil. The first version used had problems
with clogging of heavy residue where the leg entered the soil. An
improved version later in the fall seemed to have remedied this problem.
(see photos)
The Paraplow lifts and loosens
the subsoil, while leaving the
surface undisturbed.
These legs on the Paraplow bend
at 45 angles and extend 14"
under the soil.
The theory is that through the use of the Paraplow, no-till will be
more successful on compacted, poorly drained soils. Each of the 7
fields where the tool was used in Defiance County will have no-till
on sections with and without the Paraplow, and yield checks should
show any benefit.
The CrustBuster no-till drill provided an opportunity for several
farmers to experiment with no-till wheat planted in soybean stubble.
Seven farms planted no-till wheat. With the dry fall, the no-till
wheat emerged more rapidly and had more consistent stands due to the
conservation of soil moisture.
-------
Here Roger Grandey is using the CrustBuster drill
to plant no-till wheat.
A third new demonstration to be installed in the fall of 1982 was a
series of shallow tile systems on Paulding Clay soils. Plans were drawn
and a contractor planned to install the tile in November. However, heavy
rainfall in November and December prevented installation. Whenever soil
conditions permit, the tile will be laid.
Basically, the shallow tile systems will be placed at a depth of about
18 inches and at two spacing widths: 15 feet and 30 feet. There will also
be an untiled section in the same fields. The Project plans to test the
effectiveness of shallow tile and how crop yields respond to different
tillage practices in the 3 areas of the fields. (15 ft. spacing, 30 ft.
spacing, and untiled)
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Several educational activities were held in 1982 to allow everyone
interested in no-till, ridge tillage, and water quality, a chance to learn
more. In March, the first "Alternative Tillage Systems Meeting" was held.
Several interesting speakers discussed no-till and ridge tillage, and
Project Results for 1981 were presented to the 80 farmers attending.
Three afternoon tours in June covered demonstration fields in the
Western, Central, and Eastern parts of Defiance County. A Watershed
Meeting and Tour was held on August 11 in the Upper Lost Creek Water-
shed to explain the water quality monitoring aspects of the Project.
On September 1, a very successful Ridge and No-till Field Day was
held. Approximately 150 farmers attended to hear speakers on ridge
tillage and water quality, and watch 3 ridging tools, 3 no-till drills,
and 6 no-till planters demonstrated. ExSellent cooperation between the
machinery dealers, farmer, local agribusiness, and the sponsoring agencies
made the day a big success.
-------
150 people attended a Ridge and No-till Field Day
on September 1.
1982 GROWING SEASON
The planting season in 1982 was compressed into three excellent, dry
weeks in late April through mid-May. Soil conditions were dry during this
period, and all of the no-till equipment worked well. One problem with
the dry weather was the low activity of residual herbicides. Many fields
had to be cultivated and/or sprayed with a post-emergent herbicide to
control escaped weeds. Overall, the planting season extended from April
24 to July 1.
Heavy rainfall in June and July did damage some soybean fields. August,
September, and October were drier than normal. This drought decreased
crop yields, and especially hurt late planted soybeans. The dry weather
also caused an early harvest with dry grain of excellent quality.
Table 1
DEFIANCE COUNTY RAINFALL - 1982
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
TOTAL
Hicksville
2.07
4.89
4.35
5.21
1.61
2.22
1.12
21.47
Ney
2.15
3.88
4.63
4.52
1.72
2.57
1.16
20.63
Defiance
2.20
4.44
3.17
5.02
1.55
0.83
0.68
17.89
County
Average
2.14
4.40
4.05
4.92
1.63
1.87
0.99
20.00
Normal*
3.41
3.74
3.73
3.51
2.76
2.66
2.45
22.26
*Normal - Average precipitation for Northwest Ohio from 1941 - 70 from
OARDC R.B. #1139.
-------
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
I. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
In 1982, flow, sediment, nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, and
dissolved inorganic phosphorus were measured on four watersheds in
Defiance County. In addition, runoff flow was measured on an addit-
ional watershed, and flow, sediment and nutrients were measured in
tile drainage on two of the watersheds. The soils studied included
Paulding (3 sites), Roselms and Blount. Rainfall in 1982 was low and
there was very little runoff or tile flow, especially in late spring
and the summer months. No-till soybeans on the Blount soil gave
lower erosion rates than in previous years when the soil was fall
plowed.
Flow hydrographs from the two Paulding watersheds instrumented with
flumes and water stage recorders showed that runoff was very rapid on
these poorly drained soils and reached peak flow very soon after run-
off began. Runoff continued at a lower rate, however, for several
hours after rainfall stopped. This is attributed to the very low slope
ซ.2%) on these watersheds.
In a separate study, the decomposition rate of soybean residue in
no-till fields was measured. Percent cover immediately after plant
harvest was about 80-90%, and was still about 50-60% the following
April. By May, the cover was about 40%, but this was reduced to
10% or less by the planting operation which buried much of the residue.
The residue cover prior to planting protects the soil during the
winter/early spring period when most of the runoff and soil loss
occurs.
In the summer of 1983, the National Erosion Laboratory (Purdue
University) will bring their rainfall simulator to Defiance County
to measure erosion and phosphorus losses in runoff from Paulding soil
with fall plowing and no-till ridges. This information will be used
to predict the effectiveness of no-till ridges in reducing soil erosion.
This small plot monitor collects runoff samples
every %. hour during a storm event. These samples
are analyzed for sediment and nutrients.
-------
II. HEIDELBERG COLLEGE
r"" *
This structure measures flow and collects water
samples every 6 hours and every 1 hour during
a storm event.
UPPER LOST CREEK RUN-OFF STUDIES
In northwestern Ohio, conservation tillage is an important part of water
quality management plans for reducing phosphorus loading to Lake Erie.
Through reducing soil erosion, conservation tillage should reduce both
sediment and phosphorus transport in area streams and rivers. Although a
variety of models allow estimation of the expected reductions in sediment
and phosphorus transport that will accompany conservation tillage, all of
these models involve considerable extrapolation from data obtained in plot
and field studies. Actual documentation of reductions in sediment and
phosphorus transport from large watersheds which have undergone substantial
conversion to conservation tillage is lacking. The necessary data bases
are being developed at several sites in northwestern Ohio to allow such
documentation. Studies at these sites will also monitor possible adverse
environmental effects of conservation tillage, such as increased nitrate
and pesticide concentrations. A 2800 acre watershed in the Upper Lost
Creek basin of Defiance County is one of these study sites. The progress
of studies at this site are described below.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS
A trapeziodal flume designed by the Agricultural Research Service was
installed during the summer of 1981. Stage measurements are recorded at
15 minute intervals using an ISCO System 2500 level sensor and recording
equipment. The stage data is transferred to magnetic tape at monthly intervals
and stored in the Water Quality Laboratory computer at Heidelberg College.
A rating curve for the flume was provided by the Agricultural Research
Service and is used to calculate discharge. The stage monitoring system
has worked very well except for the period from April 13 through June 20,
1982 when a malfunction of equipment caused a loss of stage data. Copies
of the stage data for the 1982 water year have been provided to the Defiance
Soil and Water Conservation District Office.
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Water samples for nutrient and sediment analyses are collected at the
gaging site using- two ISCO Model 1680 water samplers. One sampler is used
to collect samples at 6 hour intervals on a continuing basis. The second
sampler is set to trigger on a rising stage and collect hourly samples for
28 hours. Project staff change sampler bases after runoff events so that
hourly samples can be collected for multiple events during a single week.
A printer is connected to the hourly sampler so that the time of sample
collection is recorded for each bottle. During May and June of 1982,
an ISCO Model 2100 Pesticide Sampler was used to collect two samples
per day for pesticide analyses.
The automatic samplers have worked very well at this site. During
periods of very low flow, the water level in the flume drops below the
sampler intake line. During these low flow periods weekly samples are
collected by the W.Q.L. staff who service the samplers. The low flow
periods are not significant with respect to pollutant transport by the
stream.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
The analytical program includes measurement of the following parameters:
soluble reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite, sus-
pended solids, ammonia, conductivity, silica, chloride and total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN). Pesticide analyses are shown in Table 2. These same
analyses are being conducted at 10 other river transport stations as part
of a grant from the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. EPA.
RESULTS
During the 1982 water year, which extends from October 1, 1981 to Sept-
ember 30, 1982, most of the material transport from the watershed took
place during the March through July period. The results of the sampling
program during this time are shown in Figure 1. The time base for the plots
is days of the water year, where day 1 is October 1, 1981 and day 365 is
September 30, 1982. The plots run from February 27 (day 150) to July 28
(day 300).
During the winter of 1982 considerable snow accumulated. A large snow-
melt runoff event occurred in March during days 160 to 175. The snowmelt
water contained relatively low concentrations of total phosphorus, suspended
solids, dissolved solids (conductivity), nitrates plus nitrite and TKN.
During the period from March 29 (day 180) through July 28 (day 300), run-
off events were accompanied by very high concentrations of suspended sedi-
ments, total phosphorus and TKN. High nitrates did not appear until runoff
events in late May and June.
In comparison with studies at larger watersheds, such as Honey Creek at
Melmore, the concentrations of suspended solids in runoff from the study
watershed were much higher. Several storms had sediment concentrations
which exceeded 3000 mg/1. These are the highest sediment concentrations
we have observed in any of our transport stations. The concentrations of
total phosphorus were also extremely high during runoff events. The fre-
quency of runoff events with high sediment and phosphorus concentrations
was greater for the study watershed than at other gaging stations.
-------
In contrast with sediment, the nitrate concentrations were similar to
those observed from other watersheds. Nitrate concentrations had peak
values of about 23 mg/1 as nitrogen.
Concentrations of atrazine and alachlor (Lasso) in runoff water are shown
in Figures 2 and 3. These chemicals also showed peak concentrations in May
and June. The peak concentration of pesticides monitored at all of the 1982
sampling stations is shown in Table 2. The sampling program for pesticides
only involved two samples per day during runoff events. This frequency of
sampling would probably not reveal the peak pesticide concentrations at the
study site. Efforts to increase the sampling frequency during the initial
storms following planting will be made in 1983.
In summary, the sampling program for the 1982 water year provides a
good start toward characterizing runoff from the study watershed. Further
analyses of the existing data plus the sampling program for 1983 and 1984
should contribute significantly to our understanding of pollutant runoff
from the morainal areas of the Maumee Basin. Furthermore, the data base
at this site should be very helpful in assessing the benefits of conserva-
tion tillage in reducing sediment and phosphorus export from agricultural
lands.
C/)00
z>
QL
Oฎ
o
h-
150. 165. 180
to
ca
g(N4_
o
UJ
DC
ฎ
o
195. 210. 225. 240. 255. 270. 285. 300
DAY OF THE WATER YEAR
A
150. 165. 180
195. 210. 225. 240. 255. 270. 285. 300
DAY OF THE WATER YEAR
Figure 1. Hydrograph and anemographs for runoff from the Upper Lost
Creek Watershed during the February 27 (Day 150) to July
28 (Day 300) portion of the 1982 water year. Concentra-
tions in mg/1.
-------
cn
0>
cn
CO
o co
> cn
cn
> cn
ro
ro
oo
cn
oo
s>
TOT. KJEL. NITROGEN
7^0 14,. 0 2 .0
7
r
_ NITRATE + NITRITE
cn t L- 0 1 4,. 0 21.0
0)
cn
oo
\3ป CO
> 01
-r
ro
.-cn
ro
ro
oo
cn
oo
&
f
_ SUSPENDED SOLIDS
cn 1000. 2000. 3000.
FLOW CCFS^
0)
cn
00
^7 CD
> 01
s>
-r
mro
> cn
73 cn
cs?
ro
oo
cn
w
S3
O)
cn
00
O CO
> cn
H'
m
nro
> cn
TD cn
ro
ro
oo
cn
00
S)
-------
Table 2
Peak pesticide concentrations observed during the April - August sampling period in 1982.
Maumee (6,313 mi2)
50 Samples
yg/L Date
Linuron
EPTC
Butylate
Ethoprop
DIA
DBA
Treflan
Phorate
Simazine
Atrazine
Terbufos
Fonofos
Diazinon
Cyanazine
Metribuzin
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Chlorpyrifos
Penoxalin
2.32
.187
.160
.243
2.79
1.37
.056
.009
2.85
9.5
.158
.026
.023
4.26
3.35
9.27
10.1
1.04
.37
06/02
06/02
06/02
06/02
07/15
07/13
08/06
06/02
06/13
05/28
07/15
05/30
05/27
05/30
05/30
05/28
05/28
06/02
06/11
Sandusky (1,251 mi2)
50 Samples
yg/L Date
3.51
.168
.184
.129
1.98
2.57
.097
.019
2.52
18.8
.104
.050
.016
3.82
8.20
18.19
40.6
1.98
.343
05/26
05/29
05/28
07/29
05/28
07/08
06/03
05/28
07/06
05/28
07/08
05/30
06/30
05/26
05/25
05/29
03/25
05/28
05/31
Raisin (1,042 mi2)
25 Samples
yg/L Date
2.79
.103
.094
.031
.635
.569
.041
.011
4.95
9.26
.127
.205
.010
4.29
1.72
8.16
3.30
1.42
.448
05/28
05/29
06/02
07/17
06/02
05/30
06/02
06/05
08/07
05/30
07/03
05/28
07/17
05/29
05/30
05/29
05/28
05/30
06/01
Melmore (149 mi2)
63 Samples
yg/L Date
13.1
.82
.213
1.13
4.65
3.31
.093
.022
3.60
48.4
.124
.024
.008
14.9
8.24
69.6
90.8
2.69
.65
05/25
05/25
05/24
05/17
05/25
05/24
06/03
05/28
06/29
05/25
07/08
05/26
06/29
05/25
05/25
05/25
05/28
05/29
05/27
Defiance (4.3 mi2)
48 Samples
yg/L Date
5.66
.837
.248
.112
5.81
2.97
.316
.020
3.3
38.9
.09
.08
.013
10.1
5.4
19.5
12.7
4.43
2.48
06/21
05/28
07/11
05/22
07/11
07/11
07/11
06/07
07/11
05/22
07/13
05/28
06/28
05/22
05/23
05/22
05/28
05/29
05/28
Cuyahoga (707 mi2:
22 Samples
yg/L Date
7.68
2.84
.051
.314
3.62
.43
.240
.019
10.7
1.5
.058
.00
.083
6.62
.284
.60
.733
.147
.793
06/14
05/11
06/28
05/11
06/07
05/24
07/19
05/11
08/09
05/24
06/14
08/09
05/03
07/19
07/19
08/02
05/24
07/19
Note: Linuron - Lorox, EPTC - Eptam, Butylate - Sutan, Ethoprop - Mocap, DIA - D-Isopropyl Atrazine, DEA -
D-Ethyl Atrazine, Phorate - Thimet, Simazine - Princep, Terbufos - Counter, Fonofos - Dyfonate, Cyanazine -
Bladex, Metribuzin - Sencor/Lexone, Alachlor - Lasso, Metolachlor - Dual, Chlorpyrifos - Lorsban, Penoxalin
Prowl.
-------
if)
00
SI
CO
0
130.
HONEY CREEK C149 SO.MI.
ATRAZINE
it
MUD CREEK C4.3 SO.MI.
(UPPER LOST CREEK)
MAUMEE RIVER C6313-SQ.MI.
50. 170. 190.
DAY OF THE YEAR 1982
210
10
Q
co
CO
GO
es>"
SANDUSKY RIVER C1251 SO.MI.)
111.II i I 11 I .1 ...
RAISIN RIVER C1842 SO.MI.)
CUYAHOGA RIVER C707 SO.MI.
4-
30.
50. 170. 190.
DAY OF THE YEAR 1982
210
Figure 2. Atrazine concentrations (micrograms per liter) in Lake Erie tributaries.
-------
0
HONEY CREEK Cl 49 SO. MI.)
MUD CREEK C4.3 SQ.MI.)
(UPPER LOST CREEK)
k
MAUMEE RIVER C6313 SO. MI.)
1
l| III!
00
10
SANDUSKY RIVER C1251 SO. MI.)
RAISIN RIVER Cl 042 SO . MI . )
CUYAHOGA RIVER C70? SO. MI.)
159. 170. 190.
DAY OF THE YEAR 1982
210. 130.
-I-
150. I 70. 190
DAY OF THE YEAR 1982
210.
Figure 3. Alachlor concentrations (micrograms per liter) in Lake Erie tributaries.
-------
13
1982 DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
The no-till and ridge plots were the main demonstrations of the Project.
1982 was an extremely good year for no-till planting, as the soil was dry
in most cases, and the planters operated well. This was a stark contrast
to the wet, delayed plantings of 1981. The dry weather did reduce the
effectiveness of some herbicides.
Following an initial sign up period in early 1982, Project staff visited
most cooperators before planting to help plan their demonstrations. Farm-
ers were asked to give the SWCD at least 2 or 3 days notice before they
intended to start planting their plot, so that equipment could be scheduled.
There were very few planter scheduling problems in 1982.
Planters were delivered and Project staff helped set up the equipment and
get the farmer started in the field. 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.
Those fields in which the SWCD's disk-chisel plow was used are also
included in the demonstration plots. Most plots were scouted during the
growing season for pests. In several cases, post-emergent herbicides were
required, and in a few fields armyworms had to be controlled.
Cooperators were asked to keep good records of all cultural practices,
and to schedule a yield check with the SWCD.
All corn yields have been adjusted to 15.5% moisture and all soybean
yields were adjusted to 13.0% moisture. In the case of soybeans drier than
13.0%, yields were adjusted upward.
.
Yield checks are needed on every demonstration
plot. This is the SWCD's grain-weighing device.
-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY-LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
56 55
LAKE PLAIN54
- LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED
1QR9 CORN PEffflHSTRATinN PLOT
-------
1982 CORN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Richard Appel & Sons #1
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Richard Appel & Sons #3
Richard Bockelman & Sons
Arnold Bok #1
Arnold Bok #2
Paul Bok
Ray Bok #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell
Bob & Bruce Colwell
Bob & Bruce Colwell
Bob & Bruce Colwell
//I
#2
#3
#4
Steve Coolman #1
Steve Coolman //2
John Crites
Lynn Davis
Hal DeTray
Jim Donze //I
Jim Donze #2
Jim Donze #3
Jim Donze #4
Duane Engel #1
Duane Engel #2
Greg Garmyn/Derrill Kline
Bob Heisler //I
Walt Helmke #1 and #2
Luther Hetrick
Art Hoellrich #1
Art Hoellrich #2 and #3
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #1
Bob & Jerry Hoshock //2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #3
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Tom & Joe Hoshock
#1,2 and 3
Waldo Imbrock
John Koerner
Cleon Krill #1
Cleon Krill #2
Cleon Krill #3
Don Lehman
Tom Pendleton
Ted Pohlmann //I
Ted Pohlmann #2
Ted Pohlmann #3,4,5, and 6
Ted Pohlmann #7
Milo Renz
Bob & Don Rethmel #1
Bob Rettig #1,1P,2, and 2P
Brian Rohrs #1
Brian Rohrs #2
Albert Schroeder #1
Albert Schroeder #2
Owen Schroeder #1
Owen Schroeder #2
Bob Shininger #1,1P,2, and 2P
Bob Shininger #3
Bob Shininger #4
Louis Shininger //I
Clete Siler #1
Dan Singer //I
Dan Singer #2
Clete Vetter #1
John & Joe Wagner
Denver Zeedyk
NOTES ON THE INDIVIDUAL PLOT TABLES
The tillage/planter columns correspond with the variety, population,
%H20, 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.
-------
16
1982 CORN DEMONSTRATIONS
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
"
Richard Appel
& Sons
#1
May 1
Richard Appel
& Sons
#2
, , / |
rillage/Plantei
Fall chisel,
disk (2x),
power harrow
No-till/White 1
Sp. Disk/White
No-till/White
Richard Appel
& Sons
#3
May 12
Richard Bockel-
man & Sons
June 7
Arnold Bok
#1
May 10
Arnold Bok
#2
No-till/IH
Disk (2x)/IH
No-till/IH
No-till/JD
Sp. Plow, Disk
Drag/JD
No-till/JD
1 May 12 1
Residue
Wheat
Soybean
Soybean
oftieat/Clovet
Winter
killed
Wheat
Alfalfa
Jheat Straw,
clover
Winter
killed
Wheat
Soil Type
Blount,
Glynwood
^^M'""'"
Blount
&
Glynwood
Glynwood
Blount,
Glynwood,
Pewamo
Hoytville
Blount,
Glynwood
Blount,
Glynwood
Herbicides
1 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
1 qt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Aatrex
2% qt/A Bladex
1 qt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
4 Ib/A Atrazine
& Oil
1 pt/A Banvel
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Aatrex
Insecticides
None
Planter box
seed treatmenl
&
5.7///A Dyfonal
banded
None
Isotox F
4 oz/50#
Seed treatmer
5 oz/bu.
Isotox D
Seed treatmer
5 oz/bu.
Isotox D
Seed treatmen
-------
17
, Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P2Oq-K20
250# 8-21-29
183# 82-0-0
preplan!
Total 170-52-72
250# 8-21-29
177# 82-0-0
preplant
Total 165-52-72
122 # 45-0-0
250# 8-21-29
110# 82-0-0
preplant
Total 165-52-72
140# 5-15-30
212# 28-0-0
Total 66-21-42
150# 6-15-40
100# 6-24-24
125# 82-0-0
Total 115-46-84
150# 6-15-40
150// 6-24-24
125# 82-0-0
Total 120-58-96
Plot Comments
Good field, but no
comparison of tillage.
Planter overplanted above
desired population of
24,500. Some thistles
in clover section, other
sections had no problems
Planter overpopulated
above desired population
of 24,500.
Excellent Field.
Planter had trouble in
heavily compacted spots
caused by hay wagon.
Some alfalfa and
dandelions not killed.
Harvested as silage.
Farmer commented that
yield check was in poor-
est section of field. He
was pleased with overall
results this year.
Farmer was pleased with
overall results in field
this year. Light weed
pressure, field had no
major problems.
Variety or
Hybrid
Robinson 3120
Pioneer 3780
Pioneer 3780
nalTalK YT9RA
P.A.G. 181
P.A.G. 177
P.A.G. 181
Population/ A
(Drop/Stand)
24000/
24500/26300
24500/24700
/5400/26700
24500/26800
24500/24000
?A9no/9^Ann
26100/26700
26100/25600
/oE20
21.2
16.8
16.9
18.3
18.0
17.2
17.8
21.9
ง
Yield
(bu/A)
134.0
122.4
127.9
103.2
130.6
127.2
100.0
94.0
MM
-------
18
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Paul Bok
May 3
Ray Bok
#1
April 30
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
#1
April 27
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
#2
April 27
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
#3
April 28
Bob & Bruce
Colwell
m.
ff4
April 28
Steve Coolman
//I
May 1
Tillage/Jlanter
Sp . Chisel,
Disk, Culti-
mulch
Sp. Plow, Disk
Cultimulch
No- til I/
Farmer's JD
Jo-till/IH
Field cult./IH
No-till/IH
Field cult./IH
No-till/IH
Field cult/IH
No-till/IH
Field cult./IH
No-till/White
Disk & harro-
gate (2x)/
White
Residue
Corn
Wheat straw
Clover
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soil Type
Glynwood
Latty
Toledo
Hoytville
Hoytville,
Nappanee
Hoytville,
Me mill
Hoytville,
Haskins,
Oshtemo
Paulding
Herbicides
1 Ib/A Atrazine
Post:
2 Ib/A Atrazine
& Oil
1 qt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Bicep
1-4 pt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A basso
Post:
1 pt/A 2,4-D
% pt/A Banvel
1-4 pt/A Pafaq-uat
3 qt/A Lasso
Post:
^ pt/A Banvel
1-4 pt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Lasso
Post:
1 pt/A 2,4-D
% pt/A Banvel
1-4 pt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
2 Ib/A Bladex
Insecticide
7///A Dyfonate
banded
9///A Counter
banded
I// /A Sevin wi
herb.
6 oz/bu
Diazinon &
Captan seed
treatment
6 oz/bu
Diazinon &
Captan seed
treatment
6 oz/bu
Diazinon &
Captan seed
treatment
6 oz/bu
Diazinon &
Captan seed
treatment
8.7///A Counte
banded
-------
19
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P20 -K20
300# 6 i s 10
-J\J\Jlt \J _L_7 _l \J
319# 28-0-0
100# 8-25-3
130// 82-0-0
Total 222-71-93
350# 9-23-30
140# 16-41-6
546# 28-0-0
injected
Total 207-137-11:
287# 28-0-0
220# 6-32-16
272// 28-0-0
injected
Total 169-70-35
131# 0-0-60
31# 18-46-0
286# 28-0-0
257# 8-32-16
321# 28-0-0
injected
Total 196-96-120
333# 0-0-60
45# Magnesium
296# 28-0-0
240# 8-32-16
378# 28-0-0
injected
Total 208-77-238
131# 0-0-60
31# 18-46-0
321# 28-0-0
257# 8-32-16
35 7# 28-0-0
injected
200# 10-30-0
300# 4-10-47
171# 82-0-0
Total 172-90-141
Plot Comments
Used disk chisel plow and
also moldboard plow. Farm-
er commented that chisellec
section did not excessively
dry out, as compared to
spring plow.
Moderate cocklebur infest-
ation, overall good field.
Good field, dry May
weather decreased stand.
Excellent field with no
problems .
Some quackgrass patches,
overall clean field with
excellent yield. Stand
was decreased by dry May
weather.
Moderate amount of fall
Danicum and giant foxtail
Ln west part of field.
Cultivated strip not
worked fine enough.
Paraquat not applied
properly - no surfactant
used and was mixed with
a P fertilizer. Dry wea-
ther and some cutworms
decreased stand. Also no-
till yield area included
Variety or
Hybrid
Rupp 1780
Stauffer's 402
Landmark 733
DeKalb XL55A
Great Lakes
5922
Great Lakes
5922
Rupp 1780
Rupp 1690
Funks 2790
1
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
oAnnn /
ZDUUU/
26000/
27700/26000
28100/23000
28100/22000
28100/24800
28100/24300
28100/22000
28100/21300
28100/25000
28100/20300
2^000/22700
26000/2-37-00
%H90
z.
9H 0
4- \J \J
20.8
18.7
32.6
34.6
19. .9
20.0
19.5
18.8
18.8
22.6
23.4
18.1
16.8
ield
bu/A)
1 f. Q
_L\J . -J
02.1
23.8
132.1
L15.3
146.1
.155.1
L52.8
L64.2
L59.6
151.3
136.7
102.0
101.5
-------
20
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Steve Coolman
#2
May 1
John Crites
June 16 & 18
Lynn Davis
May 15
Hal DeTray
April 29
Jim Bonze
#1
April 28
Jim Donze
#2
April 28
Jim Donze
HI
1t A
April 28
ni] lage/Planter
No-till/White
Disk & harr-
ogate (2x)/Wh.
No-till/Hin.
Fall plow,
disk, land-
level, ridge
Fall plow, di-
sk, landlevel
No-till/White
Field cult/Wh.
No-till/ IH
Fall plow/IH
row cultivate
No-till/ JD
row cultivate
Disk (2x)/JD
trow cultivate
No-till/ IH
No-till/JD's
& row cult.
Field cult/IH
Field cult/JD
& row cult.
Residue
Soybean
First cut-
ting hay
removed .
Wheat 1980
Wheat,
clover,
soybeans ,
wends .
Wheat/
Clover
Soybean
Winter
killed
TJV. n n 4-
wneat
Soil Type
Rose 1ms
Latty
Paulding,
Rose 1ms
Roselms,
Paulding
Hoytville
Hoytville
Nappanee
Hoytville
Nappanee
Herbicides
. pt/A Paraquat
. Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ibs/A Bladex
Post:
3 Ibs/A Atrazine
9-0 & oil
4 Ibs/A. Atrazine
. qt/A Paraquat
3h. Ibs/A Atrazine
& oil
1% Ibs/A 2,4-D
L% pt/A Paraquat
1% qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
1 qt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Bicep
Post: h pt/A
Banvel in no-
till only
1 pt/A 2,4-D
3 qt/A Bicep
Spot spray:
\ pt/A Banvel
1 qt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Bicep
Spot spray:
\ pt/A Banvel
Insecticides
8.7///A Counter
banded
10#/A Furadan
banded
None
None
8.7///A Counter
banded
None
None
-------
21
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
200# 10-30-0
300# 4-10-47
171# 82-0-0
Total 172-90-141
140# 4-10-10
536# 28-0-0
injected
Total 156-14-14
300# 19-19-19
158# 82-0-0
Total 187-57-57
240// 8-17-33
393# 28-0-0
Total. 129-41-79
250# 6-15-40
200# 16-41-6
150# 82-0-0
Total 170-120-112
300# 6-15-40
200# 16-41-6
150# 82-0-0
Total 173-127-132
250# 9-23-30
150# 6-15-40
200# 16-41-6
150# 82-0-0
Total 186-162-147
Plot Comments
Same comments as field #1.
Also, Atrazine & oil spray-
ed to control severe quack-
grass infestation.
Field planted following
hay harvest. Plot had
some quackgrass patches
and drowned out areas.
Some armyworm feeding in
July. Harvested as silage
SWCD's ridger adjusted
for 28" rows. Farmer
used own AC no-till
planter.
Problem field: planted
lost Volatilized?), and no
additional N applied.
Drowned spots, moisture
ation of chicory.
Poor application of
herbicides - some strips
in no-till missed.
Plowed section of field
planted as it was - stale
seedbed.
Both Farmer's JD and SWCD's
IH used in field. Banvel
spot sprayed on thistle
patches. Row cultivated
due to lack of rainfall
to activate herbicide.
Comparison between tillage
and planters. Every 12
farmer's JD and SWCD - IH.
Variety or
Hybrid
Funks 2790
Funks G 4323
Mixture of
late varieties
DeKalb XL55A
Jacques JX147
Jacques JX151
Jacques JX151
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26000/21600
26000/22500
24600/17700
30000/
30000/
9^1 on/ 99000
971 nn/ 9^/inn
27900/20700
27900/24000
27900/26000
27900/--;
ป*ซ>
&000
%H20
16.0
16.9
35.9
29.0
34.9
18.0
16.1
18.3
17.9
HiBMiKi
16.6
16.4
16.6
16.0
Yield
(bu/A)
112.3
116.8
51.8
87.8
85.2
120.4
L47.6
L30.4
137.0
_ซ
168.3
160.8
167.8
171.6
-------
22
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Jim Donze
#4
May 1
Duane Engel
#1
April 24
Duane Engel
#2
April 24
Greg Garmyn
Derrill Kline
May 1 - 6
Bob Heisler
#1
April 29
Walt Helmke
#1
May 6
Walt Helmke
#2
May 6
illage/Planter
No-till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/JD
& row culti-
vate
Field cult (2X;
JD & row cult.
No-till/JD
& row culti-
vate
Field cult(2x)/
JD & row cult.
Fall chisel,
spring disk,
field culti-
vate, drag
No-till/AC
row cultivate
Sp. Disk/ AC
row cultivate
No-till/
Farmer's JD
Field cult/
Farmer's JD &
row cultivate
No-till/JD
Fall plow/JD
Fall chisel/JD
Fall plow/JD
Residue
Corn
Winter
killed
Wheat
Winter
killed
Wheat
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Wheat/
Clover
Soil Type
Genesee,
Shoals
Hoytville
Hoytville
Lenawee,
Del Rey
Blount,
Pewamo ,
Glynwood
Hoytville
Ncl"P 0 ciriG G
Hoytville
Nappanee
Herbicides
1 qt/A Paraquat
3 qt/A Bicep
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Atrazine
2% qt/A Bladex
Spot spray:
1 pt/A Paraquat
L pt/A Paraquat
L qt/A Atrazine
lh qt/A Bladex
Spot spray:
1 pt/A Paraquat
2 Ib/A Atrazine
2 qt/A Lasso
2*2 Ib/A Atrazine
1.8 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
2 qt/A Dual 8E
1.8 Ib/A Atrazine
9-0
2 qt/A Sutan
No-till:
1 qt/A Paraquat
1.8 Ib/A Atrz 9-0
2 qt/A Dual
Conventional :
1.8 Ib/A Atrz 9-0
2 qt/A Sutan
Insecticides
8.7///A Counter
banded
Isotox seed
treatment
Isotox seed
treatment
LO///A Counter
banded
None
8///A Dyfonate
banded
None
8///A Thimet
in no-till
only (banded)
-------
23
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
212# 3-18-24
536# 28-0-0
injected
Total 156-38-51
300# 6-24-24
214# 28-0-0
300# 19-19-19
195# 82-0-0
Totall295-129-129
300# 6-24-24
214# 28-0-0
300# 19-19-19
195// 82-0-0
Total 295-129-129
200# 0-0-60
150# 6-18-6
2.2.2.V O/-U-0
Total 191-27-129
150# 10-26-26
214# 28-0-0
280# 10-26-26
183# 82-0-0
Total 253-112-112
100# 18-46-0
200# 0-0-60
254# 28-0-0
150# 8-33-17
198# 82-0-0
Total 263-96-146
All conv. same as
#1 For no-till
substitute
637# 28-0-0
ฃ_ <-!, QT7
tor the O/A.
NT total
279-96-146
Plot Comments
Severe infestation of
fall panicum, and moderate
yellow nutsedge.
Spots missed with first
application of Paraquat
sprayed again. Residual
herbicides not activated
because of dry weather.
Entire field row
cultivated.
Same as #1
Three fields using disk-
chisel in corn stalks.
No equal comparisons.
Yield given is from one
field.
Farmer used own AC no-
till planter- Residual
herbicide not activated
due to drv weather -entire
field row cultivated.
Farmer used own JT) planter
with 36" rows. Field
showed lit-tl^ difference
between no-rill anrl
cultivated sections
throughout season.
Farmer used own .TD pi anter
with 36" rows. All sect-
ions row culfiv^terl once.
Light, armyworm infestation
in no-till-
Variety or
Hybrid
Jacques JX147
Pioneer 3780
Pioneer 3780
Landmark 626
rioneer j/ou
Pioneer 3780
Population/A I
(Drop/Stand) I
27900/27300
26100/25000
26100/27700
26100/24600
26100/25000
30000/29200
ononn/
27600/25000
30200/28300
qnonn /
2H20
19.0
15.8
15.7
17.2
17.2
?fi 1
20.5
20.6
17.5
18.2
17.5
16.5
UQ
15.0
Yield
(bu/A)
151.0
142.5
144.5
174.9
169.5
1 SO ^
147.2
143.2
138.1
139.1
123.0
138.2
T OQ ฃ 1
127.9
1
-------
24
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
First
cutting
hay
removed
Art Hoellrich pall plow/JD
#1
Fall plow,
April 24 |field cult.
(2x)/JD
Blount
Pewamo
Glynwood
Ibs/A Atrazine
9-0
1 qt/A crop oil
Rescue Treatme
1%#/A Sevin
loytville
2 qt/A Bladex
1 qt/A Atrazine
Post:
ig pt/A Banvel
10#/A Counter
banded
No-till/JD
& row cult.
Soybean
& rye
cover
I'edrow,
Dttokee,
lermill,
Paulding
qt/A Lasso
No-till/JD
V-Plow, Field
cult. & drag
(2x)/JD
Winter
Killed
Wheat
Rimer
Mermill
Wauseon
Seward
Paulding
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 Ib/A Atrazine
qt/A Lasso
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock
Rescue Treatme
1 1/3 qt/A
Toxaphene
None
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ib/A Bladex
7///A Dyfonate
banded
April 26
M^""""**"
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock
n
April 28
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock
#3
May 3
_ป <_l^_ J.VV L. ^t-XV// i-JJJ
& row cult.
.ป.ซป
No-till/ IH
^ . '
Soybean
1
No-till/IH
Millgrove
Gilford
(Jheat/CloverlHoytville
II
1
1 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 qt/A Aatrex
4L
1\ qt/A Bladex
2 qt/A Lasso
h pt/A Banvel
1 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
1% qt/A Lasso
7///A Dyfonate
banded
7///A Dyfonate
banded
Post: % pt 2,4-D 1
h pt Banvel 1
-------
25
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
300# 0-0-60
100// 45-0-0
428# 28-0-0
250# 13-34-15
Total 197-85-218
300# 0-20-20
. 214# 28-0-0
265# 19-19-19
321# 28-0-0
injected
Total 200-110-110
214# 28-0-0
265# 19-19-19
134# 82-0-0
Total 220-50-50
300# 6-24-24
214# 28-0-0
265# 19-19-19
134# 82-0-0
Total 238-122-122
214# 28-0-0
300# 8-32-16
307# 28-0-0
injected
Total 170-96-48
214# 28-0-0
300# 8-32-16
112# 82-0-0
Total 176-96-48
214# 28-0-0
300# 8-32-16
j(J/?f zo (J-U
injected
Total 170-96-48
Plot Comments
Planted following hay harv-
est. This field had a
that had to be treated.
Harvested as silage.
Majority of field planted
into stale seedbed. Dry
May weather probably
decreased stand and yield
in worked section.
Residual chemicals not
activated due to dry
weather, so field was row
cultivated. Field had
heavy armyworm infestation
that was successfully
treated.
Field had moderate army-
worm infestation, but it
did not require treatment.
Both field #3 and #2 look-
ed excellent throughout
season.
Excellent field with no
problems.
Excellent field with no
problems.
Poor initial kill with
contact herbicide,
probably due to poor
application. Corn showed
slow emergence.
Variety or
Hybrid
Til an<=ปT7 77 *}
Stauffers 4402
DeKalb XL55A
DeKalb XL55A
DeKalb XL32A
DeKalb XL55A
Landmark 747
Landmark 733
Landmark 733
DeKalb XL55A
Bojac 432
Landmark 533
DOJ ac j /
Great Lakes
516
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
33000/28000
26000/23200
26000/23800
26000/24800
26200/24300
28000/25000
%H20
19.9
19.9
20.9
22.3
23.7
21.1
24.7
21.0
22.0
20.2
18.9
18.5
91 t;
t.L . j
20.5
Yield
(bu/A)
191.8
164.1
145.2
121.2
148.1
135.2
167.3
170.4
149.1
163.9
182.2
130.0
1 /. Q Q
i4o. y
142.8
-------
26
1 1
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Tom & Joe
Ho shock
April 28
Waldo Imbrock
//I
- May 3
Waldo Imbrock
#2
May 3
Waldo Imbrock
#3
May 4
John Koerner
Cleon Krill
#1
June 12
Cleon Krill
#2
June 15
1
1
Pillage/Planter
No-till/IH
Field cult. &
packer (2x)/ffi
Row cult, to
reform old
ridges/Hin.
Field cult./
Hin.
Row cult, to
reform old
ridges/Hin.
Row cult, to
reform old
ridges/Hin.
No-till/Hin.
No-till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/
Farmer ' s JD
1
1
Residue
Soybean
1981 corn
removed
as silage
1981 corn
removed
as silage
1981 corn
removed
as silage
First hay
cutting
removed
First hay
cutting
removed
First hay
cutting
removed
Soil Type
Hoytville
Nappanee
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Latty
Paulding
Blount
Pewamo
Glynwood
Bono
Carlisle
Blount
Pewamo
Herbicides
1% Ib/A Bladex
1 Ib/A Aatrex
1 pt/A 2,4-D
2 qt/A Atrazine
1 pt/A Dual
2 qt/A Atrazine
2 pt/A Dual
2 qt/A Atrazine
2 pt/A Dual
2% Ib/A Atrazine
2% Ib/A Princep
% pt/A Banvel
1 qt/A Paraquat
2% Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ib/A Princep
1 qt/A Paraquat
2% Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ib/A Princep
Insecticides
None
8///A Thimet
banded
8///A Thimet
banded
None
Rescue treatnu
2///A Sevin
8#/A Counter
banded
Rescue treatmi
2///A Sevin
8#/A Counter
banded
Rescue treatrru
2///A Sevin
-------
27
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
214# 28-0-0
300# 8-32-16
307// 28-0-0
injected
Total 170-96-48
4800 gal liq man.
4 -fcn dry manure
160# 8-25-3
214# 28-0-0
85# 82-0-0
Fert (minus manure)
Total 143-40-5
4000 gal lin man.
1 -fcn dry manure
160# 8-25-3
214# 28-0-0
85# 82-0-0
Fert (minus manure)
Total 143-40-5
ZUVV gal liq man.
1 -tn dry manure
160# 8-25-3
214# 28-0-0
185# 82-0-0
ert (minus manure)
Total 143-40-5
536# 28-0-0
100# 8-25-3
to % of field
183* 82-0-0
100// 8-25-3
to other \
T~o"tal 158-25-3
357# 28-0-0
330// 6-24-24
Total 120-79-79
357# 28-0-0
330# 6-24-24
Total 120-79-79
Plot Comments
Moderate amounts of milk-
eed and hedge bindweed.
verall a good field. Dry
May weather probably hurt
ultivated section.
Moderate infestation of
barnyardgrass and dande-
lions. Harvested as
silage. Hand check
yields were: ridge 132
and disk 108.
Moderate amounts of fall
panicum. Field harvested
as silage. Hand yield
check found about 102 bu/A
Field harvested as silage.
Hand check yield was
109 bu/A.
Field had severe armyworm
infestation requiring
treatment. Moderate crab-
grass and dandelions. Plot
harvested as silage. Farmer
indicated yield was about
90 bu/A.
Field had heavy armyworm
infestation requiring
treatment. Plot harvested
as silage.
Field had heavy armyworm
infestation requiring
treatment. Plot harvested
as silage.
i .
Variety or
Hybrid
Landmark 733
Pioneer 3780
Pioneer 3780
Pioneer 3780
Landmark 550
Landmark 533
Landmark 399
g^KB^BMBMMMMBi^
Landmark 399
Northrup King
PX37
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26200/22400
24000/22400
24000/23000
?Annn/
27000/21400
?^snn/
9^ son/
%H20
19.3
18.6
...
Yield
(bu/A)
170.4
151.0
_
-------
28
Cooperator
Plot, |Tillage/Planter
Planting Date
Insecticides
Herbicides
Cleon Krill
No-till/Farm-
JD
First hay
cutting
removed
1 qt/A Paraquat
2% Ib/A Atrazine
2 Ib/A Princep
Carlisle
Pewamo
Glynwood
8#/A Counter
banded
Don Lehman
Ib/A Atrazine
3 qt/A Lasso
o-till/JD
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 Ib/A Atrz. 9-0
qt/A Prowl
5Jg#/A Dyfonal
banded
Post: on ch. sect.
1 Ib/A Atrz. 9-0
1 qt/A Basagran
Sp. chisel,
disk(2x)/Farm
Ted Pohlmann | New ridges/
Hin. & row
cultivate
Hoytville
Latty
Mappanee
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
2 oz/bu Agrox D
Seed treatment
F. plow, sp.
field cult./
Hin & row cul
..o-tTTTTrmi
& row cult.
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
2 oz/bu Agrox D
Seed treatment
Sp. Disk (2x)
Drag, Pack,
Roterra/Farm-
er's JD/rpwlt>
kpt/A Paraquat
_> pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
qt/A 2,4-D
Ted Pohlmann
No-till/Hinikei
& row culti-
vate
Hoytville
Oshtemo
2 oz/bu Agrox E
Seed treatment
Ted Pohlmann
1 pt/A Paraquat
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
qt/A 2,4-D
2 oz/bu Agrox
No-till/Hlni-
ker & row
cultivate
Hoytville
Nappanee
Seed treatment
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
357# 28-0-0
330# 6-24-24
1
Total 120-79-79
300# 19-19-19
214# 28-0-0
Total 117-57-57
2DO# 0-0-60
321# 28-0-0
150# 8-25-3
4- 70// 82-0-0
on^chiseled sect.
lotals
Mo-till 102-38 124
Chisel 159-38-124
175# 0-0-60
67# 18-46-0
282# 28-0-0
155// 8-25-3
361// 28-0-0
injected
Total 204-70-110
100# 0-0-60
50# 18-46-0
274# 28-0-0
155# 8-25-3
297# 28-0-0
injected
Total 181-62-63
200// 0-0-60
265# 28-0-0
155# 8-25-3
424# 28-0-0
injected
Total 205-39-125
200// 0-0-60
265# 28-0-0
155# 8-25-3
446# 28-0-0
injected
Total 211-39-125
Plot Comments
Field had some armyworms
present, but they were
not treated. Harvested
as silage.
Severe weed competition
in this field. No
contact herbicide used.
Severe foxtails and other
grasses .
Post herbicides in no-till:
2 applications of \ pt 2,4-
D and ^ pt/A Banvel. Poor
weed control, esp. in no-
till. Additional N not
applied in no-till due to
leavy mat of clover.
Planter cleared off too
much of ridge top.
Broadleaves not controll-
ed by residual herbicides
tfere row cultivated out
)f field.
Stand probably decreased
by dry spring weather. Mod-
erate amounts of barnyard-
grass and dock. Plants
showed purpling of leaves
in early June, indicating
a Phosphorus deficiency.
A herbicide combination of
Paraquat and 2,4-D is not a
recommended practice.
Moderate giant foxtail
Ln this field. Row culti-
vated to control escaped
weeds.
A. herbicide combination of
'araquat and 2,4-D is not
i recommended practice.
Row cultivated to
:ontrol escaped weeds.
Variety or
Hybrid
Northrup King
PX37
Funks 's 4323
Stauffer 5660
Pioneer 3535
Pioneer 3572
Pioneer 3572
Mixture of
Bojac 432 &
Pioneer 3747
Pioneer 3747
Bojac 432
Pioneer 3747
1
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26000/23700
27100/24300
27100/25300
26200/24800
26200/24000
26200/23000
26200/21300
26200/26000
26200/26000
%H20
24.0
_,
20.9
21.5
20.5
20.8
20.4
25.6
29.8
24.8
Yield
(bu/A)
58.9
_ ___
116.4
127.1
119.9
91.9
88.6
153.7
137.1
128.0
29
-------
30
1 Cooperator,
Plot, 1
Planting Date
Ted Pohlmann 1
#5
May 1
Ted Pohlmann
#6
May 1
Ted Pohlmann
#7
May 5
Milo Renz
April 27
Bob & Don
Rethmel
#1
May 6
Bob Rettig
#1
May 1
*"~./
Bob Rettig
nT>
r
May 1
:illage/Planter
No-till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/ 1
Farmer's JD 1
Fall Plow, Sp.
Field cult.
(2x), Ro terra/
Farmer's JD
No-till/Hin.
& Buffalo cult
fo-till/IH
3p plow, disk/IH
fo-till/IH
ID disk/IH
o-till/IH
o-till/White
all plow, Sp.
ield cult.,
arrogate, cult
pack/White
fo-till/IH
Fall plow,Sp.
Idisk & field
cult/IH
Fall plow, sp
j _i c i: ,-. -1 J
disk, a rxela
cult/IH
Residue
Winter
Killed
Wheat
Wheat with
Rye cover
Wheat/Clovei
I
Alfalfa sod
Alfalfa sod
Soybean
Soybean
Alfalfa
Wheat/Clovei
Vheat/
Soybean
Soil Type
Hoytville
Oshtemo
Hoytville
Haskins
Millgrove
Latty
[
Latty
Fulton
Blount
Belmore
Colwood
Digby
Ottokee
Hoytville
Nappanee
tioy cvi-LJ.e
Nappanee
Herbicides
2 pt/A Paraquat
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
\ qt/A 2,4-D
2 pt/A Paraquat
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
Iz; qt/A 2,4-D
2 pt/A Paraquat
3 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
0.84 qt/A Para-
quat
2 Ib/A Bladex
2/-t 4- / A T ^ r-ซ .-*
qt/A Lasso
2 pt/A Paraquat
1% Ib/A Aatrex
1% Ib/A Bladex
2 qt/A Lasso
1% pt/A Paraquat
1^2 qt/A Aatrex
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
Jz; pt/A Banvel
1% pt/A 2 4-D
^ ฃyl_/*l ^-,-T i-f
1% qt/A Aatrex
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
h pt/A Banvel
h pt/A 2,4-D
Insecticides
2 oz/bu Agrox 1
seed treatme
% pt/A Toxaphe
with herb.
2 oz/bu Agrox 1
seed treatmen
% pt/A Toxaphe
with herb.
2 oz/bu Agrox 1
seed treatnu
% pt/A Toxaphei
with herb
8.7///A Counter
banded
2 oz/bu Agrox I
seed treatmei
% pt/A Toxaphe
with herb.
5 oz/bu Isotox
seed treatme
None
-------
31
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
150# 0-0-60
100# K-MAG
265# 28-0-0
140# 8-25-3
446#. 28-0-0,
injected
Total 210-35-116
150# 0-0-60
100# K-MAG
265# 28-0-0
N140# 8-25-3
446# 28-0-0
injected
Total 210-35-116
2 T/A Lime
270# 28-0-0
155# 8-25-3
223# 28-0-0
injected
Total 150-39-5
300# 6-24-24
536# 28-0-0
Total 168-72-72
200# 0-0-60
75# 21-0-0
100# 8-32-16
482# 28-0-0
injected
Total 159-32-136
170// 6-24-24
138# 82-0-0
Total 123-41-41
'' 117// 15-0-40
138# 82-0-0
Total 131-0-47
170# 6-24-24
138# 82-0-0
Total 123-41-41
*
Plot Comments
Total micronutrients: 22
bs/A sulfur and 18 Ibs/A
[g. Paraquat and 2,4-D
ombination not recommended
Planter overpopulated above
esired population. Sprayer
nissed strip in field.
'otal micronutrients: 22
Lbs/A sulfur and 18 Ibs/A
Ig. Paraquat and 2,4-D
:ombination not recommended
'lanter overpopulated above
esired population.
excellent field.
Plants showed signs of
Phosphorus deficiency in
early June (purpling of
leaves). Symptoms left
later. Buffalo cult, did
poor job in this field.
Caused slabbing & Door ride
Moderate to severe grass
pressure in all no-till
sections. Some armyworm
in alfalfa sod. No
yield checks arranged.
(Two fields)
Inconsistent seed planting
depth. Ammonium sulfate
fertilizer supplied 15 Ibsy
A of sulfur.
Post application of herb-
icides gave good control
of escape annual broadleaf
weeds and reduced pressure
from scattered perrenials.
Phosphorus drawdown
demonstration plot. Bray
PI soil, test level was
108 Ibs P/A
Variety or
Hybrid
As grow RX777
Asgrow RX777
Pioneer 3747
Stauffer
Migrow
Trojan T 1058
Cargill 924
Cargill 924
1
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
28500/30700
28500/29300
26200/26000
28000/26800
28000/22000
28000/26000
28000/22000
28000/26400
27900/20200
27900/19300
26300/24000
26300/24300
26300/24300
%H20
23.6
25.2
23.5
27.8
24.5
20.4
21.3
F9.8
19.5
19.8
Yield
(bu/A)
187.4
177.0
168.7
124.5
118.4
150.0
111.4
126.4
114.6
126.4
-------
32
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Bob Rettig
#2
May 1
Bob Rettig
#2 P
May 1
Brian Rohrs
//I
June 12
Brian Rohrs
#2
June 17
Albert
Schroeder
#1
April 24
Albert
Schroeder
#2
April 26
Owen
Schroeder
#1
May 11
'illage/Planter
No-till/IH
Sp. Field cult
Disk, pack/IE
No-till/IH
No-till/Hin.
No-till/Hin.
No-till/
Farmer's JD
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
/Farmer's JD
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
/JD & row cult
Fall plow, sp.
field cult/JD
& row cult.
No-till/IH
Sp. Chisel,
disk (2x)/IH
Residue
Soybean
Soybean
Rye cover
removed as
silage
Rye cover
removed as
silage
Soybeans
Soybeans
Alfalfa sod
Soil Type
Hoytville
loytville
Lenawee
Del Rey
Lenawee
Del Rey
Mermill
Digby
Seward
Rimer
Hoytville
Mermill
Blount
Millgrove
Rimer
Raws on
Oshtemo
Glynwood
Herbicides
1 pt/A Paraquat
1% qt/A Aatrex
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
^ pt/A Banvel
h pt/A 2,4-D
1 pt/A Paraquat
1% qt/A Aatrex
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
h pt/A Banvel
h Pt/A 2,4-D
1 pt/A Paraquat
h pt/A Banvel
2 qt/A Bladex
1 pt/A Paraquat
^ pt/A Banvel
2 qt/A Bladex
3.2 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
3.2 pt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A Paraquat
4 Ib/A Atrazine
Spot spray:
h pt/A Banvel
Insecticides
5 oz/bu Isotox !
seed treatmen
5 oz/bu Isotox I
seed treatment
Rescue treatmer
1///A Lorsban
Rescue treatmen
1///A Lorsban
9///A Counter
banded
9#/A Counter
banded
13.3///A Furadai
-------
33
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
230// 6-24-24
138# 82-0-0
Total 127-55-55
117# 18-0-47
138# 82-0-0
Total 134-0-53
230# 6-24-24
138# 82-0-0
Total 127-55-55
200# 9-23-30
133# 9-18-9
571# 28-0-0
injected
Total 190-70-72
200# 9-23-30
133# 9-18-9
571# 25-0-0
injected
Total 190-70-72
200# 0-0-60
446# 28-0-0
240# 6-26-26
250// 28-0-0
injected
Total 209-62-182
200# 0-0-60
240# 6-26-26
cLo^y* OQ n f)
Total 164-62-182
. ^ซ
t
100# 0-46-0
500# 28-0-0
Total 140-46-180
Plot Comments
Wet field; was crusted
at planting, however
planter did good job.
Phosphorus drawdown
demonstration plot. Soil
test level was 31 Ibs P/A.
Planted following harvest
of rye cover crop. Severe
armyworm outbreak required
treatment. Harvested as
silage . Yield check taken
but grain too wet for
1 accurate yield.
Same as #1
Excellent field with no
problems.
Farmer used own JD planter
He indicated yields were
uniform in both sections,
about 154 bu/A.
Severe infestation of fall
panicum. Also, field had
a light armyworm infesta-
tion. Harvested as silage.
A hand check found yields
of 146.4 for no-till and
146.8 for conv.
Variety or
Hybrid
Cargill 922
Cargill 924
Pioneer 3780
Pioneer 3780
Rupp 1624
Rupp 1690
Rupp 1690
Rupp 1780
Pioneer
Pioneer 3780
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26300/24400
Ot OA(-)/_
26300/24400
27500/25800
27500/24000
25000/23700
25000/23300
"ป. c\c\r\ 1
Z4UUU/
25600/22400
,.
ฃH20
21.3
?1 8
21.5
19.8
|
19.2
19.5
18.6
21.8
I
Yield
(bu/A)
85.6
97 3
105.0
93.1
... _
j
162.4
182.6
175.2
170.2
-------
34
1 1
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Owen
Schroeder
#2
June 12
Job Shininger
//I
April 26
Bob Shininger
//I P
April 26
Bob Shininger
#2
April 26
Bob Shininger
#2 P
April 26
Bob Shininger
#3
April 26
Bob Shininger
1
Tillage/Planter
No-till/IH
No-till/White
Sp. Field cult
& harrogate
(2x) /White
No-till/White
No-till/White
Sp. Field cult,
& harrogate
(2x)/White
No-till/White
No-till/White
No-till/
Farmer JD
#4 1
May 6 JNo-till/IH
JNo-till/IH
Residue
First hay
cutting
removed
Corn
Silage
removed
Corn
Silage
removed
Corn
Silage
removed
Corn
Silage
removed
Corn
Silage
removed
Alfalfa
Snd
Soil Type
Blount
Pewamo
Paulding
Rose 1ms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Roselms
Herbicides
4% lb/A Atrazine
& crop oil
^ pt/A Banvel
1.67 lb/A Atrz.
9-0
2\ qt/A Lasso
1.67 lb/A Atrz.
9-0
2% qt/A Lasso
1.67 lb/A Atrz.
9-0
2% qt/A Lasso
1.67 lb/A Atrz.
9-0
2% qt/A Lasso
L.67 lb/A Atrz.
9-0
2% qt/A Lasso
0.9 qt/A Paraquat '
L pt/A Banvel II
ID section only:
1.6711^. Atrz .9-0
>% qt/A Lasso
EH section only:
5.5 lb/A Atrz. 9-0
Insecticides
13.3///A Furadan
banded
8.7///A Counter
banded
11///A Furadan
banded
8.7///A Counter
banded
8.7///A Counter
banded
8.7#/A Counter
banded
8.7///A Counter
banded
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
100# 0-46-0
300// 0-0-60
100// 15-30-30
129// 82-0-0
Total 121-76-210
80# 0-0-60
150# 0-46-0
218# 28-0-0
170# 82-0-0
Total 200-69-48
80# 0-0-60
218# 28-0-0
170# 82-0-0
_To tal_2Qp^Q^ _
Above plus
150# 0-46-0
Total 200-69-48
80// 0-0-60
150# 0-46-0
218# 28-0-0
17 0# 82-0-0
Total 200-69-48
80# 0-0-60
218# 28-0-0
170# 82-0-0
T^*-oi onn n AS
lotaj. /uu u 'to
Above plus
150# 0-46--0
Total 200-69-48
80# 0-0-60
150# 0-46-0
218# 28-0-0
17U?A oz (J U
Total 200-69-48
125# 18-46-0
130# 12-60-45
198// 82-0-0
Total 200-136-59
Plot Comments
Planted following hay
harvest. Light infestation
of armyworms. Harvested
as silage.
Farmer desired population
of 25000, but chain jumped
sprocket, and planted
35000. Majority of field
harvested as silage-grain
yield check taken too
early in fall.
Phosphorus drawdown demon-
stration plot. Field had
test level of 61 Ibs P/A.
Other comments same as
plot //I.
Chain on planter jumped
and planted 35000 instead
of 26000.
Some moderate quackgras;
patches.
Phosphorus drawdown demon-
stration plot. Field had
nest level. 01 42 IDS r/A.
Other comments same
as plot #2.
Flanter planted 35000, not
26000 desired due to jumped
chain. Stand count taken
too early.
Some quackgrass patches,
overall clean field. Har-
vested as silage. Hand yiel
Moderate amounts of fall
panicum and dandelions
throughout field. JD plant
er had trouble penetrating
very hard, dry soil. Also
L pt/A 2,4-D post applied
to escaped dandelions.
Variety or
Hybrid
Rupp 1690
DeKalb XL32A
DeKalb XL32A
Robinson 3122
DpKal T-i Y7 3?A
RnH-Incnn ^1 99
Sohigro 39
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
25600/24000
35000/33700
35000/34700
35000/33700
35000/28600
ocrnnn/
^^nnn / 99nnru-
26000/24800
%H20
32.9
39.8
37.0
33.6
20.8
20.7
18.0
18.6
21.3
20. J2
21.5
Yield
(bu/A)
99.2
87.6
91.0
98.2
122.5
114.5
115.1
114.9
82.1
_9!-A
96.4
35
-------
36
Cooperator, 1 I
Plot, Jlillage/Planter
Planting Date!
""
1 Louis
Shininger
#1
mi^am^*m**f***~~*
No-till on
ridge/Farmer's
JD & row cult.
April 29 1
Clete Siler
#1
Fall plow,
disk, culti-
mulch, field
cult.> ridge/ I
Residue
^^^i
Corn
April 26 1 JD & row cult.l
j (2x)
Dan Singer
#1 o
April 27
No-till/White
Sp field cult.
(2x), Roterra/
(White
-
uan singer
#2
April 27
Poor new
alfalfa
seeding
1 Poor new
No- till/White
L,, , p^ MBB Mปha ซ ^ " ""
I" iFall plow, ..
alfalfa
seeding
O
1 Clete Vetter | field cult |
ji-i
ffl
April 30
John & Joe
|(2x), ridge/
Fall plow, sp.
field cult/IH
|No-till/
Wagner | Farmer's JD
1 April 25
Denver Zeedyk
i
Fall chisel,
sp field cult/
Farmer's JD
Fall chisel,
sp field cult.
Soybean
(2x), culti- 1 Wheat
mul ch 1
IlFall plow, sp. 1
Jfield cult (2x)j
Soil Type
Paulding
Roselms
Latty
Fulton
Paulding
Roselms
O
Paulding
Paulding
Roselms
^i
Lenawee,
T\/-\ 1 13 /^TT
ueฑ Key
Hoytville
Herbicides
2 Ib/A Atrz. 9-0
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
% pt/A 2,4-D
1 qt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Lasso
Post:
1% Ib/A Atrazine
& oil
1 pt/A Paraquat
4 qt/A Aatrex
1 qt/A Dual
4 qt/A Aatrex
1 qt/A Dual
Post:
% pt/A 2,4-D
5s pt/A Banvel
2 qt/A Lasso
2 Ib/A Atrazine
% pt/A Banvel
"O .- j-
Post :
4 Ib/A Atrazine
% pt/A Banvel
1 qt/A Aatrex
2 qt/A Bladex
Latty Illj lb/A Aatrex
Fulton |2 qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
None
None
8.7# Counter
banded
8.7# Counter
banded
None
,
4 oz/bu Diazinon
seed treatment
None
1
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
150# 18-46-0
195# 82-0-0
Total 187-69-0
200# 6-24-24
Intended to
\inject 28% if
possible.
Total 12-48-48
| 300# 0-26-26
| 183# 82-0-0
Total 150-78-78
|300# 0-26-26
536# 28-0-0
Total 15Q-Z8-78
214# 28-0-0
125# 9-23-30
98# 82-0-0
Total 151-29-38
250# 19-19-19
150# 8-33-14
321# 28-0-0
Total 150-97-68
1
400# 6-24-24
122# 82-0-0
Total 124-96-96
Plot Comments
Planted no-till on old
corn ridges. Some light
grass pressure. Row
cultivated once to control
weeds and maintain ridge.
These ridges were origin-
ally formed in fall 1978.
Corn had poor emergence.
Most of field was worked
flat and replanted. One
Qt-rin of ridees were re-
planted. Wet soil condi-
tions prevented application
of additional N.
No-till coulter ran too
deep (4"). Dry May weather
caused soil to crack open
along seed trenches, and
corn kernels fell to 4"
depth. Luckily corn
emerged before trenches
closed shut.
Same comments as #1. Also
field had moderate dande-
lions, that were sprayed
with Banvel and 2,4-D.
Field sprayed with
Atrazine and Banvel to
control thistles, quack-
grass, and other weeds.
Two separate fields,
treated the same. No
problems in either field.
No yield check arranged.
Farmer indicated yields
of 150 bu/A for NT and
chisel in one field. Other
f-folflf MT i/n rh-ii 148
Two separate fields.
No yield check arranged.
Variety or
Hybrid
Supercross
2350
Stauffer 5260
Stauffer 606
Landmark 533
Pioneer 3535
Pioneer 3780
Landmark 733
DeKalb XL55A
Population/A
(Drop/Stand)
26100/24000
01 nnn /
Z-LUUU/
26900/24400
26900/26700
26900/25300
26000/24000
26000/24000
oc-i on/ _
%H20
17.9
19.6
21.7
19.2
20.1
14.3
20.7
20.5
Yield
(bu/A)
132.3
137.9
136.6
154.4
146.6
148.9
137.6
141.4
37
-------
38
1982 CORN YIELD SUMMARY
NO-TILL YIELDS BY SURFACE RESIDUE
In rye or winter-killed wheat
Richard Appel & Sons #3
Jim Donze #3
Jim Donze #3
Duane Engel #1
Duane Engel #2
Art Hoellrich #3
Ted Pohlmann #6
Average
Tahlp '
No-till
130.6
168.3
160.8
142.5
174.9
148.1
177.0
157.5
Comparison
127.2
167.8
171.6
144.5
169.5
135.2
168.7
154.9
Table 4
In soybean stubble or light residue
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Bob & Bruce Colwell #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
Bob & Bruce Colwell #3
Bob & Bruce Colwell #4
Steve Coolman #1
Steve Coolman #2
Jim Donze #2
Bob Heisler #1
Walt Helmke #1
Bob & Jerry Hoshock //I
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Tod Pohlmann #2
Bob Rettig #2
Albert Schroeder #1
Bob Shininger //I
Bob Shininger #2
Dan Singer #1
Average
T-.'UI ~ C
No-till
122.4
132.1
155.1
164.2
151.3
102.0
112.3
130.4
147.2
138.1
170.4
170.4
91.9
85.6
182.6
99.2
122.4
154.4
135.1
Comparison
127.9
115.3
152.8
159.6
136.7
101.5
116.8
137.0
143.2
139.1
149.1
151.0
88.6
97.3
175.2
87.6
114.5
146.6
130.0
In wheat straw, clover
Jim Donze #1
Walt Helmke #2
Bob & Don Rethmel #1
Bob Rettie #1
Average
No-till
120.4
123.0
118.4
111.4
>
118.3
Comparison
147.6
138.2
150.0
126.4
140.6
AVERAGE YIELDS OVER ALL RESIDUE TYPES
No-till
Comparison
138.2
137.5
-------
39
In examining the average corn yields by surface residue, it appears
that in 1982 heavy residues decreased yields. Since all the yields for
no-ti,ll in table 5 are substantially less than the comparison, this is
probably a safe generalization. However, it should be noted that in
one of the fields, good depth control at planting was not achieved,
thereby reducing the stand. On another of the fields in table 5, drainage
was less than adequate.
II. NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS
As classified by OARDC Research Bulletin 1068
Group I - Well drained soils, should show yield Increase with no-till.
Group II- No-till yields comparable to conventional, with improved soil
drainage.
Group III- Poorly drained soils, may yield less wtih no-till than
conventional.
Group IV- Very poorly drained soils, may yield less with no-till than
conventional. No-till more favorable than deep spring tillage.
Group V - Paulding - very poorly drained high clay soil - no-till not
recommended. , _ .
Table o
Groups I and II
Richard Appel & Sons If 2
'Richard Appel & Sons //3
Bob Heisler 01
Art Hoellrich 03
Ted Pohlmann #6
Bob & Don Rethmel #1
Albert Schroeder tfl
Soil Type
BlounfO. Glynwood
Blount, Glynwood
Blount, Pewamo
Rimer, Mermill, Wauseon
Oshtemo, Haskins, Millgrove
Blount, Belmore, Colwood
Mermill, Digby. Seward
Average
No-till
122. A
130.6
147.2
148.1
177.0
118.4
182.6
146.6
Comparison
127.9
127.2
143.2
135.2
168.7
150.0
175.2
146.8
In analyzing the yields by soil grouping, table 6 does not give any
advantage in favor of no-tillage on plots in soil groups I and II. Most of
the plots in this table are in group II and it is doubtful if all the fields
are adequately tile drained. If the Rethmel data was omitted from this
table, since there is a question if the reduction in yield was a result of
problems encountered with planting, the average yields for the remaining
six plots would be 151.3 bushels per acre for no-till and 146.2 bushels
per acre for the comparison.
-------
Table 7
40
)
Groups III and IV
Bob & Bruce Colwell #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell 92
Bob & Bruce Colwell 03
Bob & Bruce Colwell #4
Steve Coolman #2
Jim Donze #1
Jin Donze 92
Jim Donze #3
Jim Donze #3
Duane Engel ill
Duane Engel #2
Walt Helmke #1
Walt Helmke #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #1
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Ted Pohlmann #2
Bob Rettlg 01
J}ob Rettiz 02
Group V
Steve Coolman #1
Bob Shininger #1
Bob Shininger #2
Dan Singer //I
Soil Type
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Mermlll
Hoytville, Haskins, Oshtemo
Roselms
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Latty
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hovtville
Average
Table 8
Soil Type
Paulding
Paulding, Roselms
Paulding, Roselms
Paulding
Average
No-till
102.0
99.2
122.4
154.4
119.5
No-till
132.1
155.1
164.2
151.3
112.3
120.4
130.4
168.3
160.8
142.5
174.9
138.1
123.0
170.4
170.4
91.9
111.4
85.6
139.1
Comparison
115.3
152.8
159.6
136.7
116.8
147.6
137.0
167.8
171.6
144.5
169.5
139.1
138.2
149.1
151.0
88.6
126.4
97.3
139.4
Comparison
101.5
87.6
114.5
146.6
112.6
As can be seen on table 7, there was no reduction in yield for the plots
in soil group III and IV while table 8 shows a slight advantage to no-till
on group V soils. It is interesting to note the general decrease in
yields from group I thru group V soils which would be expected and also
adds validity to the data presented.
III. NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS AND RESIDUES
Groups I and II
In rye or W.K. Wheat
f Richard Appel & Sons #3
I Art Hoellrich #3
1 Ted Pohlmann #6
Soil Type
Blount, Glynwood
Rimer, Mermills, Wauseon
Oshterao. Haskins, Millgrovt
Average
to-till
130.6
148.1
177.0
151.9
, Tab],S ,2 1
Comparison
^^^^^^V1^1*
127.9
135.2
168.7
143.9
-------
41
Table 10
In soybean stubble or light
residue
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Bob Heisler //I
Albert Srhroeder //I
Soil type
Blount, Glynwood
Blount, Pewamo
Mermill. Diebv. Seward
Average
No-till
122.4
147.2
182.6
150.8
Comparison
127.9
143.2
175.2
148.8
In wheat straw/clover
Soil Type
No-till
Table 11
Comparison
i__Bob_&...Dpn Rethrael
Blount, Belmore. Colwood ___ 118.4 I 150.0
Groups III and IV
In winter killed
wheat
Jim Donze #3
Jim ..Donze //3
Duane Engel #1
Duane Engel #2
Table 12
Soil Type
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Hoytville
Average
No-till
168.3
160.8
142.5
174.9
161.6
Comparison
167.8
171.6
144.5
169.5
163.4
In wheat straw/ clover
Jim Donze //I
Walt Helmke #2
Bob Rettia //I
Tablp 13
Soil Type
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Average
No-till
120.4
123.0
111.4
118.3
Comparison
147.6
138.2
126.4
137.4
-------
42
Table 14
In soybean stubble
Bob & Bruce Colwell //I
Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
Bob & Bruce Colwell #3
Bob & Bruce Colwell #4
Steve Coolman #2
Jim Donze #2
Walt Helmke #1
Bob & Jerry Hoshock //I
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Ted Pohlmann #2
Bob Ret tie it 2
Soil Type
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Mermill
Hoytville, Haskins, Oshtemo
Rose 1ms
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Latty
Hovtville
Average
No-till
132.1
155.1
164.2
151.3
112.3
130.4
138.1
170.4
170.4
91.9
85.6
136.5
Comparison
115.3
152.8
159.6
136.7
116.8
137.0
139.1
149.1
151.0
88.6
97.3
131.2
Group V
In soybean stubble,
etc.
Steve Coolman //I
Bob Shininger #1
Rob Shininger //2
Dan Sineer //I
Soil Type
Paulding
Paulding, Roselms
Paulding, Roselms
Pauldine
Average
No-till
102.0
99.2
122.4
154.4
119.5
Table 15
Comparison
101.5
87.6
114.5
146.6
112.6
In tables 9-15, all soil groups responded well with no-tillage with
the exception of tables 11 and 13, where the residue was wheat straw and/
or clover. As was suggested earlier, there may have been reasons other
than the residue for this yield reduction. Results from previous years'
work have not shown this drastic yield reduction under similar circum-
stances.
IV. CORN YIELDS ON NEW RIDGES
Table 16
Lynn Davis
Teld Pohlmann #1
Clete Vetter #1
Average
Ridge
87.8
127.1
137.6
117.5
Flat Comparison
119.9
141.4
115.5
-------
V.. CORN YIELDS NO-TILL ON OLD RIDGES
43
Tj
Louis Shininger #1
Average of 3 varieties
ible 17
136.6
Regarding corn on ridges, there is no significant difference in the
no-till on ridges and flat comparison average. However, since the spring
was early and dry in 1982, the benefit of planting on a dry ridge while
the flat soil was still moist did not occur. Even though the soils in
table 15 are those where the most benefit from ridging should be observ-
ed, one must not compare the yields in table 16 to table 15 since the
plots vary widely in soil type, drainage, and fertility.
VI. NO-TILL CORN YIELDS WITHOUT COMPARISONS
Including multiple varieties in the same field.
Table 18
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Arnold Bok #1
Arnold Bok #2
Ray Bok #1
John Crites
Jim Donze #4
Art Hoellrich #2
Art Hoellrich #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #1
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock //3
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #3
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #3
Don Lehman
Ted Pohlmann #3
Ted Pohlmann #4
Ted Pohlmann #4
Ted Pohlmann #5
Ted Pohlmann #7
Albert Schroeder
Bob Shininger #4
Bob Shininger #4
Bob Shininger #4
Dan 3ineer //2
Average
103.2
100.0
94.0
123.8
51.8
151.0
145.2
121.2
167.3
182.2
130.0
148.9
142.8
58.9
153.7
137.1
128.0
187.4
124.5
162.4
82.1
93.4
96.4
148.9
126.4
VII. OVERALL NO-TILL CORN AVERAGES
With Comparisons Average
Without Comparisons Average
138.2 N
126.4 N
29
24
Overall No-till Corn Average = 132.9 bu/A
-------
44
VIII. PHOSPHORUS DRAWDOWN PLOTS
Table 19
Bob Ret tig #1P
Bob Ret tig #2P
Bob Shininger //IP
Bob Shininger #2P
Average
Bray P-l
Soil test
108#
31 //
61 //
42#
60
Pounds of
P?0q added
41
55
69
69
58
Yi
With P
126.4
93.1
98.2
114.9
108.2
eld
Without P
114.6
105.0
91.0
115.1
106.4
Demonstration plots are marked with signs, so
that passersby will know that a tillage demon-
stration is in progress.
-------
1982 CORN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
COMPARISON YIELDS BY TILLAGE & SOIL GROUPS
45
rH
** Cfl
O *H
TH A
PH O
rH rH
Table 20 -j H
PH PH
Soil Groups I & II
Richard Appel & Sons #2
Richard Appel & Sons #3
Paul Bok
Bob Heisler #1
Art Hoellrich #3
Ted Pohlmann #6
Bob & Don Rethmel #1
Albert Schroeder //I
Soil Groups III & IV
Bob & Bruce Colwell #1
Bob & Bruce Colwell #2
Bob & Bruce Colwell #3
Bob & Bruce Colwell #4
Steve Coolman #2
Jim Donze #1
Jim Donze #2
Jim Donze #3
Jim Donze #3
Duane Engel #1
Duane Engel #2
Walt Helmke //I
Walt Helmke #2
Walt Helmke #2
Bob & Jerry Ho shock #1
Tom & Joe Hoshock
Ted Pohlmann #1
Ted Pohlmann #2
Bob Rettig #1
Bob Rettig #2
Clete Vetter #1
Soil Group V
Steve Coolman #1
Lynn Davis
Bob Shininger #1
Bob Shininger #2
Dan Singer #1
168.7
150.0
147.6
138.2
127.9
119.9
126.4
141.4
85.2
175
129
^
o
,_ i
CM
60
c
H
a
CO
2
.6
102.
i-H
a)
en
H
u
60
c
H
a
CO
1
116
135
^
en
H
p
60
Ci
H
O.
CO
3
2*
127.
127.
143.
137
88
u
rH
U
T3
rH
OJ
H
Pn
61
H
D
CO
9
2
2
.0
.6
101.5
115
152
159
136
116
167
171
144
169
139
149
151
en
0)
60
H iH
pd iH
H
S 1
0) 0
ss a
.3
.8
.6
.7
.8
.8
.6
.5
.5
.1
.1
.0
97.3
,87.6
114 . 5
146.6
127.1
137.6
87.8
122.
130.
147
148
177
118
182
132
155
164
151
112
120
130
168
160
142
174
138
4
6
2
1
.0
.4
.6
.1
.1
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.3
.8
.5
.9
.1
123. U
170.4
170.4
91. y
111.4
85.6
102.0
99.2
122.4
154.4
* V-Plow and field cultivate
-------
DEFIANCE COUNTY-LOST CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
LAKE PLAIN
SOILS
- LOST CREEK SUBWATERSHED
1982 SOYBEAN TFMQNSTRATinN PI QTS
-------
47
1982 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
1. Bob Austermiller
2. Ray Bok #2
3. Ray Bok #3
4. Ray Bok #4
5. Virg Cameron #1 and 2
6. Steve Coolman #3
7. Ned Dunbar #1 and 2
8. John & Larry Hammersmith
9. Gary Hammon
10. Bob Heisler #2
11. Walt Helmke #3
12. Phil Hornish
13. Dick Hoschak
14. Bob & Jerry Hoshock #4
15. Dick & John Hoshock
16. Peter Kennerk #1 and 2
17. Don Meyer
18. Art Michaelis
19. Ted Pohlmann #8
20. Ted Pohlmann #9
21. Bud Ream
22. Bob & Don Rethmel #2
23. Bob Rettig #3
24. Louis Shininger #2
25. Louis Shininger #3
26. Clete Slier #2 and others
27. Richard Siler
28. Bill Temple
29. Tinora FFA
30. Clete Vetter #2
31. Clair Vollmer
32. John & Joe Wagner
33. Denver Zeedyk
34. Roger Zeedyk, Jr.
35. Zane Zeedyk #1
36. Zane Zeedyk #2
37. Zane Zeedyk #3
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.
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.
-------
48
1982 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATIONS
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Bob
Austermiller
May 12
Ray Bok
#2
May 11
Ray Bok
#3
May 11
Ray Bok
#4
May 14
Virg Cameron
#1
May 10
Virg Cameron
#2
May 10
Tillage/Planter
Fall chisel,
Hiniker
No-till/White
Fair chrsel'
sp field cult.
(2x), seedbed
cond./ Fanner's
JD
Fall chisel,
field cult (2x)
seedbed cond.
Fall plow,
field cult (2x)
seedbed cond.
No-till/
Farmer's JD
No-till/ JD
Sp. Disk
(2x)/JD
No-till/Crust
Buster
Sp. Disk (2x)
/Crust Buster
Residue
Corn
Wheat
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Paulding
Rose 1ms
Fulton
Latty
Latty
Nappanee
Toledo
Gilford
Hoytville
Hoytville
Herbicides
1 pt/A Paraquat
2% qt/A Lasso
Other part of
field
1% qt Roundup
2% qt/A Lasso
% pt/A 2,4-DB
1 pt/A Lorox 4L
1 pt/A Dual
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
1 qt/A Dual
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
% pt/A 2,4-DB
1 pt/A Lorox 4L
1 pt/A Dual
1 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
DF
2*5 qt/A Lasso
Ropewick Roundup
(20 A/gal)
1% pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
DF
2% qt/A Lasso
Spot spray
2h pta/A Poag^S,
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
2 oz/bu Isotox
seed treatment
2 oz/bu Agrox
seed treatment
-------
49
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
2T/A Lime
90 // 0-0-60
90# 0-46-0
Total 0-41-54
None
300# 0-23-30
Total 0-69-90
None
None
None
Plot Comments
Severe patches of quack-
grass. Moderate amounts
of giant foxtail, smart-
weed, ragweed, bindweed,
and thistles.
No-till White has 15"
rows, Chisel JD was 15"
rows with two 30" skips.
Moderate cocklebur
infestation.
Farmer used own JD plant-
er with 15" rows and two
30" skips.
Farmer used own JD plant-
er with 30" rows. This
field had some fall pan-
icum and also some assort
ed broadleaves. Some
water damage in field.
Dry May weather decreased
stand in disked section.
Planter set for 30" rows.
Roundup applied with rope
wick to control milkweed
and hemp dogbane.
Plot had several quack-
grass patches - Poast &
oil applied to control.
Roundup was ropewick
applied to control milk-
weed and hemp dogbane.
Variety or
Hybrid
Beeson 80
Agripro 26
Washington 5
SRF 307
Voris 295
Vickery
Population/A
Drop Rate/Stand
60///83600
85///185900
75#/
60///121000
60///102800
60//76700
85///261400
85///202800
%H20
16.1
13.2
13.3
11.8
12.6
12.5
11.3
10.6
13.4
13.3
Yield
(bu/A)
20.3
37.0
40.2
40.7
42.0
36.5
37.5
32.8
44.1
42.3
-------
50
Cooperator,
Plot, I
Planting Date
illage/Planter
1 Steve CoolmanlNo-till/White
|No-till/Crust-
#3
May 20
Bustej:
5p. disk 3x,
larrogate/
]rust Buster
1
Ned Dunbar JNo-till/Crust
1 Buster
//I 1
|sp_Jield cult/CB
June 4 |Sp. fid. cult.
IRo terra/ 30"rows
INed Dunbar
#2
June 4
No-till/Crust
Buster
"
John & Larry
Hammersmith
IMay 3
'"
Gary Mammon
May 15
Bob Heisler
#2
May 12
Walt Helmke
#3
all chisel,
field cult
(2x)/drill
>p. field cult.
(2x)/drill
No-tlll/Crust
Buster
Residue
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Winter
I" Killed
Wheat
Sp. disk/
Farmer's dril
No-till/White
Fall chisel/
White
Fall chisel/
Dr ill_
Fall plow/dril
1
Soybean
Soil Type
Paulding
Hoytville
Nappanee
Hoytville
Nappanee
Roselms
Hoytville
Herbicides
1% pt/A Paraquat
% Ib/A Sencor DF
2 qt/A Lasso
2 qt/A Roundup
1 qt/A Dual
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Roundup
1 qt/A Dual
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
18 Ib/A Lasso II
through drill
Post:
1 qt/A Blazer
1 qt/A Paraquat
Nappanee |2/3 Ib/A Lexone
1 DF
Blount
Pewamo
I
1
No-till/Crust
Buster
May 18 1
1
1
Soybean
Hoytville
2% qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Lasso
3/4 Ib/A Sencor
1% Ib/A Lexone
ll qt/A Dual
1
1 1
1 '
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
51
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P205-K20
TIT
IN one
None
None
None
None
Qf\/-\Ji r\ r\ ฃLO
oUUff U-U oU
Total 0-0-180
9H
ฃ
None
_
Plot Comments
Field was to compare no-
till drill and no-till 15"
planter. However, heavy
Tiinp T"p"iTi"Fall "FloorlpH
ULL11C J_d._l_tiJ^ClJ--L J LWU c1~-roQC2
tr m ver m sc r e
Iry summer.
Poor initial contact kill
with Paraquat.
Secondary tillage on plow-
ed and chiseled strips
was disk (2x) and culti-
mulch. Poor spray job on
no-till section; did not
get good top burn back
w-i i-h ^nni-aot- herbicide.
Excellent field with no
problems.
1
Variety or
Hybrid
p | O I I A
ExUpp J_LJ_U
w/Grandstand
Vickery
Vickery
q-p-pr Of\7 p
Vickery
Asgrow 3127
^^^^iMM^B*
Vickery
1
Population/A
Drop Rate /Stand
85///145200
85///261600
85///272500
90///228700
90///222200
90///179500
90/// 248300
i ^n$ /
'
85///261400
85///287500
97///250900
97///243900
I85///254900
1
%H20
12.9
12.5
12.6
12.9
13.8
13.7
114.7
15 7
15.7
16.3
12.9
1
Yield
(bu/A)
39.7
40.6
37.9
41.3
39.7
42.1
38.5
42.6
42.6
46.1
47.8
-------
52
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Phil Hornish
June 7
Dick Hoschak
May 14
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock
#4
May 13
Dick & John
Hoshock
May 13
Peter Kennerk
#1
May 13
PeteT Kennerk
#2
May 14
Don Meyer
May 12
Tillage/Planter
Fall plow, disk
(2x1 fielH
cult., ridge/IH
& Buff. cult.
Fall chisel,
sp field cult.
Landlevel
No-till/White
No-till/White
Disk, pack/
White
No-till/White
No-till/Crust-
Buster
No-till/Crust-
Buster
Sp. Disk (2x),
harrogate/
Crust Buster
No-till/Crust-
Buster
Sp. disk (2x),
harrogate,
pack/CB
Residue
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soil Type
raulding
Hoytville
Nappanee
Hoytville
Hoytville
Fulton
Shoals
Wabasha
Rawson
Toledo
Lucas
Fulton
Latty
Paulding
Herbicides
2 pt/A Paraquat
1 qt/A Dual 8E
2/3 Ib/A Sencor
DF
6 pt/A Amiben
1 pt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Sencor
1 pt/A Paraquat
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Sencor
1 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 pt/A Sencor
4L
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
3/4 pt/A Sencor
4L
2 qt/A Lasso
h pt/A Paraquat
- pt/A Sencor
' qt/A Lasso
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
otal N-P205-K20
None
Plot Comments
Excellent field of new
ridges, with good weed
kill. Yield was probably
decreased by drought in
late summer.
Variety or
Hybrid
Vickery &
others
Population/A 1
Drop Rate/Stanc|%H20
1
156800/139400
10.8
Yield
(bu/A)
27.0
None
None
None
300# 0-0-60
Total 0-0-180
300# 0-0-60
Total 0-0-180
^B^"^"^^"^^^*^
None
Planter had good penetra-
tion and depth control.
Excellent field.
Fairly clean field with
no problems.
Excellent initial stand,
then some beans broWed
and died. Possibly
herbicide or disease
injury. Some strips
replanted. No other
problems.
Same comments as field
#1. Very good, clean
fields.
i
Used Grandstand on half
of field.
Vickery
Gold Tag 1250
Amcor
Amcor
Vickery
Williams 79
Williams 79
^^^MMM
Landmark FFR22^
ป-ฐฐ
90#/ 202100
90///223000
85#/ 239800
85///218000
85///272500
IsS*/ 218000
-| 0 Q
-L J .7
12.5
12.6
12.8
10.8
13.0
12.9
13.2
14.1
IL3.1
An 7
HU /
43.7
45.9
44.5
48.1
37.6
39.0
33,
IฑJ
-------
54
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Art
Mlchaelis
May 10
Ted Pohlmann
#8
May 18
Ted Pohlmann
#9
May 21
Bud Ream
July 1
Bob & Don
Rethmel
#?
May 24
Replant June 9
Bob Rettig
#3
June 7
Louis Shininger
#2
May 15
illage/Planter
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
cultimulch
Sp field cult.
cultimulch
No-till/Frm JD
& row cult(2x)
Disk (2x)/Frm
JD & row cult
(2x)
No-till on old
corn ridges/ IE
& row cult(2x)
Disk (2x),
drag, pack/IH
then work/drill
replant
No-till/IH
double back
(15" row beans)
Sp. chisel,
disk, roll/IH
15"
Offset disk
(2x), ridge/IH
Replant JD
Offset disk/IH
Replant JD
No-till/White
No-till on old
corn ridge/
Farmer's JD
No-till on old
corn ridge/IH
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Clover hay
Harvested
Winter
Killed
Wheat
Corn
Soil Type
Hoytville
Mermill
Kibbie
Geneseer
Tuscoala
Latty
Roselms
Paulding
Paulding
Roselms
Hoytville
Paulding
Roselms
Herbicides
h lb/A Sencor
2 qt/A Lasso
2 pt/A Paraquat
% lb/A Lexone
2 pt/A Prowl
Post:
2 pt/A Blazer
None
2 qt/A Roundup
2 qt/A Lasso
3/4 pt/A Sencor
None
1 qt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Sencor
2 pt/A Dual
Post:
2 pt/A Blazer
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 lb/A Surflan
2 pt/A Lorox
Insecticides
None
2 oz/bu Agrox
2 way
Seed Treatment
2 oz/bu Agway
Seed Treatment
None
None
None
None
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P,Oc-K9C
Plot Comments
Variety or
Hybrid
b>pulation/A I
op Rate/Stan
-------
56
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Louis
Shininger
#3
May 19
Clete Siler
#2
May 7
Clete Siler
Other
fields
May 6-10
Richard. Siler
May 5
Bill Temple
May 5
Tinora FFA
May 12
Clete Vetter
#2
May 14
nilage/Plantei
No-till/Crust-
Buster
Disk (2x),
Ro terra/Crust-
Buster
flo-till on old
:orn ridges/ IH
ซ jrow ฃult_(3x)
No-till on olc
corn ridgegtftn
& row cult (3x^
New ridges/
Hiniker and
farmer ' s own
planter & row
cultivate (3x)
Fall plow,
disk, cultmlch
field cult.,
ridge/Farmer's
planter & row
cultivate (2x)
Fall plow,
disk, field
cult., ridge/
IH
No- till/Crust-
Buster
Sp. disk/
Crust Buster
No-till on old
corn ridg_es/IH
" /Bin.
iisk (2x)
roterra/IH
~ ~"~ 7IBir~AC
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Corn
Corn
Soil Type
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Paulding
Roselms
Jrau-Lding
Hoytville
Lenawee
TWal "Ro-17
Millgrove
Herbicides
1.2 pt/A Paraquat
2/3 Ib/A Lexone
L% pt/A Paraquat
L Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso
1% pt/A Paraquat
1 Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso
ih pt/A Paraquat
Ib/A Lexone
2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
1 pt/A Lexone
2% qt/A Lasso
1 qt/A Paraquat
% Ib/A Lexone DF
2*2 qt/A Lasso
1 pt/A Paraquat
0.6 Ib/A Sencor
2.7 pt/A Lasso
% pt/A 2,4-D
Conv. with IH:
7 Ib/A Amiben
banded
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P,0S-X20
200# 0-0-60
Total 0-0-120
3 gallon/A of
a 9% Nitrogen
foliar fertil-
ilzer was ap-
plied on July
20.
None
None
235# 3-12-30
Total 7-28-70
None
None
'
Plot Comments
Heavy amount of hemp
dogbane in field, moderate
weeds overall.
Field damaged by heavy
rainfall in early July.
Plants were stunted and
yellowing - too late to
replant.
4 fields total. In 2,
ridges formed with no
other tillage in soybean
residue. Other 2 plowed,
worked, then ridged.
Farmer indicated yields of
about 22 bu/A.
Good field with well
formed ridges.
Clean field, with well
formed ridges. Field had
comparisons between
certified and bin run seed
at 2 rates
Disk section fairly rough
at planting. Paraquat
applied over entire field.
Some light assorted weeds.
Herbicides with 18" planter
in conv. tillage were \
Ib/A Sencor and 2 qt/A
Lasso. Combination of
Paraquat and 2,4-D is not
recommended. Row culti-
vated all 30" rows.
Variety or
Hybrid
Vickery
Gold Tag 1250
Gold Tag 1250
Landmark 337
^'^.^ A Torr 19^0
Wayne (bin)
Wayne (cert)
Wayne (bin)
Wayne (cert)
Voris 295
w/Grandstand
Peterson 3081
Gu_twein _33jL _
Gutwein 331
Peterson 3081
Peterson 3081
1
Population/ A
Drop Rate/Stan<
90///261400
90///196000
1 bu/95800
i >,/_
i >... /
156800/146700
156800/144600
191700/167700
191700/134200
85///209100
85#/182300
50///101600
70///169400
%H20
16.2
16.4
15.0
14.9
1 C C
J. J . J
13.8
13.8
13.5
13.7
12.0
12.2
13.3
12.1
'14.7
14.3
14.6
Yield
(bu/A)
37.8
40.8
16.6
22.7
/i 7 Q
4 J. y
31.0
27.6
29.0
27.1
42.6
43.8
46.1
47.6
" 40.9
46.0
44,. 8
57
-------
58
Cooperator,
Plot,
Planting Date
Clair Vollmer
May 8
John & Joe
Wagner
May 4
Denver Zeedyk
Roger Zeedyk
Jr.
May 13
Zane Zeedyk
#1
May 14
Zane Zeedyk
#2
May 14 .
Zane Zeedyk
#3
May 12
illage/Planter
No-till/Frm. AC
p. Disk, fielc
cult./Frm. AC
Fall chisel, Sp
field cult,
.isk^ harrogate
i"all plow, Sp.
:ield cult,
disk, harrogate
Fall chisel,
sp. field cult
2x, cultimulch
Fall plow, sp.
field cult 2x,
cultimulch
Fall chisel,
sp. disk (2x)
cultimulch
Sp. disk (2x),
cultimulch
No-till Crust-
Buster
Disk (2x)/CB
Disk (3x)/CB
Disk (3x)/Fffl.
drill
Jo-till/Crust-
Buster
Disk (lx)/CB
)isk (lx)/Fm
Fall chisel,
sp. disk (2x)
:ultimulch/drLH
Residue
Corn
Corn
T Tl-ป s\ f\ t-
wneat
Wheat
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Soil Type
Blount
Glynwood
Hoytville
Latty
-n -| ,
rulton
Latty
Millgrove
Fulton
Latty
Fulton
Glynwood
Latty
Fulton
Herbicides
2 qt/A Lasso
1 Ib/A Lorox
Post:
2 pt/A Blazer
14 Ib/A Araiben
% Ib/A Sencor
2*. / A T
pt/A Lasso
3/4 Ib/A Sencor
1 qt/A Dual
1 Ib/A Sencor
1 Ib/A Sencor
3/4 Ib/A Sencor
3/4 Ib/A Treflan
Insecticides
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
59
Fertilizer
Applied
Total N-P90S-K20
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Plot Comments
Severe infestation of fall
panicum, caused either by
lack of contact herbicide,
or lack of rainfall to
activate Lasso. Farmer
indicated yield in NT
was 20 and in Conv. was 42.
Farmer indicated yields in
two sections were about the
same - 48 bu/A. Planted
with farmer's 30" row JD
planter.
No yield check arranged
Farmer used grain drill to
plant. No yield check
provided.
Disk (3x) sections were
also cultimulched.
Good field with light
weed pressure.
Field had light to moder-
ate weed pressure. Also,
late summer drought prob-
ably hurt this field.
Farmer commented that this
field was dryer than the
rest of farm. No yield
check provided. Farmer
indicated overall yield
about 36.
Variety or
Hybrid
As grow ^1 77
SRF 307
SRF 307 P
Washington 5
Washington 5
Gutwein 331
Population/A
Drop Rate/Stark
70///125500
70#/
fifl#/
R?#/
85///137200
85///150300
85///143700
85///261200
93#/
%H20
13.9
14.2
14.1
14.0
14.9
14.8
15.0
Yield
(bu/A)
36.4
39.4
39.2
36.4
29.4
31.5
30.3
-------
60
1982 SOYBEAN YIELD SUMMARY
I. NO-TILL YIELDS BY SURFACE RESIDUE
Table 21
In Corn Stalks
Ray Bok #2
Virg Cameron #1
Virg Cameron #2
Ted Pohlmann #8
Tinora FFA
Zane Zeedyk #1
Average
In Soybean Stubble
Ned Dunbar #1
Bob Heisler #2
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #4
Peter Kennerk #2
Don Meyer
Louis Shininger #3
Zane Zeedyk #2
Average
No-till
37.0
37.5
44.1
45.8
42.6
36.4
40.6
Comparison
40.2
32.8
42.3
48.1
43.8
39.3
41.1
Table '2.'i
No-till
39.7
38.5
45.9
37.6
33.7
37.8
29.4
37.5
Comparison
40.6
42.6
44.5
39.0
33.5
40.8
31.5
38.9
In Winter .Killed Wheat
No-till
Table 23
Comparison
39.7
42.1
AVERAGE YIELDS OVER ALL RESIDUE TYPES
No-till
Comparison
39.0
40.1
II. NO-TILL YIELDS ON OLD CORN RIDGES
Table 24
ITed Pohlmann #9
Ufitfi Yfilitrer ^2
Average
No-till Ridee
25.1
46.1
35.6
Flat Comparison
29.3
46.0
37.6
-------
61
III. NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS
As classified by OARDC Research Bulletin 1068*
Group I - Well drained soils, should show yield increase with no-till.
Group II - No-till yields comparable to conventional with improved soil
drainage.
Group III-Poorly drained soils, may yield less with no-tillage than
conventional.
Group 3V -Very poorly drained soils, may yield less with no-till than
conventional. No-till more favorable than deep spring
tillage.
Group V - Paulding - very poorly drained high clay soil - no-till not
recommended.
Table 25
Groups I and II
Bob Heisler #2
Ted Pohlmann #8
Zane Zeedvk #2
Groups III and
Ray Bok if 2
Virg Cameron #1
Virg Cameron #2
Ned Dunbar #1
Gary Hammon
Soil Type
Blount, Pewamo
Kibbie, Genesee, Tuscola
Glvnwood
Average
No-till
38.5
45.8
29.4
37.9
Comparison
42.6
48.1
31.5
40.7
Table 26
IV
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #4
Peter Kennerk #2
Tinora FFA
7anp 7ppdvk //I
Soil Type
Fulton, Latty
Hoytville
Hoytville
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Toledo, Lucas, Fulton
Hoytville
Lattv. Fulton
Average.
No-till
37.0
37.5
44.1
39.7
39. 1
45.9
37.6
42.6
36,. 4
40.1
Comparison
40.2
32.8
42.3
40.6
42.1
44.5
39.0
43.8
39.3
40.5
Table 27
Group V
Don Meyer
Louis Shininger #3
Soil Type
Paulding
Pauldine, Roselms
Average
No-till
33.7
37.8
35.8
Comparison
33.5
40.8
37.2
*Note: OARDC Bulletin 1068 - "An Evaluation o Ohio Soils in Relation
to No-tillage Corn Production" was based on research work on no-till
corn, not no-till soybeans. No-till soybeans are normally planted from
mid-May to mid-June when soil moisture is usually lower than that for
no-till corn planted from mid-April to mid-May.
-------
62 IV. NO-TILL YIELDS BY SOIL GROUPS AND RESIDUES
Groups I and II
Table 28
In soybean stubble
Bob Heisler #2
Zane Zeedvk #2
Soil Type
Blount, Pewamo
Glvnwood
Average
No-till
38.5
29.4
34.0
Comparison
42.6
31 5
37.0
Table 29
In corn stalks
Ted Pohlmann #8
Soil Type
Kibbie. Genesee, Tuscola
No- till
45.8
Comparison
48.1
Groups III and IV
In corn stalks
Ray Bok # 2
Virg Cameron #1
Virg Cameron #2
Tinora FFA
Zane Zeedvk #1
Soil Type
Fulton, Latty
Hoytville
Hoytville
Hoytville
Latty, Fulton
Average
Table 30
No-till
37.0
37.5
44.1
42.6
36.4
39.5
Comparison
40.2
32.8
42.3
43.8
39.3
39.7
Table 31
In soybean stubble
Ned Dunbar #1
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #4
Peter Kennerk //2
Soil Type
Hoytville, Nappanee
Hoytville
Toledo. Lucas, Fulton
Average
No-till
39.7
45.9
37.6
41.1
Comparison
40.6
44.5
39.0
41.4
In winter killed wheat
Group V
Table 33
In soybean stubble
IDon Meyer
Louis Shininger #3
Soil Type
Paulding
Pauldine, Roselms
Average
No-till
37.8
35.8
Comparison
40.8
37.2
-------
V. YIELDS ON NEW RIDGES WITHOUT COMPARISONS
63
Ta
Bob Austermiller
Phil Hornish
Richard Siler
Bill Temple (average)
Average
ble 34
20.3
27.0
43.9
28.7
30.0
VI. YIELDS ON NEW RIDGES WITH COMPARISONS
Table 35
Bob & Don Rethmel #2
Ridge
28.3
Flat
25.5
VII. NO-TILL ON OLD CORN RIDGES WITHOUT COMPARISONS
Including multiple varieties or planters in the same field.
Table 36
Louis Shininger #2
Louis Shininger #2
Clete Siler #2
Clete Siler #2
Clete Vetter #2
Clete Vetter #2
Average
35.1
38.1
15.0
14.9
40.9
47.6
31.9
VIII.
NO-TILL SOYBEAN YIELDS WITHOUT COMPARISONS
Including multiple varieties in the same field.
Table 37
Ray Bok # 4
Ned Dunbar #2
Walt Helmke #3
Bob & Jerry Ho shock #4
Dick & John Hoshock
Peter Kennerk #1
Average
36.5
41.3
47.8
43.7
48.1
37.8
42.5
IX. OVERALL NO-TILL SOYBEAN YIELD AVERAGES
With comparisons =39.0 N = 14
Without comparisons =42.5 N = 6
Overall average =40.0 bu/A
-------
64
1982 SOYBEAN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
COMPARISON YIELDS BY TILLAGE & SOIL GROUPS
r^
01
!5 CO
O iH
PM CJ
rH rH
Table 38 "rt Id
FK FH
Soil Groups I & II
Bob Heisler #2
Bob Heisler #2
Ted Pohlmann #8
Zane Zeedyk #2
Soil Groups III & IV
Ray Bok #2
Ray Bok #3
Virg Cameron #1
Virg Cameron #2
Ned Dunbar #1
Gary Hammon
Bob & Jerry Hoshock #4
Peter Kennerk #2
Art Michaelis
Ted Pohlmann #9
Tinora FFA
Clete Vetter
Zane Zeedyk #1
Soil Group V
Don Meyer
Bob & Don Rethmel #2
Louis Shininger #3
'
46.1
42.0
46.0
42.
42.
40.
40.
48.
25.
CO
H
Q
60
c
H
rJ
P.
CO
6
6
2
7
2
5*
48.
31.
32.
42.
42.
44.
39.
29.
43.
39.
33.
40.
4J
rH
3
U
TJ
1
r^
H
Pu
00
C
H
P.
CO
1
5
8
3
1
5
0
3
8
3
5
8
40.
47.
CO
01
60
TJ
H
&
0)
S3
6
3
28.
0)
60
T)
Tl
C
O
rH rH
rH rH
H iH
U H
1 1
O O
25 53
3
25.1
46.1
38.
45.
29.
37.
37.
44.
39.
39.
45.
37.
42.
36.
33.
37.
5
8
4
0
5
1
7
7
9
6
6
4
7
8
* Fall offset disk
-------
65
1982 OBSERVATIONS
The entire atmosphere of the agricultural community during 1982 was much
improved over what it was in 1981. Even though economically things have not
been good for the farmer, the 1982 growing season was almost ideal. There was
an extremely dry period late in the summer, which probably had a negative effect
on yields, but the early dry spring allowed timely planting which was a problem
in 1981.
In analyzing our yields for 1981 we determined that our data would have much
more meaning if in each of our plots we required a comparison of some type.
Therefore, in 1982 each of our cooperators were requested in addition to the no-
till plot to provide a conventionally tilled strip wide enough to allow a mech-
anical yield check. Even though sometimes the conventional tillage section may
not reflect a true yield as if the entire field had been conventionally tilled,
much can be learned from demonstrating several kinds of tillage in the same field.
The dry spring did create a few problems which have not been encountered to
any extent in Defiance County in past years. One was planting depth. On fields
planted in April we normally recommend a shallow planting depth to avoid slow
germination due to planting deep in moist, cold soil. Normally frequent rains
in early May provide adequate moisture to germinate seeds planted too shallow.
This problem was probably more of a concern than a problem this year, however,
there were a few fields where stands were decreased due to shallow planting and
lack of moisture.
Lack of rainfall also affected herbicide activity early in the season. In
several cases, the contact herbicide eliminated existing vegetation, but there
was not enough rainfall to activate residual herbicides this year. It was neces-
sary to treat several fields with a post-emergent herbicide.
In regards to herbicides a continual problem is proper application of con-
tact herbicides. Equipment set up to apply herbicides under conventional till-
age systems may not be adequate in the no-till situation. Coverage of all ex-
isting green plant growth is necessary for the contact herbicide to be effective.
Any errors made in the spraying operation are more evident in no-tillage than
where tillage disguises some of the errors. While farmers and custom applic-
ators are becoming more aware of the importance of the spraying operation to
no-tillage, proper chemical application cannot be overemphasized.
Very few insect problems occurred in 1982. The most prevalent was armyworm
and only five plots required treatment for this insect. Armyworm is found most
frequently in fields where a cover crop has been growing in the early spring.
In reviewing our yield data for 1982, one area that needs to be emphasized
is the ridge-tillage. While a number of farmers are experimenting with ridges,
we need to stress comparison tillage and accurate reporting of data. To demon-
strate the benefit of earlier planting on the ridges, it is often difficult to
get a tillage comparison because of v/et soil conditions, but there is a need
for the comparison even if it means the farmer must come back to the field later
and plant it with his own equipment.
One of the problems in building ridges while cultivating growing crops during
the past two seasons has been that the Buffalo cultivator has not performed well
in fields that have been planted no-till on the flat. This cultivator has worked
-------
66
to rebuild ridges, but in the heavy clay soils planted with no-tillage there is
either a problem with penetration or "slabbing" of the soil thus covering plants.
A Hiniker cultivator will be used in 1983 and will hopefully add to the number of
acres and plots being successfully ridged during cultivation.
In regards to planter operation there were very few problems with any of the
planters in 1982. Once again a tractor was supplied with the Hiniker planter
while the farmer supplied his own for the White and John Deere planters. A
tractor was also supplied with the leased International planter. Each of these
planters has features which are better than a competitor but it likely also has
features not as desirable as a competitors. The farmer considering purchasing
a no-till planter should decide which features he feels are important to his
operation and make his decision accordingly.
-------
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS 67
The following pages list cost breakdowns on each of the comparison
plots that had yield checks. Most of the herbicide, insecticide, and
fertilizer prices were obtained from local elevators as their May 1982
listings. Some prices that could not be obtained from the elevators were
provided by the Defiance Area Extension Agronomist as suggested retail
prices. Where cost of a certain chemical formulation^ was not available,
the cost of a comparable formulation of the same chemical was used.
The value of shelled corn was set at $2.25/bushel, while soybeans were
valued at $5.50/bushel. Drying charges were assessed using a local ele-
vator's rates.
Machine cost? were based on Cooperative Extension Service estimates of
"Farm Custom Rates Paid in Ohio, 1981" plus 5%. Some ,of these machine
costs were adjusted for use by. area demonstration projects. The costs
of ridging and landleveling are only estimates, as they do not appear
in the Custom Rate bulletin.
Fuel usage rates were taken from the OSU Agricultural Engineering
Department Farm Machinery Bulletin No. 10, and from the O.S.U. Agronomy
bulletin, "Selecting a Tillage System."
Remember as you are looking over these comparisons that the costs
are only best estimates, and that no land, labor or management charges
were included.
Table 41 lists the individual plot cost comparison, while Table 42
lists average costs and net return for various tillage systems. The
comparisons averaged had the same type of tillage. For example for the
no-till corn in soybean stubble, all the comparisons averaged were either
spring disk or spring field cultivate. Tillage systems with less than
3 plots were not averaged. Also note that some no-till fields have a
cost under secondary tillage. This cost is for one or more row cultivations.
By studying Table 42, a few points can be made. No-till corn into
soybean stubble or other light residue was more profitable than spring
disking or cultivating on the average. No-tilling corn into winter-
killed wheat was about equal to disking or cultivating those fields.
No-till corn in heavy residues of wheat straw and clover was much
less profitable than fall plowing, due largely to the yield differences
as total costs per acre were about the same. As mentioned earlier in
this report, the yield differences between the no-till and conventional
tillage were much wider than would be expected, based on previous years'
work.
In three fields of corn on new ridges and on the fiat, there was
little difference in costs or net return/acre. If the same ridges are
used for several years, we would expect the total machine costs to drop
as there would be no cost for ridge formation.
In both no-till soybeans in soybean stubble and in corn stalks, total
costs and net return per acre are about equal between no-till and light
spring tillage.
Besides the monetary advantages or disadvantages to no-till or ridge-
till, one should also consider some other benefits. These include time
and labor savings, and soil erosion control.
-------
68
Table 39
UNIT COSTS OF MATERIALS
Fertilizer
45-0-0
28-0-0
82-0-0
All other N
All P205
All K20
Cost
$215/ton
$135/ton
$260/ton
$ .23/lb actual N
$ .24/lb actual P-O,
$ .16/lb actual KO
Herbicides
Cost
Atrazine 4L
Atrazine 9-0
Banvel
Banvel II
Bicep
Bladex 4L
Blazer
Dual 8E
Lasso EC
Lexone 4L
Lorox
Paraquat & Surf
Poast
Prowl
Roundup
Sencor 4L
Surflan
Sutan
2,4-DB
2,4-D amine
2,4-D ester
X-77
Crop Oil
Amiben
$11.10/gal,
2.50/lb
45.25/gal
27.75/gal
21.28/gal
17.42/gal
72.98/gal
50.12/gal
19.48/gal
91.00/gal
40.85/gal
.45.00/gal
105.00/gal
33.00/gal
73.50/gal
91.00/gal
50.45/gal
23.68/gal
14.50/gal
12.02/gal
15.28/gal
13.22/gal
8.15/gal
.89/lb
Insecticides
Counter 15G
Dyfonate 20G
Furadan 10G
Lorsban 4E
Sevin XLR
Thimet 20G
Toxaphene
Cost
$1.37/lb
1.64/lb
0.98/lb
37.90/gal
20.22/gal
1.18/lb
9.50/gal
Seed Treatments
$1.00/A
Seed Costs
Corn $ .80/1000 kernels
Soybeans $15/bushel
Table 40
MACHINE COSTS
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Row Cultivate
Rotary hoeing
Spray liquids
Spread Dry Fertilizer
Sidedress Nitrogen
Harvest Corn
Harvest Soybeans
Truck/grain (300+ bu.
Moldboard Plow
Chisel Plow
Field Cultivator
Tandem Disk
Harrow
Cultimulcher
Ridging
Landleveling
No-till
Conventional
loads, 10+ miles)
Cost
$11.81/A
8.92/A
6.82/A
.30/A
.78/A
.25/A
.30/A
.30/A
11.81/A
8.66/A
.25/A
.89/A
,68/A
,68/A
6.82/A
21.26/A
19.95/A
.09/bu
6.
5,
5,
6.
6,
5.
2.
3.
3.
Fuel (gal/A)
$1.82
1.12
.70
.56
.45
.45
.65
.75
.39
.30
.11
-------
69
Table 41
TILLAGE SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON ON A PER ACRE BASIS
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Value of Crop ($)
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Total Material (S)
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Pert., etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
ToJ^l Marhinp (5)
TOTAL COSTS /ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ ACRE ($)
Richard
Appel #2
No-till Disk
122.4 127.9
275.40 287.78
19.60 19.60
51.61 51.61
24.92 13.67
11.99 10.99
108.12 95.87
00 00
00 6.30
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
11.02 11.51
2.45 2.56
57.04 60.79
165.16 156.66
110.24 131.12
Richard
Appel #3
No-till Disk
(2x)
130.6 127.2
293.85 286.20
19.60 19.60
56.02 56.02
22.74 11.49
00 00
98.36 87.11
00 00
00 12.60
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
11.75 11.45
6.53 4.45
65.53 72.60
163.89 159.71
129.96 126.49
Paul Bok
Sp. Sp.
Chisel Plow
116.3 102.1
261.68 229.72
20.80 20.80
76.33 76.33
10.36 10.36
11.48 11.48
118.97 118.97
8.92 11.81
11.55 11.55
8.66 8.66
10.50 10.50
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
10.47 9.19
11.63 11.23
90.35 91.56
209.32 210.53
52.36 19.19
Bob & Bruce
Colwell #i
No-till Fiel
Cul
132.1 115.3
297.22 259.4
22.48 22.4
63.17 63.1
26.82 18.9
1.00 00
113.47 104.59
00 00
00 6.82
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
7.36 7.3f
21.26 21.26
11.89 10.3!
35.67 34.01
94.81 95.31
208.28 199. 9(
88.94 59.5^
Bob & Bruce
Colwell #2
No-till Field
cult
155.1 152.8
348.98 343.80
22.48 22.48
89.19 89.19
25.32 17.44
1.00 00
137.99 129.11
00 00
00 6.82
11.81 8.66
14.18 14.18
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
13.96 13.75
15.51 12.99
84.08 85.02
222.07 214.13
126.91 129.67
Bob & Bruce
Colwell #3
to-till Field
cult
164.2 159.6
369.45 359.10
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
14.78 14.36
11.49 11.17
80.88 83.81
237.61 231.66
131.84 127.44
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Value of Crop ($)
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Total Material ($)
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS /ACRE (?)
NET RETURN /ACRE (?)
Bob & Bruce
Colwell //4
No- Field
Till cult.
151.3 136.7
340.42 307.58
22.48 22.48
93.98 93.98
22.49 14.61
1.00 .00
139.95 131.07
.00 .00
00 6.82
11.81 8.66
14.18 14.18
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.62 12.30
21.18 19.82
85.73 86.72
25.68 217.79
14.74 89.79
Steve
Coolman Hi
No- Disk
Till (2x)
102.0 101.5
229.50 228.38
20.80 20.80
73.75 73.75
16.83 11.21
11.92 11.92
123.30 117.68
.00 .00
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
9.18 9.14
6.12 2.03
58.87 64.19
182.17 181.87
47.33 46.51
Steve
Coolman #2
No- Disk
Till (2x)
112.3 116.8
252.68 262.80
20.80 20.80
73.75 73.75
26.37 20.75
11.92 11.92
132.84 127.22
.00 .00
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
10.11 10.51
.00 2.34
57.36 69.55
90.20 196.77
62.48 66.03
Lynn Davis
New Stale
Ridges Seedbed
87.8 85.2
197.55 191.70
20.80 20.80
56.45 56.45
16.26 16.26
.00 .00
93.51 93.51
11.81 11.81
18.90 12.60
11.81 11.81
6.82 6.82
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
7.90 7.67
17.56 25.56
99.74 101.21
193.25 194.72
4.30 -3.02
Jim Donze
//I
No- Stale
Till S.^edbea
120.4 147.6
22.32 22.32
77.03 77.03
30.04 27.21
11.92 11.92
.00 11.81
.00 .00
11.81 11.81
10.50 10.50
7.36 3.68
21.26 21.26
10.84 13.28
6.02 1.48
67 79 73 82
209.10 212.30
61,80 119.80
Jim Donze
No- Disk
Till (2x)
130.4 137.0
22.32 22.32
82.60 82.60
17.46 17 46
.00 .00
.00 00
5.25 17 85
11.81 8 66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3 68
21.26 21 26
11.74 12.33
7.82 6.85
194.44 203.51
98.96 104.74
-------
70
Table 41 (cont.) TILLAGE SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON ON A PER ACRE BASIS
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Value of Crop ($)
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Total Material ($)
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
Tntal Mar-hine CS1
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ACRE ($)
Jim Donze
#3 IH
No- Field
Till cult.
168.3 167.8
378.68 377.55
22.32 22.32
96.39 96.39
27.21 15.96
.00 .00
145.92 134.67
.00 .00
5.25 12.07
11.81 8.66
14.18 14.18
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
15.15 15.10
3. 37 3. 36
74.70 78. 3J
220.62 212.98
158.06 164.57
Jim Donze
#3 JD
No- Field
Till cult.
160.8 171. b
361.80 386.10
22.32 22. 32
96.39 96.39
27.21 13.96
.00 .00
145.92 134.67
.00 .00
5.25 12.07
11.81 8.66
14.18 14.18
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
14.47 15.44
1.61 .00
72.26 75.29
218.18 209.96
143.62 176.14
Duane Fngel
#1
No_ Field
Till cult(2x)
142.5 144.5
320.62 325.12
20.88 20.88
108.64 108.64
19.29 13.67
L.OO .00
149.81 143.19
.00 .00
5.25 18.89
11.81 8.66
10.50 L0.50
3.68 j.68
21.26 21.26
12.82 13.00
.00 .00
65.32 75.99
215.13 219.18
105.49 105.94
Duane Kngel
// 2
No- Field
Till Cult.(2x
174.9 169.5
393.52 381 .38
20.88 20.88
108.64 108.64
19.29 13.67
1.00 .00
149.81 143.19
.00 .00
5.25 18.89
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
i.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.74 15.26
6.12 5.93
74.36 84.18
224.17 227.37
169. 35 154.01
Bob Heisler
#1
No-
Till Disk
147.2 143.2
331.20 322 20
24.00 24.00
92.92 92.92
6.94 6.94
.00 .00
123.86 123.86
.00 .00
5.25 11.55
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.25 12.89
16.19 17.18
81.94 85.72
205.80 209.58
125.40 112.62
Walt Helmke
#1
No- Field
Till cult.
131.1 139.1
310 72 31 ? 98
24.16 24.16
96.18 96.18
29.56 16.34
13.12 .00
163.02 136.68
.00 .00
.00 12.07
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
12.43 12.52
4.83 8.35
64.51 77.04
227.53 213.72
83.19 99. 2t
Tillage
Yield bu/A ($)
Value of Crop
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Jotal Material
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
Tntal Marhlne
TOTAL COSTS /ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ACRE ($)
Walt Helmke
#2
No- Fall
Till Plow
123.0 138.2
276.75 310.95
22.08 24.16
113.44 96.18
40.81 16.34
9.44 .00
185.77 136.68
.00 11.81
5.25 12.07
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
11.07 12.44
4.30 1.38
67.87 81.80
253.64 218.48
23.11 92.47
Walt Helmke
-> 2
Fall Fall
Chisel Plow
129.6 127.9
291.60 287.78
24.16 24.16
96.18 96.18
16.34 16.34
.00 .00
136.68 136.68
8.92 11.81
12.07 12.07
8.66 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21 .26
11.66 11.51
.00 .00
76.75 79.49
213.43 216.17
78.17 71.61
Art Hoellrich
f;l
Stale Fall
Seedbed Plow
191.8 164.1
431.55 369.22
20.80 20.80
91.61 91.61
14.32 14.32
13.70 13.70
140.43 140.43
11.81 11.81
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
17.26 14.77
19.18 16.41
99.18 J04.41
239.61 244.84
191.94 124.38
Art Hoellrich
<<3
No- V-
I'lll Flo
148.1 135.2
333.22 304.20
20.80 20.80
96.30 96.30
24.10 12.85
.00 .00
141.20 129.95
.00 8.92
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.33 12.17
22.22 16.90
82.80 95.73
224.00 225.68
09.22 78.52
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock fr'l
No- Field
Till cult (2^
170.4 149.1
383.40 335.48
20.96 20.96
71.41 71.41
17.11 11.49
11.48 11.48
120.96 115.34
.00 .00
.00 18.89
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
15.34 13.42
20.45 19.38
79.36 92.11
200.32 207.45
183.08 128.03
Tom & Joe
Hoshock
No- Field
Till cult(2x
170.4 151.0
383.40 339.75
20.96 20.96
71.40 71.40
10.81 10.81
.00 .00
103.17 103.17
.00 .00
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
15.34 13.59
14.48 10.57
73.39 78.22
176.56 181.39
206.84 158.36
-------
71
Table 41 (cont.) TILLAGE SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON ON A PER A
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ ACRE ($)
Ted Pohlmann
#1
New Fall
Ridges Plow
127.1 119.9
285.98 269.78
20.96 20.96
83.32 83.32
16.34 16.34
1.00 1.00
121.62 121.62
11.81 11.81
24.67 18.37
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
11.44 10.79
15.89 13.19
111. 06 98.26
232.68 219.88
53.30 49.90
Ted Pohlmann
if 2
No- Disk
Till (2x)
91.9 88.6
206.78 199.35
20.96 20.96
68.33 68.33
12.87 12.87
1.00 1.00
103.16 103.16
.00 .00
5.25 23.63
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
8.27 7.97
11.03 9.75
71.80 85.45
174.96 188.61
31.82 10.74
Ted Pohlmann
#6
No- Fall
Till Plow
177.0 168.7
398.25 379.58
22.80 22.80
77.48 77.48
25.90 14.65
1.59 .00
127.77 114.93
.00 11.81
.00 19.42
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
15.93 15.18
29.20 24.46
92.38 114.97
220.15 229.90
178.10 149.68
Bob & Don
Rethmel #1
No- Fall
Till Plow
118.4 150.0
266.40 337.50
22.32 22.32
67.44 67.49
31.68 20.43
1.59 .00
123.08 110.24
.00 11.81
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
10.66 13.50
18.35 16.50
76.26 98.51
199.34 208.75
67.06 128.75
CRE BASIS
Bob Rettig
#1
No- Fall
Till Plow
111.4 126.4
250.65,784.40
21.04 21.04
36.64 36.64
27.29 18.85
1.00 .00
85.97 76.53
.00 11.81
.00 13.12
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
10.03 11.38
13.92 12.64
71.20 93.05
157.17 169.58
93.48 114.82
Bob Rettig
#1-P
Jithout P
P Added
114.6 126.4
21.04 21.04
29.60 36.64
18.85 18.85
.00 .00
69.49 7^53.
11.81 11.81
13.12 13.12
8.66 8.66
6.82 6.82
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
10.31 11.38
9.74 12.64
89.08 93.05
158.57 169.58
99.28 114.82
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
/ c<\
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS /ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ ACRE {$)
Eoh Rettig
it 2
No- Field
85.6 97.3
192.60 218.92
21.04 21.04
4 i.16 43. 16
'4.47 18.85
1.00 .00
89.67 83.05
.00 .00
.00 13 \'>
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
7. 36 7. 36
21 .26 21 . ?6
7 70 8.76
10.70 12.65
65.65 78.63
155. J2 161 .68
37.28 57.24
Bob Ret tig
ซ2P
No-Til 1
Without P
105.0 93.1
236.25 209.48
21.04 21.04
31.25 4 i.16
24.47 24.47
1.00 1.00
77.76 89.67
.00 .00
.00 .00
11.81 11 .81
6.82 6.82
7. 36 7. 36
21.26 21.26
9.45 8.38
13.12 9. 31
69.82 64.94
147.58 154.61
88.67 54.87
Albert
Schroeder --: 1
No- Fal 1
182.6 175.2
410.85 394. 90
20.00 20.00
94.20 94.20
14.18 14.18
12. 33 12.33
140.71 140.71
.00 8.92
.00 6.82
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
16.43 15.77
15.52 12.26
79.20 87.87
219.91 228.58
190.94 165.62
Bob Shininger
in
No- Field
Till cult.
99.2 87.6
223.20 197.10
28.00 28.00
61.06 61.06
16.36 16.36
11.92 11.92
117.34 117.34
.00 .00
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
8.93 7.88
26.78 30.66
82.96 96.28
200.30 213.62
22.90 -16.52
Bob Shininger
#1P
No-Till
Without P
P added
91.0 98.2
204.75 220.95
28.00 28.00
44.50 61.06
16.36 16.36
10.78 10.78
99.64 116.20
.00 .00
.00 .00
11.81 11.81
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
8.19 8.84
29.12 28.48
84.56 84.57
184.20 200.77
20.55 20.18
Bob Shininger
#2
No- Field
Till cult.
122.5 H4.5
775.67 257. 62
28.00 28.00
61.06 61.06
16.36 16.36
11.92 11.92
117.34 117.34
.00 .00
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
11.02 10.30
14.70 13.74
72.97 81.78
190.31 199.12
85.31 58.50
-------
72
Table 41 (cont.) TILLAGE SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON ON A PER AC
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert. ,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ ACRE ($)
Bob Shininger
#2P
Without P
P added
15.1 H4.9
258.98 258.52
28.00 28.00
44.50 61.06
16.36 16.36
11.92 11.92
100.78 117.34
.00 .00
.00 .00
11.81 11.81
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
10.36 10.34
5.76 8.04
63.37 65.63
164.15 182.97
94.83 75.55
Dan Singer
#1
No- Field
fill cult.
154.4 146.6
347.40 329.85
21.52 21.52
54.21 54.21
29.25 23.63
11.92 11.92
116.90 111.28
.00 .00
.00 19.42
11.81 8.66
10.50 10.50
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.90 13.19
13.12 16.13
74.27 92.84
191.17 204.12
156.23 125.73
Clete Vetter
111
New Fall
Ridges Plow
137.6 141.4
309.60 318.15
20.80 20.80
42.75 42.75
32.05 32.05
.00 .00
95.60 95.60
11.81 11.81
19.94 6.82
11.81 8.66
6.82 6.82
7.36 7.36
21.26 21.26
12.38 12.73
16.51 15.55
107.89 91.01
203.49 186.61
105.71 131.54
Ray Bok
#2
No- Fall
Till Chisel
37.0 40.2
203.50 221.10
21.25 21.25
.00 .00
12.27 11.38
.00 .00
33.52 32.63
.00 8.92
.00 13.64
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.33 3.62
0.56 0.60
39.33 59.07
72.85 91.70
130.65 129.40
*E BASIS
Ray Bok
#3
Fall Fall
Chisel Plow
40.7 42.0
223.85 231.00
18.75 18.75
30.96 30.96
23.91 23.91
.00 .00
73.62 73.62
8.92 11.81
13.64 13.64
8.66 8.66
3.68 3.68
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.66 3.78
.00 .00
62.19 65.20
135.81 138.82
88.04 92.18
Virg Cameron
#1
No- Disk
Till (2x)
37.5 32.8
20ft. 25 18Q.40
15.00 15.00
.00 .00
32.86 27.24
1.00 .00
48.86 42.24
.00 .00
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
7.36 7.36
19.95 19.95
3.38 2.95
.00 .00
42.50 51.52
91.36 93.76
114.89 86.64
Tillage
^^^^^^^
Yield bu/A
Value of Crop
laterial Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
Tnl-al Ma
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE (<>)
Virg Cameron
j- Disk
ill (2x)
^^^^^^"^^^^^^^"
44.1 42.3
42.55 232.65
to- Field
ill cult.
39.7 40.6
218. 35 223. 30
22.50 22.50
.00 .00
60.66 60.66
.00 .00
83.16 83.16
.00 -00
.00 6.8
11.81 8.66
.00 .OC
3.68 3.6
19.95 19.9
i.57 3.6
.00 .0
Gary Hammon
o- Disk
ill
39.7 42.1
18.35 231.55
21.25 21.25
.00 .00
34.81 25.56
.00 .00
56.06 44.81
.00
.00
11.81
.00
3.68
19.95
3.57
1.19
.00
6.30
8.66
.00
3.68
19.95
3.79
1.26
40.20 43.64
Bob Heisler
it 2
(15"~7ows)
No- Fall
Till Chisel
38.5 42.6
11.75 234.30
24.25 24.25
28.80 28.80
23.89 18.27
.00 .00
76.94 71.32
.00 8.92
.00 17.85
11.81 8.66
3.68 3.68
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.46 3.83
2.70 4.69
45.28 71.26
^^^
122.22 142.58
71.26 75.77
Bob Heisler
#2
"ill)
Fall Fall
;hisel Plow
42.6 46.1
234.30 253.55,
24.25 24.25
28.80 28.80
18.27 18.27
.00 .00
71.32 71.32
8.92
y. 85
8.66
.81
.85
68
.68
11
17
8.66
3
3
68
68
19.95
4.15
4.69 5.99
19.95
3.83
142.58 147.09
Bob & Jerry
Hoshock #4
No- Disk
Till
M
45.9 44.5
52.45 244.75
22.50 22.50
.00 .00
26.74 21.12
.00 .00
49.24 43.62
.00
.00
11.81
.00
3.68
19.95
4.13
.00
.00
6.30
8.66
.00
3.68
19.95
4.00
.00
-------
73
Table 41 (cont.) TILLAGE SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON ON A PER ACRE BASIS
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ ACRE (5)
'eCer Kennerk
it 2
No- Disk
Till (2x)
37.6 39.0
206.80 214.50
21.25 21.25
28.80 28.80
23.89 18.27
.00 .00
73.94 68.32
.00 .00
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
3.68 3.68
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.38 3.51
.00 0.58
42.50 52.66
116.44 120.98
90.36 93.52
Don Meyer
No- Disk
Till (2x)
33.7 33.5
185.35 184.25
21.25 21.25
00 .00
29.55 21.11
.00 .00
50.80 42.36
.00 .00
.00 12.60
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.03 3.02
1.68 0.51
40.15 48.42
90.95 90.78
94.40 93.47
Art Michaelis
Fall Field
Chisel cult.
48.2 47.3
265.10 260.15
16.25 16.25
19.20 19.20
15.43 15.43
.00 .00
50.88 50.88
8.92 .00
11.55 11.55
8.66 8.66
3.68 3.68
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
4.34 4.26
.00 .00
60.78 51.78
111.66 102.66
153.04 157.49
Ted Pohlmann
//8
No- Disk
Till (2x)
45.8 48.1
251.50 264.55
16.00 16.00
.00 .00
43.43 32.18
1.00 .00
60.43 48.18
.00 .00
10.50 23.10
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
7.36 7.36
19.95 19.95
4.12 4.33
.00 .00
53.74 63.40
114.77 111.55
137.73 152.97
Ted Pohlmann
#9
on Disk
Ridge flat
25.1 29.3
138.05 161.15
15.68 31.36
14.51 14.51
.00 .00
1.00 1.00
31.19 46.87
.00 .00
10.50 18.38
11.81 17.32
.00 .00
.00 .00
19.95 19.95
2.26 2.64
0.38 .00
44.90 58.29
76.09 105.15
61.96 55.99
Bob & Don
Rethmel #2
Jew Offset
lidges Disk
28.3 25.5
155 J* 140.2,5
30.00 30.00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
30.00 30.00
17.84 8.92
22.05 15.75
23.62 23.62
.00 .00
.00 .00
19.95 19.95
2.55 2.30
.00 .00
86.01 70.54
116.01 100.54
39.64 39.71
Tillage
Yield bu/A
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Pert., etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
($)
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE (?)
NET RETURN/ ACRE ($)
Louis
Shininger it 3
N'o- Disk
ill (2x)
37.8 40.8
207.90 224.40
22.50 22.50
19.20 19.20
18.13 11.38
.00 .00
59.83 53.08
.00 .00
.00 18.38
11.81 8.66
3.68 3.68
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.40 3.67
4.91 5.30
47.43 63.32
L07.26 116.40
100.64 108.00
Clete Vetter
it 2
NT on Fall
46.1 46.0
253.55 253.00
12.50 12.50
.00 .00
22.26 6.23
.00 .00
34.76 18.73
.00 11.81
5.25 23.63
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 .00
19.95 19.95
4.15 4.14
0.69 2.30
45.53 70.49
80.29 89.22
173.26 163.78
Zane Zeedyk
//I
No- Disk
Till (2.5x)
36.4 39.3
200.20 216.15
21.25 21.25
.00 .00
11.38 11.38
.00 .00
32.63 32.63
.00 .00
.00 15.75
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.28 3.54
1.09 1.96
39.81 53.54
72.44 86.17
127.76 129.98
Zane Zeedyk
it 2
No- Disk
Till (lx)
29.4 31.5
Ifjl ,70 1 73.25
21.25 21.25
.00 .00
11.38 11.38
.00 .00
32.63 32.63
.00 .00
.00 6.30
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
2.65 2.84
2.06 2.20
72.78 76.26
88.92 96.99
Tinora FFA
No-
Till Disk
42.6 43.8
234.30 240.90
21.25 21.25
.00 .00
25.87 25.87
.00 .00
47.12 47.12
.00 .00
.00 6.30
11.81 8.66
.00 .00
3.68 3.68
19.95 19.95
3.83 3.94
.00 .00
39.27 42.53
86.39 89.65
147.91 151.25
^^^^MIMH
-------
Table 42
AVERAGE COSTS OF TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Tillage
Yield bu/A
($)
Material Costs
Seed
Fertilizers
Herbicides
Insecticides
($)
Machine Costs
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Spread Fert.,etc.
Spraying
Harvesting
Trucking
Drying
TOTAL COSTS/ACRE ($)
NET RETURN/ACRE
($)
NO-TILL CORN
132.3
22.53
73.78
20.63
6
11.81
9
4
21
11.91
^^^B
n stubble
ht residue
I^^^BBBBB3 15.69
)1 4.89
15 116.89
)0 .00
)3 12.72
51 8.66
)3 9.63
'6 4.76
16 21.26
)1 11.46
J7 13.54
)7 82.03
U 198.92
^MM
76 87.50
^l^^^K^MM^^^^^^^^^
In winter -
killed wheat
^^^^M^MIBHMHMM*
No- Disk
Till or cult
154.2 152.6
346.95 343.35
21.13 21.13
93.73 93.73
23.31 13.93
0.33 .00
138.50 128.79
ซ ซ.^
.00 1.49
3.50 14.69
11.81 8.66
11.73 11.73
3.68 3.68
21.26 21.26
13.88 13.73
6.64 5.11
72.50 80.35
211.00 209.14
M^
135.95 134.21
No-
Till
^ MM^ซ
^i^BHMBB
neat straw
d clover
^^B
Fall
1 Plow
.3 140.6
.18 316.35
I
.94 22.46
.64 69.34
.46 20.71
.99 2.98
.03 115.49
.00 11.81
.31 9.45
.81 8.66
.58 9.58
.52 4.60
.26 21.26
.65 12.65
.65 8.00
.78 86.01
.81 201.50
..37 114.85
_ _ ^
RIDGE CORN
1
New Ridges
Ridge Fall
Plow
117.5 115.5
264.38 259.88
20.85 20.85
60.84 60.84
21.55 21.55
0.33 0.33
103.57 103.57
11.81 11.81
21.17 12.60
11.81 9.71
8.05 8.05
4.91 4.91
21.26 21.26
10.58 10.40
16.65 18.10
106.24 96.84
209.81 200.41
54.57 59.47
r
NO-TI]
In soybean
stubble
No- Di.
Till or ci
37.4 38.3
205.70 210.6
21.87 21.8
8.00 8.0
28.39 23.9
.00 .0
58.26 53.8
.00 .0
.00 10.5
11.81 8.6
1.23 1.2
3.68 3.6
19.95 19.9
3.36 3.4
1.44 1.4
41.47 48.9
99.73 102.7
105.97 107.?
23
43
In corn stalks
No-
Till
Disk
41.3 41.3
227.15 227.15
18.95
.00
29.84
0.60
18.95
.00
25.35
.00
49.39 44.30
.00
2.10
11.81
.00
5.89
19.95
3.72
0.29
.00
14.07
8.66
.00
5.89
19.95
3.72
0.52
43.76 52.81
93.15 97.11
N = 17
N = 6
N = 4
N = 3
N = 6
134.00 130.04
N = 5
-------
75
SOIL LOSS AND WATER QUALITY
This section will discuss the soil loss and water quality benefits of no-
tillage systems. Table 43 represents the 11 corn plots and 6 soybean plots
that had no-till compared to conventional and reduced tillage systems. The
percent of surface residue was measured at planting time.
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.
Regardless of the type of tillage system used, the previous crop affects
soil loss. The soil loss rate increases for both corn and soybeans as one
progresses from a previous crop of meadow to corn to small grain to soybeans.
For instance, soil loss is reduced more than half when corn or soybeans follow
meadow as when following soybeans.
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 no full velocity before contacting the soil. This substan-
tially reduces the amount of soil detached by raindrops. In addition, the
mulch on the surface obstructs runoff flow and reduces the sediment transport.
Therefore, anything done to change, reduce, or eliminate tillage to keep more
residue on the surface will reduce soil loss.
Cover (residues 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. If an intense rotation is used that includes soy-
beans then additional care should be taken to maintain more residues on the
surface and use the no-till system of soybean production.
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 erosion predicted by the Universal Soil
Loss Equation for the specific conditions and for the 1982 crop on each
plot. The data readily shows the effectiveness of reduced tillage and no-
till in reducing erosion. The plots are listed in order of increasing
erosion potential due to slope and length of slope.
-------
TABLE 43 DEMONSTRATION PLOT SOIL LOSS COMPARISONS
% % Slope Tillage Soil Loss tons/acre/year
Name
D. Singer #1
D. Singer #2
J. Donze #2
M. Renz
M. Renz
H . Detray
B. Shininger #4
R. Appel #2
A. Bok #1
O. Schroeder #1
A. Bok #2
Soil Type
Paulding
Roselms
Hoytville
Fulton
Fulton
Paulding
Roselms
Blount
Blount
Glynwood
Blount
Residue
New
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Soybean
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Wheat
Stubble
Alfalfa
Wheat
Stubble
Wheat
Stubble
Alfalfa
Wheat
Cover
Crop
Crop
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Cover Slope Length Performed Conventional: Reduced ~2>
2-Spring 3/
70 0.2 200 Field 1.16 0.63
Cultivate
1 Ro terra
2-Spring 3/
45 0.2 200 Field 1.33 0.82
Cultivate
1 Roterra
1 Spring 3/
50 0.2 400 Disc 1.43 1.01
1 Cultiv-
ation
Spring
65 0.2 400 Plow 0.69
1-Disc
Spring
50 0.2 400 Plow 0.69
1-Disc
No Compar- 3/
75 0.5 250 ison 1.42
No Compar- 3/
85 0.7 200 ison 0.88
Spring__Plow
90 2.5 450 2-Disc 6.45
1- Power
Harrow
Spring
85 3.0 350 Plow 8.35
1-Disc &
Drag
1-Spring 3/
85 3.0 450 Chisel 4.11 1.93
2-Disc
No Compar- 3/
20 3.2 350 ison 10.13
C: No-till
0.06
0.32
0.42
0.16
0.43
0.19
0.10
0.64
0.90
0.48
5.68
-------
TABLE 43 (Cont.) DEMONSTRATION PLOT SOIL LOSS COMPARISONS
Slope Tillage Soil Loss tons/acre/year
Name Soil Type
D. Meyer Paulding
C. Vetter #2 Del Rey
Z. Zeedyk #1 Latty
P. Kennerk #2 Shoals
B. Heisler #2 Blount
C. Vollmer Glynwood
Residue
Soybean
Corn
Old
Ridges
Corn
Soybean
Soybean
Corn
Crop Cover Slope
Soybeans 30 0.2
Soybeans 85 0.2
Soybeans 70 0.2
Soybeans 65 2.5
Soybeans 50 3.0
Soybeans 70 4.0
Length Performed Conventional :
Spring 2 3/
450 Discing w/ 1.46
Culti-
packer
Fall Plow
500 2-Disc 2.36
1-Roterra
3-Disc V
500 1-Culti- 1.19
mulch
Spring 2 3/
150 Discing 4.74
w/Harro-
gator
Fall Chisel
400 -2 Disc 8.98
-1 Culti
Mulch
Spring V
300 1-Disc 10.33
1-F. Culti-
vate
Reduced 2/: No-till
1.19 0.61
0.29
0.42 0.30
3.74 1.62
7.33 3.07
3.66 2.66
I/ Refers to % cover on No-Till Area.
2/ At least 20% of the surface was still covered after planting.
3/ Projected Comparison.
-------
78
The SWCD's disk ridger forms ridges 8 to 10 inches high.
Fields should be plowed, worked, then land leveled before
ridging. The ridges should provide a warmer and drier
growing environment for young plants.
No-Till on Ridges on the poorly drained clay soils
provides crop residues to protect the soil surface,
while also providing an elevated seedbed to help reduce
water damage to crops.
-------
79
RIDGE TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Defiance County is composed of some of the worst soils in terms of drainage
and, therefore, crop production. Soil types such as Paulding, Latty, Roselms,
and Fulton have clay contents ranging from 35% to 80%. The major problems with
these soils are their poor internal drainage and their usually level topography
which slows surface drainage. Fields with these heavy, clay soils are normally
wet and tillage is often difficult to accomplish under ideal conditions.
Ridge tillage systems attempt to elevate the young corn or soybean seedlings
above the level of surface water in a field. By elevating the plant to a drier
and warmer environment, healthier growth can occur and yields can possibly in-
crease. Ridge systems can't solve all problems; excessive flooding in fields
caused by heavy rainfall covers ridges too. In normal years ridges should re-
duce flooding problems. With ridges it is critical to have a good surface drain-
age system. A power rotary ditcher can be used for temporary surface drainage.
However, a constructed shallow surface ditch or waterway would be best.
There are two basic ridge forming methods; fall ridging, and ridging through
cultivation. Fall ridging is done in a field that has been plowed, worked, then
land leveled. The ridger consists of opposing disks which throw up ridges in
the loose dirt, approximately 8" to 10" high. By spring these have settled and
the ridges are about 6" to 8" high. Crops are planted on top of the ridges, and
some cultivation may be used through the summer to maintain these ridges.
Ridging through cultivation is simply that: fields are planted to corn and
once the corn is up ridges are formed using a special cultivator.
In neighboring areas, farmers are trying fall ridging after harvest using
the cultivator-ridger and no other tillage on lighter soils. This, of course,
incorporates residues into the ridges but does not allow for any land-leveling.
It has been reported that in the case of heavy residues, particularly wheat
straw, the mat of straw covered by the ridge has acted as a water barrier, thus
leaving the ridge too wet in the spring for early planting. In the case of soy-
bean stubble where there is much less residue this system may offer a simple
means of getting ridges built during a busy and sometimes wet season of the year
where land leveling is not required.
To reduce costs involved in fall ridging fields every year, a tillage prac-
tice called No-Till on Ridges uses the same ridges for several years. A no-till
planter plants the crops, and all equipment tires are spaced to straddle the
rows. Cultivation during the summer helps to rebuild ridges which have settled.
This system has the advantage of planting soybeans in rotation with corn. With
a ridging through cultivation practice, ridges could not be made high enough
without covering soybean plants the first year. Ridges that have been formed
through cultivation can be planted no-till in the following years.
No-till on ridges protects the soil during critical erosion times of the
year, late winter and early spring. Residues are left on the surface ,at har-
vest, but by planting time the top of the ridge is almost entirely exposed thus
allowing warming and drying of the area where the new row will be planted.
-------
80
NO-TILL MANAGEMENT
Our experience in no-tillage over the past five years has confirmed that
no-till is not the answer for poor management, but will require top-notch
management to be successful. It is imperative that a first time no-tiller
start with a small acreage and grow into the system, expecting to make
mistakes along the way. It is important to learn from these mistakes and
make the experiences work for you. The following management items are a
guide for the person beginning in no-till and if given careful attention
should increase the chance of success.
FIELD SELECTION
In field selection, considerations must be given to soil type, drainage,
residue, weed problems and cover crops.
Drainage
The best situation for no-till is in a field that is naturally well
drained or on soils that have artificial drainage that improves surface
runoff, subsurface drainage or both. The glacial moraine soils, Pewamo,
Blount, Glynwood, in the northwestern part of Defiance County have better
natural internal drainage than our lake plain soils and therefore are more
suitable to no-till. Tile drains should be installed in low areas of
Pewamo and Blount to improve the internal drainage.
Lake plain soils, Paulding, Latty, Fulton and Roselms, and glacial till
plain soils, Hoytville and Nappanee, present different and more severe
obstacles to successful no-tillage. These soils are very high in clay
content, have poor to very poor natural internal drainage, poor surface
drainage, and tend to warm up and dry out later in the spring.
The Hoytville soils respond extremely well to tile drainage which
overcomes many of the problems of this soil. Our experience shows no-
till is successful on these soils if drained and crops are rotated.
Lake plain soils do not respond to tile drainage, therefore surface
drains are needed to remove excess surface water. Ridges are a means
of overcoming some of the drainage problems. They raise the seed bed
which should promote earlier drying, warm-up and subsequently planting.
Residue
First time no-tillers should consider planting into a light residue,
such as soybean stubble. Experience has shown this is the residue that
should provide the best chance for success. A growing crop, such as clover,
also provides for a good chance of success. Large amounts of non-growing
residues tend to keep the soil cooler and wetter in the spring. Crop
residues should be well distributed because bunches of residue cause the
soil to dry unevenly.
Weed Problems
Serious weed-infested fields should be avoided. A problem weed can be
controlled in no-till but most likely will be harder and more costly than
in conventional tillage. Farmers should pick an easy field to start with.
-------
81
Cover Crops
Our work with cover crops is very limited. A growing cover crop may help
pull moisture in the spring and help to dry fields. At this time it is
recommended to avoid any heavy cover crops.
FERTILIZATION
Current soil tests should be used to determine nutrient levels and pH.
Fertilizers should be applied according to these tests with yield goals
established.
Phosphorus and Potassium
If soil tests show phosphurus and potassium levels are high all the P and
K can be broadcast on the surface. If soil test levels are low, phosphorus
and potassium should be applied as row fertilizer. Many farmers apply
their P aiid K as a combination of surface applied and row fertilizer.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen management is a critical aspect of no-till and very difficult
to assure the desired results. Please refer to the nitrogen management
section of this publication.
ฃH
In a continuous no-till corn situation, it is important to check the pH
of the top 2" layer because 28% nitrogen tends to depress the surface pH,
which could render certain herbicides less effective. Crop rotation and
changing tillage or frequent applications of small amounts of lime should
remedy this problem.
PLANTING
Planting to obtain an adequate stand is the objective of all farmers
using conventional tillage and is equally important in no-till. Success-
fully obtaining a stand depends on soil temperatures, soil conditions at
planting, seed drop, seed treatment, and planting equipment and operation.
Soil Temperatures
Planting should begin when temperatures reach 50 degrees at mid-morning,
with the reading taken at a 2 inch depth. This rule of thumb should be
followed unless May 1 arrives and soil temperatures have not reached 50
degrees. If May 1 arrives and soil conditions are right for planting go
ahead and start planting.
Soil Conditions
The soil must be dry enough to allow for proper functioning of the
planter. This may be difficult to determine but should be easier with
experience. A day or two can make a big difference in the soil conditions,
so don't rush this critical operation. If the soil is too wet when planted
it is difficult to get proper soil-seed contact and if drying occurs after
planting, the slot may have a tendency to open, exposing the seed to birds,
rodents, and dehydration.
Seed Drop
Base seed drop should be the recommendations of the hybrid used and then
adjusted according to planting conditions. Until further experience is ob-
tained on our soil types it is recommended that seed drop be increased 10-
15 percent to obtain the desired stand.
-------
82
Seed Treatment
A planter box treatment is recommended under all conditions and is
extremely important under no-till conditions. A planter box treatment
will help control seed corn beetles, seed corn maggots and wireworms.
A planter box treatment is extremely important when soils are wet or cold.
Planting Equipment
A planter designed and equipped to plant no-till should be used. Im-
portant components of a no-till planter are a ripple or fluted coulter,
depth gauge wheels, spring loaded press wheels, down pressure springs
on the parallel unit linkage and double disc seed openers. The ripple
coulter will throw less soil at higher speeds with slightly better pene-
tration than wider coulters. Wide coulters work a wider area that pro-
vides a larger area in which to insure proper planting. This is not crit-
ical when coulters are located just ahead of the seed opener.
Planting
Proper planting may be the most critical operation in a successful no-
till operation. It is important to slow down when planting. Start at
about 3 mph and increase speeds if soil conditions will permit. Excessive
speed will throw loose soil away from the planting slot and could affect
depth and seed-soil contact.
Corn should be planted 1^ inches deep and soybeans' no deeper than 1
inch. Make sure adequate cover is obtained on the seed, especially corn.
If too many seeds are close to the surface or exposed set that row down
to the proper depth. Run the coulter no deeper than ^ inch below the seed
depth.
WEED CONTROL
It is important to start with a field that has no serious weed infest-
ations. The farmer should look at weed history, check in early spring to
determine what weeds may need to be controlled, be honest about this,
select herbicides to control these weeds and apply them properly.
Herbicide Selection
Many times grasses will be the major problem weeds in no-till especially
fall panicum, foxtail and quackgrass. The presence of these grasses must
be considered in herbicide selection. Contact herbicides are normally
required in no-till with Round-up or Paraquat the common ones used. Do
not short change your herbicide program by reducing or eliminating the
contact herbicides just beacause no green is apparent from the road. Get
out in the field and check. Post-emergent treatment of broadleafs may be
necessary. In all cases follow current label and Extension guidelines
when selecting materials and rates to use.
Herbicide Application
Use of the contact herbicides requires complete coverage of any growing
plants. Coverage depends on volume of carrier applied, nozzle spacing,
pressure and boom height. Follow the following guides to get the job done
right when using Paraquat:
-------
83
1. Stay within the range of 25-50 Ibs. pressure.
2. Flat fan nozzles at a 20 inch spacing with 30-40 gallon of carrier
will do the best job.
3. Small floods (less than TK 30) at a 40 inch spacing are acceptable
in the 40-60 gallon of carrier range. Floods on a 60 inch spacing
are acceptable if complete overlap and 55- 60 gallon of carrier is
used.
4. Large flood nozzles and wide spacings (floater type set-up - 120"
spacings) do not do an acceptable job. This set-up should be used
only with caution and more than 70 gallon/ac. carrier.
5. When using floods turn them down and angle forward slightly!
6. The more the green growth the higher the volume of carrier needed.
Even when growth is small the herbicide has to get down through the
trash and get already germinated small weeds. Don't omit Paraquat
because you "think" a field looks clean.
7. Always use non-ionic surfactant with Paraquat. Double the rate of
surfactant when 28% nitrogen is the carrier. Never use phosphate
fertilizer or dirty water as a carrier.
8. Measure spray pressure at the boom, not at the nozzle.
Boom Height
Set the boom high enough that the spray pattern will meet over the top
of the vegetation. This will give uniform chemical application. Proper
height will vary according to height of the vegetation.
CONTROLLING INSECTS
Insect problems may increase with no-till but this is not necessarily
the case. Specific insect problems may increase and need to be scouted
for to determine their presence.
Soil Insecticide
Follow current Extension recommendations concerning rootworm control in
corn after corn. We had problems with cutworms in soybean residue. We
feel an insecticide -should be used in all no-till fields and if growing
cover is present Furadan is recommended because it provides some help in
suppression of armyworms. Always follow the label recommendations for the
specific chemical, as misapplication can reduce germination of seed corn.
POST-PLANTING SCOUTING
Once a no-till field is planted it is imperative that the field be
checked periodically. Items to check for are emergence, weed control, :
armyworms and cutworms. All of these items can be corrected and/or con-_
trolled but the key is identifying the problem and attacking it before
excessive damage or losses occur. No-till fields should be checked 2 or
3 times each week from planting to lay-by and specialists contacted if
questions or problems arise.
FULL SEASON NO-TILL SOYBEANS
Although our experience is limited, no-till soybeans is a viable
alternative. When no-tilling soybeans, critical management factors include
row width, variety selection, and herbicide application.
-------
84
Row Width
No-till soybeans should be planted in 15 inch rows or narrower to get
quick ground cover which should help reduce weed pressures through shading
of the soil.
Variety Selection
A branching type soybean is recommended for no-till. The branching will
help get quick ground cover and compensate for imperfect stands. Varieties
selected should have good phytophthyra root rot tolerance.
Herbicide Application
If a broadleaf problem exists it is recommended to apply 2,4-D ester
7-10 days prior to planting and then apply Paraquat and residuals at plant-
ing. The type of weed problem will determine the herbicide application pro-
gram.
No-till soybeans should be planted in narrow
rows to help reduce weed pressure. This is
the Project's White planter set up for 11 -
15" rows.
-------
85
NITROGEN MANAGEMENT
According to both Ohio State and Purdue University reports, one of the
major factors in a successful no-till corn production program is nitrogen
(N) management. In this area there are three or four materials available
as N sources and there are several ways of applying these materials. Each
of the materials and means of application has advantages and disadvantages
in the no-till situation.
An important consideration in nitrogen management is the amount of N
loss. The extent of this loss is affected by the type of N fertilizer
used, the application method used, soil surface pH, soil drainage, the
weather and the nature of the crop residue. The two most common" means of
N loss are volatilization and immobilization.
Volatilization is the gaseous loss of ammonia from urea based fertilizers.
In its conversion from urea to ammonium nitrogen, an intermediate is formed
which can release ammonia gas. Conditions favoring volatilization are large
amounts of surface residue, hot, dry weather and high soil pH.
Immobilization is the tie-up of nitrogen by soil microorganisms. When
applying N to large amounts of low nitrogen residue, such as corn stalks
and rye, the potential for immobilization exists. This is not totally bad
since the majority of N will be released eventually, however, the problem
is one of timing. The N may be unavailable when plant demand is high.
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA
Anhydrous Ammonia is an excellent source of N in no-tillage systems if
applied properly. Since this material is injected it is unlikely that any
problems would be encountered with residues immobilizing the N, however,
a coulter in front of the knives may be necessary to cut through heavy
residues. Surface pH should be less affected thereby maintaining a more
suitable pH for weed control. A good N program would include applying
25-50 Ib. N/A on the surface or with the planter to promote early root
growth and then sidedressing anhydrous ammonia.
UREA
Urea is the least desirable as a N source in most no-tillage situations.
The losses from volatilization are likely to be the greatest from this
source of N, especially when heavy crop residues are present. An enzyme
in the crop residue converts the urea to ammonium carbonate which can escape
into the atmosphere as ammonia gas. Conditions contributing to high N loss
from this source are heavy crop residues such as corn stalks, high surface
pH or a warm dry period following application. Early application (early
April) of urea will slow N loss as temperatures are cooler. Other means of
reducing losses would be applying urea prior to anticipated rains which
would wash the urea into the soil, or banding it between the rows and below
residues. Since high surface pH will increase losses, urea should never be
used on freshly limed fields. Lime should be applied in the fall to hold N
losses at a minimum.
-------
86
NITROGEN SOLUTIONS
Losses from using nitrogen solutions (28%) are generally less than when
using urea even though these solutions contain significant amounts of urea.
Conditions conducive to losses are also hot, dry weather or application to
heavy residues. In dry springs losses can occur as volatilization while
much of the N applied to residues, especially rye and corn stalks, is immobil-
ized. The fact that this form of N is a solution increases the chances of it
being absorbed by residues whereas with prilled or granular urea the material
may roll off the residues and come in contact with the soil. Methods of
reducing losses from N solutions include banding, split applications,
applying just prior to anticipated rains and injection. Where surface
applications of urea or 28% solutions are used, N rates should be increased
15% to compensate for losses.
AMMONIUM NITRATE
Ammonium nitrate is the safest of these materials for surface application
since it contains no urea. Handling has been a problem with this material
thus limiting its widespread adoption. In comparing ammonium nitrate to
broadcast urea, ammonium nitrate has produced higher yields when significant
urea loss occured.
Many of the problems associated with the various forms of N can be over-
come by various application methods. While anhydrous ammonia must be in-
jected and properly sealed, injection is also the preferred method for
N solutions and urea. Not only does injection reduce losses, but it also
eliminates any problems with surface pH which may in turn affect the
activity of triazine herbicides.
-------
87
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 streams 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 P-i soil test levels to be
30, 40, and 55 pounds per acre for soybeans, corn and wheat respectively.
The optimum level is that level at which crop production is most econo-
mical in terms of getting the most return on each dollar spent.
In 1982, a total of 330 soil samples from Defiance County were analyzed
at the OARDC Research Extension Analytical Lab. The following table lists
the number of samples falling in various ranges of phosphorus readings from
these tests.
Table 44
1982 SOIL PHOSPHORUS TESTS
Bray P-^
Soil Test
0 - 19 //
20 - 39 #
40 - 59 #
60 - 79 //
80 - 99 #
100 -119 //
120 -134 #
135+ #
// of
Samples
24
76
72
60
34
18
14
32
330
If a farmer desired to maintain his phosphorus levels optimum for wheat
production, he should maintain a level of 55 pounds per acre. From the
above table, 153 or about 48% 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 phos-
phorus reading.
Referring to the table again, 64 or 19% of the samples were excessively
high with readings of 100 pounds per acre or greater. 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.
-------
88
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 applications
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 0.4 pounds phosphate per expected
harvested bushel be applied. Thus, if a field tested 40 pound per acre
phosphorus and the corn yield goal was 150 bushels per acre, 60 pounds
phosphate should be sufficienti to maintain the 40 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 draw-down plots. As can be seen in the table below, one of
the plots has a very high reading, one is low and the remaining two are
at optimum or slightly above. One section of each field will have phos-
phorus applied annually while another section will have no phosphorus ap-
plied. Over the term of the study, the "with and without" sections will
be sampled and analyzed annually to determine the effect phosphorus
withdrawal has on soil test levels. Yields will also be monitored closely.
Table 45
PHOSPHORUS DRAWDOWN PLOTS
Bob Rettig //IP
Bob Rettig #2P
Bob Shininger //IP
Bob Shininger #2P
Average
Bray P-l
Soil test
108//
31#
61 //
42#
60
Pounds of
P?0=; added
41
55
69
69
58
Yield
126.4
93.1
98.2
114.9
108.2
Without P
114.6
105.0
91.0
115.1
106.4
Yield response to phosphorus applications was not as would be ex-
pected for 1982 and these yield variations on the individual plots can
be attributed to field variation.
------- |