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••.—•••ซ•••ป


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.

-------