OCLC18441038
LAKE ERIE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Evaluating Impacts
of
CONSERVATION TILLAGE
ENVIRONMENT
Published
1984
sponsored by
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
USEPA
in cooperation with the
National Association of Conservation Districts
-------
Contents
Lake Erie Conservation Tillage Demonstrations 1
Role of Agriculture in Lake Erie Water Quality 2
Impact of Projects 4
Yields for Conservation Tillage Systems 7
Weather and The Markets Influence Farmer Decisions 12
Environmental Impacts of Lake Erie Demonstration Projects 15
Herbicide Usage 17
Tables
Project Counties 1
Project Participation 4
Acres of Notill in Lake Erie Basin 6
Acres of Ridgetill in Lake Erie Basin 6
Corn Yields 8
Soybean Yields 10
Cost of Production 14
Phosphorus Application in Project Counties 16
Application of Herbicides 17
Herbicide Usage - Conservation Tillage vs Conventional 17
Credits
Ralph G. Christensen, Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
Great Lakes National Program Office
Kent Fuller, Acting Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James E. Lake
National Association of Conservation Districts
Conservation Tillage Information Center. Field Office Coordinator
Bruce A. Julian
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
Conservation Tillage Information Center, Field Specialist.
Data Analysis and Text
James B. Morrison, PhD
Agricultural Communications Service
Purdue University.
(Although the work described in this document was supported in part h\ funds provided
by USEPA, the agency makes no claim concerning the accuracy oi the information
presented nor does the agency endorse the use of any commercial product mentioned )
-------
Lake Erie
Conservation Tillage
Demonstrations
I he practice of conservation tillage may very well be
one of those happy circumstances in which seemingly
conflicting priorities are resolved to the benefit of
everyone.
Cropland agriculture, with Us ever growing reliance
on increased production efficiency, chemical pest con-
trol, and heavy fertih/ation, is often viewed as a
threat to water quality and the health of lakes, rivers,
and streams. Crop farmers, despite economic relief
produced by federal farm programs, and dwindling
surpluses of major cash crops, view with suspicion
environmental management programs which could
cut into thin profit margins.
In conservation tillage, farmers can find a way to
reduce production costs without sacrificing crop
yields, and environmentalists can take comfort in
adoption of farming methods which reduce soil loss
and the related loss of nutrients and other pollutants.
Conservation tillage then could offer one means to a
healthier environment and a healthier agriculture.
Where s the catch?
If there is one, the catch will relate to one or more of
the following questions:
1. Do crop \ields really measure up when some
form of conservation tillage is used?
2. Are costs really reduced when conservation til-
lage is used?
3. Are the environmental benefits real or is
reduced soil loss offset by increased use of
chemicals for pest control so that benefits of
reduced nutrient input to lakes and streams are
traded for ha/ards of pesticide residue?
This report is not intended to provide a definitive
answer to these questions, but it is intended to shed
some light on the discussion by providing data useful
to both agriculture and environmental interests.
Background
This report covers experience during 1983 in the Tn-
State Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects.
The area involved includes farmland in Indiana,
Ohio, and Michigan, all located in the Western Basin
of Lake Erie. The 31 counties involved in the project
are listed in the following table. Their locations are
shown in the map on page 3.
Project Counties
Indiana
Adams
Noble
Hillsdale
Allen
Defiance
Hardin
Lorain
Mercer
Putnam
Van Wert
Allen
Steuben
Michigan
Lenawee
Ohio
Auglai/e
Fulton
Henrv
Lucas
Ottawa
Sanduskv
Williams
Wyandot
Dekalb
Wells
Monroe
Crawford
Hancock
Huron
Medina
Paulding
Seneca
Wood
The projects are being funded b\ the Great Lakes
National Program office of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Participating con-
servation districts in Indiana and Michigan, as well as
Allen and Defiance Counties in Ohio, received direct
grants from EPA. The Ohio Department ol Natural
Resources Division of Soil and Water Districts,
received a grant for the balance of the Ohio districts
and has subcontracted with each district to earn out
the projects under its leadership. Numerous USDA
agencies are also providing support for the projects
through regular programs.
The National Association of Conservation Districts
(NACD) is assisting EPA in the coordination of these
projects and compiling data so that the information
gained can be shared among the districts, agencies,
and the farmers. The Conservation Tillage Informa-
tion Center, with a Field Office in Fort Wayne. Indi-
ana, serves as a vehicle for disseminating information
to other areas where it can be used to solve similar
water quality or land management problems.
-------
The Role of Agriculture
in
Lake Erie Water Quality
Lake Erie is threatened by eutrophication arising
from man's activities in the drainage basin. The key
to eutrophication in this lake is phosphorus which
enters the lake from point source discharges, the
atmosphere, and nonpoint sources, primarily agricul-
ture. When soil particles erode from cropland, they
carry with them plant nutrients (including phos-
phorus). Increased phosphorus produces excessive
growth of phytoplankton. This, through a complex
chain of events, involving growth, die-off, and bac-
terial decomposition, results in depletion of the oxy-
gen level in the lake. The critical oxygen depletion
rate in Lake Erie's central basin has been exceeded
every year since 1960.
The United States is obligated, as the result of an
agreement with the Canadian Government, to take
steps which will improve the quality of Lake Erie.
Among other objectives, the agreement (as reaffirmed
in 1983) set a total phosphorus loading objective of
11,000 metric tons per year for Lake Erie. Under the
phosphorus load reduction supplement to Annex III
of the agreement, the United States must reduce
phosphorus loads to the lake by 1,700 metric tons
annually. If the target phosphorus loading is
achieved, the area of the lake where oxygen depletion
is a problem could be reduced by 90 percent in just a
few years.
Under the agreement, municipal waste treatment
facilities which discharge more than 1 million gallons
per day, must achieve an effluent concentration of 1
mg 1 total phosphorus on a monthly average. This
goal has been achieved on Lake Erie so that further
significant reductions in phosphorus loadings must
come from reduction in nonpoint sources. Conserva-
tion tillage practices are considered the most cost
effective method tor controlling nonpoint source pol-
lution from rural landin the Lake Erie Basin.
-------
1983 PROJECT DISTRICTS
-------
Impact of Projects
The Lake Erie Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects involved more than 1800 plots covering more than
23,000 acres in the 31 participating counties in 1983. A summary of project participation is included in the follow-
ing tables.
Grand Totals
Notill I Ridgetill I Other Tillage
Acres Plots Acres Plots Acres Plots
Totals 15679 1071 12084 151 15643 632
Indiana
Adams
Allen
DeKalb
Noble
Steuben
Wells
Ohio
Allen
Auglaize
Crawford
Defiance
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paulding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Michigan
Hillsdale
Lenawee
Monroe
Totals
Total Acres
Notill
Acres
1864.0
181.6
1030.2
307.4
7.2
280.9
56.7
6646.1
594.9
507.0
254.0
911.5
71.0
423.5
185.2
332.8
141.0
461.9
280.1
649.5
246.9
167.0
14.3
410.0
172.8
201.0
167.6
126.7
88.2
239.2
435.7
138.5
194.2
103.0
8945.8
23406 Total
Corn
Plots 1854
Ridgetill Other
Plots
110
11
65
18
1
12
3
472
51
34
21
68
8
29
12
20
10
20
12
47
18
10
4
32
12
Acres
405.2
34.0
369.7
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
835.5
0.0
10.0
0.0
38.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
216.7
0.0
1.5
13.0
0.0
0.0
111.0
126.4
6.0
25.0
15 94.0
20 44.2
10 40.7
8 89.0
1 1 20.0
34 0.0
11 0.0
14 0.0
9 0.0
616
1240.7
Plots
18
2
15
1
0
0
0
68
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
1
2
0
0
9
12
1
2
Acres
468.9
86.5
315.9
7.5
0.0
47.0
12.0
2383.5
435.0
49.3
25.0
281.0
33.5
123.0
52.8
118.0
33.0
21.8
91.9
372.5
41.0
83.5
94.3
175.9
48.9
5 27.0
5 175.7
5 64.2
7 36.2
1 0.0
0 136.0
0 35.5
0 6.0
0 94.5
86
2987.4
Tillage
Plots
37
7
24
3
0
2
1
303
41
10
6
35
6
25
9
15
5
8
7
34
5
8
12
32
8
6
18
6
7
0
17
6
3
8
357
-------
Soybeans
Notill Ridgetill | Other
Acres Plots Acres Plots Acres
Indiana
Adams
Allen
DeKalb
Noble
Steuben
Wells
Ohio
Allen
Auglaize
Crawford
Defiance
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paulding
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Michigan
Hillsdale
Lenawee
Monroe
Totals
139.4
2.0
107.9
17.5
0.0
12.0
0.0
6016.9
628.8
342.0
278.0
856.3
98.6
51.0
338.4
177.0
294.0
230.0
497.1
188.0
198.4
533.0
18.0
196.5
75.0
254.0
0.0
76.0
309.3
377.5
68.6
19.6
19.0
30.0
6224.9
29 203.5
1
30.0
25 172.0
2 1.5
0 0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
391 639.8
46 0.0
19 10.0
20 15.0
62 140.0
8 0.0
3 0.0
24
14
15
11
32
10
14
24
20
3
20
0
7
15
23
5
2
0.0
101.8
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
85.0
23.0
56.0
0.0
87.0
0.0
0.0
120.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
I 0.0
2 0.0
425
843.3
10 1 123.3
1 5.0
8 115.3
1 3.0
0
0
0
55
0
1
2
8
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
9
4
6
0
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2241.6
453.7
9.0
52.0
601.3
38.4
1.0
48.5
161.8
70.0
35.5
106.7
123.0
4.0
245.0
15.7
52.0
5.0
36.0
0.0
25.9
14 127.2
0
0
0
30.0
24.0
0.0
0 0.0
0
24.0
65 j 2388.9
Tillage
Plots
15
2
11
2
0
0
0
236
47
2
6
61
8
1
9
11
2
4
9
9
1
19
4
16
1
4
0
5
15
2
2
0
0
2
253
Other Crops*
Notill Ridgetill Other Tillage
Acres Plots I Acres Plots Acres Plots
Ohio
Allen
Auglaize
Crawford
Defiance
Fulton
Hardin
Lorain
Michigan
Monroe
Totals
508.9
259.4
32.0
0.0
149.5
15.0
40.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
508.9
30 0.0
15 0.0
3 0.0
0 | 0.0
9 1 0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
1
0
0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0 251.3
0 108.3
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 136.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 15.5
0 15.5
0.0
266.8
21
8
0
0
13
0
0
0
1
1
22
Includes plots for which no crop was reported
-------
1983 Acres of Notill in Lake Erie Basin *
Project Counties in Bold
Richland OH
Huron OH
Ashland OH
Crawford OH
Auglaize OH
Seneca OH
Wyandot OH
Stark OH
Noble IN
Hardin OH
Medina OH
Mercer OH
Lorain OH
Marion OH
Wells IN
Ingham Ml
Lenawee MI
Allen OH
Putnam OH
Crawford PA
Defiance OH
Williams OH
Henry OH
Fulton OH
Allen IN
Jackson Ml
Wood OH
Hancock OH
Erie OH
Steuben IN
Millsdale MI
Sandusky OH
32,570 | Branch MI
21,600
20,720
18,600
16,000
15,500
Portage OH
Dekalb IN
Shelby OH
Genesee NY
Paulding OH
13,000 1 Summit OH
10,750 Erie PA
10,500 Trumbull OH
7,850
7,155
7,100
6,650
6,600
5,747
Van Wert OH
Ottawa OH
Lucas OH
Adams IN
Oakland Ml
Sanilac MI
5,200 i Ashtabula OH
4,950 Chautauqua NY
4,700 Cattaraugus NY
4,600
4,500
4,350
4,300
4,300
4,175
3,887
3,751
3,300
Livingston MI
Lapeer MI
Washtenaw MI
Wyoming NY
Erie NY
Geauga OH
Macomb MI
St Clair MI
Allegany NY
3,300 Monroe MI
3,269 Cuyahoga OH
3,250 |
3,125 | Total
2,923
2,700
2,544
2,500
2,450
2,400
2,300
2,180
2,150
1,920
1,875
1,700
1,550
1,525
812
680
500
480
480
405
400
400
320
300
285
173
120
110
100
13
30 1 ,649
Sixty-one counties in five states have all or part of
their cropland acreage in the Lake Erie Basin. In
these counties, there are nearly 8 million acres of
cropland. About 22 percent of this cropland was in
some form of conservation tillage in 1983, according
to The 1983 National Survey of Conservation Tillage
Practices produced by NACD CTIC. The majority
of the cropland, (more that 5,200,000 acres) is located
in the Western Basin.
The percentage of cropland being farmed by some
form of conservation tillage in the basin is somewhat
less than the national average, a condition which is
hardly surprising since wind and water erosion in the
relatively flat lands of the western basin have onk
recently been recogni/ed as a serious environmental
problem. In addition, soils of the basin, particularly
those of the western basin, have until quite recently,
been considered unsuitable for major forms of con-
servation tillage.
The two tables on this page give some indication of
the status of notill and ridgetill in the basin and in
the project area.
Farmers in the Lake Erie Basin have been receiving
considerable information on conservation tillage, so
that adoption rates have been rapid in the past two
to three years. In considering the tables, which rank
counties in the basin on the basis of acres of notill
and acres of ridgetill, it should be noted that of the
24 counties reporting more than 4,000 acres of notill,
14 are from the project area. For ridgetill, all coun-
ties reporting more than 1,000 acres are from the pro-
ject area.
It should also be noted that conservation tillage
received a head start in the eastern basin of the lake,
particularly since soils there, particularly in eastern
Ohio, have been more traditionally recommended for
tillage practices such as notill.
1983 Acres of Ridgetill in Lake Erie Basin *
Project Counties in Bold
Source 1983 National Surve\ Conservation Tillage Practices
National Association of Conservation Districts (1984)
Paulding OH
Seneca OH
Wyandot OH
Allen IN
Wood OH
Defiance OH
Hancock OH
Trumbull OH
Oakland MI
Adams IN
Sandusky OH
Henry OH
Dekalb IN
Putnam OH
Stark OH
Williams OH
Hardin OH
St. Clair MI
Noble IN
Van Wert OH
Sanilac Ml
3,500
1.300
1,290
1,065
1,000
802
800
700
700
664
644
600
500
400
400
350
300
260
250
225
222
Ottawa OH
Lapeer MI
Lenawee MI
Shelby OH
Genesse NY
Auglaize OH
Ashtabula OH
Ingham MI
Crawford OH
Macomb MI
Branch MI
Washtenaw MI
Erie OH
Medina OH
Lucas OH
Crawford PA
Mercer OH
Total
202
200
200
200
150
150
100
100
100
100
80
70
60
55
50
28
20
17,837
-------
Yields for Conservation
Tillage Systems
A question immediately asked by those who produce
our nation's food and fiber concerns the impact of
\anous tillage systems on crop yields.
Yields were calculated for all plots in the Lake Frie
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects for corn
and soybeans according to the following criteria.
1. Plots were only included in the calculations if a
yield was reported, and if the tillage type was
specified.
2. For purposes of this report, tillage other than
notill or ridgetill was considered conventional
tillage
As can be seen from the tables on the next four
pages, yields were comparable for the various tillage
types considered. Differences among yields tor corn
were not statistically significant tor the project area.
For soybeans, ridgetill production was slightly
favored over either notill or conventional tillage.
Tables are provided giving project totals and county
totals for both corn and soybeans. Headings within
the tables should be interpreted as follows:
I. Plots (the number of plots which met the cri-
teria for inclusion)
2. Acres (the total number of acres of that crop
grown in that count)' under that tillage type
which met the criteria for inclusion)
3. Yield (the average yield calculated by dividing
the sum of the average yields reported by the
number of plots)
4. Wt. Av. (The weighted average yield, figured by
dividing the total bushels produced on the
demonstration plots by the number of acres
involved)
5. S.D (I he standard deviation calculated on the
basis of the averages reported under yield. This
statistic gives an indication of the variation in
yields. The larger the number, the greater the
average deviation)
With each county name is the 1983 yield for that
county as reported by the USDA Statistical Report-
ing Service.
-------
Corn
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots
583
86
345
Project Totals
Acres Yield
8517.5 91.9
1240.6 91.9
2882.3 93.5
Wt. Av
93.0
94.2
92.5
Adams (81 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres
11 181.6
2 34.0
7 86.5
Yield
89.5
86.0
96.9
Wt. Av
96.3
102.1
85.2
S.D
7.5
55.2
13.1
S.D
1.6
3.4
1.8
Auglaize (45 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Allen IN (80 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres
59 954.0
15 369.7
24 315.9
Yield
60.2
76.0
69.7
Wt. Av
59.5
82.5
69.2
S.D
3.4
7.6
5.6
Notill
Other
32
471.0 35.8
1 10.0 38.0
10
49.3 36.9
Crawford
Plots
21
6
Acres
254.0
25.0
(98 bu/ac)
Yield
108.5
124.2
Wt. Av
34.3
38.0
40.6
Wt. Av
103.0
124.2
S.D
3.4
0.0
5.6
S.D
5.2
12.4
Defiance (84 bu/ac)
DeKalb (74 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres
18 307.4
1 1.5
3 7.5
Yield
67.7
77.3
79.6
Wt. Av
66.0
77.3
78.5
S.D
8.0
0.0
5.6
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres Yield
64
2
32
864.5 87.2
38.0 95.2
259.0 92.9
Wt. Av
91.2
96.6
99.4
S.D
4.0
37.9
4.9
Fulton (118 bu/ac)
Notill
Noble (74
Plots Acres
1 7.2
bu/ac)
Yield
95.0
Wt.
Av
95.0
S.D
0.0
Notill
Other
Steuben (81 bu/ac)
Notill
Other
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
12 280.9
2 47.0
Wells (77
Plots Acres
3 56.7
1 12.0
Yield
76.3
86.1
bu/ac)
Yield
85.9
77.3
Wt.
74
85
Av
.7
.7
S.D
4.3
4.1
Notill
Other
Plots
7
5
Acres
63.0
25.5
Hancock
Plots
29
25
Acres
423.5
123.0
Yield
124.6
126.7
(87 bu/ac)
Yield
103.0
102.9
Wt. Av
126.9
132.5
Wt. Av
103.3
104.5
S.D
6.7
6.3
S.D
4.4
4.8
Hardin (59 bu/ac)
Wt.
89
77
Av
.2
.3
S.D
6.1
0.0
Notill
Other
Plots
11
8
Allen OH (70 bu/ac)
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
51 594.9
41 435.0
Yield
59.4
51.5
Wt.
Av
64.9
51.6
S.D
4.0
3.7
Acres
179.2
50.8
Henry
Yield
59.3
54.8
Wt. Av
58.1
55.4
S.D
6.8
9.0
(117 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
20
15
15
332
216
118
.8 124.7
.7 110.7
.0 119.3
Wt. Av
125.9
110.2
112.2
S.D
7.0
9.7
8.9
-------
Huron (111 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
Notill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
10 141.0 134.9
5 33.0 123.4
Lorain (95 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
20 461.9 112.3
1 1.5 71.4
8 21.8 107.1
Lucas (119 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
11 260.1 139.5
2 13.0 113.2
6 81.9 127.4
Medina (105 bu/ac)
133.9
111.1
Wt. Av
113.0
71.4
107.6
Wt. Av
148
.2
102.0
130
.0
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
Notill
Other
47 649.5 128.4
34 372.5 118.5
Mercer (56 bu/ac)
130.5
119.2
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
Notill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
3 32.0 58.8
1 1.0 57.3
Ottawa (103 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
8 149.0 113.9
9 111.0 97.7
7 73.5 107.0
Paulding (87 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
4 14.3 89.6
12 126.4 73.5
12 94.3 77.9
Putnam (84 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
32 410.0 96.6
1 6.0 109.4
32 175.9 98.4
52.8
57.3
Wt.
106
97
109
Wt.
103
72
74
Wt.
Av
.5
.4
.1
Av
.4
.4
.7
Av
99.4
109
103
.4
.5
S.D
5.3
12.7
S.D
6.5
0.0
5.9
S.D
6.5
22.9
7.7
S.D
3.6
3.6
S.D
11.4
0.0
S.D
9.2
5.2
9.1
S.D
14.1
4.3
5.9
S.D
4.3
0.0
4.4
Sandusky (118 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres Yield
12 172.8 134.9
2 25.0 71.8
8 48.9 130.4
Wt.
138
114
133
Av
.9
.8
.4
S.D
6.
101.
7.
1
4
7
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Notill
Other
Notill
Other
Notill
Other
Seneca (105 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
15 201.0 109.8 110.9
5 94.0 117.5 111.6
6 27.0 105.4 106.7
Van Wert (93 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
20 167.6 109.5 106.3
5 44.2 101.2 100.1
18 175.7 108.2 110.7
Williams (104 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
10 126.7 108.2 124.2
5 40.7 79.4 87.8
5 50.2 85.3 88.8
Wood (103 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
8 88.2 124.9 126.2
7 89.0 100.4 100.8
7 36.2 96.2 80.2
Wyandot (79 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
11 239.2 73.7 70.6
1 20.0 122.0 122.0
Hillsdale (95 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
11 138.5 104.2 102.8
6 35.5 106.4 109.1
Lenawee (110 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
13 192.0 109.2 111.3
3 6.0 110.3 110.3
Monroe (108 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av
9 103.0 99.8 94.9
8 94.5 117.7 119.2
S.D
3.9
8.6
4.3
S.D
4.1
9.3
4.1
S.D
11.6
13.3
12.2
S.D
4.7
7.5
10.4
S.D
13.4
0.0
S.D
6.0
6.7
S.D
6.9
25.5
S.D
12.2
8.0
-------
10
Soybeans
Plots
Notill 405
Ridgetill 65
Other 237
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots
1
1
2
Plots
25
8
11
Adams (30 bu/ac)
Acres Yield
2.0 21.0
30.0 27.0
5.0 23.0
Allen IN (30 bu/ac)
Acres Yield
107.9 22.5
172.0 27.6
115.3 26.3
Project
Acres
5917.8
843.3
2213.1
Totals
Yield
33.5
40.1
34.0
Wt. Av
34.5
37.5
34.8
S.D
0.7
3.1
0.7
Defiance (28 bu/ac)
Wt. Av
21.0
27.0
22.0
Wt. Av
23.9
28.8
26.7
S.D
0.0
0.0
7.1
S.D
1.5
3.6
2.3
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
50 695.3
8 140.0
47 452.0
Fulton (43
Plots Acres
8 98.6
7 33.4
Yield
29.0
64.8
34.3
bu/ac)
Yield
44.5
44.8
Wt. Av
30.0
43.7
36.1
Wt. Av
45.3
44.2
S.D
1.2
23.7
1.4
S.D
3.3
3.2
Hancock (35 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots
2
1
2
DeKalb (27 bu/ac)
Acres Yield
17.5 30.5
1.5 28.5
3.0 27.0
Wt. Av
28.4
28.5
27.0
S.D
3.5
0.0
16.3
Steuben (25 bu/ac)
Notill
Plots
1
Acres Yield Wt. Av
12.0 30.0
30.0
S.D
0.0
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
3 51.0
1 1.0
Yield
38.8
38.0
Wt. Av
37.3
38.0
S.D
1.7
0.0
Hardin (27 bu/ac)
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
24 338.4
9 48.5
Yield
27.3
24.9
Wt. Av
24.3
24.3
S.D
6.5
3.1
Henry (39 bu/ac)
Allen OH (29 bu/ac)
Notill
Other
Plots
46
46
Acres Yield Wt. Av
628.8 27.0
432.2 28.3
Auglaize (25 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
18
1
2
322.0 23.9
10.0 26.0
9.0 24.6
26.2
27.6
Wt. Av
25.0
26.0
23.6
S.D
1.6
1.2
S.D
1.7
0.0
12.2
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Other
Plots Acres
14 177.0
6 101.8
11 161.8
Huron (36
Plots Acres
15 294.0
2 70.0
Yield
39.0
37.2
36.5
bu/ac)
Yield
44.4
45.7
Wt. Av
38.7
36.7
37.8
Wt. Av
44.7
45.1
S.D
2.1
1.4
2.6
S.D
2.2
1.8
Lorain (34 bu/ac)
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots
20
2
6
Crawford (35 bu/ac)
Acres Yield
278.0 39.7
15.0 51.2
52.0 36.5
Wt. Av
39.3
51.4
36.3
S.D
1.9
0.5
4.6
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Plots Acres
1 1 230.0
1 1.5
4 35.5
Yield
45.5
51.8
47.9
Wt. Av
46.1
51.8
47.4
S.D
8.0
0.0
5.2
-------
11
Notill
Other
Notill
Other
Notill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Other
Notill
Ridgetill
Other
Notill
Other
Lucas (39 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
32 497.1 36.0 36.4 1.5
9 106.7 40.4 34.8 3.9
Medina (35 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
10 188.0 37.3 40.3 3.1
9 123.0 40.4 39.0 1.9
Mercer (26 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
7 72.4 21.6 23.9 3.2
1 4.0 23.0 23.0 0.0
Ottawa (34 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
24 533.0 35.3 35.7 1.9
9 85.0 34.2 34.2 3.1
19 245.0 36.6 37.3 1.9
Paulding (32 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
1 18.0 28.8 28.8 0.0
4 23.0 23.0 22.2 2.6
4 15.7 26.8 28.3 4.9
Putnam (32 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
20 196.5 33.5 32.8 3.0
6 56.0 38.7 38.1 3.4
16 52.0 33.2 30.9 2.8
Sandusky (40 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
3 75.0 49.2 53.1 4.8
1 5.0 41.0 41.0 0.0
Seneca (36 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
20 254.0 41.6 41.6 1.4
4 87.0 41.8 46.9 4.0
4 36.0 36.7 37.4 4.3
Williams (32 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
7 76.0 31.7 29.4 3.9
5 25.9 33.5 28.0 5.4
Wood (38 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.I
Notill 15 309.3 40.0 39.6 1
Ridgetill 14 120.5 43.7 43.0 2
Other 15 127.2 40.4 41.5 2
Wyandot (32 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
Notill 23 377.5 40.0 37.2 2.7
Other 2 30.0 43.3 45.0 7.4
Hillsdale (31 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
Notill 2 19.6 33.3 33.3 1.1
Lenawee (36 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
Notill 1 19.0 33.0 33.0 0.0
Monroe (34 bu/ac)
Plots Acres Yield Wt. Av S.D
Notill 2 30.0 43.3 43.3 6.6
Other 2 24.0 46.6 46.6 0.0
r""""* ' ""tinjhan *•
y^^SStti^^ ***•'" "^
' ^
*r-jr'>- -
•_- ~J^^^j^gK^^^ ", :^,
' '""• • ^.^J^BB8^^BiB|^j|L
^•\f^^^jHB^^^KIm
' . „ >• - '• 'y- • ' '*'.! /*»-" ~; i^eBlHKNKiit&QiJPOIKBMi'!!
"-" •' • • - "... -WMPttfNrwnmi
-------
12
Weather and The Market
Influence Farmer
Decisions
Weather, the markets, and government policy com-
bined to make the 1983 crop year totally different
than 1982.
In 1982, American farmers had near-perfect growing
weather for crop production. Record crops were pro-
duced for corn, soybeans, and wheat. U.S. poli-
cymakers were faced with record supplies of 10 bil-
lion bushels of corn, 2.5 billion bushels of soybeans,
and 4 billion bushels of wheat.
By fall of 1982, prices had fallen below the cost of
production, export demand was sluggish because of
the dollar's strength in foreign exchange markets, and
recovery was slow in the economy of our major
importing countries.
In December of 1982, the Payrnent-in-Kind (PIK)
program was announced for corn, grain sorghum.
wheat, cotton, and rice to reduce the 1983 acreage.
The generally poor financial situation in agriculture
led to large participation. With the farmers' option
of retiring all of their corn acreage, many counties
had the maximum ot 45 percent of their corn acreage
in the PIK program
Weather combined with PIK to further reduce crop
production. A cool, wet, late spring delayed plant-
ing. Then many crop producing areas experienced
the hottest and driest weather conditions in 50 years.
Nationally, harvested corn declined 21 million acres
through PIK. The U.S average yield was 80.5 bushels
per acre 34.3 bushels per acre below 1982's record
yield.
PIK influenced soybean acreage indirectly. The same
land can be used in the Corn Belt to grow either corn
or soybeans, and either cotton or soybeans in the
Southern states. The PIK program boosted price
prospects for corn and cotton to the point where it
was considered less profitable to grow soybeans than
to participate in the program or grow other crops.
Double crop soybeans (following wheat) were
reduced due to the lack of moisture in July when
they would normally ha\e been planted in much o!
the Corn Belt.
I hese conditions boosted corn prices, which rose
from a low in 1982 of about $1.80 per bushel to a
peak in 1983 of $3.80. The U.S. average price was
$2.70 per bushel compared to $245 the pievious year.
Soybeans sold, on the average for $5.51 per bushel
during 1983. Thus, tor farmers to have a chance to
produce at a profitable level, the\ were required to
keep production costs below $2.70 per bushel for
corn and $5.51 per bushel lor soybeans.
-------
Farmers in the demonstration project area managed
to produce corn and soybeans in a way which should
have produced a profit during 1983. Notill corn pro-
duction and ndgetill soybean production had most
Favorable costs according to these calculations.
Cost of production estimates were made as follows:
1. Cost estimates prepared by the Economic
Research Service for the Northeast Indiana Ero-
sion Study were used to estimate average costs
of machinery use for each tillage type.
2. Since no significant differences were found in
fertilizer use among the tillage types, fertili/a-
tion intended to produce 120 bushels of corn
and 45 bushel of soybeans per acre were used.
3. Herbicide costs were based on the actual aver-
age amounts of herbicide used for the various
tillage types in the projects.
4. Drying and hauling costs were modified to
reflect the actual average yield data for the til-
lage type in the county.
5. A 14.5 percent interest rate was used to calcu-
late interest cost on operating capital (cost of
seed, fertilizer, and herbicide)
6. A mangement cost, based on 12 percent of total
production cost was included.
1. Returns to land, taxes, and interest on long-
term debt were not included.
8. The total production cost, calculated on a per
acre basis was divided by the average yield for
that crop and tillage type in that county. Thus,
the cost of producing each bushel was reduced
when yields were high and magnified when
yields were low.
Results of this analysis are included in the table on
page 14.
-------
14
Cost of Production
(Dollars per Bushel)
County
Adams
Allen IN
Dekalb
Steuben
Wells
Allen OH
Auglaize
Crawford
Defiance
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Paulding
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Hillsdale
Lena wee
Monroe
TOTALS
Conventional
2.59
3.55
3.12
2.90
3.21
4.76
5.73
1.95
2.56
2.00
2.41
4.44
2.25
2.27
2.34
1.86
2.21
3.87
2.31
3.32
1.91
2.36
2.28
2.81
3.10
2.31
2.29
2.21
2.68
Corn
Notill
2.57
3.75
3.34
2.96
2.69
3.51
7.05
3.32
2.50
1.88
1.85
4.33
1.84
1.74
2.08
1.82
1.82
4.55
2.14
2.14
1.71
2.13
2.13
1.77
1.77
2.07
2.07
2.40
2.48
Ridgetill
2.72
3.15
3.05
—
-
5.18
5.61
—
2.47
—
—
—
2.17
—
3.27
—
—
—
2.45
3.34
2.07
2.28
2.39
2.69
2.29
_
-
2.62
Soybeans
Conventional Notill
6.37
5.57
5.43
—
-
4.73
6.21
4.01
4.06
3.27
3.86
5.88
4.01
3.21
3.06
3.63
3.63
6.37
4.00
5.47
3.57
3.99
—
4.37
4.00
..
—
3.24
4.31
5.43
4.96
4.43
-
4.87
3.21
3.96
2.93
3.08
4.54
3.07
3.29
2.66
3.55
3.55
5.46
3.51
3.89
2.42
2.96
—
4.06
3.24
2.81
3.61
Ridgetill
4.82
4.24
4.35
™
2.31
2.76
3.33
2.33
3.83
5.46
„
3.49
~
-
3.18
-------
15
Environmental Impacts
Of Lake Erie
Demonstration Projects
In evaluating the environmental impact of the
demonstration projects, we have considered the fol-
lowing:
I. Impacts of the projects themselves on the
environment
2. Impacts that practices demonstrated in the pro-
jects might have on Lake Erie if adopted basin
wide.
It is generally agreed that adoption of conservation
tillage on 40-50 percent of the farmland in the basin
would result in a reduction in phosphorus loadings
consistent with the goals set forth in the international
agreement on great lakes water quality. The plot
acreage (about 23,000 acres) is small in comparison to
the basin, representing about 1/300 of the basin area.
In spite of its small size, the project did have an
impact on water quality.
Phosphorus reduction directly resulting from the pro-
ject is estimated at 12 metric tons in 1983 of which
9.5 metric tons is paniculate phosphorus. This
estimate is based on the following assumptions.
1. The 18,000 acres of notill and ridgetill in the
project would have been conventionally tilled if
the project had not been present.
2. Delivered sediment from the types of soils in
the project area would have been about 2 metric
tons per acre under conventional tillage.
3. Under conservation tillage, delivered sediment
would have been about 50 percent of conven-
tional tillage or no more than 1 metric ton per
acre.
Using an estimate of 1 metric ton per acre and apply-
ing an equation developed during the Black Creek
project by Dr. Darrell Nelson predicts a reduction in
particulate phosphorus of slightly more than .5 kg
acre. Particulate phosphorus represents about 80 per-
cent of total phosphorus.
This estimate, while rough, is consistent with esti-
mates resulting from other studies and would suggest
that a 3,600 metric ton reduction in phosphorus load-
ings could be achieved by applying conservation til-
lage to all of the farmland in the basin. The 1,700
metric ton annual reduction in phosphorus needed
from basin agriculture could thus be achieved by-
applying conservation tillage to about 47 percent of
the basin.
The estimate of phosphorus reduction presented here
makes certain assumptions concerning soil detached
and delivered to the lake which could be better han-
dled with a more complex model. Application of the
ANSWERS model to data from the tillage plots will
be made during 1984 as a part of Dr. David Beasley's
project to analyze the results of the tillage demonstra-
tions.
1L ••*'-
•'3B-i>.v*»«
-------
16
Phosphorus Application in Project Counties
(Pounds of Actual P per Acre)
County
Indiana
Adams
Allen
Dekalb
Noble
Ohio
Allen
Auglaize
Crawford
Defiance
Fulton
Hancock
Hardin
Henry
Huron
Lorain
Lucas
Medina
Mercer
Ottawa
Putnam
Sandusky
Seneca
Van Wert
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
Michigan
Lenawee
Monroe
Totals
Notill
49.3
46.2
62
51.6
43.8
64.5
50
50.6
80
62.5
89.5
59
46
87.8
—
49.5
33.3
47.1
55.2
65
68
39.6
46
71.3
83.5
75
75
60.2
Corn
Ridgetill
150
55.9
40
-
—
120
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
86
23
—
—
59.3
—
-
96.7
92
69
80.4
-
—
-
76.1
Conventional
62.6
62.6
40
Soybeans
Notill
82
46.9
40
-
54.3 | 62
45.8 j 46.8
60
60.3
51
38.4
80 17.8
61.8 | -
65
73
45.5
46
60 49.7
51
90
52.2
35
50.5
55.2
42
45
46
69
38.8
-
—
50
58.9
40.4
—
70.7
27.5
34.5
74
-
51
—
20
92
69.4
—
-
48.5
Ridgetill
46
39.3
40
-
—
33
—
90
—
—
—
-
—
70
—
67.7
—
—
—
—
50
—
—
72
-
—
-
60.3
Conventional
64
41.7
40
--
67
30
—
39
30.3
—
37.1
30.3
58
50
—
—
—
10
33
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
-
46.8
Perhaps as significant as the phosphorus reduction
resulting from reduced soil loss is the indication
presented by the demonstration projects of successful
nutrient management.
Phosphorus fertility levels in the basin have been
increasing annually as a result of applications in
excess of replacement requirements. Since erosion of
soil with higher phosphorus fertility levels results in
proportionally more phosphorus entering the lake, it
is desirable to utilize phosphorus at or near the
replacement level. Although the recommended rate
of phosphorus application varies depending on the
crop planted and the yield expected, the rate of appli-
cation should not exceed the 30-60 pounds per acre
range in most of the area of the western basin. Trad-
itional fertility programs have resulted in applications
nearer 100 pounds per acre.
As can be seen from the above table, the average
range of phosphorus application used by pro|ect
farmers in 1983 is much closer to this recommended
range. Many counties utilized phosphorus applica-
tion rates near an ideal amount while a few exceeded
reasonable application rates.
-------
17
The rate of application indicates that project farmers
utih/ed soil test and sound management practices.
'I his success should be encouraging to agricultural
nonpomt programs where nutrient management will
play a key role in achieving water quality goals.
Herbicide Usage
A growing concern about the adoption of notill and
other conservation tillage systems involves the use of
hencides to control weeds. Much of this concern is a
result of the mistaken belief that herbicides are not
used in conventional tillage systems. In fact, an
analysis of herbicide usage in the tillage demonstra-
tion projects indicates that the total usage of herbi-
cides on conservation tillage is not much greater than
that used on conventional plots. Differences in herbi-
cide are more associated with the types of herbicide
used and the mix of herbicides used than of the
amount used.
In order to analy/e herbicide usage in the demonstra-
tion area, two techniques were used. First, the
numbers of herbicide applications for each tillage
t\pe were counted. Thus, if a farmer applied four
separate herbicides to a plot, or applied the same her-
bicide at four different times, his application number
was four.
Results of this analysis are presented in the following
table.
Applications of Herbicides
Crop Notill Ridgetill Conventional
Corn 3.5 2.9 2.5
Soybeans 3.6 3.0 2.3
'1 his table indicates that farmers average about one
additional application of herbicide per plot when
using conservation tillage. An analysis of the of the
herbicides used indicates that this additional herbicide
was most likely a contact weed killer, used to elim-
inate existing vegetation at planting time. It should
be noted, however, that contact herbicides were also
used in some conventional tillage operations.
From the standpoint of the environment, the contact
hericides most frequently used (Paraquat and
Roundup) are not considered to be persistent.
For soybean production, farmers seemed more eager
to use a post emergence herbicide in conservation til-
lage, particularly on ridgetill.
As farmers increased the number of herbicides used,
however, they tended to decrease the amount of any-
given herbicide that was used. Thus, although one
more application was made on notill corn than
conventional, farmers tended to use only 80 percent
as much of any individual herbicide on notill corn.
A combination of these factors means that herbicide
usage on notill corn was only 12 percent greater in
the project than on conventional. Additional results
of this analysis for each tillage type are contained in
the following table.
Herbicide Usage as a Percent of Conventional
Crop Notill Ridgetill Conventional
Corn 112.8 112.7 100
Soybeans 103.9 119.1 100
Insecticide usage was also analyzed but no statisti-
cally significant differences were found between con-
servation and conventional tillage.
Summary
Results presented in this report cover one year's
experience. They should not be considered definitive
and could be changed by different weather conditions
and different approaches to management. However,
for 1983, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1. Yields with notill and ndgetill were competitive
with yields produced under conventional tillage
systems.
2. Costs of production for conservation tillage sys-
tems were less than or equal to costs of produc-
ing the same crops using conventional systems.
3. Conservation tillage systems reduced phos-
phorus loadings from the project area and did
not significantly increase herbicide usage.
-------
Cooperating Agencies
Soil Conservation Service
Cooperative Extension Service
Agricultural Stabili/ation and Conservation Service
Indiana State Soil Conservation Committee
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Districts
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Committee
Project Districts
Indiana
Adams County Soil and Water Conservation District
Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District
DeKalb County Soil and Water Conservation District
Noble County Soil and Water Conservation District
Steuben County Soil and Water Conservation District
Wells County Soil and Water Conservation District
Ohio
Allen Soil and Water Conservation District
Auglai/e Soil and Water Conservation District
Crawford Soil and Water Conservation District
Defiance Soil and Water Conservation District
Fulton Soil and Water Conservation District
Hancock Soil and Water Conservation District
Hardin Soil and Water Conservation District
Henry Soil and Water Conservation District
Huron Soil and Water Conservation District
Lorain Soil and Water Conservation District
Lucas Soil and Water Conservation District
Medina Soil and Water Conservation District
Mercer Soil and Water Conservation District
Ottawa Soil and Water Conservation District
F'aulding Soil and Water Conservation District
Putnam Soil and Water Conservation District
Sandusky Soil and Water Conservation District
Seneca Soil and Water Conservation District
Van Wert Soil and Water Conservation District
Williams Soil and Water Conservation District
Wood Soil and Water Conservation District
Wyandot Soil and Water Conservation District
Michigan
Hillsdale County Soil Conservation District
Lenawee Soil Conservation District
Monroe Soil and Water Conservation District
------- |