This report represents
the results of a survey conducted on 1,115 farms in southwestern Ontario
in the fall of 1986. The purpose of the survey was to provide a detailed
data base for the Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program
(SWEEP). SWEEP is a 5-year program to reduce phosphorus loadings in the
Lake Erie Basin from cropland run-off and to improve the productivity of
agriculture. The survey gathered information on cropping, tillage,
fertilization and land management practices in 13 counties and regional
municipalities of the SWEEP study area. All of these factors impact on
phosphorus delivery in the Lake Erie watershed. This data was compiled
to serve as a benchmark against which future progress in the
implementation of soil and water conservation programs might be
evaluated at the conclusion of the SWEEP Agreement.
The survey was conducted
by means of a personal interview questionnaire, which was designed by
the SWEEP Land Management and Cropping Practices Working Group (see
Appendix A in report). A draft questionnaire was reviewed by a
cross-section of individuals involved in soil conservation work, and was
pretested with a number of farmers. The final survey questionnaire
involved 40 different questions and required 45 minutes to one hour to
be completed. Most of the data was recorded on a field by field basis
for each farm.
The sample drawn for the
personal interviews was stratified on the basis of county or regional
municipality, township, and erosion category. Based on 141 townships
originally in the survey, 10 completed interviews was set as the target
to maintain statistical reliability. The final stratification into soil
loss erosion category (high/low) allowed the study area to be divided
into areas where soil losses were above and below tolerable levels.
Survey results were
compiled on a county and regional municipality basis. The many factors
analyzed included general information relating to farms in the study
area; erosion control practices; various tillage and planting
operations; systematic, random and natural drainage; and manure,
nitrogen and phosphorus applications. To assess the representativeness
of the results, the information was compared to crop acreages as
reported in Agricultural Statistics for Ontario (1985), Census of
Agriculture (1981) data, and the 1984 study of Cropping, Tillage and
Land Management Practices in Southwestern Ontario by Wall, Vaughan and
Driver. Since a high degree of similarity exists between the results of
the current survey and the information included in the above reference
sources, it is possible to extrapolate findings to the county or
regional municipality level.
Cash crop farming
enterprises (43%) predominated in the SWEEP study area, with five
counties (Brant, Elgin, Kent, Essex and Lambton) having more than half
of their farms in this category. This was followed by dairy (18%) and
mixed farms (12%).
Swine, poultry, sheep,
fruit and vegetables and tobacco together comprised over 18% of the
study area. Results showed that the most common size of farm operation
was 40-99 hectares (37% of responses) while the most predominate age
category of operator was 45-54 (29%). Moreover, the predominant number
of years the survey site had been farmed was within the 11-20 year
category.
The principal crop grown
in the study area was corn (36%), followed by beans (20%), forages
(17%), fall cereals (12%), spring cereals (11%), fruits and vegetables
(2%), and tobacco (slightly greater than 1%). Crop rotations were
grouped into 6 categories based on combinations of row crops, cereals,
forage, and pasture. Contrary to popular perception, only 1% of farm
fields had no rotation at all. Rotations involving only row crops
occurred 10% of the time. Forty percent of the fields surveyed contained
a rotation of row crops, cereal and forage. In the 21% of the fields
where a cropping change occurred within the last five years the main
reasons for change were: economic (15%); reduction of erosion and better
crop rotation (14%) each; and a change in crops, enterprise or land base
(12%).
Survey results showed
that only 3% of fields were strip cropped. Plowdown crop results showed
only a 16% positive response rate. Three percent of the responses
indicated the use of field borders. Land management control practices
results showed that permanently vegetated buffer strips were the most
common practice (23%), followed by erosion control structures (15%),
streambank stabilization and tree windbreaks, each at (14%).
Reforestation occurred least frequently, being reported only 8% of the
time.
Farmers were asked to
state the type of tillage equipment, timing of tillage, tillage depth
and tillage direction employed on their fields. The moldboard plough
(74%) and fall tillage (73%) are still common practices. It is
encouraging to note the use of the modified moldboard plough, the
disc/coulter and chisel plough. Their use, however, varied considerably
from county to county.
Study results showed that
most fields (61%) were primary tilled to a depth of 11-15 cm, while few
(1%) were ploughed to depths greater than 26 cm. However, it was
surprising to note that a significant proportion of the fields were
primary tilled at shallow depths (18%). Very little consideration for
slope was given when ploughing. The direction most frequently ploughed
(63%) was not related to slope. Contour ploughing occurred on only 5% of
study area fields. The highest number of fields being contour ploughed
were in Haldimand-Norfolk (12%) and Huron (11%).
Seedbed preparation
(secondary tillage) methods were employed most often between March and
May (85%). The most prevalent type of seedbed implements were the
cultivator (49%) and disc and harrows (30%). Seedbed tillage was most
often done twice. The most common reason for repeated tillage was that
the seedbed was not fine enough. Approximately 20% of farmers have
changed tillage practices in the last 5 years. Based on those who have
changed, 30% gave the primary reason for change as a desire to reduce
erosion. Additional reasons were changing crops, equipment or land base
(19%) and to reduce cost (16%).
In the study area the
most common type of planting equipment used was the row crop planter
(45%) and the seed drill (46%). Modified row crop planters and seed
drills, used to plant in heavy residue, were each used in only 1% of the
fields of the study area.
Results showed that most
farmers also tended to plant without consideration for the effects of
slope (61%). A significant proportion (16%) plant up and down the major
slope.
Results relating to
systematic, random and natural tile drainage showed that systematic
drainage frequently occurred in 5-10 hectare installations (33%).
Randomly installed tile drainage most frequently occurred in small
installations and least frequently in large installations. Natural
drainage followed the same pattern. Forty-eight percent of responses
indicated naturally drained areas being 1-4 hectares in size. Naturally
drained areas of 21-40 hectares occurred only 6% of the time.
The use of manure, method
of application, timing of application and the timeliness of its
incorporation into the soil are all pertinent factors in understanding
the potential effects upon water quality. In the SWEEP study area less
than 40% of the responses indicated that manure was applied. Of those
farms on which manure was spread, 83% of the fields were spread using a
tractor and spreader. Responses indicated that 77% of the manure was
applied during the spring, summer and fall. Only 9% of the respondents
indicated they spread manure during the winter, while 14% indicated it
was spread all year long. A cross tabulation of manure application with
type of farm operation revealed that in the case of year round
applications, dairy farmers accounted for (46%) followed by mixed (22%)
and beef operations (15%). Where winter applications occurred, 34% were
made by dairy operations, 23% by hog operations and 20% by mixed farm
operations.
A review of the manure
incorporation in the study area showed that approximately 30% of the
time manure was spread onto forage crops. In only 14% of the responses
was manure incorporated within the recommended 24 hour period. Almost
one-third (32%) of the responses indicated that manure was not
incorporated for more than three days.
Data on some 3,800 fields
revealed that nitrogen fertilizer was applied on the basis of the
farmer's experience (48%) and on the basis of a soil test recommendation
within the previous year (27%). Applications of nitrogen were highest in
the spring (88%) with little variation by county with respect to timing
of applications. The principal method of nitrogen application was
broadcasting (49%).
Forty-eight percent of
the responses about phosphorus, the main nutrient of interest in the
improvement of Great Lakes water quality, revealed it was applied based
on experience. Twenty-eight percent of the applications were made on the
basis of soil testing within the previous year while 24% of the fields
on the study area did not receive phosphorus applications. Applications
of phosphorus were highest in the spring (83%). An average of 13% of the
responses indicated fall applications, while 4% of the responses
indicated both spring and fall. Two methods of phosphorus applications
accounted for 95% of phosphorus applications: 48% of the responses
indicated broadcasting was used, while 47% indicated application through
the planter.
When farmers were asked
questions concerning erosion control measures on their farms, fifteen
percent indicated that erosion control measures were present. Most often
the control measures had been privately funded.
The sources of
information on soil erosion or conservation were farm publications
(81%), radio and T.V. (65%), OMAF news (61%), books or journals (34%),
and research institutes or universities (22%).
Earlier studies of
erosion and sediment transport by the Lands Directorate, Environment
Canada and the Ontario Institute of Pedology coupled with the compatible
data from this survey can allow estimation of soil loss at the farm
level and the whole study area by employing the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE). It can also be used to estimate the reduction in soil
erosion as a result of changed cropping and management practices.
This report contains only
the highlights of the extensive data collected through this survey. This
data base will enable additional analyses and comparisons to be made and
will be used to evaluate several aspects of the SWEEP program.
(From Technology Transfer
Report Summaries - A. Hayes, L. Cruickshank, Co-Chairs)
Evaluation Summary (From
Technology Transfer Report Summaries- A. Hayes, L. Cruickshank,
Co-Chairs)
The object of the survey
was to develop a data base to serve as a benchmark to be used in future
evaluations of SWEEP.
In 1986, 1,115 on-farm
interviews were conducted in the 13 county, SWEEP area. Information
relating to crop rotations, type and timing of tillage and planting
practices, land management, drainage (natural and installed), and
application rates of soil amendments was gathered.
The predominant farm type
in the SWEEP area was cash crop followed by dairy and mixed farming. The
predominant farm size was 40 to 99 hectares with 100 to 199 hectares
being the next most common. The dominant crops were corn and soybeans.
In the SWEEP area 15% of those interviewed installed erosion control
structures on the farm. Of those the most common was the vegetative
buffer strip.
The survey results
indicated that the main form of primary tillage was moldboard plough in
the fall. Phosphorous fertilizer was applied based on experience. The
main reason given for changing the cropping or tillage system was, in
descending order: economic, to reduce erosion or a change in crops,
enterprise or landbase. Most tillage systems were conventional and were
implemented irrespective of slope. Less than 20% practised other forms
of erosion control. Of farmers surveyed, 40% used manure, but only 14%
reported incorporation within 24 hrs. Some spread during the winter.
Most other nutrient management practices were done by experience rather
than by advice.
