CROP YIELD. SOIL AND MANAGEMENT -5TUDIES
IN OSCEOLA COUNTY MECHIGAN

Thuisforthobogmng. S.
WCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Wesley K. Matter?
1961

 

 

 

 

 

IllllllilllllIlllIlllllhlllllI'llllllHllIllllllllllllllllHll

31293 10451 6731 '

L I B R A R Y
Michigan Sun
University

 

r‘cws

 

 

ABSTRACT
CROP YIELD, SOlL, AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES
IN OSCEOLA COUNTY
MICHIGAN
By Wesley K. fittert

This study was conducted to determine the average yields of
major crOps grown on the common agricultural soils under different 2“
levels of management.1 The yield and management information was i J
collected through the use of questionnaires and personal inter-
views given to selected farmers. The local agricultural agencies
provided lists of farmers who keep farm records. The soil in-
formation was obtained from the recently completed soil survey.

Phrm crop yields for different kinds of soil have been es-
timated on the basis of common experiences.l These estimates may be
adequate for general use. However, the soil productivity ratings
for different crops are more accurately ascertained by collecting
actual yield measurements and evaluating them according to the
factors influencing crop yields. These factors are kinds of soil,
hereditary crop traits, climate and human activities.

To apply the above principles to the area studied, a general
soil map was prepared showing the extent and distribution of as-
sociated soils in the county. For each of the major crOps grown in
the county, during the past 12 years, the average annual yield per-
centages were plotted to determine the yearly effects of variations
in climate. The pH (acidity), available phosphorus and potassiun
were determined for 3 profiles of Nestor, McBride and Kalkaska soils,

as a clue to the fertility of these soils.

1

fl—

 

 

5: VJ
1535 285
1.31313

11.9."-

at

cf ‘13. ”0
.4. J

".5
s I‘I‘

.:.\-.~

1.

 

We sley K. lbttert

An attempt to evaluate the net effect of human factors on crop
yields has been made in this study by ascertaining the level of
management at which each crOp was grown. The evaluation of the soil
information involved the use of soil management units. Through the age
of these management units it was possible to array crop yields
systematically by kinds of soils and management levels.

The results show that:

1. The methods used for obtaining and analyzing soil, crop

yield and management information was inexpensive and rapid.

2. With qualifications, the results from this study can be
used in deve10ping yield tables for the major crops grown
on the common agricultural soils by management units and
different management levels.

3. hnagement levels affect crop yields in nearly every soil
management unit. In some cases crop yields obtained under
high levels of management were double those obtained under
low levels of management.

4. The effects of soil slope on crop yields varied to some ex-
tent by soil management units and management levels.

5. Mbderately eroded 2a,mcderately fine textured,soils have
higher hay yields than have the slightly eroded 2a soils.

The effects of eroded 2a soil on'corn craps are evident.

6. The poorly and taperfeetly drained soils are not used ex-
tensively for cropland in Osceola County. ‘

7. Wheat yields have increased during the last 12 years. This I

increase in yield is not entirely due to better management.

 

.‘g r!‘
‘L- ‘

:0 '22‘2

5::‘2 '9

~ .
a. "“
. uh

   

Wesley K. Mettert

It is primarily due to the shifting of acreage from less suitable
to more suitable soils. Wheat acreage controls have reduced wheat

acreage and farmers are growing wheat on the more productive portions

of the ir fie lds .

 

 

CROP YIELD, SOIL
AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES IN

OSCEOLA COUNTY MICHIGAN

By
Wesley K. lbttert

A MEI!

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
“BER OF SCIENCE
Soil Science Department

1961

Appro‘mdg, ///7)?/ 4 z C 144’;

:1:
f!

 

kn
.

Ta. 1
it. E. P. I",
53150.1
21'! in f:
.5"? 2'. ;,

1
f e.
.

s ." 1“.
. .

..'.‘Q:':0,.:

 

Acknowledgments

The author'wishes to express his sincerest gratitude to
Dr. E. P. Whiteside for his encouragement, counsel and understanding
during all phases of preparation of this manuscript. Special thanks
are due to Eino A. Niemitale, Fred Wineburger and William Butts for
their coinsel and assistance in locating suitable farms for study.
To my wife Dorothea I am extremely grateful for her encouragement and

understanding throughout the preparation of this manuscript.

11

-'-‘-;r— _

5—5:"

.
Wears! ryf

it!” .- u‘ana‘ \_
,.

 

 

n
'5- Lay.
“ "3'4”!
‘L One-5.).
lo 315‘.
l.
2.
3.
4
30 A
1
fl
V.
I.
3:
i
‘7'
H

 

II

III

VI

VII

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

A.

B.

Objectives

Importance

LITERATURE REVIEW

A.

B.

C.

General Principles

1. Hereditary erOp traits
2e Climate

3e $011

4. Hanan factors

Application of Principles to Osceola County
1e Plants

20 Climate

3e $0118

4. Human factors

Methods of Collecting Data

PROCEDURE

8‘.

B.

C.

Selection of the Farms

Collection of Yield, Management, and Soil Data
1. Questionnaire

2. Personal interviews

3. Soil survey

Analyses of Yield, knagement, and Soil Data
1. Classifying soil management units

2. Determining management levels

3. Arraying yield data

RESULTS

1318008810!

CONC LUS ION

B IBLIOHIAPHY

iii

Page

wait-NM

12
13
13
15
19

24

26
27

27
28

28
29
3o
33
38
40
45

SO

I .

.:_" '35.?

em.wq_-ls ““4 u} 4:

 

1| afilfi'li
item 1

2. irate:

for t:
3- Ease

I is;
40 P15:

of u
r' .
D. :t'

are

1:1
6. :1

en

1e
70 A:

a}

1
e. A

c

I

9.

 

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

List of Tables

Relationships among some common Osceola County soils
from limy mineral or organic materials.

Average readily available moisture in inches of water
for the upper 60 inches of some Michigan soils.

Base exchange capacities in tons of CaCO3 per acre to
a depth of 40 inches.

Plant nutrients returned to farmland based on number
of animal units per acre.

Actual corn yields per acre obtained on fields of diff-
erent soil management units under high, medim and low
levels of management.

Actual oat yields per acre obtained ‘on fields of diff-
erent soil management units under high, medium, and low
levels of management.

Actual wheat yields per acre obtained on fields of diff-
erent soil management units under high, medium and low
levels of management.

Actual alfalfa-bronegrass hay yields per acre obtained
on fields of different soil management units under high,
medim and low levels of management.

Average crop yields per acre obtained by different soil
management units under high, median and low levels of
management.

Estimated average crop yields per acre obtainable by

different soil management units under high, medium and
low levels of management.

iv

Page
20

21

21

32

34

35

36

37

39

48

 

List of Figures

. Page
1. Annual percentage yield fluctuations of major crops in
Osceola County, Michigan. 16
2. General soil map, Osceola County, Michigan . l7
3. pH (acidity),available P, and available K in profiles
of Nestor, McBride and Kalkaska soils in Osceola County,
Michigan. 22

 

-. £gm_-:.L“.fi H 4 - e .

 

 

A.

B.

C.

Do

List of Appendices
Sample letter and questionnaire forms with which yield
and management data were collected.

Summary of soil, crop, yield and management data
available by fields.

Soil identification legend for symbols in fields
BtUdiOde

Some representative soil series descriptions from
Osceola County, (Nestor, MbBride, and_Ka1kaska).

vi

Page

52

S6

62

it ."'— F...“ '1‘ ‘-' a

”I \. 5

‘V7

 

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objectives
The objectives of this study were to apply a procedure of
obtaining soil, crOp and management information to determine
crop yields on the common kinds of soils and soil management

practices in Osceola County, Michigan.

-
.
r

r:!'

"r a'f‘ .-—

3. Importance 5

Reliable information on soils and crop yields can be useful
in many ways. Farm operators can compare their yields with yields
obtained on similar soils. If needed, adjustments of soil manage-
ment practices can then be made with assurance. The most suitable
kind and size of farm enterprise (dairying, cash crop, beef,
swine, etc.) can be more accurately determined for a particular
tract of land. The dollar value of farmland (its market price,
value as collateral for loans or tax carrying capacity) can be
Inore correctly assessed. Local agricultural agencies can use crop
yield and soil information when planning educational programs in
soil management, developing financial assistance programs, pre-
paring alternative land use plans, establishing surplus crOp
controls, and advising urban and rural planning boards. This
information can also be used in testing interpretive class-

ifications of soils.

 

II . LI TERA TUBE REVIEW

A review of the literature was made to become familar with
the several factors that control or influence crop yields, and to
study methods and procedures that might be useful to determine

crop yields for the kinds of soil found in Osceola County,

Michigan.

A. General Principles

CrOps are grown for many reasons but primarily they are
grown for the yield of useful food or fiber they produce. This
essential production is controlled or determined by such factors
as crop heredity, climate, soil, and human activity. In the
discussion that follows these factors are considered, primarily
to show the relationships to one another and the part each plays

in determining crop yields.

1. Hhreditary crop traits

The capacity of plants to grow well in different soil and
climatic conditions is dependent upon the germ plasma the sub-
stance by which hereditary characteristics are transmitted in all
crOps.

thleigh ( 1957 ) describes the importance of this factor
and.its relationship to Environmental conditions. He states
thaizgrowth, vigor, disease resistance, sensitivity to length

of day, and drought resistance are some inherited characteristics

.
-.A.c.

". ‘M” 3: - A‘ Wt“:

it.

 

of plants. It is paramount that the combination of these traits
be adapted to the climate and soil in order to fully reap the
benefits of ideal soil management.

(Qé;119(l947) made a detailed analysis of crop yield
records in relation to kinds of soils in central Illinois, These
yield records covered a period of 45 years. Close examination of
these data reveals that corn yields were rather stable prior to

1930. During 1937 and sunsequent years corn yields were substan-

 

tially higher even though similar management was used. This

increase in yield was due primarily to the introduction of hybrid 3

seed in 1937. This study exemplifies the fact that potential

optimum is controlled in part by crop inheritance.

Rather (1942) has shown that soil and soil management cannot
alone accomplish effective production. Crops must be adapted to
the soil and climate. This adaptability of crops is not only a
species consideration but one of crap varieties. Stiffness of
atom in small grains is much more essential on a fertile soil
‘with abundant moisture than on an infertile one. Where the
growing season is limited, earlier maturing ccrns are required
on low lying poorly drained soils than on locally higher lying
well drained soils.

Roberts and Jones (1940) report that in the case of corn the
narrowly bred hybrids are more restricted in their adaptation than
open pollinated varieties, when grown for silage. Thus, the

selection of species and particularly the specific varieties of

1.1. an, 144... .v; _u~m- -v

.I -,—.- ‘

 

 

crOps to grow is essential to high acre yields and profitable

crOp production.
2. Climate

The growth of plants, the final yield, and its quality depend
very materially on weather. The three most important factors in

climate from a standpoint of plant response are temperature, water 3‘,

_.

supply and light. Precipitation or water supply is the most

.n~‘.. _ a

important factor in determining the distribution of plants and

creps within broad areas having similar temperatures. Fluctua—

_._.-__- — ._.

H

tions in temperature and rainfall are important agriculturally as
they beget wet, dry, cold or hot periods that greatly affect cr0p
yields. Hail storms, tornadoes and strong winds may destroy craps
locally. Hildreth and Magness (1941) have shown that both light
intensity and the length of the daily illumination period pro-
foundly affect plant behavior.

All of these elements of climate are interrelated in their
effect on green plants; temperature and light affect the water
~requirements. Available moisture supply greatly influences the
effects of high temperature and light intensities. In addition
to these relationships, living plants are complex organisms
affected by nutritive as well as climatic factors in their environ-
xment.

Went (1950) made a study to determine the influence of environ-
insntml conditions on the biological variability in plants, or the
plant's response to climate. The study was conducted in green-
}ucuses where the environmental factors were controlled rigidly.

'The fluence of the most important environmental factors was

 

   

studied simultaneously. When the climatic resnonses of a number

of plants were investigated in detail, marked differences were
found that have a significant bearing on the distribution of these
plants over the earth. He concluded that it is necessary to revise
present ideas about the temperature limits within which a plant can
exist. The distribution of plants is not just a question of frost
damage or heat coagulation, but it is correlated with very specific
temperature requirements, which are met only in certain climates.
The adaptation of a plant to its physical environment goes much
farther than nerely a general relationship between type of climate
and Optimal growing conditions. In any breeding program it is only
by consideration of the climatic requirements of plants that a
preper array of plant characteristics can be combined to produce a
desired species for a given location.

Bates (1955) calculated the correlation coefficients between
several climatic factors and corn yields during 41 years, 1913-53.
He found that mean maximum temperature, mean relative humidity and
evaporation in June (the month in which corn usually pcllinates)
'were very closely correlated with corn yields. These three factors
'were closely correlated with each other, and since evaporation is
dependent on temperature and humidity, the latter two factors
appear to be these affecting corn yields. Each of these factors
was more closely correlated with corn yields than was rainfall at
any period of the year. The number of rains in June showed a
higher correlation with yield than total rainfall during any other

period. If rainfall during more than one month was considered,

October 1 to August 1 showed the highest correlation with yield.

 

___.'_—.A m—.

to

“Die-“F.

:i r .-

gF‘l-

Number of cloudy days in June was not closely correlated with corn
yields and the correlation that existed was probably due to effects
of rainfall, humidity and temperature.

Humphery (1941) relates the effects of climate and diseases.
It is well known that disease can wipe out entire crOps. Potato
blight, red rust in wheat, curly top in sugar beets are typical
diseases affected by weather in one way or another. Some diseases
require moist, humid conditions for infection and deve10pment3
others are more serious when it is relatively dry. Some are
favored by cool temperatures; others require warm weather. In
some cases the principal effect is not on the disease producing
organism itself but on the host plant, or even on an insect
carrier of the disease.

The late blight of potatoes is favored by excessive humidity
and moderate temperatures, conditions necessary for the spread of
the parasite. Scab of wheat and other small grains is always more
prevalent when warm moist weather occurs during the period from
heading to maturity. The cereal rusts, one of the most important
plant diseases affected by weather; are more prevalent during
seasons characterised by high temperatures and rainfall.

The prevalence of destructive inseete is one of the important
factors determining success or failure in crop production.

Hylep (1941) describes the influence that climatic conditions
have in controlling insect pepulations. He suggests that the
various factors of climate, such as temperature, moisture and rate

of evaporation, affect different insects in varying degrees at

(iifferent times. Each insect at each stage of development has a

 

JXAM . -. -_ b I

[EH—r- “rt“? _ -..

In
,—
4'.

r

the insect dies or becomes less of a problem. Usually moisture and
temperature are not independent; the Optimum growth and the ex—
treme range of tolerance of insects are at certain combinations of
moisture and temperature. For example; 0001, delayed Springs are

favorable for the development of many species of cutworms and seed

5 1
_ “7'

corn mavvots. Grasshopper pepulations increase during a series of

7
definite tolerance to these factors. Below or above this tolerance
or) . '2.
dry years. Late dry fall weather which retards the germination of
wheat seed beyond a certain date will practically eliminate the

hessian fly.

, ghahmz g." k‘HX‘JQ-” x
.
" -.

very often the effect of climate on insects is a complicated
one. The climate may not directly affect a certain insect but may
affect others that prey on it, reducing or increasing their numbers.
The introduction of parasites as a means of control has been
successful only where the insects and parasites have deve10ped in

similar climatic conditions.

3. Soil

The soil is a natural body composed of admixtures of broken
and weathered minerals and decaying organic matter, which covers
the earth in thin layers that differ from each other and the under-
lying materials in their properties. They may supply, when con-
taining the preper amounts of air and water, sustenance for plants
as well as mechanical support.

Russell (1937) and Lyon and Buckman (1943) point out that
growth and development of higher plants depend on two sets of

factors, namely internal and external. The latter factors, of

1

special interest from the soil standpoint, may be enumerated as
follows; (1‘ light, (2) mechanical support, (3) heat, (4) air,
(5) water and (6) nutrients. With the exception of light, the
soil is an agent in supplying, either wholly or in part, these
essential conditions.

hbchanical support is a function entirely of the soil. The
comparatively loose and frianle condition of most soils presents
ample space for the growing roots. In some cases, however, the
presence of a compact layer or a lack of adequate drainage may
interfere with root distribution. Although temperature depends E J
almost wholly on weather conditions, the transfer of heat through ;
the soil is of vital importance to activities of all kinds. The
addition of water increases the heat capacity of a soil to a
marked degree. Hence, the removal of excess water permits the
soil to warm up earlier in the spring. Because of differences in
'water holding capacity a coarse textured soil with low water-
holding capacity warms earlier than a moderately fine textured
soil with greater water holding capacity.

Air and water are usually supplied rather easily because of
the Open conditions found in soils of good structure.

Oxygen and caroon dioxide function as chemical and biochemical
agents. ‘Water is a source of hydrogen and oxygen as well as an
efficient solvent. By its circulation, water promotes an inter-
change and interaction of constituents and not only brings
nutrients in contact with the absorbing and adsorbing surfaces of

roots and microorganisms but also facilitates their penetration.

The two prime functions of the soil are thus realized through the

 

 

coordination of the functons mentioned above - mechanical support
and favorable conditions for use of sufficient supply of certain
essential elements.

All of the known elements have been found in soils. At least
sixteen of these are considered necessary for the growth of green
plants. The essential.elenents are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, i H
manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum, boron,and chlorine. According

to Dean (1957) the presence, abundance, and availability of these

-_ r .__..._.___.—_J-.—
v A A Z

essential elements determine the nutrient supplying power and

r .-
.‘l .'
t»
EC."

reserve of soils.

Overall chemical analyses indicate that the total supply of
nutrients in soils is usually high in comparison with the require-
ments of crop plants. Much of this potential nutrient supply,
however, is tightly bound in forms that are not released fast
enough to produce satisfactory plant growth. Thus, measurements
of available nutrients are more valuable than those of total
nutrients when considering crop nutrient needs.

Russell (1957) has discussed the physical prcperties of soils.
He points out that the size, shape, arrangements, and mineral com-
position of soil particles and the volume and form.of pores affect
the flow and storage of water, the movement of air and the ability
of the soil to supply nutrients to growing plants.

The physical properties and the chemical composition of the
large and small particles differ greatly. The coarse separates-
the stones, gravel, and sand-act as individual particles. These

particles have low surface area per unit mass, but since the most

 

   

10

important physical-chemical reactions take place on the surface of
soil particles and the total area of such surfaces strongly affects
the ability of soils to react chemically, the coarse particles

have limited physical-chemical activity. The silt particles have
greater chemical activity than coarse separates because of their
higher specific surface. Silts exhibit some plasticity and
cohesion. The amount of surface activity in the silts, however,

is not enough to give desirable physical-chemical behavior to soils
that contain large amounts of such particles but little or no clay.

The clay portion controls many of the important preperties of
soil. The clay particles are extremely small and are usually
negatively charged. They react with positive ions in the soil
solution. The attraction between the negatively charged clay and
such positive ions as hydrogen, calcium, magnesium, and potassium
results in a dynamic equilibrium with these ions in the soil
solution. These ions can be replaced or exchanged from the soil
particles in response to changes in concentration in the soil
solution. This process of ionic exchange is one of fundamental
importance in soil management and plant nutrition.

The charged clay surfaces together with their associated
exchangeable ions also react with water molecules, which become
oriented when they are present in the electric field near the
charged surfaces. The resulting layers of oriented water molecules
give the characteristic prOperties of plasticity, cohesion, and
expansion to clays. Moist soil horizons that contain large amounts
of clay may have these same prOperties.

In soils that contain substantial amounts of silt and clay,

11

many of these fine particles are formed into secondary structural
units called aggregates. The size, shape, and arrangement of soil
aggregates largely determine the porosity and pore size distribu-
tion of soil horizons. This soil structure greatly influences the
infiltration and movement of water and air and the penetration of
plant roots. Soil aggregates are not permanent structural units, ;_w
particularly in the surface horizon of a cultivated soil. They are i i,
dependent on the texture, organic matter content, climatic con-
ditions, and soil management practices.

All of the above physical prOperties of soils affect plant Fj
growth through their relation to the quality of the root environ-

ment.

4. Human factors

Human factors influence the ultimate yields of farm craps in
many'ways. The people, their desires, ambitions, and abilities,
determine the type of farm enterprise, the kind of creps grown, the
management practices followed, and the efficiency of farm opera-
tions. Cook 1 points out that even though ideal management is
‘follcwed, high yields cannot be expected unless farm Operations are
timely’and efficient.

Economic conditions, such as market demands, price received,
cost of production, and governmental controls, may materially

1
Cook, R. L., Chairman of Soil Science Department, College of
Agriculture, Michigan State University, personal conversation.

 

 

   

12

affect land use and crop production. When market demnds increase

and the price goes upward, the cost of production can be increased,

especially the cost of items which enhance acre yields. In real-

ity, however, increased market demand usually has a depressing

effect on acre yields. Low acre yields become profitable under

these conditions. Consequently, the crOp in question may be

grown on the soils where it is not particularly adapted, fertility E 3
programs may be spread over larger acreage resulting in lower fer- I H
tility levels, and farmers who lack an understanding of the tech-

1
niques for obtaining high acre yields and who normally do not pro- EH;

duce the amp may be motivated to do so. "

The effects of economics can be illustrated in another way.
If tie rest of production can be lowered, by minimum tillage for
example, the net returns may be increased and the acreage operated
by a farmer could be increased or more intensive fertilisation
could be used thus increasing total production of sore yields.
Government controls restricting the acreage of certain crepe have
commonly resulted in a gradual increase of acre yields. This in-

crease may be due to either improved management on the remaining

acres or the use of more suitable soils or both.

E. Application of Principles to Osceola County
Crop yields in Osceola County are the function of the yield
factors mentioned above. In the following discussion these factors
are considered primarily to show their effect on crop yields within

the county.

13

1. Plants

Plant breeders have improved cr0p varieties through the years.
Mhny of the commonly grown creps are adapted to the climate and
some of the soils of Osceola County. Eighty-five day hybrid corn,
soft winter wheat, leaf rust and stem rust resistant oats, and
long term alfalfa are well adapted to conditions in the county.
Thus, the effect of seed quality on high yield expectancy is
favorable.

2. Climate

Although the growing season ranges from 110 to 130 days and
there is an average of 30 inches of rainfhll annually: seasonal,
daily, and locality variations in climate occur. The growing sea-
son may be wet or dry, hot or cold. Any one or all of these con-
ditions may prevail during a particular growing season. Day to
night temperatures fluctuate widely. ‘Fcr example, during the
amonth of June daily temperatures range to 80°F'while night temper-
atures range to 50°F and below. Occasionally, freezing temper-
atures occur during the summer months particularly in depressional
areas in the landscape. The growing season is 2 to 3 weeks longer
in the southwestern part of the country than it is in thenorth-
eastern.part. Areas of good air drainage and some local variation
in elevation tend to be less susceptible to frost during the growb
Lug season. most of the natural ferestshave been clear out in the
past creating large open areas which allow good air movement.
Today'refbrestation is lbmiting air movement and tends to make
some fields more susceptible to frost. Many of the poorly to

verjr poorly drained soils are used for woodland or pasture because

.1? Ia .P. ’ .r'

-I—h‘-"O\_ -4.xe'— r
|.
l _
‘0.
‘

 

 

14

the frost hazard limits their use for row crops and small grains.
The seasonal variations in climate usually prevent severe insect
problems.

The climatic conditions materially affect crop yields in
Osceola County. Records from the Michigan Agricultural Statistics
(1949-1961) show that during the past 12 years, average corn yields
have fluctuated 33 percent, average oat yields 38 percent, average
wheat yields 40 percent, and average hay yields 31 percent. When

these fluctuations of average yields for the county occur from

”W‘q—‘l 4.1:»;-nlu a s ' ‘

his.

year to year it is evident that climatic factors are affecting

LIP“.

yields. The annual percentage yield fluctuations of'major creps

in Osceola County are shown in figure 1. These fluctuations are
conservative when individual kinds of soil and local areas are con-
sidered. Crop yields are adversely affected on fine textured soils
during wet years and on coarse textured soils during dry seasons.
Thus yields fluctuate more for individual soils than figure 1 in-
dicates. Figure 1 also indicates that crop yields tend to
fluctuate in a cyclic manner. Over a five year period corn, oats,
‘wheat, and hay yields fluctuate from.high to low. The wheat and
hay cycles correspond while the corn and cat cycles are independent
and do not correSpond with any other cycle. These differences be-
tween individual crOp cycles can easily be explained. Wheat is a
laiannual and hay is either a biannual or perennial. Growth of
'these two craps takes place over many seasons and is less afTected
by short term, adverse climatic conditions. On the other hand,

summer grown corn and spring grown cats are materially affected by

preveijing summer or Spring climatic conditions, respectively.

   

15

3. Soils

The soils of Osceola County affect yields substantially.
They vary in texture from clays to sands and in drainage from well
to very poorly drained, as summarized in Table 1. A wide range of
lepe and erosion conditions exist on the well and imperfectly
drained soils. A general soil map of Osceola County is shown in
Figure 2. This map was especially prepared for this report by
the author. It shows the extent and distribution of 11 soil
associations in the County. Each soil survey field sheet was

scrutinized and the broad areas of similarly associated soils

 

were noted and delineated on a county road map. This general soil
map is useful for preparing problem area maps, land resource area
maps, and developing broad land use plans. The map provided a
guide for evaluating the distribution of farms selected for this
study. Hewever, it is not suitable for making fertilizer, liming,
drainage, or other recommendations that require detailflsoil in-
formation.

Some 500 different mapping units were used in making the de-
tailed soil survey for the county. Rather than discuss each of
these units separately, it is feasiable to assemble them into
interpretative groups of soils having similar profile charac-
teristics, similar management requirements, and similar potential
productivities. In Michigan these groups are referred to as soil
management groups and soil management units or soil capability
units, (Michigan State University, 1959).

The grouping of soils into soil management groups are based

upon an understanding of the soil formation factors associated with

 

16

Figure 1. Annual percentage yield fluctuation of major craps in

Osceola County, Michigan

f““"\_
_" . v", \ “ ' w
\z

100

i
at

Yie lds of
hay

 

100 g
‘8 P /// \ ’ ”#./\
a .p L ’
s d ' "
>« 13/

 

 

 

 

100 ‘ ,,
'3 3|. , /\\/\
8 3 V "‘ '
. g I f-
60 c __ __ _.L A _, --
100 ‘_ ..
'8 /\ /\
g g . / \ ,x
.4 3
>4 4

49 51 53 55 57 59 61

_ 5-»...— .

ivfi'T‘T‘TV._TTF-7‘-

 

1?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

figure 2. cumx. son. our
OSCIDIA COUNTY. KICBIGAI
.( ---_ - - < x ,
_ :1 ' a
E X ‘ U H
o
o
780'
I!
.I I'll] ' L
g , ‘ _ A ‘ I ‘
WI _
n a - .
vial _ , y ' f s“ I '
;. a F” :\ - Q ;‘
' ' v N
I - . n > ; so w to 3.3" 3 g ‘
I‘ll“ o .1. l- ‘ K
: s: as. u l as u. a y‘ a}: :5, _--
--..---L-- 2. 2 - x .46; .
. I a I] a I ' .‘ ' . ,3 . , L ‘h
— r. . . , ‘ W x L
‘ ' .é!‘ ’
I ' . P. a I
.; I 5 " , x. g -
0 WV . c. E O L , I. C
tn“ A ' ‘ . .
b J I ._ .F o
a“ '- gg " ’ v . n u
" "3's, : \ _ ‘ ’ , r -
3. ' n 3 4 w ,
‘- ago-ca ------- ‘5 . --i-- __ ‘ -_;._ 'P ‘ .5 - ‘ ‘l '4'“
«. . ~- _ -: - : - - - "
o . _ ‘2 13. L . s , a : - . " ‘, : ‘e. 1..
r v L __-; $ - J . ' ~ ' '...' \ I
My 0 « _ ' , "h ‘ ' ’ .
o 5 VIA" 1
t .5 E b ,0 i. u]
TI,” ’ ‘ I
III k; P- g3: ' a:
g ‘1 fl- . - t d
‘ 3" £ , J p : 3° ‘ a
‘ - I --. g- _ ‘e .1
I ‘ v v" . s
«g a o ' L ”9.3! I
.J 2, ~ ' - o
-.—. 3 ._-_ - o .—-—>-.—- -4... ’ .1. a .—
:u E c o s T a c 0 U N T Y .
LEGEND f‘t“."" f"“‘.'
-Rolling to hilly, well to poorly -‘Jndulating to hilly. well to nearly ‘—“—~‘——‘
drained sands: Kalknaka, Rubicon. drained clay looms: Heater. Xavkavlin. Q _.u; .
and organic soils. Menomineejims and organic soils. " " \31
-Hilly to undulating, well drained mUndulating to hilly. well drained sandy \i,’ 1' ‘J' ‘
' sand: 10‘1“. 106m! undl. and sands. clay 103mg, sandy loans, and loamy ' “if .1:
MCBrldO. Montcalm. and Kalxasxa. sands: Isabelle. McBride. and Montcalm. ..-..:l.‘
mnolling to steep.vell drained sandsmndulating .o hilly, well drained sandy jf‘ “1,1,;
and loamy sands: Graycalm. Kalxeaka, clay loans: Isabelle and Menominee. '. '. aw,
Rubicon. and Acntcalm. Level, well drained avid saws: Grayling. L ,, 1;“.
Level to undulating, well to poorly-Level to undulating. well drained lormy ‘“‘ *‘
drained sands: Rubicon. Kalkssks. sands: Marcelona and Montcalm. LOCATION 1; ”Home“;
Croavall. Aufiren. and Roscommor. Laval, poorly drained mom: and sands:
-Undulatir.g to level, well to pearly lupton, Mersey. Dpoufettejnd Houseman. "'W'
drained clay loans: heater, “skew-Luann of farms studied. W“"‘""“" °"'""’
lin. Kenominee,Iosco. and Sims.

 

 

 

18

the differences in the soils. These factors are usually cited as
four groups; parent material, tepography, organisms, and climate;
plus a fifth factor, time. These factors not only relate the soils
to one another and to the ladtcape in which they occur but some of
them such as climate and t0pography are also directly related to
plant growth and land use. _
The two soil formation factors most commonly associated with i 3
local soil differences in Osceola County are the parent materials |

and topography or natural drainage. The inter-relationships of a

 

number of common soils series in the county are shown in table 1,
arranged systematically according to these two factors. In the
chart, each horizontal line is given a number from.the finest
textured materials, clay and silty clay, as l at the tOp to the
coarsest textured materials, sands, as S at the bottom. Each
column is given a letter from "a" for the naturally well drained at
the left side to "c” for the most poorly drained at the right.
Thus, each compartment or group of soil series has a number and a
letter designation that places it in relation to each of the other
soil management groups. The management groups designated with
fractional numbers indicate soils developing in material of one
texture overlying material of another texture. The soils in each
of these groups have been shown to be similar in their readily
available moisture holding capacities to a depth of 60 inches and
their base exchange capacity to 40 inches. The variability of
these preperties among management groups is shown in Tables 2 and
3, as averages of figures available for the soils in each group.

The sandy and clayey mineral soils hold less readily available

l9

umter for plant growth than those developed from loamy materials.
The clays have the highest basic exchange capacity, the sends the
lowest.

The distribution of available phosphorus, potassium, and pH
(acidity) in profiles of members of three of these groups are
shown graphically in Figure 3. These data are based on soil tests Elli
made by the Osceola County Soil Testing Laboratory. The soil 1
samples were carefully collected from three representative profiles

of each soil studied by the author. Composite soil discriptions

’e-

“-“‘L‘ v‘ 1‘
. .

of these soils are shown in appendix C. Close examination of
Figure 3 reveals that the coarse textured well drained soil,
Kalkaska, is more acid than the moderately coarse, MbBride, and
moderately fine textured, Nestor, soils.

The moderately fine textured soil is high in available P and K,
while the coarse textured soil is low in these constituents. The
moderately coarse textured soil exhibits more variability between
horizons than either the coarse or moderately fine textured profiles.
The bulge in the available P content of the Podzol B horizons of
both the MbBride and the Kalkaska soils is probable due to phos-
phoric compounds affiliated with the humus in these horizons.

4. Human factors

Crop yields per acre are materially affected in Osceola County
by hummn.activities. The kind of creps grown, the management prac-
'tices Lmed and the timeliness and efficiency of farm Operations are
determined by the desires, ambitions, and abilities of the people
who farm the land.

IEconomic conditions, such as market demands, prices received,

 

 

20

Table 1. Relationships among some common Osceola County Soils
from limy mineral or organic materials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.fggh‘ “‘ Eineril soils ' Organic soils“ ____;]
y_ Podzols __ggumic Gleyg " j
1 a” 7 :flgtural a1n_ge __ .H‘uum-fl-fi '
iTexture of well ; Imperfeotly Poorly iVery poorly drained
'mineral parent drained drained drained :Shallow, ;Deep,
material @1993 than over 42"
a 42“ thick :thick
"(1) - (a) , _ on), l, (o) s (o)
Clays and silty la lb 3 lo ;I'/lc Ilds-c: g g
:clays Kentl Selkirk 1 Pickford over olaysiiimy, » =.
i 1 i [; illette ‘Lupton ‘
7‘») 7T : [ 3 1
Clay loams l2a 1 ‘ 2b 1‘20 NVBc 1 L 1
I Nestor 2 Kawkawlin1 ! Shms gover loamsWMc E m l
I Isabella 1 Twining2 g Butternut iLinwood. slight— r J
‘ ‘_’"” ‘"”“‘“ '—"'". "‘"'m' 1 ” (mfima lly acid a)
(3/2) 3/2a .5 3/2b {3/20 3 over marl, .to antral“
; Sandy loams I Ubly2 3 BO 1ding2 Breckenridge Edwards) moody, 1
Iover clay loamsg 1 a ’Carbon- .
4—- ~~-v—--—--— ----- i in“ - --——-—-~~-»- . J (1316;
.(3) 3a 3 3b 23c . ’medium ’
iSandy loams McBrid 2 l Coral2 iEnsley ' :acid to i
I" Newago ‘“__*__”m~ W_ w‘nv- _ _ L_“_""_W__~Jneutral
.(4/2) ' i ,fibrous,
[Sand and loamy 4/?a . 4/?b 4/Qc EHVBc iHoughtah
‘sand over loams‘blbnomineez _! Tosco2 .Brevort f our ends; ilk-B {
Ito cla loams k 3 3 slimy, extreme
(4)““'yi‘“”‘““”“§“”"“'””“’"”'?”“" “““”““‘*’”""”““"“”‘j Markey; acid, IV;
tLoamy sands §4a 2 i 4b 2 g4c ‘slightly disinte- ?
. Mentcalm . Otisco tEdmore ,acid, grated '
M'ancelona2 E Gladwin2 3 Tawas. iLoxley;
1 A _ __ iBlue le. w“: .‘._.-.--......__..___;,. ,,_ 1.-...- W408 .
j ' ' 3 g extremely extremely I
5(5) . ,acid, Jacid, .
fiSands 5a 5b 5c ' {fibrous,
} Croawell AuGres Roscommon Dawson :Green-
: Kalkaska . Saugatuckt . iwood.
I East Lake (extremely 't
j Rubicon acid, I '
‘ Grayling Kinross) L
, M _W_.L_‘__, ,nw -_. ‘ -——-—-.—--

 

 

 

1. These soils have profiles typical of the Gray'Wcoded soils.
2. These soils have profiles typical of the bisequa soils with
Podzol upper sequence and Gray wooded lower sequence of horizons.

t The subsoil horizon of this soil is cemented by iron oxides and
humic substances.

   

Table 2. Average readily available moisture in inches

21

of water for the upper 60 inches of some
Michigan soils. (Michigan State University, 1959)

Texture of Well
mineral parent drained
material (a)
Group No.
Clays (l) 1 6.4
Clay loams (2) 8.2
Learns £2 907
Sandy loans 3 11.3
Loamy sands (4 10.0
Sands (5) 4.5

Table 3. Base exchange capacities in tons of CaCO

Impe r fe c tly
drained

(b)

3.8
8.7
8.8

900

Poorly
drained

(o)

6.6
5.5
8.2
11.1

6.9

per acre to

a depth of 40 inches. (Data of A.E. Eric son el al,
summarized by L.W. Tobin, Michigan State University).

Texture of Well
primary material drained
(a)
Clays (1) 58.?
Loans (2) 350T
Sandy loams (3) (35T)*20.T
Loamy sands (4) 12.T
Sands (5) 6.T

Imperfectly

drained
(b)
42.T
34.T
18.?

16.T

( )* Dark colored soils formed under grass vegetation.
soils were formed under timber vegetation.

Poorly
drained

(0)

6o.r

390T
28.T

l2.T

The other

 

rat-4...;
1H}

g.-_—..F——_.an-,—.——_=»-. a...s.~;fis.- - tr!
'7

!

. . r

.5.

"13‘. ..

22

Figure 3. pH (acidity), available P,‘and available K in profiles
of Nester, McBride, and Kalkaska soils in Ooeola County.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Soil Depth i pH 1’ K
horizon inches,
5.0 6T5 8.0 10 3'6 1ba_'22_lQ_0___l€IO_lhs2_m..
I Nester‘(2a) I I
o.- I L I 1 I
‘p 0-6 I I
‘2 6'8 l I - '
Q d: 82 8-14 10- I P I I
I
32 t M 200-- I _ __ I
C 26 + I I
3n ‘
I I
I McBride (3a) I
OL- — I —
AP 0-6 I I
|
MI I — I -
Bhir 6-20 I I
20>- ] - I P
I t 1
sum 28-36 30' I I
I
I
a t 36-52 4°" ’ I “’
C 2 + a I f fl
7 I
, I Kalkaska(5a)I
m 2-0 0 I I _
11 0-2 I |
A2 :é-z I
821M? *- 10. I a P
1322 1.1:- 8-18 I I
I _
323 1.1: 18-24 2°" I I F
I l
a 3 IMHO 3°I' l I I ~
I
z
c '4 0+ 40 I l

 

 

 

 

pH (acidity) determined by the Becknan pH meter.

Available K determined by the Spurway Reserve method.

Available P determined by the Bray mthod.

the dashed vertical lines indicate adequateamounts of the lime,

PandK.

 

23

cost of production, and governmental controls, have affected land
use and crop production in Osceola County. For example, the pro-
duction of potatoes in this area has been reduced considerably by
the loss of market demand. At one time this area was one of the
greatest potato producing areas in Michigan. Potato production has
become very competitive and the few farmers who continue to grow
potatoes use high fertility programs, irrigation, high quality seed,
and adequate pest and weed controls to insure a profitable potato
crep. With the use of these management practices, farmers can
commonly expect from 400 to 600 bushels per acre.

Government controls restricting wheat acreage in the county
have had a similar effect on wheat yields. Wheat yields have in-
creased considerably. It is generally believed that this increase
in yield is due to farmers use of improved management.

To insure good hay seedings when seeded with cats farmers
have reduced seeding rates of cats. This practice prevents the cat
crop from.competing with the new hay seedings, but it has lowered
oat yields considerably. This example exemplifies that farmers
desires do affect crap yield.

undoubtedly human factors have affected the yields of all the
major crops grown. These factors should be considered when deter-
xnining crop yields for different kinds of soil. An attempt to val-
uate the net effect of these human factors has been made in this
study by ascertaining the level of management at which each crOp
was grown. The method used to determine management levels for the

major craps grown in the county is discussed in the procedure

section of this report.

 

mm *‘n-L-a—n). .

.
>1-‘I—Jr1;

.1“. Ly-.. '

24

C. lbthods of Collecting Yield Data
The Soil Survey Staff (1951) has suggested several methods
for collecting crop, yield, and management data. The methods

vary in ease of collection and degree of validity of the data.

The recognized methods of collection and the advantages and dis-

advantages of each are discussed below:

1. Recording field observations of results of crop growth on
different soils and under different sets of management prac-
tices. This is done during the course of a soil survey. Such
observations are not precise yield estimates but can be an aid
in classifying the soils from highest to lowest in productivity
for a given crep.

2. Assembling data on crop yields from experimental plots where
fertility, variety and other research trials are being made.
These are accurate yields. The management conditions, howb
ever, may not be generally similar to those on most farms.

3. Ehrvesting smell plots from different soils within the same
field on various farms. Such data are especially useful in
arranging the soils relative to one another and evaluating
current crop yields with common management practices. This
:method is time consuming and requires considerable effort.

41. Studying yield records kept by farmers on fields or farms in
connection with C00perative Extension Service farm accounts,
Furmers Home Administration clients and other farm account
keepers. These may be long time records involving many crops

and management practices. However, the yields may or may not

be by individual fields and often times the soils are variable

 

‘fi

*?~'CIIMT mus». V. n-
I

S.

o.

25

even within a field.

Selecting fields largely of one soil unit and having the farmers
furnish information annually regarding yields and other factors.
This method requires a number of years before accurate and

usable data can be obtained.

 

Sending questionnaires to and visiting with farmers who have F e
kept records. This usually results in reliable estimates of I I“
recent yields. Representative fields of the important soils I

can be selected and the farm Operators asked to cosperate in I
the work of estimating the production of certain soils with tfifl

crcp varieties and practices he has used.

III PROCEDURE

A. Selection of the farms

This study was conducted in Osceola County, Michigan, which
lies within the north central portion of the lower peninsula. This
glaciated area with its many land forms and drift textures contains
numerous soil types, slope and erosion conditions.

Recently, the National Cooperative Soil Survey completed a
detailed soil survey for Osceola County. This area, being com-
pletely upped, provided an excellent apportmity to correlate crcp
yields with kinds of soil.

In order to acquire the most reliable crcp and management in-
formation, the local agricultural agencies were asked to submit a
list of farmers who keep crop yield records. A total of 46 farmers

were suggested in this manner. Nine of these have kept farm ac-

m~," Tl‘S-M '; 1') 1

I

CHI-Ala! >-
I
\

e

count records in cooperation with the Cooperative Extension Service,
26 others have kept records for 3 to 5 years in conjunction with the
Pernrs'fim-ndliniatretien, and all .46 have developed or are in the
process of developing fun- conservation plans with the assistance
of the Soil Conservation Service. This eeleetionof farms was
ideal. not only were crcp yield records available in one form

or another, but the location of the farms was such as to give a
fair representation of all parts of the county and include the
semen agricultural soils. The map in figure 1 shows the location
of the farms in the county as well as in accordance with the gen-
eral soil areas. The results of past experiences the various
agencies have had“ with these farmers indicate a high degree of co-

operation could be expected.

26

 

27

E. Collection of yield, management, and soil data
Questionnaires and personal interviews with farmers coupled
with soil survey information provided the data for this pre-
liminary study.

1. Questionnaire

A questionnaire was sent to each of the 46 farmers. The quest-
ionnaire was designed to cover all phases of crop production.
Specific questions were asked relative to seed quality, soil manage-
ment practices, fertility programs, crop stands, growing seasons

and yields obtained. In addition, the farmers were asked to make

I:
I
I‘
I.
I
I
g
I
II
I

L

a sketch showing field size and location, and to list kind and num-
ber of livestock kept on the farm. An explanatory letter accomp-
anied the questionnaire. An example of the letter and forms used
in this study is given in appendix 1. The questionnaires were sent
September 19, 1901 and 31 of them.were completed and returned by the
farmers.
2. Personal interviews

Two weeks following the date questionnaires were sent, personal
visits were made to each farm. During the interview the farmers
received help in completing questionnaires. Additional information
on crop rotations and soil drainage was also recorded and the ac-
curacy of the completed questionnaires, soil surveys, and methods
of’crop yield measurement was discussed. In addition, the selection
of fields of one kind of soil was emphasized. All of the farmers
and their families were helpful and accommodating. Fifteen of

these farmers were not able to complete the forms because of press-

1mg fbrm work at this time of year. They suggested that any future

   

28

questionnaires be sent during the winter months when farm work is
less pressing.
3. Soil Survey

Each field, for which yield and management data were obtained,
was located on the appropriate soil survey field sheet. The
Osceola County Farm Platbook (Osceola 4H Club Council, 1958) and the
sketches drawn by the farmers were used in locating farms and fields.
The soil type. slope and erosion conditions were readily obtained for
each field in this manner. In fields that possessed more than one
soil type, slope or erosion condition, the preportion of each condi-
tion was determined by measurement with a small plastic grid. The
scale of the grid and soil survey field sheets were 4 inches to a
mile. For each field the mapping unit symbols and the proportion of
each were recorded on the appropriate questionnaire form.

C. Analyses of Yield, Managenent and Soil Data

Before the crap yields obtained from the questionnaires and
personal interviews could be correlated by kinds of soil and manage-
ment for each field, their suitability for use in this study had to
be determined. This suitability was based on the validity of the
yield and management information and the complexity of the soil in
each field.

Yields recorded on questionnaires were measured by several
:metheds. Corn and cat yields from.research trials were precisely
:measured. Corn grain and cat yields, other than those from research
trails, were based on crib and bin measurements. Wheat yields were

based on weight slips from sales. Corn silage and hay yields were

estimates based on silo capacity and bale weight and count. All the

 

> 11-...my“
.'

 

29

farmers who completed questionnaires had records on which to base
their answers. Some questions in the forms were answered from
memory. These questions dealt with climatic conditions, harvesting
losses, and insect problems. In as much as the questionnaires
covered a period of only 3 years, most farmers, while studying their
records, were able to remember fairly well all the management de-
tails. The crOp yields and management information thus obtained wasI
considered suitable for use in this study.

Although the soil survey was found to be very accurate by the
farmers, and 50 percent of the fields contained only one soil, the
number of contrasting soils within some fields created a problem
when correlating crcp yield with soils in these fields. The solu-
tion of this problem was partially overcome by grouping similar
soil conditions into soil management units. Since the soils in
some fields were so complex, their use in this study was abandoned.

The useable information was analyzed by a threefold method as
discussed below. First, the soils occuring in every field were
listed, by soil management units. Second, the levels of management
used in every field were ascertained. Third, the suitable crop
yields were arrayed systematically in a table according to soil
management units and three levels of management.

1. Classifying soils as soil management units

The soils in every field were classified into soil management

‘units. The soil management units can be defined as slope and eroded

phases of the soil management groups described in section II B 3 of

this report.

 

Ith‘ ....':‘r—:!\ It~ ‘l
. " - n

1,,
‘GL.

'\A ‘. l
L
.1
-1 ,7 3152;. -e V

30

The complexity of soil patterns in some parts of the county resulted
in numerous combinations of soil management units in some fields.
The number, prOportions and yield stuiy suitability ratings of the

soil management units occuring in the fields are sumarized below:

 

No. of mgt. PrOportion of Yield study

units mgt. units suitability

present present rating

-‘l:'.‘--—.- fi—— ‘Ifi' excellent*’
2 1 8 1 gOOd j. I
2 2 . 1 fair :5
3 1.: l s 1 questionable : ‘
3 2 s l x 1 poor ;
4 or more - poor :

The fields having poor suitability ratings were not used. If the I“; —

proportion 1:1, 2:1 and lslzl of soil management units were the
result of similar soil drainage, profile texture, slope or erosion
characteristics that could be reasonably grouped, they were used.
Fields classified into one management unit presented an excellent
source of yield and management data. A sumary of the mapping
units in each field used and their proportions are shown in appendix C
2. Determining management levels '
The management levels used in Osceola are numerous. However,
for practical purposes all levels of management were grouped into
three major levels, high, medium, and low. The determination of the
actual level of management used in each field was based on the soil
management practices important for the particular soil group and
crop, the fertility program and the efficiency of farm Operations.
The fertility programs were determined from the ratio of crop-

land screw to livestock numbers and the amounts of commercial ferti-

lizer used. The plant nutrients returned per acre of farmland were

based on the number of animal units per acre and the nutrients

   

31

contained in farm manure (Tisdale and Nelson, 1956); are shown in
table 4. The values from this table plus the amount of commercial
fertilizer gave a picture of the fertility practices on the farm.
Fer each of the major crcps, the management practices were
rated in the following manner. (The most important practices are

listed first for each crcp):

Corn Oats ‘Wheat May 9
7
1. stand density planting date planting date liming Q
1
2. seed variety seeding rates fertility level fertility 3
level =
3. fertility level fertility level seed variety harvesting {
dates {2 L.
4. crcp rotation seed variety seeding rates seed variety 5?“
S. planting date weed control harvesting date weed control

In addition to these practices, soil amendments, such as drainage,
erosion control measures, and irrigation systems required on certain
soil management units, were considered. The management of a particu-
lar field was rated high if all the management practices and re-
quired soil amendments were ideal. If the first 2 management prac-
tices or soil amendments plus any one of the other practices were
not ideal the management of the field was rated medium. When 4 or
more of the practices and amendments were not ideal, the management
of the field was rated low. Each field and crcp was rated in this

fashion. The actual management ratings by fields are shown in

appendix C.

 

32

Table 4. Plant nutrients returned per acre of farmland based

1

on number of animal units per acre. (Tisdale and Nelson,
1956)
No. of acres Tons of lbs. lbs. lbs.

per animal unit manure N P205 K20

1 13. 156. 39. 117.
2 6.5 78. 19. S9.
3 4.3 51. 13. 39.
4 3.2 39. 10. 3o.
5 2.6 31. 8. 23.
6 2.1 25. 6. l9.
7 -l.8 21. S. 16.
10 1.3 15. A. 12.
15 .8 10. 2.4 7.

1

An animal unit equals 1 cow, 5 sheep or 1 horse. 95 percent
of all animals on farms studied were dairy cows. Hence the
pounds of N, P20 , and K20, are based on cow manure which
contains an aver go of .60 percent nitrogen, .15 percent P205
and .45 percent K20.

 

 

 

33

3. Arraying yield data

After the soils were classified into management units and the
levels of management were determined for each field, all the suit-
able yields were arranged in tabular form for each of the major
crops. The form of these tables was similar to table 1 described in
section II B 3 of this report. The form was changed to accomodate
four slope phases (units) of the well drained soil groups and three
management levels in each management unit. The yields were recorded
in the apprOpriate compartments according to soil profile texture,
natural drainage, slepe class, and management level. The actual crop
yields per acre obtained on fields of different soil management units

under high, medium and low levels of management are shown in tables

5 thI‘OURh 80

 

1..

“—3.:

.“pw- .

 

34

Table 5 - Actual corn yields per acre obtained on fields
of different soil nanagement units under high,
medium, and low levels of management:

(99 farm yields 1959 to 1961, inclusive)

4‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent Manage- Natural drainage
material system 0 ,__fl ,, 1 b pig:
,texture value . 33* _fi pg - hvSlp)e,"J Hg,” ..munj
: f12-187i [164275 2 T 0-27!“ 19- 6% :@g
f {tonijUET}:§§'n pug. #94..B£o ton bust «bus ten bus.
: High i 13
. 1 Ibdium g
h.____._-1lmani.i 7 . . 3r ..?.--.1.m p- _ p
7 ; 6o 17‘75 15 90 17 9o 17 80
i t 50 ll 90 12
7 , 15 65 10 75 9
High ' 50 12 oo 9 L
l 12 60
’ 10 60
1 —— ————— .- 1752-” 7 a» m
710 9 7s 1'5 43 9 so
i , ‘55 316 7
2 Hbdiumf 7-6 8!50 5 55 9 l
. 3 7 6! 7 8 a
‘ 46 6145
3 8 . i o 8
_ 1* 1§-—---1rw—~ r *L— ~ 1
, :50 15 90 f ;
,Hish . 4350 ' 16 F j
3 Medium """" 1... I 10 60 ;
LOW . 603 f f
g I 6’ 3 40 3
' 12r E 1
4/2 Nbdiumj 12} [A A; j
' 17 80 12% $18 85 12 75 2 ;
mph 15 25 11! f 42 10 7o I
. 1 143 i 9 65 i
2 z 7 r
g i 17 i
4 . ; 6 . 12 40 5 ’
3 4 mm’ 10 £ -_._1_-__3 80
i I... ‘ so
T 1. '7 ‘ I a
I High ; : . 7 34o 76 6
.' 1 - '
r s : wf : *1”
' .Medium 3 g 1° ‘
L. ! A g- 2 3 n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Ton represen 3 tons of silagw

 

35

Table 6. Actual oat yields in bushels per acre obtained on
fields of different soil management units under high,
medium and low levels of management:

(63 farm yields 1959 to 1961 inclusive)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[—— Parent manage- Natural drainage
material ment . “'W'N- "”“W'hmw-'"b I
texture system ‘” _A A 810 e ’ ;“‘
value 1.248% 6.12% 2-67.- 1‘ o—"ééfi'h-nggj,
l
1 High 74.4
111?}: 52 80 7o 50
19 65.
75 66 50 50
2 Nbdium 50 65 45’
40 62 25 1
60 L
25 32 20 SO 35
Low 20 3o 40 35
23 4o 10
23 4o __
High ________ 4*-45 60,20 .fi J
3 Jagger”)- ~ j "40 __6qhhww-w_w_
++——— LOW r——----—J. 43(8) 50 D"123.39.3gr T) I
. L l
4/2 Luge; ___ ____ "j 70 50» L
1am ' ' 450' ‘" My ‘
52 7§i 70.40.30
4 High 20 35 ho,4o,3oJ
l 7 50.40.30
JP. ._ W, _s__-_.--. -
) Medium S 30
Low 25 3o 20 2o 20 .
5 High 54‘ }
lbdium 20 ' I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Actual wheat yields, in bushels per acre, obtained on
fields of different soil management units under high,
medium, and low levels of management:

(47 farm yields 1959 to 1901 inclusive)
Parent Management Natural drainage
material ‘system a Iw W
texture va lue . k grape a
12-187: 6-129’. 2-69? 0-29: 0-6;
‘High 40 43 45
'43 145
2 30 33.30781 1 43
lbdiun 60,40,20( 29 42
9.33 5 w 25
LOW 35 V 052 035 g __
39 _
3 Median 25 15

4/2 Median 20

High 40 v"
4 lbdium 3o 20 0 f7 90:26.1039 38

Low 15 IS 1T3; m
S radian 35

7 J

 

 

 

 

 

37

Table 8. Actual alfalfa-bromegrass hay yields, in tons per acre,
obtained on fields of different soil management units
under high, medium, and low levels of management:

(101 farm yields in Osceola County, 1959 to
1961 inclusive)

 

‘mu‘~‘*-_-«~o—---MQ-M- v— “—1 v—w—v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farent Management—l Natural drainage

’material system __, _ —~T_§,W '—" - " ....Li “__h_1_j.

gtexture value l ”_flvPe .____ --w-

i 12-18% 6-12% 2-62' 0-25’ 0-6%

1

1 High } 405.207 505.5 4

i nmflh_mMM__ - dné3, J ,EL_2_h2mu 71w-wfmmj

i [ 3 4,205,106 15, 207 1403 400

1 2.7 4,2.2,4.5 4, 2 3.5 3.9

I 2' tNBdim 2 3,2 1305,105 |

l 7,_,__--.____._- -. 2 4r... ):31-.. I. 2'51 1‘7 ‘ 3 ~ , --.. .1 _

'2 3.5.2.5 12.7.1.5 2 2.5 i

; 3s 2 2.531’5 1 2

1 Low 2.5.2 2.5.1 E 1

1 2.5,2 :2, 1 f

L_n H*_ “*Hmw a- 1.1. 2.5,118 2,2.2,1 I y _ ‘____*

E Medium ' 3 4.3.3.5 i

i 3 . -11-"11 .. .111 1 - F39“ Z___I.__fin- ‘MM_- _---

i- "___n_}ms1_11.741 ”mmupa}:§LJflL£fiQ-fi_L~ ' *l- __“._-

g / High 1 6.4,2.5 l i

' 4/ 2 I“ - _______ ._ ,_ ._ 2__°L.1.35_- ---1; . -... -- ; a

L_~_ Low #3 7r _mwui§:§,l.5 F- ? 7-.——l

é High 1 3 1 t3 ;1 l

i 21-171”--Manimw 245M~~_#h5_n~LF J

i 4 1&dium !1 205,2 205,108 {4 2 108,06

‘ . ___,W- n i , 2.1-5. $2,201”- - 52 _. _ .211-.. ___

l L0" 105 T 1.05 v ___1

1" ---__.-4,._._._._..,._.. -_ . - - l . .. l .. .. -.. -7 . .-- . ' ___...“ -. _...1 ._ -
S I Medium : Tz’l°7’°9i .

 

 

 

IV RESULTS

From the 31 completed questionnaires, 96 yields of corn, 68
yields of cats, 40 yields of wheat and 101 yields of hay were
obtained for use. Additional yields were also obtained but were
discarded, because the soils were too complex. Considering the time
and expense it took to collect these yields, the method of using
questionnaires and personal interview with selected farmers is very
efficient and effective as indicated by the results above.

In the study, average crop yields for the kinds of soil that
occur in Osceola County under various management levels were sought.
These average yields were found for the management unit groupingsof
the common agricultural soils. The average yields are shown in Table
9. 2 to 10 individual yields were used in determining averages.

In addition some individual yields were entered in Table 9 and
are shown in parentheses. These yields were either accurately ob-
tained from research trials or seemed to be reasonably medal for the
particular management unit and level of management when compared to
nearby units or levels in the Table. Even though reasonably accurate,
extremely high or low individual yields were not entered in Table 9,
as they detracted from the trends in average yields. They are an-

tered in Tables 5 through 8 as actual yields.

38

 

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Average crcp yields per acre obtained by different soil
management units under high, medium, and low levels of
management: (296 farm yields, 1959 to 1961 inclusive)

f ' ’ __k Ave—rage -ac—re yields‘-*‘-j I

Soil managenent Slepe Soil 5 Corn ‘ Corn IOats JWheatlAlfaT-a

area : group & :gradient‘ met. tsilagmgrain bromeIfi]

(see Fig.2). soil seriesv ‘system‘ ihay ’__'

' 1 tons bu. bu. bu. {tone
I High 55 (4o) '
’6,7,8 lZ-lb% Nbd. 7.6 50 (3o) 2.;
4L; ;_ Low ___ 54 23 '
‘ l - ‘ Hich TLTT 61 75 13:6
0,7 2a ‘ e-izfi had. 7.5 55 53 44 2.7
1* Low 4; 1 Q} 26 430 2.4
‘ Nester I High‘*12.E i 85’ 62 44 4.6
5,6 Isabella ; 2-6% Nbd. ‘11.2 I 49 (50) 38.5 3.1
LOW 705 _n 30 108
, _ Med. 3.9
{5 y 0'2% Low (2)
T56 2h fife-cf ninuii4ii‘fi 9o (45 *2.0
j ' Kawkawlin A ” Med.4¥ 9. (50) (3111.2:3 ,
:13.6.7 7.9, _17:'_im3 T 0-29: High (177 . ((30) ‘
1.2-.. 8 . __ __ZCH‘J 0 _ __ V _ 25'
HiEh' . 56’ (45; _‘
,. 642% Med. . § (40) .2
2,7 3a 1. Low 6.2 ‘ L301 1.; _
High 7 (90) 40 9‘“i
McBride 2-ufl Med. (10) (60) 3.3
Newaygo Low (40) 38
‘9 ”'"‘*‘§IEE'_ “~" ‘*~‘ 6? .
5,6 4/223 642% Med. 1? __ g (50) 3 3
;' Mnominee Z-Q‘Z': “Med.” _- V -.--.. ...: 1--.; 1,8
‘2,3,7 12-1857, kid. . 8 I 25 2
4. Low 1 (25) (15) (1.5)
; Montcalm High 12.3 . A9 -““‘*‘"‘
E 29397 M3110. 1.0153 6.12%: ”do K 1805 2.1 '
_ Blue Lake _ now ‘ 2;; 115)__~._23_m;
; 1 High 167 T 63 2.8 ‘
'2,7,10 I 2-6% Med. 12) 60 3o) 29 2.é
: LOW (20) Eff-in
f ; High 11 f’7o 43 4g ‘f2.§fi
;10 0-22 Med. (5) (40) (38) 1.1
In .Tn _“gmmmwwwjedm-,,.4mean0.-nnmm-“-u

1 ' 12-18% Med. _g____ _(1.s ’

T o ”(n ~— ,"._~') " High (7—) AOT f .

4.4.3 In.}h5ka ~4i'“'“ firlbd. ; -0 ; ~ (3?;

Graycalm )
N High (76 (S4)
2'4 , _- ~_- -..WZLE’; m- Med: ;. . ....ii._..._..._ (201, -7 anal-35 _-.
b le‘h b ' '
iuGres O'6% ( ) I I 4
yields

( ) Single

 

 

V DISCUSSION

The influence of different soil management units, soil erosion
classes, slope classes, and management levels on crop yields can be
evaluated by close examination of table 9 and the four preceding
tables.

Table 9 shows that management levels affect crop yields on
every management unit. The use of high management levels in many
cases increased yields and in some instances more than doubled crcp
yields over the use of low management levels. For example, corn
silage yields on the 2s soils with 2-6 percent slopes under high,
mediun, and low management levels are 12.6, 11.2, and 7.5 tons,
respectively. Hay yields on these same soils and management levels
are 4.6, 3.1, and 1.8 tons per acre, respectively. Several other
examples showing the effects of different management levels on crop
yields are easily observed in table 9.

The influence of different levels of management on crop yields
tend to vary by soil profile texture, sloPe classes and crop. On
the 6-12 percent slopes of-the 2a, 3a, and 4a, the use of high man-
agement levels over that of low management levels gave increases
of oat yields per acre of 49, 7, and 24 bushels, respectively.

The 7 bushel yield differential maybe dubious as it represents only
2 single yields. In comparison to the 49 bushel differential in

cats yield above, corn yield differentials on these same 2a soils
were only 18 bushels per acre. This exemplifies that different crops
vary in their response to high management levels, or that the range
of management applied to cash crop is rarrower and higher

The influence of texture of parent material and natural soil

4O

 

41

drainage on yields as reflected by the soil management units is
apparent. When corn silage yields on the 3s soils with.2-(3 slopes
with medium and high management levels were averaged, they were

1.6 tons higher than those on the 2a soil, with similar slape and
management. Corn grain yield difTerences were similar. The Be
soils out yielded the 2a soils by 8 bushels per acre. Corn yields
on the 4a soils with similar slope and management were 6 bushel per
acre less than those on the 2a and 14 bushels less than on the Be
soils. Corn yields on the 2b soils were almost out in half where
adequate drainage was lacking. Oat yields follow a similar trend.
However, the Zn soils are the most productive. By averaging the
the yields for all 3 management levels for the 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a
soils on 6-12 percent slapes, the following average yields in
bushels per acre were obtained; 51, 41, 37. and 35, respectively.
These differences can be attributed largely to the different parent
material textures.

The influence of all the different soils on wheat yields could
not be observed in the table as most of the yields were obtained on
the 2a soils. A comparison can be made between the 2a and 4a soils
on 2-6 percent slopes with medium management, the 2a soils have
yields of 33.5 bushels per acre while the 4a soils have 29. On
6-12 percent slopes on these soils the wheat yields with medium
management levels were 44. and l8.5 bushels, respectively. The 2a
soils are more productive than the 4a soils.

The influence of erosion on hay yields is apparent as shown in

the following tabulation.

42

CrOp mtg. level erosion
slight moderate
corn high 58 bu. 50 bu.
medium 7.5 tons 7.0 tons
hay high 3.5 tons ---
medium 2.1 tons 3.5 tons
low 2.2 tons 2.6 tons

On the moderately eroded 2a soils (6-12 percent slopes), hay yields
obtained under medium levels of'management were 1.4 tons per acre
higher than those obtained on slightly eroded conditions on similar
soils and management. Under low levels of'management they'were
.4 tons higher. On these eroded soils the plow layer consists of a
mixture of'the surfnee (A) and subsoil (B) horizons. This mixing
eliminates partly the acid condition of the B horizon as shown in
Figure 3. Also A and B horizons are thinner. These conditions per-
mit the alfalfa roots to easily and readily reach the calcareous
parent material. Alfalfa responds favorably to these conditions and
this response may account for the increased yields of hay on eroded
soils. The effects of these moderately eroded soils compared to
slightly eroded soils under high management levels decreased corn
grain yields 8 bushels per acre and under medium management levels
corn silage yields .5 ton.

The effects of soil slope on crcp yields is shown in table 9.
For corn grain, steeper slopes show lower yields with high level of
management than on milder slopes with similar management. Since
corn yields have been higher when correlated with thicker surface
horizons, the generally thin surface horizons on these slepes may be

limiting corn yields.

43

Some general relationships between soils, crops, and soil
management can be observed in tables 5 through 8. First, the scant
number of yields obtained in this study for the poorly and im-
perfectly drained soils show that these soils are not used exten-
sively for cropland in the county.

Second, the concentration of wheat yields in the 2a group of
soils indicates that wheat is particularly adapted to this soil group.
Surplus crcp centrols have restricted acreage of wheat, consequently
farmers are growing wheat only on their more productive lands. This
practice has increased wheat yields probably more than has the use
of better or other management practices.

Third, management levels used varied among the major crops
grown in the county. By averaging the management levels (hill, m:?,,
1.33) determined fer each yield used in this study, the average
management level for each of the major crops was obtained. The corn
crops were grown with the highest average management, wheat ranked
second with a median management, hay ranked third, a low-median
management, and oats ranked last with a low management rating. Good
management is essential for profitable corn production and many of
the farmers are aware of and use management practices that insure
high yields. Oat yields are low because legume grass seedings are
made with cats and seeding rates of cats are reduced to insure good
stands of hay crops.

Farmers who were successful in getting high crcp yields were
asked to rate the value of the soil amendments and management

practices in accordance to the soils on their farms. A summary of

these ratings by soil groups follow. The highest rated practices are

 

listed first:

la,2a,3a 2i,20 4a,5a
l. Liming 1. draining 1. irrigation
(potatoes,strawberriea)
2. Fertilizing 2. fertilizing 2. liming
3. PrOper timing 3. proper timing 3. fertilizing
of operations
4. Planting adapted 4. planting adapted 4. preper timing of
crap varieties crop varieties Operations
5. Rotating crops 5. rotating crops 5. planting adapted

crop varieties

6. rotating crops

Seeding rates affected corn and cat yields especially where the
above practices were used. Stands of 10,000 or less plants per acre
of corn gave only average or low yields. Whereas stands of 14,000
plants per acre gave average to high yields and stands of 18,000
plants per acre generally gave the highest yields. In order to get
18,000 plants per acre, one farmer had to set his corn planter at
22,000 kernels per acre and lubricate his seed corn with powdered
graphite to prevent the planter from cracking the kernels. Altho
theoretically, 12,000 plants per acre should give a 70 bushel yield,
farmers who obtained stands of 14,000 to 16,000 plants per acre
come closer to 70 bushel yields than those who obtained stands of
10,000 to 12,000 plants per acre. Oat yields were highest where
2 to 2% bushels of seed were sown per acre. Seeding rates of 4 to 6

peeks per acre usually reduced yields considerably. All these re-

sults are based on the use of certified seed.

 

A.

VI CONCLUSION

Conclusions concerning the methods used for collecting soil,

crop yield and management information follow 3

1.

2.

4.

S.

The method used in selecting farms for study was ideal.
Counselling with the local agricultural agencies was
especially useful. Farmers who have kept records and
‘would cooperate can be readily selected in this manner.
Soil survey information is easily obtained in areas that
have recently completed surveys.

The use of questionnaires when accompanied with personal
visits provides an excellent means for collecting crop
yields and management information. The number of question-
naires returned is high and the accuracy of yield and man-
agement information can be validated. The farmers sug-
gested that future questionnaires be sent during times
'when farm‘work is less pressing.

The use of soil management units was useful when assembl-
ing management and yield information into usable form.

The method used to determine the management levels for

the different crOp yields was unique. Not only were the
desirable management practices on each crop and needed
soil amendments on each soil taken into consideration but
but the ratio of livestock numbers to cropland acrsswas
determined as a measure of plant nutrients returned to the

soil annually.

45

 

B.

46

Conclusions concerning the yields obtained from this study

follow:

1.

2.

3.

4.

S.

6.

7.

8.

management levels affect crop yields on nearly every soil
management unit.

The influence of different levels of management on crcp
yields tends to vary by soil profile texture, surface slcpe,
drainage, and kind of crop.

The influence of texture of parent material on yields is
apparent. The 3a group gave maximum.yield of corn'with good
management but the 2a group was most productive for other
crops studied.

The effects of soil slope on crop yields varied to some
extent by soil management groups and management levels.

In many cases, cornersmall grain yields were lowered on the
steeper slopes.

The poorly and imperfectly drained soils are not used
extensively for cropland in Osceola County.

The increase in wheat yields from 1949 to 1960 1. due to
the growing of’more wheat on the 2s soils. ‘Wheat is well
adapted to this group.

moderately eroded 2a soils show an increase of 1.4 tons of
hay over slightly eroded 2a soils with similar slepes and
management levels.

The foregoing conclusions are based on the observations
made in this study. Further study may substantiate or

change the results of these observations. As it is crop

yield differences of less than 10 percent cannot be

 

9.

47

considered significant.
The eXpected crop yields for the management units under
high, medium, and low levels of'management, as shown in

table 10, are based on the above observations.

C. Conclusions concerning further research needs follow:

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

It was assumed that climatic conditions affected all parts
of the county equally. Further research is needed to
determine the actual effects of climate on crop yields by
different soil textures, natural drainage, slopes, and
location of soils in respect to woodland.

Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of
different combinations of management practices on crop
yields. Even though individual management practices have
great value, it is apparent that certain combinations of

management practices enhance the value of some individual

_practices.

Crop yields fluctuate cyclically over a period of 3 to 7
years in Osceola County as shown in figure 1. With fur-
ther study, it might be possible to collect yield and
management information for only one year and compute
average yields by taking into eensideraticn that portion

of the crop yield cycle that varies from the actual period
observed.

A follow up on the farms and fields used in this study

would enhance the value of the results.

48

Table 10, Estimated crop yields per acre obtainable on different
soil management units of the common agricultural soils
under high, medium and low management:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§3011 slope soil average acre yields
:mgt.group l gradient: management corn 'corn i oats Tithe—at I alfalfa?
Q8: soil , system ; silage!- grain i‘ ' lbrome
, series ' I i ‘ . ! hay
1.. --_L _.- i -,,-._--m_.n__-u.unm_ _--.“.-.i----_.;.. -_
‘ ! Ltons ibu. ; bu. § bu. itons
g high a10-5 55 i 60 E 40 .3.8
: 12-187; ; med. 9.4 47 i 50 . 30 ';2.5
. ~4.19s __-._8.0 ’49- if 2.3 ’ -1? . 4,-5. . -
. ; 1 high 11.0 :61 i 63 3 48 74.0 "'—
12. 6-12% i med. 9.5 :55 53 i 44 2.7
! Nestor -- 7 _lcw __fi__8.6k - L43-.. :6” g 30 , 2.5
FIsabella I high 13.0 .85 j-62 “i 44 14.4 ‘8
j: ' 2-6% med. 11e2 5 49 l 50 ‘ 38 . 3.0
_ - - 1.03...- ---.-2-6..l .36 i 36 30 21.3
: ‘ " " high . , ' . 43' .
' O'2% I md. ’ " 4e0
L 10' _ l __ _- _g _ , 2.0
3 2b _ T high ; 15 9o - 45 4.0
i Kawkawlin 0-67; i ”do : 9e0 ;45 33e5 2e3
1.- _ . - 3.1.9! _ 1 .1 ----r . . 3 .. --11-9.--.
1 20 1 high g 16 80 - . 35 14.0
: Sims 0-29: 1 mod. ; 1o .50 - } 15 ;2.5
-..- - - _-- .._,___-i-14v.:.-- 110.- _ o -_-___ z - ‘1-0
' 4 high ' 12 60 ? 45 ’3.2
; 12-18% E med. ; 8 .40 3 4o 25 1.5
i --. _- --., .13.! --. -1 5 _- _125 ...L35. . .. _i1!o___._.
: ; high ; 14 ,70 1 58 3.5
’ 6-1273 ; med. 3 10 I 50 ; 40 2.0
34 . -- _ _ i 10):..- - _ié-z 53.5---- 1.33 1-5 ..
McBride ‘ high % 17 i 90 i 65 4.5
_ Newaygo 24% 1 mod. f 12 560 5 60 3.
' _ --- 4.19-, ,. - .3. - ..«..4.9--.1..4.Q. - 210--..
i I high . 1? ‘90 ': 65 {4.5
f 0.2% .med. , 12 160 g 60 13.5
- f. , - 11am _ _8 [59%-440“ __ -- 5‘2.0
i 1 high . 14 a 70 3 57 - 3.5
642% med. , 12 160 g 50 52.0
_, _ .ilow. -, .3, -7-5 L32-.. -1 33- ' -115...
4/2. , high 15 1* 75 ‘30 i3°3
Abnominee 2-6% ‘ med. ! 12 1‘ 60 i 48 t 2.0
.. 101-..--- +195. 130 i 34 1.1-5 -
' ‘high I 16 80 j 62 I '2.7
0-27; med. i 13 60 50 g 51.8
_ -- L.-H-i- i 3 - _i ‘

(continued on next page)

 

49

Table 10. Estimated crop yields (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[soil ilepe 3 soil V 9Y??959-5°{EHY¥?1d3
mgt.groupg gradient mgt. s eorn icorn koatsafwheatfalfalfa-
!& soil ’ . system E silageigrain ; ‘ Ibrame
'scries ' i . 1 § I jhay
9 L f F I t “ E ‘4* '
' i : tons Qbu. 'bu. bu. ltons
i high 11 :50 §35 30 2.5
, 12.-189: j med. . 8 *40 :30 . 25 1 2
1 ‘10' . _4‘_.‘20__.25,__;_h15__l+1.5 j
i ' high ' 12 E60 T115 g 32 f 2.5
14a 1 6-12% , med. ; 9 i4S §37 ¥ 20 :20
Montcalm r - 91.191--- -.L___§_._.;?§.-- -125 -4.15--!-10.....
i Hancelona . I high 1 14 .65 i40 . 35 L3
fiBlue Lake ‘ 2-6% } med. g 10 ISO 130 ; 29 {2.5
i ., _ --. . 19m .- J__--_6-- .30 1-2.0. 13 ”-0
1 . high ; 11 ‘70 g43 £40 {2.5
1 0-2,. ; med. ; 6 ;40 '32 , 35 i 1.5
- ... ' .103. - - _S 325.. (29,- 1 25-1-5
, high - I- ’- ' 25 {2.0”
x 12-187; med. - i- '- 20 ; 1.5
* ._ -_ -_ 1 low. _- .-.-__-_ --r__-- _.m. --.-1
‘54 high 7 40 50 i 30 2.0
{ Kalkaslm ? 642% med. 6 3o 3 20 25 g 1.5
:Graycalm. 1 ---... 1-10" 4 LZQ -..glo ..r.15. i '7
g : g high 8 145 E50 30 :2-0
: 2-6% I med. 5 7 540 g25 25 *’ 1.5
i 3 _-1 .10" ; 14-129-119- 15- --§ .
high . 7 :45 :45 25 2.0
. 0-27; j med. 5 6 .30 520 , 20 i1.o
: z , low 1 4 :10 :10 s 10 f -

 

BIQLIOGRAPHY

Bates R.P. 1955. Climatic Factors and Cropgiields in Texas
Blacklands. Agronomy Journal 47: 3674369

 

 

Dean L.A. 1957. Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility. Soil,
The Year Book Of Agriculture, p80. United States Department
of Agriculture, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Humphry, Harry B. 1941. Climate and Plant Diseases. Climate

and Man, The Year Book of Agriculture pp 292-305. Uhited States
Department of Agriculture, Government Printing Office, Weshington
D.C.

Hyslop, James A. 1941. Insects and the Weather, Climate and
Man, The Year Book of Agriculture, pp 503-507. United States
Department of Agriculture, Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.

Lyon, T. Lyttleton and Buckman, Harry 0. 1943. The_pature and
‘Pgoperties of Soils. The mecmillan Company. ’

 

 

Michigan Agriculture Statistics. 1949-1961. Michigan Department
of Agriculture, Michigan Cr0p Reporting Service, Cooperating with
United States Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan State University, Staff Members of Soil Science and
Herticulture Departments. 1959. Fertilizer Recommendations f9:
Michigan Crops, Extension Bulletin E4159.

 

 

Odell R.T. 1947. How Productive are the Soils of Central
Illinois. university of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 522, Urbana, Illinois.

 

Osceola 4 H Club Council. 1958. .23?“ Platbook. #QSCGOII County,
Michigag, The Osceola County Hearld, Reed City, Huchigan.

 

 

 

 

Rather, Howard C. 1942. Farm Crops. NbGrawbHill Book Company
Inc., New York. .

Roberts, L.M. and Jones, D.F. 1940. Ensila Corn Trails at
ngmel Conflpcticut, Connecticut Agriculture? Experimental?
Station,—Numeographed Progress Report.

 

Russell, E.J. 1937. Soil Conditions and_Plant Growth, pp 32-57
Longmans, Green and Company, New York.

Russell, M.B. 1957. ‘Physioal Properties. Soil, the Year Book of

Agriculture pp. 31-37. united States Department of Agriculture,
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

 

50

51

Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil Survey manual, United States
Department of Agriculture, Handbook 13. Government Printing
Office, washington D.C.

 

The ISCC-NBS lbthod of Designating Colors and a Dictionary of
Memes. United States Departmntfiwmerm. 1955.
National Bureau of Standards Circular 553. United States
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

 

 

Tisdale, S.L. and Nelson, W.L. 1956. Soil Fertility and
Fertilizers p. 235. Macmillan Cc., New—York.

 

 

Wadleigh, C.H. 1957. Growth of Plants. Soil, the Year Book
of Agriculture, pp.36-4$, United States Department of Agriculture
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Went, F.’N. 1950. Response of Plants to Climate.
Science 112: 489-494

 

Appendix A

Sample letter and questionnaire forms with which yield and
management data were collected.

Soil Conservation Service
Box 37

Gladwin, Michigan
December, 1961

Dear Sir:

The National COOperative Soil Survey is preparing to publish the
Completed soil survey of your county. we need your help in compiling
crop yield information for the different soils that are in your
county.

Your farm was suggested as a possible source of this informa-
tion by your County Director of Agriculture, Farmers Home Adminis-
tration Supervisor and the Soil Conservation Service Technician.

By filling in the attached forms and dropping them in the nail,

you‘will materially help to establish realistic crop yields for the
soils in the county.

‘Please use the following plan when filling out forms.

1. ‘lrite your name, address, township and section at the

top of page 2. Also draw a sketch of fern.and enter
livestock numbers .

2. Use pages 3 and 4 for corn crops, 5 and 6 for cats,
7 and 8 for hay and 9 and 10 for wheat, potatoes or any
other major crop grown on the fawn.

3. Record your 1961 corn crop for only one field in the
first column on pages 3 and 4, then record 1960 corn

crop for only one field in second column, finally record
1959 corn crop in last column.

4. Use the same procedure as in 3 above for other major
crops grown on your farm.

The information you provide will be treated confidentially. It
‘will be used in developing yield tables for the agricultural soils in
Osceola County. The information will be useful to farmers like your-

self in planning their cropping rotations, fertility programs and
mane gement practices .

If you need help in filling out forms, please call.

Thank you for your time and effort. we would appreciate hear-
ing from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Ken Bettert

52

53 Page 2

Name Address
Township Section
Total acres on farm Acres cropland

Draw a sketch of your farm. Number the fields and indicate the
number of acres in each field. Show which direction is north. The
maps or sketches in your Farm Conservation Plan, F.H.A. Record or

A.S.C. Farm Folder can be used as a guide.

In the following blanks fill in the average number of animals kept
on your farm.

Dairy cows Steers
Heifers 2 yr. Ewes
Heifers 1 yr. Pigs

Beef cows Hens

 

54

Please record (i.e. corn, oats, wheat, hay, etc.)
crcp for the past three years. Use back for additional
comments and records.

 

 

.§SPP1' Answer Your Record

Year 1961 1959 1960 1961
Field No. 1 from sketch
Acres in field' 10 acres
Previous crop Alfalfa
Time of plowing Fall 1960
moisture conditions when

plowed Wet
How was field fitted? Plow plant
Erosion control Contouring
Date planted May 10
Variety of seed ‘Certified
Condition of stand Poor
Bushels of manure

applied per acre 90
Tons of’lime applied

per acre 3 tons
Fertiliser analysis and 5-20-20

amount used 200 lbs.
How applied? Plow down

Was fie 1d tested?

Kinds and number of
cultivaticns

Kind and amount of
weed control sprays

Growing seasons
(a) Temperature

(b) Rainfall

(0) Percent & cause
of crop damage
Date harvested
Yield per acre
How'was yield measured?
Harvesting losses

'wa. this a good yield
for this field?

Number of inches of
irrigation‘water
applied

Is drainage
needed?

Crop rotation
followed

55
1959 1960
Yes or no

3

Harrow

2,4o
1/16 per ac.

Normal
above, below

Normal
above , be low

3%
Hail

Nov. 15

60 bu.
wagon leads
In %

Yes or no

None

Yes or no

C-O-H-H

1961

 

Appendix B
Summary of soil, crop yield and management data available by
fields.

Identification of soil numbers, slope letters, and erosion
numbers in each soil symbol are shown in Appendix C. 301' A
‘ ' ted Lhe F3rsL soil numb
The crop, yield and management levels used are indicated bya
three part symbol. The first letter represents the kind of crop,
the numbers represent the yield, and the last letter represents

the level of'management as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

Crop 11112 Hanggement
C 3 Corn Given in h : high
0 : Oats bushels. except n : medium
l’:‘lheat numbers L : low
H :.A1falfa-brome followed by "T”
P 2 Potatoes indicate tons
of silage and
hay yields (H) are
1‘ t°n80
Field No. Soils and proportions Cropland Craps, yields and manage-
ac. per. ment by years.
i animal
1 unit 1959 1960 1961
l 44281-904A0. 9-1 [.8 ClSTh C90h
2 44331 .8 l29n
3 44331 .8 W51.
4 44331-64231. 8-1 , .8 1111.
S 652Bl-217B1. 4-1 32.2 EB.9h 017Th
6 11231-23831. 8-1-1 2.2 33.911 0763 0543
74081 »
7 652B1-7lOBl. 9-1 2.2 ClSTh 074h
2.2 C90Th
8 215c1-48031. 3-1 2.2 0503 36.43
9 44601-23631. 19-1 2.1 3211 065n 02Gb
10 44681-44601. 1-1 2.1 055h 050n. 33.5h
11 446Bl-446C1. 2-1 2.1 35m 35.5m C75n
12 23631-23601. 4-1 3. , 0851.
13 33631-846110. 9-1 3. ClBTh
l4 G236B1-236A1. 9-1 3. C18Th
15 520Bl-52002. 9-1 3. ClSTh
16 0236A1-023631. 1-1 3. 040h
17 6236A1-Ga’23631. 1-1 3. O40h
18 23611 3. 0303
19 48002-780A-
26081. 1-1-1 5. C45n
20 26031 [5. c753

 

 

 

 

 

57

Appendix B (continued)

 

 

64 i 48031

 

 

Field No. [Soils and 9353633153317 Cropland ”Crops, yields and manage-
I as. per. sent by years.
7 '_ animal 7
:_ _+_unit 1959 1960 1961
21 ‘ 48031-48003- 1
11602. 2-1-1 . 5. 01013 31.6L 31.7L
22 480C248031e 1‘1 5e H2.2m
23 36531 , 7. 01473 01113
24 26031 ; 7. iCSTm 020L
25 23601 3 7. 0753
26 023631-023631. 2-1 ; 7. 0-3 343
27 36531-26031. 4-1 3 7. 32.53
28 27231-48000. 9-1 1 . 34.5-
, 29 26311 ;10 01013
30 26331 :10 C9Th
31 26331 .10 0713 0503 32.53
32 26331-26031. 3-1 110 0113
33 26311 :10 .313 32.53
34 22131 ' 4.5 i 07.533
35 48402-71031. 1-1 ; 4.5 i 083:
36 148431-65331. 1-1 s 4.5 jcsTm
37 11232 4.5 i 0233
39 44331-23602. 4-1 ‘ 4.5 ; 043.
40 65331-48431. 3-1 7 4.5 : H4m 32.5L
41 :48431-48402. 1-1 74.5 gnnn
42 11231-23601. 4-1 . 2.3 B2: 0101::
44 26001-26031. 2-1 .' 2.3 010113
45 26031-22131. 1-1 ‘ 2. 0553
46 26001-26031. 1-1 2. 0753
47 26031-70231- 2-1-1 ; 2. ‘0503
22101. ‘ i
48 34301-260Dl- 2-1-1 2. ' H31
11231. ;
49 23601-46531. 1-1 6.2 H.5L 0503
50 23631. ; 6.2 anon 0403 0303
51 23601-11602. 4-1 1 6.2 0423 0373 th
52 46531-23631. 4-1 g 6.2 0203
53 23602 f 6.2 W173:
55 x 46502 ' 6.2 ' 06.3131
56 48003-46532. 2-1 6.2 07.633
57 48202-48031- 1-1-1 7 6.2 0623
46502. :
58 ' 46532 ; 6.2 O39L
59 4 46502 1 6.2 0381. 111.21..
60 f 46532-48031, 1-1 i 6.2 133.53 34.33
61 - 48231-65431. 2-1 3 4. ' 01013
62 E 48031-21731. 1-1 ! 4. 0403
63 65431-48001. 1-1 7 4. :C9Th 3433
4. ' 3483

58

Appendix 3 (Continued)

 

 

 

Field No.7 Soils and proportions [CrOpland Crops, yields and manage-
ac. per. ment by years
animal
_unit 1959 1960 1961
65 48002 4e 1 mm
67 48002-48032. 2-1 = 4. 32.53
68 48001 ' 2. 333 0623 0903
69 48001 2. 01713
70 48202-48202. 1-1 2. '0511. 065:
71 48001 ; 2. 0753
72 48001 g 2. 0253 32.73
73 48001 = 2. 31.73
74 48001 1 5. 10453
75 48231-48201- 1-1-1 5. i M511
65331. ' g
76 ~ 65431-48231. 1-1 3 5. 1 W233:
77 . 48231 1 5. $3433 343 323
78 48231-48202- 1-1-1 5 . !321
. 653Ble : i
79 t 48002 ; 40 t . ClSTh
80 ' 74131 :4. : ' 0101'}:
81 48202-23602. 2-1 7 4. W301. 01513 050-
82 : 236C]. ' 4. 012171 0201.
83 480C]. 4 e C 12h M Hz e5.
84 48001 g 4. 0603 32.53
86 3 48001 a' 4. 0501.
87 ; 48202-23602. 4-1 5 4. 343
88 = 48202-23602. 2-1 :4. 32.51.
89 ‘1 48202 f 4. 335m
90 3 48202 4. 3301.
91 90430-21301 2-1 , 3. 0803
01723
92 f 48231-46531-
‘ 65430. 2-1-1 « 3. 01833 0161‘s 0703
93 21731-21701. 1-1 ’ 3. 01213 0503
94 _48231-65431. 1-1 3. 0101. 35. 343
95 48231-90430- 2-1-1 3. H31-
. 21731.
96 '1 48031 3.8 31.51. 0903
97 48002 a 3.8 ‘0581.
98 48231-33581. 1-1 ; 3.8 016113 0501.
99 48002 i 3.8 7 0201.
101 48002-48031. 1-1 7 3.8 32.7-
102 48031 g 3.8 m1.
103 44602-44632- 1-1-1 3 06113 010113
44601.
104 44601-44601 1-1 040-
05 23631. 1 33" 34" H5"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Appendix B (Continued)

 

 

 

Field No. Soils and preportions Cropland 1 Craps, yields and manage-
ac. per. ment by years
animal
unit 1959 1960 1961 _
106 48232 2.7 H2.SL CllTh
107 48002-48002- 1-1-1 2.7 03.41L
12002.
108 48031-12001. 1-1 2.7 1 03.61 0353
109 48031-12001. 1-1 2.7 3 0353
110 48032-48002. 2-1 2.7 g 311.
112 44301 6.6 ; 0913
113 44301-44301. 1-1 6.6 2 0713 0503
114 44331-44301. 1-1 6.6 F C7TL
115 44303-44302 1-1 6.6 0251
116 44401-64831. 4-1 6.6 0301
117 44681-44302. 1-1 6.6 W2Sm
118 44401 6.6 waon
119 44603-44432. 2-1 6.6 W40m :33.
121 44602-44631- 1-1-1 6.6 ? 32.3
64831 I
122 46531-66331- E
I 859AO e 1" 1‘1 6 e6 7 C 85‘
123 46531 6.6 : 060m 0603
124 46531-11231- l-l-l 6.6 080m 03SL
23631.
125 23602-46502. 4-1 6.6 0251.
126 48201-48231- 1 -
48202. 2-1-1 6.6 W351
127 48202-46532 2-1 6.6 W35L
128 48201- 6.6 326L
129 46501-46531-
66331. 2-1-1 6.6 31.8L
130 48201-48031-
48202. 3-1-1 6.6 32.5L
131 23601-48201 1-1 6.6 32L
132 260A1 6.6 C708
133 26031 6.6 W38m 01213 0603
134 26331 017111 0701-1
135 260Al-26OBl l-l O30n H.75m
136 26031-11201 l-l 6.6 W50:
13? 26331 6.6 H403
138 26031-26031 2-1 6.6 333
139 260B1 6.6 126 eow days per. acre
140 160A1-236Bl 4-1 15 on: seeded 111.511
141 48032 2.2 0913 0401.1
142 10032 2.2 020m
143 48032-48003-
23602 4-1 2.2 H2L
144 48032 2.2 Hl.2L

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

Appendix 8 (Continued)

...—___-.— .

 

_ .... _--.“- - --

 

 

Field No. Soils and proportions, Crepland 'CrOps, yields and manage-
ao. per. ment by years
unit 1959 1960 1961“‘_
145 10031-92030 4-1 2.2 H.9m
146 48001 4. 0301
147 46502-48002 4-1 4. 0503
148 48002-48231 2-1 4. 0503 0520 33m
149 46502-48002
150 . 11602-48002 4-1 4. i 0201
151 i 11602 4. a 32.53 323
152 ; 23631-44331 2-1 4. 3203
153 .j 48002 3203
154 1 43001-11602 1-1 4. ; W15m
155 21701-23601- 1
‘ 236Bl-465D1- i
44301. 4-2-2-2 1.6 3 32.73 32.83 31.53
156 48202-23602- 1
7 11192-223D1e 1-1'1‘1 6.4 ' E2053
157 22301-23602-
23602-11102. 2-1-1—1 6.4 H2m
158 42631-27131-
38001. 2-1-1 6.4 01013
159 11202-22302 71-1 6.4 J 0403
160 1 48202-42631-
38001-27131. 6-2-2-1 6.4 0603
161 22302-38001-
22301. 5-4-1 6.4 0403
162 ! 38001-42631-
* 27131. 2-1-1 6.4 0603
163 23602-11102. .
11102. 2-1-1 6.4 i 0353
164 38001-42631- ;
22301-27131. 5-2-2-1 6.4 3 WZSm
165 44380-44302 1-1 : H2.SL
166 48002-44301 3-1 3 321
167 46532-71030-
65310 3-1-2 321 0253
168 46531 P2003
169 44602 32003 0321
170 44603 0703
171 44302-44330 1-1 0231
172 44602 cSSh
173 48002-44301 4-1 0503
174 11231 4.5 34003
175 11202-23631 1-1 4.5 35003
176 11232 4.5 P3503
177 64230-46502 1-1 4.5 HZL W42m
178 11202 4.5 W351:
180 21452-11202. 2-1 4.5 H1.5L

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

Appendix B (Continued)

 

. ...—_.- ”...—..."-

 

Field No. Soils end proportions Croplend 7 Crops, yields and manage-
00. per. ment by years
11 unit 1959 1960 1961_¢A
181' 23602-21702- 6-2-1 4.4 31.83 01513
21702
182 23602 4.4 01213
183 7 23602 4.4 0253
184 , 23601.-482C1- ;
. 11101. 5-3-2 4.4 % 030L
185 23602-48002 1-1 4.4 3 3351
186 23601-23602 1-1 4.4 l W20L
18? 23602 4.4 g 323
188 I 23602 7 i 333
189 48001-65431- ;
190 48001-65431 1-1 ; 3.8 0503
191 48032-65331 8-1 3 3.8 0653
192 48001-65331 1-1 7 3.8 0603
193 21701-48202- 1
48001 18-2-1 { 3.8 ; 0703
194 5 48001-48001- 3 '3
; 65431-21701 6-2-1-1 ; 3.8 ! 31.71
195 ; 48201-90710- ; :
3 23601. 7-2-1 ; 3.8 3593
196 3 23601-42631- . 0703
3 46501 5-4-1 1 2.3 01213 01213
197 g 44631-23601 3-1 1 2.3 a 01513 0453 32.23
: . '0903
198 I 21701-10001- {
3 12001-48002. 4-3-2-1 g 3203 0503
199 é 23631-42631- 3
§ 44331. 5-3-2 % 0201 323
200 é 46502-44331 4-1 ' 313
201 ? 21501-48231 3-1 4 01713 01113
202‘ * 44231-44201-
3 23601. 4-5-1 0603 0803
203 i 44331-44201 1-1 4 0503
204 . 44231-44201 1-1 4 0703
205 , 44282 4 HSn
206 ; 44202-44201- 1
: 44231e 1-1-1 4 H4e5h
207 46531 4 33.53
208 .1 44202 4 0603
209 E 44202 4 3603
210 5 44202 4 355.
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Soil identification legend for soil symbols in fields studied

Fie 1d
number

100,110
102
105
111,112
116,221

118
114 , 115
120
202
213
214
215
216
217
223
236
$236

0236

‘ 238
239
260
262
263
270,271

320
325
335
365
380
418
442
443,444
446
465
466
479
480,485
482,484

Pie 1d
name

—.

Kalkaska sand

East Lake loamy sand
fibllaee send
Kallcaska loamy sand
Graycalm sand and
loamy sand

Grayling sand
Rubicon sand

Ocquecc loamy sand
Hanistee loamy sand
lblita sand

Hblita loamy sand
Menominee sand
ancminee loamy sand
Blue Lake loamy sand
Mbntcalm.loamy sand
Mcntcalm.stony loamy
sand
Mbntcalm.gravelly
loamy sand

Creswell loamy sand
Crcswell sand
Mbneelena loamy sand
Bentley loamy sand
lhncelena sandy lean
Rousseau loamy fine
sand

Newaygo sandy loam
Alcona sandy loam
Ubly sandy leam
Montcalm sandy loam
Dryburg sandy loam
Newaygo loam
Isabella loamy sand
Isabella sandy loam
Isabella loam
McBride sandy loam
McBride loamy sand
Nester lemny sand
Nestor loam

Nestor sandy loan

Fie 1d
number

486
517
518
520
530
607
608
642
647
648
649
652
653
651.654
657
658

663
664
670
706
707
708
709
710
718
719
720
740
741
758
760
770
771
790
804
805
808

 

8085
809
810

62

Field
name

 

Dighton sandy loam
Kent sandy leam

Kent loan

Kent silt lcmn

Kent silty clay loam
Otiscc loamy sand
Otisco sandy loam
Twining loam

Selkirk silt loam
Twining; fine sandy loam
Twining loamy fine sand
333303113 silt lean
Kawkawlin loam
Kawkawlin sandy loam
Selkirk loam

Selkirk fine sandy
lean

Coral loam

Coral sandy lawn
Richter sandy loam
Iesco sand

Icscc fine sand
Iesco loamy fine sand
Iesco loamy sand
Iesco sandy loam
Arenas sand

Arenac fine sand
Arenac leamy sand
AuGres sand

Augres loamy sand
Allendale loamy sand
Allendale sandy loam
Ingalls loamy sand
Ingalls fine sandy lean
Dafter sandy lean
Ogemaw sand

0gpmaw loamy sand
Pickford silty clay
lean

Pickford clay loam
Pickford silty clay
Ogemaw sandy loam

 

63

Appendix 0 (Continued)

 

 

Field Field Field Field
number name number name
821 Epcufbtto loamy sand 847 Brevort loamy sand
815,822 Epoufette sandy loam, 848 Brevcrt fine sandy loan
826 Breckenridge sandy loam.850 manusccng fine sandy loam
830 Saugatuck sand 851 Pinconning loamy sand
832 Saugatuck loamy sand 859 Ensley loam
833 Roscommcn sand 875 Bergland silt loam
834 Rosccmmon loamy sand 89? Butternut loam
8331 Rescommon mucky sand 900 Butternut sandy loam
837 Bravort sand 901 Butternut clay loam
P840 Kinress peaty sand 904 Sims silt loam
840 Kinrcss sand 903,906 Sims sandy loam
8405 Kinrcss loamy sand 90? Sims loam
845 Edmoro sandy loam 920 Imshtenaw loam (Lake Co.)
846 Edmore fine sandy loam
Slope legend
Slope class Slcpe gradient Description

A 0-2% nearly level

B 2-6% gently sloping

0 6-12% moderately sloping

D 12-18% strongly sloping

E 18-25% steep

F 25-45% very steep

G 45% plus extremely steep

Erosien legend

0 unsroded

l slightly

2 moderately eroded
3 severly eroded

4 gullied land

310 deep blowouts

Each soil symbol is composed of three components: soil number,
slope class, and erosion class. Thus, 236D3 equals Montcalm loamy
sand with a slope of l2-lQX and eroded class 3.

 

Appendix D
Some representative soil series descriptions from Osceola, County.

NESIER SERIES
The Nestor series consists of Gray-wooded soils developed in reddish
clay loam or silty clay loam calcareous till. The Nestor soils are
the well to moderately well drained member of the soil catena that
includes the imperfectly drained ankawlin and the poorly to very
poorly drained Sims soils. Kent soils have finer textured B horizons
than Nestor, and C horizons of silty clay or clay, instead of clay
loam or silty clay loam, as do the Nester soils. Isabella soils have
a Podzol upper sequum, a weakly to moderately develeped gragipan in
the lower A2 and upper Bt, are developed in sandy clay loam to coarse
sandy clay till, and have thicker sola than Nestor. The Hester soils
occupy undulating to strongly sleping areas in till plains and mor-
aines. These soils are well to moderately well drained. Runoff is
sodium.on the milder slopes and rapid on the steeper ones. Permea-
bility is moderate. Native vetetaticn consisted of northern hard-
‘wocds, including sugar maple, elm, beech, ash, and basswood, with
some hemlock and white pine. The W proportion has been cleared
and is under cultivation. Creps include wheat, eats, rye, and hay
crops, with corn grown for both grain and silage. A small proportion,
especially the steeper areas, are in forest or permanent pasture.
Nestor soils are very extensive and widely distributed in Osceola
County.

Soil Profile Nestor lcmn.
,Ap 0-6” Loam; dark grayish yellowish brown * (lOYR3/2) er

 

grayish yellowish brown (lOYRA/2); weak, fine to

t ISCC-NBS color names are used through out this manuscript.
64

 

65

Appendix D (Continued)
333133 3311133 -2 ,

Soil Profile -con't.

 

medium, granular structure; friable when moist;
slightly acid to neutral; abrupt smooth boundary.
5 to 8 inches thick.

A2 6-8" Loam; grayish yellowish brown (lOYRS/2), weak, coarse,
granular or weak, fine, subangular blocky structure;
friable when moist; slightly acid to neutral; gradual

irregular boundary. 2 to 5 inches thick.

 

32&B2 8-14“ Loam; grayish yellowish brown (lOYR5/2) representing A2,
and silty clay 16.3; moderate brown (7.5134/4) or
moderate yellowish brown (101115/4‘) 31; 33. 31 623.3
occurs as isolated peds, surrounded or nearly sur-
rounded by A2; moderate, coarse, granular to massive
(A2), and moderate, fine angular blocky (B2) structure;
friable to slightly firm; medim to slightly acid;
clear wavy boundary. 4 to 8 inches thick.

B2t 14-26“ Clay loam, silty clay loan, or clay; dark brown
(7.51R4/4), or moderate brown (7.5YR5/4) to (SYRA/Z);
light gray or pale brown loamy'mnterial occurs as coat-
ings and crack fillings in upper 3 or 4 inches; a few
.thin reddish brown (5YR5/3) and yellowish red (SYRS/B)
clay coatings on pod faces; moderate to strong, medium,

angular blocky structure; firm; medium to slightly

acid; clear irregular boundary. 8 to 24 inches thick.

66

Appendix 0 Continued)
NESTER SERIES -3
Soil Profile —cont'd
C 26"+ Clay loam or silty clay loam till; light brown
(7.5YR5/h) or moderate brown (5YR4/4); weak to
moderate, medium, angular blocky structure; firm;
calcareous.
Range in Characteristics
Undisturbed areas have a thin A0 horizon and a dark grayish
yellowish brown (lOYR2/2) or brownish gray (lOYRB/l) Al horizon,
one to 3 inches thick. Under cultivation the A1 and upper part of
the A2 horizons have been mixed. The thickness and character of the
A2882 horizon are variable, with the Al comprising up to 90 percent
of the horizon in some areas and only about one-half in others. The
acidity of the B2 horizon varies from slightly to strongly acid.
Pockets and thin discontinuous strata of coarser texturéd material
occur in the B and C horizons in some areas. Grayish and yellowish
:mottlings occurs in the lower part of the B2 horizon in the med-
orately well drained areas. Depth to the C horizon ranges from 20
'te about 40 inches. Loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand types have been
xmapped. The coarser textured types, especially loamy sand, represent
a thin deposit of sandy material on the surface. Colors refer to
moist conditions. Consistenoes refer to moist conditions unless
otherwise specified.
lque Location_

A representative profile in the county can be found in the

334 of 33%, 3.6. 30, 1183, R73.

 

67
Appendix D (Continued)

McBRIDE SERIES

 

The McBride series consists of soils with a Poszol upper sequum and a
Grayewooded lower sequum, with a fragipan horizon, deve10ped in sandy
loam till. The depth to the calcareous till ranges from 42 to about
60 inches. The fragipan occurs in the lower part of the A2 horizon
of the Grayiwooded sequum. McBride soils are the well to moderately
well drained member of the topcsequence that includes the hmperfectly
drained Coral and the poorly to vary poorly drained Ensley soils.
Mentcalm soils have coarser textured sola than McBride, lack a well
developed fragipan horizon, and have sandy C horizons. Isabella
soils have finer textured sola than McBride, and are developed in
sandy clay loam to clay loam C horizons. The Dryburg and Ubly soils
are formed in 18 to 42 inches of loamy fine sand to fine sandy loam
overlying clay to silty clay and loan to silty clay loam, respectively.
The McBride soils occupy nearly level to steep areas en.meraines and
till plains. These soils have meditm runoff on the milder slcpes and
rapid runoff on the steeper slopes; permeability is moderate. The
native vegetation consisted of sugar maple, beech, and cake, with
lesser quantities of hickory and basswood. The greater proportion of
these soils is used for general and dairy farming, with a large part
of the steep slopes in forest. Corn, oats, wheat, and hay are the
principal field crops, and a considerable acreage is devoted to Irish
potatoes. McBride woils are extensive and widely distributed in the
county.

Soil_Profilex McBride sandy loam

 

 

68

Appendix D (Continued)

McBRIDE SERIES -2

 

‘Soilflgrofilg: Mchide sandy loam (con't)

Ap 0—6” Sandy loam; dark grayish yellowish brown (lOYR3/2);
weak to moderate, fine, granular structure; very
friable; slightly to medium acid; abrupt smooth
boundary. 5 to 9 inches thick.

Bhir 6-20" Sandy loan; moderate yellowish brown (lOYR4/4); mod-
erate, medium, granular to weak, fine, subangular
blocky structure; very friable; slightly to strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. 3 to 15 inches thick.

A2111 20-28” Loamy sand to sandy loan; grayish yellowish brown
(101115/2) to light grayish 331103103 brown (10136/2) or
moderate yellowish brown (lOYR5/3); massive to very
weak, medium, platy structure; brittle and hard when
dry, friahle when moist; medium to strongly acid; a-
brupt irregular boundary. 5 to 20 inches thick.

BZt 36-52" Sandy clay loam; moderate brown (7.5YR4/4) moderate
to strong, medium, subangular blocky structure; firm;
medium acid; clear wavy boundary. 10 to 25 inches
thick.

0 52"+— Sandy loam; light brown (7.5YR5/4); weak, coarse, sub-
angular blocky structure; friable; neutral to calcar-

OOUSe

Range in Characteristics:

 

Undisturbed areas have a very dark grayish yellowish

brown (lOYR2/2) Al horizon, l to 3 inches thick, and a light grayish

I

 

 

69

Appendix D (Continued)

HbBRIDE SERIES -3
Range in Characteristics: (con't)

yellowish brwon (lOYR6/2) or light grayish brown (7.5YR6/2) A2 hori-
son, 2 to 4 inches thick. The Bhir horizon is moderate brown
(7.5YR4/4) in some areas. The entire A2 horizon of the Gray‘Wboded
sequum is a fragipan horizon in some places. The degree of develOp-
ment of the fragipan ranges from weak to strong. The B2t horizon is
light brown (5YR5/4) in some areas, and the texture ranges from fine
loam to fine sandy clay loam. The B2t horizon has clay films on some
pads in a few places. lenses, pockets, and layers of loamy sand oc-
cur in the 0 horizon in numerous areas. Also, the C horizon may have
numerous calcium-carbonate concretions. Sandy loam, loamy sand, and
loam types have been mapped. Colors refer to moist conditions. Con-
sistenoes refer to moist conditions, unless otherwise specified.

Type Location:

 

A representative profile can be found in the county in the

SEl/4 of 331/4, 8.63163 31, 11911-393.

KAIKASKA SERIES

 

The Kalkaska series consists of Podzols developed in sand glacial
drift that contains little or no calcareous material. Kalkaska soils
are associated with the well drained Rubicon, Grayling, Graycalm, and
‘Wallace soils, and the moderately well drained Croswell soils, hm-
perfectly drained AuGres, imperfectly to poorly drained Saugatuck,
and the poorly to very poorly drained Roscommon and Kinross soils.
Kalkaska soils have thicker and lighter colored A2 horizons, and

thicker and darker colored Bh horizons than Rubicon soils. Grayling

70

App'ndix D (Continued)
KALKASKA SERIES -2
soils have much thinner A2 horizons and thinner and lighter colored
B horizons than Kalkaska. Graycalm soils have a weakly deve10ped
GrayHWOOded lower sequum, with thin and often discontinuous Bt
horizons below a depth of 42 inches, which the Kalkaska lack. 'flal-
lace soils have cemented (ortstein) B horizons. East Lake soils have
calcareous sands and gravel at depth of less than 42 inches, and the
sole are less acid than in Kalkaska soils. The Croswell soils are
less well drained than Kalkaska, with mottling occurring at depths of
from about 16 to 36 inches. Blue Lake soils are develOped in loamy
sands and have weak textural B horizons. The Kalkaska soils occupy
nearly level to steep areas on outwash plains, till plains, valley
trains, and moraines. These soils are well drained, with a slow
rate of runoff; their permeability is rapid to very rapid. The
original vegetation was principally sugar maple, beech, yellow birch,
elm, ironwood, and hemlock, with some white pine. Nearly all areas
have been cut over, with the cleared areas now being crcpped to oats,
hay, and potatoes, and a considerable part in idle land. A consider-
able proportion is in second-growth forest, permanent pasture, or re-
forested to conifers. Kalkaska soils occur extensively throughout
Osceola‘County.

Soil Profile: Kalkaska sand

 

A0 2-0"; Partially decomposed leaves and raw organic matter.

1 to 4 inches thick.

.Al 0-2" Loamy sand; grayish brown (lOYRB/l) humus, mixed with

gray (10YR6/l); numerous fine roots; weak, fine,

 

71

Appendix 1) (Continued)
KALKASKA SERIES -3

Soil Profile: Kalkaska sand (oon't)

 

granular structure; very friable; strongly acid;
abrupt smooth boundary. 1 to 3 inches thick

A2 2-4" Sand; brownish ping (7.5YR7/2) to grayish yellowish
brown (lOYR4/2); single grain, structureless; loose;
medium.to strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. 3 to

12 inches thick.

L‘mklw ‘15:.

BZlh 4-8" Loamy sand or sand; dark grayish brown (SYR2/2), be-

coming grayish brown (7.5YR3/2) or moderate brown

:4 924—»

(5YR3/4) in lower part; weak, medium, granular struc-
ture; very friable; medium to strongly acid; clear
irregular boundary. 2 to 8 inches thick.

B22ir 8-18" Sand; moderate brown (7.5YR4/4); very weak, medium,
subangular blocky structure to single grain; very
friable to loose; strongly to slightly acid; grad-
ual irregular boundary. 6 to 12 inches thick.

B23ir 18-24"‘ Sand; light brown (7.5YRS/5) or moderate brown
(7.5YR4/4); single grain, structureless; loose; med-
iun to slightly acid; I gradual irregular boundary.

5 to 12 inches thick.

BB 24-40" Sand; dark orange yellow (lOYRo/B) or moderate yel-
lowish brown (lOYRS/h); single grain, structureless;
loose; medium to slightly acid; gradual wavy bound-

ary. 8 to 18 inches thick.

C 40"+- Sand; light grayish yellowish brown (lOYRé/B) or

72

Appendix D (Continued)
KALKASKA SERIES -4

Soil Profile; Kalkaska sand (con't)

 

light yellowish brown (lOYR6/4); single grain,
structureless; loose; slightly acid to mildly
alkaline.

Range in Characteristics:

 

In cultivated areas the Al and a considerable part of the A2 are
mixed, to form the Ap horizon. The A2 is thin or is absent in some
areas, especially where the Ap is 9 or 10 inches thick. In some
areas, the BZlh horizon consists of dark grayish brown (5YR2/2-3/2)
loamy sand or sand 2 to 4 inches thick grading abruptly into the
moderate brown (7.5YR4/h) sand BZ2ir horizon. The reaction of the
solun is slightly acid in some areas. The thickness of the solun
ranges from 20 to about 45 inches or more. The upper B horizons are
weakly cemented in some areas. ‘Wherc Kalkaska grades toward‘wallace
soils, there are irregular-shaped and sized chunks of cemented
(ortstein) material in the upper B horizons. Where Kalkaska soils
grade toward Graycalm soils, there are thin discontinuous bands of
textural B‘horizons below a depth of 66 inches. Where Kalkaska soils
grade toward Rubicon soils, the B21h horizon approaches the minimum
thickness given. Loamy sand, and sand types have been mapped. Colors
refer to moist conditions. Consistences refer to moist conditions

unless otherwise specified.

lype Location:

 

A representative profile in the County can be found in the

Sm/4 of NWl/4, Section 9, man, mow.

 

”mljfilfiMlElfifiMfllfll’:“TWINE“?

16731