The Soils of Brant County

Volume 1

Ministry of

Agriculture ' Agriculture and Food Canada Research Direction Ontario Branch de la recherche THE SOILS OF BRANT COUNTY

Volume 1

REPORT NO. 55 OF THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGY

C.J. Acton Land Resource Research Centre Research Branch Agriculture Canada Guelph, Ontario

1989

Land Resource Research Centre Contribution No. 89-18 .

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 5 Heidelberg Soils (HIG) ...... 33 Kelvin Soils (KVN) ...... 33 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 Lincoln Soils (LIC) ...... 34 GENERALDESCRIPTION OFTHEAREA ...... 7 Maryhill Soils (MYL) ...... 34 Location and Extent ...... 7 Muriel Soils (MUI) ...... 34 Early History ...... 7 Oakland Soils (OKL) ...... 35 Present Agriculture ...... 7 Plainfield Soils (PFD) ...... 35 Geology and Physiography ...... 8 Scotland Soils (STD) ...... 35 Bedrock Geology ...... 8 Seneca Soils (SNA) ...... 36 Surficial Geology ...... 9 Smithville Soils (SHV) ...... 36 Physiography and Sediments and their Stayner Soils (STN) ...... 36 Relationship to Soils in the County ...... 12 Styx Soils (SYX) ...... 37 Relief and Drainage ...... 16 Teeswater Soils (TEW) ...... 37 Climate ...... 17 Toledo Soils (TLD) ...... 37 Tuscola Soils (TUC) ...... 38 HOW THE SOILS WEREMAPPED AND Vanessa Soils (VSS) ...... 38 CLASSIFIED ...... 19 Walsingham Soils (WAM) ...... 38 Soil Mapping ...... 19 Waterin Soils (WRN) ...... 38 Survey Intensity and Map Reliability ...... 19 Waterloo Soils (WTO) ...... 39 Soil Classification ...... 19 Wauseon Soils (WUS) ...... 39 Soil Orders ...... 20 Wilsonville Soils (WIL) ...... 39 Soil Great Groups and Subgroups ...... 22 Woolwich Soils (WOW) ...... 40 Soil Families ...... 22 Soil Series ...... 22 MISCELLANEOUS LAND UNITS ...... 40 Soil Phases ...... 23 Alluvium (ALU) ...... 40 Miscellaneous Land Units ...... 23 Escarpment (ESC) ...... 40 Soil MapUnits ...... 23 Marsh (MAR) ...... 40 Urban Land (ULD) ...... 40 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THESOILS ...... 24 Soil Key ...... 24 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE . . . .44 Soil Descriptions ...... 26 A. Agricultural Capability Classification for Alluvial Soils (ALU) ...... 26 Common Field Crops ...... 44 Ayr Soils (AYR) ...... 26 Assumptions ...... 44 Berrien Soils (BRR) ...... 26 Capability Classification for Mineral Soils ...... 44 Beverly Soils (BVY) ...... 27 Soil Capability Classes ...... 44 Bookton Soils (BOO) ...... 27 Soil Capability Subclasses ...... 45 Brady Soils (BAY) ...... 27 Capability Classification for Organic Soils ...... 45 BrantSoils (BRT) ...... 28 Organic Soil Capability Classes ...... 45 Brantford Soils (BFO) ...... 28 Procedure for Using Tables for Soil Capability Burford Soils (BUF) ...... 29 Classes with Brant County Soil Maps ...... 47 Caledon Soils (CAD) ...... 29 B. Agricultural Suitability Ratings for Special Crops . . . .47 Camilla Soils (CML) ...... 29 Soil Suitability Classes ...... 47 Colwood Soils (CWO) ...... 30 Assumptions ...... 47 Conestogo Soils (CTG) ...... 30 How to Determine Special Crop Suitability Dumfries Soils (DUF) ...... 30 Ratings ...... 48 Fox Soils (FOX) ...... 31 C. Soil Erosion Interpretations ...... 53 Gilford Soils (GFD) ...... 31 Soil Interpretations for Water Erosion ...... 53 Gobles Soils (GOB) ...... 31 Rainfall Erosivity (R) ...... 53 Granby Soils (GNY) ...... 32 Soil Map Unit Erosion Potential ...... 54 Guelph Soils (GUP) ...... 32 Site-specific Assessment of Soil Erosion Haldimand Soils (HIM) ...... 32 Potential ...... 54 Harrisburg Soils (HBG) ...... 33 REFERENCES ...... 61

LIST OF TABLES 1. Farmland use in Brant County ...... 9 8. Agricultural capability classification for common field crops for soils of Brant County ...... 46 2. Area and value of main crops grown in Brant County . 9 9. Organization ofspecial crops into crop groups and 3. Pleistocene stratigraphy and associated soils of Brant crop subgroups for the Brant County region ...... 47 County ...... 11 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in 4. Properties ofprincipal tills occurring 'in BrantCounty ...... 48 BrantCounty ...... 13 11. K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for 5. Climatic data for Brantford and neighbouring Brant County soils ...... 55 locations ...... 18 12. Guidelines for establishing soil erodibility classes . . . . . 59 6. Soil families of Brant County ...... 21 13. Guidelines for assessing soil erosion potential classes . .59 7. Mean horizon values of Brant Countysoils ...... 41 14. LS-values for different combinations of slope length and slopegradient ...... 59

LIST OF FIGURES 1. General location of Brant and surrounding counties . . 7 8. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Grand River 2. Urbancentres, roads and railway networks and and the Paris moraine near Paris ...... 15 townships in BrantCounty ...... 8 9. Schematic landscape cross-section showing the 3. Paleozoic geology of Brant County ...... 10 relationship of surficial sands to underlying deposits 4. Surficial geology of Brant County ...... 12 onthe sand plain near Cathcart ...... 15 5. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil 10. Main streams and tributaries in Brant County ...... 16 parent materials associated with the Tillsonburg 11. Climatic regions in Brant County ...... 17 moraine near Harley ...... 13 12. Diagrammatic soil profile of a well-drained Brunisolic 6. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil GrayBrown Luvisol ...... 20 parent materials associated with the Galt moraine near Scotland ...... 14 13. Diagrammatic soil profile of a poorly drained Orthic Humic Gleysol ...... 20 7. Schematic landscape cross-section between Paris and Ohsweken showing soil parent materials associated 14. Prediction ofcropland erosion potential and some with the Galt moraine and adjacent glaciofluvial control alternatives ...... 60 and glaciolacustrine sediments ...... 14 15. Index of soil maps for Brant County ...... 62 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The soil survey, data collection, analysis and preparation Valuable input was provided by S. Rowe and J. Bodner, ofthe soil maps and report for Brant County involved the con- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Horticultural Crop tributions of many individuals. Those making a major contri Specialists for Brant County in interpreting the soils for spe- bution to field mapping were S. Humphrey, D. Cressman, cialty cropuses. B. Maclean, W. Hodgins, B. Cameron, G. Roberts and S. Kendall aided by many other student assistants. Field sam- Colleagues atthe Agriculture Canada, Guelph Soil Survey pling and laboratory analyses were carried by R. Unit were very helpful in various aspects of the report prepara- out Viitala, tion. B. Hohner and C. Miller ofAgriculture Canada. Dr. O.L. White E.W. Presant assisted in a substantial way with the soil of the Ontario Geological Survey, Ontario Ministry of Natural interpretations section and in report editing. The section on Resources, assisted with soil sampling for engineering proper- Soil Erosion was prepared by Dr. G. Wall and I. Shelton. K. Denholm prepared the ties. Engineering data were provided by the Aggregates Labora- section on soil interpretations for tory of the Highway Engineering Division of the Ontario special crops. The late J.E. Gillespie brought much of the data Ministry of Transportation and Communication . together for the first draft ofthe report. C. Fitzgibbon, K. Palmerand A. McLennanofthe University of Appreciation is expressed to Chris Cameron, Ontario Guelph, Department of Land Resource Science, assisted sub- MinistryofAgriculture and Food, for map digitization, and to stantially in the data analysis and compilation, as did D. Irvine members of the Cartographic Unit of the Land Resource with cartographic map preparation and J. Cookwith typing and Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, who were word processing ofthe report. involved in map preparation. Special thanks are due to Brian The efforts of Dr. W.R. Cowan, formerly of the Ontario Edwards who supervised this work . Appreciation is also Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Geological Survey, for extended to J. Day and K . Valentine of the Land Resource preparation of the section on Geology and Soil Formation are Research Centre for their suggestions and advice throughout very much appreciated. this project.

INTRODUCTION The first soil survey for Brant County was published in 2. Obtain the appropriate 1 :25,000 soil map and locate your 1935 at a scale of 1 :126,720. This was a reconnaissance type of site. Natural and cultural features on the map, such as soil survey and portrayed generalized information about the streams, contours, roads, buildings, lot and concession soils and landforms ofthe area. No soil report was prepared to numbers, should aid in locating the site. accompanythe map, hence characteristics ofthe soils could be Note unit symbols marked within the boundaries on the 3. the map interpreted only from sketchy information presented ofthe map unit delineation where your site is located. An map legend. explanation of how to interpret 4a map unit appears on all In response to demands for more detailed information on the soil maps under the heading "Key to the Map Unit the land resources for land use and management decisions, a Symbols". re-surveyat a scale of 1 :25,000 ofthe soils ofBrant County was 4. Consult the legend on the map to help decipher the map carried out. This report and the accompanying soil maps unit symbol in your area of interest. The legend provides . present the results of this inventory information on soil components, slopes, parent materials The soil report is presented in two separate volumes. Vol- and drainages . ume 1 commences with a general description of the surficial 5. If more information is required on the soil components, it geology, climate and land use of the region which influences can be obtained from Volume 1 ofthe soil report, where a the characteristics of the soils which have formed. This is fol- generalized description of each soil is presented, including lowed by a discussion of the soils and map units which occur comments on its variability and land use. Some general- and assessments oftheir capability for common field crops and ized statistical information is also contained in theAppen- to special crops adapted to the area. Susceptibility of the soils dix ofVolume 1. erosion also is discussed . 6. For detailed morphological, chemical and physical The County is divided into four soil maps, which conform descriptions of typical soils as well as tables of statistical with township boundaries. These are published at a scale of means and engineering test data, users are referred to Vol- 1 :25,000. In addition, a generalized soil map at a 1 :100,000 ume 2 ofthe soil report. scale has been prepared for the County. These maps are dis- tributed with the Volume 1 report. 7 . For soil interpretations such as soil capability for common crops, soil suitability for various field soils, agricultural field Volume 2 contains detailed data on representative and horticultural crops and soil erosion interpretations, including their morphological, physical and chemical proper- refer to Volume 1. ties, as well as engineering test data. This information is of greater interest to the technical user who requires analytical 8. For generalized comparisons of relatively large soil areas, details for specific soils. users are referred to the generalized soil map of Brant County at a 1 :100,000 scale. It is not advisable to use this How to use the Soil Report and Maps map for information on areas smaller than 40 hectares Resource managers, such as farmers, usually know the (ha) (100 acres (ac)). characteristics and variations of soils on their own properties Users should be aware that each soil exhibits a range of or in the immediate vicinity. However, without a soil map or properties, and that boundaries between map units, even soil report, comparisons with other soils in the region may be though they represent the best estimate of where the soils difficult. With the help of a soil map, regional similarities and change, may only be approximately located. They should also differences between soils are apparent. Such information can be aware that there could be inclusions of unidentified soil be an aid in buying or renting land, or in transferring manage- components, as large as a few hectares in area, within any map ment techniques to similar soils, thereby reducing the risks of unit delineation . This is due to the map scale and the mapping managing new land. methodology used. Most soil information is based on the To use the soil report and maps most efficiently, the fol- examination of soil characteristics to a depth of about 100 cm lowing steps are suggested : below the surface . 1 . Locate your area of interest on the index map at the back of this report (Figure 15). Note the number or name of the soil map on which your area ofinterest is located . GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

Location and Extent of the British in the war against the French, and later the Amer- Brant County is located in south central Ontario bounded icans during the Revolutionary War period . In 1784, Chief by Oxford County, and by the regional municipalities of Brant accepted a large grant of land along the Grand River for Waterloo, Hamilton-Wentworth and Haldimand-Norfolk his people, given in appreciation for their loyalty to the Crown. (Figure 1). It is between 43 00' and 43 20' degrees ofnorth lati- Present-day Brantford rose from the site where Chief Brant tude, and 80 00' and 80 36' degrees of east longitude. Its loca- and his tribesmen placed a boom across the Grand River to tion offers some of the ameliorating climatic effects of the serve as a fording-place (1). The Indians found that this land Great Lakes because of the relative nearness of both Lake Erie grant far exceededtheir needs and over the years it was reduced and Lake Ontario, its southern boundary being about 19 kilo- by sales to white immigrants, or concessions to government, metres north of LakeErie. until it reached its present size of 17,820 hectares (44,000 acres). The Indian population has more than doubled from its The County is relatively small, with a total land area of 1853 assessment of 2,330. They are members of the Mohawk 109,297 hectares (270,080 acres) . and CayugaTribes. The total population of Brant County according to the As white settlement of the region advanced, townships 1986 Canada Census was 99,090 with a rural population of evolved and eventually the County of Brant came into exis- 32,040. The larger urban populations are in Brantford with tence by acquiring several townships from adjoining counties, 76,150, followed by Paris with a population of 7,900. Numer- resulting in its tripartite shape. ous towns, villages and hamlets are important to theeconomic life of the County, offering convenient services to the farming The future site for the town of Paris so captivated Hiram community. The location of the main urban centres in Brant Capron, a Vermonter, in 1828 that he bought 1,000 acres pre- County are shown inFigure 2 . sumably from ChiefBrant and ensured the beginnings of a new community with the construction of a water-powered grist Early History mill, partly for grinding wheat, but also for grinding gypsum Brant County gains its name from the great leader of the which outcropped there. The community grew and in 1838 the Six Nations Indians, Joseph Brant. These tribes had been allies name Paris was selected by the people in deference to the first industry, the production of gypsum, commonly known as plaster of Paris. Present Agriculture The broad range of soils found in Brant County, combined with a favourable climate, has resulted in the development of a very diversified agriculture. Livestock farming is prevalent in the lacustrine and glacial till soils while tobacco, vegetables, grain corn and other cash crop enterprises are located on the extensive areas of outwash soils. The extent and land use by townships are shown in Table 1 (2). The main crops grown inthe County (Table 2) disclose that cultivated hay, wheat, grain corn and soybeans are major crops, but the sizeable area planted to tobacco and vegetables indicates that these are of major economic importance and make effective use ofthe sandy soils inthe County. Corn is the most popular grain crop in the County. Aver- age yields are surpassed in Ontario only by the counties of Kent, Elgin, Oxford and Middlesex (3). Agricultural statistics for 1988 (3) reported that the total farm value for flue-cured tobacco produced in Brant County was $24.2 million (Table 2). This was the fourth-highest in the province, surpassed only by Haldimand-Norfolk region, Elgin and Oxford counties. Ginseng is a high-value crop in the County, commercially raised by an increasing number of growers on the sandy textured soils near the village of Oakland. There is a fairly large livestock population in the County, representing both beef and dairy enterprises. The large areas offloodplains associated with theGrandRiver and its tributar ies, and the rolling lands in South Dumfries Township provide Figure 1. General location of Brant and surrounding counties good pasture for livestock enterprises. 7 TUSCARORA . Smith Corners

Victoria Mills

Figure 2. Urban centres, road and railway networks and townships in Brant County

Geology and Physiography* Bedrock Geology The distribution and variability of soils are strongly influ- Bedrock within Brant County is largely buried by glacial enced by the topography, texture, and chemistry of the rock drift and only outcrops in the deeply eroded Grand River valley materials upon which they develop, as are the rates of develop north and south of the town of Paris. Elsewhere, the drift is ment and susceptibility to erosion by wind or running water. A perhaps 10 to 70 metres in thickness; consequently, bedrock knowledge of the geological development of Brant County is maps (Figure 3) are largely produced from well records and are therefore a necessary requirement for the application of a therefore subject to continual revision. meaningful soil classification .

*Prepared by W.R. Cowan, Formerly Ontario Department of MinesandNorthernAffairs, Geological Survey.

Table 1. Farmland use in Brant County

Under Township Area Pasture Woodlot and Crops Improved Unimproved Land

Brantford 51,296 ac 41,919ac 1,947 ac 5,376 ac 20,518 ha 16,768 ha 779 ha 864 ha Burford 56,432 ac 43,187 ac 1,521 ac 8,493 ac 22,573 ha 17,275 ha 608 ha 3,397 ha South Dumfries 43,671 ac 32,897 ac 3,726ac 5,507 ac 17,468 ha 13,159 ha 1,490 ha 2,203 ha Oakland 8,045 ac 6,530ac 88 ac 1,013 ac 3,218 ha 2,612 ha 35 ha 405 ha Onondaga 20,233 ac 16,885 ac 1,156 ac 1,258 ac 8,093 ha 6,754 ha 462 ha 503 ha Indian Reserves 2,854 ac 2,073 ac 85 ac 302 ac 1,142ha 829 ha 34 ha 121 ha

Table2. Area and value of main cropsgrown in The area is entirely underlain by Paleozoic rocks having a Brant County (2,3) gentle southwesterly dip. The oldest rocks which subcrop beneath the glacial drift are Silurian rocks of the Guelph for- Total Farm Value mation . These rocks occupya broad band in the northeast por- Crops Acreage Hectarage $'000 tion of the County and consist of buff-coloured aphanitic to crystalline dolomite. They are usually more than 30 metres Winter Wheat 14,000 5,666 2,082 thick and are generally overlain by 25 to 50 metres of overburden. Overlying the Guelph formation, and occupying most of Oats 4,900 1,983 430 Brant County, are Silurian dolomites and shales (containing lenses of gypsum) of Barley 3,700 1,497 395 the Salina formation. These rocks average 60 metres in thickness and are the rocks which outcrop at Mixed Grain 6,000 2,428 647 Paris. Overburden ranges from less than 3 metres near outcrops to more than 70 metres. Hay 21,000 8,500 6,042 Upper Silurian rocks of the Bass Island formation overlie Grain Corn 46,000 18,616 14,272 the Salina formation in a narrow band in the southern-most corners of the County. The rock, a fine, crystalline, brown Soybeans 13,000 5,261 3,899 dolomite, is about 10 to 20 metres thick and is generally over- FodderCorn 6,000 2,428 1,539 lain by 15 to 30 metres of drift. The Bass Island formation is overlain by Devonian rocks of the Bois Blanc formation in a Tobacco 6,500 2,631 24,152 small areain the southern part of the County. These consist of (flue-cured) highly fossiliferous cherty limestone about 30 metres thick. Potatoes 1,218 493 - Bedrock contribution to soil development is indirect through erosion and redeposition of rock Vegetables - fragments by glacial 2,945 1,192 and associated processes. For the most part, there is high car- TreeFruits 593 240 - bonate content in the underlying rocks. This is reflected in the calcareous nature of the overlying drift. High silica occurs in the cherty Bois Blanc limestone and in Salina shales. Surficial Geology Onlythe verylatest ofthe Pleistocene glaciations, theWis- consinan, has a record remaining in Brant County as the deposits of preceding glaciers were eroded by their successors. The glacial stratigraphy ofthe remaining sediments is summa- rized in Table 3, while the surface distribution of the upper- most units is portrayed in Figure 4. Details of this stratigraphy are given in Karrow (4) and Cowan (5). All glacial till deposits resulted from ice moving over the area from the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie basins. Devonian Bois Blanc Formation : grey and greyish brown dolomite, limestone and nodular chert Silurian Bass Island Formation: cream and tan dolomite

Salina Formation (undivided) : dolomite, shale and gypsum lenses

Guelph Formation. cream and brown dolomite

Figure 3. Paleozoic geology ofBrant County (from Geol. Surv. Canada Map 1263A)

The oldest glacial deposits in the area were first described Rejuvenation of the ice about 15,000 years ago resulted in by Karrow (4) who discovered old buried tills along the Nith an advance from an easterly to southeasterly direction to at River. These were described as the "lower beds" and the over least as far west as Woodstock with the resulting deposition of lying Canning till. They appear to represent fluctuations of the Port Stanley till. A fluctuating retreat of this ice sheet Ontario-Erie basin glaciers in Early Wisconsinan time (about resulted in the building of several terminal moraines, of which 115,000 to 65,000 years ago) and are not well-known. An fragments of the two youngest, the most easterly Norwich and apparent hiatus in deposition (in Brant County) followed dur- Tillsonburg moraines (6), occur in western Brant County. ing Late Wisconsinantime (about 23,000 to 10,000 years ago) . Withdrawal of the Port Stanley ice to at least as far east as The first of'these glaciations occurred from a northeasterly Brantford was followed by a strong advance to the Paris direction and extended well into the United States about 18,000 moraine, with the deposition ofthe Wentworth till and copious years ago. The Catfish Creek till (Table4) was deposited bythis amounts of proglacial outwash gravels. Recession led to fur- glacier. Retreat into the Erie basin resulted in proglacial lakes ther deposition of outwash gravels (in part deltaic) along the and the deposition of silts and clays at least as far east as the Grand River valley, and contributed to the building ofthe Gait Paris-Brantford area. These sediments are usually referred to and Moffat moraines. as the Erie Interstadial .

10 Table 3. Pleistocene stratigraphy and associated soils of Brant County

Rock unit Stage Lithology Morphology Soil Map Components or event

Well and Imperfectly Poorly and moderately very poorly well-drained drained drained

Recent modern silt, sand, flood plains, valley bottoms Alluvium alluvium gravel swamp peat, muck, filled depressions Styx deposits marl Stayner older alluvium gravel, sand terrace remnants Burford Brisbane Gilford Whittlesey, sand deltaic sand plains Fox Brady Granby Warren, and Plainfield Walsingham Waterin younger glacial lakes sand and silt lacustrine plains Brant Tuscola Colwood Harrisburg Osborne Ohsweken clayand silt lacustrine plains Brantford Beverly Toledo Bookton Berrien Wauseon Smithville Haldimand Lincoln gravel abandoned shorelines Burford glaciofluvial gravel outwash plains and terraces Burford Brisbane Gilford Teeswater sand outwash plains andterraces Caledon Camilla Ayr Fox Brady Granby Late Wentworth stony sand till bouldery, hummocky end Dumfries Lily Wisconsinan Till moraine Wilsonville sand and silt gentlyrolling ground moraine Guelph London till Woolwich Conestogo Maryhill sand and sand moraine with sand veneer Scotland Oakland Vanessa till sand and silt moderately to steeply sloping Seneca drumlins Ice-contact sand and mainly buried Burford deposits, gravel (coarse outwash phase) Port Stanley clay and silt till rolling end moraine and flat to Muriel Gobles Kelvin Till rolling ground moraine Bookton Berrien Wauseon outwash, sand, gravel mainly buried ice-contact lacustrine Catfish Creek stony silt and mainly buried Till sandtill Early Canning Till silt-clay till mainly buried Wisconsinan "lower beds" silt-clay till, mainly buried stratified drift

Drumlin Abandoned shoreline Meltwater channel

Recent 8 Alluvium: Sand, silt, gravel 7 Bog deposits : peat, muck, marl Wisconsinan 6 Glaciolacustrine silt and clay 5 Glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sand 4 Glaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand 3 Ice-contact stratified drift: gravel and sand 2 Wentworth Till : yellowish brown silty sand and till 1 Port Stanley Till: clayey silt till

Figure 4. Surficial geology of Brant County

Retreat of the Wentworth ice was also accompanied by the Physiography and Sediments and Their Relationship to formation of a large proglacial lake, Lake Whittlesey, into Soils of the County which large quantities of deltaic sand and gravel were depos The distribution of the principal soil forming glacial sedi- ited, particularly in Burford Township. Fluctuations in water ments is shown in Figure 4 (5). Of the tills shown in Table 4, levels and a later glacier advance into the Dundas Valley caused only the Port Stanley and Wentworth tills are common at the a series of lower lake levels to result, including Lakes Wayne, surface, while the Catfish Creek and older tills only occur in Warren, Grassmere, and Lundy. These lakes resulted in the deep exposures or locally as small inliers. Lithology of the sur- deposition of deltaic sands at Brantford and large amounts of face tills is given in Table 4. deep water silt and clay in South Dumfries, Brantford, Onon- daga, and Tuscarora Townships (Figure 4). Final drainage of The Catfish Creek till is a very hard grey to yellowish- glacial lake waters in Brant County was effected approxi- brown till, occurring as buried ground moraine for the most mately 12,000 years ago. Since that time, alluvial sediments part. Where it is exposed, its thickness ranges from 0.5 to 10 have continuously been laid down along the major water metres. At the surface it is very similar to the Wentworth till courses and soil development has progressed. and may be present as inhers within the units mapped as Wentworth. 12

Table4. Properties of principal tills occurring in Brant County

Grain SizeAnalyses Pebble Lithology Carbonates (percent means) (percent means) (minus 200 mesh)

a c ea a ô â ô â c ô C c. E 0 w â Cu 'A z c~ ow C c~a c b d .2 Z Û Z â Z Û Û v w` Z E~ ~ Û Wentworth Till (a) 20 49 39 12 0.010-0.297 18 11 81 2 3 3 19 39.7 0.6 Wentworth Till (b) 9 28 49 22 0.004-0.024 6 2 93 1 1 3 7 46.8 0.3 Port Stanley Till 22 16 56 28 0.0018-0.042 16 19 70 3 3 4 22 30.6 1 .6 Catfish Creek Till 7 48 36 16 0.027-0.160 5 25 69 0 0 5 7 38 .0 0.9

The Port Stanley till occurs as acaponthe Tillsonburg and than 20 metres in thickness. In the Paris moraine and southern Norwich moraines, and as ground moraine. It ranges from 1 to part of the Galt moraine the till is frequently thin overlying 10 metres in thickness and is usually a grey colour which oxi sand and gravel. Drumlins in Tuscarora Township and associ- dizes to brown or yellowish-brown. Strong leaching is present ated small patches of ground moraine are correlated with the to a depth of 20 to 40 cm but is locally greater than this. The Wentworth till, though texturally finer. Greater limestone con- pebble lithology generally reflects the underlying dolomitic tent occurs in the pebble lithology in this area due to transport terrain with a strong influence of limestone transported from from the Bois Blanc and more southerly limestone units. the south and southeast. The fine texture of this till makes it susceptibleto frost heaving. Dumfries soils have developed on hummocky landforms and Guelph and Woolwich soils on undulating or rolling areas Muriel, Gobles and Kelvin soils have developed onthe silty throughout much of the Galt and Paris moraines. On southern clay loam Port Stanley till . Where sand blankets the till to a extensions of the Galt moraine, where the glacial till materials depth of 40 to 100 cm, till phases of the Bookton, Berrien and have higher sand and gravel contents, Wilsonville and Scotland Wauseon soils are mapped. The relationship of these soils on soils occur. Seneca soils have developed on drumlinized land- the Tillsonburg moraine near Harley, to adjacent lacustrine forms of loam glacial till in Tuscarora Township. Schematic and eolian sands, is shown in Figure 5. cross-sections depicting the relationships of the Wentworth The Wentworth till (Table 4) is strongly dolomitic with glacial tillto overlying sands and adjacentglaciolacustrine sediments are much of the dolomite of Guelph-Lockport affinity. This till shown in Figures 6 and 7 . occurs primarily in the Paris, Galt, and Moffat moraines. It is A large area west of Brantford is underlain by gravels and generally yellowish-brown in colour and ranges from 3 to more gravelly sand of glaciofluvial origin. Most of this is outwash

Plainfield i Muriel and Gobles Soils Bookton Till Phase Fox Soils I and Berrien Till I i Phase Soils I Lacustrine loamy sand and sand I I I

Eolian fine

Figure 5. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Tillsonburg Moraine near Harley

Fox Soils Wilsonville and Scotland Soils I Brant Soils I

Lacustrine Lacustrine loamy sand and sand loamy sand and sand

Figure 6. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with Galt Moraine near Scotland

I Burford l Bookton and I Guelph and Woolwich Soils I Brant Soils I Smithville, Haldimand and I BrSoils I Teeswater I I and Seneca Soils Lacustrine silt loam I Soils I I I Gravel I Lacustrine Lacustrine silt loam loamy sand I and sand

Figure 7. Schematic landscape cross-section between Paris and Ohsweken showing soil parent materials associated with the Galt Moraine and adjacent glaciofluvial and lacustrine sediments

deposited as valley trains along the Grand River and Nith River Burford and Caledon soils have developed on gravel and meltwater channels; much of the remainder is deltaic or occurs gravelly sand deposits of glaciofluvial origin. A schematic as an outwash apron fronting the Paris moraine. These gravels cross-section including the Grand River and Paris moraine are usually weakly stratified and poorly sorted and range from shown in Figure 8, illustrates the relationship of recent allu- less than 1 to morethan 15 metres inthickness. Lithology ofthe vium deposits to the adjacent glaciofluvial outwash and pebble grade materials is largely carbonate but far-travelled, morainal materials. resistant Precambrian materials comprise a sizeable percent- form the surface materials of much noticeable by Lacustrine sediments age (5) . The mineralogy ofthe sand fraction (5) is ofthe County. Alarge part ofBurford Township and a portion its content of grey shale and materials such as quartz and feld- mantled with thick deposits of del primarily ofBrantford Township are spar of Precambrian origin. The shale is derived taic fine sands. These range in thickness from 10 metres near from the easily eroded Salina formation and increases notice- Pleasant and 23 metres near formation Harley to 15 metres near Mount ably south of the upper contact with the Guelph the Brantford airport. In addition, a thin veneer of this sand (Figure 3). The increase in Precambrian materials (compare overlies much ofthe remainder ofthe County. with pebble grade) is indicative of the attrition of larger fragments with distance. Minor amounts of sand and gravel ofice- contact origin are also present.

I Alluvium I Burford Soils I Caledon I Dumfries Soils Soils I I Lacustrine sand I and loamy sand Alluvial sediments I

L ._II__ I __L_ I , _..L_ L 1 Satina Formation L L _L I ...1._ _.L_ -L 1 (shale, gypsum, dolostone) 1 1 -.L 1 - ._

Figure 8. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Grand River and the Paris Moraine near Paris

Plainfield and Walsingham Soils Fox and Brady Soils Bookton and Berrien Soils

Figure 9. Schematic landscape cross-section showing the relationship of surficial sands to underlying deposits on the sand plain near Cathcart

The coarser sand sediments deposited in the shallow the Grand River where steep banks occur. Thickness is variable waters of glacial lakes Whittlesey and Warren, are mapped as with the underlying topography. The upper surface is essen- Fox, Brady and Granby soils. The Plainfield, Walsingham and tially flat with a gently southeasterly slope. Up to 35 metres of Waterin soils have developed in the wind-modified fine sands lacustrine sediment is present at Harrisburg, 40 metres near St. that represent deeper water deposits of the same glacial lakes. George, 20 metres at Ohsweken, and lesser amounts where Waterloo and Heidelberg soils are developed on the fine sandy drift is shallow in Tuscarora Township and where drumlins loam and very fine sandy loam sediments . The landscape rela- protrude up through the silts and clays. Carbonate concretions tionships of sandy lacustrine and eolian soils in the County are are common locally; these are irregularly shaped with maxi- shown schematically in Figure 9. mum diameters of 20 cm and maximum thicknesses of 1 cm . Fine-grained Pebbles and cobbles are rare. Principal clay minerals inthe clay lacustrine silt and clay sediments occupy size fraction are chlorite and illite with only minor most ofthe eastern half ofthe County. These consist of lami- amounts of expanding clay minerals (7). However, non-clay minerals such nated to varved silts and clays which are highly susceptible to as quartz and calcite predominate over theclay minerals erosion on bare slopes; they constitute alandslide hazard along . Figure 10. Main streams and tributaries in Brant County

Brant, Tuscola and Colwood soils have developed on the latter situation occurs over a large area south ofMount Vernon silt loam lacustrine sediments northeast of Brantford . In areas Station where a veneer of organic material from 10 cm up to where the clay content of the sediment has increased to silty 1 metre thick overlies the glaciolacustrine sand, shown in clay loam and silty clay textures, Brantford, Beverly and Figure 4. Toledo soils occur. Deep-water lacustrine sediments occur Burford soils generally occur on the upper terrace rem- southeast of Brantford characterized by clay and heavy clay nants of the Grand River comprising Late Wisconsinan allu- textures. These include Smithville, Haldimand and Lincoln Shallow, vium. Floodplains of major streams with recent alluvium soils. multi-layered sediments give rise to different deposits have been mapped Alluvium. soils. Where thin deposits of sand overlie clayey materials at as Swamp deposits depths of 40 to 100 cm, Bookton, Berrien and Wauseon soils which consist of organic sediments in excess of 40 cm thick are are recognized. If siltytextures overlie the clay sediments, Har- classified as Styx or Stayner soils. risburg, Osborne and Ohsweken soils occur. The landscape The variability of the above-described sediments contrib- relationships of these lacustrine soils with the adjacent Galt utes to a wide variety of soil conditions in Brant County. moraine, extending from the southern portion of South Dum- fries Township into Brantford, Onondaga and Tuscarora Relief and Drainage townships are depicted in Figure 7. Brant County has a relatively lowrelief, generally less than 100 this provided a number of glacial Late Wisconsinan alluvium occurs on terrace remnants metres, being by along the major water courses while modern alluvium is being moraines in the County. Elevations decrease from 300 metres in the northwest to 202 metres in the southeast. The Grand deposited on present-day floodplains and in stream channels. diagonally across the County in the same The former consists mainly sand and gravel while the latter River meanders of direction to empty into Lake Erie. is mainlysand and silt with minor gravel . Peat, muck, and marl constitute bog deposits occurring in closed depressions and in There are five main tributaries that contribute to the low-lying areas where the water table is near the surface . The drainage system for the County. These are the Nith River and

Kenny, Whiteman and Big Creeks in the western part of the The regional climate is important to the agricultural pro- County, and the Fairchild, Big, Boston and McKenzie Creeks ductivity ofthe County. It is influenced noticeably by the mod- which are active drainage courses in the eastern and southern erating effects of the Great Lakes. The result is slightly lower portions of the County. The pattern of this drainage system is temperatures during the spring, but higher temperatures dur- shown in Figure 10. ing the autumn months and winter compared to other regions outside of this influence. Figure 11 illustrates the approximate Climate boundary of the climatic regions in Brant County (9). Climate has had an impact on the development ofthe soils The data given in Table 5 are long-term averages for tem- in Brant County through its influence on soil temperature and perature, precipitation, corn heat units, length of growing sea- precipitation. The rate of chemical and biological activities son and mean dates of first and last frosts (8,9). They indicate within the soil is largely affected by its temperature. Also, pre- the favourable climate of this part of Ontario for the produc- cipitation controls the rate of leaching of soluble constituents tion of a wide range of farm and specialized agricultural from the soil . crops.

80°30 80°00

0 ô A M Ca0 V OW Kitchener (1125)

\ 1

Caledonia \(675')

O0 A M W V O0 \ . Hagersville (740')

--- County boundaries

"""""" Township boundaries

----- Boundary of climatic regions

80°30 80°00

Figure 11. Climatic regions in Brant County Table 5. Climatic data forBrantford and neighbouring locations

Mean Rainfall MeanAnnual Mean Annual Mean Annual GrowingSeason Location Temperature Precipitation May-Sept Snowfall Starts Ends (°C) (mm) (mm) (cm)

Brantford 7.8 819 364 115 Apr 13 Nov 5 Kitchener 7.3 897 408 152 Apr 14 Nov 1 Woodstock 7.3 862 385 126 Apr 12 Nov 3 Hagersville 7.6 829 374 103 Apr 11 Nov 7 Delhi 7.8 935 389 130 Apr 11 Nov 6 Caledonia 7.6 913 398 146 Apr 12 Nov 7

Mean Annual Mean Length Mean Annual Mean Date Mean Date Growing Degree Mean Annual Frost-free Location Growing Corn Heat Units Last Frost First Frost Season (Days) Days Period (Days)

Brantford 206 3600 2900 May 12 Oct 4 145 Kitchener 201 3350 2700 May 18 Sept 30 135 Woodstock 206 3450 2800 May 15 Oct 4 142 Hagersville 209 3700 3000 May 12 Oct 6 148 Delhi 209 3600 2900 May 12 Oct 5 147 Caledonia 208 3650 3000 May 12 Oct 5 147 HOW THE SOILS WERE MAPPED AND CLASSIFIED

Soil Mapping sity level of the Brant County soil survey is at an intermediate Initially, existing resource publications were studied to level, between 2 and 3. obtain relevant, current information on the characteristics and In this survey there was at least one inspection in distribution of the soil/land resources. These included the old soil most map delineations . Most boundaries were checked in the field soil map, geological, and physiographic maps and reports. during This provided a general description of soil materials for traverses on foot at intervals of approximately 0.5 km a for small and medium-sized delineations, and at intervals of preliminary soil legend, and their geographic distribution in several kilometres for the area. large delineations . Soil inspections were Strong reliance was placed on made by examination of vertical soil the use of up-to-date aerial sections with a hand auger, probe or shovel to a depth ofabout photographs of 1 :15,840 scale for the identification and classification of soil and landscape 1 m . In roadcut exposures, or along stream banks, the depth of features and for accurate deline soil examination usually increased to 1 to 2 m. ation of soil boundaries. Prior to commencement of field work, stereoscopic study of aerial photographs was carried out Considering the survey intensity level and scale of soil to establish tentative slope, landform andparentmaterial sepa- mapping in Brant County, the most appropriate uses of the rations. Existing soil, geological and topographic information information are for planning purposes of land areas such as also were utilized during the pre-typing phase of the work. townships, watersheds, large urban subdivisions, or large Extensive field work was conductedto gather further informa- farms. Use of the information for decisions on smaller areas tion. This included driving all roads to examine soils exposed such as small farms, small subdivisions, building sites, etc. is in road cuts, or digging soil pits before commencing mapping . less appropriate because of soil or landscape variability which Traverses on foot were then arranged to cross as many bounda- can occur over short distances. Inthese instances, the soil maps ries as possible, examining soils in different landscape posi- can be used to predict whatconditions are most likely to occur, tions to determine soil characteristics, variability and but the final decision should be made only after on-site distribution. The frequency of examination was such that the examination . smallest areas delineated on the map (approximately 4 hectares) usually had at least one examination site, and the larger Soil Classification areas, naturally, manymore. While in the field, the boundaries The interaction of soil-forming factors such as parent were finalized and the delineated areas classified . Any open material, climate and vegetation acting over thousands of soil boundaries were extended and finalized with further years have produced soils in Brant County with characteristics stereoscopic study of the photographs soon after completion that are a reflection of their environments . These characteris- of field traverse ofan area. tics take the form of a sequence of layers (horizons) that differ Soil correlation to ensure consistency and quality control in colour, texture, thickness and structure . Collectively these in thesoil mapping was achieved by thesoil surveyparty leader, horizons constitute the soil profile. who established benchmark sites at regular intervals which the The soil profile comprises a vertical section of the soil mappers could easily refer to, discussed with the surveyors any through allits horizons extending downward into the unweath- problems encountered in mapping or classification, and ered parent material. The number, colour, sequence and com checked the final map. Numerous soil samples were collected position of the various horizons are the basis upon which soils for laboratory analysis in order to relate soil morphological are recognized, classified and mapped. properties, which are the basis of field mapping, to accurately determined chemical or physical tests. The various horizons of mineral soils are differentiated as A, B and C horizons and are subdivided further, as required, Complete characterization of the soils in the County was using lower case letters. Figure 12 is anillustration ofa soil pro achieved through detailed descriptions and sampling of repre- file in a well-drained landscape position, the horizons being sentative sites, followed by laboratory analyses. For the major readily recognizable by colour differences. The Ah horizon soils, data was obtained at 3 or 4 sites to satisfactorily represent owes its dark colour to theincorporation of organic matter; the the range in properties which may be expected within that soil. subscript "h" infers humus accumulation. Theunderlying Bm horizon islighter in colour due to its lowhumus content and the Survey Intensity and Map Reliability eluviation and weatheringof constituents such as iron and clay. Survey intensity level is an indication ofthe precision with The Bt horizon is generally a reddish-brown colour due to the which the soils of a region have been described and mapped. enrichment of iron and other sesquioxides that have been Five levels of survey intensity have been defined (10). Level l is leached from the upper horizons and deposited in this lower the highest intensity, with the most detailed procedures result- layer. The lower-case letter "t" is an indication of clay enrich- ing in the most precise map. Level 5 is the lowest intensity, the ment resulting fromthedownward movement ofthese fine par- least detailed and giving a generalized map. The survey inten- ticles in leaching water and subsequent flocculation and depositionin the B horizon. Ah horizon (dark brown or black) - Bm horizon - Bg horizon (light brown) (mottled brown) - Bt horizon -Cg horizon (dark brown or reddish brown) (mottled light brown)

- Ck horizon (light brown)

Figure 12. Diagrammatic soil profile of a well-drained Bruni- Figure 13 . Diagrammatic soil profile of a poorly drained solic Gray Brown Luvisol Orthic Humic Gleysol

The C horizon has undergone little weathering and change increased concentrations of clay, iron and aluminum. The from the original parent material. In Brant County it is gener- underlying parent material is calcareous and may be ofglacial ally moderately to strongly calcareous. till, lacustrine or glaciofluvial outwash origin. Well-drained soils develop on landforms having good sur- Soils of the Brunisolic order in Brant County may be face drainage or on coarse textured materials with rapid inter- found mainly on recent alluvium deposits within the flood- nal drainage. plains of the Grand and other river systems, on some sandy textured outwash or deltaic deposits. They have thick, dark Ah Imperfectly drained soils generally have the same type and orAp surface horizons rich in organic matter overlying brown- sequence of horizons as well-drained soils, but are differenti- ish Bm horizons that are not clay-enriched. The soil parent ated by darker-coloured Ah horizons and the presence of yel material is moderately to highly calcareous and, in some cases, lowish or reddish-coloured mottles, and duller colours free carbonates may be present in all horizons. throughout the B horizon . Regosolic soils in Brant County occur on small, localized Poorly drained soils are water-saturated for a sufficient areas such floodplains of the Grand River where they are of period of time to cause reducing conditions indicated by the as colours in the B and C horizons, and mot recent origin, or on severely eroded landscapes where the soil development of gray parent material is exposed. Profile development is minimal, tles often with prominent yellowish-brown colours. The Ah varying than characterized by a surface horizon with amounts of horizon generally has a higher level of organic matter organic matter enrichment underlain by slightly altered parent imperfectly or well-drained soils, hence is darker in colour, and materials. usually thicker. A sketch of a poorly drained profile is shown in Figure 13 . Soils ofthe Gleysolic order are poorly drained and occupy the lowest positions in a landscape. The surface horizons are Soil Orders organic-enriched and overlie prominently mottled gray or The soil order is the highest category in the Canadian soil grayish-brown horizons. The underlying parent material also classification system (11) . There are.nine soil orders in this sys- exhibits dull grayish or brownish colours, and usually contains tem, four of them being represented in the soils of Brant few, if any, brightly coloured mottles (Figure 13). County. Organic soils occur in very poorly drained depressional Most of the well and imperfectly drained soils in Brant locations favouring the accumulation of vegetative remains. . County belong to the Luvisolic order. They have a soil profile They have an organic matter content in excess of 30 percent, similar to that shown in Figure 12. These soils have a dark and the organic material extends to a depth ofat least 40 cm. grayish-brown organic enriched Ah surface horizon (Ap if cultivated) or are underlain by a grayish-brown Bm horizon. The (Continuedonpage22) dark-brown, clay-enriched Bt horizon usually contains

20 Table 6. Soil families of Brant County

Subgroup Mineralogy Reaction Calcareous Soil Soil Temperature Moisture Particle Size Series

Brunisolic mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid sandy Fox Gray Brown mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarse Luvisol Waterloo loamy Wilsonville mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid fine loamy Woolwich mixed neutral strongly mild subhumid loamy Dumfries skeletal mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarse loamy Burford over sandy Caledon skeletal Teeswater mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid sandy over Scotland loamy mixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse silty Brant Guelph mixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine silty Harrisburg mixed alkaline strongly mild humid sandy over Bookton fine silty mixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine clayey Brantford Muriel Smithville

Orthic Gray mixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine loamy Seneca Brown Luvisol

Gleyed mixed alkaline strongly mild humid loamy London Orthic Gray mixed alkaline strongly mild humid Brown fine silty Gobles Luvisol mixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse silty Conestogo mixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine clayey Haldimand Beverly mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarse loamy Brisbane over sandy Camilla skeletal mixed neutral strongly mild subhumid sandy over Oakland loamy mixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse loamy Heidelberg Brady Tuscola mixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse loamy Berrien over clayey mixed alkaline strongly mild humid silty over Osborne clayey

Orthic mixed neutral weakly mild subhumid sandy Plainfield Melanic Brunisol

Gleyed mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid sandy Walsingham Orthic Melanic Brunisol

(Continued on page 22)

21 Table6. Soil families ofBrant County (Cont'd.)

Soil Soil Particle Size Series Subgroup Mineralogy Reaction Calcareous Temperature Moisture

Orthic mixed neutral moderately mild subhumid coarse silty Alluvium Regosol mixed neutral moderately mild subhumid loamy Alluvium

Rego Humic mixed neutral moderately mild aquic sandy Alluvium Gleysol

Orthic mixed neutral weakly mild aquic sandy Waterin Humic mixed alkaline strongly mild aquic sandy over Gilford Gleysol loamy mixed alkaline strongly mild aquic loamy over Ayr fragmental mixed alkaline strongly mild aquic fine clayey Kelvin Lincoln Toledo

Humic Luvic mixed neutral strongly mild aquic sandy Granby Gleysol mixed neutral strongly mild aquic fine loamy Marybill mixed neutral strongly mild aquic coarse loamy Vanessa mixed alkaline strongly mild aquic , coarse silty Colwood mixed neutral strongly mild aquic sandy over Wauseon clayey

Terric mixed alkaline moderately mild aquic humic over Stayner Humisol sandy

Typic mixed alkaline moderately mild aquic humic Styx Humisol

Soil Great Groups and Subgroups the organic material. Subgroups recognized include the Typic Soil orders are subdivided into a number of great groups, Humisols and Terric Humisols based upon the depth to under- each with profile expressions that reflect the strength of some lying mineral layers. soil-forming factor in addition to the dominant one. Likewise, Regosolic soils do not occur in sufficiently large areas in great groups canbe further subdivided into subgroups. the County to comprise dominant soils in a map unit. How- Luvisolic soils in Brant County primarily belong to the ever, their localized occurrence is as soils of the Regosol great Gray Brown Luvisol great group. Depending upon the extent group, Orthic and Gleyed Regosol subgroups. of weathering and resultant colour development in the upper Soil Families solum, well-drained Luvisols may be classified as either Orthic or Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol subgroups. Imperfectly Soil families are divisions of subgroups and are differenti- drained soils of this great group are classified either as Gleyed ated on the basis of parent material characteristics such as tex- Gray Brown Luvisols or Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvi- ture, mineralogy, reaction, calcareousness and soil climate. solsubgroups. Classification of the soils of Brant County at the family level is shown in Table 6using classes described in (11). Brunisolic soils of the County are mainly classified as Melanic Brunisols . They may be further subdivided into Soil Series Orthic, Eluviated or Gleyed Melanic Brunisol subgroups. Soil series are subdivisions of soil families and are the most specific level of soil taxonomy. The concept of the soil series Most soils of the Gleysolic Order are classified into the has been refined over the years and the link between the soil Humic Gleysol great group. These in turn are subdivided, most bodies is a three-dimensional soil unit called subgroups, and series and real soil commonly, into the Orthic Humic Gleysol a pedon. Pedons classified as a given soil series have a similar occasionally as Rego Humic Gleysols. There are lesser occur- number and arrangement of horizons whose colour, texture, rences of soils of the Luvic Gleysol Great Group, Humic Luvic structure, consistency, thickness or combinations. of these Gleysolsubgroup. properties are within a defined range. In the case of soils with- Most organic soils in the County are classified in the out genetic horizons, these properties apply to the C horizon Humisol great group reflecting the highly humified nature of to the depth of the control section. For soil surveys such as

22 that in Brant County, the series is a category of paramount Soil Map Units importance because it is used for defining and classifying soils The natural landscape is comprised of soils which are por- which are the components of soil map units displayed on trayed on soil maps by means of soil map units. Usually soils the soil map. occur in a repetitive pattern within a landscape and the soil Soil Phases map unit describes this pattern in terms of dominant and sub- The soil phase is used to differentiate certain characteris- dominant soil components. In some soil landscapes where the tics ofsoil series which are significant to plantgrowth, or useof soils are relatively homogeneous, the soil map unit will consist the soil or land. Only one kind of soil phase has been recog ofonly one soil component, e.g . the BRT 1 map unit comprised nized in Brant County which is the coarse texture phase. It is of only Brant soils. The usual case is one in which soil map commonly associated with soils of the Burford, Guelph and units consist ofa dominant soil component, which is estimated Fox soil series. A coarse phase of the Burford soil is designated to occupy approximately 70% of the areal extent of the soil as BUF.C. delineation, and a subdominant component occupying the remaining 30% of the area. For example, the BRT 4 soil map Miscellaneous LandUnits unit consists of dominantly Brant soils and subdominant Tus- Thereare some land areas toovariable or complexin terms cola soils, in approximately 70:30 proportions. Although map of soil or slope conditions to classify and map in the conven- units are defined with rather precise limits, it should be recog- tional way as soil map units. These are recognized as Miscella nized that within anylandscape there is often variability in soil neous Land Units and include recent floodplains adjacent to conditions which cannot be described and mapped at the map major rivers and streams, e.g. ALU and steep escarpments scale employed. These seemingly aberrant soils are referred to often associated with entrenched or eroded stream valleys, e.g. as soil inclusions, and are generally considered to occupy less ESC. Marsh (MAR) and Urban Land (ULD) Miscellaneous than 20% of the area of a map delineation . Land Units are also recognized.

GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOILS

Map Map Hectares Hectares SOIL KEY Symbol SOIL KEY Symbol

A . Soils Developed on Glacial Till C. Soils Developed on 40 to 100 cm of Deposits Lacustrine Materials Over 1 . Silty clay loam till parent Contrasting Glacial Till or materials Lacustrine Materials (a) Moderately well-drained 1 . Sandy lacustrine over silty clay 1 . Muriel MUI 2669 loam or siltyclay lacustrine or (b) Imperfectly drained till materials 1 . Gobles GOB 1008 (a) Well-drained (c) Poorly drained 1 . Bookton BOO 2624 1 . Kelvin KVN 500 2. Bookton till phase BOO.T 244 (b) Imperfectly drained 2. Loam and sandy loam till 3987 parent materials 1 . Berrien BRR (c) Poorlydrained (a) Well-drained 1718 1 . Guelph GUP 1710 1 . Wauseon WUS 2. Wauseon till phase WUS.T 82 2. Guelph coarse phase GUP .C 139 (b) Imperfectly drained 2. Silt loam over silty clay loam 1 . London LOD 357 lacustrine parent materials (a) Well-drained 3 . Loam and gravellyloam 412 drumlinized till parent 1 . Harrisburg HBG (b) Imperfectly drained materials 185 (a) Well-drained 1 . Osborne OBO 1 . Seneca SNA 101 (c) Poorly drained 1 . Ohsweken OSE 52 4. Stony loam and gravelly sandy loam till parent materials D. Soils Developed on Lacustrine (a) Rapidly drained Deposits 1 . Wilsonville WIL 730 1 . Loamy sand and sand (b) Well-drained lacustrine parent materials 1 . Dumfries DUF 2049 (a) Rapidly drained (c) Poorly drained 1 . Fox FOX 7987 1 . Lily LIY 549 (b) Imperfectly drained 1972 B. Soils Developed on 40 to 100 cm of 1 . Brady BAY (c) Poorly drained Lacustrine Materials Over Glacial 2210 Till Deposits 1 . Granby GNY 1 . Loamy lacustrine over loamtill 2. Lacustrine medium sand with parent materials eolian modification (a) Well-drained (a) Rapidly drained PFD 1824 1 . Woolwich WOW 2067 1 . Plainfield (b) Imperfectly drained (b) Imperfectly drained 1809 1 . Conestogo CTG 677 1 . Walsingham WAM Poorly drained (c) Poorly drained (c) WRN 1595 1 . Maryhill MYL 84 1 . Waterin 2 . Sandy lacustrine over sandy 3 . Fine sandy loam and very fine parent loam or gravellyloam till parent sandy loam lacustrine materials materials drained (a) Well-drained (a) Rapidly WTO 272 1 . Scotland STD 927 1 . Waterloo (b) Imperfectly drained (b) Imperfectly drained 174 1 . Oakland OKL 124 1 . Heidelberg HIG (c) Poorly drained 4. Silt loam lacustrineparent 1 . Vanessa VSS 39 materials (a) Well-drained 1 . Brant BRT 2737 (b) Imperfectlydrained 1 . Tuscola TUC 1808 (c) Poorlydrained 1 . Colwood CWO 962

GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOILS (conta.)

Map Map SOIL KEY Hectares Hectares Symbol SOIL KEY Symbol

5. Silty clay loam and silty clay F. Soils Developed on Organic lacustrine parent materials Deposits (a) Moderatelywell-drained 1 . Organic 1 . 11,961 soils 40 to 100 cm Brantford BFO thick over sandymineral (b) Imperfectly drained material 1 . Beverly BVY 5837 (a) Verypoorly drained (c) Poorly drained 1 . Stayner STN 1552 1 . Toledo TLD 2448 2. Organic soils greater than 6 . Clay and heavy clay lacustrine 160 parent materials cm thick (a) Very poorly drained (a) Moderatelywell-drained 1 . Styx 1051 1 . Smithville SHV 1678 SYX (b) Imperfectly drained G. Soils Developed on Recent Alluvial 1 . Haldimand HIM 5350 Deposits (c) Poorly drained (a) Variable drainage 1 . Lincoln 3427 LIC 1 . Mainly sand and E. Soils Developed on Glaciofluvial gravel Deposits alluvium 2-ALU 1366 2. Mainly silt loam and 1 . Gravelly sand orgravel parent loam materials (a) Rapidly drained alluvium 3-ALU 1268 1 . Burford 3 . Mainly silty clay loam BUF 5952 and silty clay 2. Burford cobbly phase BUF.CO 293 alluvium (b) Poorly drained 4-ALU 2407 1 . Gilford GFD 165 H. Miscellaneous Land Units 2. Sandy sediments over gravelly 1. Gravel pit PIT 253 sandor gravel parent materials 2. Escarpment ESC 152 (a) Well-drained 3 . Marsh MAR 141 1 . Caledon CAD 3566 4. Urbanland ULD 9493 (b) Imperfectlydrained 5 . Water ZZZ 804 1 . Camilla CML 1226 (c) Poorly drained 1 . Ayr AYR 726 3 . Siltyor loamy sediments over gravelly sand orgravelparent materials (a) Well-drained 1 . Teeswater TEW 3259

Soil Descriptions soils from glaciofluvial gravels. Bothtend to be associated with Generalized descriptions of all the soils in Brant County floodplains mapped as the 2-ALU map unit. are included in this section ofthe report. The descriptions are Land Use and Management Most alluvial soils remain arranged in alphabetical sequence and include general infor in their natural condition comprising native grasses, shrubs or mationon soil profile characteristics including parent material wooded vegetation. Their major limitations to agricultural use and textures, soil moisture characteristics, associated soils and are risk of flooding and poor drainage. The larger, higher land use and management. floodplains, especially along the Grand River, are sometimes Mean horizon values for selected parameters of Brant used for agricultural crops where the risk of floodingis lowand County soils are included at the end of this section in Table 7. drainage is better thannormal. Corn, spring grain or vegetable More detailed morphological, chemical, physical and engi crops may be grown in these areas. neering test data for representative soil pedons are included in Soils (AYR) Volume 2 ofthis report. Ayr General Soil Description Ayr soils have developed on a Many of the soil names used in this report have been sandy or loamy veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying outwash retained from the old soil map for Brant County. Although gravelly sand. They are poorly drained . there are strong similarities between the new and old soil descriptions, they are not identical due to the more detailed The surface Ah horizons consist of20-25 cm of fine sandy mappingof this survey. Also, because ofincreasing intensity of loam or silt loam of high organic matter content. The underly- land use in recent years, it is now necessary to establish more ing B horizons are also sandy loam or silt loam in texture, are precise limits when describing soil properties. Care should be strongly mottled and extend to at least 50 cm depth. A transi- taken to recognize these differences between old and new soil tional zone with characteristics of both B and C horizons descriptions when common soil names have been used. occurs between 50-75 cm. This isunderlain by calcareous gravelly sand Ck horizons, which is the parent material, at a depth Alluvial Soils (ALU) of approximately 75 cm. The gravel content of the parent General Soil Description Alluvial soils have developed material is at least 20-25%, and it is strongly calcareous. Soil in materials deposited during flood stages of rivers and reaction is near neutral in the surface horizon and is moder- streams. The texture and drainage of these soils are variable ately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification for Ayr soils is over short distances. On small, non-cultivated floodplains, no Orthic Humic Gleysol. attempt has been made to differentiate soil textures, and allu- Soil Moisture Characteristics Ayr soils are poorly vial soils have been mapped as Undifferentiated Alluvium (1- drained. They are subject to fluctuating water table levels with ALU). Textural differentiation has been attempted in a general significant periods of saturation in, the B horizon during the way on larger floodplains being cultivated for agricultural winter and spring. The soil materials are highly permeable and crops. Alluvial soilswith sand and graveltextures weremapped the water table level recedes significantly to 1 m or beyond dur- as 2-ALU; loams, silt loams and sandy loams as 3ALU; and ing dry growing season conditions. Surface runoff from Ayr silty clay loams and silty clays as 4ALU. soils is minimal due to their low landscape position and rapid The surface horizons of alluvial soils generally are permeability. between 20 and 30 cm thick. Organic matter contents are usu- Commonly Associated Soils Camilla soils commonly ally high, except in areas - where recent erosion or deposition occur with Ayr soils where the slope increases and drainage is has occurred, and often range from 3 to 7%. Textures of top- somewhat improved . This combination of soils is found in the with . Free soil and subsoilare variable, bothlaterally and depth AYR 2 map unit . Granby soils may also occur with Ayr soils carbonates may occur at anydepth andoftenstill remain in the wherethe sandyveneer exceeds 100 cm in depth. This situation surface horizon of recently flooded soils. Soil reaction is usu- occurs in map unit AYR 3 . ally neutral to mildly alkaline. Soil classification varies with the age of the deposit and drainage. Alluvial soils which are well- Land Use and Management A wide range of land use drained usually are either Humic Regosols or Melanic Bruni- types may be found on Ayr soils. Land use may range from sols. Poorly drained alluvial soils are most commonly Humic pasture or woodland in the natural, undrained condition, to Gleysols. tobacco, vegetable crops or corn where drainage has been improved with subsurface tile. The major limitations to agri- Soil Moisture Characteristics Alluvial soils have a wide cultural use of Ayr soils are poor drainage and low fertility range of drainage conditions, but most are either imperfectly level. or poorlydrained due to the nearness of the groundwater table to the surface of the soil for long periods each year. They are Berrien Soils (BRR) also subject to flooding or seepage of water from adjacent val- General Soil Description Berrien soils have developed ley slopes which causes additional wetness. Permeability, on a sandy lacustrine veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying clayey water-holding capacity and surface runoff vary widely lacustrine or glacial till deposits . They are imperfectly depending on soil textures. drained. Commonly Associated Soils Soils which most com- Surface Ap horizons of Berrien soils consist of 20-25 cm monly occur with Alluvial soils are the well-drained and mod- of sandy loamtexture. They are relatively low in organic matter erately well-drained soils on valley slopes adjacent to the with contents around 2.0% . Underlying B horizons also are alluvial floodplain. They include Brantford (BFO), Smithville sandy or loamy in texture and extend to the contact with the (SHV), Haldimand (HIM), Fox (FOX) and Burford (BUF) clayey subsoil. Distinct or prominent mottles occur near the soils. Brantford, Smithville and Haldimand soils are developed clay contact. Transition to clayey subsoil occurs abruptly at on clayey textured glaciolacustrine materials, and are most about 50 cm. This is marked by clay loam or silty clay textures commonly associated with the 4ALU map unit. Fox. soils are and very firm or hard consistency. Ck horizons are usually developed on glaciolacustrine sandy materials and Burford encountered at about 75 cm and are silty clay, strongly calcare-

ous materials. Soil reaction ranges from slightly acidic in the small grains and forage crops. They are also used to a lesser surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. The soil extent for specialized crops such as soybeans, sweet corn and classification is usually Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown tomatoes. Tile drainage is usually required to extend the grow- Luvisol. ing season and to facilitate harvesting operations. These soils Soil Moisture Characteristics Berrien soils are imper- are susceptible to compaction by heavy machinery when oper- fectly drained . The sandy surface materials are rapidly perme- ations are carried out during wet soil conditions. able, but have relatively low water-holding capacity, and are Bookton Soils (BOO) potentially droughty during the summer months. The underly- General Soil Description Bookton soils have developed ing clayey materials are moderately to slowly permeable which on sandy lacustrine veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying clayey often leads to perched water table conditions of variable dura- lacustrine or glacial till deposits. They are well-drained soils. tion at the sand-clay interface. Surface runoff from Berrien soils is slow because of its slowly permeable subsoil and nearly Surface Ah horizons of Bookton soils usually consist of level topography. 20-25 cm of fine sandy loam. They are underlain by 20-30 cm of loamy sand B horizons over the clayey subsoil. Bt horizons Commonly Associated Soils Bookton (BOO) and Wau- occur at the interface with this heavy-textured material at a seon (WUS) soils are most commonly associated with Berrien depth of40-50 cm. They are generally silty clay loam in texture soils in map units BRR 4 and BRR 5 . Their parent materials and very firm and compacted. Relatively unaltered clayey sub- are similar to those of Berrien soils but their drainages differ. soil, comprising IICk horizons, occurs between 70-80 cm Soils of the Muriel catena may occur in proximity to Berrien depth. They are strongly calcareous and extremely firm and soils where the sandy veneer thins to less than 40 cm as in map compacted. Soil reaction ranges from near neutral in surface unit BRR 21. horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classifica- Land Use and Management Berrien soils are important tion is usually Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol . agricultural soils used extensively for grain corn, beans, Soil Moisture Characteristics Bookton soils are well- tobacco and specialized horticultural crops. They have slight drained. The sandy surface materials are rapidly permeable, soil fertility and soil moisture deficiencies which can be signifi- but the underlying clayey material is moderately to slowly per cant to agricultural use or management . Under intensive and meable. Temporary perched water table conditions may occur continuous row crops, structural degradation of the surface at this sand-clay interface. Surface sands have low water- horizon and loss of organic matter can readily occur, which holding capacityand are commonly droughty during dry sum- exacerbates these inherent soil limitations. mer conditions. Surface runoff is slow on level or gently Beverly Soils (BVY) sloping Bookton soils, but increases on moderate and steep slopes. General Soil Description Beverly soils have developed on lacustrine silty clay loam and silty clay deposits. They are Commonly Associated Soils Berrien (BRR) soils are imperfectly drained. most commonly associated with Bookton soils in map units BOO 3, and Wauseon (WUS) soils may occur as inclusions. Surface Ap horizons of Beverly soils consist of approxi- Their parent materials are similar to Bookton soils, but their mately 15-20 cm ofsiltyclayloam. They are moderatelyhigh in drainage differs. Fox (FOX) and Brady (BAY) soils also are 16 . organic matter, ranging between 5-60 Surface horizons are common associates of Bookton soils in map units BOO 7 and normally underlain by about 40 cm of B horizon of silty clay BOO 19 respectively, as subdominant components of these loam or silty clay textures. These subsoil horizons are fre- map units. In these instances, the sandy veneer occasionally quently very firm and compacted, and are prominently mot- exceeds 100 cm in depth . tled. Strongly calcareous Ck horizons begin at about 60-70 cm depth. They are normally silty clay loam in texture and are Land Use and Management Bookton soils are impor- prominently layered with alternating silty and clayey varves. tant agricultural soils for a wide range of crops including grain Soil reaction ranges from near neutral at the surface to moder- corn, hay, winter wheat, spring grain, and specialized crops ately alkaline in the subsoil. Soilclassification is usually Gleyed such as tobacco and horticultural crops. They have slight soil BrunisolicGray Brown Luvisol. fertility and soil moisture deficiencies which can be significant to land use and management. Supplemental irrigation may be Soil Moisture Characteristics Beverly soils are imper- necessary for some crops. fectly drained . They are moderately to slowly permeable. Groundwater temporarily occupies the surface horizons each Brady Soils (BAY) year. The saturation period is normally medium, but may be General Soil Description Brady soils have developed on prolonged in some instances where frequent use of heavy glaciolacustrine sediments consisting of sand and loamy sand machinery has caused compaction of the subsoil. The water- textures usually modified on the surface by wind action. They holding capacity ranges from medium to high, and surface are imperfectly drained soils. runoff is medium . Surface Ah horizons of Brady soils usually consist of 15- Commonly Associated Soils Brantford (BFO) and 20 cm ofloamysand or sandy loam. They are relatively high in Toledo (TLD) soils are most commonly associated with organic matter with contents of 5-601o . The underlying B hori Beverlysoils in map units BVY 6 and BVY 8. They differ from zons are 30-40 cm thick, usually of loamy sand texture and Beverly soils, being moderately well-drained and poorly with prominent mottles . Strongly calcareous Ck horizons usu- drained, respectively. ally begin at 50-60 cm depth and are sand or loamy sand tex- Land Use and Management Beverly soils are ture. Soil reaction ranges from neutral in the surface horizons important moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is agricultural soils and their dominant use is for grain corn, to typically Gleyed Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol.

Soil Moisture Characteristics Brady soils are imper- Land Use and Management Brant soils are excellent fectly drained. They are rapidly permeable throughout; how- agricultural soils widely used for common field crops including ever, atemporary high water table in the subsoil horizons in the grain corn, forage and hay crops, and small grains. They are winter and spring can restrict permeability. Brady soils have used less commonly for specialty crops such as apples, toma- relatively low water-holding capacity and consequently are toes and peppers. Their main limitation is susceptibility to droughty during dry summers. Due to their high permeability water erosion on sloping topography. Fields with complex and very gently sloping topography, they usually have slow sur- slopes are difficult to manage and generally reveal very serious face runoff. soil losses due to erosion on the knolls. Continuous row crops Commonly Associated Soils Fox (FOX) and Granby shouldbe avoided on slopes exceeding 6016, and perennial grass (GNY) soils are most commonly associated with Brady soils in or tree cover is recommended where slopes exceed 12% . Brant map units BAY7 and BAY 5 . Fox and Granby soils have similar map units with b and c topography present additional problems in soil materials as Brady soils, but they differ in drainage by management due to variability in drainage. Intermit- being well and poorly drained, respectively. tent wet soil conditions can cause delays in seeding as well as difficulties during harvest operations. Land Use and Management Brady soils are extensively used for tobacco production. To a lesser extent they are used Brantford Soils (BFO) for grain corn, winter wheat, hay and vegetable production. General Soil Description Brantford soils have developed They have slight soil fertility and soil moisture limitations, and on silty clay loam or silty clay glaciolacustrine deposits that, in often suffer from droughtiness during dry summers . Supple- Brant County, generally show evidence of pronounced varv- mental irrigation is usually required for high-value crops such ing. They are moderately well-drained soils. as tobacco or vegetables. Surface Ap horizons of Brantford soils usually consist of Brant Soils (BRT) about 15 cm of silt loam or silty clay loam. They have a moderately high organic matter content of about 5016 unless affected General Soil Description Brant soils have developed on by erosion, in which silt loam or very fine sandy loam glaciolacustrine sediments case they are considerably lower. that are often stratified. are well-drained soils. Brownish-coloured Bm horizons underlie the surface horizons They at a depth of approximately 15-40 cm. These are most com- Surface Ap horizons of Brant soils usually consist of monly silt loam in texture. Distinctive dark-brown Bt horizons about 20 cm of silt loam . They have a moderate organic matter begin at about 40cm, and are noticeably higher in clay content content ranging from 3.5 to 4.0016, unless affected by erosion, andmore compact, with textures of silty clay loam or silty clay. inwhich case they are considerably lower. The surface horizons On sloping topography, Bt horizons are much closer to the soil are underlain by grayish-brown Bm horizons at a depth of 20- surface dueto erosion ofthe overlying materials, and are incor- 30 cm, also of silt loam texture. Distinctive brown Bt horizons porated into the plow layer. Strongly calcareous Ck horizons, occur at 30-50 cm, of silt loam texture and generally higher in usually commence between 50-75 cm depth, are silty clay in clay content than other horizons in the soil profile. On sloping texture and are most commonly made up of alternating silt and topography Bt horizons are much closer to the soil surface due clay varves. Soil reaction of Brantford soils ranges from near to erosion of the overlying materials, and are incorporated into neutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the the plow layer. Thetexture of the Ck horizons of Brant soils are subsoil. Soil classification is usually Brunisolic Gray Brown usually silt loam, but unlike other horizons may contain thin Luvisol. layers of sandier textures. Soil reaction ranges from near neu- Soil Moisture Characteristics Brantford soils are mod- tral in the surface soil horizons to moderately alkaline in the erately well-drained. They usually have medium to low perme- subsoil . Soil Classification is usually Brunisolic Gray Brown ability, depending on the incidence of soil cracks and Luvisol. compaction in the subsoil horizons. Often a perched water Soil Moisture Characteristics Brant soils are well- table condition occurs in the surface horizons of Brantford drained. They are usually of medium permeability, but this soils for a short duration . Brantford soils have a high water- decreases where silty clay loam or compacted layers occur. holding capacity. Surface runoff is rapid. Brant soils have a fairly high water-holding capacity. Surface Commonly Associated Soils Beverly (BVY) and Toledo runoff can be high, and increases markedly as slope increases (TLD) soils are most commonly associated with Brantford and organic matter content ofthe surface horizon decreases. soils as subdominant components in map units BFO 6 and Commonly Associated Soils Tuscola (TUC) and Col- BFO 7 . Beverly and Toledo soils have similar soil materials as wood (CWO) soils are most commonly associated with Brant Brantford soils, but are imperfectly and poorly drained, soils as subdominant components in mapunits BRT 4and BRT respectively. There are also occurrences of Brantford soils with 27. Tuscola and Colwood soils have similar soil materials as Brant soils in the BFO 26 map unit, in the strongly dissected Brant soils, but are imperfectly and poorly drained, respec- topography of the northeastern part of Brantford Township. tively. Brant soils are often associated with the well-drained Alluvium soils (4ALU) with silt loam to silty clay textures, are Brantford soils in the BRT 18 map unit on rolling topography, often associated with Brantford soils in map unit BFO 30, where dissection of the landscape has intermittently exposed which occupies stream valley floodplain areas. underlying heavy-texturèd glaciolacustrine materials. Sandy- Land Use and Management Brantford soils are very textured Fox soils also occur with Brant soils in map unit BRT important for agricultural uses. They are used extensively for 6, where the glaciolacustrine materials gradually change from common field crops including grain corn, soybeans and hay loamyto sandytextures. crops. Specialized horticultural crops such as apples, strawberries and cabbages are grown to a limited extent on Brantford

soils. A very commonlimitation to the use of Brantford soils is Surface Ap horizons of Caledon soils consist of 15-20 cm steep or irregular topography. Fields with complex and steep of loam or sandy loam textures. They have an organic matter slopes are difficult to manage and generally reveal very serious content of about 3%. Brownish-coloured Bm horizons of soil erosion on the knolls. Brantford map units with complex sandy loamtexture underliethesurfacehorizons extendingto a topography present additional problems in management due depth of about 40-50 cm. Distinct dark-brown Bt horizons are to variability in drainage. Intermittent wet soil conditions can present, generally between 50 to 70 cm depth. They are notice- cause delays in seeding, as well as difficulties during harvest ably higher in clay content than other horizons in the soil pro- operations. Over-compacted subsoils can occur as a conse- file and are gravelly sandy clay loam texture. They develop at quence offield operations during wet conditions. the interface of the sandy surficial materials and the gravelly Burford Soils (BUF) subsoil, hence they contain a relatively high content of gravel. The strongly calcareous Ck horizons generally are present General Soil Description Burford soils have developed below 70 cm depth and are gravelly sand in texture. Soil reac- on glaciofluvial deposits of gravelly sand and gravel textures. tion of Caledon soils ranges from near neutral in the upper Theyare rapidly drained soils. horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classifica- Surface Ap horizons ofBurfordsoils usually consist of 15- tion is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol . 20 cm of loam or silt loam with various amounts of gravel. Soil Moisture Characteristics Caledon soils are well- They have an organic matter level of about 3-4% . Brownish drained. They have high permeability and low water-holding coloured Bm horizons underlie the surface horizons and also capacity. The relatively high clay content of the Bt horizons are loamy in texture. They are relatively thin and generally do does enhance moisture storage within the plant root zone; not extend below a depth of 35 cm. Distinctive dark-brown Bt however, a significant moisture deficit does occur in Caledon horizons are present between about 35-50 cm depth, and occa- soils during periods of prolonged drought. Surface runoff is sionally may extend to 75 cm. They are noticeably higher in slow on Caledon soils. clay content than other horizons in the soil profile with gravelly clay loam textures being typical. They tend to develop at the Commonly Associated Soils Camilla soils commonly interface between the loamy surficial materials and the grav- occur with Caledon soils as subdominant components in map elly subsoil, hence they possess a high content of gravel. unit CAD 2 . They have similar parent materials as Caledon Strongly calcareous Ck horizons generally occur below 50 cm soils, but are imperfectly drained. Caledon soils also occur and are usually gravelly coarse sand or gravelly loamy sand in with Burford and Teeswater soils as subdominant components texture. Soil reaction of Burford soils ranges from near neutral in the CAD 3 and CAD 4 map units, respectively. In the CAD 3 in the upper horizons to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil map unit, the gravelly-textured subsoil can be found within 40 classification is Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol. cm of the surface on significant occasions giving rise to Bur- ford soils. In CAD 4, the texture of the overburden occasion- Burford cobbly phase (BURCO) soils are similar to the ally ranges from loam to silt loam, comprising the Teeswater Burford soils described above, except for a predominance of soils. Occurrences of deep, sandy-textured Fox or Plainfield rounded, cobble-sized coarse fragments (7.5-25 cm diameter) soils in association with Caledon soils may occur in map units in the surface horizons. CAD 6 and CAD 7, respectively. Soil Moisture Characteristics Burford soils are rapidly Land Use and Management Caledon soils are moder- drained . They have high permeability and low water-holding ately good soils for agricultural use. They are used for field capacity. The relatively high clay content of the Bt horizon crops such as grain corn and hay crops, and have slight to mod does enhance the moisture storage within the plant root zone; eratelimitations for these uses. Specialty crops such as tobacco however, significant moisture deficits do occur in Burford soils and potatoes are commonly produced on Caledon soils. Under during prolonged dry periods. Surface runoff is low on Bur- intensive management where irrigation is used, these soils can ford soils except on steep slopes where it is moderate. be highly productive. Commonly Associated Soils Burford soils occur with Camilla Soils (CML) Caledon soils in map unit BUF 6 and with Teeswater soils in map unit BUF 7. In both instances, thin veneers of sandy General Soil Description Camilla soils have developed or on sandy fluvial loamy materials 40-100 cm thick overlie the gravelly subsoil. veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying gravelly flu- Foxsoils also may occur with Burford soils in mapunit BUF 3. vial deposits. They are imperfectly drainedsoils. This soil combination arises where deposits of sandy material Surface Ap horizons of Camilla soils consist of about 30 in excess of 1 metre in depth overlies the gravelly-textured sub- cm of sandy loam texture and are relatively high in organic soil in parts of the landscape. matter content. Brownish mottled Bm horizons underlie the Land Useand Management Burford soils on nearlylevel surface horizon and are of similar texture. They extend to a or very gently sloping topography are moderately depth of about 45 cm. The gravel content increases in the Bt good soils horizons, with textures ranging for agricultural use. They are most commonly used for grain from gravelly sandy loam to corn or winter wheat. They have slight to sandyloam . Thesehorizons also are slightly higher in claycon- moderate soil mois- tent than the ture limitations for these common field crops. Under intensive adjacent horizons. The Ck horizons which occur management for specialty crops generally at about 55 cm depth show a marked increase in such as tobacco or potatoes, gravel with they can be highly productive where irrigation is used. gravelly sandy loam textures. They are strongly calcareous. Soil reaction ofCamilla soils ranges from near neu- Caledon Soils (CAD) tral in the upper horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. General Soil Description Caledon soils have developed Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisot. on sandy fluvial veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying gravelly fluvial deposits. They are well-drained soils.

Soil Moisture Characteristics Camilla soils are imper- Surface horizons of Conestogo soils consist of about 30 fectly drained. Although they have high permeability, ground- cm of silt loam material of moderate organic matter content. water normally rises into the subsurface horizons of Camilla They are underlain by brownish, mottled Bm horizons which soils during the winter and spring causing gleyed conditions. extend to a depth of 50 to 70 cm. They range in texture from They have low water-holding capacities and consequently are loam to silt loam. Dark-brown Bt horizons with brownish- droughty during prolonged dry periods. They have slow sur- yellow mottles occur between 50 and 90 cm . They also have a face runoff. silt loam texture but are slightly higher in clay content than the adjacent horizons. The Ck horizons generally are encountered Commonly Associated Soils Caledon (CAD) and Ayr at a depth between 65 and 90 cm. They are of similar texture to (AYR) soils are commonly associated with Camilla soils as overlying have low gravel and are components in units CML 2 and CML 3 . the horizons, but a content of subdominant map strongly calcareous. Soil reaction of Conestogo soils is near They have similar soil materials as Camilla, but are well- neutral in the upper horizons to moderately alkaline in the sub- drained and poorly drained, respectively. There are also occur- soil. Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown rences of Granby soils with Camilla soils in map unit CML 4. Luvisol. In this case, the sandy overburden exceeds 100 cm depth in depressional, poorly drained segments ofthe landscape. Soil Moisture Characteristics Conestogo soils are imperfectly drained . They are moderatelyto slowly permeable. Land Use and Management Camilla soils are moder- The groundwater table rises into the subsurface horizons for ately good soils for a range of agricultural uses. are used They temporary periods during the winter and spring. The water- for common field crops such as grain corn and wheat, and for and holding capacity ofConestogo soils is moderately high. Due to specialty crops including potatoes, tobacco soybeans. the long, gentle slopes of the Conestogo soil landscape, runoff Drainage or irrigation are not considered likely to improve tends to be moderately high. crop production significantly on Camilla soils. Commonly Associated Soils Woolwich (WOW) and Colwood Soils (CWO) Maryhill (MYL) soils are most commonly associated with General Soil Description Colwood soils have developed Conestogo soils in map unit CTG 2 and CTG 3, respectively. on stratified glaciolacustrine silt loam and very fine sandy Woolwich soils, which are thesubdominant component in map loam deposits. They are poorly drained soils. unit CTG 2 are well-drained . Maryhill soils, the subdominant Surface Ap horizons of Colwood soils consist of about 20 component in map unit CTG 3 are poorly drained. Both are cm of silt loam or very fine sandy loam textures, and are rela- similar in soil material to Conestogo soils. tively high in organic matter content . The underlying B hori Land Use and Management Conestogo soils are excel- zons have similar textures and generally extend to a depth of lent soils for agricultural uses. They are used for grain corn, approximately 45 cm. Both B and C horizons are prominently spring grain and forage crops. Tile drainage enhances the mottled . The Ck horizons which occur below 45 cm are silt potential of these soils for common field crops. They are suit- loam in texture and strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Col- able soils for production of specialized crops, although their wood soils is near neutral in the upper horizons to moderately use for this purpose is limited . alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Orthic Humic Gleysol. Dumfries Soils (DUF) Colwood soils are poorly General Soil Description Dumfries soils have developed Soil Moisture Characteristics gravelly, sandy loam glacial till. They are rapidly drained. They are moderately to slowly permeable. The on stony, groundwater table rises into the B horizon during the winter drained . and spring causing saturated conditions for significant peri- Surface horizons of Dumfries soils are about 15 cm thick ods. They have high water-holding capacities. Surface runoff and range from silt loam to sandy loam in texture. In wooded from Colwood soils is slow because of their generally level sites, the organic matter content ofthese horizons are relatively slope. high, but are considerably reduced under cultivated condi- Commonly Associated Soils Tuscola (TUC) and Styx tions. Brownish-coloured Bm horizons underlie the surface (SYX) soils are most commonly associated with Colwood horizon. They are commonly loam to silt loam in texture. soils Tuscola soils, which is the subdominant component in These horizons may extend to a depth of 30 to 40 cm, but are . usually shallower in cultivated fields. Distinctive reddish- map unit CWO 4, differ by being imperfectly drained. Styx the in map unit CWO 23, occur brown Bt horizons of gravelly loam texture occur beneath soils, the subdominant component Bm horizon. They occur at variable depths, often between 30- in very poorly drained depressions where deep organic materi- . 50cm, but may extendto depths exceeding 100cm . They have a als have accumulated significantly higher clay content than the adjacent horizons Land Use and Management Colwood soils are good and also ahigher proportion of gravel and stones. The Ck hori- agricultural soils if drainage is improved. Grain corn, silage zons also occur at variable depths ranging from 50 to over 100 corn and spring grains are most commonly grown. They have cm, being shallower on the knolls as compared to mid-slope potential for production of vegetable crops, particularly cab- positions. They generally are gravelly sandy loam in texture bages, cauliflower, tomatoes and sweet corn when artificial and are strongly calcareous. Soil reaction of Dumfries soils is drainage has been established . slightly acidic to neutral in the surface horizons, to moderately Conestogo Soils (CTG) alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. General Soil Description Conestogo soils have developed on silty glaciolacustrine sediments overlying loamy gla- Soil Moisture Characteristics Dumfries soils are rapidly cial till. They are imperfectly drained soils. drained. They have high permeability and low water-holding

capacity. Slight to moderate soil moisture deficits do occur in Land Use and Management Fox soils are moderately Dumfries soils duringprolongeddry periods. Surface runoffis good soils for a range ofagricultural uses. Ofthe common field moderate on Dumfries soils due to their steep slopes. crops, grain corn is produced most extensively. Rye or winter wheat Commonly Associated Soils Lily (LIY), Guelph (GUP) also is common, usually in tobacco rotations. The and Burford (BUF) soils are most commonly associated with unique texture and drainage characteristics of these soils make Dumfries soils in map units DUF2, DUF 3 and DUF 5, respec them well-suited to specialty crop production. They are used tively. Lily soils, which are the subdominant component in extensively for growing flue-cured tobacco. Potatoes are some- map unit DUF 2, are poorly drained . They are similar in soil what common on Fox soils, and there is increasing use for the materials to Dumfries soils. Guelph soils are subdominant production of ginseng. Supplemental irrigation is necessary components of map unit DUF 3. They differ in being com- for tobacco and most other high-value crops on Fox soils. prised of loam-textured glacial till, and are less stony than Gilford Soils (GFD) Dumfries soils. Burford soils may also occur with Dumfries General Soil Description Gilford soils have developed soils as the subdominant component in map unit DUF 5. They on glaciofluvial deposits of gravelly sand and gravel textures. are developed on gravelly, glaciofluvial parent materials, and They are poorly drained soils. generally contain fewerstones and boulders than the dominant soils. Their drainage is similar to Dumfries soils. Surface Ap horizons of Gilford soils consist of approximately 20 cm of sandy loam soil of moderate organic matter LandUse and Management Dumfries soils generally are content. Prominently mottled B horizons with gravelly loam poor soils for agricultural uses due to their hummocky topog- texture underlie the surface horizon. In some cases these hori- raphy and excessive stoniness. Their major agricultural use is zons may be moderately to strongly calcareous, reflecting for hay crops and pasture, with lesser amounts of spring grain upward movement of carbonates with the groundwater. The and corn. All Dumfries soils with steep slopes are best retained strongly calcareous Ck horizons occur at a depth of about 45 in woodland for uses such as recreation, forestry and wildlife. cm . They have a high gravel content and are gravelly sand in Fox Soils (FOX) texture. Soil reaction of Gilford soils is moderately alkaline. General Soil Description Fox soils have developed on They are classified as Orthic Humic Gleysols. sandy glaciolacustrine sediments which have been modified Soil Moisture Characteristics Gilford soils are poorly surficially by eolian activity. They are rapidly drained. drained. They are rapidly permeable. Most horizons are satu- Surface horizons of Fox soils are approximately 20 cm rated by groundwater for long periods each year unless artifi thick with low organic matter content of about 210 . They cially drained. Gilford soils have low water-holding capacity range from sandy loam to loamy sand texture. They are under and slow surface runoff. lain byrelatively deep brownish-coloured Bm horizons extend- Commonly Associated Soils Camilla (CML) and Styx ing to a mean depth of about 55 cm, but ranging from about 30 (SYX) soils are most commonly associated with Gilford soils to 70 cm deep at the base. They are loamy sand to sand in tex- as subdominant components in map units GFD 2 and GFD 3, ture. In most Fox soils, theBt horizons typically have a wavy or respectively. Camilla soils are imperfectly drained and have tongueing contact with the calcareous Ck horizons, and so the sandy-textured surficial material overlying gravelly subsoils. mean depth to the top of the Ck horizons is about 70 cm, but Styx soils are very poorly drained organic soils greater than 160 may range from 40 to 100 cm. There is a significant increase in cm indepth. clay content in the Bt horizons compared to other horizons in the profile, and it usuallyis sandy loam in texture. The Ck hori- Land Use and Management In their natural condition, zons are usually strongly calcareous sand. Soil reaction of Fox Gilford soils largely remain as wooded land. Where drainage soils is slight acidic to neutral in the surface horizons, to mod- improvements have been made, they are fair soils for agricul erately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Brunisolic tural use. Grain corn, soybeans, and occasionally specialty Gray Brown Luvisol. crops such as tomatoes, are the most common crops on drained Gilford soils. Soil Moisture Characteristics Fox soils are rapidly drained and are rapidly permeable. They have low water- Gobles Soils (GOB) holding capacity; therefore, slight to moderate soil moisture General Soil Description Gobles soils have developed on deficits do occur during prolonged dryperiods. Surface runoff glacial till, most commonly of silty clay loam texture. They are is slowexcept on steep slopes. imperfectly drained soils. Commonly Associated Soils Fox soils are associated Surface Ap horizons of Gobles soils are usually 20-25 cm with many other soils. The most common occurrences are with thick and range from loam to clay loam in texture. They are Brady (BAY) and Granby (GNY), which are the subdominant moderately high in organic matter content. The underlying soils in map units FOX 4 and FOX 3, respectively. Brady soils brownish-coloured Bm horizons extend to a depth of about 35 are imperfectly drained and Granby soils are poorly drained . cm. They are usually clay loam in texture. Dark-brown Bt hori- Both are developed on similar materials as the Fox soils. Other zons with distinct mottles occur between depths of about 35 to soils which are fairly commonly associated with Fox soils 50 cm. They are clayloam intexture and have a higher clay con- include Burford (BUF), Bookton (BOO) and Scotland (STD) tent than the adjacent horizons. Strongly calcareous Ck hori- soils inmap units FOX 5, FOX 21 and FOX 9, respectively. All zons usually begin at about 50 cm. They are commonly silty ofthese soils have similar sandy-textured surficial materials to clayloam and areprominently mottled. Soil reactionof Gobles FOX soils, but differ in the composition of their subsoil hori- soils is near neutral in the surface_horizons and becomes mod- zons at a depth of 40-100 cm. Burford soils are gravelly, erately alkaline in the calcareous subsoil. Gobles soils are clas- Bookton soils are clayey-textured, and Scotland soils have sified as Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisols. loamy subsoils.

Soil Moisture Characteristics Gobles soils are imper- Guelph Soils (GUP) fectly drained. They are moderately to slowly permeable. General Soil Description Guelph soils have developed Groundwater rises within the B horizons of Gobles soils for on glacial till, mainly of loam texture. They are well-drained . temporary periods each year. They have high water-holding capacities and surface runoff is also relatively high. Surface Ap horizons of Guelph soils are about 20 cm thick and are low to medium in organic matter content . They are Commonly Associated Soils Muriel (MUI), Kelvin usually loam or silt loam in texture. Brownish-coloured Bm (KVN) and Colwood (CWO) soils. are commonly associated horizons underliethe surface horizon to a depth of 35 to 45 cm. with Gobles soils as subdominant components in map units They also are loam or silt loam in texture. These horizons may GOB 4, GOB 3 and GOB 13, respectively. Muriel and Kelvin be absent on slopes where surface erosion has occurred, as they soils are moderately well and poorlydrained, respectively, with have been incorporated by plowing into the Ap horizon . Dis- soil materials similar to Gobles. Colwood soils are poorly tinctive dark-brown Bt horizons usually occur at a depth rang- drained, but occur on deep silt loam materials. ing from 35 to 70 cm. They have a pronounced increase in clay Land Use and Management Gobles soils are good agri- content and are usually loam to clay loam in texture. These cultural soils for general field crops. Grain corn, hay and horizons often have awavy, tongueing boundary with underly- spring grains are the most common crops on these soils. Their ing Ck horizons. Ck horizons occur at variable depths, with use and productivity is usually enhanced with tile drainage. Of the mean depth being 60 to 70 cm. They are generally loam in the specialty crops, soybeans are occasionally produced on texture and are strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Guelph Gobles soils, and they are fairly well-suited to this use. soils ranges from near neutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Brunisolic Granby Soils (GNY) Gray Brown Luvisol . General Soil Description Granby soils have developed on glaciolacustrine materials with textures of sand and loamy Soil Moisture Characteristics Guelph soils are well- sand. They are poorly drained . drained. They are moderately permeable and have medium water-holding capacities. Surface runoff can be moderately Surface Ap horizons ofGranby soils are about 20 cm thick high and it increases markedly as slope increases, and as the consisting of sandy loam or loamy sand textures . They are nor- organic matter content of the surface horizon decreases. mally quite high in organic matter content, and peaty surface horizons are not uncommon. This is the usual situation in Commonly Associated Soils London (LOD), Woolwich prominent mottles (WOW), Colwood (CWO) and Scotland (STD) soils are com- wooded sites. Thin A or B horizons with monly associated with Guelph soils as subdominant compo and gleyed colours usually occur between 20-25 cm depth. This nents in map units GUP 2, GUP 4, GUP 6 and GUP 7, overlies prominently mottled Btg horizons extending from respectively. London soils are imperfectly drained with soil about 25 to 60 cm. They have a slight increase in clay content, similar soils Woolwich soils are well- vari- materials to Guelph . and textures ofsandy loam. Granby Ck horizons occur at drained, and have a surficial veneer of silt overlying the loam able depths ranging from 50 to more than 100 cm. Their car- till of the Guelph soils. Colwood soils are poorly drained and bonate contents also tend to be variable and calcareousness consist of silty deposits in excess of 100 in depth. Scotland ranges from weakly to strongly calcareous, the latter condition cm usually occurring with increasing depth. Soil reaction of soils are rapidly drained, and are characterized by sandy tex- Granby soils ranges from strongly acidic or neutral in the sur- tures overlying gravelly loam glacial till. . face horizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classifica- Land Use and Management Guelph soils are good soils tion is usually Humic Luvic Gleysol in Brant County. for agricultural use. They are commonly used for field crops Elsewhere, it is usually Orthic Humic Gleysol. such as grain corn, hay, winter wheat and spring grains. Recently, specialty crops such as soybeans have appeared on Soil Moisture Characteristics Most Granby soils are Guelph soils. The only limitations of significance affecting the poorly drained, except for some peaty phase Granby soils for field crops are topography and past ero- which are very poorly drained. They usually are rapidly perme use of Guelph soils sion . Complex slopes exceeding 3 °Io have a slight topographic able. Most horizons are saturated by groundwater for long pe- limitation. This limitation becomes more severe as slope riods each year unless artificially drained . Granby soils have rolling topography may also have and slow surface runoff. increases. Hummocky or low water-holding capacities moderate to severe erosion limitations due to loss of topsoil by Commonly Associated Soils Brady (BAY) and Stayner water erosion. commonly associated with Granby soils as sub- (STN) soils are Haldimand Soils (HIM) dominant components in map units GNY 4 and GNY 10, respectively. Brady soils are imperfectly drained, with soil General Soil Description Haldimand soils have devel- materials similar to Granby. Stayner soils are very poorly oped on glaciolacustrine sediments of clay or heavy clay tex- drained and occur in depressional areas where 40 to 100 cm of tures. They are imperfectly drained . organic materials have accumulated over the sand . Surface Ap horizons of Haldimand soils are about 20 cm Land Use andManagement Granby soils in their natural thick and silty clay loam or silty clay in texture. They are mod- 16 . condition are relatively poor soils for agricultural use because erately high in organic matter, ranging from 4 to 60 The Bm of wetness limitations. A large portion of them still occur in horizons underlying the surface horizon are prominently mot- forested swamps in Brant County. On cleared areas, tled and generally silty clay in texture. They extend to an aver- undrained normally have undrained Granby soils can be used for pasture. Where artifi- age depth of about 40 cm. The Bt horizons cial drainage has been established, Granby soils arewell-suited distinctive prismatic and angular blocky structure. In culti- for grain corn, soybeans, tobacco and some commercial vege- vated fields, they often have compacted and amorphous struc- table crops. ture. Soil texture usually is silty clay or clay. The Ck horizons

usually begin at about 50 cm. They have similar prismatic and Land Use and Management Harrisburg soils are excel- angular blocky structure as the Bt horizons, and are clay or lent soils for agricultural use. They are predominantly used for heavy clay in texture. They are strongly calcareous. Soil reac- grain corn and forages ; however, they have good potential for tion ofHaldimand soils ranges from slightly acidic to neutral in specialty crops such as apples, beans, peppers and tomatoes. the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil There is some use of these soils for sod farming in Brant classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. County. Their main limitation to use is susceptibility to water Soil Moisture Characteristics Haldimand soils are erosion on sloping topography. imperfectly drained and slowly permeable. Groundwater rises Heidelberg Soils (HIG) within the B horizons of Haldimand soils for temporary peri ods each year. Perching of surface water in the upper horizons General Soil Description Heidelberg soils have devel- also is common following periods of heavy rainfall. Haldi- oped on glaciolacustrine sediments of very fine sandy loam mand soils have medium to high water-holding capacities, but and loamy very fine sand textures. They are imperfectly can be droughty during prolonged dry periods due to slow drained. release ofwater from the clay textures. They have rapid surface Surface Ap horizons of Heidelberg soils are about 20 cm runoff. thick and are very fine sandyloam in texture. They have a mod- Commonly Associated Soils Smithville (SHV), Lincoln erate organic matter content of about 3 to 4% . Brownish (LIC) and Berrien (BRR) soils are commonly associated with coloured, mottled Bm horizons underlie the surface horizon Haldimand soils as subdominant components in map units extending to a depth of about 45 cm . They too are very fine HIM 5, HIM 3 and HIM 13, respectively. Smithville soils are sandy loam in texture. The Bt horizons are rather weakly devel- moderately well-drained and Lincoln soils are poorly drained oped and are similar in texture to the horizons above. They on similar parent materials to Haldimand soils. Berrien soils extend to a depth of about 70 cm. Strongly calcareous Ck hori- are imperfectly drained and have a sandy surficial layer 40-100 zons occur below 70 cm of very fine loamy sand texture. Soil cm in depth over clayey-textured subsoil. reaction of Heidelberg soils is near neutral throughout the upper solum and slightly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classifica- Land Use and Management Haldimand soils are fair tion reflects transitional development representative of both soils for agricultural use with moderately severe limitations Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol and Gleyed Orthic due to soil structure. Their high clay content causes difficulties Melanic Brunisol subgroups . in tillage, seed bed preparation, plant emergence and root pen- etration. Excess soil moisture also can be a problem, and some Soil Moisture Characteristics Heidelberg soils are tile drainage may be necessary. Grain and silage corn, spring imperfectly drained and usually moderately permeable. Sub- grain, winter wheat and forages are the most common crops on soil horizons may be slowly permeable if they are compacted these soils. by heavy machinery. Heidelberg soils have a temporary high groundwater table, but this usually recedes sufficiently early in Harrisburg Soils (HBG) the growing season to avoid interfering with root development . General Soil Description Harrisburg soils have devel- They have moderate to good water-holding capacities. Surface oped on silt loam textures 40 to 100 cm in depth overlying runoff from these soils can be moderately high, especially on lacustrine silty clay loam material. They are well-drained. sloping topography. Surface Ap horizons of Harrisburg soils are about 15 cm Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) soils are thick and are silt loam in texture. They are moderately high in most commonly associated with Heidelberg soils as the sub- organic matter, averaging around 4-5% . The underlying dominant component in map unit HIG 2 . They are poorly brownish-coloured Bm horizons are quite thick, extending to a drained and developed onlacustrinesand or loamy sand parent depth of approximately 50 cm. They too are silt loam in tex- material . ture. Distinctive dark-brown Bt horizons of silt loam texture, but with a significantly higher clay content Land Use and Management Heidelberg soils are good than overlying soils for agricultural horizons, occur from about 50 to 80 cm. Theyare underlain by use. Grain corn, spring grain and forages Ck horizons which are silty clay loam in texture are the common field crops grown on these soils. They are fair and strongly to calcareous. Soil reaction of Harrisburg soils ranges from acidic good soils for a range of specialty crops, although there is lit- in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. tle current use of these soils for this purpose. Artificial drain- Soil classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. age is seldom required on these soils, unless moisture-sensitive crops are grown. Soil Moisture Characteristics Harrisburg soils are well- drained and moderately to slowly permeable. Perching of sur- Kelvin Soils (KVN) face water may occur for short periods in the zone immediately General Soil Description Kelvin soils have developed on on top of the Bt horizon during periods of heavy rainfall. Har- glacial till of silty clay loam and silty clay textures. They are risburg soils have medium water-holding capacity, and may be poorly drained. droughty during prolonged dry periods. Surface runoff can be Surface Ap horizons high and increases significantly with slope. ofKelvinsoils range from 20 to 25 cm thick and usually are silty clay loam in texture. They have high Commonly Associated Soils Osborne (OBO), Ohswe- organic matter contents of about 4 to 6% . Prominently mot ken (OSE) and Brant (BRT) soils are commonly associated tled Bg horizons underlie the surface horizons to a depth of 50 with Harrisburg soils as subdominant components in map to 60 cm. They have slightly higherclay contents than the adja- units HBG 2, HBG 3 and HBO 4, respectively. Osborne soils cent horizons and are siltyclay intexture. Development ofmas- are imperfectly drained and Ohsweken soils poorly drained on sive structure in this horizon isnot uncommon under cultivated similar parent materials to Harrisburg soils. Brant soils are conditions. The Ck horizons also have prominent mottles and well-drained and are formed on deep lacustrine silt loam range in texture from silty clay loam to silty clay. They usually materials.

are stronglycalcareous. Soilreaction ofKelvin soils is near neu- Surface Ap horizons consist of 25 to 30 cm of silt loam tral throughout the solum. Soil classification is Orthic Humic moderately high in organic matter content. The thickness of Gleysol. these horizons is enhanced through deposition of eroded soil material from upper slope positions. Brownish-coloured Bm poorly Soil Moisture Characteristics Kelvin soils are horizons with distinct mottles underlie the surface horizons. drained and slowly permeable. Groundwater occupies most They are loam or silt loam in texture. The Ck horizonsoftenare horizons of Kelvin soils for long periods each year. They have weakly calcareous in their upper part and strongly calcareous and surface runoff is slow. high water-holding capacities at depth. They occur at a depth of about 75 cm. They also are Commonly Associated Soils Gobles (GOB) and Wau- loam to silt loam in texture and have distinct mottles . Soil reac- seon (WUS) soils are most commonly associated with Kelvin tion of Maryhill soils is neutral ranging to slightly alkaline in soils as subdominant components in map units KVN 6 and the Ck horizon. Soil classification is Orthic Humic Gleysol. KVN 13, respectively. Gobles soils are imperfectly drained and Maryhill are poorly are Soil Moisture Characteristics soils are similar in soil materials to Kelvin soils. Wauseon soils drained and moderately to slowly permeable. Groundwater is poorly drained, but have a sandy veneer 40 to 100 cm in thick- present in most horizons of Maryhill soils for relatively long ness overlying clayey subsoil, similar to that occurring with periods. They have high moisture-holding capacities due to Kelvin soils. their high organic matter and silt contents. Surface runoff Land Use and Management Kelvin soils are fair soils for from Maryhill soils is slow. agricultural use. Their relatively high clay contents and ten- Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) and Stay- dency to develop massive subsoil structure create problems ner (STN) soils are more commonly associated with Maryhill with slow drainage. Their present use is mainly for grain corn, soils as subdominant components in map units MYL 2 and require artificial drainage for spring grain or forages, and they MYL 3, respectively. Granby soils also are poorly drained, but maximum production. have adeep sandy veneer overlying the loamy textured subsoil. Lincoln Soils (LIC) Stayner soils are very poorly drained, and have well decom- General Soil Description Lincoln soils have developed posed organic layers 40 to 100 cm thick overlying sandy subsoil from glacial till of clay or heavy clay textures. They are poorly characteristic of Granby soils. drained. Land Use and Management Maryhill soils have moder- Surface Ap horizons of Lincoln soils are 15 to 20 cm in ately severe wetness limitations for agriculturaluse in their nat- thickness and silty clay loam in texture. They have relatively ural condition . However, they are good agricultural soils if high organic matter contents averaging around 6% . Both theB drainage has been artificially improved . Grain corn, silage and C horizons usually are silty clay to heavy clay in texture, corn and spring grains are the crops that do best under drained have coarseblockystructure and are prominently mottled. The conditions. Maryhill soils are very productive for most com- Ck horizons, which are strongly calcareous, usually begin at 55 mercial tree species in spite oftheir wetness limitations for agri- to 65 cm depth. Soil reaction of Lincoln soils ranges from neu- cultural uses. tral to slightly acidic in the surface horizons to moderately Muriel Soils (MUD alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is usually Orthic General Description Muriel soils have developed on gla- Humic Gleysol. cial till mainly of silty clay loam texture. They are moderately Soil Moisture Characteristics Lincoln soils are poorly well-drained . drained and slowly permeable. Groundwater is present in most Surface Ap horizons are usually composed of approxi- Lincoln soils for long periods each year. Theyhave horizons of mately 20 cm of silt loam texture, although textures may range high moisture-holding capacities, but can be droughty during from sandy loam to clay loam. The organic matter contents of retention by the dry periods because of the high moisture the surface horizons average nearly 3% . Underlying Bm hori- depending clayeytextures. Surface runoff may be slow orrapid zons extend to a depth of 30 to 35 cm. They range from silt on the incidence of surface cracks. loam to clay loam in texture. Distinctive brown to dark-brown Commonly Associated Soils Haldimand (HIM) and Bt horizons with blocky structure are characteristic of Muriel Smithville (SHV) soils are most commonly associated with soils. They are usually silty clay loam in texture and are often Lincoln soils as subdominant components in map units LIC 2 compacted to a semi-hardpan consistency. The calcareous Ck and LIC 3, respectively. Haldimand soils are imperfectly horizons usually commence at a depth between 50 and 75 cm. drained and Smithville soils are moderatelywell-drained. Both It is silty clay loam in texture and is strongly to very strongly have similar soil materials as Lincoln soils. calcareous. Soil reaction of Muriel soils ranges from neutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil Land Use and Management Lincoln soils, because of classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. their high clay content and poor drainage, are not particularly well-suited to agricultural use. There is some use of these soils Soil Moisture Characteristics Muriel soils are moder- in Brant County for general field crops, particularly corn, ately well-drained and moderately to slowly permeable. springgrain and hayif artificial drainage has been established . Groundwater derived from seepage or runoff may occupy the In their natural undrained condition, woodland or unim- surface horizons for brief periods during the growing season. proved pasture is the common land use. Muriel soils have moderately high water-holding capacities and high runoff. On sloping topography they tend to develop Maryhill Soils (MYL) droughty conditions during prolonged dry spells as a conse- General Description Maryhill soils are formed on loam quence of excessive runoff. or silt loam sediments 40 to 100 cm deep overlying loam glacial till . They are poorly drained.

Commonly Associated Soils Gobles (GOB), Kelvin Plainfield Soils (PFD) (KVN), Bookton (BOO) and Berrien (BRR) are most com- General Soil Description Plainfield soils are developed monly associated with Muriel soils as subdominant compo on loamy fine sand and fine sand glaciolacustrine sediments nents in map units MUI 2, MUI 4, MUI 6 and MUI 14, which have been modified by eolian activity. They are rapidly respectively. Gobles and Kelvin soils are imperfectly drained drained. and poorly drained, respectively, with soil materials similar to Muriel. Bookton and Berrien soils have 40 to 100 cm of sandy Surface horizons of Plainfield soils are about 15 to 20 cm veneer overlying the clayey subsoil which is characteristic of thick and loamy fine sand in texture. They are relatively low in Muriel soils. organic matter content, averaging around 2%. Plainfield soils have relatively deep and uniform B horizons extending to a Land Use and Management Muriel soils are good agri- depth of 70 to 100 cm. They are generally structureless and fine cultural soils, except on steep slopes where topographic and sand in texture. The C horizons are usually weakly calcareous erosion limitations occur. Compaction and development of in the upper portion, but gradually become moderately or hardpans are fairly common on Muriel soils, where erosion has strongly calcareous at depth . They too are fine sand in texture. resulted in loss of organic matter in the surface horizon. They Soil reaction of Plainfield soils is medium to slightly acidic in are utilizedextensively for grain corn and soybeans, with lesser the surface and subsurface horizons, and neutral to mildly use for small grains and hay crops. Muriel soils can be alkaline in the lower subsoil horizons. Soil classification is usu- improved by tile drainage where wet spots and seepage areas allyOrthicMelanic Brunisol, but Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvi- occur. sols also may occur. Oakland Soils (OW Soil Moisture Characteristics Plainfield soils arerapidly General Soil Description Oakland soils have developed drained and rapidly permeable. They have low moisture- on sandy loam to sand textures 40 to 100 cm deep overlying holding capacities, and crops are normally affected by drought gravelly loam to loam glacial till. They are imperfectly throughout much of the growing season. Runoff is slow on drained. level to very gently sloping topography, but is moderate as slopes become steeper. Surface horizons of Oakland soils usually consist of 20 to 30 cm offine sandy loam . They have relativelyhigh contents of Commonly Associated Soils Walsingham (WAM) and organic matter ranging from 4 to 6°10 . Bm horizons underlie Waterin (WRN) are the most common soils associated with the surface layer to a maximum depth of 35 cm. They are mot- Plainfield in map units PFD 3 and PFD 4, respectively. They tled, and medium to fine sand in texture. The Bt horizons usu- have similar parent materials as Plainfield soils, but are imper- ally have a significant increase in clay content compared to the fectly and poorly drained. Occasionally, Plainfield soils occur horizons above it, and may range from fine sandy loam to in association with FOX soils. Although both soils are rapidly loamy sand texture. Glacial till subsoils occur at a depth of 50 drained, and are both formed on sandy-textured parent mate- to 70 cm . They are loam to gravelly loam in texture, and are rials, FOX soils have a distinctive clay increase in their B hori- stronglycalcareous. Soil reaction ofOakland soils ranges from zon which distinguishes them from Plainfield soils. neutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the till Land Use and Management Plainfield soils have subsoil. Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown droughtiness limitations for most crops. They are exten- Luvisol used . sively for tobacco production where sprinkler irrigation pro Soil Moisture Characteristics Oakland soils are imper- vides supplemental soil moisture. Other specialtycrops such as fectly drained and rapidly permeable. The groundwater table potatoes, asparagus and apples are also occasionally grown on may rise within all subsurface horizons during the winter and Plainfield soils under supplemental irrigation. spring, but recedes to considerable depth in the subsoil during Scotland Soils (STD) the dry summer period. Seepage may occur at the sand-glacial till interface due to the reduced permeability ofthe glacial till General Soil Description Scotland soils have developed in on comparison to the sandy overburden. Oakland soils have low sandy loam andloamy sand textures 40to 100 cm deep over- water-holding capacities and slow surface runoff. lying gravelly loam and sandy loam glacial till . They are well- drained. Commonly Associated Soils Scotland (STD) and Vanessa (VSS) soils often occur in close association with Oak- Surface horizons of Scotland soilsconsist of 20 to 25 cm of land soils. Such associations occur in map units OKL 2 and sandy loam or loamy sand. They are moderate to low in organic matter OKL 3, respectively. Scotland and Vanessa soils have devel- content. Similar textures occur in the underly oped on parent materials similar to Oakland soils, but are well ing B horizons to a depth of 50 to 65 cm, where the gravelly- and poorly drained, respectively. textured glacial till subsoil is encountered . Bt horizons generally occur at the transitional zone between the sandy- Land Use and Management Oakland soils are good textured overburden and the gravelly till. The Ck horizons are agricultural soils often used for graincorn, tobacco and winter normally gravelly loam or sandy loam in texture and are wheat. Specialty crops such as tomatoes and peppers also may strongly calcareous. Soil reaction ranges from near neutral in be grown successfully. Tile drainage may be beneficial for the the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil production of high-value specialty crops as it improves the classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol . chances of early planting. It also may be a necessary management practice for certain tree fruits. Supplemental irrigation is required for tobacco and most vegetable crops.

Soil Moisture Characteristics Scotland soils are well- Smithville Soils (SHV) drained and rapidly permeable. They have low water-holding General Soil Description Smithville soils have devel- capacity and slow surface runoff where the topography is oped on silty clay and heavy clay glaciolacustrine materials. gently undulating . On topography where slopes exceed 6°10, They are moderately well-drained . runoffis moderate. Surface horizons of Smithville soils consist of 15 to 20 cm Commonly Associated Soils Oakland (OKL), Waterin of silty clayloam. Under cultivated conditions, they are moder- (WRN), Wilsonville (WIL) and Fox (FOX) soils are often asso- ately low in organic matter content. The subsurface B horizons ciates of Scotland soils in map units STD 2, STD 8, STD 4 and of Smithville soils are silty clay to heavy clay in texture with STD 6 map units, respectively. Oakland soils have developed prismatic to angular blocky structure. Distinct mottles are on similar parent material to,Scotland soils, but are imper- sometimes apparent in the upper portion of the B horizons, fectly drained. Waterin soils are poorly drained and occur on indicative of temporary perched water table conditions. The deep (greater than 1 m) sandy materials. Wilsonville soils lower B horizons and Ck horizons of Smithville soils show evi- occur where the sandy veneer becomes progressively thinner dence of horizontal layering characteristic of deep-water gla- and the gravelly loam glacial till dominates the soil profile. Fox ciolacustrine deposits, and consist of alternating layers of soils are rapidly drained like Scotland soils, but occur on deep heavy clay and silty clay. The Ck horizons, which are strongly sandy-textured deposits in the landscape . calcareous, occur at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 cm. Soil Land Use and Management Scotland soils are fairly reaction ofSmithville soils ranges from strongly acidic to neu- good soils for general field crops such as grain corn and soy- tral in the surface horizons, to moderately alkaline in the sub- beans for which they have droughtiness limitations. Their soil . Soil classification is usually Brunisolic Gray Brown greatest value for agricultural use is for specialty crops such as Luvisol . tobacco where supplemental irrigation is provided . They are Soil Moisture Characteristics Smithville soils are mod- being used increasingly for crops such as ginseng in recent erately well-drained and slowly permeable. Groundwater is years. Vegetable crops, including potatoes, asparagus, toma- present in the upper subsoil horizons for short periods during toes and peppers also are produced commercially on Scotland the growing season due to the low permeability of the subsoil. soils. Smithville soils have high water-holding capacities, but may be Seneca Soils (SNA) droughty during prolonged dry periods due to slow moisture release by the clay. Surface runoff is rapid . General Soil Description Seneca soils have developed on loam to gravelly loam textured glacial till. They are well- Commonly Associated Soils Smithville soils are com- drained. monly associated with Haldimand (HIM), Lincoln (LIC), Bookton (BOO) and Alluvial soils (4-ALU) in map units SHV Surface Ap horizons ofSeneca soils are about 15 cm thick 4, SHV 5, SHV 7 and SHV 21, respectively. Haldimand and and usually loam or silt loam in texture with minor amounts of Lincoln soils have similar parent material to Smithville soils, gravel present . The organic matter contents ofthe surface hori but are imperfect and poorly drained . Bookton soils are well- zons are low, averaging around 2% . The underlying Bt and Ck drained, but differ in having 40 to 100 cm of sandy textures horizons contain slightly higher amounts of gravel with usual overlying the clayey material characteristic of Smithville soils. textures of gravelly loam. In most cases, the soil profile is rela- Alluvial soils occur along the floodplains of present-day tively shallow, with Ck horizons occurring at a depth of 40 to stream valleys, with Smithville soils occupying the steep valley 50 cm . They can be very strongly calcareous. In fact, it is not slopes in map unit SHV 21. uncommon to have carbonates present in all horizons of the soil profile. Soil reaction is near neutral in the surface horizon LandUse and Management Smithville soils are fair soils to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usu- for agricultural use. Their main limitation is related to their ally Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. high clay content which contributes to extremely hard and Soil Moisture Characteristics Seneca soils are well- dense soil structure. Soil erosion can be severe on sloping drained and rapidly permeable. They have medium water- topography. Grain corn, soybeans, winter wheat and hay crops Smithville soils. holding capacities. Surface runoff from Seneca soils is are produced on moderate to rapid, as they generally occur on sloping Stayner Soils (STN) topography. General Soil Description Stayner soils have developed Commonly Associated Soils Seneca soils are mapped on organic materials 40 to 100 cm thick over sandy textures of only in pure map units, as they tend to occur in discrete lacustrine or fluvial origin. They are very poorly drained . drumlinized landforms in Brant County. Clayey-textured The organic horizons are comprised of well-decomposed Haldimand soils normally occur around the base of the organic matter extending to an approximate depth of 60 cm. drumlins. The underlying mineral material is usually sand-textured and Land Use and Management Seneca soils are good agri- is calcareous. Soil classification of Stayner soils is usually Ter- cultural soils, well-suited to general field crops such as corn, ric Humisol. small grains and forages. Careful conservation management Soil Moisture Characteristics Stayner soils are very practices are required to control erosion on sloping topogra- poorly drained. They are rapidly permeable but are saturated phy, where past erosion has often been severe. Moderate stoni- with groundwater almost continuously, unless artificially ness canbe a limitationin the use ofSeneca soils. drained. They have high water-holding capacities and very slow surface runoff.

Commonly Associated Soils Ayr (AYR) soils are most the surficial materials is moderate, and is enhanced considera- commonly associated with Stayner soils as subdominant com- bly by the large increase in clay in the Bt horizon. The gravelly ponents in map unit STN 2. Ayr soils are poorly drained, and subsoil has a low moisture-holding capacity. Surface runoff also differ from Stayner soils in having less than 40 cm of from Teeswater soils can be moderate to high, the latter occur- organic materials overlying sandy and gravelly-textured ring on sloping topography. subsoil. Commonly Associated Soils The most commonly LandUse and Management Stayner soils, to a very large occurring associates of Teeswater soils include Colwood extent, presently remain under swamp forest vegetation. They (CWO), Burford (BUF) and Fox (FOX) soils in map units would require extensive clearing and drainage to be of any agri- TEW 3, TEW 4 and TEW 5, respectively. Colwood soils are cultural use, and the advisability of this is questionable. poorly drained and occur on deep silt loam materials. Burford rapidly and largely of gravelly- Styx Soils (SYX) soils are drained consist textured materials. Fox soils, likewise, are rapidly drained and General Soil Description Styx soils have developed on are formed on deep sandy textured soil materials. organic materials greater than 160 cm in depth . They are very poorly drained. The organic horizons are all well-decomposed Land Use and Management Teeswater soils are very and are relatively uniform with depth. In the lower horizons, good soils for agricultural use. Theyhave no significant limita- there is a slight increasein undecomposed plant remains, most tions which affect or limit use, except on complex topography commonly woody material. Soil classification is usually Typic where slopes exceed 3070 . Careful management to prevent ero- Humisol. sion on sloping topography is essential . Teeswater soils are used extensively for common agricultural crops such as grain Soil Moisture Characteristics Styx soils are very poorly corn and forage crops. Specialty crops such as tobacco and drained. They are rapidly permeable, but are saturated with potatoes are relatively common on these soils where supple- groundwater for most of the year unless artificially drained. mental irrigation is available. They have high water-holding capacities and have very slow surface runoff. Toledo Soils (TLD) Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) and Col- General Soil Description Toledo soils have developed on wood (CWO) soils are most commonly associated with Styx glaciolacustrine sediments of silty clay loam or silty clay tex- soils as subdominant components in map units SYX 3 and tures. They are poorly drained . SYX 4, respectively. They differ from Styx soils in beingpoorly Surface horizons of Toledo soils usually consist of about drained, and consisting of shallow organic layers less than 40 20 cm of silty clay loam, with loam textures sometimes occur- cm in thickness overlying mineral materials. The mineral ring . Theyare generally high in organic matter. Theunderlying materials in Granby soils are lacustrine sand or loamy sand, Bg horizons are gleyed and strongly mottled. They are usually whereasthey are lacustrine silt loam in Colwood soils. somewhatheavier in texture than the surface horizons, ranging Land Use and Management Styx soils remain largely from clay loam to silty clay. The calcareous Ckg horizons are under swamp forest vegetation . If cleared and drained, they encountered at a depth between 40 and 50 cm. They are silty have some potential for vegetable production, but this is gener clay loam or silty clay in texture and strongly calcareous. Soil ally not considered advisable from an environmental reaction of Toledo soils ranges from near neutral in the surface perspective. horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is usually OrthicHumic Gleysol. TeeswaterSoils (TEW) Soil Moisture Characteristics Toledo soils are poorly General Soil Description Teeswater soils have developed drained. Occasionally, peaty phase Toledo soils occur which on silt loam or loam textures 40 to 100 cm deep overlying grav- are very poorly drained. They usually are slowly permeable. elly sand orgravel . They arewell-drained. Because of their high clay content, surface cracking is common Surface horizons of Teeswater soils are usually around 20 during prolonged dry conditions, and short-lived moderate cm in depth and loam or silt loam in texture. They have moder- permeability may occur. Groundwater levels are near the sur- ate organic matter contents ranging from 3 to 4% . The under face except for short periods during the summer when they lying brownish-coloured Bm horizons extend to depths of 35 to subside, or if the soil is artificially drained. Toledo soils have 45 cm. They are typically silt loam in texture. Distinctive dark- high water-holding capacities. Surface runoff is usually mod- brown Bt horizons with pronounced increases in clay content erate, but increases substantially ifthere is significant slope. occur at the contact with the gravelly subsoil. They range from CommonlyAssociated Soils Beverly (BVY) soils are the loam to clay loam in texture and have a lowgravel content. The most common associates of Toledo soils, occurring as the sub- transition to gravelly Ck horizons is abrupt, occurring at dominant component in the TLD 7 map unit. They have simi depths of50 to 75 cm . They are usually gravelly loamy sand in lar parent material as Toledo soils but are imperfectly drained. texture and are strongly calcareous. Soil reaction of Teeswater soils ranges from slightly acidic to neutral in the surface hori- Land Use and Management Toledo soils are fair soils for zons, to moderately alkaline in the gravelly subsoil layers. Soil agricultural use. Their relatively high clay contents and ten- classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol . dency to develop massive subsoil structure creates problems with slow drainage. They require artificial drainage for suc- Soil Moisture Characteristics Teeswater soils are well- cessful production of common field crops. Grain corn, soy- drained . They are only moderately permeable in the loamy- beans and spring grain are grown on drained Toledo soils. textured surface horizons, but are rapidly permeable in the gravelly subsoil . Similarly, the moisture-holding capacity of

Tuscola Soils (TUC) Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) soils are the General Soil Description Tuscola soils have developed most common associates of Vanessa soils as the subdominant on glaciolacustrine sediments of silt loam or very fine sandy component in map unit VSS 7. Granby soils are poorlydrained loam textures. They are imperfectly drained. like Vanessa soils, but occur where the sandy textures exceed 1 metre in depth. Surface horizons of Tuscola soils consist of20 to 25 cm of silt loam or very fine sandy loam of moderate organic matter Land Use and Management Vanessa soils require tile content. The underlying horizons have distinct or prominent drainage before they can be utilized for agricultural crops. mottles which are yellow to brownish-yellow in colour. The tex- Drained Vanessasoils are used for corn, spring grain and occa- tures of the subsoil horizons ranges from silt loam inthe upper sionally vegetable crops. portion of the B horizons to clay loam in the Bt, and very fine Walsingham Soils (WAM) the calcareous C sandy loam in the Ckg horizons. Depth to General Soil Description Walsingham soils have devel- horizons are variable due to the wavy and tongueing nature of glaciolacustrine sediments of loamy sand and sand overlying Btg horizons, ranging from about 40 to 100 cm. oped on the textures. They are imperfectly drained . Soil reaction of Tuscola soils ranges from neutral in the surface horizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Surface horizons of Walsingham soils range from 15 to 20 usually Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol . cm in depth and are loamy sand or sandy loam in texture. They have moderate organic matter contents ranging from 4 to 6% . Soil Moisture Characteristics Tuscola soils are imper- sand in texture, with perme- The subsoil horizons are uniform fine fectly drained. The surface horizons are moderately prominent reddish-brown mottles present in the lower subsoil able, but subsurface horizons may be slowly permeable as a horizons. The Ck horizons are moderately calcareous and gen- result of their increase in clay content, or because of compac- between 60 and 90 cm depth. Soil reaction of tion by use ofheavy machinery. Tuscola soils may have tempo- erally occur Walsingham soils ranges from medium acidic in the surface rary high water tables which normally recede early in the . Soil classification is interference with plant horizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil growing season, and have minimum Gleyed Orthic Melanic Brunisol . growth. Tuscola soils have high water-holding capacities, and moderate to high surface runoff, depending on slope. Soil Moisture Characteristics Walsingham soils are imperfectly drained. They are rapidly permeable, but high Commonly Associated Soils Brant (BRT) and Colwood near Tuscola soils regional groundwater tables maintain water table levels (CWO) soils are the most common associates of during the winter and spring. Dry summer condi- occurring subdominant components in .map units TUC 3 the surface as tions cause the water table to drop quite drastically, so that and TUC 4. They have similartextures as Tuscola soils, butdif- prevail. Walsingham soils have low . Fox droughty conditions may fer in being well and imperfectly drained, respectively water-holding capacities and surface runoff is slow. (FOX) soils also may occur in association with Tuscola soils in map unitTUC 9, where sandy-textured, well to rapidly drained Commonly Associated Soils Plainfield (PFD) and uplands occur inlandscapes dominated by Tuscola soils. Waterin (WRN) soils are commonly associated with and Management Tuscola soils are very good Walsingham soils as subdominant components in map units Land Use material, but agricultural soils for most field and horticultural crops. Tile WAM 2 and WAM 3. They have similar parent drainage is installed in some Tuscola soils under intensive use are rapidly drained and poorly drained, respectively. to remove wet spots and improve the timeliness of field opera- Land Use and Management Walsingham soils are used tions. Corn, soybeans, tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers are for a wide range of crops in the County. They are used exten- the most common cropsgrown on Tuscola soils. sively for flue-cured tobacco and less commonly for specialty crops Vanessa Soils (VSS) crops such as potatoes, peppers and ginseng. These irrigation or other specialized manage- developed require supplemental General Soil Description Vanessa soils have ment practices. Common field crops such as winter wheat and on loamy sand and sandy loam textures overlying loamyglacial fall rye produce well on Walsingham soils, whereas crops such . till. They are poorly drained as grain corn often suffer from summer droughtiness. Surface horizons of Vanessa soils consist of about 20 to 30 Waterin Soils (WRN) cm offine sandyloam texture, with a relatively high content of . The upper subsoil horizons in the sandy mate General Soil Description Waterin soils have developed organic matter loamy sand and sand textures. rial are loamy finesand to medium sandy loamin texture. They on glaciolacustrine sediments of are strongly gleyed and mottled . The underlying glacial till sub- They are poorlydrained. soils are encountered at depths of50to 80 cm. They are usually Surface horizons of Waterin soils consist of 20 to 30 cm of loam in texture and have low gravel contents. The C-horizons sandy loam texture. The organic matter contents of these hori- usually begin near the sand-glacial till contact and are strongly zons are generally high, ranging from 4 to 8% . Peaty phase calcareous. They are loam to gravelly loam in texture. Soil reac- Waterin soils are not uncommon, with very high organic mat- tion of Vanessa soils ranges from slightly acidic in the sandy ter levels in the surface layer. Subsoil horizons are uniformly surficial material to mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classifi- fine sand in texture with prominent dark reddish-brown mot- cation is usually Orthic Humic Gleysol. tles increasing in abundance with depth. The calcareous Ckg more Characteristics Vanessa soils are poorly horizons occur at varying depths, ranging from 70 to Soil Moisture usually mildly calcareous. Soil reaction drained. The surface horizons have high permeability; how- than 100 cm . They are glacial till of Waterin soils ranges from neutral in the surface horizons to ever, the permeability of subsoil horizons in the classification is Orthic . Groundwater levels are at or nearthe sur- mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Soil material is moderate . face for much of the year, receding significantly only during Humic Gleysol the dry summer period. Vanessa soils have low water-holding capacities and low runoff .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Waterin soils are poorly Wauseon Soils (WUS) drained and peatyphase Waterin soils are very poorly drained. General Soil Description Wauseon soils have developed They are rapidly permeable. The poor drainage is a conse on sandy lacustrine veneer 40 to 100 cm thick overlying clay quence of high regional groundwater levels, which maintain loam or silty clay lacustrine deposits. Occasionally, till phases the water table at or near the surface during much of the year. of Wauseon soils occur, where the underlying soil material is The surface horizons of Waterin soils have a high water- clay loam glacial till. They are poorly drained soils. holding capacity, but in the subsoil horizons the water-holding capacity is verylow. Surface runofffrom Waterin soils is slow. Surface Ap horizons of Wauseon soils consist of 20 to 25 cm of sandy loam texture. They are usually high in organic Commonly Associated Soils Walsingham (WAM) soils matter content. Textures of the sandy subsoil range from are commonly associated with Waterin soils as the subdomi- loamy sand to sand . Where the sandy textures overlie lacus- nant component in the WRN 10 map unit. They have similar trine material, silty clay loam or silty clay textures usually parent material, but Walsingham soils are imperfectly occur. If the underlying material consists of glacial till, clay drained. loam textures are more common . The heavy-textured subsoils Land Use and Management Most Waterin soils are are usually found at depths between 40 and 60 cm, which cor- under wooded vegetation in their natural condition . Artificial responds with the top of the Btg horizon. They are gleyed and drainage is required before they can be used succcessfully for strongly mottled. The Ckg horizons are usually strongly agricultural crops. When drained, common field crops such as calcareous and rangein texture from clay loam to silty clay. Soil corn and spring grains, and even specialty crops, such as reaction of Wauseon soils is neutral in the surface horizons and tobacco, are grown. Waterin soils also have potential for vege- mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is usually table crop production when drained. Orthic Humic Gleysol. Waterloo Soils (WTO) Soil Moisture Characteristics Wauseon soils are most often poorly General Soil Description Waterloo soils have developed drained, although peaty phase Wauseon soils do on glaciolacustrine sediments of very fine sandy loam and occur which are very poorly drained . The poor drainage is due loamy fine sand textures. They are well-drained. to the groundwater levels being at or near the soil surface for much of the year. High groundwater levels are caused by the Surface Ap horizons of Waterloo soils consist of 10 to 20 presence ofimpermeable subsoil within I metre of the surface. cm of very fine sandyloam texture. They are moderate to lowin Wauseon soils have high moisture-holding capacities in the organic matter content. The underlying Bm horizons are organic-rich surface horizon, but low moisture-holding capac- loamy fine sand in texture, and usually extend to depths of 35 ities in the sandy subsoil. They once again become high in the to 45 cm. The Bt horizons, which have a significant increase in clayey-textured subsoil . Surface runoff from Wauseon soils clay content and fine sandy loam texture, extend to variable is slow. depths ranging from about 45 to 100 cm. They have a wavy, Commonly Associated tongueing boundary with the underlying Ck horizons. The Ck Soils Berrien (BRR) and horizons consist of well-sorted, stratified fine and Waterin (WRN) soils are commonly associated with Wauseon very fine soils as subdominant sands, which are mildly calcareous. Soil reaction of Waterloo components in map units WUS 4 and soils ranges from strongly acidic in the WUS 15. Berrien soils have similar parent materials as Wau- surface horizons to seon soils mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usually but are imperfectly drained. Waterin soils are com- Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol. prised entirely of the sandy-textured materials and are poorly drained. Soil Moisture Characteristics Waterloo soils are well- drained. They are moderately permeable, but permeability will Land Use and Management In their natural condition, decrease at the contact with the Bt horizon, or if soil compac Wauseon soils largely remain in wooded vegetation. Artificial tion has occurred. They have moderate water-holding capaci- drainage is required before agricultural use is feasible. Drained ties. Surface runoff can be high and increases markedly on Wauseon soils are used for grain corn, soybeans, and occasion- sloping topography. ally for tobacco. CommonlyAssociated Soils Heidelberg (HIG) and Col- Wilsonville Soils (WIL) wood (CWO) soils are commonly associated with Waterloo General Soil Description Wilsonville soils have devel- soils as the subdominant components in map units WTO 2 and oped on gravelly sandy loam glacial till materials. They are WTO 3. They have similar parent materials, but Heidelberg rapidly drained. soils are imperfectly drained and Colwood soils are poorly Ap horizons of drained. Fox Wilsonville soils consist of about 20 cm of (FOX) soils are also associates in the WTO 4 map loam or sandyloam textures. They are relatively low in unit, where soil textures of loamy sand organic and sand occur. matter content, averaging about 3% . The upper subsoil hori Land Use and Management Waterloo soils are very zons are usually sandy loam in texture with a small amount of good agricultural soils for a range of crops. They have a slight gravel present . The gravel content increases in the Bt horizons moisture deficiency, which affects the production of certain with textures of loam or gravelly loam, and a further increase crops. They are commonly used for field crops such as grain in gravel occurs in the Ck horizons. Textures in the latter hori- corn, and for some specialty crops such as tobacco and vegeta- zon are gravelly sandy loam. The Bt horizons occur at varying bles. With supplemental irrigation, Waterloo soils are highly depths ranging from about 25 cm at the top of the horizon to productive for these crops. about 65 cm at its contact with the Ck horizon. They have a pronounced increase in clay content and distinctive brown to

dark-brown colour. The Ck horizons are strongly calcareous in map units WOW 2, WOW 3, WOW 4, WOW 5 and WOW 6, and have a high stone content . Soil reactionof Wilsonville soils respectively. Conestogo and Maryhill soils have similar parent ranges from medium acidic in the surface horizons to mildly materials as Woolwich soils but are imperfectly and poorly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is Brunisolic Gray drained, respectively. Guelph soils have developed completely Brown Luvisol. on loam glacial till materials similar to those comprising the subsoil of Woolwich soils. Brant and Tuscola soils have silty Soil Moisture Characteristics Wilsonville soils are rap- glaciolacustrine parent materials similar to the surficial layer idly drained and rapidly permeable. They have relatively low where these silty materials water-holding capacity. The increased clay content in the Bt of Woolwich soils. They occur ofthis part ofthe exceed 1 metre in depth. They are well-drained and imperfectly horizon enhances the water-holding capacity drained, respectively. solum to a significant extent. Surface runoff varies depending on slope, being slow on slopes less than 6°7o, but moderate to Land Use and Management Woolwich soils areexcellent rapid on steeper slopes. soils for agricultural use. The only limitations of significance affecting their use for field crops are topography and past ero Commonly Associated Soils Scotland (STD) soils are 70 slight topographic Wilsonville soils the subdom- sion. Complex slopes exceeding 3 0 have a the most common associate of as limitation. . This limitation becomes more severe as slope inant component in the WIL 6 map unit. Scotland soils differ increases. With slopes in excess of 6%, moderate erosion may from Wilsonville soils in having a deeper (40-100 cm) overlay of and require special management . Woolwich soils are stone-free sandy material on the glacial till subsoil . occur, used extensively for corn, winter wheat, forages and spring Land Use and Management Wilsonville soils are moder- grain crops. ately good agricultural soils but have limitations because of moisture deficiencies, stoniness and, in some cases, steep MISCELLANEOUS LAND UNITS slopes. They are most commonly used for grain corn, hay and pasture, and with supplemental irrigation for specialty crops Alluvium (ALU) such as tobacco. Crops such as ginseng are also being estab- Alluvial soils deposited on the floodplains of rivers and lished on Wilsonville soils. streams are very variable in terms of texture and drainage. Woolwich Soils (WOW) Where there is extreme variability over short distances, differ entiation of these soils has not been attempted and the Miscel- General Soil Description Woolwich soils havedeveloped laneous Land Unit, ALU, has been used. This land unit has thick overly- on silt loam glaciolacustrine sediments 40-100 cm been mapped in portions of the Grand River floodplain, par- ing loam glacial till. They are well-drained. ticularly in its upper reaches, and along Whiternud Creek. Surface Ap horizons of Woolwich soils are approximately Escarpment (ESC) 20 cm thick and are silt loam in texture. They are moderate in organic matter content ranging from 3 to 4% . The subsoil Steep valley sides associated with deeply entrenched and horizons vary from silt loam to loam in texture, although there eroding rivers are highly variable in texture, drainage, slope sands and is usually a distinct increase in clay content in the Bt horizons. and profile development . They range in texture from The Bt horizons vary in depth with their upper boundary at gravel to clays. They are usually rapidly drained and runoff is around 35 cm and lower boundary at approximately 75 cm, rapid because of steep slopes, but wet spots may occur as a extending as tongue-like projections into the Ck horizon . The result of lateral seepage. Slopes are generally greater than 30% . Ck horizons are comprised of glacial till with a low content of The steep slopes are usually devoid of vegetation, but on gen- gravel. Often a thin stoneline occurs at the upper boundary of tler slopes wooded vegetation often persists. This land unit has the Ck horizons. They are usually strongly calcareous. Soil been mapped most commonly along the Grand River. reaction of Woolwich soils is neutral in the surface horizons Marsh (MAR) and mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is Bruni- Marsh consists of areas of shallow water on the ground solic Gray Brown Luvisol. surface which persist most of the year. They usually have thin Soil Moisture Characteristics Woolwich soils are well- organic-rich layers overlying variable depths of sedimentary drained and moderately permeable. They have medium water- material. The characteristic vegetation ofmarsh areas consists holding capacities. Surface runoff can be moderately high. It of various reeds, sedges and grasses. This land unit has been increases markedly as slope increases, and as the organic mat- mapped in small areas, mainly in South Dumfries Township. ter content ofthe surface horizon decreases. Urban Land (ULD) Commonly Associated Soils Conestogo (CTG), Mary- These are areas delineated on the map to accommodate hill (MYL), Guelph (GUP), Brant (BRT) and Tuscola (TUC) concentrations of urban-related space including built-up are associates of Woolwich soils as subdominant components areas, parks, golfcourses, railway yards, land-fill sites, etc. Table 7. Mean horizon values ofBrant County soils

Depth at Soil Name No. of Gravel Sand Silt Clay O.M. pH in CaCO, and Code Horizon Horizon Base % % % % Texture % Samples (cm) Cac12 %

Alluvium Ahk 1 20 0 46 38 16 L 4.8 6.9 12.3 (2ALU) Bm 1 43 0 65 24 11 SL 1 .6 7.1 0.9 Ck 1 51 0 76 18 6 LS 1 .2 7.2 20.7 2Ck 1 70 80 16 5 GLS 0.7 7.2 25.1 Alluvium Ahk 4 24 0 32 48 20 L 4.8 7.2 8 .2 (3-ALU) Bmj 3 59 0 38 48 14 L 2.2 7.3 0.1 Ckg 4 0 39 45 16 L 1 .6 7.3 6.4 Alluvium Ah 2 23 0 16 58 26 SIL 6.5 7.5 1 .7 (4-ALU) Bg 3 0 26 52 22 SIL 1 .7 7 .5 0.7 Ayr Ah 1 23 0 33 53 14 SIL 6.4 7 .3 1 .3 (AYR) Bg 2 64 4 31 57 12 SIL 0.9 7 .6 13 .3 2Ckg 1 22 2 90 8 GSL 0.0 7 .6 28 .2 Berrien Ap 2 22 0 57 31 12 SL 2.1 6.5 0.1 (BRR) Bmg 2 42 0 47 41 12 L 0.6 6.6 0.0 Btg 3 65 0 21 40 39 CL 0.6 6.8 0.0 2Ckg 2 0 4 50 46 SIC 0.4 7.5 10.4 Beverly Ap 5 21 0 6 59 35 SICL 5 .4 6.9 0.6 (BVY) Bmgj 4 51 0 4 60 36 SICL 0.8 7.1 0.8 Btgj 5 62 0 5 56 39 SICL 0.7 7.1 0.3 Ckg 6 0 2 63 35 SICL 0.3 7.6 11 .2 Bookton Ah 4 23 0 68 21 11 SL 3.1 7.2 0.5 (BOO) Bm 6 41 0 83 13 4 LS 0.6 7.0 0.0 2Bt 8 74 0 11 58 31 SICL 0.5 7.4 3 .3 2Ck 7 1 8 65 27 SICL 0.2 7.6 20.3 Brady Ah 3 16 1 67 26 7 SL 5.4 7.0 0.5 (BAY) Bmgj 7 47 1 80 14 6 LS 0.9 7.1 1 .4 Btgj 4 52 3 79 14 7 LS 0.6 7.3 0.6 Ckg 3 0 90 7 3 S 0.4 7.5 13.1 Brant Ah 4 17 0 23 64 13 SIL 3.8 7.1 0.8 (BRT) Bm 4 30 0 21 64 15 SIL 1 .5 6 .9 0 .1 Bt 6 58 0 13 73 14 SIL 0.6 7.3 0.4 Ck 4 1 11 79 10 SIL 0.4 7.6 11 .2 Brantford Ah 6 16 0 23 53 24 SIL 5 .0 7.1 0.4 (BFO) Bm 7 29 0 19 62 19 SIL 1 .6 6.8 0.1 Bt 8 52 0 14 51 35 SICL 0.9 7 .2 2 .2 Ck 7 0 3 61 36 SICL 0 .3 7 .6 18 .0 Burford Ah 2 17 8 39 49 12 L 4.2 7 .2 1 .3 (BUF) Bm 2 35 21 41 47 12 GL 1 .7 7 .2 0.3 Bt 3 76 31 52 28 20 GSCL 0.9 6 .8 1 .4 2Ck 2 48 81 13 6 GLS 0.3 7 .5 20.7 Caledon Ah 1 15 0 48 42 10 L 3 .2 7 .4 3 .7 (CAD) Bm 2 36 0 62 28 10 SL 1 .0 7 .5 0.2 2Bt 2 74 29 55 23 22 GSCL 0.7 7 .4 9.7 2Ck 1 34 93 6 1 GS 0.1 7.7 27 .3 Camilla Ah 2 29 0 51 38 11 SL 7 .4 7 .3 1 .6 (CML) Bmgj 2 45 2 58 35 7 SL 1 .7 7 .2 0.3 2Btgj 2 59 10 54 34 12 SL 1 .0 7.4 2.4 2Ckg 2 25 49 45 6 GSL 0.2 7 .6 26.2

(Continuedon page 42) Table7. Mean horizon values of Brant County soils(Cont'd.)

at Depth Gravel Sand Silt Clay O.M. pH in CaCO, Soil Name No. of HorizonBase % % Texture % Horizon Flu 070 Cacl, % and Code Samples (cm)

Colwood Ah 2 20 0 31 54 15 SL 7 .0 7.1 0.6 (CWO) Bg 4 46 0 41 50 9 SIL 0.6 7.3 0.5 Ckg 2 0 43 52 5 SIL 0.2 7.5 11 .2 Conestogo Ah 2 35 0 26 57 17 SIL 4.0 7.2 1 .6 (CTG) Bmgj 2 68 0 43 46 11 L 1 .0 7 .1 0.2 Btg 2 93 0 34 50 16 SIL 0 .6 7 .1 0.3 2Ckg 2 4 34 54 12 SIL 0.4 7.6 14.7 Dumfries Ah 1 13 10 30 56 14 SIL 6.1 6.6 0.6 (DUF) Bm 2 36 3 28 58 14 SIL 1 .2 6.3 0.1 2Bt 2 99 33 43 36 21 GL 1 .2 6.9 3.9 2Ck 1 55 67 27 7 GSL 0.4 7.3 16 .8 Fox Ah 4 20 1 68 24 8 SL 2.1 6.6 0.4 (FOX) Bm 9 55 0 76 17 7 LS 0.3 6.5 0.2 Bt 4 69 1 78 9 13 SL 0.2 6.6 0.0 Ck 4 3 92 6 2 S 0 .0 7 .5 20.3 Gilford Ah 1 20 0 54 31 15 SL 4.0 7 .5 1 .4 (GFD) 2BC 1 46 31 49 38 13 GL 0.7 7.9 22.9 3Ck 2 36 95 1 4 GS 0.1 7.8 26.2 Gobles Ah 3 22 1 35 40 25 L 4.4 7.1 2.6 (GOB) Bmgj 2 33 0 34 38 28 CL 1 .5 7.1 0.4 Btgj 3 51 2 21 45 34 CL 0.9 7.1 0.4 Ckg 5 1 15 54 31 SICL 0.2 7.6 16.6 Granby Ah 1 18 0 72 17 11 SL 13 .7 5.9 0.5 (GNY) Aeg 1 25 0 77 14 9 SL 4.6 6.5 0.0 Btg 1 58 0 74 14 12 SL 1 .6 6 .7 0.1 Ckg 2 3 90 6 4 S 0.6 7.1 13 .4 Guelph Ah 5 20 2 32 53 15 SIL 3.2 7.1 0.6 (GUP) Bm 6 45 1 35 52 13 SIL 1 .0 6 .2 0.1 Bt 6 68 2 36 42 22 L 0.6 6.8 0.4 Ck 6 4 34 51 15 L 0.3 7.4 16.2 Haldimand Ah 5 19 0 4 56 40 SIC 3.9 6.6 0.9 (HIM) Bmgj 3 43 0 3 49 48 SIC 1 .4 7 .2 2.9 Btgj 3 52 0 1 44 55 SIC 0.9 7.1 0.3 Ckg 7 0 2 23 74 HC 0 .5 7 .6 12.9 Harrisburg Ah 1 8 0 15 72 13 SIL 5 .0 5 .5 0.1 (HBG) Bm 3 59 0 17 72 11 SIL 1 .4 4.6 0.1 Bt 2 79 0 11 67 22 SIL 0.4 6.4 0.1 2Ck 2 0 6 63 31 SICL 0.2 7.7 17.9 Heidelberg Ah 1 20 0 64 25 11 VFSL 3 .4 7.2 1 .1 (HIG) Bmgj 3 50 0 72 20 8 VFSL 0.4 7.0 0.2 Ckg 1 0 76 20 4 VFSL 0.4 7.2 11 .1 Kelvin Ah 1 23 0 12 48 40 SICL 8.4 6.9 0.1 (KVN) Bg 2 52 0 12 44 44 SIC 1 .0 7.2 0.1 Ckg 1 0 11 48 41 SIC 0.5 7.3 4.3 Lincoln Ap 5 15 0 10 54 36 SICL 3.0 6.8 0.0 (LIC) Bg 6 50 0 8 48 44 SIC 0.9 6.5 0.0 Ckg 4 0 1 40 59 C 0.0 7.4 16.2 Maryhill Ah 3 26 0 25 54 21 SIL 5.5 7.2 0.3 (MYL) Bg 6 74 0 26 53 21 SIL 0.6 7 .1 0.2 2Ckg 2 3 27 53 20 SIL 0.4 7 .3 1 .6 Table 7. Mean horizon values of Brant County soils (Cout'd.)

Depth at Soil Name No. of Gravel Sand Silt Clay O.M. pH in CaCO, and Horizon Samples Horizon Base % % % % Texture % Code (cm) CaC1, %

Muriel Ah 9 22 1 30 51 19 SIL 2.8 6.9 1 .8 (MUI) Bm 4 33 2 22 54 24 SIL 1 .4 6.7 0.2 Bt 10 65 1 12 49 39 SICL 0.8 7 .1 1 .5 Ck 8 2 11 59 30 SICL 0.1 7 .5 19.8 Oakland Ah 2 24 0 68 18 14 SL 7.7 6.9 0.3 (OKL) Bmgj 2 32 0 87 9 4 S 0.9 6.8 0.1 Btgj 3 57 0 66 18 16 SL 0.7 6.9 0.5 2Ckg 3 86 3 34 46 20 L 0.5 7.3 14.5 Plainfield Ah 3 20 0 83 12 5 LS 2.1 5.8 0.2 (PFD) Bml 6 67 0 92 5 3 S 0.2 6.0 0.1 Bm2 2 0 92 6 2 S 0.4 5.7 0.0 Scotland Ah 3 20 0 43 43 14 L 4.3 7.1 0.5 (STD) Bra 1 43 0 64 25 11 SL 0.9 7.4 0.2 Bt 5 53 0 55 33 12 SL 0.6 7.2 0.4 2Ck 4 4 48 40 12 L 0.8 7.6 12.0 Seneca Apk 1 15 13 24 49 27 SIL 2.3 7.2 15.6 (SNA) Bmk 1 40 21 33 51 17 GL 0.7 7.3 39.0 Ck 2 19 30 51 19 L 0.0 7.5 39.2 Smithville Ah 1 15 0 3 58 39 SICL 6.0 6.8 0.2 (SHV) 213m 2 32 0 1 41 58 SIC 1 .8 4.9 0.0 2Bt 2 50 0 1 32 67 HC 0.8 6.2 0.1 2Ck 1 0 1 29 70 HC 0.7 7.4 8.1 Stayner Notapplicable (STN) Styx Not applicable (SYX)

Teeswater Ah 4 22 1 39 50 11 L 3.5 7 .1 0.9 (TEW) Bm 5 46 0 37 54 9 SIL 0.7 6.8 0.0 Bt 6 77 4 47 30 23 L 0.7 6.4 0.4 2Ck 1 73 78 14 8 GLS 0.5 7 .4 22.0 Toledo Ah 4 21 0 16 45 39 SICL 5 .4 6.8 0.7 (TLD) Bg 6 46 0 9 46 45 SIC 1 .8 6.9 0.4 Ckg 6 0 4 55 41 SIC 0.6 7.5 15 .7 Tuscola Ah 3 24 0 37 51 12 SIL 3 .0 7 .2 1 .0 (TUC) Bmgj 2 45 0 54 39 7 SL 0.6 7 .3 1 .7 Btgj 3 52 0 36 43 21 L 0.7 7 .3 1 .7 Ckgj 2 0 72 24 4 SL 0.0 7 .6 9.6 Vanessa Ah 1 20 0 64 19 17 FSL 5 .0 6.9 0.3 (VSS) Bg 1 28 0 82 13 5 FLS 0.8 6 .6 0.0 Btg 1 58 0 74 12 14 SL 0.8 6.6 0.0 2Btg 1 63 0 38 35 27 CL 0.4 7 .0 0.6 2Ckg 1 9 30 47 23 L 0 .6 7.3 22 .2 Walsingham Ah 3 16 0 82 13 5 LS 4.0 5 .8 0.2 (WAM) Bmgj 8 57 0 88 7 5 S 0.9 6.4 0.1 Ckg 3 0 87 8 5 S 0.2 7.2 5 .4 Waterin Ah 4 25 0 74 18 8 SL 4 .2 6.8 0.1 (WRN) Bg 10 71 0 89 7 4 LS 0.2 6.7 0.1 Ckg 3 0 91 7 2 S 0.1 7 .5 13 .0

(Continued onpage44)

Table 7. Mean horizon values of Brant County soils (Cont'd.)

Depth at Grave O.M. in CaCO, Soil Name No. of l Sand Silt Clay Texture pH Horizon Samples Horizon Base % % % % % CaC1, % and Code (cm)

Waterloo Ah 1 10 0 75 . 19 7 SL 4.3 7.0 0.2 (WTO) Bm 2 34 0 82 14 4 LS 0.5 5.6 0.1 Bt 1 64 0 73 17 10 SL 0.6 6.2 0.0 Ck 1 0 93 4 3 S 0.0 7.5 11 .8 Wauseon Ah 1 23 0 68 23 9 SL 2 .6 7 .0 0.4 (WUS.T) Bg 1 46 0 86 6 8 LS 0 .2 6 .9 0.1 2Btg 1 71 0 25 46 30 CL 0 .4 6 .8 0.0 2Ckg 1 13 31 ' 46 23 L 0.2 7 .3 14.7 Wilsonville Ah 4 20 4 40 47 13 L 3 .5 7.0 0.2 (WIL) Bm 3 30 9 44 44 12 L 1 .2 5.9 0.8 Bt 4 62 17 39 43 18 L 0.5 6 .8 4.3 Ck 4 33 57 35 8 GSL 0.3 7.5 23.6 Woolwich Ah 5 22 0 27 58 15 SIL 3.9 7 .1 0.4 (WOW) Bm 2 36 0 23 63 - 14 SIL 1 .0 7 .0 0.1 Bt 5 53 0 31 47 22 L 0 .8 7 .2 0.4 2Ck 8 4 34 52 14 SIL 0.4 7 .6 14.4

SOI I T ETATI S F AGRICULTURE

A. AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIFI- Capability classes are subject to change as new informa- CATION FOR COMMON FIELD CROPS (e) tion on the properties, behaviour and responses of soils cases, technological advances The Canada Land inventory (CLI) was a comprehensive becomes available. In some assessment ofland capability for agriculture, forestry, wildlife may also necessitate changes. and recreation. The agricultural capability classification for In this classification system, mineral soils are grouped into general field crops (12) was derived mainly from information seven classes according to their potential and limitation for collected in earlier soil surveys. agricultural use for common field crops. Common field crops forage crops Assumptions include corn, oats, wheat, barley and perennial such as alfalfa, grasses and bird's-foot trefoil. Specialty crops The CLI classification system of land capability for agri- white beans, tobacco, fruit and vegetables which the user should such as soybeans, culture is based on certain assumptions are not covered by this classification . understand before usingsoil capabilitytables or maps, to avoid making erroneous deductions. These assumptions are as The best soils, with no significant limitations for crop use, follows: are designated Class 1. Soils designated Classes 2 to 6 have decreasing capability for agriculture, and Class 7 soils have no (a) The soils will be well-managed and cropped under a agricultural potential . A brief outline of each agricultural largely mechanized system. capability class follows . Land requiring improvements, e.g. drainage that can be (b) Soils done economically by the farmer himself, is classed Capability Classification for Mineral according to its limitations or hazards in use after the Soil Capability Classes improvements have been made. Class 1- Soils in this class have no significant limitations soils are level to very gently sloping, The not considered : distances to market, in use for crops. These (c) following are deep, well to imperfectly drained, hold moisture and plant kind of roads, location or size of farms, type ofownership, individual opera- nutrients well. They can be managed and cropped without dif- cultural patterns, skills or resources of management they are moderately high to hazard ofcrop damage by storm . ficulty. Under good tors, and high in productivity for common field crops. soils for com- (d) The classification includes capabilities of Class 2 - Soils in this class have moderate limitations that mon field crops such as forage crops, small grains and restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation corn. It does not include capabilities for other special hold moisture and or for horticultural practices. These soils are deep and may not crops, such as soybeans or tobacco, nutrients as well as Class 1 soils. The limitations are moderate crops.

and the soils can be managed and cropped with little difficulty. Subclass S - Adverse soil characteristics. Used when two or Under good management they are moderately high to high in more of the limitations represented by Sub- productivity for common field crops. classes D, F or M are present, or when two of Class 3 - Soils in this class have moderately severe limita- the limitations represented by Subclasses D, F tions that restrict the range of crops or require special conser- or M are present and some additional limita- vation practices . The limitations are more severe than for Class tion occurs, e.g., T 2 soils. They affect one or more of the following practices: tim- Subclass T - Adverse topography, due to steepness or com- ing and ease of tillage, planting and harvesting; choice of plexity of slopes, limits agricultural use by crops; and methods ofconservation . Undergood management increasing the cost of farming over that of the they are fair to moderately high in productivity for common level land, by decreasing the uniformity of field crops. growth and maturity of crops, and by increas- Class 4 - Soils in this class have severe limitations that ing the hazard of erosion damage by water. restrict the range of crops or require special conservation prac- Subclass W - Excess water, other than from flooding, limits tices, or both. The limitations seriously affect one or more of use for agriculture. The excess water may be the following practices: timing and ease oftillage, planting and due to poor drainage, a high water table, seep- harvesting; choice ofcrops; and methods ofconservation. The age, or runoff from surrounding areas. soils are lowto fair in productivity for common field crops, but may have higher productivity for aspecially adapted crop. Guidelines for determining most subclasses were obtained from Environment Canada (13). Assistance in determining Class 5 - Soils in this class have very severe limitations subclasses W M and D was obtained from a computer program that restrict their capability to produce perennial forage crops developed by R.A. McBride (14) . and improvement practices are feasible. The limitations are so severethatthe soils are not capable of use for sustained produc- Capability Classification for Organic Soils tion of annual field crops. The soils are capable of producing The previous discussion on soil capability classification native or tame species of perennial forage plants, and may be applies only to mineral soils and cannot be used for organic improved by use of farm machinery. The improvement prac- soils. A separate capability system has been devised fororganic tices may include clearing of bush, cultivation, seeding, fertil- soils, using seven capability classes that are determined izing or water control. according to the following soil characteristics: stage ofdecom- position (K), reaction (F), climate Class (C), substratum texture, 6 - Soils in this class are capable only of producing wood content (L) and depth of organic soil (H). Definitions of perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are not fea- these soil characteristics and how they are used to determine sible. These soils provide some sustained grazing for farm ani organic soil capability classes, are discussed by Hoffman and mals, but the limitations are so severe that improvements by Acton (15). In this use of classification system, intensive agricultural farm machinery are impractical . The terrain may be use is assumed, e.g. vegetable production. unsuitable for use of farm machinery, or the soils may not respond to improvement, or the grazing season may be very Organic Soil Capability Classes short. Class 1 - Organic soils of this class have no water, topo- graphical or pH Class 7 - Soils in this class have no capability for arable limitations, and are deep and level. culture or permanentpasture. This class includes marsh, rock- Class 2 - Organic soils in Class 2 have one limitation that land and soil on very steep slopes. restrictstheir use in a minorway. The limitation maybe woodi- Soil Capability Subclasses ness, reaction, flooding, topography, depth or climate. Subclasses are divisions, within classes, that have the same Class 3 - Organic soils in this class have moderately kind of limitations for agricultural use asa resultofsoil and cli- severe limitations that restrict the range of crops, or that mate. Ten different kinds of limitations have been recognized, require special management practices. at the subclass level, in Brant County. They are listed below. Class 4 - Soils in this class have limitations that severely Subclass D - Undesirable soil structure and/or permeability. restrict the range of crops, or require special development and management practices. Reclamation and management costs Subclass E - Erosion damage, or potential damage from will be high . erosion, limits agricultural use ofthe land. Class 5 - Soils of this Subclass F - class have such severe limitations Low natural fertility which may or may not be that they are restricted to the production ofperennial possible to correct by forage or addition of fertilizers or other specially adapted crops. Large-scale reclamation is not manure. feasible. Subclass I - Inundations by flooding of streams or lakes Class 6 - Class limits 6 organic soils are capable of producing agriculturaluse. only indigenous crops, and improvements are not feasible. Subclass M -Moisture limitations due to low moisture- Class 7 - Organic soils ofthis class have no capability for holding capacities cause droughtiness that lim- agriculture. its agricultural use. Developing organic soils for agricultural Subclass P - Stoniness. Stones use also depends interfere with tillage, plant- on the feasibility of clearing vegetation, drainage and water ingand harvesting. level control (15). These are site-specific factors that are not Subclass R - Shallowness to bedrock, which is less than considered for the general organic soil capabilities outlined in three feet from the ground surface. Table 8. (Continued onpage47) Table 8. Agricultural capability classification for common field crops for soils of Brant County

Capability Classification forSlope Classest Soil Map Soil Unit Component Symbol A B b C c D d E,e (0-3%) (3-6%) (6-12%) (12-20%) (20-3001o)

Alluvium 2 2-ALU 31 31 31 Alluvium 3 3-ALU 31 31 31 Alluvium 4 4-ALU 31 31 31 Ayr AYR 2WF (4W)* Berrien BRR 1 1 2T 3T 3T Brantford BFO 2D 2DE 2DT 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T6T Bookton BOO 2M 2M 2MT 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T6T Brant BRT 1 2E 2T 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T-6T Burford BUF 2MF 2MF 2ST 3T 3T 4T 4T 6T Burford cobbly phase BUECO 2MF 2MF 3SP 3ST 3TP 4T 4T 6T Beverly BVY 2D 2DE 2DT 3T 3T 4T 4T Brady BAY 2F 2F 2FT 3T 3T 4T Caledon CAD 2MF 2MF 2ST 3T 3T Camilla CNIL 2F 2F 2FT 2ST Colwood CWO 2W 2WE 2WT 3W (4W5W)* Conestogo CTG 1 2E 2T 3T 3T Dumfries DUF 2SP 2SP 2TP 3TP 3TP 4T 4T 5T Escarpment ESC 7T Fox FOX 2MF 2MF 2ST 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Fox coarse phase FOX .C 2MF 2MF 2ST 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Flood plain FLP NOT RATED Gravel Pit PIT NOT RATED Gilford GFD 2W 2W 2WT (4W)* Gobles GOB 21) 2DE 2DT 3T 3T Granby GNY 2W 2W 2WT (4W-5W)* Guelph GUP 1 2E 2T 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Guelph coarse phase GURC 1 2E 2T 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Haldimand HIM 3D 3D 3DT 3DT 3DT Harrisburg HBG 1 2E 2T 3T 3T Heidelberg HIG 1 2E 2ST 3T Kelvin KVN 3W 3W 3W (5W)* Lily LIY 3W 3W 3W (5W-6W)* Lincoln LIC 3WD 3WD 3WD (5W)* Marsh MAR NOT RATED Maryhill MYL 2W 2W 2W (4W)* Muriel MUI 2D 2DE 2DT 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Osborne OBO 1 2E 2T Oakland OKL 2F 2F 2ST 3T Ohsweken OSE 2W 2W (4W5W)* Plainfield PFD 3MF 3MF 3MF 3ST 3ST 4T 4T 5T Scotland STD 2MF 2MF 2ST 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T Seneca SNA 1 1 2T 3T 3T 4T 4T Smithville SHV 3D 3D 3D 3DT 3DT 4T 4T 5T Stayner STN 4HK-5HK** Styx SYX 2K-3HK** Teeswater TEW 1 2E 2T 3T 3T Toledo TLD 3W 3W 3W (5W)* Tuscola TUC 1 2E 2T 3T 3T . 4T Urban Land ULD NOT RATED Vanessa VSS 2W 2W (4W5W)* Walsingham WAM 3F 3F 3F 3ST Waterloo WTO 1 2E 2T 3T 3T 4T 4T ST Wauseon WUS 2W 2W (4W-5W)* Woolwich wow 1 2E 2T 3TE 3T 4T Waterin WRN 3W 3W 3W Wilsonville WIL 2FM 2FM 2ST 3T 3T 4T 4T 5T limits used in tSlope classes in Brant County are similar to those used in Waterloo County, but differfrom theclass Haldimand-NorfolkandNiagararegions. *Approximate capability ratingsofpoorly drainedsoils without drainage improvements **Organicsoils capability ratingsarefor intensive usesuch as vegetableproduction

Procedure for Using Tables for Soil Capability Classes Table 9. Organization of special crops into crop groups and with Brant County Soil Maps crop subgroups forthe Brant County region 1 . Determine the map unit symbol from the delineation on the soil map for which the soil capability classification is Crop Group Crop Subgroup Special Crops required, e.g. BRT1/C, BF07/B, BFO1/d>c A 1 potatoes 2 tobacco 2. Determine the components ofthe map unit in thenumera- tor by referring to the legend of the soil map, e.g. BRT1 is B 1 ginseng composed of Brant soils, BF07 is composed of Brantford 2 peppers and Toledo soils, BFO1 is composed of Brantford soils. 3 strawberries 3. Determine the approximate proportions and slopes of the C 1 beans map unit components from the denominator of the map 2 cabbage, cauliflower, unit. tomatoes, sweet corn Example 1 : BRT1/C D 1 apples has Brant soils on simple C (6-12%) slopes. Reference to the following table indicates this combination of soils and topography are capability class 3 T. Soil Suitability Classes Example 2: BF07/B The soil suitability classification for special crops consists has dominant Brantford and subdominant of seven classes. The best soils, with no significant limitations Toledo soils in for crop use, are designated approximately 70:30 proportions as good. Soils designated with the on simple B (3-6%) ratings fair slopes. The table indicates this combination of soils and to good, fair, poor to fair, poor, and very poor, have topography are classes 2DE and 3W respectively. decreasing suitability for special crops. Soils with an unsuit- Apply- able rating have no potential for special crops ing the proportions for the soil components as stated . above, the area on the soil map is classified as 70% class Good (G) Soils with slight, if any, limitations to 2DE and 30% class 3W. growth and yields. Example 3 : BFO1/d >c Fairto Good (F-G) Soils with moderate to slight limitations to growth and yields. has Brantford soils on slopes which are dominantly d(12- 20%), and subdominantly c (6-12%) . Reference to the Fair (F) Soils with moderate limitations to growth table indicates a combination of capability classes 4T and and yields. 3T, i.e. 70% class 4T and 30% class 3T. Poor to Fair (P-F) Soils with severe to moderate limitations to growth and yields. B. AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY RATINGS Poor (P) Soils with severe limitations to growth and FOR SPECIAL CROPS yields. The CLI soil capability classification system rates land for its ability to produce common field crops such as Very Poor (VP) Soils that have very severe limitations for forages, small crop growth . grains and corn. Less commonly grown field crops and horti cultural crops are known as "special crops". Special crops Unsuitable (U) Soils that have very severe limitations and require amore detailed method of rating soil which is provided are considered unsuitable for crop growth, by suitability ratings. Agricultural suitability ratings evaluate even ifdrainage or irrigation are applied. the suitability ofthe soil to support productionof specific crops or cropgroups. For the most part, the suitability ratings for the Assumptions soils ofBrantCounty weretaken from either the suitability rat- Before using the soil suitability tables, it is important that ings found in the Niagara Region soil survey report (in prog- the user has an understanding of the following assumptions ress) or the Haldimand-Norfolk soil survey report (16). upon which the classification is based. Although the following Suitability ratings were done assumptions have been adapted from those outlined in The for the following special Canada Land Inventory Soil crops: potatoes, tobacco, ginseng, peppers, strawberries, Classification for Agriculture (13), they also apply to the suitability ratings. beans, cabbage, cauliflower, tomatoes, sweet corn, and apples. The crops were grouped into four main groups based mainly (a) Good soil management practices that are feasible and on their response to soil conditions. Each crop group was practical under a largely mechanized system of agriculture divided into subgroups made up of one or more crops as shown are assumed. Thesepractices include a proper fertility pro in Table 9. gram, management practices that result in good soil structure and crop growth, and management programs that result in minimum damage or risk of damage to the soil.

(b) Distance to markets, accessibility to transport, location, A seven-class rating system was used, with ratings ofgood size of farm, field shape and accessibility to machinery, (G), fair to good (F-G), fair (F), poor to fair (P-F), poor (P), type of ownership, cultural patterns, skill or resources of very poor (VP), and unsuitable (U). Map unit components individual operators, or hazards ofcrop damage by storms that were not rated were designated NR. As the slope class are not considered in this classification system. increases, the suitability ratings generally decrease. The rate of decrease varies with the crop group, soil texture, drainage and (c) Soil suitability ratings are subject to change if new technol- example, a Brantford soil on an A (0-3%) slope adopted, e.g. land slope. For ogy or management practices are widely has a rating of "G" good for beans, whereas, on a B (3-601o) drainage or irrigation, or as new information about crop slope the rating is "F-G" (fair to good). yields or the behaviour and responses of the soils becomes available . Management factors such as drainage and irrigation may improve crop performance for certain crop groups. This How to Determine Special Crop Suitability Ratings change is indicated at the bottom of the ratings for each soil Each crop subgroup was given a suitability rating for most type. A plus (+) sign followed by a number (i.e. + 1, + 2, etc.) ofthe map unit components. Organic soils were not rated here, indicates the number of classes the ratings are expected to and alluvial soils were generally not rated due to their variable increase withthe implementation of the specified management textures and drainage characteristics. factor. A dash (-) indicates that there is no anticipated change in the ratings for either of the management factors.

Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings forspecial crops in Brant County

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Al A2 Bl B2 B3 Cl C2 DI Component Code Class Factors

Alluvium 2 2ALU A U U U U U U U U B, b U U U U U U U U DRAINAGE IRRIGATION Alluvium 3 3ALU A U U U U U U U B, b U U U U U U U DRAINAGE IRRIGATION Alluvium 4 4-ALU A U U U U U U U U B, b U U U U U U U U DRAINAGE IRRIGATION Ayr AYR A P VP P P VP VP P VP B, b P VP P P VP VP P VP DRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION - + I ------Brady BAY A F F F F P-F P-F P-F P-F ' B, b F F F F P-F P-F P-F P-F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - - +1 Brantford BFO A P U P-F F P-F G F F B, b P U P-F P-F P-F F-G P-F F C, c U U P-F P=F P F P-F F D, d U U P P P P-F P P-F E, e U U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE IRRIGATION Bookton BOO A F P-F F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G B, b F P-F F-G F F-G F F F-G C, c P-F P F-G F F P-F F F-G DRAINAGE IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Berrien BRR A P-F P P-F F F F F F B,b P-F P P-F P-F F P-F P-F F C, c P VP P-F P-F F P . P-F F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION +1 +1 - - +1 - - -

48 Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd.)

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Component Code Class Factors Al A2 BI B2 B3 Cl C2 Dl

Brant BRT A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G F-G B, b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G F-G C, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-G D, d P VP F P-F P-F P-F F F E, e U U VP U U U U P-F DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - + 1 - Burford BUF A P-F P-F F-G F F P-F F F B,b P-F P-F F-G P-F F P-F F F C, c P P F-G P-F P-F P P-F F D, d VP VP F P P P P P-F E, e U U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Burford BUECO A P P-F F-G F F P F F cobbly B, b P P-F F-G P-F F VP F F phase C, c VP P F-G P-F P-F VP P-F F D, d U VP F P P U P P-F E,e U U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Beverly BVY A VP U VP P-F P F-G P-F P-F B, b VP U VP P P F P P-F C, c U U VP VP VP P-F P P-F DRAINAGE +1 - +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION ------Caledon CAD A F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F F B, b F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F F C, c F P-F F-G F P-F P P-F F DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Camilla CML A P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F B,b P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F C,c P P-F P-F P-F P P P P-F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - - + 1 Conestogo CTG A P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G F B, b P-F P P-F P-F F F F F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - - Colwood CWO A P VP P P VP P P P B, b P VP P VP VP VP VP P DRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Dumfries DUF A P P-F F F F P F F B,b P P-F F P-F F VP F F C, c P-F P F P-F P-F VP P-F F D,d VP VP P-F P P U P P-F E, e U U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +l +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Escarpment ESC U U U U U U U U

(Continued onpage50)

Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings forspecial cropsin Brant County (Cont'd.)

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Al A2 B1 B2 B3 Cl C2 Dl Component Code Class Factors

Fox FOX A F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F F B, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F F C, c F F F-G F P-F P P-F F D,d P-F P-F F P-F P P P P-F E, e U U P U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +l +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Fox FOX.C A F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F F coarse B, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F F C, c F F F-G F P-F P P-F F D,d P-F P-F F P-F P P P P-F E, e U U P U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +l +1 +1 - +1 +1 Flood Plain FLP U U U U U U U U Gilford GFD A VP VP P VP VP VP P VP B, b U VP P VP VP VP P VP DRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Granby GNY A P VP P P VP P P VP B, b P VP P P VP VP P VP DRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +3 +2 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Gravel Pit PIT NOTRATED Gobles GOB A VP U P F P-F F-G F F B, b VP U P P-F P-F F P-F F C, c U U P P-F P P-F P-F F D, d U U VP VP VP P P P-F DRAINAGE +1 - +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - IRRIGATION ------Guelph GUP A P-F U F F-G F F-G F-G F-G B, b P-F U F F F F F F-G C, c P U F F P-F P-F F F-G D, d U U P-F P-F P P P-F F DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION ------Guelph GUP C A F VP F-G G F-G F-G G F-G coarse B, b F VP F-G F-G F-G F F-G F-G C, c P-F U F-G F-G F P-F F-G F-G D, d U U F F P-F P F F DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Harrisburg HBG A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G G B,b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G G C, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-G DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - - - Heidelberg HIG A P-F P P-F F F F F F B, b P-F P P-F P-F F P-F P-F F C, c P VP P-F P P-F F P-F F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +I +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - + 1

Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd.)

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Component Code Class Factors Al A2 Bl B2 B3 Cl C2 Dl

Haldimand HIM A U U U U U F P-F P B, b U U U U U P-F P P C, c U U U U U P P P DRAINAGE - - - - - + 1 + I + 1 IRRIGATION ------Kelvin KVN A VP U U P VP P P VP B, b VP U U VP VP VP VP VP DRAINAGE +1 - - +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION ------Lincoln LIC A U U U U U VP VP VP B, b U U U U U VP VP VP DRAINAGE - - - - - + 1 + 2 + 1 IRRIGATION ------Lily LIY A VP VP VP VP VP VP P VP B, b VP VP VP VP VP VP VP VP DRAINAGE +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 IRRIGATION ------Marsh MAR NOT RATED Muriel MUI A P U P-F F-G F G F-G F-G B, b P U P-F F F F-G F F-G C, c U U P-F F P-F F F F-G DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION ------Maryhill MYL A P VP P P VP P P P B, b P VP P VP VP VP P P DRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Osborne OBO A P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G F B, b P-F P P-F P-F F F F F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - - Oakland OKL A P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F B, b P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F C, c P P-F P-F P-F P P P P-F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +I - +l +1 IRRIGATION +1 +I - +1 +1 - - +1 Ohsweken OSE A P VP P P VP P P P B, b P VP P VP VP VP VP P DRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Plainfield PFD A P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F B, b P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F C, c P P-F P-F P P P P P-F D, d U P P U P P U P E, e U U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +I +I +1 - +I +1 Seneca SNA A P-F U F F-G F F-G F-G F-G B, b P-F U F F F F F F-G C, c P U F F P-F P-F F F-G D, d U U P-F P-F P P P-F F E, e U U P U U U U P-F DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION ------

51 (Continued on page52) Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd.)

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Al A2 BI B2 B3 Cl C2 Dl Component Code Class Factors

Scotland STD A F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F F B, b F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F F C, c F P-F F-G F P-F P P-F F D, d P-F P F P-F P P P P-F E, e U U P U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Smithville SHV A U U U U P F-G F P-F B, b U U U U P F P-F P-F C, c U U U U VP P-F P-F P-F D, d U U U U U P P P E, e U U U U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION ------Stayner STN A VP U U U U VP VP DRAINAGE + 4 - - - - + 4 + 2 IRRIGATION ------Styx SYX A VP U U U U VP VP U DRAINAGE + 4 - - - - + 4 + 2 - IRRIGATION ------Teeswater TEW A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G F-G F-G B,b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F F-G C, c P-F P F-G F F F F F-G DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 - +1 +1 - +1 +1 Toledo TLD A VP U U P VP P P VP B,b VP U U VP VP VP VP VP DRAINAGE - - - +2 +1 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION ------Tuscola TUC A P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G F B, b P-F P P-F P-F F F F F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - - Urban Land ULD NOT RATED Vanessa VSS A P VP P P VP VP P VP B, b P VP P P VP VP P VP DRAINAGE +3 +1 +3- +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION - + 1 ------Walsingham WAM A P P-F P P P P-F P P-F B, b P P-F P P P P-F P P-F C, c U P P VP VP P VP P-F DRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 IRRIGATION + 1 + l - + 1 + 1 - - + 1 Wilsonville WIL A F P-F F-G F F P-F F F B, b F P-F F-G F F P-F F F C, c P-F P F-G P-F P-F P P-F F D, d P VP F P P P P P-F E, e VP U VP U U U U P DRAINAGE ------IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Table 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd.)

Map Unit Soil Slope Management Al A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D1 Component Code Class Factors

Woolwich WOW A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G F-G B,b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G F-G C, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-G DRAINAGE IRRIGATION +1 +1 - +1 +1 Waterin WRN A P VP P P VP VP VP VP B,b P VP P P VP VP VP VP DRAINAGE +2 +1 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION Waterloo WTO A F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F B, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F F F C, c F F F-G F F P-F F F D,d P-F P-F F P-F P-F P P-F P-F DRAINAGE IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1 Wauseon WUS A P VP P P VP P P P B, b P VP P VP VP VP VP P DRAINAGE +2 +1 +2 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 IRRIGATION

C. SOIL EROSION INTERPRETATIONS' The water erosion formula used to predict average annual soil loss through sheet and rill erosion is the Universal Soil Loss Soil Interpretations for Water Erosion Equation (U.S.L.E.) of Wischmeier and Smith (19) which Soil erosion by water is a naturally occurring process that takes the form A = RKLSCP where: can be greatly enhanced by man's activity. Any practice that enhances soil runoffor reducesthe natural protection afforded A = average annual soil loss by vegetative cover will generally lead to increasing erosion . R = rainfall erosivity Within the agricultural sector, we have become accustomed to K = soil erodibility thinking of soil erosion as an action that reduces production L = slope length potential, depletes nutrients, and degrades soil. However, stud- S = slope gradient ies in the CanadianGreat Lakes basin have illustrated the need C = crop cover factor to look beyond the on-site effects of soil erosion and consider P = management practice factor the role ofsediments derived from cropland on water quality. A When the numerical values for each variable are multi- comprehensive soil conservation program will recognize this plied together, the product is the average annual soil loss in dual nature of the problem associated with soil erosion by tons/ac/yr. To convert to metric units (tonnes/ha/yr) multiply water. the empirical unit value by 2.24 . It should be emphasized that The Brant County Soil Survey Report describes in detail the formula estimates sheet and rill erosion, but does not con- the nature, extent and distribution of soil materials within the sider soil losses caused by gully erosion or stream channel ero- County. The purpose of this section is to provide interpreta sion . Since the erosion formula does not contain a transport or tions of the water erosion potential of the Brant County soils delivery factor, it does not predict sediment load of streams. and soil landscapes. Specifically, the objectives are as follows : Included in this report is information on the factors of the (a) to determine the relative erodibilityof surficial soil layers; U.S.L.E. relevant to Brant County. Further details and back- ground information on the use ofthe US.L .E. in Ontario have (b) to determine the combined effect of soil erodibility and been reported elsewhere (17,18). slope on soil erosion potential; Rainfall Erosivity (R) (c) to establish the effects ofcropland on soil erosion potential The rainfall erosivity index reflects the combined ability of and; raindrop impact to dislodge soil particles and runoff to trans- (d) to provide a methodology whereby a nomograph and port the soil particles from the field. The R factor is the long information contained in the soil survey report may be term average annual value of the erosion index that ranges used to assess site-specific cropland soil erosion problems from a low of 25 to a high of 100 in Ontario. Brant County has and alternative solutions. anR-value ofapproximately 80.

'G.J Wall and LJ. Shelton, Agriculture Canada, Guelph, and WT. Dickinson, School ofEngineering, University ofGuelph.

53 Soil Map Unit Erosion Potential (c) draw a line between the site-specific K-value and LS-value 14); The soils map of Brant County delineates, among other to determine the intercept with the pivot line (Figure things, unique combinations of soil materials and associated (d) site-specific soil loss potentials for all the land uses listed slope gradient and pattern. The combinations of soil and slope on the nomograph may be determined by drawing a line properties depicted on the soil map are called map units. Table from the land use under question, through the soil-slope 11 illustrates all the combinations of soil and slope that occur intercept on the pivot line to the potential soil loss axis. on the Brant County soil map. For each of these soil mapunits, the corresponding slope effects (LS), soil erodibility(K) values, . A sample calculation is illustrated as follows : and average annual soil loss (A) values for bare soil conditions Soil K-value - Conestogo soil = .30 are reported. Guidelines for establishing LS-values, soil erodibility values and soil erosion potential classes are found in Site LS factor = 1 .0 Tables 12, 13, and 14. Draw a line between K and LS values and find the intercept these Table 11 also illustrates the soil erosion potential classes with the pivot line. What is the potential soil loss for soybean crop and b) an for each soil map unit for bare soil, corn, and small grain land soil and slope conditions for: a) a uses. orchard crop? values Site-specific Assessment of Soil Erosion Potential A line is drawn from the soybean and orchard crop on the land use axis through the intercept on the Figure 14 is a soil erosion nomograph that was designed to located pivot line to cross the potential soil loss axis. The soybean facilitate site-specific assessment of soil erosion potential. The has amoder- information contained in crop grown onthese soil and slope conditions nomograph may be employed with potential, while the orchard crop has a Soil Survey Report to assess potential soil ately severe erosion the Brant County negligible soil loss potential. loss for various crops and slope conditions, as well as for different soil conservation practices. The soil erosion nomograph provides a rapid method to assess the effect of many land uses on soil loss potentials for The nomograph is agraphical solution of the universal soil conditions. By altering the LS factor County. Potential soil ero- site-specific soil and slope loss equation for the soils of Brant reflect different slope lengths (Table 14), the soil erosion sionlosses for a site can be obtained as follows : to nomograph can also be useful to test field consolidation alter- (a) determine the soil erodibility value from the soil survey natives that minimize soil loss potentials. The soil erosion report (Table 11) or by the method described by Wisch- nomograph (Figure 14) in combination with soils information meier et al. (19); from the Brant County Soil Survey Report can provide much information for farm soil conservation planning. (b) determine LS-value from on-siteevaluation of slope gradient and slope length. Use LS chart of Wischmeier and Smith (20), to arrive at LS-value (Table 14); Table 11. K-values, Erodbility classesand erosion potential forBrantCounty soils.

Soil Map Unit Map Soil Erodibility Slope Soil Erosion Map Unit Soil Component Symbol Erodibility Class Effects Potential Erosion Potential Class and Slope (K) (LS) (A) Bare Cont. Small Hay/ t/ha/y Soil Corn Grains Pasture

Alluvium2 2ALUA 0.27 2 0.32 15 3 2 1 1 2ALU B 0.27 2 1 .1 53 5 4 3 1 Alluvium 3 3-ALU A 0.3 2 0.32 17 3 2 1 1 Alluvium 4 4ALU A 0.18 1 0.32 10 2 1 1 1 Ayr AYR A 0.19 1 0.32 11 2 1 1 1 AYR B 0.19 1 1 .1 37 5 3 2 1 AYR b 0.19 1 0.6 20 3 2 1 1 AYR C 0.19 1 2.8 95 5 5 4 1 Brady BAYA 0.13 1 0.32 7 1 1 1 1 BAY B 0.13 1 1 .1 26 3 3 2 1 BAY C 0.13 1 2.8 65 5 4 3 1 Brantford BFO A 0.37 3 0.32 21 3 2 1 1 BFO B 0.37 3 1 .1 73 5 4 3 1 BFO b 0.37 3 0.6 40 5 3 2 1 BFO C 0.37 3 2.8 186 5 5 5 3 BFO c 0.37 3 1 .55 103 5 5 4 2 BFO D 0.37 3 5 .14 341 5 5 5 3 BFO d 0.37 3 2.57 170 5 5 5 2 BFO E 0.37 3 9.3 6l7 5 5 5 5 Bookton BOO A 0.31 3 0.32 18 3 3 1 1 BOO B 0.31 3 1 .1 61 5 5 3 1 BOO B 0.31 3 0.6 33 4 4 2 1 BOO C 0.31 3 2.8 156 5 5 5 2 BOO c 0.31 3 1 .55 86 5 5 4 1 BOO D 0.31 3 5 .14 286 5 5 5 3 Berrien BRR A 0.33 3 0 .32 18 3 3 1 1 BRR B 0.33 3 1 .1 65 5 5 3 1 BRRb 0.33 3 0.6 35 5 5 2 1 BRR C 0.33 3 2.8 166 5 5 5 2 BRR c 0.33 3 1 .55 92 5 5 4 1 BRR D 0.33 3 5.l4 304 5 5 5 3 BRR d 0.33 3 2.57 152 5 5 5 2 Brant BRTA 0.42 4 0.32 24 4 2 2 1 BRTB 0.42 4 1 .1 83 5 5 4 1 BRTb 0.42 4 0.6 45 5 3 3 1 BRT C 0.42 4 2.8 2l1 5 5 5 3 BRT c 0.42 4 1 .55 1l7 5 5 4 2 BRT D 0.42 4 5.14 387 5 5 5 4 BRT d 0.42 4 2.57 193 5 5 5 3 Burford BUF A 0.31 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1 BUF B 0.3l 3 1 .1 61 5 4 3 1 BUF b 0.31 3 0.6 33 5 3 2 1 BUF C 0.31 3 2.8 156 5 5 5 2 BUF c 0.3l 3 1 .55 86 5 5 4 1 BUF D 0.31 3 5 .14 286 5 5 5 3 BUF d 0.31 3 2.57 143 5 5 5 2 BUF E 0.31 3 9.3 517 5 5 5 4 BUF e 0.3l 3 5 .3 294 5 5 5 3

(Continued onpage 56) Table 11. K-values, erodibilityclasses and erosion potential for Brant County soils (Cont'd.)

Soil Map Unit Map Soil Erodibility Slope Soil Erosion Map UnitSoil Component Symbol Erodibility Class Effects Potential Erosion Potential Class and Slope (K) (LS) (A) Bare Cont. Small Hay/ t/ha/y Soil Corn Grains Pasture

Beverly BVY A 0.24 2 0 .32 14 3 2 1 1 BVY B 0.24 2 1 .1 47 5 3 3 1 BVY b 0.24 2 0.6 26 4 3 2 1 BVY C 0.24 2 2 .8 120 5 5 4 2 Caledon CAD A 0 .33 3 0.32 19 3 2 1 1 CAD B 0.33 3 1 .1 65 5 4 3 1 CAD b 0.33 3 0.6 35 5 3 2 1 CAD C 0.33 3 2.8 166 5 5 5 2 CAD c 0.33 3 1 .55 92 5 5 4 1 Camilla CML A 0.24 2 0 .32 14 3 2 1 1 CML B 0.24 2 1 .1 47 5 3 3 1 CML b 0.24 2 0 .6 26 4 3 2 1 Conestogo CTG A 0.3 2 0.32 17 3 2 1 1 CTG B 0.3 2 1 .1 59 5 4 3 1 CTG b 0.3 2 0.6 32 4 3 2 1 CTG C 0.3 2 2.8 151 5 5 5 2 CTG c 0.3 2 1 .55 83 5 5 4 1 Colwood CWO A 0.4 3 0.32 23 4 2 2 1 CWO B 0.4 3 1 .1 79 5 5 3 1 CWO b 0.4 3 0.6 43 5 3 3 1 Dumfries DUF b 0.35 3 0.6 38 5 3 2 1 DUF C ~,0 .35 3 2.8 176 5 5 5 2 DUF c 0 .35 3 1 .55 97 5 5 4 1 DUF D 0.35 3 5.14 322 5 5 5 3 DUF d 0.35 3 2.57 161 5 5 5 2 DUF E 0.35 3 9.3 583 5 5 5 5 DUF e 0.35 3 5 .3 332 5 5 5 3 Fox FOX A 0.14 1 0.32 8 2 1 1 1 FOX B 0.14 1 1 .1 28 4 3 2 1 FOX b 0.14 1 0.6 15 3 2 1 1 FOX C 0.14 1 2.8 70 5 4 3 1 FOX c 0.14 1 1 .55 39 5 3 2 1 FOX D 0.14 1 5.14 129 5 5 5 2 FOX d 0.14 1 2.57 64 5 4 3 1 FOX E 0.14 1 9.3 233 5 5 5 3 FOX e 0.14 1 5.3 133 5 5 5 2 Gilford GFD A 0.2 2 0.32 11 2 1 1 1 GFD B 0.2 2 1.1 39 5 3 2 1 GFD b 0.2 2 0.6 22 3 2 1 1 Granby GNY A 0.13 1 0.32 7 2 1 1 1 GNY B 0.13 1 1 .1 26 4 3 2 1 GNY b 0.13 1 0.6 14 3 2 1 1 Gobles GOBA 0.23 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1 GOB B 0.23 2 1 .1 45 5 3 3 1 GOB b 0.23 2 0.6 25 4 3 2 1 GOB C 0.23 2 2.8 115 5 5 4 2 Guelph GUP A 0.39 3 0.32 22 3. 2 2 1 GUP B 0.39 3 1 .1 77 5 5 3 1 GUP b 0.39 3 0.6 42 5 3 3 1 GUP C 0.39 3 2.8 196 5 5 5 3 GUP c 0.39 3 1 .55 108 5 5 4 2 GUP D 0.39 3 5.14 359 5 5 5 3 GUP d 0 .39 3 2.57 180 5 5 5 2 56 Table 11. K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for Brant County soils (Cont'd.)

Harrisburg HBG A 0.32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1 HBG B 0.32 3 1 .1 63 5 4 3 1 HBG b 0.32 3 0.6 34 5 3 2 1 HBG C 0.32 3 2.8 161 5 5 5 2 HBG c 0.32 3 1 .55 89 5 5 4 1 Heidelberg HIG A 0.41 4 0.32 24 5 2 2 1 HIG B 0.41 4 1 .1 81 5 5 3 1 HIG b 0.41 4 0.6 44 5 3 3 1 Haldimand HIMA 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1 HIM B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1 HIMb 0 .22 2 0.6 24 4 2 2 1 HIM C 0.22 2 2.8 110 5 5 4 2 HIM c 0.22 2 1 .55 61 5 4 3 1 Kelvin KVNA 0.31 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1 KVN B 0.31 3 1 .1 61 5 4 3 1 KVN b 0.31 3 0.6 33 4 3 2 1 Lincoln LIC A 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1 LIC B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1 LIC b 0.22 2 0 .6 24 4 3 2 1 Muriel MUI A 0.35 3 0 .32 20 3 2 1 1 MUI B 0.35 3 1 .1 69 5 4 3 1 MUl b 0.35 3 0 .6 38 5 3 2 1 MUI C 0.35 3 2 .8 176 5 5 5 2 MUI c 0.35 3 1 .55 97 5 5 4 1 MUI D 0.35 3 5 .14 322 5 5 5 3 MUI d 0.35 3 2 .57 161 5 5 5 2 MUI E 0.35 3 9.3 583 5 5 5 5 Maryhill MYL A 0.32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1 Oakland OKL A 0.17 2 0.32 10 2 1 1 1 OKL B 0.17 2 1 .1 34 5 3 2 1 OKL b 0.17 2 0.6 18 3 2 1 1 Plainfield PFD A 0 .1 1 0.32 6 2 1 1 1 PFD B 0.1 1 1 .1 20 3 2 1 1 PFD b 0.1 1 0.6 11 2 1 1 1 PFD C 0 .1 1 2.8 50 5 4 3 1 PFD c 0.1 1 1 .55 28 4 3 2 1 PFD D 0.1 1 5.14 92 5 5 4 1 PFD d 0.1 1 2.57 46 5 3 3 1 PFDE 0.1 1 9.3 167 5 5 5 2 Smithville SHV A 0.32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1 SHV B 0.32 3 1 .1 63 5 4 3 1 SHV b 0.32 3 0.6 34 5 3 2 1 SHV C 0.32 3 2.8 161 5 5 5 2 SHV c 0.32 3 1 .55 89 5 5 4 1 SHV D 0.32 3 5 .14 295 5 5 5 3 Seneca SNA C 0.3 2 2.8 151 5 5 5 2 SNAc 0.3 2 1 .55 83 5 5 4 1 SNA D 0.3 2 5 .14 276 5 5 5 3

(Continuedonpage58) Table 11. K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for Brant County soils(Cont'd.)

Scotland STD A 0.20 2 0.32 11 3 1 1 1 STD B 0.20 2 1 .1 39 5 3 2 1 STD b 0.20 2 0 .6 22 4 2 1 1 STD C 0.20 2 2.8 100 5 5 4 2 STD c 0.20 2 1 .55 56 5 4 3 1 STD D 0.20 2 5.14 184 5 5 5 3 STD d 0.20 2 2.57 92 5 5 4 1 STD E 0.20 2 9.3 333 5 5 5 3 Stayner STNA 0.24 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1 Styx SYX A 0.24 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1 Teeswater TEW A 0.37 3 0.32 21 3 2 1 1 TEW B 0.37 3 1 .1 73 5 4 3 1 TEW b 0.37 3 0 .6 40 5 3 2 1 TEW C 0.37 3 2 .8 186 5 5 5 3 TEW c 0.37 3 1 .55 103 5 5 4 2 Toledo TLD A 0 .26 2 0.32 15 3 2 1 1 TLD B 0.26 2 1 .1 51 5 4 3 1 Tuscola TUC A 0.47 4 0.32 27 4 3 2 1 TUC B 0.47 4 1 .1 93 5 5 4 1 TUC b 0.47 4 0 .6 51 5 5 3 1 Vanessa VSS A 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1 VSS B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1 Walsingham WAM A 0 .09 1 0.32 5 1 1 1 1 WAM B 0.09 1 1 .1 18 3 2 1 1 WAM b 0 .09 1 0.6 10 2 1 1 1 WAM C 0.09 1 2 .8 45 5 3 3 1 WAM c 0.09 1 1 .55 25 4 3 2 1 Wilsonville WIL B 0.23 2 1 .1 45 5 3 3 1 WIL b 0.23 2 0 .6 25 4 3 2 1 WIL C 0.23 2 2.8 115 5 5 4 2 WIL c 0.23 2 1 .55 64 5 4 3 1 WILD 0.23 2 5 .14 212 5 5 5 3 WIL d 0.23 2 2 .57 106 5 5 5 2 WIL e 0.23 2 5 .3 218 5 5 5 3 Woolwich WOW A 0.37 3 0.32 21 3 2 1 1 WOW B 0.37 3 1 .1 73 5 5 3 1 WOW b 0.37 3 0.6 40 5 3 2 1 Waterin WRN A 0.1 1 0.32 6 1 1 1 1 WRNB 0.1 1 1 .1 20 3 2 1 1 WRN B 0.1 1 0.6 11 2 1 1 1 Waterloo WTO A 0.25 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1 WTO B 0.25 2 1 .1 49 5 4 3 1 WTO b 0.25 2 0.6 27 4 3 2 1 WTO C 0.25 2 2.8 125 5 5 5 2 WTO c 0.25 2 1 .55 69 5 4 3 1 Wauseon WUS A 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1 WUS B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 4 1 WUS b 0.22 2 0.6 24 4 2 2 1 Wauseon WUS. T A 0.16 2 0.32 9 2 1 1 1 WUS. T B 0.16 2 1 .1 32 4 3 2 1 WUS. T b 0.16 2 0.6 17 3 2 1 1 58

Table 12. Guidelines for establishing soil erodibility classes

Class Soil Erodibili y Potential K-Value* Soil Characteristics

1 Negligible < .15 Silt and very fine sand < 25 %; >4% organic matter; veryfine granular structure; rapid permeability. 2 Slight .15-.30 Silt and very fine sand > 40%; < 4% organic matter; medium or coarse granular structure ; moderate permeability. 3 Moderately Severe .30-.40 Moderatelyhigh (< 3%) organic matter; medium or coarse granularstructure; slow to moderate permeability. 4 Severe .40-.50 High ( > 80%) silt andvery fine sand ; low (< 2%) organic matter; blocky, platyor massive structure; slow permeability. 5 Very Severe > .50 Very high (>90%) silt and very fine sand; low (< 1 076) organic matter; block , platy or massive structure; very slow permeability.

*Wischmeier, W.H. andD.D. Smith (20).

Table 13 . Guidelinesfor assessing soil erosion potential classes

Soil erosion class Soil erosion potential t/ha/y soil loss

1 Very Slight (< 6) 2 Slight (6-11) 3 Moderately Severe (11-22) 4 Severe (22-33) 5 Very Severe (>33)

Table 14. LS-values for different combinations ofslope length and slope gradient

Slope Slope Length (m) Gradient Percent 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 250 300

.2 0.063 0.069 0.073 0.076 0.08 0.084 0.088 0.091 0.095 0.101 0.105 0.109 0.116 0.121 0.125 .5 0.076 0.083 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.101 0.105 0.109 0.114 0.121 0.126 0.131 0.139 0.145 0.151 .8 0.09 0.098 0.104 0.108 0.112 0.119 0.124 0.129 0.135 0.143 0.149 0.155 0.164 0.172 0 .178 2 0.144 0.162 0.177 0.189 0.2 0.218 0.233 0.246 0.263 0.287 0.307 0.324 0.353 0.377 0.399 3 0.205 0.232 0.253 0.27 0.285 0.311 0.333 0.351 0.376 0.41 0.438 0.463 0.504 0.539 0.57 4 0.256 0.301 0.338 0.369 0.397 0.446 0.487 0.524 0.573 0.643 0.703 0.756 0.849 0.928 0.998 5 0.306 0.375 0.433 0.485 0.531 0.613 0.685 0.751 0.839 0.969 1 .08 1 .19 1 .37 1 .53 1 .68 6 0.385 0.472 0.545 0.609 0.667 0.77 0.861 0.943 1 .05 1 .22 1 .36 1 .49 1 .72 1 .93 2.11 8 0.568 0.695 0.803 0.898 0.983 1 .14 1 .27 1 .39 1 .56 1 .8 2.01 2 .2 2.54 2 .84 3 .11 10 0.784 0.96 1 .11 1 .24 1 .36 1 .57 1 .75 1 .92 2.15 2.48 2.77 3 .04 3.51 3 .92 4.29 12 1 .03 1 .27 1 .46 1 .63 1 .79 2.07 2.31 2.53 2 .83 3 .27 3.65 4 4.62 5 .17 5.66 14 1 .13 1 .61 1 .86 2.08 2.28 2.63 2.94 3.22 3.6 4.16 4 .65 5 .09 5.88 6.57 7.2 16 1 .63 1 .99 2.3 2.57 2 .82 3 .25 3 .63 3.98 4.45 5.14 5 .75 6.3 7.27 8 .13 8.9 18 1 .97 2.41 2.78 3 .11 3 .41 3 .93 4.4 4.82 5 .39 6.22 6.95 7.62 8.8 9.83 10.8 20 2.34 2.86 3 .3 3 .69 4.05 4.67 5.22 5.72 6 .4 7.39 8 .26 9 .05 10.4 11 .7 12.8

POTENTIAL LAND USE SOIL LOSS APPROPRIATE SOIL CROP FACTOR (c) SLOPE FACTOR (LS) (tonnes/ha/yr) CONSERVATION 5 .9 MEASURES Woodland 2 1 .5 1 .0 .8 .7 .6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Orchards, grass cover Perennial forage Land use change Hay-pasture rotation .- Perennial forage Corn, no till

Tobacco - rye y Winter wheat Corn, chisel plow; mixd grains Corn in rotation --~ Continuous spring -- plow corn Orchards, cultivated, no grass cover --~ Soybeans Contour strip cropping Continuous fall plow corn White beans Strip cropping, Carrots, Potatoes, Onions, Turnips cross slope Asparagus, cabbage, -Contour cropping cauliflower, peas

-Cross slope farming

0.8 0.7 0 .6 0.5 0.4 0 .3 0.2 0 .1 00 m SOIL ERODIBILITY (K)

Figure 14. Prediction ofcropland erosion potential and some control alternatives REFERENCES 1 . Johnson, C .M.,1967 . Brant County. A History 1784-1945 . 12. Environment Canada, 1976. Land capability for agricul- Toronto Oxford University Press. ture. Canada Land Inventory; a preliminary report. Lands 2. Statistics Canada, 1986. Census ofCanada. Agriculture: Directorate. Ontario. 13 . Environment Canada, 1972. CanadaLandInventory, Soil 3 . Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture and Food, 1988 . Agricul- Capability classificationfor agriculture. Report No. 2. tural Statistics for Ontario 1988. Prepared by Statistical 14. McBride, R .A., 1983 . Agronomic and engineering soil Services Unit, Economics and Policy Coordination interpretations from water-retention data. Unpublished Branch. Publication 20. Ph .D. thesis, University of Guelph . 4. Karrow, PF., 1963 . Pleistocene geology of the Hamilton- 15 . Hoffman, D.W. and C.J. Acton, 1974. Soils ofNorthum- Galtarea. Ontario Department Mines, GR 16. berland County. Report No. 42, Ontario Soil Survey. 5. Cowan, W.R ., 1972. Pleistocene geology ofthe Brantford 16 . Presant, E.W. and C.J. Acton, 1984. The soils of the area, southern Ontario. Ontario Department of Mines, regional municipality ofHaldimand-Norfolk. Report No. IMR 37. 57, Ontario Institute of Pedology. LRRI contribution No. 84-13. 6. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1966. Physiography of Southern Ontario. University ofToronto Press, Toronto. 17 . Shelton, I.J. and G.J. Wall, 1989. Soil erosion by water 7. Guillet, G.R.,1967. Theclayproductsindustry ofOntario. interpretations for Ontario soil survey reports. Unpub- Ontario Department ofMines, IMR 22. lished Ontario Institute of Pedology/Agriculture Canada Report. 8. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Ser- vice, 1982. Canadian climate normals, 1951-80 averages, 18 . Wall, G.J., WT Dickinson and J. Greuel, 1983 . Rainfall Vol. 4and6. erosion indices for Canada east of the Rocky Mountains. Can. J. Soil Sci. 63 :271-280. 9. Brown, D.M., G.A. McKay and L.J. Chapman,1968 . The climate ofsouthern Ontario. Climatologicalstudies No. 5., 19 . Wischmeier, W.H., C.B. Johnson and BY. Cross, 1971. A Met. Branch, Ontario Department of Transport . soil erodibility nomograph forfarmland and construction sites. J. Soil Water Conserv. 26:189-193 . 10. Agriculture Canada, 1981. A soil mapping systemfor Can- ada: revised. Reportsubmittedto theExpert Committee 20. Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith, 1978. Predicting rain- on fall SoilSurvey by theMapping System Working Group. LRRI erosion losses - aguideto conservationplanning. U.S. Contribution No. 142. Department of Agriculture, Agr. Handbook No. 537. 11. Agriculture Canada, 1978. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Canada Soil Survey Committee. Research Branch Publication 1646. SOUTH DUMFRIES Map 1

BRANTFORD

Map 3 BURFORD Map 2

TUSCARORA

Figure 15. Index of soil maps for Brant County