The Soils of Brant County - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

The Soils ofBrant CountyVolume 1OntarioMinistry ofAgricultureand Food'AgricultureCanadaResearchBranchDirectionde la recherche

THE SOILS OFBRANT COUNTYVolume 1REPORT NO . 55OF THEONTARIO INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGYbyC .J . ActonLand Resource Research CentreResearch BranchAgriculture CanadaGuelph, Ontario1989Land Resource Research Centre Contribution No . 89-18 .

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

LIST OF TABLES1 . Farmland use in Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 . Area and value of main crops grown in Brant County . 93 . Pleistocene stratigraphy and associated soils of BrantCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 . Properties ofprincipal tills occurring 'inBrantCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 . Climatic data for Brantford and neighbouringlocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186 . Soil families of Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 . Mean horizon values of Brant County soils . . . . . . . . . .418 . Agricultural capability classification for commonfield crops for soils of Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .469 . Organization of special crops into crop groups andcrop subgroups for the Brant County region . . . . . . . . .4710 . Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops inBrantCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4811. K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential forBrant County soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5512 . Guidelines for establishing soil erodibility classes . . . . . 5913 . Guidelines for assessing soil erosion potential classes . .5914 . LS-values for different combinations of slope lengthand slopegradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59LIST OF FIGURES1 . General location of Brant and surrounding counties . . 72 . Urban centres, roads and railway networks andtownships in BrantCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 . Paleozoic geology of Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104. Surficial geology of Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 . Schematic landscape cross-section showing soilparent materials associated with the Tillsonburgmoraine near Harley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 . Schematic landscape cross-section showing soilparent materials associated with the Galt morainenear Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 . Schematic landscape cross-section between Paris andOhsweken showing soil parent materials associatedwith the Galt moraine and adjacent glaciofluvialand glaciolacustrine sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 . Schematic landscape cross-section showing soilparent materials associated with the Grand Riverand the Paris moraine near Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159. Schematic landscape cross-section showing therelationship of surficial sands to underlying depositsonthe sand plain near Cathcart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1510 . Main streams and tributaries in Brant County . . . . . . . 1611 . Climatic regions in Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1712. Diagrammatic soil profile of a well-drained BrunisolicGrayBrown Luvisol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2013. Diagrammatic soil profile of a poorly drained OrthicHumic Gleysol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2014. Prediction ofcropland erosion potential and somecontrol alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6015 . Index of soil maps for Brant County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

The soil survey, data collection, analysis and preparationofthe soil maps and report for Brant County involved the contributionsof many individuals . Those making a major contribution to field mapping were S . Humphrey, D . Cressman,B. Maclean, W. Hodgins, B. Cameron, G . Roberts andS. Kendall aided by many other student assistants . Field samplingand laboratory analyses were carried out by R . Viitala,B. Hohner and C . Miller ofAgriculture Canada . Dr. O.L. Whiteof the Ontario Geological Survey, Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, assisted with soil sampling for engineering properties.Engineering data were provided by the Aggregates Laboratoryof the Highway Engineering Division of the OntarioMinistry of Transportation and Communication .C . Fitzgibbon, K . Palmerand A . McLennanofthe University ofGuelph, Department of Land Resource Science, assisted substantiallyin the data analysis and compilation, as did D. Irvinewith cartographic map preparation and J. Cookwith typing andword processing ofthe report .The efforts of Dr. W.R . Cowan, formerly of the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, Ontario Geological Survey, forpreparation of the section on Geology and Soil Formation arevery much appreciated .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSValuable input was provided by S . Rowe and J. Bodner,Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Horticultural CropSpecialists for Brant County in interpreting the soils for specialtycropuses.Colleagues atthe Agriculture Canada, Guelph Soil SurveyUnit were very helpful in various aspects of the report preparation. E.W. Presant assisted in a substantial way with the soilinterpretations section and in report editing . The section onSoil Erosion was prepared by Dr. G. Wall and I . Shelton .K . Denholm prepared the section on soil interpretations forspecial crops . The late J.E . Gillespie brought much of the datatogether for the first draft ofthe report .Appreciation is expressed to Chris Cameron, OntarioMinistryofAgriculture and Food, for map digitization, and tomembers of the Cartographic Unit of the Land ResourceResearch Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, who wereinvolved in map preparation . Special thanks are due to BrianEdwards who supervised this work . Appreciation is alsoextended to J. Day and K . Valentine of the Land ResourceResearch Centre for their suggestions and advice throughoutthis project .

The first soil survey for Brant County was published in1935 at a scale of 1 :126,720 . This was a reconnaissance type ofsoil survey and portrayed generalized information about thesoils and landforms ofthe area . No soil report was prepared toaccompany the map, hence characteristics ofthe soils could beinterpreted only from sketchy information presented on themap legend .In response to demands for more detailed information onthe land resources for land use and management decisions, are-survey at a scale of 1 :25,000 ofthe soils ofBrant County wascarried out . This report and the accompanying soil mapspresent the results of this inventory .The soil report is presented in two separate volumes . Volume1 commences with a general description of the surficialgeology, climate and land use of the region which influencesthe characteristics of the soils which have formed . This is followedby a discussion of the soils and map units which occurand assessments of their capability for common field crops andspecial crops adapted to the area . Susceptibility of the soils toerosion also is discussed .The County is divided into four soil maps, which conformwith township boundaries . These are published at a scale of1 :25,000 . In addition, a generalized soil map at a 1 :100,000scale has been prepared for the County. These maps are distributedwith the Volume 1 report .Volume 2 contains detailed data on representative soils,including their morphological, physical and chemical properties,as well as engineering test data . This information is ofgreater interest to the technical user who requires analyticaldetails for specific soils .How to use the Soil Report and MapsResource managers, such as farmers, usually know thecharacteristics and variations of soils on their own propertiesor in the immediate vicinity. However, without a soil map orsoil report, comparisons with other soils in the region may bedifficult . With the help of a soil map, regional similarities anddifferences between soils are apparent . Such information canbe an aid in buying or renting land, or in transferring managementtechniques to similar soils, thereby reducing the risks ofmanaging new land .To use the soil report and maps most efficiently, the followingsteps are suggested :1 . Locate your area of interest on the index map at the backof this report (Figure 15) . Note the number or name of thesoil map on which your area of interest is located .INTRODUCTION2 . Obtain the appropriate 1 :25,000 soil map and locate yoursite. Natural and cultural features on the map, such asstreams, contours, roads, buildings, lot and concessionnumbers, should aid in locating the site .3 . Note the map unit symbols marked within the boundariesofthe map unit delineation where your site is located . Anexplanation of how to interpret 4a map unit appears on allthe soil maps under the heading "Key to the Map UnitSymbols".4 . Consult the legend on the map to help decipher the mapunit symbol in your area of interest . The legend providesinformation on soil components, slopes, parent materialsand drainages .5 . If more information is required on the soil components, itcan be obtained from Volume 1 ofthe soil report, where ageneralized description of each soil is presented, includingcomments on its variability and land use . Some generalizedstatistical information is also contained in theAppendixofVolume 1 .6 . For detailed morphological, chemical and physicaldescriptions of typical soils as well as tables of statisticalmeans and engineering test data, users are referred to Volume2 ofthe soil report .7 . For soil interpretations such as soil capability for commonagricultural field crops, soil suitability for various fieldand horticultural crops and soil erosion interpretations,refer to Volume 1 .8 . For generalized comparisons of relatively large soil areas,users are referred to the generalized soil map of BrantCounty at a 1 :100,000 scale . It is not advisable to use thismap for information on areas smaller than 40 hectares(ha) (100 acres (ac)) .Users should be aware that each soil exhibits a range ofproperties, and that boundaries between map units, eventhough they represent the best estimate of where the soilschange, may only be approximately located . They should alsobe aware that there could be inclusions of unidentified soilcomponents, as large as a few hectares in area, within any mapunit delineation . This is due to the map scale and the mappingmethodology used . Most soil information is based on theexamination of soil characteristics to a depth of about 100 cmbelow the surface .

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THEAREALocation and ExtentBrant County is located in south central Ontario boundedby Oxford County, and by the regional municipalities ofWaterloo, Hamilton-Wentworth and Haldimand-Norfolk(Figure 1) . It is between 43 00' and 43 20' degrees ofnorth latitude,and 80 00' and 80 36' degrees of east longitude. Its locationoffers some of the ameliorating climatic effects of theGreat Lakes because of the relative nearness of both Lake Erieand Lake Ontario, its southern boundary being about 19 kilometresnorth of LakeErie .The County is relatively small, with a total land area of109,297 hectares (270,080 acres) .The total population of Brant County according to the1986 Canada Census was 99,090 with a rural population of32,040 . The larger urban populations are in Brantford with76,150, followed by Paris with a population of 7,900 . Numeroustowns, villages and hamlets are important to theeconomiclife of the County, offering convenient services to the farmingcommunity. The location of the main urban centres in BrantCounty are shown inFigure 2 .Early HistoryBrant County gains its name from the great leader of theSix Nations Indians, Joseph Brant . These tribes had been alliesof the British in the war against the French, and later the Americansduring the Revolutionary War period . In 1784, ChiefBrant accepted a large grant of land along the Grand River forhis people, given in appreciation for their loyalty to the Crown .Present-day Brantford rose from the site where Chief Brantand his tribesmen placed a boom across the Grand River toserve as a fording-place (1) . The Indians found that this landgrant far exceeded their needs and over the years it was reducedby sales to white immigrants, or concessions to government,until it reached its present size of 17,820 hectares (44,000acres) . The Indian population has more than doubled from its1853 assessment of 2,330 . They are members of the Mohawkand Cayuga Tribes .As white settlement of the region advanced, townshipsevolved and eventually the County of Brant came into existenceby acquiring several townships from adjoining counties,resulting in its tripartite shape.The future site for the town of Paris so captivated HiramCapron, a Vermonter, in 1828 that he bought 1,000 acres presumablyfrom ChiefBrant and ensured the beginnings of a newcommunity with the construction of a water-powered gristmill, partly for grinding wheat, but also for grinding gypsumwhich outcropped there. The community grew and in 1838 thename Paris was selected by the people in deference to the firstindustry, the production of gypsum, commonly known asplaster of Paris .Figure 1 .General location of Brant and surrounding counties7Present AgricultureThe broad range of soils found in Brant County, combinedwith a favourable climate, has resulted in the development of avery diversified agriculture. Livestock farming is prevalent inthe lacustrine and glacial till soils while tobacco, vegetables,grain corn and other cash crop enterprises are located on theextensive 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 thatcultivated hay, wheat, grain corn and soybeans are majorcrops, but the sizeable area planted to tobacco and vegetablesindicates that these are of major economic importance andmake effective use ofthe sandy soils inthe County.Corn is the most popular grain crop in the County. Averageyields are surpassed in Ontario only by the counties ofKent, Elgin, Oxford and Middlesex (3) .Agricultural statistics for 1988 (3) reported that the totalfarm value for flue-cured tobacco produced in Brant Countywas $24.2 million (Table 2) . This was the fourth-highest in theprovince, surpassed only by Haldimand-Norfolk region, Elginand Oxford counties .Ginseng is a high-value crop in the County, commerciallyraised by an increasing number of growers on the sandy texturedsoils near the village of Oakland .There is a fairly large livestock population in the County,representing both beef and dairy enterprises . The large areasoffloodplains associated with theGrandRiver and its tributaries, and the rolling lands in South Dumfries Township providegood pasture for livestock enterprises .

TUSCARORA. Smith CornersVictoria MillsFigure 2 .Urban centres, road and railway networks and townships in Brant CountyGeology and Physiography*The distribution and variability of soils are strongly influencedby the topography, texture, and chemistry of the rockmaterials upon which they develop, as are the rates of development and susceptibility to erosion by wind or running water. Aknowledge of the geological development of Brant County istherefore a necessary requirement for the application of ameaningful soil classification .Bedrock GeologyBedrock within Brant County is largely buried by glacialdrift and only outcrops in the deeply eroded Grand River valleynorth and south of the town of Paris . Elsewhere, the drift isperhaps 10 to 70 metres in thickness ; consequently, bedrockmaps (Figure 3) are largely produced from well records and aretherefore subject to continual revision .*Prepared by W.R . Cowan, Formerly Ontario Department ofMinesandNorthernAffairs, Geological Survey.

DevonianBois Blanc Formation : grey and greyish brown dolomite,limestone and nodular chertSilurianBass Island Formation : cream and tan dolomiteSalina Formation (undivided) : dolomite, shale and gypsum lensesGuelph Formation . cream and brown dolomiteFigure 3 . Paleozoic geology ofBrant County (from Geol . Surv. Canada Map 1263A)The oldest glacial deposits in the area were first describedby Karrow (4) who discovered old buried tills along the NithRiver. These were described as the "lower beds" and the overlying Canning till . They appear to represent fluctuations ofOntario-Erie basin glaciers in Early Wisconsinan time (about115,000 to 65,000 years ago) and are not well-known . Anapparent hiatus in deposition (in Brant County) followed duringLate Wisconsinan time (about 23,000 to 10,000 years ago) .The first of'these glaciations occurred from a northeasterlydirection and extended well into the United States about 18,000years ago . The Catfish Creek till (Table 4) was deposited by thisglacier. Retreat into the Erie basin resulted in proglacial lakesand the deposition of silts and clays at least as far east as theParis-Brantford area. These sediments are usually referred toas the Erie Interstadial .Rejuvenation of the ice about 15,000 years ago resulted inan advance from an easterly to southeasterly direction to atleast as far west as Woodstock with the resulting deposition ofthe Port Stanley till . A fluctuating retreat of this ice sheetresulted in the building of several terminal moraines, of whichfragments of the two youngest, the most easterly Norwich andTillsonburg moraines (6), occur in western Brant County.Withdrawal of the Port Stanley ice to at least as far east asBrantford was followed by a strong advance to the Parismoraine, with the deposition ofthe Wentworth till and copiousamounts of proglacial outwash gravels . Recession led to furtherdeposition of outwash gravels (in part deltaic) along theGrand River valley, and contributed to the building ofthe Gaitand Moffat moraines.10

Table 3 . Pleistocene stratigraphy and associated soils of Brant CountyStageRock unitor eventLithology Morphology Soil Map ComponentsWell andImperfectlyPoorly andmoderatelyvery poorlywell-draineddraineddrainedRecent modern silt, sand, flood plains, valley bottoms Alluviumalluvium gravelswamp peat, muck, filled depressions Styxdeposits marl Staynerolder alluvium gravel, sand terrace remnants Burford Brisbane GilfordWhittlesey, sand deltaic sand plains Fox Brady GranbyWarren, and Plainfield Walsingham Waterinyounger glaciallakessand and silt lacustrine plains Brant Tuscola ColwoodHarrisburg Osborne Ohswekenclayand silt lacustrine plains Brantford Beverly ToledoBookton Berrien WauseonSmithville Haldimand Lincolngravel abandoned shorelines Burfordglaciofluvial gravel outwash plains and terraces Burford Brisbane GilfordTeeswatersand outwash plains and terraces Caledon Camilla AyrFox Brady GranbyLate Wentworth stony sand till bouldery, hummocky end Dumfries LilyWisconsinan Till moraine Wilsonvillesand and silt gently rolling ground moraine Guelph Londontill Woolwich Conestogo Maryhillsand and sand moraine with sand veneer Scotland Oakland Vanessatillsand and silt moderately to steeply sloping SenecadrumlinsIce-contact sand and mainly buried Burforddeposits, gravel (coarseoutwashphase)Port Stanley clay and silt till rolling end moraine and flat to Muriel Gobles KelvinTill rolling ground moraine Bookton Berrien Wauseonoutwash, sand, gravel mainly buriedice-contactlacustrineCatfish Creek stony silt and mainly buriedTillsand tillEarly Canning Till silt-clay till mainly buriedWisconsinan"lower beds" silt-clay till, mainly buriedstratified drift

DrumlinAbandoned shorelineMeltwater channelRecent8 Alluvium : Sand, silt, gravel7 Bog deposits : peat, muck, marlWisconsinan6 Glaciolacustrine silt and clay5 Glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sand4 Glaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand3 Ice-contact stratified drift : gravel and sand2 Wentworth Till : yellowish brown silty sand and till1 Port Stanley Till : clayey silt tillFigure 4 .Surficial geology of Brant CountyRetreat of the Wentworth ice was also accompanied by theformation of a large proglacial lake, Lake Whittlesey, intowhich large quantities of deltaic sand and gravel were deposited, particularly in Burford Township. Fluctuations in waterlevels and a later glacier advance into the Dundas Valley causeda series of lower lake levels to result, including Lakes Wayne,Warren, Grassmere, and Lundy. These lakes resulted in thedeposition of deltaic sands at Brantford and large amounts ofdeep water silt and clay in South Dumfries, Brantford, Onondaga,and Tuscarora Townships (Figure 4) . Final drainage ofglacial lake waters in Brant County was effected approximately12,000 years ago . Since that time, alluvial sedimentshave continuously been laid down along the major watercourses and soil development has progressed .12Physiography and Sediments and Their Relationship toSoils of the CountyThe distribution of the principal soil forming glacial sedimentsis shown in Figure 4 (5) . Of the tills shown in Table 4,only the Port Stanley and Wentworth tills are common at thesurface, while the Catfish Creek and older tills only occur indeep exposures or locally as small inliers . Lithology of the surfacetills is given in Table 4 .The Catfish Creek till is a very hard grey to yellowishbrowntill, occurring as buried ground moraine for the mostpart . Where it is exposed, its thickness ranges from 0 .5 to 10metres . At the surface it is very similar to the Wentworth tilland may be present as inhers within the units mapped asWentworth .

Table4.Properties of principal tills occurring in Brant CountyGrain SizeAnalyses(percent means)Pebble Lithology(percent means)Carbonates(minus 200 mesh)âZCc~aÛcEbâdZc0ââ.2ZCuÛw 'AÛôaC c.Wentworth Till (a) 20 49 39 12 0.010-0 .297 18 11 81 2 3 3 19 39 .7 0 .6Wentworth Till (b) 9 28 49 22 0.004-0 .024 6 2 93 1 1 3 7 46 .8 0 .3Port Stanley Till 22 16 56 28 0.0018-0 .042 16 19 70 3 3 4 22 30 .6 1 .6Catfish Creek Till 7 48 36 16 0.027-0 .160 5 25 69 0 0 5 7 38 .0 0 .9z c~v w`ZaeaE~ôôow c~ ÛThe Port Stanley till occurs as acaponthe Tillsonburg andNorwich moraines, and as ground moraine. It ranges from 1 to10 metres in thickness and is usually a grey colour which oxidizes to brown or yellowish-brown. Strong leaching is presentto a depth of 20 to 40 cm but is locally greater than this . Thepebble lithology generally reflects the underlying dolomiticterrain with a strong influence of limestone transported fromthe south and southeast . The fine texture of this till makes itsusceptibleto frost heaving .Muriel, Gobles and Kelvin soils have developed onthe siltyclay loam Port Stanley till . Where sand blankets the till to adepth of 40 to 100 cm, till phases of the Bookton, Berrien andWauseon soils are mapped . The relationship of these soils onthe Tillsonburg moraine near Harley, to adjacent lacustrineand eolian sands, is shown in Figure 5 .The Wentworth till (Table 4) is strongly dolomitic withmuch of the dolomite of Guelph-Lockport affinity. This tilloccurs primarily in the Paris, Galt, and Moffat moraines. It isgenerally yellowish-brown in colour and ranges from 3 to morethan 20 metres in thickness . In the Paris moraine and southernpart of the Galt moraine the till is frequently thin overlyingsand and gravel . Drumlins in Tuscarora Township and associatedsmall patches of ground moraine are correlated with theWentworth till, though texturally finer. Greater limestone contentoccurs in the pebble lithology in this area due to transportfrom the Bois Blanc and more southerly limestone units .Dumfries soils have developed on hummocky landformsand Guelph and Woolwich soils on undulating or rolling areasthroughout much of the Galt and Paris moraines . On southernextensions of the Galt moraine, where the glacial till materialshave higher sand and gravel contents, Wilsonville and Scotlandsoils occur. Seneca soils have developed on drumlinized landformsof loam glacial till in Tuscarora Township . Schematiccross-sections depicting the relationships of the Wentworthglacial tillto overlying sands and adjacent glaciolacustrine sedimentsare shown in Figures 6 and 7 .A large area west of Brantford is underlain by gravels andgravelly sand of glaciofluvial origin . Most of this is outwashPlainfield i Muriel and Gobles SoilsLacustrine loamy sand and sandBookton Till PhaseI and Berrien Till Ii Phase Soils IIIIFox SoilsEolian fineFigure 5 .Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Tillsonburg Moraine near Harley13

Fox SoilsIWilsonville and Scotland SoilsIBrant SoilsLacustrineloamy sandLacustrine loamy sand and sandand sandFigure 6 .Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with Galt Moraine near ScotlandGuelph and Woolwich SoilsLacustrine silt loamBrant SoilsI Burford lI and ITeeswaterI Soils II Gravel ILacustrine silt loamIIIBookton and ISmithville, HaldimandI BrSoils I and Seneca SoilsLacustrineloamy sandand sandInFigure 7 .Schematic landscape cross-section between Paris and Ohsweken showing soil parent materials associated with the GaltMoraine and adjacent glaciofluvial and lacustrine sedimentsdeposited as valley trains along the Grand River and Nith Rivermeltwater channels ; much of the remainder is deltaic or occursas an outwash apron fronting the Paris moraine . These gravelsare usually weakly stratified and poorly sorted and range fromless than 1 to morethan 15 metres inthickness . Lithology ofthepebble grade materials is largely carbonate but far-travelled,resistant Precambrian materials comprise a sizeable percentage(5) . The mineralogy ofthe sand fraction (5) is noticeable byits content of grey shale and materials such as quartz and feldsparof Precambrian origin . The shale is derived primarilyfrom the easily eroded Salina formation and increases noticeablysouth of the upper contact with the Guelph formation(Figure 3) . The increase in Precambrian materials (comparewith pebble grade) is indicative of the attrition of larger fragmentswith distance. Minor amounts of sand and gravel of icecontactorigin are also present .Burford and Caledon soils have developed on gravel andgravelly sand deposits of glaciofluvial origin . A schematiccross-section including the Grand River and Paris moraineshown in Figure 8, illustrates the relationship of recent alluviumdeposits to the adjacent glaciofluvial outwash andmorainal materials .Lacustrine sediments form the surface materials of muchofthe County. Alarge part ofBurford Township and a portionofBrantford Township are mantled with thick deposits of deltaic fine sands . These range in thickness from 10 metres nearHarley to 15 metres near Mount Pleasant and 23 metres nearthe Brantford airport . In addition, a thin veneer of this sandoverlies much ofthe remainder ofthe County.14

IAlluvium I Burford Soils I Caledon I Dumfries SoilsSoilsAlluvial sedimentsII Lacustrine sandI and loamy sandIL ._II__ I __L_I , _..L_L 1 Satina Formation L L _L I ...1._ _.L_(shale, gypsum, dolostone) 1 1-.L -L 1 -._1Figure 8 .Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Grand River and the Paris Morainenear ParisPlainfield and Walsingham SoilsFox and Brady SoilsBookton andBerrien SoilsFigure 9 .Schematic landscape cross-section showing the relationship of surficial sands to underlying deposits on the sand plainnear CathcartThe coarser sand sediments deposited in the shallowwaters of glacial lakes Whittlesey and Warren, are mapped asFox, Brady and Granby soils . The Plainfield, Walsingham andWaterin soils have developed in the wind-modified fine sandsthat represent deeper water deposits of the same glacial lakes .Waterloo and Heidelberg soils are developed on the fine sandyloam and very fine sandy loam sediments . The landscape relationshipsof sandy lacustrine and eolian soils in the County areshown schematically in Figure 9 .Fine-grained lacustrine silt and clay sediments occupymost ofthe eastern half ofthe County. These consist of laminatedto varved silts and clays which are highly susceptible toerosion on bare slopes ; they constitute alandslide hazard alongthe Grand River where steep banks occur. Thickness is variablewith the underlying topography. The upper surface is essentiallyflat with a gently southeasterly slope. Up to 35 metres oflacustrine sediment is present at Harrisburg, 40 metres near St .George, 20 metres at Ohsweken, and lesser amounts wheredrift is shallow in Tuscarora Township and where drumlinsprotrude up through the silts and clays . Carbonate concretionsare common locally ; these are irregularly shaped with maximumdiameters of 20 cm and maximum thicknesses of 1 cm .Pebbles and cobbles are rare. Principal clay minerals inthe claysize fraction are chlorite and illite with only minor amounts ofexpanding clay minerals (7) . However, non-clay minerals suchas quartz and calcite predominate over the clay minerals .

Figure 10 .Main streams and tributaries in Brant CountyBrant, Tuscola and Colwood soils have developed on thesilt loam lacustrine sediments northeast of Brantford . In areaswhere the clay content of the sediment has increased to siltyclay loam and silty clay textures, Brantford, Beverly andToledo soils occur. Deep-water lacustrine sediments occursoutheast of Brantford characterized by clay and heavy claytextures . These include Smithville, Haldimand and Lincolnsoils . Shallow, multi-layered sediments give rise to differentsoils . Where thin deposits of sand overlie clayey materials atdepths of 40 to 100 cm, Bookton, Berrien and Wauseon soilsare recognized . If siltytextures overlie the clay sediments, Harrisburg,Osborne and Ohsweken soils occur. The landscaperelationships of these lacustrine soils with the adjacent Galtmoraine, extending from the southern portion of South DumfriesTownship into Brantford, Onondaga and Tuscaroratownships are depicted in Figure 7 .Late Wisconsinan alluvium occurs on terrace remnantsalong the major water courses while modern alluvium is beingdeposited on present-day floodplains and in stream channels .The former consists mainly of sand and gravel while the latteris mainly sand and silt with minor gravel . Peat, muck, and marlconstitute bog deposits occurring in closed depressions and inlow-lying areas where the water table is near the surface . Thelatter situation occurs over a large area south ofMount VernonStation where a veneer of organic material from 10 cm up to1 metre thick overlies the glaciolacustrine sand, shown inFigure 4 .Burford soils generally occur on the upper terrace remnantsof the Grand River comprising Late Wisconsinan alluvium. Floodplains of major streams with recent alluviumdeposits have been mapped as Alluvium . Swamp depositswhich consist of organic sediments in excess of 40 cm thick areclassified as Styx or Stayner soils .The variability of the above-described sediments contributesto a wide variety of soil conditions in Brant County.Relief and DrainageBrant County has a relatively low relief, generally less than100 metres, this being provided by a number of glacialmoraines in the County. Elevations decrease from 300 metresin the northwest to 202 metres in the southeast . The GrandRiver meanders diagonally across the County in the samedirection to empty into Lake Erie.There are five main tributaries that contribute to thedrainage system for the County. These are the Nith River and

Kenny, Whiteman and Big Creeks in the western part of theCounty, and the Fairchild, Big, Boston and McKenzie Creekswhich are active drainage courses in the eastern and southernportions of the County. The pattern of this drainage system isshown in Figure 10 .ClimateClimate has had an impact on the development ofthe soilsin Brant County through its influence on soil temperature andprecipitation . The rate of chemical and biological activitieswithin the soil is largely affected by its temperature . Also, precipitationcontrols the rate of leaching of soluble constituentsfrom the soil .The regional climate is important to the agricultural productivityofthe County. It is influenced noticeably by the moderatingeffects of the Great Lakes . The result is slightly lowertemperatures during the spring, but higher temperatures duringthe autumn months and winter compared to other regionsoutside of this influence. Figure 11 illustrates the approximateboundary of the climatic regions in Brant County (9) .The data given in Table 5 are long-term averages for temperature,precipitation, corn heat units, length of growing seasonand mean dates of first and last frosts (8,9) . They indicatethe favourable climate of this part of Ontario for the productionof a wide range of farm and specialized agriculturalcrops .80°3080°000ôACa 0WOM V0OMV\ . Hagersville(740')AW0OKitchener(1125)\\1Caledonia\(675')--- County boundaries"""""" Township boundaries----- Boundary of climatic regions80°3080°00Figure 11 .Climatic regions in Brant County

Table 5 .Climatic data forBrantford and neighbouring locationsLocationMean AnnualTemperature(°C)Mean AnnualPrecipitation(mm)Mean RainfallMay-Sept(mm)MeanAnnualSnowfall(cm)Growing SeasonStarts EndsBrantford 7 .8 819 364 115 Apr 13 Nov 5Kitchener 7 .3 897 408 152 Apr 14 Nov 1Woodstock 7 .3 862 385 126 Apr 12 Nov 3Hagersville 7 .6 829 374 103 Apr 11 Nov 7Delhi 7 .8 935 389 130 Apr 11 Nov 6Caledonia 7 .6 913 398 146 Apr 12 Nov 7LocationMean LengthGrowingSeason (Days)Mean AnnualGrowing DegreeDaysMean AnnualCorn Heat UnitsMean DateLast FrostMean DateFirst FrostMean AnnualFrost-freePeriod (Days)Brantford 206 3600 2900 May 12 Oct 4 145Kitchener 201 3350 2700 May 18 Sept 30 135Woodstock 206 3450 2800 May 15 Oct 4 142Hagersville 209 3700 3000 May 12 Oct 6 148Delhi 209 3600 2900 May 12 Oct 5 147Caledonia 208 3650 3000 May 12 Oct 5 147

HOW THE SOILS WERE MAPPEDAND CLASSIFIEDSoil MappingInitially, existing resource publications were studied toobtain relevant, current information on the characteristics anddistribution of the soil/land resources . These included the oldsoil map, geological, and physiographic maps and reports .This provided a general description of soil materials for apreliminary soil legend, and their geographic distribution inthe area .Strong reliance was placed on the use of up-to-date aerialphotographs of 1 :15,840 scale for the identification and classificationof soil and landscape features and for accurate delineation of soil boundaries . Prior to commencement of fieldwork, stereoscopic study of aerial photographs was carried outto establish tentative slope, landform andparentmaterial separations. Existing soil, geological and topographic informationalso were utilized during the pre-typing phase of the work .Extensive field work was conducted to gather further information. This included driving all roads to examine soils exposedin road cuts, or digging soil pits before commencing mapping .Traverses on foot were then arranged to cross as many boundariesas possible, examining soils in different landscape positionsto determine soil characteristics, variability anddistribution . The frequency of examination was such that thesmallest areas delineated on the map (approximately 4 hectares)usually had at least one examination site, and the largerareas, naturally, manymore . While in the field, the boundarieswere finalized and the delineated areas classified . Any opensoil boundaries were extended and finalized with furtherstereoscopic study of the photographs soon after completionof field traverse ofan area .Soil correlation to ensure consistency and quality controlin the soil mapping was achieved by the soil survey party leader,who established benchmark sites at regular intervals which themappers could easily refer to, discussed with the surveyors anyproblems encountered in mapping or classification, andchecked the final map . Numerous soil samples were collectedfor laboratory analysis in order to relate soil morphologicalproperties, which are the basis of field mapping, to accuratelydetermined chemical or physical tests.Complete characterization of the soils in the County wasachieved through detailed descriptions and sampling of representativesites, followed by laboratory analyses . For the majorsoils, data was obtained at 3 or 4 sites to satisfactorily representthe range in properties which may be expected within that soil .Survey Intensity and Map ReliabilitySurvey intensity level is an indication ofthe precision withwhich the soils of a region have been described and mapped .Five levels of survey intensity have been defined (10) . Level l isthe highest intensity, with the most detailed procedures resultingin the most precise map . Level 5 is the lowest intensity, theleast detailed and giving a generalized map . The survey intensitylevel of the Brant County soil survey is at an intermediatelevel, between 2 and 3 .In this survey there was at least one soil inspection in mostmap delineations . Most boundaries were checked in the fieldduring traverses on foot at intervals of approximately 0.5 kmfor small and medium-sized delineations, and at intervals ofseveral kilometres forlarge delineations .Soil inspections were made by examination of vertical soilsections with a hand auger, probe or shovel to a depth ofabout1 m . In roadcut exposures, or along stream banks, the depth ofsoil examination usually increased to 1 to 2m .Considering the survey intensity level and scale of soilmapping in Brant County, the most appropriate uses of theinformation are for planning purposes of land areas such astownships, watersheds, large urban subdivisions, or largefarms . Use of the information for decisions on smaller areassuch as small farms, small subdivisions, building sites, etc . isless appropriate because of soil or landscape variability whichcan occur over short distances . Inthese instances, the soil mapscan be used to predict whatconditions are most likely to occur,but the final decision should be made only after on-siteexamination .Soil ClassificationThe interaction of soil-forming factors such as parentmaterial, climate and vegetation acting over thousands ofyears have produced soils in Brant County with characteristicsthat are a reflection of their environments . These characteristicstake the form of a sequence of layers (horizons) that differin colour, texture, thickness and structure . Collectively thesehorizons constitute the soil profile.The soil profile comprises a vertical section of the soilthrough all its horizons extending downward into the unweatheredparent material . The number, colour, sequence and composition of the various horizons are the basis upon which soilsare recognized, classified and mapped .The various horizons of mineral soils are differentiated asA, B and C horizons and are subdivided further, as required,using lower case letters . Figure 12 is an illustration ofa soil profile in a well-drained landscape position, the horizons beingreadily recognizable by colour differences . The Ah horizonowes its dark colour to the incorporation of organic matter ; thesubscript "h" infers humus accumulation . Theunderlying Bmhorizon is lighter in colour due to its lowhumus content and theeluviation and weatheringof constituents such as iron and clay.The Bt horizon is generally a reddish-brown colour due to theenrichment of iron and other sesquioxides that have beenleached from the upper horizons and deposited in this lowerlayer. The lower-case letter "t" is an indication of clay enrichmentresulting fromthedownward movement ofthese fine particlesin leaching water and subsequent flocculation anddepositionin the B horizon .

Ah horizon(dark brown or black)- Bm horizon(light brown)- Bt horizon(dark brown or reddish brown)- Bg horizon(mottled brown)-Cg horizon(mottled light brown)- Ck horizon(light brown)Figure 12 .Diagrammatic soil profile of a well-drained BrunisolicGray Brown LuvisolFigure 13 .Diagrammatic soil profile of a poorly drainedOrthic Humic GleysolThe C horizon has undergone little weathering and changefrom the original parent material . In Brant County it is generallymoderately to strongly calcareous .Well-drained soils develop on landforms having good surfacedrainage or on coarse textured materials with rapid internaldrainage .Imperfectly drained soils generally have the same type andsequence of horizons as well-drained soils, but are differentiatedby darker-coloured Ah horizons and the presence of yellowish or reddish-coloured mottles, and duller coloursthroughout the B horizon .Poorly drained soils are water-saturated for a sufficientperiod of time to cause reducing conditions indicated by thedevelopment of gray colours in the B and C horizons, and mottles often with prominent yellowish-brown colours . The Ahhorizon generally has a higher level of organic matter thanimperfectly or well-drained soils, hence is darker in colour, andusually thicker.Asketch of a poorly drained profile is shown inFigure 13 .Soil OrdersThe soil order is the highest category in the Canadian soilclassification system (11) . There are.nine soil orders in this system,four of them being represented in the soils of BrantCounty.Most of the well and imperfectly drained soils in Brant. County belong to the Luvisolic order. They have a soil profilesimilar to that shown in Figure 12 . These soils have a darkgrayish-brown organic enriched Ah surface horizon (Ap if cultivated)or are underlain by a grayish-brown Bm horizon . Thedark-brown, clay-enriched Bt horizon usually containsincreased concentrations of clay, iron and aluminum . Theunderlying parent material is calcareous and may be of glacialtill, lacustrine or glaciofluvial outwash origin .Soils of the Brunisolic order in Brant County may befound mainly on recent alluvium deposits within the floodplainsof the Grand and other river systems, on some sandytextured outwash or deltaic deposits . They have thick, dark AhorAp surface horizons rich in organic matter overlying brownishBm horizons that are not clay-enriched . The soil parentmaterial is moderately to highly calcareous and, in some cases,free carbonates may be present in all horizons .Regosolic soils in Brant County occur on small, localizedareas such as floodplains of the Grand River where they are ofrecent origin, or on severely eroded landscapes where the soilparent material is exposed . Profile development is minimal,characterized by a surface horizon with varying amounts oforganic matter enrichment underlain by slightly altered parentmaterials .Soils ofthe Gleysolic order are poorly drained and occupythe lowest positions in a landscape. The surface horizons areorganic-enriched and overlie prominently mottled gray orgrayish-brown horizons . The underlying parent material alsoexhibits dull grayish or brownish colours, and usually containsfew, if any, brightly coloured mottles (Figure 13) .Organic soils occur in very poorly drained depressionallocations favouring the accumulation of vegetative remains .They have an organic matter content in excess of 30 percent,and the organic material extends to a depth ofat least 40 cm .(Continuedonpage22)20

Table 6 .Soil families of Brant CountySubgroup Mineralogy Reaction CalcareousSoilTemperatureSoilMoistureParticle SizeSeriesBrunisolic mixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid sandy FoxGray Brownmixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarseLuvisolWaterlooloamy Wilsonvillemixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid fine loamy Woolwichmixed neutral strongly mild subhumid loamy Dumfriesskeletalmixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarse loamy Burfordover sandy Caledonskeletal Teeswatermixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid sandy over Scotlandloamymixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse silty BrantGuelphmixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine silty Harrisburgmixed alkaline strongly mild humid sandy over Booktonfine siltymixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine clayey BrantfordMurielSmithvilleOrthic Gray mixedBrownalkaline strongly mild humid fine loamy SenecaLuvisolGleyed mixed alkaline strongly mild humid loamy LondonOrthic Gray mixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine silty GoblesBrownLuvisolmixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse silty Conestogomixed alkaline strongly mild humid fine clayey HaldimandBeverlymixed alkaline strongly mild subhumid coarse loamy Brisbaneover sandy Camillaskeletalmixed neutral strongly mild subhumid sandy over Oaklandloamymixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse loamy HeidelbergBradyTuscolamixed alkaline strongly mild humid coarse loamy Berrienover clayeymixed alkaline strongly mild humid silty over OsborneclayeyOrthic mixedMelanicneutral weakly mild subhumid sandy PlainfieldBrunisolGleyed mixed alkalineOrthicstrongly mild subhumid sandy WalsinghamMelanicBrunisol(Continuedon page 22)2 1

Table6. Soil families ofBrant County (Cont'd .)Subgroup Mineralogy Reaction CalcareousSoilTemperatureSoilMoistureParticle SizeSeriesOrthic mixed neutral moderatelyRegosol mixed neutral moderatelyRego Humic mixed neutral moderatelyGleysolOrthic mixed neutral weaklyHumicGleysolmixed alkaline stronglymixed alkaline stronglymixed alkaline stronglyHumic Luvic mixed neutral stronglyGleysol mixed neutral stronglymixed neutral stronglymixed alkaline stronglymixed neutral stronglyTerric mixed alkaline moderatelyHumisolTypic mixed alkaline moderatelyHumisolmild subhumid coarse silty Alluviummild subhumid loamy Alluviummild aquic sandy Alluviummild aquic sandy Waterinmild aquic sandy over Gilfordloamymild aquic loamy over Ayrfragmentalmild aquic fine clayey KelvinLincolnToledomild aquic sandy Granbymild aquic fine loamy Marybillmild aquic coarse loamy Vanessamild aquic , coarse silty Colwoodmild aquic sandy over Wauseonclayeymild aquic humic over Staynersandymild aquic humic StyxSoil Great Groups and SubgroupsSoil orders are subdivided into a number of great groups,each with profile expressions that reflect the strength of somesoil-forming factor in addition to the dominant one . Likewise,great groups canbe further subdivided into subgroups .Luvisolic soils in Brant County primarily belong to theGray Brown Luvisol great group . Depending upon the extentof weathering and resultant colour development in the uppersolum, well-drained Luvisols may be classified as either Orthicor Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol subgroups . Imperfectlydrained soils of this great group are classified either as GleyedGray Brown Luvisols or Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisolsubgroups.Brunisolic soils of the County are mainly classified asMelanic Brunisols . They may be further subdivided intoOrthic, Eluviated or Gleyed Melanic Brunisol subgroups .Most soils of the Gleysolic Order are classified into theHumic Gleysol great group. These in turn are subdivided, mostcommonly, into the Orthic Humic Gleysol subgroups, andoccasionally as Rego Humic Gleysols . There are lesser occurrencesof soils of the Luvic Gleysol Great Group, Humic LuvicGleysolsubgroup.Most organic soils in the County are classified in theHumisol great group reflecting the highly humified nature ofthe organic material . Subgroups recognized include the TypicHumisols and Terric Humisols based upon the depth to underlyingmineral layers .Regosolic soils do not occur in sufficiently large areas inthe County to comprise dominant soils in a map unit . However,their localized occurrence is as soils of the Regosol greatgroup, Orthic and Gleyed Regosol subgroups .Soil FamiliesSoil families are divisions of subgroups and are differentiatedon the basis of parent material characteristics such as texture,mineralogy, reaction, calcareousness and soil climate .Classification of the soils of Brant County at the family level isshown in Table 6using classes described in (11) .Soil SeriesSoil series are subdivisions of soil families and are the mostspecific level of soil taxonomy. The concept of the soil serieshas been refined over the years and the link between the soilseries and real soil bodies is a three-dimensional soil unit calleda pedon . Pedons classified as a given soil series have a similarnumber and arrangement of horizons whose colour, texture,structure, consistency, thickness or combinations. of theseproperties are within a defined range . In the case of soils withoutgenetic horizons, these properties apply to the C horizonto the depth of the control section . For soil surveys such as22

that in Brant County, the series is a category of paramountimportance because it is used for defining and classifying soilswhich are the components of soil map units displayed onthe soil map.Soil PhasesThe soil phase is used to differentiate certain characteristicsof soil series which are significant to plantgrowth, or useofthe soil or land . Only one kind of soil phase has been recognized in Brant County which is the coarse texture phase. It iscommonly associated with soils of the Burford, Guelph andFox soil series. A coarse phase of the Burford soil is designatedas BUF.C .Miscellaneous LandUnitsThereare some land areas too variable or complex in termsof soil or slope conditions to classify and map in the conventionalway as soil map units . These are recognized as Miscellaneous Land Units and include recent floodplains adjacent tomajor rivers and streams, e .g . ALU and steep escarpmentsoften associated with entrenched or eroded stream valleys, e .g.ESC . Marsh (MAR) and Urban Land (ULD) MiscellaneousLand Units are also recognized .Soil Map UnitsThe natural landscape is comprised of soils which are portrayedon soil maps by means of soil map units . Usually soilsoccur in a repetitive pattern within a landscape and the soilmap unit describes this pattern in terms of dominant and subdominantsoil components . In some soil landscapes where thesoils are relatively homogeneous, the soil map unit will consistofonly one soil component, e.g . the BRT 1 map unit comprisedof only Brant soils . The usual case is one in which soil mapunits consist ofa dominant soil component, which is estimatedto occupy approximately 70% of the areal extent of the soildelineation, and a subdominant component occupying theremaining 30% of the area . For example, the BRT 4 soil mapunit consists of dominantly Brant soils and subdominant Tuscolasoils, in approximately 70 :30 proportions . Although mapunits are defined with rather precise limits, it should be recognizedthat within anylandscape there is often variability in soilconditions which cannot be described and mapped at the mapscale employed . These seemingly aberrant soils are referred toas soil inclusions, and are generally considered to occupy lessthan 20% of the area of a map delineation .

GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOILSSOIL KEYMapSymbolHectaresSOIL KEYMapSymbolHectaresA .B .Soils Developed on Glacial TillDeposits1 . Silty clay loam till parentmaterials(a) Moderately well-drained1 . Muriel(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Gobles(c) Poorly drained1 . Kelvin2 . Loam and sandy loam tillparent materials(a) Well-drained1 . Guelph2 . Guelph coarse phase(b) Imperfectly drained1 . London3 . Loam and gravellyloamdrumlinized till parentmaterials(a) Well-drained1 . Seneca4 . Stony loam and gravelly sandyloam till parent materials(a) Rapidly drained1 . Wilsonville(b) Well-drained1 . Dumfries(c) Poorly drained1 . LilySoils Developed on 40 to 100 cm ofLacustrine Materials Over GlacialTill Deposits1 . Loamy lacustrine over loam tillparent materials(a) Well-drained1 . Woolwich(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Conestogo(c) Poorly drained1 . MaryhillMUI 2669GOB 1008KVN 500GUP 1710GUP .C 139LOD 357SNA 101WIL 730DUF 2049LIY 549WOW 2067CTG 677MYL 842 . Sandy lacustrine over sandyloam or gravellyloam till parentmaterials(a) Rapidly drained1 . ScotlandSTD 927(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Oakland OKL 124(c) Poorly drained1 . VanessaVSS 39C .D .Soils Developed on 40 to 100 cm ofLacustrine Materials OverContrasting Glacial Till orLacustrine Materials1 . Sandy lacustrine over silty clayloam or siltyclay lacustrine ortill materials(a) Well-drained1 . Bookton BOO2 . Bookton till phase BOO .T(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Berrien(c) Poorly drained1 . Wauseon WUS2 . Wauseon till phase WUS.T2 . Silt loam over silty clay loamlacustrine parent materials(a) Well-drained1 . Harrisburg(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Osborne(c) Poorly drained1 . OhswekenSoils Developed on LacustrineDeposits1 . Loamy sand and sandlacustrine parent materials(a) Rapidly drained1 . Fox(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Brady(c) Poorly drained1 . Granby2 . Lacustrine medium sand witheolian modification(a) Rapidly drained1 . Plainfield(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Walsingham(c) Poorly drained1 . Waterin3 . Fine sandy loam and very finesandy loam lacustrine parentmaterials(a) Well-drained1 . Waterloo(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Heidelberg4 . Silt loam lacustrineparentmaterials(a) Well-drained1 . Brant(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Tuscola(c) Poorly drained1 . Colwood2624244BRR 3987171882HBG 412OBO 185OSE 52FOX 7987BAY 1972GNY 2210PFDWAMWRNWTOHIG182418091595272174BRT 2737TUC 1808CWO 96224

GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOILS (conta .)SOIL KEYMapSymbolHectaresSOIL KEYMapSymbolHectaresE .5 . Silty clay loam and silty claylacustrine parent materials(a) Moderatelywell-drained1 . Brantford(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Beverly(c) Poorly drained1 . Toledo6 . Clay and heavy clay lacustrineparent materials(a) Moderatelywell-drained1 . Smithville(b) Imperfectly drained1 . Haldimand(c) Poorly drained1 . LincolnSoils Developed on GlaciofluvialDeposits1 . Gravelly sand orgravel parentmaterials(a) Rapidly drained1 . Burford2 . Burford cobbly phase(b) Poorly drained1 . Gilford2 . Sandy sediments over gravellysandor gravel parent materials(a) Well-drained1 . Caledon(b) Imperfectlydrained1 . Camilla(c) Poorly drained1 . Ayr3 . Siltyor loamy sediments overgravelly sand orgravel parentmaterials(a) Well-drained1 . TeeswaterF .Soils Developed on OrganicDepositsBFO 11,9611 . Organic soils 40 to 100 cmthick over sandymineralBVY 5837material(a) Verypoorly drainedTLD 24481 . StaynerSTN 15522 . Organic soils greater than160 cm thick(a) Very poorly drainedSHV 16781 . Styx SYX 1051HIM 5350G . Soils Developed on Recent AlluvialDepositsLIC 3427BUF 5952BUF.CO 293(a)Variable drainage1 . Mainly sand andgravelalluvium 2-ALU 13662 . Mainly silt loam andloamalluvium 3-ALU 12683 . Mainly silty clay loamand silty clayalluvium 4-ALU 2407GFD 165 H . Miscellaneous Land Units1 . Gravel pit PIT 2532 . Escarpment ESC 1523 . Marsh MAR 141CAD 3566 4 . Urbanland ULD 9493CML 12265 . Water ZZZ 804AYR 726TEW 3259

Soil DescriptionsGeneralized descriptions of all the soils in Brant Countyare included in this section ofthe report . The descriptions arearranged in alphabetical sequence and include general informationon soil profile characteristics including parent materialand textures, soil moisture characteristics, associated soils andland use and management .Mean horizon values for selected parameters of BrantCounty soils are included at the end of this section in Table 7 .More detailed morphological, chemical, physical and engineering test data for representative soil pedons are included inVolume 2 of this report .Many of the soil names used in this report have beenretained from the old soil map for Brant County. Althoughthere are strong similarities between the new and old soildescriptions, they are not identical due to the more detailedmapping of this survey. Also, because ofincreasing intensity ofland use in recent years, it is now necessary to establish moreprecise limits when describing soil properties . Care should betaken to recognize these differences between old and new soildescriptions when common soil names have been used .Alluvial Soils (ALU)General Soil Description Alluvial soils have developedin materials deposited during flood stages of rivers andstreams . The texture and drainage of these soils are variableover short distances . On small, non-cultivated floodplains, noattempt has been made to differentiate soil textures, and alluvialsoils have been mapped as Undifferentiated Alluvium (1-ALU) . Textural differentiation has been attempted in a generalway on larger floodplains being cultivated for agriculturalcrops. Alluvial soilswith sand and graveltextures weremappedas 2-ALU ; loams, silt loams and sandy loams as 3ALU ; andsilty clay loams and silty clays as 4ALU.The surface horizons of alluvial soils generally arebetween 20 and 30 cm thick . Organic matter contents are usuallyhigh, except in areas - where recent erosion or depositionhas occurred, and often range from 3 to 7% . Textures of topsoiland subsoilare variable, both laterally and with depth . Freecarbonates may occur at anydepth andoften still remain in thesurface horizon of recently flooded soils . Soil reaction is usuallyneutral to mildly alkaline . Soil classification varies with theage of the deposit and drainage . Alluvial soils which are welldrainedusually are either Humic Regosols or Melanic Brunisols. Poorly drained alluvial soils are most commonly HumicGleysols .Soil Moisture Characteristics Alluvial soils have a widerange of drainage conditions, but most are either imperfectlyor poorly drained due to the nearness of the groundwater tableto the surface of the soil for long periods each year. They arealso subject to flooding or seepage of water from adjacent valleyslopes which causes additional wetness . Permeability,water-holding capacity and surface runoff vary widelydepending on soil textures .Commonly Associated Soils Soils which most commonlyoccur with Alluvial soils are the well-drained and moderatelywell-drained soils on valley slopes adjacent to thealluvial floodplain . They include Brantford (BFO), Smithville(SHV), Haldimand (HIM), Fox (FOX) and Burford (BUF)soils . Brantford, Smithville and Haldimand soils are developedon clayey textured glaciolacustrine materials, and are mostcommonly associated with the 4ALU map unit . Fox . soils aredeveloped on glaciolacustrine sandy materials and Burfordsoils from glaciofluvial gravels . Bothtend to be associated withfloodplains mapped as the 2-ALU map unit .Land Use and Management Most alluvial soils remainin their natural condition comprising native grasses, shrubs orwooded vegetation . Their major limitations to agricultural useare risk of flooding and poor drainage. The larger, higherfloodplains, especially along the Grand River, are sometimesused for agricultural crops where the risk of flooding is lowanddrainage is better thannormal . Corn, spring grain or vegetablecrops may be grown in these areas .Ayr Soils (AYR)General Soil Description Ayr soils have developed on asandy or loamy veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying outwashgravelly sand . They are poorly drained .The surface Ah horizons consist of20-25 cm of fine sandyloam or silt loam of high organic matter content . The underlyingB horizons are also sandy loam or silt loam in texture, arestrongly mottled and extend to at least 50 cm depth . A transitionalzone with characteristics of both B and C horizonsoccurs between 50-75 cm . This isunderlain by calcareous gravellysand Ck horizons, which is the parent material, at a depthof approximately 75 cm . The gravel content of the parentmaterial is at least 20-25%, and it is strongly calcareous . Soilreaction is near neutral in the surface horizon and is moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification for Ayr soils isOrthic Humic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Ayr soils are poorlydrained . They are subject to fluctuating water table levels withsignificant periods of saturation in, the B horizon during thewinter and spring . The soil materials are highly permeable andthe water table level recedes significantly to 1 m or beyond duringdry growing season conditions . Surface runoff from Ayrsoils is minimal due to their low landscape position and rapidpermeability.Commonly Associated Soils Camilla soils commonlyoccur with Ayr soils where the slope increases and drainage issomewhat improved . This combination of soils is found in theAYR 2 map unit . Granby soils may also occur with Ayr soilswherethe sandyveneer exceeds 100 cm in depth . This situationoccurs in map unit AYR 3 .Land Use and Management A wide range of land usetypes may be found on Ayr soils . Land use may range frompasture or woodland in the natural, undrained condition, totobacco, vegetable crops or corn where drainage has beenimproved with subsurface tile. The major limitations to agriculturaluse of Ayr soils are poor drainage and low fertilitylevel .Berrien Soils (BRR)General Soil Description Berrien soils have developedon a sandy lacustrine veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying clayeylacustrine or glacial till deposits . They are imperfectlydrained .Surface Ap horizons of Berrien soils consist of 20-25 cmof sandy loamtexture. They are relatively low in organic matterwith contents around 2.0% . Underlying B horizons also aresandy or loamy in texture and extend to the contact with theclayey subsoil . Distinct or prominent mottles occur near theclay contact . Transition to clayey subsoil occurs abruptly atabout 50 cm . This is marked by clay loam or silty clay texturesand very firm or hard consistency. Ck horizons are usuallyencountered at about 75 cm and are silty clay, strongly calcare-26

ous materials . Soil reaction ranges from slightly acidic in thesurface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . The soilclassification is usually Gleyed Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Berrien soils are imperfectlydrained . The sandy surface materials are rapidly permeable,but have relatively low water-holding capacity, and arepotentially droughty during the summer months . The underlyingclayey materials are moderately to slowly permeable whichoften leads to perched water table conditions of variable durationat the sand-clay interface. Surface runoff from Berriensoils is slow because of its slowly permeable subsoil and nearlylevel topography.Commonly Associated Soils Bookton (BOO) and Wauseon(WUS) soils are most commonly associated with Berriensoils in map units BRR 4 and BRR 5 . Their parent materialsare similar to those of Berrien soils but their drainages differ.Soils of the Muriel catena may occur in proximity to Berriensoils where the sandy veneer thins to less than 40 cm as in mapunit BRR 21 .Land Use and Management Berrien soils are importantagricultural soils used extensively for grain corn, beans,tobacco and specialized horticultural crops . They have slightsoil fertility and soil moisture deficiencies which can be significantto agricultural use or management . Under intensive andcontinuous row crops, structural degradation of the surfacehorizon and loss of organic matter can readily occur, whichexacerbates these inherent soil limitations .Beverly Soils (BVY)General Soil Description Beverly soils have developedon lacustrine silty clay loam and silty clay deposits . They areimperfectly drained .Surface Ap horizons of Beverly soils consist of approximately15-20 cm of siltyclayloam . They are moderatelyhigh inorganic matter, ranging between 5-6 016 . Surface horizons arenormally underlain by about 40 cm of B horizon of silty clayloam or silty clay textures . These subsoil horizons are frequentlyvery firm and compacted, and are prominently mottled. Strongly calcareous Ck horizons begin at about 60-70 cmdepth . They are normally silty clay loam in texture and areprominently layered with alternating silty and clayey varves.Soil reaction ranges from near neutral at the surface to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usually GleyedBrunisolicGray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Beverly soils are imperfectlydrained . They are moderately to slowly permeable.Groundwater temporarily occupies the surface horizons eachyear. The saturation period is normally medium, but may beprolonged in some instances where frequent use of heavymachinery has caused compaction of the subsoil . The waterholdingcapacity ranges from medium to high, and surfacerunoff is medium .Commonly Associated Soils Brantford (BFO) andToledo (TLD) soils are most commonly associated withBeverly soils in map units BVY 6 and BVY 8 . They differ fromBeverly soils, being moderately well-drained and poorlydrained, respectively.Land Use and Management Beverly soils are importantagricultural soils and their dominant use is for grain corn,small grains and forage crops . They are also used to a lesserextent for specialized crops such as soybeans, sweet corn andtomatoes . Tile drainage is usually required to extend the growingseason and to facilitate harvesting operations. These soilsare susceptible to compaction by heavy machinery when operationsare carried out during wet soil conditions .Bookton Soils (BOO)General Soil Description Bookton soils have developedon sandy lacustrine veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying clayeylacustrine or glacial till deposits . They are well-drained soils .Surface Ah horizons of Bookton soils usually consist of20-25 cm of fine sandy loam . They are underlain by 20-30 cmof loamy sand B horizons over the clayey subsoil . Bt horizonsoccur at the interface with this heavy-textured material at adepth of40-50 cm . They are generally silty clay loam in textureand very firm and compacted . Relatively unaltered clayey subsoil,comprising IICk horizons, occurs between 70-80 cmdepth . They are strongly calcareous and extremely firm andcompacted . Soil reaction ranges from near neutral in surfacehorizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationis usually Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Bookton soils are welldrained. The sandy surface materials are rapidly permeable,but the underlying clayey material is moderately to slowly permeable. Temporary perched water table conditions may occurat this sand-clay interface. Surface sands have low waterholdingcapacityand are commonly droughty during dry summerconditions . Surface runoff is slow on level or gentlysloping Bookton soils, but increases on moderate and steepslopes .Commonly Associated Soils Berrien (BRR) soils aremost commonly associated with Bookton soils in map unitsBOO 3, and Wauseon (WUS) soils may occur as inclusions .Their parent materials are similar to Bookton soils, but theirdrainage differs . Fox (FOX) and Brady (BAY) soils also arecommon associates of Bookton soils in map units BOO 7 andBOO 19 respectively, as subdominant components of thesemap units . In these instances, the sandy veneer occasionallyexceeds 100 cm in depth .Land Use and Management Bookton soils are importantagricultural soils for a wide range of crops including graincorn, hay, winter wheat, spring grain, and specialized cropssuch as tobacco and horticultural crops . They have slight soilfertility and soil moisture deficiencies which can be significantto land use and management . Supplemental irrigation may benecessary for some crops .Brady Soils (BAY)General Soil Description Brady soils have developed onglaciolacustrine sediments consisting of sand and loamy sandtextures usually modified on the surface by wind action. Theyare imperfectly drained soils .Surface Ah horizons of Brady soils usually consist of 15-20 cm ofloamysand or sandy loam . They are relatively high inorganic matter with contents of 5-6 01o . The underlying B horizons are 30-40 cm thick, usually of loamy sand texture andwith prominent mottles . Strongly calcareous Ck horizons usuallybegin at 50-60 cm depth and are sand or loamy sand texture. Soil reaction ranges from neutral in the surface horizonsto moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification istypically Gleyed Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Brady soils are imperfectlydrained . They are rapidly permeable throughout ; however,atemporary high water table in the subsoil horizons in thewinter and spring can restrict permeability. Brady soils haverelatively low water-holding capacity and consequently aredroughty during dry summers . Due to their high permeabilityand very gently sloping topography, they usually have slow surfacerunoff .Commonly Associated Soils Fox (FOX) and Granby(GNY) soils are most commonly associated with Brady soils inmap units BAY7 and BAY 5 . Fox and Granby soils have similarsoil materials as Brady soils, but they differ in drainage bybeing well and poorly drained, respectively.Land Use and Management Brady soils are extensivelyused for tobacco production . To a lesser extent they are usedfor grain corn, winter wheat, hay and vegetable production .They have slight soil fertility and soil moisture limitations, andoften suffer from droughtiness during dry summers . Supplementalirrigation is usually required for high-value crops suchas tobacco or vegetables .Brant Soils (BRT)General Soil Description Brant soils have developed onsilt loam or very fine sandy loam glaciolacustrine sedimentsthat are often stratified . They are well-drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Brant soils usually consist ofabout 20 cm of silt loam . They have a moderate organic mattercontent ranging from 3 .5 to 4 .0016, unless affected by erosion,inwhich case they are considerably lower. The surface horizonsare underlain by grayish-brown Bm horizons at a depth of 20-30 cm, also of silt loam texture. Distinctive brown Bt horizonsoccur at 30-50 cm, of silt loam texture and generally higher inclay content than other horizons in the soil profile. On slopingtopography Bt horizons are much closer to the soil surface dueto erosion of the overlying materials, and are incorporated intothe plow layer. The texture of the Ck horizons of Brant soils areusually silt loam, but unlike other horizons may contain thinlayers of sandier textures . Soil reaction ranges from near neutralin the surface soil horizons to moderately alkaline in thesubsoil . Soil Classification is usually Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Brant soils are welldrained. They are usually of medium permeability, but thisdecreases where silty clay loam or compacted layers occur.Brant soils have a fairly high water-holding capacity. Surfacerunoff can be high, and increases markedly as slope increasesand organic matter content ofthe surface horizon decreases .Commonly Associated Soils Tuscola (TUC) and Colwood(CWO) soils are most commonly associated with Brantsoils as subdominant components in mapunits BRT 4and BRT27 . Tuscola and Colwood soils have similar soil materials asBrant soils, but are imperfectly and poorly drained, respectively.Brant soils are often associated with the well-drainedBrantford soils in the BRT 18 map unit on rolling topography,where dissection of the landscape has intermittently exposedunderlying heavy-texturèd glaciolacustrine materials . SandytexturedFox soils also occur with Brant soils in map unit BRT6, where the glaciolacustrine materials gradually change fromloamyto sandy textures .Land Use and Management Brant soils are excellentagricultural soils widely used for common field crops includinggrain corn, forage and hay crops, and small grains . They areused less commonly for specialty crops such as apples, tomatoesand peppers . Their main limitation is susceptibility towater erosion on sloping topography. Fields with complexslopes are difficult to manage and generally reveal very serioussoil losses due to erosion on the knolls . Continuous row cropsshouldbe avoided on slopes exceeding 6016, and perennial grassor tree cover is recommended where slopes exceed 12% . Brantmap units with b and c topography present additional problemsin management due to variability in drainage. Intermittentwet soil conditions can cause delays in seeding as well asdifficulties during harvest operations .Brantford Soils (BFO)General Soil Description Brantford soils have developedon silty clay loam or silty clay glaciolacustrine deposits that, inBrant County, generally show evidence of pronounced varving. They are moderately well-drained soils.Surface Ap horizons of Brantford soils usually consist ofabout 15 cm of silt loam or silty clay loam . They have a moderatelyhigh organic matter content of about 5 016 unless affectedby erosion, in which case they are considerably lower.Brownish-coloured Bm horizons underlie the surface horizonsat a depth of approximately 15-40 cm . These are most commonlysilt loam in texture. Distinctive dark-brown Bt horizonsbegin at about 40cm, and are noticeably higher in clay contentandmore compact, with textures of silty clay loam or silty clay.On sloping topography, Bt horizons are much closer to the soilsurface dueto erosion ofthe overlying materials, and are incorporatedinto the plow layer. Strongly calcareous Ck horizons,usually commence between 50-75 cm depth, are silty clay intexture and are most commonly made up of alternating silt andclay varves . Soil reaction of Brantford soils ranges from nearneutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in thesubsoil . Soil classification is usually Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Brantford soils are moderatelywell-drained . They usually have medium to low permeability,depending on the incidence of soil cracks andcompaction in the subsoil horizons . Often a perched watertable condition occurs in the surface horizons of Brantfordsoils for a short duration . Brantford soils have a high waterholdingcapacity. Surface runoff is rapid .Commonly Associated Soils Beverly (BVY) and Toledo(TLD) soils are most commonly associated with Brantfordsoils as subdominant components in map units BFO 6 andBFO 7 . Beverly and Toledo soils have similar soil materials asBrantford soils, but are imperfectly and poorly drained,respectively. There are also occurrences of Brantford soils withBrant soils in the BFO 26 map unit, in the strongly dissectedtopography of the northeastern part of Brantford Township .Alluvium soils (4ALU) with silt loam to silty clay textures, areoften associated with Brantford soils in map unit BFO 30,which occupies stream valley floodplain areas .Land Use and Management Brantford soils are veryimportant for agricultural uses . They are used extensively forcommon field crops including grain corn, soybeans and haycrops . Specialized horticultural crops such as apples, strawberriesand cabbages are grown to a limited extent on Brantford

soils . A very common limitation to the use of Brantford soils issteep or irregular topography. Fields with complex and steepslopes are difficult to manage and generally reveal very serioussoil erosion on the knolls . Brantford map units with complextopography present additional problems in management dueto variability in drainage. Intermittent wet soil conditions cancause delays in seeding, as well as difficulties during harvestoperations . Over-compacted subsoils can occur as a consequenceof field operations during wet conditions .Burford Soils (BUF)General Soil Description Burford soils have developedon glaciofluvial deposits of gravelly sand and gravel textures .Theyare rapidly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons ofBurford soils usually consist of 15-20 cm of loam or silt loam with various amounts of gravel .They have an organic matter level of about 3-4% . Brownishcoloured Bm horizons underlie the surface horizons and alsoare loamy in texture. They are relatively thin and generally donot extend below a depth of 35 cm . Distinctive dark-brown Bthorizons are present between about 35-50 cm depth, and occasionallymay extend to 75 cm . They are noticeably higher inclay content than other horizons in the soil profile with gravellyclay loam textures being typical . They tend to develop at theinterface between the loamy surficial materials and the gravellysubsoil, hence they possess a high content of gravel .Strongly calcareous Ck horizons generally occur below 50 cmand are usually gravelly coarse sand or gravelly loamy sand intexture . Soil reaction of Burford soils ranges from near neutralin the upper horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soilclassification is Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol .Burford cobbly phase (BURCO) soils are similar to theBurford soils described above, except for a predominance ofrounded, cobble-sized coarse fragments (7.5-25 cm diameter)in the surface horizons .Soil Moisture Characteristics Burford soils are rapidlydrained . They have high permeability and low water-holdingcapacity. The relatively high clay content of the Bt horizondoes enhance the moisture storage within the plant root zone ;however, significant moisture deficits do occur in Burford soilsduring prolonged dry periods . Surface runoff is low on Burfordsoils except on steep slopes where it is moderate .Commonly Associated Soils Burford soils occur withCaledon soils in map unit BUF 6 and with Teeswater soils inmap unit BUF 7 . In both instances, thin veneers of sandy orloamy materials 40-100 cm thick overlie the gravelly subsoil .Fox soils also may occur with Burford soils in mapunit BUF 3 .This soil combination arises where deposits of sandy materialin excess of 1 metre in depth overlies the gravelly-textured subsoilin parts of the landscape.Land Useand Management Burford soils on nearly levelor very gently sloping topography are moderately good soilsfor agricultural use. They are most commonly used for graincorn or winter wheat . They have slight to moderate soil moisturelimitations for these common field crops . Under intensivemanagement for specialty crops such as tobacco or potatoes,they can be highly productive where irrigation is used .Caledon Soils (CAD)General Soil Description Caledon soils have developedon sandy fluvial veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying gravelly fluvialdeposits . They are well-drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Caledon soils consist of 15-20 cmof loam or sandy loam textures . They have an organic mattercontent of about 3% . Brownish-coloured Bm horizons ofsandy loamtexture underliethe surface horizons extending to adepth of about 40-50 cm . Distinct dark-brown Bt horizons arepresent, generally between 50 to 70 cm depth . They are noticeablyhigher in clay content than other horizons in the soil profileand are gravelly sandy clay loam texture. They develop atthe interface of the sandy surficial materials and the gravellysubsoil, hence they contain a relatively high content of gravel .The strongly calcareous Ck horizons generally are presentbelow 70 cm depth and are gravelly sand in texture . Soil reactionof Caledon soils ranges from near neutral in the upperhorizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationis Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Caledon soils are welldrained. They have high permeability and low water-holdingcapacity. The relatively high clay content of the Bt horizonsdoes enhance moisture storage within the plant root zone ;however, a significant moisture deficit does occur in Caledonsoils during periods of prolonged drought . Surface runoff isslow on Caledon soils .Commonly Associated Soils Camilla soils commonlyoccur with Caledon soils as subdominant components in mapunit CAD 2 . They have similar parent materials as Caledonsoils, but are imperfectly drained . Caledon soils also occurwith Burford and Teeswater soils as subdominant componentsin the CAD 3 and CAD 4 map units, respectively. In the CAD 3map unit, the gravelly-textured subsoil can be found within 40cm of the surface on significant occasions giving rise to Burfordsoils . In CAD 4, the texture of the overburden occasionallyranges from loam to silt loam, comprising the Teeswatersoils . Occurrences of deep, sandy-textured Fox or Plainfieldsoils in association with Caledon soils may occur in map unitsCAD 6 and CAD 7, respectively.Land Use and Management Caledon soils are moderatelygood soils for agricultural use. They are used for fieldcrops such as grain corn and hay crops, and have slight to moderatelimitations for these uses . Specialty crops such as tobaccoand potatoes are commonly produced on Caledon soils . Underintensive management where irrigation is used, these soils canbe highly productive.Camilla Soils (CML)General Soil Description Camilla soils have developedon sandy fluvial veneer 40-100 cm thick overlying gravelly fluvialdeposits . They are imperfectly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Camilla soils consist of about 30cm of sandy loam texture and are relatively high in organicmatter content . Brownish mottled Bm horizons underlie thesurface horizon and are of similar texture . They extend to adepth of about 45 cm . The gravel content increases in the Bthorizons, with textures ranging from gravelly sandy loam tosandyloam . Thesehorizons also are slightly higher in claycontentthan the adjacent horizons . The Ck horizons which occurgenerally at about 55 cm depth show a marked increase ingravel with gravelly sandy loam textures . They are stronglycalcareous . Soil reaction ofCamilla soils ranges from near neutralin the upper horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil .Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisot .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Camilla soils are imperfectlydrained . Although they have high permeability, groundwaternormally rises into the subsurface horizons of Camillasoils during the winter and spring causing gleyed conditions .They have low water-holding capacities and consequently aredroughty during prolonged dry periods . They have slow surfacerunoff .Commonly Associated Soils Caledon (CAD) and Ayr(AYR) soils are commonly associated with Camilla soils assubdominant components in map units CML 2 and CML 3 .They have similar soil materials as Camilla, but are welldrainedand poorly drained, respectively. There are also occurrencesof Granby soils with Camilla soils in map unit CML 4 .In this case, the sandy overburden exceeds 100 cm depth indepressional, poorly drained segments ofthe landscape.Land Use and Management Camilla soils are moderatelygood soils for a range of agricultural uses . They are usedfor common field crops such as grain corn and wheat, and forspecialty crops including potatoes, tobacco and soybeans .Drainage or irrigation are not considered likely to improvecrop production significantly on Camilla soils .Colwood Soils (CWO)General Soil Description Colwood soils have developedon stratified glaciolacustrine silt loam and very fine sandyloam deposits . They are poorly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Colwood soils consist of about 20cm of silt loam or very fine sandy loam textures, and are relativelyhigh in organic matter content . The underlying B horizons have similar textures and generally extend to a depth ofapproximately 45 cm . Both B and C horizons are prominentlymottled . The Ck horizons which occur below 45 cm are siltloam in texture and strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Colwoodsoils is near neutral in the upper horizons to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is Orthic HumicGleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Colwood soils are poorlydrained . They are moderately to slowly permeable. Thegroundwater table rises into the B horizon during the winterand spring causing saturated conditions for significant periods. They have high water-holding capacities . Surface runofffrom Colwood soils is slow because of their generally levelslope.Commonly Associated Soils Tuscola (TUC) and Styx(SYX) soils are most commonly associated with Colwoodsoils . Tuscola soils, which is the subdominant component inmap unit CWO 4, differ by being imperfectly drained . Styxsoils, the subdominant component in map unit CWO 23, occurin very poorly drained depressions where deep organic materialshave accumulated .Land Use and Management Colwood soils are goodagricultural soils if drainage is improved . Grain corn, silagecorn and spring grains are most commonly grown . They havepotential for production of vegetable crops, particularly cabbages,cauliflower, tomatoes and sweet corn when artificialdrainage has been established .Conestogo Soils (CTG)General Soil Description Conestogo soils have developedon silty glaciolacustrine sediments overlying loamy glacialtill . They are imperfectly drained soils .Surface horizons of Conestogo soils consist of about 30cm of silt loam material of moderate organic matter content .They are underlain by brownish, mottled Bm horizons whichextend to a depth of 50 to 70 cm . They range in texture fromloam to silt loam . Dark-brown Bt horizons with brownishyellowmottles occur between 50 and 90 cm . They also have asilt loam texture but are slightly higher in clay content than theadjacent horizons . The Ck horizons generally are encounteredat a depth between 65 and 90 cm . They are of similar texture tothe overlying horizons, but have a low content of gravel and arestrongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Conestogo soils is nearneutral in the upper horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Conestogo soils areimperfectly drained . They are moderatelyto slowly permeable.The groundwater table rises into the subsurface horizons fortemporary periods during the winter and spring . The waterholdingcapacity ofConestogo soils is moderately high . Due tothe long, gentle slopes of the Conestogo soil landscape, runofftends to be moderately high .Commonly Associated Soils Woolwich (WOW) andMaryhill (MYL) soils are most commonly associated withConestogo soils in map unit CTG 2 and CTG 3, respectively.Woolwich soils, which are thesubdominant component in mapunit CTG 2 are well-drained . Maryhill soils, the subdominantcomponent in map unit CTG 3 are poorly drained . Both aresimilar in soil material to Conestogo soils .Land Use and Management Conestogo soils are excellentsoils for agricultural uses . They are used for grain corn,spring grain and forage crops . Tile drainage enhances thepotential of these soils for common field crops . They are suitablesoils for production of specialized crops, although theiruse for this purpose is limited .Dumfries Soils (DUF)General Soil Description Dumfries soils have developedon stony, gravelly, sandy loam glacial till . They are rapidlydrained .Surface horizons of Dumfries soils are about 15 cm thickand range from silt loam to sandy loam in texture . In woodedsites, the organic matter content ofthese horizons are relativelyhigh, but are considerably reduced under cultivated conditions. Brownish-coloured Bm horizons underlie the surfacehorizon . They are commonly loam to silt loam in texture.These horizons may extend to a depth of 30 to 40 cm, but areusually shallower in cultivated fields . Distinctive reddishbrownBt horizons of gravelly loam texture occur beneath theBm horizon . They occur at variable depths, often between 30-50cm, but may extend to depths exceeding 100cm . They have asignificantly higher clay content than the adjacent horizonsand also ahigher proportion of gravel and stones . The Ck horizonsalso occur at variable depths ranging from 50 to over 100cm, being shallower on the knolls as compared to mid-slopepositions . They generally are gravelly sandy loam in textureand are strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Dumfries soils isslightly acidic to neutral in the surface horizons, to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Dumfries soils are rapidlydrained . They have high permeability and low water-holding

capacity. Slight to moderate soil moisture deficits do occur inDumfries soils duringprolongeddry periods . Surface runoff ismoderate on Dumfries soils due to their steep slopes .Commonly Associated Soils Lily (LIY), Guelph (GUP)and Burford (BUF) soils are most commonly associated withDumfries soils in map units DUF2, DUF 3 and DUF 5, respectively. Lily soils, which are the subdominant component inmap unit DUF 2, are poorly drained . They are similar in soilmaterials to Dumfries soils . Guelph soils are subdominantcomponents of map unit DUF 3 . They differ in being comprisedof loam-textured glacial till, and are less stony thanDumfries soils . Burford soils may also occur with Dumfriessoils as the subdominant component in map unit DUF 5 . Theyare developed on gravelly, glaciofluvial parent materials, andgenerally contain fewerstones and boulders than the dominantsoils . Their drainage is similar to Dumfries soils .LandUse and Management Dumfries soils generally arepoor soils for agricultural uses due to their hummocky topographyand excessive stoniness . Their major agricultural use isfor hay crops and pasture, with lesser amounts of spring grainand corn . All Dumfries soils with steep slopes are best retainedin woodland for uses such as recreation, forestry and wildlife.Fox Soils (FOX)General Soil Description Fox soils have developed onsandy glaciolacustrine sediments which have been modifiedsurficially by eolian activity. They are rapidly drained .Surface horizons of Fox soils are approximately 20 cmthick with low organic matter content of about 210 . Theyrange from sandy loam to loamy sand texture. They are underlain by relatively deep brownish-coloured Bm horizons extendingto a mean depth of about 55 cm, but ranging from about 30to 70 cm deep at the base . They are loamy sand to sand in texture.In most Fox soils, theBt horizons typically have a wavy ortongueing contact with the calcareous Ck horizons, and so themean depth to the top of the Ck horizons is about 70 cm, butmay range from 40 to 100 cm . There is a significant increase inclay content in the Bt horizons compared to other horizons inthe profile, and it usually is sandy loam in texture. The Ck horizonsare usually strongly calcareous sand . Soil reaction of Foxsoils is slight acidic to neutral in the surface horizons, to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is BrunisolicGray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Fox soils are rapidlydrained and are rapidly permeable. They have low waterholdingcapacity ; therefore, slight to moderate soil moisturedeficits do occur during prolonged dryperiods . Surface runoffis slowexcept on steep slopes .Commonly Associated Soils Fox soils are associatedwith many other soils . The most common occurrences are withBrady (BAY) and Granby (GNY), which are the subdominantsoils in map units FOX 4 and FOX 3, respectively. Brady soilsare imperfectly drained and Granby soils are poorly drained .Both are developed on similar materials as the Fox soils . Othersoils which are fairly commonly associated with Fox soilsinclude Burford (BUF), Bookton (BOO) and Scotland (STD)soils inmap units FOX 5, FOX 21 and FOX 9, respectively. Allofthese soils have similar sandy-textured surficial materials toFOX soils, but differ in the composition of their subsoil horizonsat a depth of 40-100 cm . Burford soils are gravelly,Bookton soils are clayey-textured, and Scotland soils haveloamy subsoils .Land Use and Management Fox soils are moderatelygood soils for a range ofagricultural uses . Ofthe common fieldcrops, grain corn is produced most extensively. Rye or winterwheat also is common, usually in tobacco rotations . Theunique texture and drainage characteristics of these soils makethem well-suited to specialty crop production . They are usedextensively for growing flue-cured tobacco . Potatoes are somewhatcommon on Fox soils, and there is increasing use for theproduction of ginseng . Supplemental irrigation is necessaryfor tobacco and most other high-value crops on Fox soils .Gilford Soils (GFD)General Soil Description Gilford soils have developedon glaciofluvial deposits of gravelly sand and gravel textures .They are poorly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Gilford soils consist of approximately20 cm of sandy loam soil of moderate organic mattercontent . Prominently mottled B horizons with gravelly loamtexture underlie the surface horizon . In some cases these horizonsmay be moderately to strongly calcareous, reflectingupward movement of carbonates with the groundwater. Thestrongly calcareous Ck horizons occur at a depth of about 45cm . They have a high gravel content and are gravelly sand intexture . Soil reaction of Gilford soils is moderately alkaline .They are classified as Orthic Humic Gleysols .Soil Moisture Characteristics Gilford soils are poorlydrained . They are rapidly permeable . Most horizons are saturatedby groundwater for long periods each year unless artificially drained . Gilford soils have low water-holding capacityand slow surface runoff .Commonly Associated Soils Camilla (CML) and Styx(SYX) soils are most commonly associated with Gilford soilsas subdominant components in map units GFD 2 and GFD 3,respectively. Camilla soils are imperfectly drained and havesandy-textured surficial material overlying gravelly subsoils .Styx soils are very poorly drained organic soils greater than 160cm indepth .Land Use and Management In their natural condition,Gilford soils largely remain as wooded land . Where drainageimprovements have been made, they are fair soils for agricultural use. Grain corn, soybeans, and occasionally specialtycrops such as tomatoes, are the most common crops on drainedGilford soils .Gobles Soils (GOB)General Soil Description Gobles soils have developed onglacial till, most commonly of silty clay loam texture. They areimperfectly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Gobles soils are usually 20-25 cmthick and range from loam to clay loam in texture . They aremoderately high in organic matter content . The underlyingbrownish-coloured Bm horizons extend to a depth of about 35cm . They are usually clay loam in texture . Dark-brown Bt horizonswith distinct mottles occur between depths of about 35 to50 cm . They are clayloam intexture and have a higher clay contentthan the adjacent horizons . Strongly calcareous Ck horizonsusually begin at about 50 cm . They are commonly siltyclayloam and areprominently mottled . Soil reaction of Goblessoils is near neutral in the surface_horizons and becomes moderatelyalkaline in the calcareous subsoil . Gobles soils are classifiedas Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisols .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Gobles soils are imperfectlydrained . They are moderately to slowly permeable.Groundwater rises within the B horizons of Gobles soils fortemporary periods each year . They have high water-holdingcapacities and surface runoff is also relatively high .Commonly Associated Soils Muriel (MUI), Kelvin(KVN) and Colwood (CWO) soils . are commonly associatedwith Gobles soils as subdominant components in map unitsGOB 4, GOB 3 and GOB 13, respectively. Muriel and Kelvinsoils are moderately well and poorly drained, respectively, withsoil materials similar to Gobles . Colwood soils are poorlydrained, but occur on deep silt loam materials.Land Use and Management Gobles soils are good agriculturalsoils for general field crops . Grain corn, hay andspring grains are the most common crops on these soils . Theiruse and productivity is usually enhanced with tile drainage. Ofthe specialty crops, soybeans are occasionally produced onGobles soils, and they are fairly well-suited to this use .Granby Soils (GNY)General Soil Description Granby soils have developedon glaciolacustrine materials with textures of sand and loamysand . They are poorly drained .Surface Ap horizons ofGranby soils are about 20 cm thickconsisting of sandy loam or loamy sand textures . They are normallyquite high in organic matter content, and peaty surfacehorizons are not uncommon . This is the usual situation inwooded sites . Thin A or B horizons with prominent mottlesand gleyed colours usually occur between 20-25 cm depth . Thisoverlies prominently mottled Btg horizons extending fromabout 25 to 60 cm . They have a slight increase in clay content,and textures ofsandy loam . Granby Ck horizons occur at variabledepths ranging from 50 to more than 100 cm . Their carbonatecontents also tend to be variable and calcareousnessranges from weakly to strongly calcareous, the latter conditionusually occurring with increasing depth. Soil reaction ofGranby soils ranges from strongly acidic or neutral in the surfacehorizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationis usually Humic Luvic Gleysol in Brant County.Elsewhere, it is usually Orthic Humic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Most Granby soils arepoorly drained, except for some peaty phase Granby soilswhich are very poorly drained . They usually are rapidly permeable . Most horizons are saturated by groundwater for long periodseach year unless artificially drained . Granby soils havelow water-holding capacities and slow surface runoff.Commonly Associated Soils Brady (BAY) and Stayner(STN) soils are commonly associated with Granby soils as subdominantcomponents in map units GNY 4 and GNY 10,respectively. Brady soils are imperfectly drained, with soilmaterials similar to Granby. Stayner soils are very poorlydrained and occur in depressional areas where 40 to 100 cm oforganic materials have accumulated over the sand .Land Use andManagement Granby soils in their naturalcondition are relatively poor soils for agricultural use becauseof wetness limitations . A large portion of them still occur inundrained forested swamps in Brant County. On cleared areas,undrained Granby soils can be used for pasture. Where artificialdrainage has been established, Granby soils are well-suitedfor grain corn, soybeans, tobacco and some commercial vegetablecrops .Guelph Soils (GUP)General Soil Description Guelph soils have developedon glacial till, mainly of loam texture . They are well-drained .Surface Ap horizons of Guelph soils are about 20 cm thickand are low to medium in organic matter content . They areusually loam or silt loam in texture . Brownish-coloured Bmhorizons underlie the surface horizon to a depth of 35 to 45 cm .They also are loam or silt loam in texture. These horizons maybe absent on slopes where surface erosion has occurred, as theyhave been incorporated by plowing into the Ap horizon . Distinctivedark-brown Bt horizons usually occur at a depth rangingfrom 35 to 70 cm . They have a pronounced increase in claycontent and are usually loam to clay loam in texture . Thesehorizons often have awavy, tongueing boundary with underlyingCk horizons . Ck horizons occur at variable depths, withthe mean depth being 60 to 70 cm . They are generally loam intexture and are strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Guelphsoils ranges from near neutral in the surface horizons to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is BrunisolicGray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Guelph soils are welldrained. They are moderately permeable and have mediumwater-holding capacities . Surface runoff can be moderatelyhigh and it increases markedly as slope increases, and as theorganic matter content of the surface horizon decreases .Commonly Associated Soils London (LOD), Woolwich(WOW), Colwood (CWO) and Scotland (STD) soils are commonlyassociated with Guelph soils as subdominant components in map units GUP 2, GUP 4, GUP 6 and GUP 7,respectively. London soils are imperfectly drained with soilmaterials similar to Guelph soils . Woolwich soils are welldrained,and have a surficial veneer of silt overlying the loamtill of the Guelph soils . Colwood soils are poorly drained andconsist of silty deposits in excess of 100 cm in depth . Scotlandsoils are rapidly drained, and are characterized by sandy texturesoverlying gravelly loam glacial till . .Land Use and Management Guelph soils are good soilsfor agricultural use. They are commonly used for field cropssuch as grain corn, hay, winter wheat and spring grains .Recently, specialty crops such as soybeans have appeared onGuelph soils . The only limitations of significance affecting theuse of Guelph soils for field crops are topography and past erosion. Complex slopes exceeding 3 °Io have a slight topographiclimitation . This limitation becomes more severe as slopeincreases . Hummocky or rolling topography may also havemoderate to severe erosion limitations due to loss of topsoil bywater erosion .Haldimand Soils (HIM)General Soil Description Haldimand soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments of clay or heavy clay textures. They are imperfectly drained .Surface Ap horizons of Haldimand soils are about 20 cmthick and silty clay loam or silty clay in texture . They are moderatelyhigh in organic matter, ranging from 4 to 6 016 . The Bmhorizons underlying the surface horizon are prominently mottledand generally silty clay in texture . They extend to an averagedepth of about 40 cm . The Bt horizons normally havedistinctive prismatic and angular blocky structure. In cultivatedfields, they often have compacted and amorphous structure. Soil texture usually is silty clay or clay. The Ck horizons

usually begin at about 50 cm . They have similar prismatic andangular blocky structure as the Bt horizons, and are clay orheavy clay in texture . They are strongly calcareous . Soil reactionofHaldimand soils ranges from slightly acidic to neutral inthe surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soilclassification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Haldimand soils areimperfectly drained and slowly permeable . Groundwater riseswithin the B horizons of Haldimand soils for temporary periods each year. Perching of surface water in the upper horizonsalso is common following periods of heavy rainfall . Haldimandsoils have medium to high water-holding capacities, butcan be droughty during prolonged dry periods due to slowrelease ofwater from the clay textures . They have rapid surfacerunoff.Commonly Associated Soils Smithville (SHV), Lincoln(LIC) and Berrien (BRR) soils are commonly associated withHaldimand soils as subdominant components in map unitsHIM 5, HIM 3 and HIM 13, respectively. Smithville soils aremoderately well-drained and Lincoln soils are poorly drainedon similar parent materials to Haldimand soils. Berrien soilsare imperfectly drained and have a sandy surficial layer 40-100cm in depth over clayey-textured subsoil .Land Use and Management Haldimand soils are fairsoils for agricultural use with moderately severe limitationsdue to soil structure. Their high clay content causes difficultiesin tillage, seed bed preparation, plant emergence and root penetration. Excess soil moisture also can be a problem, and sometile drainage may be necessary . Grain and silage corn, springgrain, winter wheat and forages are the most common crops onthese soils .Harrisburg Soils (HBG)General Soil Description Harrisburg soils have developedon silt loam textures 40 to 100 cm in depth overlyinglacustrine silty clay loam material . They are well-drained .Surface Ap horizons of Harrisburg soils are about 15 cmthick and are silt loam in texture . They are moderately high inorganic matter, averaging around 4-5% . The underlyingbrownish-coloured Bm horizons are quite thick, extending to adepth of approximately 50 cm . They too are silt loam in texture. Distinctive dark-brown Bt horizons of silt loam texture,but with a significantly higher clay content than overlyinghorizons, occur from about 50 to 80 cm . Theyare underlain byCk horizons which are silty clay loam in texture and stronglycalcareous . Soil reaction of Harrisburg soils ranges from acidicin the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil .Soil classification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Harrisburg soils are welldrainedand moderately to slowly permeable. Perching of surfacewater may occur for short periods in the zone immediatelyon top of the Bt horizon during periods of heavy rainfall . Harrisburgsoils have medium water-holding capacity, and may bedroughty during prolonged dry periods . Surface runoff can behigh and increases significantly with slope.Commonly Associated Soils Osborne (OBO), Ohsweken(OSE) and Brant (BRT) soils are commonly associatedwith Harrisburg soils as subdominant components in mapunits HBG 2, HBG 3 and HBO 4, respectively. Osborne soilsare imperfectly drained and Ohsweken soils poorly drained onsimilar parent materials to Harrisburg soils . Brant soils arewell-drained and are formed on deep lacustrine silt loammaterials .Land Use and Management Harrisburg soils are excellentsoils for agricultural use . They are predominantly used forgrain corn and forages ; however, they have good potential forspecialty crops such as apples, beans, peppers and tomatoes .There is some use of these soils for sod farming in BrantCounty. Their main limitation to use is susceptibility to watererosion on sloping topography.Heidelberg Soils (HIG)General Soil Description Heidelberg soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments of very fine sandy loamand loamy very fine sand textures . They are imperfectlydrained .Surface Ap horizons of Heidelberg soils are about 20 cmthick and are very fine sandyloam in texture . They have a moderateorganic matter content of about 3 to 4% . Brownishcoloured, mottled Bm horizons underlie the surface horizonextending to a depth of about 45 cm . They too are very finesandy loam in texture . The Bt horizons are rather weakly developedand are similar in texture to the horizons above . Theyextend to a depth of about 70 cm . Strongly calcareous Ck horizonsoccur below 70 cm of very fine loamy sand texture . Soilreaction of Heidelberg soils is near neutral throughout theupper solum and slightly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationreflects transitional development representative of bothGleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol and Gleyed OrthicMelanic Brunisol subgroups .Soil Moisture Characteristics Heidelberg soils areimperfectly drained and usually moderately permeable. Subsoilhorizons may be slowly permeable if they are compactedby heavy machinery. Heidelberg soils have a temporary highgroundwater table, but this usually recedes sufficiently early inthe growing season to avoid interfering with root development .They have moderate to good water-holding capacities . Surfacerunoff from these soils can be moderately high, especially onsloping topography.Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) soils aremost commonly associated with Heidelberg soils as the subdominantcomponent in map unit HIG 2 . They are poorlydrained and developed onlacustrinesand or loamy sand parentmaterial .Land Use and Management Heidelberg soils are goodsoils for agricultural use . Grain corn, spring grain and foragesare the common field crops grown on these soils . They are fairto good soils for a range of specialty crops, although there is littlecurrent use of these soils for this purpose. Artificial drainageis seldom required on these soils, unless moisture-sensitivecrops are grown .Kelvin Soils (KVN)General Soil Description Kelvin soils have developed onglacial till of silty clay loam and silty clay textures . They arepoorly drained .Surface Ap horizons ofKelvin soils range from 20 to 25 cmthick and usually are silty clay loam in texture. They have highorganic matter contents of about 4 to 6% . Prominently mottled Bg horizons underlie the surface horizons to a depth of 50to 60 cm . They have slightly higher clay contents than the adjacenthorizons and are silty clay intexture . Development ofmassivestructure in this horizon isnot uncommon under cultivatedconditions . The Ck horizons also have prominent mottles andrange in texture from silty clay loam to silty clay. They usually

are strongly calcareous . Soilreaction ofKelvin soils is near neutralthroughout the solum . Soil classification is Orthic HumicGleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Kelvin soils are poorlydrained and slowly permeable . Groundwater occupies mosthorizons of Kelvin soils for long periods each year. They havehigh water-holding capacities and surface runoff is slow.Commonly Associated Soils Gobles (GOB) and Wauseon(WUS) soils are most commonly associated with Kelvinsoils as subdominant components in map units KVN 6 andKVN 13, respectively. Gobles soils are imperfectly drained andare similar in soil materials to Kelvin soils. Wauseon soils arepoorly drained, but have a sandy veneer 40 to 100 cm in thicknessoverlying clayey subsoil, similar to that occurring withKelvin soils.Land Use and Management Kelvin soils are fair soils foragricultural use . Their relatively high clay contents and tendencyto develop massive subsoil structure create problemswith slow drainage. Their present use is mainly for grain corn,spring grain or forages, and they require artificial drainage formaximum production .Lincoln Soils (LIC)General Soil Description Lincoln soils have developedfrom glacial till of clay or heavy clay textures . They are poorlydrained .Surface Ap horizons of Lincoln soils are 15 to 20 cm inthickness and silty clay loam in texture. They have relativelyhigh organic matter contents averaging around 6% . Both theBand C horizons usually are silty clay to heavy clay in texture,have coarse blocky structure and are prominently mottled . TheCk horizons, which are strongly calcareous, usually begin at 55to 65 cm depth . Soil reaction of Lincoln soils ranges from neutralto slightly acidic in the surface horizons to moderatelyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usually OrthicHumic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Lincoln soils are poorlydrained and slowly permeable . Groundwater is present in mosthorizons of Lincoln soils for long periods each year. Theyhavehigh moisture-holding capacities, but can be droughty duringdry periods because of the high moisture retention by theclayey textures . Surface runoff may be slow orrapid dependingon the incidence of surface cracks .Commonly Associated Soils Haldimand (HIM) andSmithville (SHV) soils are most commonly associated withLincoln soils as subdominant components in map units LIC 2and LIC 3, respectively. Haldimand soils are imperfectlydrained and Smithville soils are moderatelywell-drained . Bothhave similar soil materials as Lincoln soils .Land Use and Management Lincoln soils, because oftheir high clay content and poor drainage, are not particularlywell-suited to agricultural use. There is some use of these soilsin Brant County for general field crops, particularly corn,spring grain and hay if artificial drainage has been established .In their natural undrained condition, woodland or unimprovedpasture is the common land use.Maryhill Soils (MYL)General Description Maryhill soils are formed on loamor silt loam sediments 40 to 100 cm deep overlying loam glacialtill . They are poorly drained .Surface Ap horizons consist of 25 to 30 cm of silt loammoderately high in organic matter content . The thickness ofthese horizons is enhanced through deposition of eroded soilmaterial from upper slope positions . Brownish-coloured Bmhorizons with distinct mottles underlie the surface horizons .They are loam or silt loam in texture . The Ck horizonsoften areweakly calcareous in their upper part and strongly calcareousat depth . They occur at a depth of about 75 cm . They also areloam to silt loam in texture and have distinct mottles . Soil reactionof Maryhill soils is neutral ranging to slightly alkaline inthe Ck horizon . Soil classification is Orthic Humic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Maryhill soils are poorlydrained and moderately to slowly permeable. Groundwater ispresent in most horizons of Maryhill soils for relatively longperiods . They have high moisture-holding capacities due totheir high organic matter and silt contents . Surface runofffrom Maryhill soils is slow.Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) and Stayner(STN) soils are more commonly associated with Maryhillsoils as subdominant components in map units MYL 2 andMYL 3, respectively. Granby soils also are poorly drained, buthave adeep sandy veneer overlying the loamy textured subsoil .Stayner soils are very poorly drained, and have well decomposedorganic layers 40 to 100 cm thick overlying sandy subsoilcharacteristic of Granby soils .Land Use and Management Maryhill soils have moderatelysevere wetness limitations for agriculturaluse in their naturalcondition . However, they are good agricultural soils ifdrainage has been artificially improved . Grain corn, silagecorn and spring grains are the crops that do best under drainedconditions . Maryhill soils are very productive for most commercialtree species in spite of their wetness limitations for agriculturaluses .Muriel Soils (MUDGeneral Description Muriel soils have developed on glacialtill mainly of silty clay loam texture. They are moderatelywell-drained .Surface Ap horizons are usually composed of approximately20 cm of silt loam texture, although textures may rangefrom sandy loam to clay loam . The organic matter contents ofthe surface horizons average nearly 3% . Underlying Bm horizonsextend to a depth of 30 to 35 cm . They range from siltloam to clay loam in texture. Distinctive brown to dark-brownBt horizons with blocky structure are characteristic of Murielsoils . They are usually silty clay loam in texture and are oftencompacted to a semi-hardpan consistency . The calcareous Ckhorizons usually commence at a depth between 50 and 75 cm .It is silty clay loam in texture and is strongly to very stronglycalcareous . Soil reaction of Muriel soils ranges from neutral inthe surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soilclassification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Muriel soils are moderatelywell-drained and moderately to slowly permeable.Groundwater derived from seepage or runoff may occupy thesurface horizons for brief periods during the growing season .Muriel soils have moderately high water-holding capacitiesand high runoff. On sloping topography they tend to developdroughty conditions during prolonged dry spells as a consequenceof excessive runoff .

Commonly Associated Soils Gobles (GOB), Kelvin(KVN), Bookton (BOO) and Berrien (BRR) are most commonlyassociated with Muriel soils as subdominant components in map units MUI 2, MUI 4, MUI 6 and MUI 14,respectively. Gobles and Kelvin soils are imperfectly drainedand poorly drained, respectively, with soil materials similar toMuriel . Bookton and Berrien soils have 40 to 100 cm of sandyveneer overlying the clayey subsoil which is characteristic ofMuriel soils.Land Use and Management Muriel soils are good agriculturalsoils, except on steep slopes where topographic anderosion limitations occur. Compaction and development ofhardpans are fairly common on Muriel soils, where erosion hasresulted in loss of organic matter in the surface horizon . Theyare utilized extensively for grain corn and soybeans, with lesseruse for small grains and hay crops . Muriel soils can beimproved by tile drainage where wet spots and seepage areasoccur.Oakland Soils (OWGeneral Soil Description Oakland soils have developedon sandy loam to sand textures 40 to 100 cm deep overlyinggravelly loam to loam glacial till . They are imperfectlydrained .Surface horizons of Oakland soils usually consist of 20 to30 cm offine sandy loam . They have relativelyhigh contents oforganic matter ranging from 4 to 6°10 . Bm horizons underliethe surface layer to a maximum depth of 35 cm . They are mottled,and medium to fine sand in texture . The Bt horizons usuallyhave a significant increase in clay content compared to thehorizons above it, and may range from fine sandy loam toloamy sand texture . Glacial till subsoils occur at a depth of 50to 70 cm . They are loam to gravelly loam in texture, and arestrongly calcareous . Soil reaction ofOakland soils ranges fromneutral in the surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the tillsubsoil . Soil classification is Gleyed Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Oakland soils are imperfectlydrained and rapidly permeable. The groundwater tablemay rise within all subsurface horizons during the winter andspring, but recedes to considerable depth in the subsoil duringthe dry summer period . Seepage may occur at the sand-glacialtill interface due to the reduced permeability ofthe glacial till incomparison to the sandy overburden . Oakland soils have lowwater-holding capacities and slow surface runoff.Commonly Associated Soils Scotland (STD) andVanessa (VSS) soils often occur in close association with Oaklandsoils. Such associations occur in map units OKL 2 andOKL 3, respectively. Scotland and Vanessa soils have developedon parent materials similar to Oakland soils, but are welland poorly drained, respectively.Land Use and Management Oakland soils are goodagricultural soils often used for graincorn, tobacco and winterwheat . Specialty crops such as tomatoes and peppers also maybe grown successfully. Tile drainage may be beneficial for theproduction of high-value specialty crops as it improves thechances of early planting . It also may be a necessary managementpractice for certain tree fruits . Supplemental irrigation isrequired for tobacco and most vegetable crops .Plainfield Soils (PFD)General Soil Description Plainfield soils are developedon loamy fine sand and fine sand glaciolacustrine sedimentswhich have been modified by eolian activity. They are rapidlydrained .Surface horizons of Plainfield soils are about 15 to 20 cmthick and loamy fine sand in texture . They are relatively low inorganic matter content, averaging around 2% . Plainfield soilshave relatively deep and uniform B horizons extending to adepth of 70 to 100 cm . They are generally structureless and finesand in texture . The C horizons are usually weakly calcareousin the upper portion, but gradually become moderately orstrongly calcareous at depth . They too are fine sand in texture.Soil reaction of Plainfield soils is medium to slightly acidic inthe surface and subsurface horizons, and neutral to mildlyalkaline in the lower subsoil horizons . Soil classification is usuallyOrthicMelanicBrunisol, but Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisolsalso may occur.Soil Moisture Characteristics Plainfield soils arerapidlydrained and rapidly permeable . They have low moistureholdingcapacities, and crops are normally affected by droughtthroughout much of the growing season . Runoff is slow onlevel to very gently sloping topography, but is moderate asslopes become steeper .Commonly Associated Soils Walsingham (WAM) andWaterin (WRN) are the most common soils associated withPlainfield in map units PFD 3 and PFD 4, respectively. Theyhave similar parent materials as Plainfield soils, but are imperfectlyand poorly drained . Occasionally, Plainfield soils occurin association with FOX soils . Although both soils are rapidlydrained, and are both formed on sandy-textured parent materials,FOX soils have a distinctive clay increase in their B horizonwhich distinguishes them from Plainfield soils .Land Use and Management Plainfield soils havedroughtiness limitations for most crops. They are used extensivelyfor tobacco production where sprinkler irrigation provides supplemental soil moisture. Other specialtycrops such aspotatoes, asparagus and apples are also occasionally grown onPlainfield soils under supplemental irrigation .Scotland Soils (STD)General Soil Description Scotland soils have developedon sandy loam andloamy sand textures 40to 100 cm deep overlyinggravelly loam and sandy loam glacial till . They are welldrained.Surface horizons of Scotland soilsconsist of 20 to 25 cm ofsandy loam or loamy sand . They are moderate to low inorganic matter content . Similar textures occur in the underlying B horizons to a depth of 50 to 65 cm, where the gravellytexturedglacial till subsoil is encountered . Bt horizonsgenerally occur at the transitional zone between the sandytexturedoverburden and the gravelly till . The Ck horizons arenormally gravelly loam or sandy loam in texture and arestrongly calcareous . Soil reaction ranges from near neutral inthe surface horizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soilclassification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Scotland soils are welldrainedand rapidly permeable. They have low water-holdingcapacity and slow surface runoff where the topography isgently undulating . On topography where slopes exceed 6°10,runoff is moderate.Commonly Associated Soils Oakland (OKL), Waterin(WRN), Wilsonville (WIL) and Fox (FOX) soils are often associatesof Scotland soils in map units STD 2, STD 8, STD 4 andSTD 6 map units, respectively. Oakland soils have developedon similar parent material to,Scotland soils, but are imperfectlydrained . Waterin soils are poorly drained and occur ondeep (greater than 1 m) sandy materials . Wilsonville soilsoccur where the sandy veneer becomes progressively thinnerand the gravelly loam glacial till dominates the soil profile. Foxsoils are rapidly drained like Scotland soils, but occur on deepsandy-textured deposits in the landscape .Land Use and Management Scotland soils are fairlygood soils for general field crops such as grain corn and soybeansfor which they have droughtiness limitations . Theirgreatest value for agricultural use is for specialty crops such astobacco where supplemental irrigation is provided . They arebeing used increasingly for crops such as ginseng in recentyears . Vegetable crops, including potatoes, asparagus, tomatoesand peppers also are produced commercially on Scotlandsoils .Seneca Soils (SNA)General Soil Description Seneca soils have developed onloam to gravelly loam textured glacial till . They are welldrained.Surface Ap horizons ofSeneca soils are about 15 cm thickand usually loam or silt loam in texture with minor amounts ofgravel present . The organic matter contents ofthe surface horizons are low, averaging around 2% . The underlying Bt and Ckhorizons contain slightly higher amounts of gravel with usualtextures of gravelly loam . In most cases, the soil profile is relativelyshallow, with Ck horizons occurring at a depth of 40 to50 cm . They can be very strongly calcareous . In fact, it is notuncommon to have carbonates present in all horizons of thesoil profile . Soil reaction is near neutral in the surface horizonto moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usuallyBrunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Seneca soils are welldrainedand rapidly permeable. They have medium waterholdingcapacities . Surface runoff from Seneca soils ismoderate to rapid, as they generally occur on slopingtopography.Commonly Associated Soils Seneca soils are mappedonly in pure map units, as they tend to occur in discretedrumlinized landforms in Brant County. Clayey-texturedHaldimand soils normally occur around the base of thedrumlins .Land Use and Management Seneca soils are good agriculturalsoils, well-suited to general field crops such as corn,small grains and forages . Careful conservation managementpractices are required to control erosion on sloping topography,where past erosion has often been severe . Moderate stoninesscanbe a limitationin the use ofSeneca soils .Smithville Soils (SHV)General Soil Description Smithville soils have developedon silty clay and heavy clay glaciolacustrine materials .They are moderately well-drained .Surface horizons of Smithville soils consist of 15 to 20 cmof silty clayloam . Under cultivated conditions, they are moderatelylow in organic matter content . The subsurface B horizonsof Smithville soils are silty clay to heavy clay in texture withprismatic to angular blocky structure. Distinct mottles aresometimes apparent in the upper portion of the B horizons,indicative of temporary perched water table conditions . Thelower B horizons and Ck horizons of Smithville soils show evidenceof horizontal layering characteristic of deep-water glaciolacustrinedeposits, and consist of alternating layers ofheavy clay and silty clay. The Ck horizons, which are stronglycalcareous, occur at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 cm . Soilreaction ofSmithville soils ranges from strongly acidic to neutralin the surface horizons, to moderately alkaline in the subsoil. Soil classification is usually Brunisolic Gray BrownLuvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Smithville soils are moderatelywell-drained and slowly permeable. Groundwater ispresent in the upper subsoil horizons for short periods duringthe growing season due to the low permeability of the subsoil .Smithville soils have high water-holding capacities, but may bedroughty during prolonged dry periods due to slow moisturerelease by the clay. Surface runoff is rapid .Commonly Associated Soils Smithville soils are commonlyassociated with Haldimand (HIM), Lincoln (LIC),Bookton (BOO) and Alluvial soils (4-ALU) in map units SHV4, SHV 5, SHV 7 and SHV 21, respectively. Haldimand andLincoln soils have similar parent material to Smithville soils,but are imperfect and poorly drained . Bookton soils are welldrained,but differ in having 40 to 100 cm of sandy texturesoverlying the clayey material characteristic of Smithville soils .Alluvial soils occur along the floodplains of present-daystream valleys, with Smithville soils occupying the steep valleyslopes in map unit SHV 21 .LandUse and Management Smithville soils are fair soilsfor agricultural use. Their main limitation is related to theirhigh clay content which contributes to extremely hard anddense soil structure. Soil erosion can be severe on slopingtopography. Grain corn, soybeans, winter wheat and hay cropsare produced on Smithville soils .Stayner Soils (STN)General Soil Description Stayner soils have developedon organic materials 40 to 100 cm thick over sandy textures oflacustrine or fluvial origin . They are very poorly drained .The organic horizons are comprised of well-decomposedorganic matter extending to an approximate depth of 60 cm .The underlying mineral material is usually sand-textured andis calcareous. Soil classification of Stayner soils is usually TerricHumisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Stayner soils are verypoorly drained . They are rapidly permeable but are saturatedwith groundwater almost continuously, unless artificiallydrained . They have high water-holding capacities and veryslow surface runoff.

Commonly Associated Soils Ayr (AYR) soils are mostcommonly associated with Stayner soils as subdominant componentsin map unit STN 2 . Ayr soils are poorly drained, andalso differ from Stayner soils in having less than 40 cm oforganic materials overlying sandy and gravelly-texturedsubsoil .LandUse and Management Stayner soils, to a very largeextent, presently remain under swamp forest vegetation . Theywould require extensive clearing and drainage to be of any agriculturaluse, and the advisability of this is questionable.Styx Soils (SYX)General Soil Description Styx soils have developed onorganic materials greater than 160 cm in depth . They are verypoorly drained . The organic horizons are all well-decomposedand are relatively uniform with depth . In the lower horizons,there is a slight increase in undecomposed plant remains, mostcommonly woody material . Soil classification is usually TypicHumisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Styx soils are very poorlydrained . They are rapidly permeable, but are saturated withgroundwater for most of the year unless artificially drained .They have high water-holding capacities and have very slowsurface runoff.Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) and Colwood(CWO) soils are most commonly associated with Styxsoils as subdominant components in map units SYX 3 andSYX 4, respectively. They differ from Styx soils in beingpoorlydrained, and consisting of shallow organic layers less than 40cm in thickness overlying mineral materials. The mineralmaterials in Granby soils are lacustrine sand or loamy sand,whereasthey are lacustrine silt loam in Colwood soils .Land Use and Management Styx soils remain largelyunder swamp forest vegetation . If cleared and drained, theyhave some potential for vegetable production, but this is generally not considered advisable from an environmentalperspective .TeeswaterSoils (TEW)General Soil Description Teeswater soils have developedon silt loam or loam textures 40 to 100 cm deep overlying gravellysand orgravel . They are well-drained .Surface horizons of Teeswater soils are usually around 20cm in depth and loam or silt loam in texture. They have moderateorganic matter contents ranging from 3 to 4% . The underlying brownish-colouredBm horizons extend to depths of 35 to45 cm . They are typically silt loam in texture. Distinctive darkbrownBt horizons with pronounced increases in clay contentoccur at the contact with the gravelly subsoil . They range fromloam to clay loam in texture and have a low gravel content . Thetransition to gravelly Ck horizons is abrupt, occurring atdepths of50 to 75 cm . They are usually gravelly loamy sand intexture and are strongly calcareous . Soil reaction of Teeswatersoils ranges from slightly acidic to neutral in the surface horizons,to moderately alkaline in the gravelly subsoil layers . Soilclassification is Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Teeswater soils are welldrained. They are only moderately permeable in the loamytexturedsurface horizons, but are rapidly permeable in thegravelly subsoil . Similarly, the moisture-holding capacity ofthe surficial materials is moderate, and is enhanced considerablyby the large increase in clay in the Bt horizon . The gravellysubsoil has a low moisture-holding capacity. Surface runofffrom Teeswater soils can be moderate to high, the latter occurringon sloping topography.Commonly Associated Soils The most commonlyoccurring associates of Teeswater soils include Colwood(CWO), Burford (BUF) and Fox (FOX) soils in map unitsTEW 3, TEW 4 and TEW 5, respectively. Colwood soils arepoorly drained and occur on deep silt loam materials . Burfordsoils are rapidly drained and consist largely of gravellytexturedmaterials . Fox soils, likewise, are rapidly drained andare formed on deep sandy textured soil materials .Land Use and Management Teeswater soils are verygood soils for agricultural use. Theyhave no significant limitationswhich affect or limit use, except on complex topographywhere slopes exceed 3 070 . Careful management to prevent erosionon sloping topography is essential . Teeswater soils areused extensively for common agricultural crops such as graincorn and forage crops . Specialty crops such as tobacco andpotatoes are relatively common on these soils where supplementalirrigation is available.Toledo Soils (TLD)General Soil Description Toledo soils have developed onglaciolacustrine sediments of silty clay loam or silty clay textures. They are poorly drained .Surface horizons of Toledo soils usually consist of about20 cm of silty clay loam, with loam textures sometimes occurring. Theyare generally high in organic matter. The underlyingBg horizons are gleyed and strongly mottled . They are usuallysomewhat heavier in texture than the surface horizons, rangingfrom clay loam to silty clay. The calcareous Ckg horizons areencountered at a depth between 40 and 50 cm . They are siltyclay loam or silty clay in texture and strongly calcareous . Soilreaction of Toledo soils ranges from near neutral in the surfacehorizons to moderately alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationis usually OrthicHumic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Toledo soils are poorlydrained . Occasionally, peaty phase Toledo soils occur whichare very poorly drained . They usually are slowly permeable.Because of their high clay content, surface cracking is commonduring prolonged dry conditions, and short-lived moderatepermeability may occur. Groundwater levels are near the surfaceexcept for short periods during the summer when theysubside, or if the soil is artificially drained . Toledo soils havehigh water-holding capacities. Surface runoff is usually moderate,but increases substantially ifthere is significant slope .Commonly Associated Soils Beverly (BVY) soils are themost common associates of Toledo soils, occurring as the subdominantcomponent in the TLD 7 map unit . They have similar parent material as Toledo soils but are imperfectly drained .Land Use and Management Toledo soils are fair soils foragricultural use. Their relatively high clay contents and tendencyto develop massive subsoil structure creates problemswith slow drainage . They require artificial drainage for successfulproduction of common field crops . Grain corn, soybeansand spring grain are grown on drained Toledo soils .

Tuscola Soils (TUC)General Soil Description Tuscola soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments of silt loam or very fine sandyloam textures. They are imperfectly drained .Surface horizons of Tuscola soils consist of20 to 25 cm ofsilt loam or very fine sandy loam of moderate organic mattercontent . The underlying horizons have distinct or prominentmottles which are yellow to brownish-yellow in colour . The texturesof the subsoil horizons ranges from silt loam inthe upperportion of the B horizons to clay loam in the Bt, and very finesandy loam in the Ckg horizons . Depth to the calcareous Chorizons are variable due to the wavy and tongueing nature ofthe overlying Btg horizons, ranging from about 40 to 100 cm.Soil reaction of Tuscola soils ranges from neutral in the surfacehorizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification isusually Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Tuscola soils are imperfectlydrained . The surface horizons are moderately permeable,but subsurface horizons may be slowly permeable as aresult of their increase in clay content, or because of compactionby use ofheavy machinery. Tuscola soils may have temporaryhigh water tables which normally recede early in thegrowing season, and have minimum interference with plantgrowth . Tuscola soils have high water-holding capacities, andmoderate to high surface runoff, depending on slope.Commonly Associated Soils Brant (BRT) and Colwood(CWO) soils are the most common associates of Tuscola soilsoccurring as subdominant components in .map units TUC 3and TUC 4 . They have similar textures as Tuscola soils, but differin being well and imperfectly drained, respectively. Fox(FOX) soils also may occur in association with Tuscola soils inmap unitTUC 9, where sandy-textured, well to rapidly draineduplands occur inlandscapes dominated by Tuscola soils.Land Use and Management Tuscola soils are very goodagricultural soils for most field and horticultural crops . Tiledrainage is installed in some Tuscola soils under intensive useto remove wet spots and improve the timeliness of field operations. Corn, soybeans, tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers arethe most common cropsgrown on Tuscola soils .Vanessa Soils (VSS)General Soil Description Vanessa soils have developedon loamy sand and sandy loam textures overlying loamy glacialtill . They are poorly drained .Surface horizons of Vanessa soils consist of about 20 to 30cm offine sandyloam texture, with a relatively high content oforganic matter. The upper subsoil horizons in the sandy material are loamy finesand to medium sandy loamin texture. Theyare strongly gleyed and mottled . The underlying glacial till subsoilsare encountered at depths of50to 80 cm . They are usuallyloam in texture and have low gravel contents . The C-horizonsusually begin near the sand-glacial till contact and are stronglycalcareous . They are loam to gravelly loam in texture . Soil reactionof Vanessa soils ranges from slightly acidic in the sandysurficial material to mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classificationis usually Orthic Humic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Vanessa soils are poorlydrained . The surface horizons have high permeability ; however,the permeability of subsoil horizons in the glacial tillmaterial is moderate. Groundwater levels are at or nearthe surfacefor much of the year, receding significantly only duringthe dry summer period . Vanessa soils have low water-holdingcapacities and low runoff .Commonly Associated Soils Granby (GNY) soils are themost common associates of Vanessa soils as the subdominantcomponent in map unit VSS 7 . Granby soils are poorly drainedlike Vanessa soils, but occur where the sandy textures exceed 1metre in depth .Land Use and Management Vanessa soils require tiledrainage before they can be utilized for agricultural crops .Drained Vanessa soils are used for corn, spring grain and occasionallyvegetable crops .Walsingham Soils (WAM)General Soil Description Walsingham soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments of loamy sand and sandtextures . They are imperfectly drained .Surface horizons of Walsingham soils range from 15 to 20cm in depth and are loamy sand or sandy loam in texture. Theyhave moderate organic matter contents ranging from 4 to 6% .The subsoil horizons are uniform fine sand in texture, withprominent reddish-brown mottles present in the lower subsoilhorizons . The Ck horizons are moderately calcareous and generallyoccur between 60 and 90 cm depth . Soil reaction ofWalsingham soils ranges from medium acidic in the surfacehorizons to mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification isGleyed Orthic Melanic Brunisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Walsingham soils areimperfectly drained . They are rapidly permeable, but highregional groundwater tables maintain water table levels nearthe surface during the winter and spring . Dry summer conditionscause the water table to drop quite drastically, so thatdroughty conditions may prevail . Walsingham soils have lowwater-holding capacities and surface runoff is slow .Commonly Associated Soils Plainfield (PFD) andWaterin (WRN) soils are commonly associated withWalsingham soils as subdominant components in map unitsWAM 2 and WAM 3 . They have similar parent material, butare rapidly drained and poorly drained, respectively.Land Use and Management Walsingham soils are usedfor a wide range of crops in the County. They are used extensivelyfor flue-cured tobacco and less commonly for specialtycrops such as potatoes, peppers and ginseng . These cropsrequire supplemental irrigation or other specialized managementpractices . Common field crops such as winter wheat andfall rye produce well on Walsingham soils, whereas crops suchas grain corn often suffer from summer droughtiness .Waterin Soils (WRN)General Soil Description Waterin soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments ofloamy sand and sand textures .They are poorly drained .Surface horizons of Waterin soils consist of 20 to 30 cm ofsandy loam texture . The organic matter contents of these horizonsare generally high, ranging from 4 to 8% . Peaty phaseWaterin soils are not uncommon, with very high organic matterlevels in the surface layer. Subsoil horizons are uniformlyfine sand in texture with prominent dark reddish-brown mottlesincreasing in abundance with depth . The calcareous Ckghorizons occur at varying depths, ranging from 70 to morethan 100 cm . They are usually mildly calcareous . Soil reactionof Waterin soils ranges from neutral in the surface horizons tomildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is OrthicHumic Gleysol .

Soil Moisture Characteristics Waterin soils are poorlydrained and peatyphase Waterin soils are very poorly drained .They are rapidly permeable. The poor drainage is a consequence of high regional groundwater levels, which maintainthe water table at or near the surface during much of the year.The surface horizons of Waterin soils have a high waterholdingcapacity, but in the subsoil horizons the water-holdingcapacity is verylow. Surface runofffrom Waterin soils is slow.Commonly Associated Soils Walsingham (WAM) soilsare commonly associated with Waterin soils as the subdominantcomponent in the WRN 10 map unit . They have similarparent material, but Walsingham soils are imperfectlydrained .Land Use and Management Most Waterin soils areunder wooded vegetation in their natural condition . Artificialdrainage is required before they can be used succcessfully foragricultural crops . When drained, common field crops such ascorn and spring grains, and even specialty crops, such astobacco, are grown . Waterin soils also have potential for vegetablecrop production when drained .Waterloo Soils (WTO)General Soil Description Waterloo soils have developedon glaciolacustrine sediments of very fine sandy loam andloamy fine sand textures . They are well-drained .Surface Ap horizons of Waterloo soils consist of 10 to 20cm of very fine sandyloam texture . They are moderate to low inorganic matter content . The underlying Bm horizons areloamy fine sand in texture, and usually extend to depths of 35to 45 cm . The Bt horizons, which have a significant increase inclay content and fine sandy loam texture, extend to variabledepths ranging from about 45 to 100 cm . They have a wavy,tongueing boundary with the underlying Ck horizons . The Ckhorizons consist of well-sorted, stratified fine and very finesands, which are mildly calcareous . Soil reaction of Waterloosoils ranges from strongly acidic in the surface horizons tomildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usuallyBrunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Waterloo soils are welldrained. They are moderately permeable, but permeability willdecrease at the contact with the Bt horizon, or if soil compaction has occurred . They have moderate water-holding capacities. Surface runoff can be high and increases markedly onsloping topography.Commonly Associated Soils Heidelberg (HIG) and Colwood(CWO) soils are commonly associated with Waterloosoils as the subdominant components in map units WTO 2 andWTO 3 . They have similar parent materials, but Heidelbergsoils are imperfectly drained and Colwood soils are poorlydrained . Fox (FOX) soils are also associates in the WTO 4 mapunit, where soil textures of loamy sand and sand occur.Land Use and Management Waterloo soils are verygood agricultural soils for a range of crops . They have a slightmoisture deficiency, which affects the production of certaincrops . They are commonly used for field crops such as graincorn, and for some specialty crops such as tobacco and vegetables.With supplemental irrigation, Waterloo soils are highlyproductive for these crops .Wauseon Soils (WUS)General Soil Description Wauseon soils have developedon sandy lacustrine veneer 40 to 100 cm thick overlying clayloam or silty clay lacustrine deposits . Occasionally, till phasesof Wauseon soils occur, where the underlying soil material isclay loam glacial till . They are poorly drained soils .Surface Ap horizons of Wauseon soils consist of 20 to 25cm of sandy loam texture . They are usually high in organicmatter content . Textures of the sandy subsoil range fromloamy sand to sand . Where the sandy textures overlie lacustrinematerial, silty clay loam or silty clay textures usuallyoccur. If the underlying material consists of glacial till, clayloam textures are more common . The heavy-textured subsoilsare usually found at depths between 40 and 60 cm, which correspondswith the top of the Btg horizon . They are gleyed andstrongly mottled . The Ckg horizons are usually stronglycalcareous and rangein texture from clay loam to silty clay. Soilreaction of Wauseon soils is neutral in the surface horizons andmildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is usuallyOrthic Humic Gleysol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Wauseon soils are mostoften poorly drained, although peaty phase Wauseon soils dooccur which are very poorly drained . The poor drainage is dueto the groundwater levels being at or near the soil surface formuch of the year. High groundwater levels are caused by thepresence ofimpermeable subsoil within I metre of the surface.Wauseon soils have high moisture-holding capacities in theorganic-rich surface horizon, but low moisture-holding capacitiesin the sandy subsoil . They once again become high in theclayey-textured subsoil . Surface runoff from Wauseon soilsis slow.Commonly Associated Soils Berrien (BRR) andWaterin (WRN) soils are commonly associated with Wauseonsoils as subdominant components in map units WUS 4 andWUS 15 . Berrien soils have similar parent materials as Wauseonsoils but are imperfectly drained . Waterin soils are comprisedentirely of the sandy-textured materials and are poorlydrained .Land Use and Management In their natural condition,Wauseon soils largely remain in wooded vegetation . Artificialdrainage is required before agricultural use is feasible. DrainedWauseon soils are used for grain corn, soybeans, and occasionallyfor tobacco .Wilsonville Soils (WIL)General Soil Description Wilsonville soils have developedon gravelly sandy loam glacial till materials . They arerapidly drained .Ap horizons ofWilsonville soils consist of about 20 cm ofloam or sandyloam textures . They are relatively low in organicmatter content, averaging about 3% . The upper subsoil horizons are usually sandy loam in texture with a small amount ofgravel present . The gravel content increases in the Bt horizonswith textures of loam or gravelly loam, and a further increasein gravel occurs in the Ck horizons . Textures in the latter horizonare gravelly sandy loam. The Bt horizons occur at varyingdepths ranging from about 25 cm at the top of the horizon toabout 65 cm at its contact with the Ck horizon . They have apronounced increase in clay content and distinctive brown to

dark-brown colour . The Ck horizons are strongly calcareousand have a high stone content . Soil reaction of Wilsonville soilsranges from medium acidic in the surface horizons to mildlyalkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is Brunisolic GrayBrown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Wilsonville soils are rapidlydrained and rapidly permeable. They have relatively lowwater-holding capacity. The increased clay content in the Bthorizon enhances the water-holding capacity of this part ofthesolum to a significant extent . Surface runoff varies dependingon slope, being slow on slopes less than 6°7o, but moderate torapid on steeper slopes .Commonly Associated Soils Scotland (STD) soils arethe most common associate of Wilsonville soils as the subdominantcomponent in the WIL 6 map unit . Scotland soils differfrom Wilsonville soils in having a deeper (40-100 cm) overlay ofstone-free sandy material on the glacial till subsoil .Land Use and Management Wilsonville soils are moderatelygood agricultural soils but have limitations because ofmoisture deficiencies, stoniness and, in some cases, steepslopes . They are most commonly used for grain corn, hay andpasture, and with supplemental irrigation for specialty cropssuch as tobacco. Crops such as ginseng are also being establishedon Wilsonville soils .Woolwich Soils (WOW)General Soil Description Woolwich soils havedevelopedon silt loam glaciolacustrine sediments 40-100 cm thick overlyingloam glacial till . They are well-drained .Surface Ap horizons of Woolwich soils are approximately20 cm thick and are silt loam in texture . They are moderate inorganic matter content ranging from 3 to 4% . The subsoilhorizons vary from silt loam to loam in texture, although thereis usually a distinct increase in clay content in the Bt horizons .The Bt horizons vary in depth with their upper boundary ataround 35 cm and lower boundary at approximately 75 cm,extending as tongue-like projections into the Ck horizon . TheCk horizons are comprised of glacial till with a low content ofgravel . Often a thin stoneline occurs at the upper boundary ofthe Ck horizons . They are usually strongly calcareous. Soilreaction of Woolwich soils is neutral in the surface horizonsand mildly alkaline in the subsoil . Soil classification is BrunisolicGray Brown Luvisol .Soil Moisture Characteristics Woolwich soils are welldrainedand moderately permeable. They have medium waterholdingcapacities . Surface runoff can be moderately high . Itincreases markedly as slope increases, and as the organic mattercontent ofthe surface horizon decreases .Commonly Associated Soils Conestogo (CTG), Maryhill(MYL), Guelph (GUP), Brant (BRT) and Tuscola (TUC)are associates of Woolwich soils as subdominant componentsin map unitsWOW 2,WOW 3,WOW 4, WOW 5 andWOW 6,respectively. Conestogo and Maryhill soils have similar parentmaterials as Woolwich soils but are imperfectly and poorlydrained, respectively. Guelph soils have developed completelyon loam glacial till materials similar to those comprising thesubsoil of Woolwich soils . Brant and Tuscola soils have siltyglaciolacustrine parent materials similar to the surficial layerof Woolwich soils. They occur where these silty materialsexceed 1 metre in depth . They are well-drained and imperfectlydrained, respectively.Land Use and Management Woolwich soils are excellentsoils for agricultural use . The only limitations of significanceaffecting their use for field crops are topography and past erosion . Complex slopes exceeding 3 070 have a slight topographiclimitation . . This limitation becomes more severe as slopeincreases . With slopes in excess of 6%, moderate erosion mayoccur, and require special management . Woolwich soils areused extensively for corn, winter wheat, forages and springgrain crops .MISCELLANEOUS LAND UNITSAlluvium (ALU)Alluvial soils deposited on the floodplains of rivers andstreams are very variable in terms of texture and drainage.Where there is extreme variability over short distances, differentiation of these soils has not been attempted and the MiscellaneousLand Unit, ALU, has been used . This land unit hasbeen mapped in portions of the Grand River floodplain, particularlyin its upper reaches, and along Whiternud Creek .Escarpment (ESC)Steep valley sides associated with deeply entrenched anderoding rivers are highly variable in texture, drainage, slopeand profile development . They range in texture from sands andgravel to clays . They are usually rapidly drained and runoff israpid because of steep slopes, but wet spots may occur as aresult of lateral seepage . Slopes are generally greater than 30% .The steep slopes are usually devoid of vegetation, but on gentlerslopes wooded vegetation often persists . This land unit hasbeen mapped most commonly along the Grand River.Marsh (MAR)Marsh consists of areas of shallow water on the groundsurface which persist most of the year. They usually have thinorganic-rich layers overlying variable depths of sedimentarymaterial . The characteristic vegetation ofmarsh areas consistsof various reeds, sedges and grasses . This land unit has beenmapped in small areas, mainly in South Dumfries Township .Urban Land (ULD)These are areas delineated on the map to accommodateconcentrations of urban-related space including built-upareas, parks, golfcourses, railway yards, land-fill sites, etc .

Table 7 . Mean horizon values ofBrant County soilsSoil Nameand CodeHorizonNo. ofSamplesDepth atHorizon Base(cm)Gravel%Sand%Silt%Clay% TextureO.M .%pH inCac1 2CaCO,%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 .9Ck 1 51 0 76 18 6 LS 1 .2 7 .2 20 .72Ck 1 70 80 16 5 GLS 0 .7 7 .2 25 .1Alluvium 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 .1Ckg 4 0 39 45 16 L 1 .6 7 .3 6 .4Alluvium 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 .7Ayr 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 .32Ckg 1 22 2 90 8 GSL 0 .0 7 .6 28 .2Berrien 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 .0Btg 3 65 0 21 40 39 CL 0 .6 6 .8 0 .02Ckg 2 0 4 50 46 SIC 0 .4 7 .5 10 .4Beverly 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 .8Btgj 5 62 0 5 56 39 SICL 0 .7 7 .1 0 .3Ckg 6 0 2 63 35 SICL 0 .3 7 .6 11 .2Bookton 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 .02Bt 8 74 0 11 58 31 SICL 0 .5 7 .4 3 .32Ck 7 1 8 65 27 SICL 0 .2 7 .6 20 .3Brady 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 .4Btgj 4 52 3 79 14 7 LS 0 .6 7 .3 0 .6Ckg 3 0 90 7 3 S 0 .4 7 .5 13 .1Brant 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 .1Bt 6 58 0 13 73 14 SIL 0 .6 7 .3 0 .4Ck 4 1 11 79 10 SIL 0.4 7 .6 11 .2Brantford 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 .1Bt 8 52 0 14 51 35 SICL 0 .9 7 .2 2 .2Ck 7 0 3 61 36 SICL 0 .3 7 .6 18 .0Burford 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 .3Bt 3 76 31 52 28 20 GSCL 0 .9 6 .8 1 .42Ck 2 48 81 13 6 GLS 0 .3 7 .5 20 .7Caledon 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 .22Bt 2 74 29 55 23 22 GSCL 0 .7 7 .4 9 .72Ck 1 34 93 6 1 GS 0 .1 7 .7 27 .3Camilla 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 .32Btgj 2 59 10 54 34 12 SL 1 .0 7 .4 2 .42Ckg 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 .)Soil Nameand CodeHorizonNo. ofSamplesDepth atHorizonBase(cm)Gravel%Sand%SiltFluClay070TextureO.M .%pH inCacl,CaCO,%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 .5Ckg 2 0 43 52 5 SIL 0 .2 7 .5 11 .2Conestogo 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 .2Btg 2 93 0 34 50 16 SIL 0 .6 7 .1 0 .32Ckg 2 4 34 54 12 SIL 0 .4 7 .6 14 .7Dumfries 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 .12Bt 2 99 33 43 36 21 GL 1 .2 6 .9 3 .92Ck 1 55 67 27 7 GSL 0 .4 7 .3 16 .8Fox 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 .2Bt 4 69 1 78 9 13 SL 0 .2 6.6 0 .0Ck 4 3 92 6 2 S 0 .0 7 .5 20 .3Gilford 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 .93Ck 2 36 95 1 4 GS 0 .1 7 .8 26 .2Gobles 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 .4Btgj 3 51 2 21 45 34 CL 0 .9 7 .1 0 .4Ckg 5 1 15 54 31 SICL 0 .2 7 .6 16 .6Granby 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 .0Btg 1 58 0 74 14 12 SL 1 .6 6 .7 0 .1Ckg 2 3 90 6 4 S 0 .6 7 .1 13 .4Guelph 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 .1Bt 6 68 2 36 42 22 L 0 .6 6 .8 0 .4Ck 6 4 34 51 15 L 0 .3 7 .4 16 .2Haldimand 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 .9Btgj 3 52 0 1 44 55 SIC 0 .9 7 .1 0 .3Ckg 7 0 2 23 74 HC 0 .5 7 .6 12 .9Harrisburg 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 .1Bt 2 79 0 11 67 22 SIL 0 .4 6 .4 0 .12Ck 2 0 6 63 31 SICL 0 .2 7 .7 17 .9Heidelberg 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 .2Ckg 1 0 76 20 4 VFSL 0 .4 7 .2 11 .1Kelvin 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 .1Ckg 1 0 11 48 41 SIC 0 .5 7 .3 4.3Lincoln 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 0.0Ckg 4 0 1 40 59 C 0 .0 7 .4 16.2Maryhill 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 .22Ckg 2 3 27 53 20 SIL 0 .4 7 .3 1 .6

Table 7 . Mean horizon values of Brant County soils (Cout'd .)Soil Nameand CodeHorizonNo . ofSamplesDepth atHorizon Base(cm)Gravel%Sand%Silt%Clay% TextureO.M .%pH inCaC1,CaCO,%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 .2Bt 10 65 1 12 49 39 SICL 0 .8 7 .1 1 .5Ck 8 2 11 59 30 SICL 0 .1 7 .5 19.8Oakland 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 .1Btgj 3 57 0 66 18 16 SL 0 .7 6 .9 0 .52Ckg 3 86 3 34 46 20 L 0 .5 7 .3 14 .5Plainfield 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 .1Bm2 2 0 92 6 2 S 0 .4 5 .7 0 .0Scotland 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 .2Bt 5 53 0 55 33 12 SL 0 .6 7 .2 0 .42Ck 4 4 48 40 12 L 0 .8 7 .6 12 .0Seneca 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 .0Ck 2 19 30 51 19 L 0 .0 7 .5 39 .2Smithville 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 .02Bt 2 50 0 1 32 67 HC 0 .8 6 .2 0 .12Ck 1 0 1 29 70 HC 0 .7 7 .4 8 .1Stayner(STN)Styx(SYX)Not applicableNot applicableTeeswater 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 .0Bt 6 77 4 47 30 23 L 0 .7 6 .4 0 .42Ck 1 73 78 14 8 GLS 0 .5 7 .4 22 .0Toledo 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 .4Ckg 6 0 4 55 41 SIC 0 .6 7 .5 15 .7Tuscola 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 .7Btgj 3 52 0 36 43 21 L 0 .7 7 .3 1 .7Ckgj 2 0 72 24 4 SL 0 .0 7 .6 9 .6Vanessa 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 .0Btg 1 58 0 74 12 14 SL 0 .8 6 .6 0 .02Btg 1 63 0 38 35 27 CL 0 .4 7 .0 0 .62Ckg 1 9 30 47 23 L 0 .6 7 .3 22 .2Walsingham 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 .1Ckg 3 0 87 8 5 S 0 .2 7 .2 5 .4Waterin 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 .1Ckg 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 .)Soil Nameand CodeHorizonNo . ofSamplesDepth atHorizon Base(cm)Grave l%Sand%Silt%Clay%TextureO.M .%pH inCaC1,CaCO,%. 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 .1Bt 1 64 0 73 17 10 SL 0 .6 6 .2 0 .0Ck 1 0 93 4 3 S 0 .0 7 .5 11 .8Wauseon 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 .12Btg 1 71 0 25 46 30 CL 0 .4 6 .8 0 .02Ckg 1 13 31 ' 46 23 L 0 .2 7 .3 14 .7Wilsonville 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 .8Bt 4 62 17 39 43 18 L 0 .5 6 .8 4.3Ck 4 33 57 35 8 GSL 0 .3 7 .5 23 .6Woolwich 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 .1Bt 5 53 0 31 47 22 L 0 .8 7 .2 0 .42Ck 8 4 34 52 14 SIL 0 .4 7 .6 14 .4A .SOI I TETATIAGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIFI-CATION FORCOMMON FIELD CROPSThe Canada Land inventory (CLI) was a comprehensiveassessment ofland capability for agriculture, forestry, wildlifeand recreation . The agricultural capability classification forgeneral field crops (12) was derived mainly from informationcollected in earlier soil surveys .AssumptionsThe CLI classification system of land capability for agricultureis based on certain assumptions which the user shouldunderstand before using soil capability tables or maps, to avoidmaking erroneous deductions . These assumptions are asfollows :(a) The soils will be well-managed and cropped under alargely mechanized system .(b) Land requiring improvements, e .g . drainage that can bedone economically by the farmer himself, is classedaccording to its limitations or hazards in use after theimprovements have been made.(c) The following are not considered : distances to market,kind of roads, location or size of farms, type ofownership,cultural patterns, skills or resources of individual operators,and hazard ofcrop damage by storm .(d)The classification includes capabilities of soils for commonfield crops such as forage crops, small grains andcorn . It does not include capabilities for other specialcrops, such as soybeans or tobacco, or for horticulturalcrops .S F(e)AGRICULTURECapability classes are subject to change as new informationon the properties, behaviour and responses of soilsbecomes available. In some cases, technological advancesmay also necessitate changes .In this classification system, mineral soils are grouped intoseven classes according to their potential and limitation foragricultural use for common field crops . Common field cropsinclude corn, oats, wheat, barley and perennial forage cropssuch as alfalfa, grasses and bird's-foot trefoil . Specialty cropssuch as soybeans, white beans, tobacco, fruit and vegetablesare not covered by this classification .The best soils, with no significant limitations for crop use,are designated Class 1 . Soils designated Classes 2 to 6 havedecreasing capability for agriculture, and Class 7 soils have noagricultural potential . A brief outline of each agriculturalcapability class follows .Capability Classification for Mineral SoilsSoil Capability ClassesClass 1- Soils in this class have no significant limitationsin use for crops . These soils are level to very gently sloping,deep, well to imperfectly drained, hold moisture and plantnutrients well . They can be managed and cropped without difficulty.Under good management they are moderately high tohigh in productivity for common field crops.Class 2-Soils in this class have moderate limitations thatrestrict the range of crops or require moderate conservationpractices . These soils are deep and may not hold moisture andnutrients as well as Class 1 soils . The limitations are moderate

and the soils can be managed and cropped with little difficulty.Under good management they are moderately high to high inproductivity for common field crops .Class 3 - Soils in this class have moderately severe limitationsthat restrict the range of crops or require special conservationpractices . The limitations are more severe than for Class2 soils . They affect one or more of the following practices : timingand ease of tillage, planting and harvesting ; choice ofcrops ; and methods ofconservation . Undergood managementthey are fair to moderately high in productivity for commonfield crops .Class 4 - Soils in this class have severe limitations thatrestrict the range of crops or require special conservation practices,or both . The limitations seriously affect one or more ofthe following practices : timing and ease of tillage, planting andharvesting ; choice ofcrops ; and methods ofconservation . Thesoils are lowto fair in productivity for common field crops, butmay have higher productivity for aspecially adapted crop .Class 5 - Soils in this class have very severe limitationsthat restrict their capability to produce perennial forage cropsand improvement practices are feasible. The limitations are soseverethatthe soils are not capable of use for sustained productionof annual field crops . The soils are capable of producingnative or tame species of perennial forage plants, and may beimproved by use of farm machinery. The improvement practicesmay include clearing of bush, cultivation, seeding, fertilizingor water control .Class 6- Soils in this class are capable only of producingperennial forage crops, and improvement practices are not feasible. These soils provide some sustained grazing for farm animals, but the limitations are so severe that improvements byuse of farm machinery are impractical . The terrain may beunsuitable for use of farm machinery, or the soils may notrespond to improvement, or the grazing season may be veryshort .Class 7 - Soils in this class have no capability for arableculture or permanentpasture. This class includes marsh, rocklandand soil on very steep slopes .Soil Capability SubclassesSubclasses are divisions, within classes, that have the samekind of limitations for agricultural use asa resultof soil and climate.Ten different kinds of limitations have been recognized,at the subclass level, in Brant County. They are listed below.Subclass D - Undesirable soil structure and/or permeability.Subclass E - Erosion damage, or potential damage fromerosion, limits agricultural use ofthe land .Subclass F - Low natural fertility which may or may not bepossible to correct by addition of fertilizers ormanure .Subclass I- Inundations by flooding of streams or lakeslimits agriculturaluse.SubclassM -Moisture limitations due to low moistureholdingcapacities cause droughtiness that limitsagricultural use.Subclass P - Stoniness . Stones interfere with tillage, plantingandharvesting .Subclass R - Shallowness to bedrock, which is less thanthree feet from the ground surface .Subclass S- Adverse soil characteristics. Used when two ormore of the limitations represented by SubclassesD, F or M are present, or when two ofthe limitations represented by Subclasses D, For M are present and some additional limitationoccurs, e.g .,TSubclass T - Adverse topography, due to steepness or complexityof slopes, limits agricultural use byincreasing the cost of farming over that of thelevel land, by decreasing the uniformity ofgrowth and maturity of crops, and by increasingthe hazard of erosion damage by water .SubclassW - Excess water, other than from flooding, limitsuse for agriculture. The excess water may bedue to poor drainage, a high water table, seepage,or runoff from surrounding areas .Guidelines for determining most subclasses were obtainedfrom Environment Canada (13) . Assistance in determiningsubclassesW M and D was obtained from a computer programdeveloped by R.A . McBride (14) .Capability Classification for Organic SoilsThe previous discussion on soil capability classificationapplies only to mineral soils and cannot be used for organicsoils .Aseparate capability system has been devised fororganicsoils, using seven capability classes that are determinedaccording to the following soil characteristics : stage ofdecomposition(K), reaction (F), climate (C), substratum texture,wood content (L) and depth of organic soil (H) . Definitions ofthese soil characteristics and how they are used to determineorganic soil capability classes, are discussed by Hoffman andActon (15) . In this classification system, intensive agriculturaluse is assumed, e.g . vegetable production .Organic Soil Capability ClassesClass 1 - Organic soils of this class have no water, topographicalor pH limitations, and are deep and level .Class 2- Organic soils in Class 2 have one limitation thatrestricts their use in a minorway. The limitation maybe woodiness,reaction, flooding, topography, depth or climate.Class 3 - Organic soils in this class have moderatelysevere limitations that restrict the range of crops, or thatrequire special management practices .Class 4 - Soils in this class have limitations that severelyrestrict the range of crops, or require special development andmanagement practices. Reclamation and management costswill be high .Class 5 - Soils of this class have such severe limitationsthat they are restricted to the production ofperennial forage orother specially adapted crops . Large-scale reclamation is notfeasible.Class 6 - Class 6 organic soils are capable of producingonly indigenous crops, and improvements are not feasible.Class 7- Organic soils of this class have no capability foragriculture .Developing organic soils for agricultural use also dependson the feasibility of clearing vegetation, drainage and waterlevel control (15) . These are site-specific factors that are notconsidered for the general organic soil capabilities outlined inTable 8 .(Continued onpage 47)

Procedure for Using Tables for Soil Capability Classeswith Brant County Soil Maps1 . Determine the map unit symbol from the delineation onthe soil map for which the soil capability classification isrequired, e.g .BRT1/C, BF07/B, BFO1/d>c2. Determine the components ofthe map unit in thenumeratorby referring to the legend of the soil map, e .g . BRT1 iscomposed of Brant soils, BF07 is composed of Brantfordand Toledo soils, BFO1 is composed of Brantford soils .3 . Determine the approximate proportions and slopes of themap unit components from the denominator of the mapunit .Example 1 : BRT1/Chas Brant soils on simple C (6-12%) slopes . Reference tothe following table indicates this combination of soils andtopography are capability class 3 T.Example 2 : BF07/Bhas dominant Brantford and subdominant Toledo soils inapproximately 70:30 proportions on simple B (3-6%)slopes . The table indicates this combination of soils andtopography are classes 2DE and 3W respectively. Applyingthe proportions for the soil components as statedabove, the area on the soil map is classified as 70% class2DE and 30% class 3W.Example 3 : BFO 1/d >chas Brantford soils on slopes which are dominantly d(12-20%), and subdominantly c (6-12%) . Reference to thetable indicates a combination of capability classes 4T and3T, i .e . 70% class 4T and 30% class 3T.B. AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY RATINGSFOR SPECIAL CROPSThe CLI soil capability classification system rates land forits ability to produce common field crops such as forages, smallgrains and corn . Less commonly grown field crops and horticultural crops are known as "special crops" . Special cropsrequire amore detailed method of rating soil which is providedby suitability ratings . Agricultural suitability ratings evaluatethe suitability ofthe soil to support productionof specific cropsor cropgroups . For the most part, the suitability ratings for thesoils ofBrantCounty weretaken from either the suitability ratingsfound in the Niagara Region soil survey report (in progress)or the Haldimand-Norfolk soil survey report (16) .Suitability ratings were done for the following specialcrops : potatoes, tobacco, ginseng, peppers, strawberries,beans, cabbage, cauliflower, tomatoes, sweet corn, and apples .The crops were grouped into four main groups based mainlyon their response to soil conditions . Each crop group wasdivided into subgroups made up of one or more crops as shownin Table 9 .Table 9 .Organization of special crops into crop groups andcrop subgroups forthe Brant County regionCrop Group Crop Subgroup Special CropsSoil Suitability ClassesThe soil suitability classification for special crops consistsof seven classes . The best soils, with no significant limitationsfor crop use, are designated as good . Soils designated with theratings fair to good, fair, poor to fair, poor, and very poor, havedecreasing suitability for special crops . Soils with an unsuitablerating have no potential for special crops .Good (G) Soils with slight, if any, limitations togrowth and yields .Fairto Good (F-G) Soils with moderate to slight limitations togrowth and yields .Fair (F)Poor to Fair (P-F)Poor (P)Very Poor (VP)Unsuitable (U)Soils with moderate limitations to growthand yields .Soils with severe to moderate limitationsto growth and yields .Soils with severe limitations to growth andyields .Soils that have very severe limitations forcrop growth .Soils that have very severe limitations andare considered unsuitable for crop growth,even ifdrainage or irrigation are applied .AssumptionsBefore using the soil suitability tables, it is important thatthe user has an understanding of the following assumptionsupon which the classification is based . Although the followingassumptions have been adapted from those outlined in TheCanada Land Inventory Soil Classification for Agriculture(13), they also apply to the suitability ratings .(a)A 1 potatoes2 tobaccoB 1 ginseng2 peppers3 strawberriesC 1 beans2 cabbage, cauliflower,tomatoes, sweet cornD 1 applesGood soil management practices that are feasible andpractical under a largely mechanized system of agricultureare assumed . Thesepractices include a proper fertility program, management practices that result in good soil structureand crop growth, and management programs thatresult in minimum damage or risk of damage to the soil .

(b)(c)Distance to markets, accessibility to transport, location,size of farm, field shape and accessibility to machinery,type of ownership, cultural patterns, skill or resources ofindividual operators, or hazards ofcrop damage by stormsare not considered in this classification system .Soil suitability ratings are subject to change if new technologyor management practices are widely adopted, e .g .drainage or irrigation, or as new information about cropyields or the behaviour and responses of the soils becomesavailable .How to Determine Special Crop Suitability RatingsEach crop subgroup was given a suitability rating for mostofthe map unit components . Organic soils were not rated here,and alluvial soils were generally not rated due to their variabletextures and drainage characteristics .A seven-class rating system was used, with ratings ofgood(G), fair to good (F-G), fair (F), poor to fair (P-F), poor (P),very poor (VP), and unsuitable (U) . Map unit componentsthat were not rated were designated NR . As the slope classincreases, the suitability ratings generally decrease . The rate ofdecrease varies with the crop group, soil texture, drainage andland slope. For example, a Brantford soil on an A (0-3%) slopehas a rating of "G" good for beans, whereas, on a B (3-6 01o)slope the rating is "F-G" (fair to good) .Management factors such as drainage and irrigation mayimprove crop performance for certain crop groups . Thischange is indicated at the bottom of the ratings for each soiltype. A plus (+) sign followed by a number (i .e . + 1, + 2, etc .)indicates the number of classes the ratings are expected toincrease withthe implementation of the specified managementfactor. A dash (-) indicates that there is no anticipated changein the ratings for either of the management factors .Table 10 .Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant CountyMap UnitComponentSoilCodeSlopeClassManagementFactorsAl A2 Bl B2 B3 Cl C2 DIAlluvium 2 2ALU A U U U U U U U UB, b U U U U U U U UDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONAlluvium 3 3ALU A U U U U U U UB, b U U U U U U UDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONAlluvium 4 4-ALU A U U U U U U U UB, b U U U U U U U UDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONAyr AYR A P VP P P VP VP P VPB, b P VP P P VP VP P VPDRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2IRRIGATION - + 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-FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - - +1Brantford BFO A P U P-F F P-F G F FB, b P U P-F P-F P-F F-G P-F FC, c U U P-F P=F P F P-F FD, d U U P P P P-F P P-FE, e U U VP U U U U PDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONBookton BOO A F P-F F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-GB, b F P-F F-G F F-G F F F-GC, c P-F P F-G F F P-F F F-GDRAINAGEIRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Berrien BRR A P-F P P-F F F F F FB,b P-F P P-F P-F F P-F P-F FC, c P VP P-F P-F F P . P-F FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION +1 +1 - - +1 - - -48

Table 10 . Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd .)Map UnitComponentSoilCodeSlopeClassManagementFactorsAl A2 BI B2 B3 Cl C2 DlBrant BRT A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G F-GB, b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G F-GC, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-GD, d P VP F P-F P-F P-F F FE, e U U VP U U U U P-FDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - + 1 -Burford BUF A P-F P-F F-G F F P-F F FB,b P-F P-F F-G P-F F P-F F FC, c P P F-G P-F P-F P P-F FD, d VP VP F P P P P P-FE, e U U VP U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Burford BUECO A P P-F F-G F F P F Fcobbly B, b P P-F F-G P-F F VP F Fphase C, c VP P F-G P-F P-F VP P-F FD, d U VP F P P U P P-FE,e U U VP U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Beverly BVY A VP U VP P-F P F-G P-F P-FB, b VP U VP P P F P P-FC, c U U VP VP VP P-F P P-FDRAINAGE +1 - +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Caledon CAD A F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F FB, b F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F FC, c F P-F F-G F P-F P P-F FDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1Camilla CML A P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-FB,b P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-FC,c P P-F P-F P-F P P P P-FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - - + 1Conestogo CTG A P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G FB, b P-F P P-F P-F F F F FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - -Colwood CWO A P VP P P VP P P PB, b P VP P VP VP VP VP PDRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Dumfries DUF A P P-F F F F P F FB,b P P-F F P-F F VP F FC, c P-F P F P-F P-F VP P-F FD,d VP VP P-F P P U P P-FE, e U U VP U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +l +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Escarpment ESC U U U U U U U U(Continued onpage50)

Table 10 . Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd .)Map UnitComponentSoilCodeSlopeClassManagementFactorsAl A2 B1 B2 B3 Cl C2 DlFox FOX A F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F FB, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F FC, c F F F-G F P-F P P-F FD,d P-F P-F F P-F P P P P-FE, e U U P U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +l +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Fox FOX.C A F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F Fcoarse B, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F P-F F FC, c F F F-G F P-F P P-F FD,d P-F P-F F P-F P P P P-FE, e U U P U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +l +1 +1 - +1 +1Flood Plain FLP U U U U U U U UGilford GFD A VP VP P VP VP VP P VPB, b U VP P VP VP VP P VPDRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Granby GNY A P VP P P VP P P VPB, b P VP P P VP VP P VPDRAINAGE +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +3 +2 +2IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Gravel Pit PIT NOTRATEDGobles GOB A VP U P F P-F F-G F FB, b VP U P P-F P-F F P-F FC, c U U P P-F P P-F P-F FD, d U U VP VP VP P P P-F-DRAINAGE +1 - +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Guelph GUP A P-F U F F-G F F-G F-G F-GB, b P-F U F F F F F F-GC, c P U F F P-F P-F F F-GD, d U U P-F P-F P P P-F FDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Guelph GUP C A F VP F-G G F-G F-G G F-Gcoarse B, b F VP F-G F-G F-G F F-G F-GC, c P-F U F-G F-G F P-F F-G F-GD, d U U F F P-F P F FDRAINAGE - - - - - - -IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Harrisburg HBG A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G GB,b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G GC, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-GDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - + 1 + 1 - - -Heidelberg HIG A P-F P P-F F F F F FB, b P-F P P-F P-F F P-F P-F FC, c P VP P-F P P-F F P-F FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +I +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - + 1

Table 10 . Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd .)Map UnitComponentSoilCodeSlopeClassManagementFactorsAl A2 Bl B2 B3 Cl C2 DlHaldimand HIM A U U U U U F P-F PB, b U U U U U P-F P PC, c U U U U U P P PDRAINAGE - - - - - + 1 + I + 1IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Kelvin KVN A VP U U P VP P P VPB, b VP U U VP VP VP VP VPDRAINAGE +1 - - +2 +2 +2 +2 +2IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Lincoln LIC A U U U U U VP VP VPB, b U U U U U VP VP VPDRAINAGE - - - - - + 1 + 2 + 1IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Lily LIY A VP VP VP VP VP VP P VPB, b VP VP VP VP VP VP VP VPDRAINAGE +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Marsh MAR NOT RATEDMuriel MUI A P U P-F F-G F G F-G F-GB, b P U P-F F F F-G F F-GC, c U U P-F F P-F F F F-GDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -Maryhill MYL A P VP P P VP P P PB, b P VP P VP VP VP P PDRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Osborne OBO A P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G FB, b P-F P P-F P-F F F F FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1IRRIGATION + 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - -Oakland OKL A P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-FB, b P-F F P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-FC, c P P-F P-F P-F P P P P-FDRAINAGE +1 +1 +1 +1 +I - +l +1IRRIGATION +1 +I - +1 +1 - - +1Ohsweken OSE A P VP P P VP P P PB, b P VP P VP VP VP VP PDRAINAGE +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2IRRIGATION - + 1 - - - - - -Plainfield PFD A P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-FB, b P-F F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-F P-FC, c P P-F P-F P P P P P-FD, d U P P U P P U PE, e U U VP U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +I +I +1 - +I +1Seneca SNA A P-F U F F-G F F-G F-G F-GB, b P-F U F F F F F F-GC, c P U F F P-F P-F F F-GD, d U U P-F P-F P P P-F FE, e U U P U U U U P-FDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION - - - - - - - -51 (Continuedonpage52)

Table 10 .Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd.)Map Unit Soil Slope ManagementComponent Code Class FactorsAl A2 BI B2 B3 Cl C2 DlScotland STD A F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F FB, b F-G F F-G F-G F P-F F FC, c F P-F F-G F P-F P P-F FD, d P-F P F P-F P P P P-FSmithville SHV AB, bC, cD, dE, eStayner STN AStyx SYX AE, e U U P U U U U PDRAINAGEIRRIGATION-+1-+1-+1-+1-+1-+1-+1DRAINAGEIRRIGATIONDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONTeeswater TEW AF P-F F-G F-G F-G G F-G F-GB,bF P-F F-G F F-G F-G F F-GC, c P-F P F-G F F F F F-GDRAINAGEIRRIGATION-+1-+1---+1-+1---+1-+1Toledo TLD AB,bTuscola TUC AB, bUrban LandULDVanessa VSS AB, bWalsingham WAM AB, bC, cWilsonville WIL AB, bC, cD, dE, eDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONNOT RATEDDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONDRAINAGEIRRIGATIONVP U U P VP P P VPVP U U VP VP VP VP VP------+2-+1-+2-+2-+2-P-F P P-F F F F-G F-G FP-F P P-F P-F F F F F+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1+ 1 + 1 - - + 1 - - -P VP P P VP VP P VPP VP P P VP VP P VP+3 +1 +3- +3 +2 +2 +2 +2- + 1 - - - - - -P P-F P P P P-F P P-FP P-F P P P P-F P P-FU P P VP VP P VP P-F+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1+ 1 + l - + 1 + 1 - - + 1F P-F F-G F F P-F F FF P-F F-G F F P-F F FP-F P F-G P-F P-F P P-F FP VP F P P P P P-FVP U VP U U U U PDRAINAGE - - - - - - - -IRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1-+1U U U U P F-G F P-FU U U U P F P-F P-FU U U U VP P-F P-F P-FU U U U U P P PU-U-U-U-U-U-U-P-- - - - - - - -VP+ 4-U--U--U--U--VP+ 4-VP+ 2-VP U U U U VP VP U+ 4 - - - - + 4 + 2 -- - - - - - - -

Table 10 . Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in Brant County (Cont'd .)Map UnitComponentSoilCodeSlopeClassManagementFactorsAl A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D1Woolwich WOW A F P-F F-G F-G F-G G G F-GB,b F P-F F-G F F-G F-G F-G F-GC, c P-F P F-G F F F F-G F-GDRAINAGEIRRIGATION +1 +1 - +1 +1Waterin WRN A P VP P P VP VP VP VPB,b P VP P P VP VP VP VPDRAINAGE +2 +1 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2IRRIGATIONWaterloo WTO A F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G FB, b F-G F-G F-G F-G F-G F F FC, c F F F-G F F P-F F FD,d P-F P-F F P-F P-F P P-F P-FDRAINAGEIRRIGATION +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 - +1 +1Wauseon WUS A P VP P P VP P P PB, b P VP P VP VP VP VP PDRAINAGE +2 +1 +2 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2IRRIGATIONC. SOIL EROSION INTERPRETATIONS'Soil Interpretations for Water ErosionSoil erosion by water is a naturally occurring process thatcan be greatly enhanced by man's activity. Any practice thatenhances soil runoffor reduces the natural protection affordedby vegetative cover will generally lead to increasing erosion .Within the agricultural sector, we have become accustomed tothinking of soil erosion as an action that reduces productionpotential, depletes nutrients, and degrades soil . However, studiesin the Canadian Great Lakes basin have illustrated the needto look beyond the on-site effects of soil erosion and considerthe role ofsediments derived from cropland on water quality.Acomprehensive soil conservation program will recognize thisdual nature of the problem associated with soil erosion bywater.The Brant County Soil Survey Report describes in detailthe nature, extent and distribution of soil materials within theCounty. The purpose of this section is to provide interpretations of the water erosion potential of the Brant County soilsand soil landscapes. Specifically, the objectives are as follows :(a) to determine the relative erodibility of surficial soil layers ;(b)(c)(d)to determine the combined effect of soil erodibility andslope on soil erosion potential ;to establish the effects ofcropland on soil erosion potentialand ;to provide a methodology whereby a nomograph andinformation contained in the soil survey report may beused to assess site-specific cropland soil erosion problemsand alternative solutions .The water erosion formula used to predict average annualsoil loss through sheet and rill erosion is the Universal Soil LossEquation (U.S.L.E .) of Wischmeier and Smith (19) whichtakes the formA = RKLSCP where :A = average annual soil lossR = rainfall erosivityK = soil erodibilityL = slope lengthS = slope gradientC = crop cover factorP = management practice factorWhen the numerical values for each variable are multipliedtogether, the product is the average annual soil loss intons/ac/yr. To convert to metric units (tonnes/ha/yr) multiplythe empirical unit value by 2 .24 . It should be emphasized thatthe formula estimates sheet and rill erosion, but does not considersoil losses caused by gully erosion or stream channel erosion. Since the erosion formula does not contain a transport ordelivery factor, it does not predict sediment load of streams .Included in this report is information on the factors of theU.S.L.E . relevant to Brant County. Further details and backgroundinformation on the use ofthe US.L .E . in Ontario havebeen reported elsewhere (17,18) .Rainfall Erosivity (R)The rainfall erosivity index reflects the combined ability ofraindrop impact to dislodge soil particles and runoff to transportthe soil particles from the field . The R factor is the longterm average annual value of the erosion index that rangesfrom a low of 25 to a high of 100 in Ontario. Brant County hasanR-value ofapproximately 80 .'G.J Wall andLJ. Shelton, Agriculture Canada, Guelph, andWT. Dickinson, School ofEngineering, University ofGuelph .53

Soil Map Unit Erosion PotentialThe soils map of Brant County delineates, among otherthings, unique combinations of soil materials and associatedslope gradient and pattern . The combinations of soil and slopeproperties depicted on the soil map are called map units . Table11 illustrates all the combinations of soil and slope that occuron the Brant County soil map. For each of these soil map units,the corresponding slope effects (LS), soil erodibility (K) values, .and average annual soil loss (A) values for bare soil conditionsare reported . Guidelines for establishing LS-values, soil erodibilityvalues and soil erosion potential classes are found inTables 12, 13, and 14 .Table 11 also illustrates the soil erosion potential classesfor each soil map unit for bare soil, corn, and small grain landuses .Site-specific Assessment of Soil Erosion PotentialFigure 14 is a soil erosion nomograph that was designed tofacilitate site-specific assessment of soil erosion potential . Thenomograph may be employed with information contained inthe Brant County Soil Survey Report to assess potential soilloss for various crops and slope conditions, as well as for differentsoil conservation practices .The nomograph is agraphical solution of the universal soilloss equation for the soils of Brant County. Potential soil erosionlosses for a site can be obtained as follows :(a) determine the soil erodibility value from the soil surveyreport (Table 11) or by the method described by Wischmeieret al . (19) ;(b) determine LS-value from on-siteevaluation of slope gradientand slope length . Use LS chart of Wischmeier andSmith (20), to arrive at LS-value (Table 14) ;(c)(d)draw a line between the site-specific K-value and LS-valueto determine the intercept with the pivot line (Figure 14) ;site-specific soil loss potentials for all the land uses listedon the nomograph may be determined by drawing a linefrom the land use under question, through the soil-slopeintercept on the pivot line to the potential soil loss axis.A sample calculation is illustrated as follows :Soil K-value- Conestogo soil = .30Site LS factor = 1 .0Draw a line between K and LS values and find the interceptwith the pivot line. What is the potential soil loss for thesesoil and slope conditions for : a) a soybean crop and b) anorchard crop?A line is drawn from the soybean and orchard crop valueslocated on the land use axis through the intercept on thepivot line to cross the potential soil loss axis . The soybeancrop grown onthese soil and slope conditions has amoderatelysevere erosion potential, while the orchard crop has anegligible soil loss potential .The soil erosion nomograph provides a rapid method toassess the effect of many land uses on soil loss potentials forsite-specific soil and slope conditions . By altering the LS factorto reflect different slope lengths (Table 14), the soil erosionnomograph can also be useful to test field consolidation alternativesthat minimize soil loss potentials . The soil erosionnomograph (Figure 14) in combination with soils informationfrom the Brant County Soil Survey Report can provide muchinformation for farm soil conservation planning .

Table 11 . K-values, Erodbility classesand erosion potential forBrantCounty soils .Soil Map UnitComponentMapSymboland SlopeSoilErodibility(K)ErodibilityClassSlopeEffects(LS)Soil ErosionPotential(A)t/ha/yMap Unit SoilErosion Potential ClassBare Cont . Small Hay/Soil Corn Grains PastureAlluvium2 2ALUA 0.27 2 0.32 15 3 2 1 12ALU B 0.27 2 1 .1 53 5 4 3 1Alluvium 3 3-ALU A 0 .3 2 0.32 17 3 2 1 1Alluvium 4 4ALU A 0.18 1 0.32 10 2 1 1 1Ayr AYR A 0.19 1 0.32 11 2 1 1 1AYR B 0.19 1 1 .1 37 5 3 2 1AYR b 0.19 1 0 .6 20 3 2 1 1AYR C 0.19 1 2 .8 95 5 5 4 1Brady BAYA 0.13 1 0.32 7 1 1 1 1BAY B 0 .13 1 1 .1 26 3 3 2 1BAY C 0.13 1 2 .8 65 5 4 3 1Brantford BFO A 0.37 3 0.32 21 3 2 1 1BFO B 0 .37 3 1 .1 73 5 4 3 1BFO b 0.37 3 0 .6 40 5 3 2 1BFO C 0.37 3 2 .8 186 5 5 5 3BFO c 0.37 3 1 .55 103 5 5 4 2BFO D 0.37 3 5 .14 341 5 5 5 3BFO d 0.37 3 2 .57 170 5 5 5 2BFO E 0.37 3 9 .3 6l7 5 5 5 5Bookton BOO A 0 .31 3 0 .32 18 3 3 1 1BOO B 0 .31 3 1 .1 61 5 5 3 1BOO B 0 .31 3 0 .6 33 4 4 2 1BOO C 0 .31 3 2 .8 156 5 5 5 2BOO c 0 .31 3 1 .55 86 5 5 4 1BOO D 0 .31 3 5 .14 286 5 5 5 3Berrien BRR A 0.33 3 0 .32 18 3 3 1 1BRR B 0 .33 3 1 .1 65 5 5 3 1BRRb 0.33 3 0.6 35 5 5 2 1BRR C 0 .33 3 2 .8 166 5 5 5 2BRR c 0 .33 3 1 .55 92 5 5 4 1BRR D 0 .33 3 5.l4 304 5 5 5 3BRR d 0 .33 3 2.57 152 5 5 5 2Brant BRTA 0.42 4 0.32 24 4 2 2 1BRTB 0 .42 4 1 .1 83 5 5 4 1BRTb 0.42 4 0 .6 45 5 3 3 1BRT C 0 .42 4 2 .8 2l1 5 5 5 3BRT c 0 .42 4 1 .55 1l7 5 5 4 2BRT D 0.42 4 5.14 387 5 5 5 4BRT d 0 .42 4 2 .57 193 5 5 5 3Burford BUF A 0 .31 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1BUF B 0 .3l 3 1 .1 61 5 4 3 1BUF b 0 .31 3 0 .6 33 5 3 2 1BUF C 0 .31 3 2 .8 156 5 5 5 2BUF c 0 .3l 3 1 .55 86 5 5 4 1BUF D 0 .31 3 5 .14 286 5 5 5 3BUF d 0 .31 3 2.57 143 5 5 5 2BUF E 0 .31 3 9 .3 517 5 5 5 4BUF e 0 .3l 3 5 .3 294 5 5 5 3(Continuedonpage 56)

Soil Map UnitComponentTable 11 . K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for Brant County soils (Cont'd .)MapSymboland SlopeSoilErodibility(K)ErodibilityClass56SlopeEffects(LS)Soil ErosionPotential(A)t/ha/yMap UnitSoilErosion Potential ClassBare Cont . Small Hay/Soil Corn Grains PastureBeverly BVY A 0.24 2 0 .32 14 3 2 1 1BVY B 0.24 2 1 .1 47 5 3 3 1BVY b 0.24 2 0.6 26 4 3 2 1BVY C 0.24 2 2 .8 120 5 5 4 2Caledon CAD A 0 .33 3 0.32 19 3 2 1 1CAD B 0 .33 3 1 .1 65 5 4 3 1CAD b 0 .33 3 0 .6 35 5 3 2 1CAD C 0 .33 3 2 .8 166 5 5 5 2CAD c 0 .33 3 1 .55 92 5 5 4 1Camilla CML A 0.24 2 0 .32 14 3 2 1 1CML B 0.24 2 1 .1 47 5 3 3 1CML b 0.24 2 0 .6 26 4 3 2 1Conestogo CTG A 0 .3 2 0.32 17 3 2 1 1CTG B 0 .3 2 1 .1 59 5 4 3 1CTG b 0 .3 2 0 .6 32 4 3 2 1CTG C 0 .3 2 2 .8 151 5 5 5 2CTG c 0 .3 2 1 .55 83 5 5 4 1Colwood CWO A 0 .4 3 0.32 23 4 2 2 1CWO B 0 .4 3 1 .1 79 5 5 3 1CWO b 0 .4 3 0 .6 43 5 3 3 1Dumfries DUF b 0 .35 3 0 .6 38 5 3 2 1DUF C ~,0 .35 3 2 .8 176 5 5 5 2DUF c 0 .35 3 1 .55 97 5 5 4 1DUF D 0 .35 3 5.14 322 5 5 5 3DUF d 0 .35 3 2.57 161 5 5 5 2DUF E 0 .35 3 9 .3 583 5 5 5 5DUF e 0 .35 3 5 .3 332 5 5 5 3Fox FOX A 0.14 1 0.32 8 2 1 1 1FOX B 0.14 1 1 .1 28 4 3 2 1FOX b 0.14 1 0 .6 15 3 2 1 1FOX C 0.14 1 2 .8 70 5 4 3 1FOX c 0.14 1 1 .55 39 5 3 2 1FOX D 0.14 1 5.14 129 5 5 5 2FOX d 0 .14 1 2.57 64 5 4 3 1FOX E 0.14 1 9.3 233 5 5 5 3FOX e 0 .14 1 5 .3 133 5 5 5 2Gilford GFD A 0 .2 2 0 .32 11 2 1 1 1GFD B 0 .2 2 1 .1 39 5 3 2 1GFD b 0 .2 2 0 .6 22 3 2 1 1Granby GNY A 0 .13 1 0.32 7 2 1 1 1GNY B 0.13 1 1 .1 26 4 3 2 1GNY b 0.13 1 0 .6 14 3 2 1 1Gobles GOBA 0 .23 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1GOB B 0.23 2 1 .1 45 5 3 3 1GOB b 0 .23 2 0 .6 25 4 3 2 1GOB C 0 .23 2 2 .8 115 5 5 4 2Guelph GUP A 0.39 3 0.32 22 3 . 2 2 1GUP B 0.39 3 1 .1 77 5 5 3 1GUP b 0.39 3 0 .6 42 5 3 3 1GUP C 0.39 3 2 .8 196 5 5 5 3GUP c 0.39 3 1 .55 108 5 5 4 2GUP D 0.39 3 5.14 359 5 5 5 3GUP d 0 .39 3 2.57 180 5 5 5 2

Table 11 . K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for Brant County soils (Cont'd .)Soil Map UnitComponentMapSymboland SlopeSoilErodibility(K)ErodibilityClassSlopeEffects(LS)Soil ErosionPotential(A)t/ha/yMap Unit SoilErosion Potential ClassBare Cont . Small Hay/Soil Corn Grains PastureHarrisburg HBG A 0 .32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1HBG B 0.32 3 1 .1 63 5 4 3 1HBG b 0 .32 3 0 .6 34 5 3 2 1HBG C 0.32 3 2 .8 161 5 5 5 2HBG c 0.32 3 1 .55 89 5 5 4 1Heidelberg HIG A 0 .41 4 0 .32 24 5 2 2 1HIG B 0 .41 4 1 .1 81 5 5 3 1HIG b 0 .41 4 0 .6 44 5 3 3 1Haldimand HIMA 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1HIM B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1HIMb 0 .22 2 0 .6 24 4 2 2 1HIM C 0.22 2 2 .8 110 5 5 4 2HIM c 0 .22 2 1 .55 61 5 4 3 1Kelvin KVNA 0 .31 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1KVN B 0 .31 3 1 .1 61 5 4 3 1KVN b 0 .31 3 0 .6 33 4 3 2 1Lincoln LIC A 0.22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1LIC B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1LIC b 0.22 2 0 .6 24 4 3 2 1Muriel MUI A 0 .35 3 0 .32 20 3 2 1 1MUI B 0 .35 3 1 .1 69 5 4 3 1MUl b 0 .35 3 0 .6 38 5 3 2 1MUI C 0.35 3 2 .8 176 5 5 5 2MUI c 0 .35 3 1 .55 97 5 5 4 1MUI D 0.35 3 5 .14 322 5 5 5 3MUI d 0.35 3 2 .57 161 5 5 5 2MUI E 0.35 3 9 .3 583 5 5 5 5Maryhill MYL A 0.32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1Oakland OKL A 0.17 2 0.32 10 2 1 1 1OKL B 0.17 2 1 .1 34 5 3 2 1OKL b 0.17 2 0 .6 18 3 2 1 1Plainfield PFD A 0 .1 1 0.32 6 2 1 1 1PFD B 0 .1 1 1 .1 20 3 2 1 1PFD b 0 .1 1 0 .6 11 2 1 1 1PFD C 0 .1 1 2 .8 50 5 4 3 1PFD c 0 .1 1 1 .55 28 4 3 2 1PFD D 0 .1 1 5.14 92 5 5 4 1PFD d 0 .1 1 2.57 46 5 3 3 1PFDE 0 .1 1 9 .3 167 5 5 5 2Smithville SHV A 0 .32 3 0.32 18 3 2 1 1SHV B 0 .32 3 1 .1 63 5 4 3 1SHV b 0 .32 3 0 .6 34 5 3 2 1SHV C 0.32 3 2 .8 161 5 5 5 2SHV c 0 .32 3 1 .55 89 5 5 4 1SHV D 0 .32 3 5 .14 295 5 5 5 3Seneca SNA C 0 .3 2 2 .8 151 5 5 5 2SNAc 0 .3 2 1 .55 83 5 5 4 1SNA 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 .)Soil Map UnitComponentMapSymboland SlopeSoilErodibility(K)ErodibilityClassSlopeEffects(LS)Soil ErosionPotential(A)t/ha/yMap Unit SoilErosion Potential ClassBare Cont . Small Hay/Soil Corn Grains PastureScotland STD A 0.20 2 0.32 11 3 1 1 1STD B 0.20 2 1 .1 39 5 3 2 1STD b 0.20 2 0 .6 22 4 2 1 1STD C 0.20 2 2 .8 100 5 5 4 2STD c 0.20 2 1 .55 56 5 4 3 1STD D 0.20 2 5.14 184 5 5 5 3STD d 0.20 2 2.57 92 5 5 4 1STD E 0 .20 2 9 .3 333 5 5 5 3Stayner STNA 0.24 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1Styx SYX A 0 .24 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1Teeswater TEW A 0 .37 3 0.32 21 3 2 1 1TEW B 0 .37 3 1 .1 73 5 4 3 1TEW b 0 .37 3 0 .6 40 5 3 2 1TEW C 0 .37 3 2 .8 186 5 5 5 3TEW c 0 .37 3 1 .55 103 5 5 4 2Toledo TLD A 0 .26 2 0.32 15 3 2 1 1TLD B 0 .26 2 1 .1 51 5 4 3 1Tuscola TUC A 0 .47 4 0.32 27 4 3 2 1TUC B 0 .47 4 1 .1 93 5 5 4 1TUC b 0 .47 4 0 .6 51 5 5 3 1Vanessa VSS A 0 .22 2 0.32 13 3 1 1 1VSS B 0 .22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 3 1Walsingham WAM A 0 .09 1 0.32 5 1 1 1 1WAM B 0 .09 1 1 .1 18 3 2 1 1WAM b 0 .09 1 0 .6 10 2 1 1 1WAM C 0 .09 1 2 .8 45 5 3 3 1WAM c 0 .09 1 1 .55 25 4 3 2 1Wilsonville WIL B 0 .23 2 1 .1 45 5 3 3 1WIL b 0 .23 2 0 .6 25 4 3 2 1WIL C 0 .23 2 2 .8 115 5 5 4 2WIL c 0 .23 2 1 .55 64 5 4 3 1WILD 0 .23 2 5 .14 212 5 5 5 3WIL d 0 .23 2 2 .57 106 5 5 5 2WIL e 0 .23 2 5 .3 218 5 5 5 3Woolwich WOW A 0 .37 3 0 .32 21 3 2 1 1WOW B 0 .37 3 1 .1 73 5 5 3 1WOW b 0 .37 3 0 .6 40 5 3 2 1Waterin WRN A 0 .1 1 0 .32 6 1 1 1 1WRNB 0 .1 1 1 .1 20 3 2 1 1WRN B 0 .1 1 0 .6 11 2 1 1 1Waterloo WTO A 0 .25 2 0.32 14 3 2 1 1WTO B 0 .25 2 1 .1 49 5 4 3 1WTO b 0 .25 2 0 .6 27 4 3 2 1WTO C 0 .25 2 2 .8 125 5 5 5 2WTO c 0 .25 2 1 .55 69 5 4 3 1Wauseon WUS A 0.22 2 0 .32 13 3 1 1 1WUS B 0.22 2 1 .1 43 5 3 4 1WUS b 0.22 2 0 .6 24 4 2 2 1Wauseon WUS . T A 0.16 2 0 .32 9 2 1 1 1WUS . T B 0.16 2 1 .1 32 4 3 2 1WUS. T b 0.16 2 0 .6 17 3 2 1 158

Table 12.Guidelines for establishing soil erodibility classesClassSoil Erodibili yPotentialK-Value*Soil Characteristics1 Negligible < .152 Slight .15-.303 ModeratelySevere .30-.404 Severe .40-.50Silt and very fine sand < 25% ; >4% organic matter ; veryfine granular structure ;rapid permeability.Silt and very fine sand > 40% ; < 4% organic matter ; medium or coarse granular structure ;moderate permeability.Moderatelyhigh (< 3%) organic matter ; medium or coarse granular structure ;slow to moderate permeability.High ( > 80%) silt andvery fine sand ; low (< 2%) organic matter ; blocky, platyor massivestructure ; 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 classesSoil erosion classSoil erosion potentialt/ha/y soil loss1 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 gradientSlopeSlope Length (m)GradientPercent 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 .1782 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 0.3993 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 0.574 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 0.9985 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 .686 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 .118 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 .1110 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 4.2912 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 5.6614 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 .216 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 .918 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 .820 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

LAND USECROP FACTOR (c)WoodlandOrchards, grass coverPerennial forageHay-pasture rotationCorn, no tillSLOPE FACTOR (LS)5 .92 1 .5 1 .0 .8 .7 .6 0.5 0.4 0 .3POTENTIALSOIL LOSS(tonnes/ha/yr)0.2APPROPRIATE SOILCONSERVATIONMEASURESLand use change.- Perennial forageTobacco - rye yWinter wheatCorn, chisel plow ; mixd grainsCorn in rotation --~Continuous spring --plow cornOrchards, cultivated, no grass cover --~SoybeansContinuous fallplow cornWhite beansCarrots, Potatoes, Onions, TurnipsAsparagus,cabbage,cauliflower, peasContour strip croppingStrip cropping,cross slope-Contour cropping-Cross slope farming0.8 0 .7 0 .6 0.5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 00mSOIL ERODIBILITY (K)Figure 14 .Prediction ofcropland erosion potential and some control alternatives

1 . Johnson, C .M.,1967 . Brant County. A History 1784-1945 .Toronto Oxford University Press .2 . Statistics Canada, 1986. Census ofCanada . Agriculture:Ontario.3 . Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture and Food, 1988 . AgriculturalStatistics for Ontario 1988. Prepared by StatisticalServices Unit, Economics and Policy CoordinationBranch . Publication 20 .4 . Karrow, PF., 1963 . Pleistocene geology of the Hamilton-Galtarea . Ontario Department Mines, GR 16 .5 . Cowan, W.R ., 1972 . Pleistocene geology ofthe Brantfordarea, southern Ontario. Ontario Department of Mines,IMR 37 .6 . Chapman, L .J. and D.F. Putnam, 1966 . Physiography ofSouthern Ontario. University ofToronto Press, Toronto .7 . Guillet,G.R.,1967 . Theclayproductsindustry ofOntario.Ontario Department ofMines, IMR 22 .8 . Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service,1982 . Canadian climate normals, 1951-80 averages,Vol. 4and6.9 . Brown, D.M ., G.A . McKay and L .J. Chapman,1968 . Theclimate ofsouthern Ontario. Climatological studies No. 5 .,Met . Branch, Ontario Department of Transport .10 . Agriculture Canada, 1981 . A soil mapping systemfor Canada: revised. Reportsubmitted to theExpert Committee onSoilSurvey by theMapping System Working Group. LRRIContribution No . 142 .11 . Agriculture Canada, 1978 . The Canadian System of SoilClassification . Canada Soil Survey Committee. ResearchBranch Publication 1646 .REFERENCES12 . Environment Canada, 1976 . Land capability for agriculture.Canada Land Inventory; a preliminary report . LandsDirectorate.13 . Environment Canada, 1972 . CanadaLandInventory, SoilCapability classificationfor agriculture. Report No . 2 .14 . McBride, R .A ., 1983 . Agronomic and engineering soilinterpretations from water-retention data . UnpublishedPh .D. thesis, University of Guelph .15 . Hoffman, D.W. and C .J. Acton, 1974 . Soils ofNorthumberlandCounty. Report No . 42, Ontario Soil Survey.16 . Presant, E.W. and C .J. Acton, 1984 . The soils of theregional municipality ofHaldimand-Norfolk . Report No .57, Ontario Institute of Pedology. LRRI contribution No .84-13 .17 . Shelton, I .J. and G.J. Wall, 1989 . Soil erosion by waterinterpretations for Ontario soil survey reports . UnpublishedOntario Institute of Pedology/Agriculture CanadaReport .18 . Wall, G.J., WT Dickinson and J. Greuel, 1983 . Rainfallerosion indices for Canada east of the Rocky Mountains.Can . J . Soil Sci . 63 :271-280 .19 . Wischmeier,W.H ., C.B . Johnson and BY. Cross, 1971 . Asoil erodibility nomograph forfarmland and constructionsites. J . Soil Water Conserv. 26:189-193 .20 . Wischmeier, W.H . andD.D . Smith, 1978 . Predicting rainfallerosion losses-aguideto conservationplanning . U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agr. Handbook No . 537 .

SOUTH DUMFRIESMap 1BRANTFORDBURFORDMap 2Map 3TUSCARORAFigure 15 . Index of soil maps for Brant County