Direct sowing on untilled soil (Luigi Sartori)

Conservation agriculture (Italy)

Agricoltura conservativa

Description

Sustainable crop production and residue management under no-tillage to improve soil fertility and increase environmental benefits

Conservation agriculture (CA) in the Veneto region is characterised by management systems including no-tillage, permanent soil cover and crop rotation. CA has been promoted as an agri-environmental measure of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) by the Veneto region to extend sustainable land management. In spite of being provided by the regional government with subsidies, so far the adoption of CA by the farmers has been very limited since its introduction, amounting less than 1% (ca. 2000 ha) of the total regional cropland area (mainly concentrated in the low Venetian plain).

Purpose of the Technology: CA has been proposed to the farmers with the aim of reducing environmental impacts as well as economic and energetic inputs to the agricultural system. Compared with conventional practices such as soil ploughing, CA is convenient due to the saving of labour and fuel costs, with a direct effect in reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Limiting the soil disturbance and guaranteeing the continuous soil cover involve both a reduction of water runoff and surface erosion and an increase of soil biodiversity and fertility.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The main winter crops usually cultivated in the low Venetian plain are wheat, rapeseed and barley, while summer season crops are maize, soybean, sorghum. Generally CA consists of direct sowing on untilled soil using a double-disk opener planter for seed deposition, while after harvesting crop residues are chopped and dispersed to the surface in order to guarantee a mulching effect and a rapid incorporation into the soil. Since application of CA practices consider the permanent soil cover, the main crop is followed by cover crops that are usually graminaceae or brassicaceae. Cover crops are neither fertilized nor treated with pesticides during growing, while their final devitalisation is achieved with non-specific herbicides (e.g. Glyphosate, Glufosinate Ammonium).

Natural / human environment: Advantages of adopting conservation agriculture have been widely demonstrated worldwide and can be classified in economic, agronomic and environmental benefits. From an environmental point of view, the soil system preserves its structure and biodiversity thanks to minimum soil disturbance to the root zone, microorganisms, fungi and macroinvertebrates. Greenhouse gas emissions under conservation agriculture compared to traditional cultivation systems are lower and might offset the gains obtained to mitigate global warming. Due to the recent introduction of the technology in the Veneto region (since mid-2000s), conservation agriculture has shown contrasting results in terms of crop yield since still in a transition period between conventional and conservation agriculture practices.

Location

Location: Low Venetian plain of Veneto region, Italy, Italy

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 11.95848, 45.30459

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 10-100 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Winter wheat growing on maize residues (Nicola Dal Ferro)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - barley, cereals - maize, cereals - sorghum, cereals - wheat (winter), legumes and pulses - soya, oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bl: loss of soil life
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • minimal soil disturbance
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A3: Soil surface treatment
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Detailed view of direct sowing on untilled soil and chopping of crop residues

Location: Low Venetian plain of Veneto region

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in organic matter

Secondary technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, increase of surface roughness, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil

Cover cropping
Material/ species: e.g. barley and vetch, lolium, sorghum

Mulching
Material/ species: Residues depending on the main crop

Change of land use practices / intensity level: With conservation agriculture labour is saved and fuel cost lowered. Additional application of pesticides represents an extra expenditure.
Author: Luigi Sartori

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Euro €
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.8 Euro €
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 110.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
Costs are mostly affected by field labours, although they are considerably lower than under conventional tillage practices. They do not include initial investments since usually farmers to rely on agricultural contractors. As a result, intial investements are borne by agricultural contractors (e.g. sod seeding machinery, which costs 35000$, on average).
Establishment activities
n.a.
Maintenance activities
  1. Weed control and cover crops devitalisation (Timing/ frequency: each crop season)
  2. Main crop: direct sowing on untilled soil (Timing/ frequency: each crop season)
  3. Main crop: fertilisation (Timing/ frequency: each crop season)
  4. Main crop: combined harvesting and chopping of straw (Timing/ frequency: each crop season)
  5. Cover crops: sowing (Timing/ frequency: each crop season)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Euro €) Total costs per input (Euro €) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Weed control and cover crops devitalisation L/ha 1.0 130.0 130.0
Cover crops: sowing ha 1.0 254.0 254.0
Equipment
Weed control and cover crops devitalisation ha 1.0 44.5 44.5
Main crop: direct sowing on untilled soil ha 1.0 63.5 63.5
Main crop: combined harvesting and chopping of straw ha 1.0 190.5 190.5
Plant material
Seeds ha 1.0 190.5 190.5
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilisation ha 1.0 287.0 287.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'160.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1'450.0

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 850.0
Max in June (100 mm) and minima in winter (55 mm, December to February)
Thermal climate class: temperate (the low Venetian plain where the technology is applied has continental climate)
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased


In the early years

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being
decreased
increased

Ecological impacts
surface runoff
increased
decreased

excess water drainage
reduced
improved

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
reduced

soil compaction
increased
reduced

habitat diversity
decreased
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased


Increased reliance on herbicides

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
very well
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Lowers soil tillage costs due to a reduction of fuel consumption and labour

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Spread over greater areas to maximise cost reduction
  • Lowers CO2 emissions due to a general reduction of energy inputs

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Identification of CA as an agricultural practice to mitigate global warming. Spread over greater areas to increase effectiveness
  • Reduces water runoff and erosion while increasing soil coverage and biodiversity

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Further improvement of soil quality might consider organic fertilizations
  • Enhances in general the sustainability of cropping systems

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Maintain conservation agriculture system in the long-term to maximise benefits
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Soil compaction is sometimes emerging Periodic decompaction and adoption of lighter machinery
  • Crop productions are sometimes lower than with conventional practices Stabilize conservation agriculture in the long-term. Support farmers in technical choices

References

Compiler
  • Nicola Dal Ferro
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Okt. 20, 2014
Last update: April 17, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Programma di sviluppo rurale per il veneto 2007-2013, Regione Veneto, 2007. Dipartimento Agricoltura e Sviluppo Rurale.:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International