Maize seeding (Baptiste Drouet)

Strip till to improve maize establishment (France)

Strip till

Description

Strip tillage to plant maize: a way to reduce soil disturbance and secure maize establishment.

The region of Pays de Loire in Western France has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters. The region has many rural areas, dedicated mostly to agriculture, with large economic centres and conurbations (e.g. the Nantes area). The strip till technology is applied to te same area on a dairy farm in Pays de Loire (La Pouëze), which implements a form of conservation agriculture. Fields have not been ploughed for 9 years, and direct seeding of cover crops (i.e. clover seeded cover for green mulch, weed control and nitrogen fixation) and winter crops (economic cash crop) has been used for 4 years. Crop rotation is practiced on a 2 year rotation between spring maize and winter wheat.
Strip till is a conservation system that uses minimum tillage. It combines the soil drying and warming benefits of conventional tillage with the soil-protecting advantages of no-till by disturbing only the portion of the soil that is to be seeded. Strip till has been developed as an alternative to conventional tillage to prepare the soil before planting maize. It targets tillage on the line to be seeded: on 10 to 20 cm wide strips, at a depth of 10 to 30 cm. Strip till is harder to use in clayey and lumpy soil.
Strip till protects roots and facilitates crop establishment by creating higher soil porosity and seed line warming. As strip till does not disturb the inter-row, soil disturbance is minimized leading to:
-Improved production
-Reduced land degradation
-Beneficial economic impact

Initial investment costs are limited to purchasing the specialised strip till machine, which is about Euro 14,000. Benefits of strip till include:
- Increased: crop production, farm income, water drainage, nutrient cycling, soil organic matter carbon, vegetation cover, beneficial soil species, and habitat diversity
- Reduced: risk of production failure, workload/time, fuel, surface water runoff, evaporation, soil crusting, soil compaction, impact on soil life, and weed emergence

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

Location

Location: La Pouëze, Pays de Loire, France

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -0.80407, 47.56584
  • -0.80407, 47.56584

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (0.3 km²)

In a permanently protected area?: Nee

Date of implementation: 2015

Type of introduction
Strip till (Marie-Line Faure)
Strip till in cover crop (Baptiste Drouet)

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
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Nee

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - maize
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
    Is intercropping practiced? Ja
    Is crop rotation practiced? Ja
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
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • physical soil deterioration - Pc: compaction
  • biological degradation - Bl: loss of soil life
SLM group
  • rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
  • minimal soil disturbance
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility, A3: Soil surface treatment

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The strip till is a machine equipped with:
- 4 teeth permitting soil tillage at a soil depths between 10 cm and 30 cm
- 4 pairs discs to crumble the soil between 10 cm and 20 cm depth for preparation of the seedbed
Between each till line cover crops can be allowed to remain but may be cut back to near soil level to reduce competition with crop seeds.
Technology was applied on 30ha of maize plantation in regular row planting formation.
Author: Alan Rabdourne

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 30 ha; conversion factor to one hectare: 1 ha = 1 ha = 2.47 acres)
  • Currency used for cost calculation:
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.9 €
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 120
Most important factors affecting the costs
The initial investment to buy the strip till is high, but its cost by passage is lower than ploughing or other simplified techniques of implantation.
Establishment activities
  1. Purchase of strip till plough (Timing/ frequency: one-off purchase in 2015)
  2. Cutting cover crop (Timing/ frequency: pre-planting crop seed)
  3. Strip till and seeding (Timing/ frequency: Crop planting)
Establishment inputs and costs (per 30 ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (€) Total costs per input (€) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Cover crop cutting day 1.0 120.0 120.0 100.0
Strip till & seeding day 1.5 120.0 180.0 100.0
Equipment
Strip till per till 1.0 14000.0 14000.0 100.0
Tractor (inc fuel) day 2.5 50.0 125.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 14'425.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 16'027.78
Maintenance activities
  1. Strip till run (Timing/ frequency: Annual)
  2. Cover crop management (Timing/ frequency: Annual)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 30 ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (€) Total costs per input (€) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Cutting cover crop day 1.0 120.0 120.0 100.0
Strip till & seeding day 1.5 120.0 180.0 100.0
Equipment
Strip till maintanance per item 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tractor (inc fuel) day 2.5 50.0 125.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 525.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 583.33

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: 650.0
Mild and rainy winter, hot dry summers (lately)
Name of the meteorological station: Beaucouzé meteorological station
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: both ground and surface water
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
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

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

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased


Efficiency increased in production due to benefit of quicker tillage and benefits of interseedin with cover crops.

risk of production failure
increased
x
decreased


No change in risk.

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
x
decreased


Reduced tillage reduces costs

farm income
decreased
x
increased


Reduced costs leads to greater profit margin

workload
increased
x
decreased


Significant reduction in the frequency of tool changeover.

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
surface runoff
increased
x
decreased


Due to reduced soil disturbance

excess water drainage
reduced
x
improved


Reduced passages across field, reduces compaction and improves soil water drainage.

evaporation
increased
x
decreased


reduced soil disturbance results in less evaporation

soil moisture
decreased
x
increased


No change

soil cover
reduced
x
improved


Reduced disturbance and compaction improves soil cover

soil loss
increased
x
decreased


Reduced soil disturbance limits soil loss

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
x
reduced


Persistance of cover srop and reduced soil disturbance reduces soil cursting potential

soil compaction
increased
x
reduced


Less passages across the field with less equipment use reduces compaction.

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased


Reduced soil disturbance allows for improved organic matter development

vegetation cover
decreased
x
increased


Cover cropping persistence with inter-seeding in strips

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased


Cover cropping persistence with inter-seeding in strips

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
x
increased


Cover cropping mix encourages increased beneficial species

habitat diversity
decreased
x
increased


Cover cropping mix encourages increased habitat diversity

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
annual rainfall decrease

not well at all
x
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
  • Reduced soil compaction for maize implantation
  • Reduced drying of the soil that reduces the negative impact on soil biology
  • Makes it possible to locate fertilizer inputs
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Reduced soil compaction
  • Reduced drying of the soil
  • Improved soil health and stability
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Challenging in a lumpy or clayey soil Take longer to process and implement
  • Complexity of tool settings The settings are the same once selected
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Challenging in a lumpy or clayey soil Take longer to process and implement

References

Compiler
  • Alan Radbourne
Editors
  • David Robinson
  • David Norris
  • Sabine Reinsch
Reviewer
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • William Critchley
Date of documentation: Feb. 12, 2020
Last update: Mei 17, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International