1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Ministry of Agriculture of Kazakhstan (MoA) - Eritrea

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

29/03/2004

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The minimal tillage for cultivation of grain crops (the second and third culture after fallow).

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is directed on struggle against wind and water erosion.
After harvesting of grain crops on a field it is left stubble background which carries out some functions:
1)Accumulation of moisture.
2)Prevention of water and wind erosion
3)Accumulation of organic in humus layer.
During the spring period on the stubble background there is a sowing of grain crops by the direct or combined seeder there (cultivation, sowing, application of fertilizers, compacting) with covering of seeds on depth of 3,8 centimeters.
After shoots at presence of weeds it is carried out a local tilling of the littered sites of a field.
In the autumn harvesting of the grain is carried out with crushing of strow and formation of the stubble layer.
Productivity of the grain makes 8,6-12,5 c/ha depending on humidity of year.
-fertilized fallow with minimum and chemical tillage;
-sowing of spring rapes on the fallow by seeding-machine “Flexy-Coil” +sowing of winter rye to spring rapes stubble in the second summer half – “direct sowing”
-winter rye of early ripening sorts (August)+ semifallow soil tillage+ fertilizers under sowing of steadfast spring wheat;
-steadfast spring wheat;

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

from Canada

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil-fertility is reduced on 10-25% (humus loss for 50 years).
Deterioration of technique Fertilizers are not brought in full.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Dissociation of farms with the average size of an arable land – 60 ha.
Struggle against wind and water erosion is directed on increase of soil fertility and receptions of steady cultures at full protection.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 166; Longest growing period from month to month: May - Sep

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 10-100 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 28 km2.

Before disintegration of the USSR the tillage and sowing on the stubble background in 1990 has made the area in 61,4 mill.ha on a steppe droughty zone (chernozem and dark chestnut zone of the USSR).

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: cover cropping, mulching, temporary trashlines, legume inter-planting, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, rotations / fallows, zero tillage / no-till, minimum tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wm: mass movements / landslides, Cp: soil pollution

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (agricultural causes - Development vergin and lay lands.)

Secondary causes of degradation: land tenure (land subdivision), poverty / wealth (lack of captial)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Also rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, increase of surface roughness, increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase in soil fertility

Mulching
Material/ species: straw 100%

Temporary trashlines
Material/ species: stubble 100%

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: herbicides

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: fallows-rape-wheat 100% 2,5 mln seeds for hectar

Zero tillage / no-till
Material/ species: Sowing on a stubble

Minimum tillage
Material/ species: on depth of 3,8 centm

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	persons/day/ha	5.0	10.0	50.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					90.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 36 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Fallows creating	Agronomic	autumn / in 3 years
2.	Rape sowing + winter rye	Agronomic	early spring, august / in 3 years
3.	Winter rye + semi-fallow + fertilizing	Agronomic	early spring, august / in 3 years
4.	Wheat sowing	Agronomic	early spring / in 3 years

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	persons/day/ha	5.0	10.0	50.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					90.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: SZS-2,1, K-700, Kamaz-with tractor carriages PTS-9,3 PTS-12, combine Enisey

Calculation of expenses is made on 1 ha an arable land.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Rent of the mechanized means for creation the fallow crop and harvesting of cultures of a crop rotation make the most part of article of expenses on SWS technologies (tractor K-700, combine “Enisey”, automobile – Kamaz seeders – 2,1 carriages to tractors PTC-9,3 PTC-12).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Wavy plain

Altitudinal zone: 150-340 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Humus horizon up to 80 cm

Soil texture (topsoil): Heavy and average

Soil fertility is medium with a humus content of 4-5%

Topsoil organic matter: 1-5%

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is medium at bottom part of the slopes and otherwise low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

6% of the land users are very rich and own 3% of the land (5).
5% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land (3).
80% of the land users are average wealthy and own 70% of the land (2).
4% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land (1).
4% of the land users are poor and own 2% of the land (4).

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Other socio-economic impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 10-50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

100 households covering 40 percent of stated area

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 90-100%

Comments:

5% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

100 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: survey results

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: At low cost of petroleum products fertilizers small and average farm with pleasure apply SWC technology . Cost of petroleum products and fertilizers sharply changes from year to year

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is accessible in application How can they be sustained / enhanced? Constantly
Improves agromeliorative conditions How can they be sustained / enhanced? Constantly
Allows to receive guaranteed profit How can they be sustained / enhanced? At presence of means for SWC introduction

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It is traditional for region How can they be sustained / enhanced? Constantly
It is effective as a measure of struggle against wind erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? At threat of processes of wind erosion
It is effective at struggle against water erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? At threat of processes of water erosion
Promotes accumulation of a moisture in ground How can they be sustained / enhanced? Constantly

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Opportunity of application SWC to the limited circles of farmers.	Additional grants investments are necessary for small farms or the sponsor’s help.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Soil protective agriculture Baraev A.I., Moscow, "Floc". Without rotation of the Almaty layer , 2000y, Gossen E.F.

Available from where? Costs?

SPC for Crain Husbandry Shartandy city