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

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

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

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

ROM3D - Netherlands

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

Hoe Duurzaam - Netherlands

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

Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands

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

Provincie Gelderland - Netherlands

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

Vitens - Laat Water Voor Je Werken - Netherlands

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/03/2015

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:

Humic acid application is a technology that allows the farmer to supply organic matter to the soil, without supplying additional nitrogen and phosphorus.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The application of humic acids to the soil is a way to supply organic matter, without supplying additional nitrogen and phosphorus, which is disadvantageous for farmers under the current manure legislation, since this imposes a threshold for the entry of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Humic acids stimulate the binding of K, Mg, Na, Ca and trace elements to the soil complex, causing the soil to supply more nutrients to the plant roots. umic acids fix iron and calcium particles, preventing these to fix phosphorus. This enables the release of phosphorus for take up by plant roots.

Purpose of the Technology: Increasing grass yield and nutritional value of grass.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Solution is applied with a tractor sprayer approximately 33 metres apart. Only small strips are applied as this is a test by farmers. Strips are shifted and rotated each year. They spray with a density of 60 L/ha. Width of strip is only the width of the sprayer.

Natural / human environment: Humic acid is a by-product of the water company's treatment of drinking water.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• Introduced by water company

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Decrease of soil organic matter content. Nutrient losses to ground water.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The group of farmers in the area experience decreasing organic matter content in soils, soil moisture deficits and declining yields of grass and maize cultures.

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: 250Longest growing period from month to month: March - November

Livestock density (if relevant):

1-10 LU /km2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

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:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Comments:

Humic acid is applied on grassland fields in small strips. There are 344 ha of grasslands in the area spread amongst 44 farmers. Only 4 farmers applied this technology.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: mineral (inorganic) fertilizers

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bq: quantity / biomass decline, Hq: decline of groundwater quality

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Ploughing intensive grassland renewal)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (rotation with more corn and less grassland)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Sprayer on a tractor applies humic acid in short strips 35 metres appart.

Location: Wageningen. Gelderland

Date: March 20, 2015

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (Quantity to apply is important.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: low (Easy to apply.)

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter

Secondary technical functions: increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…)

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: Humic acid
Quantity/ density: 60 L/ha
Remarks: strips 35 metres apart.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

0.94

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Spray humic acid on grasslands	Agronomic	Once per year

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
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	36.17	36.17	50.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Humic acid	ha	1.0	140.43	140.43
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					176.6

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Tractor, sprayer.

March 20, 2015 - No new equiptment is needed for this technology.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Price of product - humic acid.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitidunal zone: 0-100 m a.s.l. (up to 45 metres 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: Very shallow (Hardly any soil organic matter below 15 cm. Rooting depth is up to 80 cm), deep (A and B horizons up to 40 cm in Gleyic Podzols and Umbric Gleysols (ca 75% of the area). Hardly any soil organic matter below 15 cm depth. Rooting depth is up to 80 cm depth), shallow and very deep (deep topsoils rich in organic matter in the Fimic Anthrosols (12% of the area))
Soil texture: Coarse/light (All sandy soils)
Soil fertility is medium
Topsoil organic matter (The purpose of the pilot project is to increase soil organic matter)
Soil drainage/infiltration is good (deep ground water. Sandy soils.) and medium (some shallow groundwater)
Soil water storage capacity is medium (Dependent on soil organic matter content)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality (untreated): Poor drinking water (Contaminated. Requires treatment by water company (Vitens).)

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Difference in the involvement of women and men: Most outdoor farm opersations are completed by men.
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
100% of the land users are average wealthy and own 100% of the land.
Market orientation is subsistence (Grazing and fodder for dairy cows)

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, titled

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

All agriculture land is owned by individual farmers. Some farmers lease their land to other farmers. There are some regulations on land uses set by communities.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not known
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not known

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

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)?

Comments:

Slightly positive benefits are mentioned based on a test by Triferto (the company selling the humic acid) in 2014 in one cut of grassland. The yield was 8% higher and the grass contained higher concentrations of trace elements.
However, there is no evidence from farmers about improvement of their yields as a result of the application of humic cid. Increase in weight of grass production has not been measured and value has not been compared to application costs. The few farmers that are applying humic acid have only done so for two years and results are not measured yet. But farmers are subsidized for humic acid application until 2024.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

4

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

4 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: It is too early to state this, since the technology is still in the test phase. Humic acid is applied on 29 ha of the 130 ha total surface on which measures to increase soil organic matter are applied in the pilot Gezond Zand. Results on the effects are only sparsely available, Farmers are being subsidized to apply the measure until 2024.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technology is likely to increase soil organic matter, to improve nutrient uptake by the crop and to improve the soil moisture retention capacity. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Test the expected impacts in field implementations of the technology by farmers. Continue subsidy or payment for the humic acid until positive effects have been demonstrated.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology is likely to increase soil organic matter, to improve nutrient uptake by the crop and to improve the soil moisture retention capacity. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Test the expected impacts in field implementations of the technology by farmers. Continue subsidy or payment for the humic acid until positive effects have been demonstrated.

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?
Farners are unlikely to pay for the application of humic acids until impacts are proven, but they know that the application of humic acid does no harm to their soils or crops, and ae therefore not reluctant to apply the humic acid as long as it is paid for by the subsidy arrangement or the drinking water company.	Continued financial support for applying the humic acid and proof of impact.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The drinking water company (supplier of the source material for the humic acid) and the company selling the humic acid raise big expectations about the technology, but thus far there is no scientifically based proof of impact on maize or grass yield.	Continued tests in real farm implementations.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Gezond Zand: Met een verbeterde bodemkwaliteit naar een betere waterkwaliteit Haarloseveld en Olden Eibergen By Willem Rienks and Henk Leever 2014

Unravelling changes in soil fertility of agricultural land in The Netherlands Arjan Reijneveld 2013

RECARE_WP3 Report: CS_11_Ouden-Eibergen_v2 Annemieke Smit and Simone Verzandvoort 2014

Available from where? Costs?

Free http://www.hoeduurzaam.nl/images/gallery/nieuws/Brochure/BrochureHoeduurzaam%20Definitief.pdf

Wageningen University Library http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wda/2044057

Free annemieke.smit@wur.nl