This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Conservation tillage [Hungary]

Csökkentett és talajkímélő művelés

technologies_3065 - Hungary

Completeness: 90%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Department of Crop Production and Soil Science, University of Pannonia - Hungary

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/10/2016

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

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

Comments:

-

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The aim of conservation tillage is to reduce the soil disturbance. It decreases decomposition of organic matter, enhances cycling of nutrients, soil structure and increases water infiltration.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

1. The case study area is situated within the catchment of river Zala in western Hungary. The climate is moderately warm, moderately humid, the number of sunshine hours per year are high. Mean annual temperature of the region is about 10 ˚C. The average amount of rainfall is between 600 and 700 mm / year. 37% of the total catchment area is arable land which is much lower than the national average, 27% is forest, which exceeds the national average. 15% of the land is under grassland management, 5% is horticulture, 3% is pomiculture, 2% is viticulture, 1% is reed management and fish farming. In arable land non irrigated cereals, maize and oil crops are the main farming system classes. Among permanent crops vineyard and fruit trees are the most significant.
2. In this technology reduced disturbance of the soil is used, non-inversion of soil is applied. At least 30 percent of crop residues are left on the field. Primary tillage is usually carried out by rippers or combinated disk rippers. Machinery is usually supplied by agricultural contractors in case of farms smaller than 100 ha.
3. The purpose of the technology is to improve soil structure, reduce decomposition of organic matter, increase water infiltration, reduce soil erosion and soil compaction.
4. Special equipment is needed for soil management: soil loosener and minimum-tillage equipment to perform tillage and seeding in one pass. Primary tillage is due in autumn, secondary tillage (surface preparation) is performed in early spring.
5. It improves soil microbial activity, biodiversity, deeper rooting. Further to it fuel efficiency is better compared to conventional tillage.
6. Its disadvantage is the higher risk of weed infestation.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Hungary

Region/ State/ Province:

Zala

Further specification of location:

Rádóckölked

Comments:

-

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2002

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through land users' innovation
Comments (type of project, etc.):

-

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):

wheat, maize, oilseed rape

Comments:

-

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Remained the same.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Comments:

-

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

From 18-23 April till 14-16 October

Livestock density (if relevant):

-

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
  • A3: Soil surface treatment
  • A4: Subsurface treatment
Comments:

-

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Pw: waterlogging
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Zoltán Tóth

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

This turbo drill machine used in this conservation tillage technology perform seedbed preparation and sowing in one operation.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

1 hectare

other/ national currency (specify):

Forint

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

257.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

10000

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Primary tillage (Seedbed preparation and sowing) Agronomic autumn
Comments:

Compared to conventional tillage no further activities are required in conventional tillage. Primary tillage is indicated because it needs different equipment, such as ripper or disk ripper.

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 primary tillage day/ha 0.1 15000.0 1500.0 100.0
Equipment primary tillage machine (0.67 hour 1 ha) machine hours 0.67 14570.0 9761.9 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 11261.9
Comments:

Cost of primary tillage in conventional tillage would cost 38200 Ft (equipment: 35200 Ft + labour: 3000 Ft). Therefore primary tillage costs 27000 Ft/ha less in conservation tillage than in conventional tillage.
It might be needed to use wider range herbicides for killing higher number of weed species, which can cost extra 10000 Ft/ha.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost of pesticides can be higher than in conventional tillage, but cost of fuel is significantly less.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

-

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Rádóckölked

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

moderately cool, moderately wet

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant
Comments and further specifications on topography:

-

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Luvisol; pH is 6.5.; CEC = 20 cmol(+)/kg

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

-

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

-

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

-

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

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • medium-scale
Comments:

-

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

Land ownership:
  • company
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • leased
Comments:

-

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Productivity is increased through improved soil health, decreased surface runoff, better nutrient and water holding capacity, which can be seen in medium to longer term.

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Productivity is increased through improved soil health, decreased surface runoff, better nutrient and water holding capacity, which can be seen in medium to longer term.

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Production failure is decreased through improved soil health, decreased surface runoff, better nutrient and water holding capacity.

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Less labour time and cost are required due to fewer tillage trips and cultivation operations for seedbed preparation, and soil management needs significantly less fuel as well.

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Less labour time is required due to fewer tillage trips and cultivation operations for seedbed preparation.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Through improved productivity and decreased production failure risk food security is improved.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Farmers applying conservation tillage practices will get a wider knowledge about factors causing land degradation and management practices which can decrease or prevent it.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Nutrient and pesticide losses are decreased through decreased runoff which increases water quality.

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Surface runoff is reduced due to increased soil cover by leaving at least 30% of crop residue on field before and after planting the next crop.

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Soil moisture content is increased due to the mulch on the soil surface which reduces evapotranspiration and also due to improved soil pore system in which storage pores are increased, so available water for plants is increased as well.

soil cover

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Soil cover is increased due to leaving at least 30% of crop residue on field before and after planting the next crop.

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Soil loss is decreased due to decreased runoff.

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Crop residues left on the filed help to protect the soil aggregates from splash erosion and crusting through raindrops. Aggregates are more stable in the topsoil also due to reduced soil disturbance resulting in higher total porosity which enhances downward water movement.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Crop residues left in the field return the carbon fixed in the crops to the soil. The carbon sequestration potential of the soil depends on the crop type, soil moisture content, soil mineralogy, soil texture, porosity and temperature. Different carbon categories have different turnover rates. Reduced runoff reduces the organic matter loss.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Accumulation of crop residues and organic matter in the surface layer creates favourable feeding conditions, therefore microbial biomass increases.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to improved soil structure and porosity soil moisture storage is increased which can buffer the impact of drought.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission is reduced by less tillage operations emitting less CO2 by tractor engine and decreased oxidative breakdown of soil organic matter through minimized mechanical tillage.

Comments regarding impact assessment:

-

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)

Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought not known
Comments:

-

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

Comments:

If equipment (ripper or disk ripper) is landed for the primary tillage there is no establishment cost for the farmer. If he has to buy the equipment it will benefit in long-term return. The maintenance/recurrent costs both short and long-term is positive, because cost of fuel is significantly less than in conventional tillage.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 10-50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

NA

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:

-

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Non-inversion tillage results in better water infiltration, soil aeration and helps to avoid subsoil compaction.
Deeper rooting and all its benefits.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Non-inversion tillage results in better water infiltration, soil aeration and helps to avoid subsoil compaction.
Deeper rooting and all its benefits.

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?
Higher risk of weed infestation. Precise stable tillage and weed control technologies.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Higher risk of weed infestation. Precise stable tillage and weed control technologies.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

2

  • interviews with land users

2

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

1

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Busari, M. A., Kukal, S. S., Kaur, A., Bhatt, R., & Dulazi, A. A. (2015). Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.05.002

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633915300630

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Corsi, S., Friedrich, T., Pisante, M., & Sà, J. D. M. (2012). Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Conservation Agriculture: a literature review (Vol. 16).

URL:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agp/icm16.pdf

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules