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)

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)

Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences (IAES/EMÜ) - Estonia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

04/06/2017

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

No-till farming (also called zero tillage or direct drilling) is a way of growing crops or pasture from year to year without disturbing the soil through tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in sub-humid climate with an average of 696 mm of precipitations per year, from which more comes from July to October and less in March and April. Average annual temperature is +4 C, length of the growing period is 180-195 days. The territory is mostly flat, the southern part is hilly with slopes of 6-10%. Average altitude from the sea level is 50 m. About half of the Estonian territory is above 50 m and half is below it. Soils are from very shallow (less than 0.1 m) in the north to very deep (> 120m ) in the south. Soil cover is very variable. In the agricultural area the soils are medium textured with low (< 1%) to high (>5%) organic matter in topsoil. Groundwater is near the surface in wet soils and deep in hilly areas. Biodiversity varies from high to low depending on soil and landscape. Market orientation of production system is mixed and off-farm income is less than 10%. Relative level of wealth is average from individual households to cooperatives. Soil management is mechanized. Land belongs to land users, but is leased also in case of bigger farms (over 100 ha).
The purpose of the technology is to reduce soil disturbance and with that to reduce erosion and leaching, increase carbon storage, water infiltration and biological activity. Only 5-10% of the soil surface is disturbed during sowing. The drilling is made by special machinery and thus no-till farming requires specialized seeding equipment designed to plant seeds into undisturbed crop residues and soil. Drilling depth depends on the specific needs of the culture. If the straw remains on the field, it should be chopped to smaller pieces (25-40 mm). For direct seeding it is good if the previous culture was seeded with wider spacing, for example 25 cm and harvest height is 15-20 cm. New sowing will be done between previous crop rows. The highest investment to this technology is the new drilling machine. At the same time there is no need for special tillage machines. In order to help eliminate weed, pest and disease problems, crop rotations and pesticides are used. The system is not suitable for root crops. The no-till system is suitable for cereal based cropping systems as well as for renewing grasslands. The suitable crop rotation, for exampe, is: winter oilseed rape - winter wheat - pea (or bean) - winter wheat - spring barley undersown with red clover - red clover. The main benefit is the reduced working time, fuel costs and with that the lower net-cost of the product, but also the better soil structure. The adoption of the technology may increase weediness and pests and decrease the yield due to the preliminar soil compaction of upper 10-20 cm soil layer. If the soil surface of the field is not enough levelled out, the uniformity of the depth of the seedlings can suffer. There is also increased use of pesticides to control weeds, pests and diseases compared to minimum and conventional tillage. The technology is most suitable for medium-texture soils.

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

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

• reduce tillage cost

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

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

Before implementation of the no-tillage the conventional and/or reduced tillage was used.

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:

One harvest of cereals.

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• 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:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

The total area of no-till in Estonia is ca 42 000 ha. On the farm near Tartu it is 1700 ha of land, of which 300 ha are grasslands. The farm near Põlva encompasses an area of 850 ha of which 330 ha are grasslands. The whole area of both farms is managed by no-tillage.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The agrotechnology in case of no-tillage depends on available equipments (drill). If the straw remains on the field, it should be chopped to smaller pieces of 25-40 mm. For direct seeding it is good if the previous culture was seeded with wider spacing, for example 25 cm. Harvest height is 15-20 cm. New seeding will be done between previous crop rows.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

EUR

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

1.18

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	New direct seeder	Other measures

Comments:

If you are already active in agriculture, the investment is the new seeder. You also need to have machinery to spread fertilizers and pesticides.

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
Equipment	Direct seeder (3m)	piece	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					25000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

It is possible to apply for an investment support up to 50% of the total price (governmental tool till the year 2020).

Comments:

The cost of the direct seeder depends on the farmers prefererences regarding the technology. The cheapest direct seeder can be purchased for ca. 25 000 EUR. Better quality of a cross slot seeder that places seeds under the soil (technical drawing and picture) costs ca 200 000 EUR (working width 4.6 m).

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Sowing together with fertilization	Agronomic	before drilling (spring crops in spring (April), winter crops in autumn (August))
2.	Plant protection	Agronomic	in spring 2 weeks before sowing, herbicides, during growth period depending on the needs ca 3 times
3.	Fertilization during growth period	Agronomic	For winter crops in spring after snowmelt in the beginning of growth, for spring crops in the beginning of intensive growth
4.	Harvest and grain transport	Agronomic	At the end of season (end of July to beginning of September depending of the crop)
5.	Drying of grain and soil tillage	Agronomic	after harvest

Comments:

The need of plant protection depends on the field conditions. Less pesticides are needed if proper crop rotation with break crops is established and weeds are thus suppressed.

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	Sowing with fertilization	times	1.0	55.9	55.9	100.0
Equipment	Plant protection	times	4.0	11.2	44.8	100.0
Equipment	Fertilization during growth period	times	1.0	16.2	16.2	100.0
Equipment	Harvest and grain transport	times	1.0	118.4	118.4	100.0
Equipment	Drying and after harvest activities	times	1.0	132.1	132.1	100.0
Plant material	seeds	kg	200.0	0.28	56.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Ammonium nitrate (2x per season)	kg	147.0	0.84	123.48	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Complex fertilizer (27 kg N, 40 kg P and 112 kg K per ha) (450 kg of fertilizer per ha)	kg	179.0	0.74	132.46	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicides (2 times)	times	2.0	27.0	54.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fungicides (1 time)	times	1.0	33.2	33.2	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Insecticides (1 time)	times	1.0	3.6	3.6	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Retartants	times	1.0	14.0	14.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					784.14

Comments:

The labour costs are included to the machinery work costs. On average the labour cost for a driver is 15-18 EUR/ha.
The average machinery work costs to produce 6 t of winter wheat were 432 EUR/ha, 400 EUR/ha and 780 EUR/ha in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively in 2016. Cost of production in this case was 137 EUR/t, 132 EUR/t and 128 EUR/t in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively.
To produce the same amount of spring barley, the cost of machinery was 431 EUR/ha, 411 EUR/ha and 366 EUR/ha in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively. Cost of production in this case was 123 EUR/t, 121 EUR/t and 114 EUR/t in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively. It means that the cost of production is 8-11 EUR less than compared with plough based production.
Fuel cost is ca 50% less than in conventional plough based farming.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel price, labour costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

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 type: sandy loam Stagnic Luvisol; N 0.12%, Corg 1.15%; C:N 9.97, P 4.35 mg/100g, K 10.19mg/100g, Ca 49.61mg/100g, Mg 12.19mg/100g, pH 6.0

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Soil biodiversity is higher compared to conventional tillage.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	not known
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	not known
annual rainfall		increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	winter	increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	autumn	increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave	not known
extreme winter conditions	not known
land fire	not 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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

7% from agricultural land

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

• 50-90%

Comments:

It is possible to get investment support from the governmental agricultural tools up to 50% from the total cost of equipment.

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
Decreases work load and time, also fuel consumption, increases income.
Increases soil biological activity, soil organic matter content, better structure and infiltration, decreases erosion.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Decrease of soil organic carbon decomposition, decrease of erosion, increase of soil biological activity.

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?
High preliminary investment (seeder), increase of weediness and pests,	Investment support, better crop rotation.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Higher use of pesticides and therefore risk to soil and water pollution.	Suggestion of changes in crop rotation, cover crops.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Minimeeritud harimine ja otsekülv. 2017. P. Viil. Eesti Taimekasvatuse Instituut. ISBN 978-9949-9742-2-1

Available from where? Costs?

ISBN 978-9949-9742-2-1

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Kattetulu arvestused taime- ja loomakasvatuses 2016. Koost: Marju Aamisepp, Helle Persitski. Maamajanduse infokeskus. 2017.

URL:

http://www.maainfo.ee/data/trykis/kattetulu/KATTETULU2016.pdf

Title/ description:

Statistics Estonia

URL:

https://www.stat.ee/en

Title/ description:

Erinevate viljelusmeetodite ( sh. otsekülv) rakendusteaduslik kompleksuuring. Riikliku programmi “Põllumajanduslikud rakendusuuringud ja arendustegevus aastatel 2009–2014” projekti lõpparuanne. 2015. Eesti Taimekasvatuse Instituut, Eesti Maaülikool, Põllumajandusuuringute keskus.

URL:

http://www.pikk.ee/upload/files/Erinevad_viljelusviisid_pikk_aruanne.pdf

Title/ description:

Minimeeritud harimine ja otsekülv. 2017. P. Viil. Eesti Taimekasvatuse Instituut.

URL:

http://taim.etki.ee/taim/public/pdf/Trukised/Otseklv-minimeeritud-mullaharimine.pdf

Title/ description:

Eesti maaelu arengukava 2014-2020 4. ja 5. prioriteedi meetmete ja 3. prioriteedi loomade heaolu meetme püsihindamisaruanne 2015. aasta kohta ja Lisad 1-30

URL:

http://pmk.agri.ee/mak/avaleht/

Title/ description:

Eesti tuleviku kliimastsenaariumid aastani 2100

URL:

https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/kliimastsenaariumid_kaur_aruanne_ver190815.pdf