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)

Soil and water protection (EU-SOWAP)

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

Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA CSFK) - Hungary

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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 (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Non inversion, conservation (soil and water protective) tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

According to our understanding conventional agriculture is based on tillage and it is highly mechanised. Conventional agriculture causes severe land degradation problems including soil erosion and pollution as well as other environmental damages like biodiversity and wildlife reduction, low energy efficiency and a contribution to global warming. Conservation Agriculture is a holistic approach to crop production, which encompasses "Conservation Tillage", and also seeks to preserve biodiversity in terms of both flora and fauna. Activities such as Integrated Crop, Weed, and Pest Management form part of Conservation Agriculture. The concept of "As little as possible, as much as is needed" will be the guiding principles for SOWAP in crop production, when it comes to chemical usage.

Purpose of the Technology: inding and Demonstrating Ways of Better Managing the Land. SOWAP (SOil and WAter Protection - supported by the EU LIFE Programme and by Syngenta) aims to assess the viability of a more "conservation-oriented" agriculture, where fewer tillage practices replace the numerous cultivations carried out under more "conventional" arable farming systems. The use of appropriate chemicals is tested, and their potential for off-site contamination assessed, to ensure that any suggested approaches are environmentally sound.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The SOWAP project started on study sites in Belgium, Czech Republik, Hungary and United Kingdom. I Hungary 3 sites were selected near Lake Balaton. One of them is Dióskál (2). There are 4 conservation and 4 conventional tilled plots, each between 3-5 Ha in size. The project has benn started in 2003.

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:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology came from England, nevetheless it is known among the Hungarian SWC specialists before.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Fine loess soil with significant soil degradation, soil compaction due to inconvenient land use

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): EU and government rules, problems of the subsidy system, sales and marketing concerns

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: maize, winter wheat, maize…

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Secondary measures: management measures

Type of agronomic measures: relay cropping, mulching, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, rotations / fallows, minimum tillage, contour tillage, breaking compacted subsoil

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Et: loss of topsoil, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Cp: soil pollution

Main causes of degradation: other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (natural soil compaction)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Hungarian Forint HUF

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

195.8

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Ploughing (yearly)	autumn

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Minimum tillage	spring and autumn / after harvest
2.	non inversion, minimum tillage, shallow tillage	autumn / 1x -2x
3.	if needed loosening	early autumn / only if needed

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

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: powerful tractor, disk, direct drill, harvester, sprayer, cultivator

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

wet weather>get weedy; compacted soil surface>(loosening) chiselling

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: ~ 200 m

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 fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is medium and sometimes high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: negative

100% of the land users are average wealthy and own 100% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: They have no off-farm incomes.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 household

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

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

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
future subsidy expectations and better chance for competition
soil loss reduction
economicalness
environmental consciousness agriculture

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
soil loss reduction
biodiversity enhancement
spreading of environmental conscious agriculture
soil and water protection
economicalness

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?
reduced production (yield)
expensive machines

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Too many tools are required. Expensive machines.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

BIRKÁS, M., JOLÁNKAI, M., GYURICZA, CS., PERCZE, A. (2004): Tillage effects on compaction, earthworms and other soil quality indicators in Hungary.. 2004.

Available from where? Costs?

Soil & Tillage Research, Vol. 78. No. 2., pp. 185-196.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HOLLAND, J.M. (2004): The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence.. 2004.

Available from where? Costs?

Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 103. No. 1., pp. 1-25.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

MANNINGER, G. A. (1957): A talaj sekély művelése.. 1957.

Available from where? Costs?

Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 135 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

BIRKÁS, M. (2002): Környezetkímélő és energiatakarékos talajművelés.. 2002.

Available from where? Costs?

SZIE, Mezőgazdasági és Környezettudományi Kar, Gödöllő, 345 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Talajkímélő művelés és környezetvédelem. 2003.

Available from where? Costs?

Gyakorlati Agrofórum Extra 3.