Ploughing and seeding of fodder species to recover degraded grazing areas [Italy]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Velia De Paola
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Fabian Ottiger, Alexandra Gavilano
technologies_1210 - Italy
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Quaranta Giovanni
University of Basilicata
Italy
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Catastrophic shifts in drylands (EU-CASCADE)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
University of Basilicata - Italy1.3 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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Ploughing and seeding of fodder species to recover old degraded grazing areas and maintain valuable pastures against shrub encroachment and decrease of palatable species
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The technology consists of seeding pastureland with high palatable species whenever they are purely represented. In order to ensure a quality grass cover for grazing areas, pastures are ploughed (removing non-palatable shrubs) and planted with a variety of grains: i.e. oats, barley, alfalfa. This operation is periodically repeated (every tree-four years) according to the state of the grasses.
Purpose of the Technology: Regeneration of degraded pastures
Natural / human environment: The technique is an agronomic measure which is applied to degraded pastures (often modest areas of pasture land closest to farm sheds and stables).
As to the context of production, it is characterised by a medium level of mechanisation (only the most demanding operations are carried out using mechanical means), the production system is essentially mixed, a small part is destined for personal consumption whilst the bulk of production is destined for local markets. The property is predominantly privately owned but also includes some public land, especially in the case of pasture land. Most farms in the area are livestock farms whilst the agricultural component is destined exclusively for private consumption.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
Media Gallery
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Italy
Region/ State/ Province:
Basilicata
Further specification of location:
Castelsaraceno
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 0.1-1 km2
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.):
Ploughing and seeding has been the main traditional land use in the area
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- conserve ecosystem
- preserve/ improve biodiversity
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
Ja
Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
- Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - barley
- cereals - oats
- fodder crops - alfalfa
- wheat
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 120 Longest growing period from month to month: March to august
Is intercropping practiced?
Ja
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Semi-nomadic pastoralism
- Ranching
Animal type:
- goats
- sheep
- cows
Comments:
In order to ensure a quality grass cover for grazing areas, pastures are ploughed (removing non-palatable shrubs) and planted with a variety of grains: i.e. oats, barley, alfalfa
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Change of vegetation in pastures: encroachment of unpalatable species
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The problem is degraded pastures (presence of non-palatable shrubs).
Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Shepherds use the area for summer grazing and move downhill in winter
Mixed: (eg agro-pastoralism, silvo-pastoralism): A reduced number of farmers cultivate their field for fodder and pastures
Grazingland comments: Sheep and goats are the most valuable livestock
Type of grazing system comments: Sheep and goats are the most valuable livestock
Livestock density: > 100 LU /km2
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Comments:
Water supply: Also mixed rainfed - irrigated
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- minimal soil disturbance
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures
Type of agronomic measures: mixed cropping / intercropping, minimum tillage
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
biological degradation
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline
Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Undergrazing)
Secondary causes of degradation: poverty / wealth
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)
Secondary technical functions: increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil
Mixed cropping / intercropping
Material/ species: oats, barley, alfalfa, wheat
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
euro
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
0.74
4.3 Establishment activities
| Activity | Timing (season) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Ploughing with machinery and add fertilizer if needed | November/ from each year to every 5-8 years |
| 2. | Seeding | November/ from each year to every 5-8 years |
4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | Seeding | ha | 1.0 | 54.05 | 54.05 | 100.0 |
| Equipment | Ploughing with machinery and add fertilizer if needed | ha | 1.0 | 270.27 | 270.27 | 100.0 |
| Plant material | Seeds | ha | 1.0 | 202.7 | 202.7 | 100.0 |
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 527.02 | |||||
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 712.19 | |||||
Comments:
Costs occur again every 5-8 years
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
| Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Ploughing with machinery and add fertilizer if needed | November/ from each year to every 5-8 years |
| 2. | Seeding | November/ from each year to every 5-8 years |
4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: tractor with arrow
The above costs have been calculated according to the average of small farm’s records.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The most determinate factor affecting costs of the technique is the availability of equipment for spreading. The largest farms buy the equipment spending from 35,000 to 40,000 euro depending on the machines’ working capacities. The smaller farms (which represent the vast majority) rent this equipment at a cost of around €50 an hour.
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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:
1519.00
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
68% in winter and 15% in summer
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: temperate
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.
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):
- fine/ heavy (clay)
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.
Soil fertility is medium-low
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is medium
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
5-50 m
Availability of surface water:
medium
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Availability of surface water: Medium (minimum during month of September and October)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- medium
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Gender:
- men
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: Active farmers are present only males; women are not actively involved in land management
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative; 2%
90% of the land users are average wealthy.
10% of the land users are poor.
Off-farm income specification: Most of the off farm income derives from public sector, i.e. Municipality, Mountain Community, Region and other public bodies. Very few farmer members run local shops or handcraft.
5.7 Average area of land used 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)?
- small-scale
Comments:
Considering communal land used by farmers
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
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
fodder production
Quantity before SLM:
4t/ha
Quantity after SLM:
8t/ha
fodder quality
Comments/ specify:
Increase of the ratio palatable/total species
risk of production failure
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
farm income
Socio-cultural impacts
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
excess water drainage
groundwater table/ aquifer
Soil
soil cover
soil crusting/ sealing
soil compaction
nutrient cycling/ recharge
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
biomass/ above ground C
plant diversity
beneficial species
pest/ disease control
Climate and disaster risk reduction
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
buffering/ filtering capacity
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 | increase or decrease | How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| annual temperature | increase | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
| How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|
| local rainstorm | well |
| local windstorm | well |
Climatological disasters
| How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|
| drought | well |
Hydrological disasters
| How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|
| general (river) flood | well |
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)?
Short-term returns:
slightly negative
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly negative
Long-term returns:
slightly negative
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
Comments:
90% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: The activities were initially supported by a regional program with a subside equal to 50% of the total cost. However the technology proved not very efficient from the economic point of view, hence the subsidies where suspended.
10% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
| Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
|---|
|
The technology can improve very degraded pastureland but is not very useful when the pasture is only partly degraded How can they be sustained / enhanced? In order to increase the technology supports to machinery use should be provided, since they are the main relevant cost/barrier to adopt the technology. |
| Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
|---|
|
The technology can improve productivity and help restore the most valuable pastures, especially those situated near the animal housing structures How can they be sustained / enhanced? Subsidies where available in the past but didn’t prove effective or beneficial. |
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 cost of machinery/equipment and their difficult use in tough environmental conditions (stony lands and steep slopes). |
| Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
|---|---|
| Removing soil surfaces in order to seed the lands can create condition for soil degradation if not performed adequately | Increasing farmers awareness and skills for good agricultural practices |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules