Technologies

Organic matter application to enhance soil health [United Kingdom]

Creation: 07/01/2021 5:19 nm.
Update: 08/16/2021 12:26 nm.
Compiler: Alan Radbourne
Editor: –
Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer

technologies_5968 - United Kingdom

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 82%

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)

land user:

Fisher Karen

Soil Association

United Kingdom

land user:

Corp Nicholas

Wasing Farm

United Kingdom

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

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers

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

Soil Association (Soil Association) - United Kingdom

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

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom

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:

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. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The addition of organic matter, such as compost, to soils on farms can enhance soil health with benefits for soil organisms, soil structure, carbon sequestration and plant production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Application of organic matter to soils, in the form of compost, helps enhance soil organisms and structure for improvements in overall soil health. This technology has been applied to 36 hectares of a 300 hectare organic arable farm that practices a rotation of 2 years grass ley, followed by a winter cereal and then two spring cereals with cover crops in the period between the two spring crops. The technology has been trialed in the south of England (Berkshire) where the average annual rainfall is around 690 mm and the soil is mostly gravel, silt and clay soil with low organic matter – making it challenging to cultivate.
The practice has been to import certified green waste compost to apply to fields on a rotational basis before the winter crop, as it requires more nitrogen than the spring crops. The application was planned for this period in the rotation as spring spreading can damage the soil through compaction after the winter crop has been harvested.
The sources of green waste varied, with 900 tonnes of composted PAS 100 certified green waste from a local waste company, and 500 tonnes of green waste from a local camomile producer, both in 2019/2020. The compost was stored in windrow heaps for 6 months on the grass leys turning once during this time. For the application, a contractor then used a spreader before soil cultivation for the winter crop. This technology is ongoing.
The primary aim of the application of organic matter is to improve soil fertility and the soil's health. This in turn results in better crops.
Challenges to overcome with this technology are issues with compaction from spreading activities and the cost of compost purchase and haulage. Compaction can be alleviated through autumn spreading, yet costs can be prohibitive. So, far the benefits of the technology application are limited as it will take a long time achieve the full impacts of increasing soil organic matter, especially in the soil type that is present on the farm, yet the hope is it will have a large impact in the future.

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:

United Kingdom

Region/ State/ Province:

Berkshire

Further specification of location:

Reading

Specify the spread of the Technology:

applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

Nee

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

through land users' innovation

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

improve production
reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

Cropland

Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

cereals - oats
cereals - rye
cereals - wheat (spring)
cereals - wheat (winter)
fodder crops - grasses

Number of growing seasons per year:

Is intercropping practiced?

Nee

Is crop rotation practiced?

If yes, specify:

A rotation of 2 years grass ley, followed by winter cereal and then two spring cereals with cover crops in-between spring cereals.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

physical soil deterioration

Pc: compaction

biological degradation

Bl: loss of soil life

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

reduce land degradation

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

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology area

Indicate size and area unit:

36 hectares

other/ national currency (specify):

£GBP

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

0.85

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

£150

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Procurement of compost	Spring
2.	Application of compost (27.4t/ha)	Autumn

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
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost purchase, haulage and spreading (£11 per tonne)	ha	36.0	303.0	10908.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					10908.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					12832.94

Comments:

Compost was sourced, delivered, arranged in windrows and later spread by a single contractor for a set price (£11 per tonne @27.4t/ha over 36 ha).

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No ongoing maintenance as organic matter will incorporate into soil over time. Ongoing maintenance would be to repeat the procedure to continue adding matter to the soil over time.

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

Comments:

No ongoing maintenance costs as organic matter will incorporate into soil over time. Ongoing maintenance would be to repeat the addition at the right time of the crop rotation again to continue adding organic matter to the soil over time.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The cost of contractor haulage and spreading, which is partly driven by current fuel costs.

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:

693.00

Agro-climatic zone

sub-humid

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

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)
fine/ heavy (clay)

Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):

medium (loamy, silty)

Topsoil organic matter:

medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Regularity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

medium

Habitat diversity:

medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:

Sedentary

Market orientation of production system:

mixed (subsistence/ commercial)

Off-farm income:

less than 10% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

average

Individuals or groups:

individual/ household
groups/ community

Level of mechanization:

mechanized/ motorized

Gender:

women
men

Age of land users:

middle-aged

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)?

large-scale

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

Land ownership:

individual, not titled

Land use rights:

leased

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Specify:

Leased long term on a business farming tenancy

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:

Yield remains the same, yet this could be offset by any loss linked with organic conversion. Difficult to quantify at this time.

crop quality

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Quality remains the same, yet this could be offset by any change linked with organic conversion. Difficult to quantify at this time.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

More expensive technology than conventional fertilisers

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

excess water drainage

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

Improved soil water infiltration evident

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

Increased potential for carbon sequestration with addition of carbon rich green waste

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

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		increase	well
seasonal rainfall	winter	increase	not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Short-term returns:

very positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

single cases/ experimental

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

91-100%

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
Good fertiliser option for organic system
Improvements in soil health will benefit farm for many years

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sustainable method of soil health improvements and crop fertilisation

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?
Relatively expensive to implement	The farm is organically certified so costs offset from higher organic food prices as this technology fits within certification. Additional farm subsidy to support technology would also be beneficial in the future if policy changes.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Expense to implement	Recognition through farm subsidy
Have to take a long-term approach, this is not a quick fix	Set a long-term sustainability and soil health plan for repeated application management

7. References and links

Links and modules

Expand all