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)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/02/2005

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop establishment with minimal soil disturbance

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Direct drilling replacing the plough. Residue from previous crop retained and new crop planted with minimal soil disturbance.

Purpose of the Technology: cost and labour reduction.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: good residue managament without burning; appropriate equipment for soil type.

Natural / human environment: weather, soil, farmer attitude

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.):

Canada + UK

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Lack of organic matter which is making soils more difficult to work

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Wheat - oilseed rape -wheat - sugar beet. However the rotation is flexible. It should be noted that only the combinable crops (wheat and oilseed rape) are direct drilled

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:

Longest growing period in days: 330, Longest growing period from month to month: Sept - Jul

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.245 m2.
Single farm of 316ha

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: poverty / wealth (economic viability), labour availability (loss of labour)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high
Technical knowledge required for land users: high

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, increase of surface roughness, increase in organic matter, improvement of soil structure, increase in soil fertility

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: crop residue
Quantity/ density: 4 t/ha
Remarks: chopped and spread evenly

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

£

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

0.56

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Spray with glyphosate	Agronomic	after harvest and ~1 week before drilling / annual
2.	Drilling	Agronomic	6-8weeks after harvest / annual
3.	Harrow (up to 2.5cm deep)	Agronomic	immediately after drilling / annual
4.	Roll	Agronomic	immediately after harrowing / annual

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	Machine use	ha	1.0	73.0	73.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					73.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: John Dale direct drill, roller, harrow
This amount is for crop establishment costs only and may vary depending on crop type, state of the soil and climate. The cost includes machinery + labour. In comparison, the crop establishment costs for a conventionally mouldboard ploughed system is $239.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

soil moisture

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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/infiltrations is good. Also medium (ranked 2) and poor (ranked 3)
Soil water storage capacity is high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative
25% of the land users are rich.
50% of the land users are average wealthy.
25% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: Recent diversification to a great extent than neighbours

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased

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

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: Direct drilling is still regarded with some suspicion in fthe UK, partly due to wet conditions, grass weed problems and machniery. However, economic pressures and changes to legislation may increase the trend

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
reduced work load
improvements to soil condition and the environment
improved trafficability (on the land)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improved soil cover and fertility
improved biodiversity above and below ground
reduced work load
good fit in current (and future) policy environment
farmers become better managers of their entire farming system

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?
occurrence of rain after drilling (more susceptible to wet conditions at this time compared to ploughing)	ability to loosen the soil if required
higher management imput	better advice
higher cost of sprays	better rotations and other cutural methods of managing weeds
untidy fields	research, demonstration and advice
lack of knowledge and experience	research, demonstration and advice

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
weed management	better rotations, better fertiliser placement, better targetting of susceptible stages in weed lifecycle
lack of information	more on-farm research + demonstration for now and the future especially to develop economically viable rotations, more applicable herbicide labelling
farmers conservatism	more demonstrations
susceptibility to wet autumns (coping with wet residue)	more reliable weather forecasts
weather dependent

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Controlled traffic farming project

URL:

www.controlledtrafficfarming.com

Title/ description:

John Dale drills

URL:

www.daledrills.com

Title/ description:

SOWAP project

URL:

www.sowap.org