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)

Farmin & wildlife advisory group (FWAG) - United Kingdom

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/02/2005

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Non-inversion tillage to create a seedbed

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Non-inversion tillage to provide suitable seedbed for following crop.

Purpose of the Technology: Even and cost-effective crop establishment, saving time and benefiting the environment. Maintenance: annually, per crop,

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: innovative farmer reducing impacts of farming on the environemnt, expanding his businesss and saving time

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

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 (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion and compaction caused by inappropriate land use and intensive grazing respectively

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Soil erosion and capping of the soil

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: winter wheat - winter oilseed rape - winter wheat - beans - winter wheat

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: 300 Longest growing period from month to month: Sep - 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 0.78 m2.

Farm is a total of 126ha of which 28ha are grazed, 9ha are under environmental stewardship and 7ha are set aside

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Pk: sealing and crusting

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (economic viability), poverty / wealth (lack of captial), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of knowledge)

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: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: improvement of soil structure

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase in soil fertility

Early planting
Material/ species: crop
Quantity/ density: depends on

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: crop residue
Quantity/ density: 2-5 t/ha
Remarks: residue chopped + spread over width of combine

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Remarks: broadcast

Soil conditioners (lime, gypsum)
Material/ species: biosolids (from Aug05)

Breaking compacted topsoil
Remarks: when required

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

4.4 Establishment activities

Comments:

Additional info: - Year2: surface cultivation: mid September / per crop - Year2: drill: mid September / per crop - Year2: roll: mid September / per crop - Year3: shallow sub-soil: November / per crop - Year3: drill: November / per crop

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Year1: shallow sub-soil	Agronomic	3rd-4th week in August / annual
2.	Year1: spray with non-selective herbicide (glyphosate)	Agronomic	late August/ early September / annual
3.	Year1: drill	Agronomic	late August/ early September, 3-4 days after spraying / annual
4.	Year1: roll (optional)	Agronomic	after drilling / annual
5.	Year2: surface cultivation (more in Annex 3)	Agronomic	mid August / per crop

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	Equipment (year1)-machine hour
Equipment	Equipment (year2)-machine hour
Equipment	Equipment (year3)-machine hour

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Vaderstad Carrier, Vaderstad drill and roller

Only crop establishment costs are included as all other costs - seed, fertilisers, pesticides - are equivalent with those for conventionally mouldboard ploughing. The costs highlghted include labour. Equivalent crop establishment costs by ploughing are 225 (year1), 231 (year2), 190 (year3)

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

slope (steeper slopes require more horsepower), state of the soil, climate, crop

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/infiltration is good

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: < 0.5%

5% of the land users are very rich and own 20% of the land.
10% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land.
85% of the land users are average wealthy and own 60% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Contracting work forms greater part of income

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

• Other

Land use rights:

• leased

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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 moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Driven by economics

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased work rate making operations quicker
Better trafficability
Less at risk of weather
Earlier drilling. It is a systems approach - minimum tillage combined with early drilling and low seed rates

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increased work rate How can they be sustained / enhanced? Better planning
Improved soil organic matter
(Possible) soil structure improvements
Improved soil ecology and other wildlife benefits

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?
Dependent on dry weather	Co-operation with other farmers or larger acreage
Machinery more complex and expensive	A combination of crop rotation, pesticides and stale seedbeds
Increasing grass weed populations	Does not necessarily mean spending money eg utilising old equipment on farm like subsoilers. However, need the right attitude
Need to be experimental	Accept advice for varying sources, talk to different people
Advice can be fragmented/ confusing

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Technological knowledge of farmer	Training and education, dissemination
Initial high capital investment	Extended finance
Possible increasing weed populations	More diverse management options - cultural and chemical
Need to expand acreage to cover capital costs	More diverse crop rotation but perhaps this is insufficient to retain economic viability

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SOWAP project

Available from where? Costs?

www.sowap.org

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

L and D farming

URL:

www.landdfarming.co.uk

Title/ description:

Vaderstad machinery

URL:

www.vaderstad.com