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)

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

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

Eskisehir Osmangazi University (Eskisehir Osmangazi University) - Türkiye

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Production of fodder crops every year both for feeding livestock and increasing soil fertility.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Fodder crops (maize, alfalfa, sainfoin, common vetch, triticale, oat, fodder beet, wheat and barley) are grown for hay production for livestock feeding. Growing fodder crops is a part of sustainable agriculture. The soil is protected in dry farming areas by covering the soil surface and leguminous fodder species (alfalfa, sainfoin, common vetch), which increases the soil fertility by nitrogen fixation. Applying the technology does not require extra inputs different from other agricultural crops. All that is needed is to identify a crop rotation plan including fodder production and regular agricultural crops.

Purpose of the Technology: Different fodder crops (legumineous and gramineous plants) are produced to feed the farmers’ own livestock. By enabling widespread and dense surface cover, It helps both in dry farming and irrigated areas to protect the soil from water and wind erosion.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Usually the soil is first ploughed. Soil cultivation machinery (tractor, disc plough, wide-sweep cultivator, disc harrow, fertilizer and seed drill) is used to prepare the soil for cultivation, to fertilize the soil and to sow the seeds. After seeding and growing of the crops, special machinery is used for harvesting.

Natural / human environment: Farmers who produce both livestock and field crops in particular can use this technology and get an improved benefit. They can increase income and at the same time protect their soil.

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:

• 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)

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)

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): monoculture in dry farming areas, insufficient irrigation and rainfall, overgrazing, false cultivation techniques.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Insufficient technical help and interest to agriculture problems by government, urbanization pressure, land fragmentation, monoculture in dry farming areas, insufficient irrigation and rainfall, overgrazing, false cultivation techniques.

Ranching: cow, sheep,goat

Other grazingland: agropastoralism

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

Constraints of settlement / urban: some legal problems

Constraints of recreation: no problem

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

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

25-50 LU /km2

3.4 Water supply

Comments:

Water supply: mixed rainfed - irrigated, rainfed, mixed rainfed - irrigated, full irrigation

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, relay cropping, cover cropping, retaining more vegetation cover, legume inter-planting, rotations / fallows

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cs: salinisation / alkalinisation, Pk: sealing and crusting, Bl: loss of soil life, Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators

Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping is dominant), land tenure, governance / institutional

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing (Regular management in pasture is needed), urbanisation and infrastructure development (There are border and legislative problems), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (Destroying of soil vegetation cover increase the evapotranspiration of soil water), over abstraction / excessive withdrawal of water (for irrigation, industry, etc.) (In recent year low rainfall occurs), population pressure, education, access to knowledge and support services

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

YTL

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

1.3

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Buying a harvest machine

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
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	50.0	50.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					50.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					38.46

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
Life span of the harvest machine: 20 years

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Ploughing	before harvest/ annually
2.	Provide seeds from agricultural agencies
3.	Fertilizing
4.	Irrigation

4.6 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
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	300.0	300.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
Equipment	Ploughing	ha	1.0	175.0	175.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	300.0	300.0	75.0
Plant material	Fertilizer	ha	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Biocides	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Plant material	Irrigation	ha	1.0	280.0	280.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1200.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					923.08

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Certified seed material and tillage costs (e.g. oil, machines) are the most determining factors affecting the costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

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 medium
Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table 5-50m (high in winter and spring; low in summer; medium in autumn)
Availability of surface water is medium (high in winter and spring; low in summer and autumn)
Water quality (untreated) is good drinking water ( Both ground and surface water)

5.5 Biodiversity

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%

2% of the land users are rich and own 29% of the land.
96% of the land users are average wealthy and own 70% of the land.
2% of the land users are poor and own 1% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: 1 % of land users have off farm income

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Water use rights:

• leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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	not 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	not 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	not well
temperature below 10°C	not well

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

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

100

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
95 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: financial support in cash
5% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
5 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: Because of the high costs of the inputs land users do not want to apply the technology without external support
There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: Input prices are increasing and therefore farmers do not readily adopt the technology without some inducement.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It reduces the cost of fodder input How can they be sustained / enhanced? Subsidies should be continued
It increases productivity of livestock How can they be sustained / enhanced? Technical knowledge should be given

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It improves the soil fertility How can they be sustained / enhanced? Technical and economic support is needed
It improves the livestock health by means of mixed fodder How can they be sustained / enhanced? Technical and economic support is needed
Increased protection of soil from water erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? Trials in plots should be done to demonstrate the magnitude of this advantage, so that the farmers can easily accept this technology

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?
Technology increases water use	Drip irrigation in the suitable crops can be a partial solution

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Land users awareness is low	They can be trained

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ryder, M.H., Fares, A., 2008. Evaluating cover crops (sudex, sunn hemp, oats) for use as vegetative filters to control sediment and nutrient loading from agricultural runoff in a Hawaiian watershed. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 44, 640–653.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Meersmans, J., Serlet, L., 2011. Cover crops and their erosion-reducing effects during concentrated flow erosion. Catena, 85: 237–244.