Demonstration of sowing machine (Negmatjon Negmatov)

Applying zero tillage technology for climate change sensitive rain-fed arable farming (Tajikistan)

Примение безпахотной технологии для богарного земледелия, адаптированной к изменениям климата

Description

Direct sowing and application of fertilizer without ploughing reduces land degradation risks associated with conventional arable farming and saves costs for farmers while improving the resilience against climate change impact, in particular drought.

By zero tillage technology (also called direct seeding, direct sowing or direct drilling) seed of cultivated crops is placed without mechanical treatment of the topsoil. Within one operation the residues from previous crops and weeds are superficially removed, seeds are planted, fertilizer applied and covered by soil. For the purpose of weed control the field is ploughed every third year. Also herbizides are used for weed control. The special drilling machine used for this provides the opportunity of regulating the density of sowing and the dosage of applied fertilizer in accordance to the yield potential of the site, which is typically determined by soils fertility and moisture.

In comparison with the traditional methods of arable farming the application of the zero tillage technology (direct drilling) reduces the following risks from the ecology and agronomy point of view: soil compaction, lump formation, destruction of the soil and dust formation, and manifestation of water and wind erosion. Also, the decrease of organic matter and the destruction of the habitat of soil organisms caused by intensive mechanical soil treatment are reduced. The avoiding of breaking up and turning the upper soil horizon hampers the evaporation from the soil surface and increases the soil moisture.

From the economic perspective, with the use of zero tillage technology (direct sowing) farmers can save the expenses for ploughing, leveling, chiseling that significantly reduces the costs of farmers. Improved soil moisture reduces drought-related risks of rain-fed winter wheat farming. Despite the fact, that the season of 2017-2018 was unusually dry and cold, the direct drilling technology showed good result impressing local farmers.

The technology has been demonstrated at two demo plots (each 2.5 hectares) for cultivation of wheat crop, established in Devashtich district during the 2017 agriculture season. To ensure longer-term sustainability of the idea and quick dissemination among the farmers, the local Non-commercial cooperative “Agra va iqlim” was engaged as a local partner, which has been assisted in the purchase of a combined drilling and fertilizing machine (“Özdöken”, Made in Turkey). Additionally wheat varieties have been provided, which are particularly suitable for rain-fed farming and can cope with due to climate change increasing aridity in the area: “Sultan” (Turkey), “Sarvar” (Tajikistan), “Krasnodar99” and “Moskovskiy93” (Russia). These varieties are high growing and provide a good amount of straw, which is in high demand by livestock owners in the region (1.7 TJS per kg).

As a result, during the agricultural season 2017/2018 already 50 involved farmers applied the technology for 50 hectares of rain-fed land for winter wheat. During 2018/2019 an expansion of involved farmers to approx. 150 and of the coverage area to 150 hectares of land for cultivation of winter wheat is planned.

Location

Location: J. Rasulov district and Istaravshan district, Sughd region, Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed: 10-100 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.08515, 39.94542

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?: No

Date of implementation: 2017; less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Expert of "Agra va iqlim" explaining the drilling machine. (Stefan Michel)
Explanation of seed amount regulation at drilling machine: "bugday" for wheat, "arpa" for barley. (Stefan Michel)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: No

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - barley, cereals - wheat (spring), cereals - wheat (winter), oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
    Is intercropping practiced? No
    Is crop rotation practiced? No

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • minimal soil disturbance
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A3: Soil surface treatment (A 3.1: No tillage), A5: Seed management, improved varieties, A6: Residue management (A 6.3: collected)

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: ha)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: TJS
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 8.0 TJS
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
The costs of machinery and fuel for cultivation of the soil are substantial. The zero tillage technology allows for saving of 75-80% of these costs.
Establishment activities
  1. Purchase of drilling machine (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs (per ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (TJS) Total costs per input (TJS) % of costs borne by land users
Equipment
Drilling machine 1.0 140500.0 140500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 140'500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 17'562.5
Maintenance activities
  1. Application of herbizides (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Combined drilling, fertilizer application and removal of residues (Timing/ frequency: November or March / once)
  3. Fertilizing (Timing/ frequency: Spring, once)
  4. Harvest (Timing/ frequency: June - August)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (TJS) Total costs per input (TJS) % of costs borne by land users
Equipment
Drilling machine services ha 1.0 380.0 380.0 100.0
Services for spraying herbicides and other pesticides ha 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fertilizer application ha 1.0 150.0 150.0 100.0
Plant material
Wheat seeds kg 200.0 3.2 640.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
AmmoPhos kg 100.0 3.75 375.0 100.0
CarbamidN kg 100.0 3.0 300.0 100.0
Herbicide Granstar WDG kg 0.02 2000.0 40.0 100.0
Herbicide Dezormon 600 (2.4-D amine salt) l 0.8 100.0 80.0 100.0
Fungicide Tilt EC l 0.5 270.0 135.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 2'200.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 275.0

Natural environment

Average 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
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 440.0
According to Mr. Mamadyorov, the Head of the Agricultural department of Devashtich district annual rainfall in the rain-fed areas is 250-300 mm only, of which rainfall during end April-May is most important, together with rainfall in fall and winter.
Name of the meteorological station: Ghonchi
Slope
  • 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
Altitude
  • 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.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • 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)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 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
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 1-1.1 t/ha
Quantity after SLM: 1.2-1.5 t/ha
Drought year - higher production increase possible in good years.

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 2630 TJS/ha
Quantity after SLM: 2200 TJS/ha
Reduction of expenses for soil cultivation, sowing and application of fertilizer.

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
evaporation
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

Off-site impacts
downstream siltation
increased
decreased

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Initial investment in machinery covered by external funding, recovery of costs and expension by payments for use of machinery by farmers.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
seasonal temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Season: summer
seasonal rainfall decrease

not well at all
very well
Season: wet/ rainy season

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
2017/2018 - 50, 2018/2019 - 150
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Reduced number of operations for soil cultiviation and related cost reduction.
  • Higher yield in drough year compared to conventionally cultivated fields.
  • Technology can make rain-fed arable farming less risky.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Reduced number of operations for soil cultiviation and related cost reduction. Higher yield. Better resilience to climate change impact, in particular to drought.
  • Reduced soil erosion, higher accumulaton of soil organic matter, preservation of soil organisms, reduced evaporation and more retained humidity.
  • Potential for expansion in terms of area, application in other crops.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Perceived reduced infiltration compared to ploughing. Perception changed by observation on demonstration plots.
  • Potentially increasing weed abundance. Annual application of herbicides and ploughing every third year.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Crop residues on the soil surface can spread straw-borne diseases Crop residues are minimized by collecting and using of straw.
  • Uneven distribution of harvest residues cannot be corrected Drilling machine used for redistribution of residues.
  • Weeds have to be controlled with chemicals Use of herbicides with proofen minimum impact and persistence.
  • Wheel tracks and soil compaction cannot be mechanically repaired Ploughing every three years.

References

Compiler
  • Stefan Michel
Editors
Reviewer
  • Umed Vahobov
Date of documentation: Jan. 7, 2019
Last update: Feb. 13, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International