Former drought exposed fields converted to grazing pastures (Matjaž Glavan)

Converting cropland to grazing land (Slovenia)

Pretvorba njiv v pašnike

Description

Technology is based on changing cropland to grazing land due to shallow soils with high share of rocks. This is the cause for lower yields or loss of yield during drought periods.

1.The technology is applied in flatlands of Ljubljana with an average altitude of 350 m.a.s.l. The average annual precipitation is 1400 mm. The area is characterized with often stormy precipitation events and occasional droughts. Silty loam soils in the area are moderately deep to deep with medium soil organic matter. Area has good availability of surface water and groundwater of good drinking quality. Area has medium biodiversity without salinity and flooding problems. Sedentary agriculture with mixed or commercial agriculture is practiced with less than 10% of income from off-farm. Individual farm households are average in wealth and they are basically mechanized/motorized. The examined farm household, as all housholds in the region has good access to all services and infrastructures. Farm is medium in scale with land owned partly by the farmer and partly leased from other private owners.

2. Cropland area was converted to permanent grassland or pasture land by sowing of grass and by a fence as protection. Grazing is organized in a rotation system between suckler cow's pasture and paddocks.

3. The purpose of the technology is to use the natural potential of the soils. As soils are shallow with low water holding capacity permanent grassland is much more resilient and adapted to the drought; permanent grassland needs not only less water, but as well less nutrients. Grass has the capacity to grow well after any rainfall event at any time of the growing period. During drought when, maize fields get dry, grasslands subsist and just wait until the rain falls. While maize yield is lost in drought years, grassland can sustain and nurrish animals until mid-autumn. Another advantage of grassland is its building up of organic matter in the soils.

4. Main activities to establish the grazing fields are fences and electricity instalments together with grass sowing. Main maintenance activities are regular checking of the fence and electricity power and regular cleaning cuts to remove the weed at least once a year.

5. Benefits are:
(1) soils are less exposed to adverse weather conditions like drought
(2) increase of soil organic matter
(3) better resilience of the land user against production loss
(4) rise of soil biodiversity
(5) better animal welfare
(6) land user benefit from growing customer interest for meat products.

6. Land users like this better use of land resources, as less productive soils have gained new meaning. But they, on the other hand, also blame the loss of cropland needed for their maize production.

Location

Location: Municipality of Ljubljana, Slovenia

No. of Technology sites analysed: 2-10 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 14.49527, 46.12594
  • 14.49527, 46.12594
  • 14.50038, 46.12296
  • 14.50038, 46.12296
  • 14.50227, 46.12285
  • 14.50227, 46.12285
  • 14.50446, 46.11713
  • 14.50446, 46.11713

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 2000; 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Grazing land vs. cropland (Matjaž Glavan)
Soil structure of the soil under grazing showing the share of rocks (Matjaž Glavan)

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

  • Grazing land
    • Improved pastures
    Animal type: cattle - non-dairy beef
    Products and services: meat
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
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • physical soil deterioration - Pc: compaction
  • biological degradation - Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
SLM group
  • pastoralism and grazing land management
SLM measures
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Technical infographic presents reason for land use conversion (loss of yield due to drought on shallow, sandy soils) and process of conversion from ploughing, sowing, fencing and pasture establishment.
Author: Matjaž Glavan

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 12 hectares)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: EUR (€)
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.89 EUR (€)
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 50
Most important factors affecting the costs
Costs for fence establishment and electric fence energiser.
Establishment activities
  1. Land preparation (Timing/ frequency: vegetational period)
  2. Grass sowing (Timing/ frequency: All year arround, before fencing.)
  3. Fence installation (Timing/ frequency: winter, spring)
Establishment inputs and costs (per 12 hectares)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (EUR (€)) Total costs per input (EUR (€)) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Fence installation EUR/hour 20.0 6.25 125.0 100.0
Land preparation EUR/hour 2.0 6.25 12.5 100.0
Equipment
Fence (pillars, wires and electric fence energiser) EUR/ha 3.0 266.0 798.0 100.0
Plant material
grass seeds EUR/ha 3.0 200.0 600.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 1'535.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1'725.28
Maintenance activities
  1. Fence maintenance (Timing/ frequency: all year around)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 12 hectares)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (EUR (€)) Total costs per input (EUR (€)) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Checking the fence EUR/hour 8.0 6.25 50.0 100.0
Equipment
electrical isolators for wooden pillars pcs 100.0 0.2 20.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 70.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 78.65

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: 1352.0
Average annual precipitation period is 1991-2000.
Majority of the rain falls in the autumn, followed by summer, spring and winter.
Name of the meteorological station: Ljubljana-Bežigrad
strong summer tunder storms and showers with local precipitation.
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
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

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

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good
None

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder production
decreased
x
increased

fodder quality
decreased
x
increased

land management
hindered
x
simplified

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
x
decreased

farm income
decreased
x
increased

diversity of income sources
decreased
x
increased

workload
increased
x
decreased


Animals have their own requirements. They need drinking water, they need to be relocated, daily observed and watch over in case of broken fence. Thus, the simplified management is not leading to a decrease of workload

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
x
increased

soil compaction
increased
x
reduced


On light soils there is no differences. On clay soils it is rather worse.

plant diversity
decreased
x
increased

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
x
increased

drought impacts
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts
groundwater/ river pollution
increased
x
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well

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%
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
  • Strengths: less grass cutting in summer time as animals are grazing. Lower costs of production.
  • Advantages: animal welfare.
  • Opportunities: diversified landscape view is an additional value.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Strengths: better use of soil /land resource. Crop like maize would bring low yields and high costs.
  • Advantages: animal welfare / better conditions and increase in biodiversity.
  • Opportunities: adaptation to rising drought events.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Weaknesses: transport of animals to the pasture in spring time. They use lorry for transport.
  • Disadvantages: different parasites influencing animal health. Regular use of medicine in risk areas.
  • Risks: soil compaction on heavy clay soils. Lower density of animals.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Weaknesses: soil compaction; overgrazing with soil exposure to external weather conditions. Livestock density is crucial to maintain good land management.

References

Compiler
  • Matjaz Glavan
Editors
Reviewer
  • Ursula Gaemperli
  • Gudrun Schwilch
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Tatenda Lemann
Date of documentation: June 11, 2017
Last update: Oct. 23, 2023
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