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)

Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)

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

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences (IA PAS) - Poland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/07/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

No-till is a system where crops are planted into the soil without primary tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is used in Rogów (N 50.80018 E 23.44883), in Zamosc Region in Poland under cereals or oil crops. The technology is used on about 700 ha area. The case study is embedded in a typical agricultural region on rather fertile soils formed from loess. The altitude at the study site is 238 m.a.s.l., average temperature 17.6°C and precipitation 563 mm. The farmer uses direct sowing technique and the following machines: stubble cultivator, seed drill with disc coulters and combine harvesters. The crop rotation includes the following crops: wheat/maize/wheat/rape. No-till, as well as minimum and reduced tillage, provides the opportunity to reduce energy requirements, increase soil organic matter content and protects the soil against erosion, runoff and compaction. No-till may often increase crop yields. The costs reduction for fuel making this technology more attractive commercially. No-till reduces CO2 emission from fuel during machinery usage. The presence of crop residues on the surface of soil layer can cause plant diseases. It is necessary to use some low amount of herbicides and fungicides in no-till.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmer visited farms in the USA where the no-till technology is widely used. Then, he introduced the technology on his own farm in collaboration with local agricultural research units, including Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation in Pulawy and Life Sciences University in Lublin.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact

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

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

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Fig. 1. Crop residues on no-till field under rape
Fig. 2. Seed drill with disc coulters (seeds are introduced into the soil pneumatically)

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

PLN

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

0.28

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Rill opening of soil	Agronomic	Spring or autumn depending on the crop type
2.	Direct sowing and fertilizing applied at once through direct sowing machine	Agronomic	Spring or autumn depending on the crop type

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If possible, break down the costs of maintenance according to the following table, specifying inputs and costs per input. If you are unable to break down the costs, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

360.0

Comments:

The costs refer to 1 hectare managed and include fertilizers, equipment and labour.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost of machinery appropriate to no-till and costs to meet bill of machinery contractor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

• family

Land use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

• 1-10%

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

The farmer covered about 700 ha by no-till technology.

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 90-100%

Comments:

The farmer saw this technology in the USA and wanted to try it in Poland.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The increase of crop yield and production.
Prevention and reduction of erosion is widely observed under no-till.
Soil organic matter content increase is observed.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Soil structure improvement.
Decrease of environmental damage associated with soil inversion by ploughing.

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?
Weed expansion	Herbicides application

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Plant diseases	Fungicides application

7.1 Methods/ sources of information