1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1017, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1238, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, Wageningen University & Research Centre (DLO) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

19/07/2017

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:

Mineral ferilizers are (partly) replaced by organic fertilizers in order to have a higher organic matter input

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in arable/vegetable production systems in de Peel. De Peel is a sandy soil rural region in the southeast of the Netherlands. The technology is not limited by soil type or crop production system. An important requisite is the availability of manure .
The technology is applied on conventional farms. Mineral fertilizers are (partly) replaced by organic fertilizers. The yearly crop fertilization is mainly based on slurry which is in abundance available in the region. The amount of organic fertilizers is restricted by national and regional legislation related to the total input of Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Occasionally additional solid manure and/or compost is put in (autumn). Extra organic matter input by manure is sometimes combined with emphasis on the use of cover crops which gives an additional input of organic matter as well.
Main purposes of the technology are to improve soil quality in general, reduce wind erosion, reduce nitrate leaching, increase soil biodiversity and make the soil more resilient to stress factors like drought or excessive rainfall.
Major activities are reduction of mineral fertilisers and the increase of organic fertilizers. This is accompanied by the additional use of cover crops whenever possible.
The impacts are so far an increase of soil organic matter, an increase of soil biodiversity, higher yields and a higher soil resilience.
Landusers like the technology because of the better soil quality, increase of yields, lower input costs (farmers are paid to use manure, since there is an excess in the region ). farmers dislike the technology because of the risks of compaction because of the heavy loads of slurry. Another negative effect is the less predictable nutriënt availability in the soil of organic fertilisers. Also the costs and of additional sowing of cover crops is considered a negative aspect. Having the correct machinery is not an issue, since there are a lot of cooperations with contractors who can do the application for you.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

1998

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Research has shown that organic matter input is of vital importance if you want to maintain your soil quality. Farmers know this, all farmers in the region use at least partly organic manure.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• 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:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

Comments:

I think the area size depends on how big you estimate the study site area, but most of the farmers use (at least partly) organic manure. This may be up around 80% of the farmers.

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

Before planting/sowing organic manure is added to the soil, either by spreading it on top of the soil (photo 1) or injecting it in the soil (photo 2)

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):

Euro

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

0.87

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

There are no costs for establishment. Possibly in some case equipment to spread slurry, however this is mostly done by contract work.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	fertilisation with slurry	Agronomic	once a year in early spring
2.	sowing of cover crops	Agronomic	late summer/ early autumn
3.	incorporating cover crops	Agronomic	late winter/early spring

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
Plant material	seed costs and sowing cover crops	ha	50.0	100.0	5000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	compost application	m3	250.0	15.0	3750.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	solid manure application	m3	250.0	10.0	2500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	pig slurry application	m3	1000.0	-10.0	-10000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1250.0

Comments:

Not calculated is the profit for the reduction of mineral inputs. For pig slurry there are negative costs because the pig farmer has to pay the arable farmer to get rid of his slurry.
Costs for labour and machinery to apply the manure and for sowing are included in the application numbers.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

price of compost and solid manure, negative price of pig slurry, costs for seed and sowing cover crops

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	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

• 1-10%

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

• 90-100%

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
Higher yields
better soil quality in general

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
more resilient soil
more soil life

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?
it is somewhat more difficult to calculate and make sure you have all the nutrients in correct amounts on your field	take samples from the manure, and get used to the calculations
you still have to add mineral fertilizer, because the manure does not have all nutrients in the right amounts	not.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
risk of soil compaction	Don't bring all the manure for the whole field at once, several smaller portions.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information