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 Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences (IAES/EMÜ) - Estonia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/05/2017

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:

Reduced (minimum) tillage is a tillage method that does not turn the soil over. Usually only the upper 10-18 cm of the soil surface is tilled.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in sub-humid climate with an average of 696 mm of precipitations per year, from which more comes from July to October and less in March and April. Average annual temperature is +4 C, length of the growing period is 180-195 days. The territory is mostly flat, the southern part is hilly with slopes of 6-10%. Average altitude from the sea level is 50 m. About half of the Estonian territory is above 50 m and half is below it. Soils are from very shallow (less than 0.1 m) in the north to very deep (> 120m ) in the south. Soil cover is very variable. In the agricultural area the soils are medium textured with low (< 1%) to high (>5%) organic matter in topsoil. Groundwater is near the surface in wet soils and deep in hilly areas. Biodiversity varies from high to low depending on soil and landscape. Market orientation of production system is mixed and off-farm income is less than 10%. Relative level of wealth is average from individual households to cooperatives. Soil management is mechanized. Land belongs to land users, but is leased also in case of bigger farms (over 100 ha).
Reduced tillage is the tillage method used in agriculture to prepare the seedbed. Usually only the upper 10-18 cm of the soil surface is tilled. There is no use of ploughing and thus it is the method that does not turn the soil over. This may involve the use of a chisel plough, field cultivators, or other implements. Depth of the soil preparation depends on the culture in the rotation - before cereals 10-12 cm, before oilseed rape 15-18 cm. The main equipments to prepare the seedbed are the disc cultivator and the tine cultivator or a combined cultivator. The work can be ordered from contractors as well. Usually farms own the equipment.
The main goal is to maintain soil structure, to improve water infiltration, to reduce compaction, and to reduce fuel and labour costs. As there will remain 30% more residues on the soil surface it will promote the activity of soil organisms. Less disturbance in deeper layers increases number of earthworms and increases species diversity. The greatest benefits for the land users are the reduced fuel and labour costs. The reduced tillage is more suitable for crop rotations without root crops. For example, rotation can be as follow: winter oilseed rape - winter wheat - pea (or bean) - winter wheat - spring barley undersown with red clover - red clover. However, the soil compaction and weediness can drastically increase during the first years of the implementation without using a proper crop rotation or management plan. The soil conditions (compaction and weediness) can get worser inside the first 4 years and start to improve after that. It is not suitable for fields which are heavily affected by perennial weeds, as noninversional tillage can spread the weed roots and higher doses of herbicides are needed.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Before the use of reduced tillage conventional tillage (with ploughing) has been used.

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

Specify:

One harvest of cereals per year.

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• 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:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

2/3 of cereals is cultivated by minimum tillage technology in Estonia.

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
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

To till the soil chisel ploughing or disc cultivator is used without turning the soil over. For cereals the suitable depth is 10-12 cm, for oilseed rape 15-18 cm. Ca 30% from straw will remain on the soil surface. To loosen the soil of deeper layers the deep chiseling down to 25 cm is used.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

EUR

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

1.18

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Purchase of cultivator (disc or combination cultivator)	Agronomic

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Equipment	Disc cultivator	piece	1.0	15000.0	15000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					15000.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Seedbed preparation (tillage before drilling)	Agronomic	before drilling (spring crops in spring (April), winter crops in autumn (August))
2.	Fertilization, drilling	Agronomic	in spring or in autumn, drilling and fertlization at the same time
3.	Plant protection	Agronomic	up to 3 times during growth period depending of weediness, infections and insects
4.	Fertilization during growth period	Agronomic	For winter crops in spring after snowmelt in the beginning of growth, for spring crops in the beginning of intensive growth
5.	Harvest and grain transport	Agronomic	in the end of season (end of July to beginning of September depending of the crop)
6.	Drying of grain and soil tillage	Agronomic	after harvest

Comments:

The example is based on the assumption that the yield will be around 6 t/ha and we grow cereals (winter or spring wheat)

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
Equipment	Seedbed preparation, fertilization, sowing	times	1.0	131.9	131.9	100.0
Equipment	Plant protection	times	3.0	11.2	33.6	100.0
Equipment	Fertilization during growth period	times	1.0	16.2	16.2	100.0
Equipment	Harvest and grain transport	times	1.0	118.5	118.5	100.0
Equipment	Drying and after harvest activities	times	1.0	132.1	132.1	100.0
Plant material	seeds	kg	200.0	0.28	56.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Ammonium nitrate (2x per season) 147 kg/ha N (200 kg fertilizer per ha)	kg	147.0	0.84	123.48	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Complex fertilizer (27 kg N, 40 kg P and 112 kg K per ha) (450 kg of fertilizer per ha)	kg	179.0	0.74	132.46	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicides (1 time)	times	1.0	27.0	27.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fungicides (1 time)	times	1.0	33.2	33.2	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Insecticides (1 time)	times	1.0	3.6	3.6	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Retartants	times	1.0	14.0	14.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					822.04

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Agricultural producers can have governmental support per unit 83.71 EUR/ha and the greening support 38.81 EUR/ha.

Comments:

The labour costs are included to the machinery work costs. An average the labour cost for a driver is 15-18 EUR/ha. The average machinery work costs to produce 4.5 t of winter wheat were 388 EUR/ha, 355 EUR/ha and 322 EUR/ha in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively in 2016. Cost of production in this case was 159 EUR/t, 152 EUR/t and 147 EUR/t in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively.
To produce the same amount of spring barley, the cost of machinery was 365 EUR/ha, 345 EUR/ha and 300 EUR/ha in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively. Cost of production in this case was 142 EUR/t, 139 EUR/t and 129 EUR/t in conventional, minimum and no-tillage, respectively.
The machinery cost for minimum tillage is 33 EUR and 20 EUR less than for conventional plough based tillage for winter wheat and spring barley, respectively.
By minimum tillage the use of fuel is ca 38% less than by ploughing.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel costs, labour cost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex 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.

On the main investigated area it is sandy loan Stagnic Luvisol, in some parts Calcaric Luvisol. pH in water 6.9-7.3

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:

• state
• company

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• 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

6.2 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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	not known
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	not known
annual rainfall		increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	winter	increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	autumn	increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not known
local thunderstorm	not known
local hailstorm	not known
local snowstorm	not known
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave	not known
extreme winter conditions	not known
land fire	moderately

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):

85 371 ha

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
Decrease of work load, time and labour costs.
Decrease of fuel consumption, increase of income.
Increase of soil biological activity, soil organic matter content, better structure and infiltration.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Decrease of soil organic carbon decomposition.
Decrease of soil erosion.
Increase of soil biological activity.

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?
Increase of weed abundance and soil compaction	Proper crop rotation and timing

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Higher use of pesticides and risk to soil and water pollution.	Changes in crop rotation, use of cover crops

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Minimeeritud harimine ja otsekülv. 2017. P. Viil. Eesti Taimekasvatuse Instituut. ISBN 978-9949-9742-2-1:

Available from where? Costs?

ISBN 978-9949-9742-2-1

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Kattetulu arvestused taime- ja loomakasvatuses 2016. Koost: Marju Aamisepp, Helle Persitski. Maamajanduse infokeskus. 2017.:

URL:

http://www.maainfo.ee/data/trykis/kattetulu/KATTETULU2016.pdf

Title/ description:

Statistics Estonia

URL:

https://www.stat.ee/en

Title/ description:

Erinevate viljelusmeetodite ( sh. otsekülv) rakendusteaduslik kompleksuuring. Riikliku programmi “Põllumajanduslikud rakendusuuringud ja

URL:

http://www.pikk.ee/upload/􀀍les/Erinevad_viljelusviisid_pikk_aruanne.pdf

Title/ description:

Minimeeritud harimine ja otsekülv. 2017. P. Viil. Eesti Taimekasvatuse Instituut.:

URL:

http://taim.etki.ee/taim/public/pdf/Trukised/Otseklv-minimeeritudmullaharimine.

Title/ description:

Eesti maaelu arengukava 2014-2020 4. ja 5. prioriteedi meetmete ja 3. prioriteedi loomade heaolu meetme püsihindamisaruanne 2015. aasta kohta ja

URL:

http://pmk.agri.ee/mak/avaleht/

Title/ description:

Projekti ”Erinevate mullaharimise ja külvitehnoloogiate mõ-ju uuring tera- ja kaunviljade saagikusele viljavahelduslikus ja monokultuurses külvikorras” lõpparuanne

URL:

http://www.pikk.ee/upload/files/Teadusinfo/Lopparuanne_111_2002_2006.pdf

Title/ description:

Eesti tuleviku kliimastsenaariumid aastani 2100

URL:

https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/kliimastsenaariumid_kaur_aruanne_ver190815.pdf