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)

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE ) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/08/2015

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:

The Dyker consists of a set of wheels with three to four inclined shovels each. Attached to the rear end of the planting machine, it digs holes into the bottom of the furrows between the potato hills.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Dyker system consists of a new tractor trailer for cultivating potatoes. It was established by Grimme from Germany. With this new technology small holes and micro-dams are built in the furrows between the potato hills. They are intended to improve water infiltration and to help retain water near the plants, while preventing waterlogging and stagnant water in depressions and minimizing surface runoff and soil erosion.

On conventionally farmed potato fields (where an all-in-one potato planter can be used) no additional working steps are necessary and the Dyker can be used simultaneously with the potato planting machine. This saves time and money. For other crops or if no all-in-one potato planter is used, the Dyker can also be attached to a tractor as an individual trailer (without potato planter). Then one ore more additional working steps are needed after plantation.

The system is intended to prevent soil erosion and waterlogging during the cultivation process of potatoes. Furrows running parallel to the gradient are mostly endangered by soil erosion during the first 4-8 weeks until soil cover reaches a certain percentage. Small holes and micro-dams in the furrows increase infiltration and reduce surface runoff and thereby prevent soil erosion and water logging.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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

• through contructors' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The major land use problem is soil erosion by water occuring mainly at hillside situations. Land use problems related to the use of the plow are only minor because most of the land users have shifted to direct seeding, mulching or strip tillage.

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

• cross-slope measure
• water diversion and drainage

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 km2 (10 ha)

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

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: high
Main technical functions:
-control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap,
-control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard,
-control of concentrated runoff: drain / divert

Secondary technical functions:
-reduction of slope length,
-increase of infiltrationgth, increase of infiltration

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):

CHF

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

1.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Dyker system usage during cultivation of potatoes	Agronomic	During or after potato plantation

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
Labour	Labour	days/year	2.0	250.0	500.0
Equipment	Dyker	piece	1.0	8500.0	8500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					9000.0

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

Depending if the Dyker belongs to the farmer or a contractor

Comments:

Standard costs for potato plantation like seeds and fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide are not included in the calculations for the costs. It is assumed that the Dyker is used with an "all-in-one" potato planter where no additional working steps are required.
In many cases the Dyker belongs to a contractor, who is planting potatoes for the farmers. In this case no additional costs can be expected for the farmers. The farmers only have to pay for the labour (contractor), seeds and fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide but not for the usage of the Dyker.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

- If the Dyker belongs to a contractor with a all-in-one potato planter, no additional costs are expected for the farmer (but for the contractor)
- If the Dyker is not attached to a all-in-one potato planter but e.g. to a tractor, additional working steps are necessary.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

Soil texture is medium
Soil fertility is high
Soil drainage infiltration is medium
Soil water storage capacity is medium

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

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly leaders / privileged

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:

• 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

Other ecological impacts

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	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not known

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not 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

• 10-50%

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

• 50-90%

Comments:

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology. Many farmer use a contractor: if the contractor has a Dyker, then the farmers will use it.

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 small holes and micro dams in the furrows enhance infiltration, reduce surface runoff and prevent soil erosion and waterlogging.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The problematic crop of potatoes can be prevented from soil erosion thanks to the Dyker system.

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?
The weight of the Dyker which is added behind the axe --> more difficult to maneuver the machine	Good technical skills and experience with big, heavy machines are necessary to use the Dyker system correctly. In terms of risk of soil compaction this is negligible, as the dyker does not add much to the total weight of the machinery.
price of Dyker: US$ 8000 – 8500 for a contractor these costs are not a problem. However, for a single farmer the price is high	Shared use of the Dyker can reduce costs for individual farmer

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

RECARE Project Dissemination Hub

URL:

http://www.recare-hub.eu/stakeholder-platforms/frienisberg-switzerland