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)

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Conventional (contour-line and ploughing) tillage [Hungary]

Conventional (contour-line and ploughing) tillage

• Compiler: Adam Kertesz
• 01/21/2009 midnight

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conventional (contour-line and ploughing) tillage

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The basis of the technology is the annual autumn ploughing. The ploughing and all other cultivation is carried out parallel to the contour lines. This way the erosion can be significantly decreased. The rotational cultivation aims at the reduction of the areal and fluvial erosion, at the repulsion of the weeds and at the attainment of the ideal state of the seedbed at the time of sowing. It is applicable anywhere bellow a certain slope angle. The only restriction is the excessively thin parcel structure.
Special education and investment are not required, it can be realised by the available instruments.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Hungary

Region/ State/ Province:

Zala county

Further specification of location:

Zala county, Zala hills, Zala

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

0.1963

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.1963 km2.

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - wheat (winter)

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 185; Longest growing period from month to month: Apr - Oct

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Relay cropping: wheat, maize

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Fine loess soil with significant soil degradation, soil compaction due to inconvenient land use

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): EU and government rules, problems of the subsidy system, sales and marketing concerns

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: maize, winter wheat, maize…

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
• A3: Soil surface treatment

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: relay cropping, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), rotations / fallows, contour tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
• Wm: mass movements/ landslides

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wm: mass movements / landslides, Pc: compaction

Main causes of degradation: reorganization of the ownerships, land subdivision

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Hungarian Forint

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

195.8

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: plough, disc, roller, drill, tractor, sprayer, harvester

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

compacted soil surface> chiselling (loosening); steep slops>more fuel; nutrient supply>expensive inorganic fertilizers

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: ~ 200 m

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 fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is medium and sometimes high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: negative

Off-farm income specification: no off-farm income

5.7 Average area of land used 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

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 household

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: survey results

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information