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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1059, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'European Interreg project FABulous Farmers', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6194, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie (ZLTO) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6194, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie (ZLTO) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'}

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

1.4 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 organic matter content of arable land is increased by spreading mushroom compost ("champost"), growing green manure during the winter season, and reducing tillage

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Zeeland is the least populated area of the Netherlands. It consists of islands and peninsulas with almost half the area covered by water, but is also the largest agricultural province of the country. Significant areas are below sea level. Zeeland is known for its onion production, but also potatoes, grain legumes, sugar beet, wheat/grain and flax. The SLM technology described here, on Functional AgroBiodiversity, is applied in the North-West of the FABulous Farmers project pilot area, Zeeland.

The technology is being implemented on a 40 ha area after the harvest of the main crop in autumn. The land is fertilized with mushroom compost ("champost") a by-product of the mushroom production industry, then a cover crop is sown, which is cut and shallow tilled into the soil as a green manure in early spring.

The aim is to increase the organic matter content in the soil to support the growth of (micro-) organisms, improve the water buffering capacity and increase soil fertility. Improved soil health will support better crop growth and yields, with other inputs reduced, thus saving on costs. However, with machinery being used to spread the mushroom compost, the sowing of a green manure catchcrop, and mowing and tilling at the end of the season, the SLM technology is quite labour - and cost-intensive. This technology can be applied as a single operation, or repeated as long as the costs offset the benefits.

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

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:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Interreg North-West Europe FABulous Farmers

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

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:

• reduce land degradation

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro

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

0.85

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Spreading champost	August
2.	Cultivating the land	August
3.	Sowing cover crop	August
4.	Cutting and tilling catch crop as green manure	March

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Spreading champost	day	3.0	150.0	450.0	100.0
Labour	Cultivation	day	3.0	150.0	450.0	100.0
Labour	Cover crop sowing	day	3.0	150.0	450.0	100.0
Labour	Cutting & tilling green manure	day	5.0	150.0	750.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor & related attachments (already owned)	machinery	1.0			100.0
Plant material	Cover crop	per ha	40.0	30.0	1200.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Champost (mushroom compost)	per ha	40.0	30.0	1200.0	50.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					4500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					5294.12

Comments:

Cost of compost purchase subsidised by the FAB Farmers project as a trial site for impact assessment.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No specific ongoing maintenence unless repeating technology each year or after a number of years. If so see above.

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

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

n/a

Comments:

No specific ongoing maintenence unless repeating technology each year. If so see above.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The cost of the mushroom compost, yet this is a waste product and so could become a cheaper option.

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.

Clay 13%
Org matter 1.2%
pH 5
Soil type Sabulous clay (zavel)
CEC 190 mmol/kg

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Specify:

There is a shallow salt water layer in the subsoil that increases the salinity level of ground and surface water.

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 used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• company

Land use rights:

• individual

• partnership

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

Land use rights are based on ownership or lease agreement

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

Soil

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		increase	well
seasonal rainfall	autumn	decrease	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)?

Comments:

Soil health and nutrient availability is improving crop production and resilience.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Technology supported through SLM expert advice as part of the FABulous Farmers project and good price negotiated for mushroom compost to help repurpose waste material from mushroom farm.

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
Soil health and nutrient availability is improving crops production and resilience.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Possibility of other waste or green manures to be utilised for local application to resource availability.
Sustainable fertilizer option that should help reduce input costs

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?
Higher cost of labour and inputs when using cover crops	Cost is unavoidable, yet benefits should outweigh cost.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Access to similar waste products may not be available locally if applied in other locations	Avoid large transport costs and other impacts if product is not available locally. Try a different approach.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.4 General comments

This technology demonstrates the possibility of utilising local waste products for the benefit of soil health and crop production. If applied elsewhere the aim would be to find a suitable local resource to use.