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)

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6195, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6195, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France', '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:

Use of different mixes of plant cover for livestock fodder which are simultaneously favourable for biodiversity by improving soil health, and reducing the need for agrochemicals.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agriculture in Brittany, in the north-west of France, is known for fish, beef, pork, poultry, vegetables and milk. Cover crops are used by farmers of Mauron, and the example described here is from a farm located in Morbihan in the basin known as Ploërmel. In this warm temperate area the average annual rainfall is 650-700 mm with an annual temperature of around 11°C.
There are three types of cover crops included in the rotation. These are selected on the basis of their benefits in relation to soil fertility and fodder production, in order to improve the farm's food self-sufficiency. There are three basic types of cover crops, as follows.
1) “Protein mixes” are composed of 35% faba (broad) beans, 26% oats, 17.5% peas, 17.5% vetch, and 4% clover. These are sown in early October after grass or maize are made into silage at the end of April.
2) "Green manure" cover crops are sown at the beginning of September after cereals, and are composed of various complementary species with the main objective of preserving and strengthening soil life (i.e. worm abundance), and winter feeding of heifers. For example, the commercial "Biomax" mix contains seeds of broad bean, vetch, clover, phacelia and radish. These cover crops are enriched by the presence of approximately 50% ryegrass regrowth, supporting the development of soil life.
3) Rapeseed is sown after cereals as a crop rotation feedstock and are made into silage.
Cover crops are either broadcast and rolled, or direct seeded depending on the conditions of the post-harvest plots. The seed drill used is equipped with discs to minimise soil disturbance as a reduced tillage technique, but more important in this respect is the presence of crop residues (i.e. straw). The seed drill is also equipped with tines.
The cover crops are grazed by heifers in a rotational 2-day paddock set-up. After grazing and regrowth of the ryegrass present, the fields may be left to develop into pasture, or seeded to crops using a minimum tillage drill.
The purposes are:
•Improved production
•Countered land degradation
•Protected watersheds
•Preserved biodiversity
•Adaptation to climate change/extreme events
The benefits are:
•Sustained ecosystem health: no pest and disease problems, good herd health
•Enrichment of the soil by the addition of carbon in organic matter and by the work of earthworms - favouring ecosystem functioning
•Protection of the soil and surface biodiversity because of maintained plant cover
•Increased weed control due to plant canopies and fertilisation effect of green manure
•Planted cover crops used as livestock feed during winter
The challenges are:
•Potential difficulties in establishing plant cover (especially in dry areas)
•Late sowing of cover crops reduces beneficial effects
•High costs of seed mixtures with high protein cover crops

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

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

Comments (type of project, etc.):

In order to make their production system evolve, farmers and their associates are eager for information. They do not hesitate to go and see what is happening elsewhere and to consult: training, visits, reading, internet, exchanges. The land user is a member of the BASE (Biodiversity Agriculture Soil and Environment) network and the Ecosystem association. Breeders do not hesitate to test new production practices on their farms.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

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:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

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 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

€

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

0.9

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Soil preparation and subsequent sowing of rapeseed/rapeseed after harvest cereals	End of August
2.	Soil preparation and sowing of the Biomax mixture after harvest cereals	End of August
3.	Soil preparation and sowing of meslin after grassland or corn on the cob	End of October
4.	Rapeseed/rapeseed grazing and growing of green manure	December to March
5.	Meslin silage	April

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
Equipment	Direct seeding (compil)	ha	40.0	60.0	2400.0	100.0
Equipment	Broadcast sowing	ha	72.0	15.0	1080.0	100.0
Equipment	Roller spade before sowing (1 pass)	ha	72.0	23.0	1656.0	100.0
Equipment	Maceration by a roller with blades	ha	224.0	23.0	5152.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds - protein blend	ha	60.0	394.0	23640.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds - forage rapeseed	ha	17.0	28.0	476.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds - green manure "biomax" fertilizer	ha	18.0	60.0	1080.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					35484.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					39426.67

Comments:

Costs for seeds refer to purchased seed, if farm-saved seed, the cost is reduced

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No maintenance costs just time to rotationally graze livestock and poultry

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

Comments:

No maintenance activities, future years would repeat establishment activities

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Direct sowing equipment, destruction with 2 passes of rolling spade, cost of purchasing "biomax" mixture

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The minimum and maximum altitudes in Mauron are 47 m and 130 m respectively.

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.

The farm is located in the commune of Mauron in Morbihan and is in the geological zone of the Briovician shales.
It contains :
UCS n°4034 Brown soils gradually leached from the plains and plateaus from locally soft schist sandstone.
UCS n°4022 Shallow, sometimes podzolic soils of locally sandstone mounds and brown leached soils of open plains, derived from soft schist.

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 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:

• leased

• provisioning

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

lease

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known
annual rainfall		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

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

• 11-50%

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

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

Livestock feeding, economic interest, societal expectations

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Species are selected according to their ability to cover, feed and work the soil. To do this, species are chosen for their diversity and complementary according to their root system: tap roots, adventitious roots, surface lateral roots, etc.
For the past 2 years, the Biomax green manure + RGA regrowth mix has been grazed by heifers.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Sustain ecosystem health: no pest and disease problems, good herd health.
Carbon sequestration by enrichment of the soil with organic matter and by the work of earthworms favouring ecosystem functioning.
Protection of the soil and surface biodiversity because of maintained plant cover.
Increased weed control due to plant canopies and fertilisation effect of green manure.
Planted cover crops used as livestock feed during winter.
Sustained ecosystem integrity reduces/counters ecosystem degradation by using multiple ecosystem functions: Complementarity, Continuity of soil life, Green fertilizer essential in the farming system, Feeding the livestock.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Multi-species cover is conducive to soil quality: production of a high above-ground and root biomass that promotes soil life, soil structuring at depth (tap roots) and on the surface (superficial roots) by the effect of organic matter inputs.
Multi-species cover provides shelter and cover for small fauna: seeds for the winter survival of the fauna, plants that are tiered at different heights without being too dense for wild game to move around while being protected.
The different families that can be planted under cover are: - Grasses are generally easy to grow and are valued by animals (oats, rye and sorghum). - Leguminous plants improve the performance of cover crops. They are regulating plants that trap nitrogen and fix it in the soil. This is then used by the crop that follows. - Cruciferous plants are to be reserved for cereal rotations without rapeseed or vegetables. - Compounds (nyger and sunflower) are interesting for biomass production.
Well-developed canopies have a competitive effect against weeds (germination inhibition, smothering, allelopathy). The aim is to have a rapidly developing canopy. It is necessary to limit the risks of shot blasting by sowing the canopy on clean soil, especially for early sowing (especially for short-cycle weeds: ragwort, bluegrass, Persian speedwell). Some species have allelopathic effects, i.e. they secrete inhibiting substances (the intensity of the allelopathic effect is taken from the Sem-Partners catalogue, see bibliography): - Diploid oats: allelopathic effect not demonstrated. Little is known about the mechanisms and molecules involved. - Spring Oats, Fenugreek, Gesse, Moha : average allelopathic effect, mechanisms and molecules involved are not well known. - Camelina, Radish: strong allelopathic effect (glucosinolates). - Winter mustard, Spring mustard: action of glucosinolates against nematodes (Heterodera Schaati and Meloidogyne chitwoodi) in biofumigation. - Buckwheat (Sarrazin): strong allelopathic effect. Little is known about the mechanisms and molecules involved.
A plant cover provides additional fodder, 3 to 4 tonnes of dry matter can be produced depending on the species and sowing date.

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?
Difficulties in establishing cover: difficult lifting in dry areas	Conditions for successful plant cover Sow as soon as possible Take advantage of the humidity just after harvest
Late sowing of cover crops: no or little flowering and therefore little beneficial effect	Early establishment of complementary species
High cost of purchased seed of mixed protein cover crops	Self-production of farm-saved seed

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
In order to increase the potential of the canopies for bees, it is necessary to sow in the first half of August for flowering in the autumn. Some species are rich in nectar or pollen: rapeseed, white mustard, phacelia, radish, sunflower, clover, vetch. However, some species have extra-floral nectar such as sunflower, vetch and faba beans. That is to say that they secrete nectar outside the flowering period.	Sow in the first half of August as soon as the cereals are harvested to take advantage of the residual moisture which is conducive to good emergence.
The development of RGA on the farm.	Ploughing can slow down the development of RGA.
The cost of destroying the canopy is high (45€/ha excluding labour) with the 2 cross passes of rolling spade.	3) Cost of some tools for destroying the cover crops: Independent disc stubble cultivator 3m= 33€/ha Cultivator 3.5m = 20€/ha Mulcher 3m = 27 €/ha Cambridge roller 8m = 16€/ha Blade roller 3m = 17€/ha Assumptions: replacement value depreciated over 10 years + maintenance, tractor cost 20€/hour, labour not included
Before grazing a multi-species canopy, it is advisable to check the absence of toxic species (e.g. buckwheat)	Not known
The doses and costs of implementing protein blend cutlery in interculture are high.	- Adjusting Mixed Doses - Self-production of farm-saved seeds - Mixture with recommended doses (OBS: Do not exceed 120% pure dose)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Couvert végétal, une culture à part entière, Terra du 21 juin 2013

Available from where? Costs?

Terra (Réussir terragricoles de Bretagne) du 21 juin 2013

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Couvert végétal, de réels avantages agronomiques, Terra 12 juin 2015

Available from where? Costs?

Terra 12 juin 2015

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Couverts végétaux, la destruction possible dès le 1er février, Terra du 15 janvier 2016

Available from where? Costs?

Terra du 15 janvier 2016

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Liste de plantes attractives pour les abeilles, Ministères de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, 2017

URL:

https://agriculture.gouv.fr/decouvrez-la-liste-des-plantes-attractives-pour-les-abeilles

Title/ description:

Implanter des cultures intermédiaires à effet allélopathique ou biocide, biofumigation

URL:

https://geco.ecophytopic.fr/geco/Concept/Implanter_Des_Cultures_Intermediaires_A_Effet_Allelopathique_Ou_Biocide,_Biofumigation