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)

Soil and water protection (EU-SOWAP)

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

Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust - United Kingdom

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

02/11/2004

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Surface cultivation of the top 10cm of soil but not complete inversion

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

machinery with discs or tines replace the plough.

Purpose of the Technology: (i) improved crop establishment particularly by speeding up of operations (ii) improved soil structure.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: appropriate machinery, soil condition and following crop all determine establishment.
Maintenance: on an annual basis.

Natural / human environment: farmer working to protect environment and maintain rural employment

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Comments (type of project, etc.):

From the USA where in te 1930's the 'dust-bowls' necessitated the development of soil conservation in intensive agriculture

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Water turbidity, compaction, erosion

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Compaction

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: wheat - oilseed rape - wheat - beans. Typically these will be winter-sown (Sept) crops rather than spring sown (March)

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:

Longest growing period in days: 330Longest growing period from month to month: Sep - Aug

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 1.46 m2.

This represents 60% of the total arable area on the farm

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Pc: compaction

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wo: offsite degradation effects, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (agricultural causes), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of knowledge)

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

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of 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 dispersed runoff: impede / retard

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, improvement of soil structure, increase in soil fertility

Mulching
Material/ species: crop residue
Quantity/ density: 5 t/ha
Remarks: dispersed over soil surface

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: NPK
Quantity/ density: 0.14 t/ha
Remarks: broadcast

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: cereals/ broad-leaved crops
Remarks: alternate years

Breaking compacted topsoil
Remarks: localised

Minimum tillage
Remarks: using discs and tines

Breaking compacted subsoil
Remarks: localised

Deep tillage / double digging
Remarks: localised

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

UK pounds (£)

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

0.56

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Year1: chop straw as low to the ground as possible	Agronomic	at harvest (usually August) / annual
2.	Year1: incorporate straw to 10cm depth, though this is dependent on density of straw	Agronomic	September / per crop
3.	Year1: additional cultivation	Agronomic	early October / per crop
4.	Year1:drilling (4cm depth)	Agronomic	early October / once per crop
5.	Year1: consolidation (more in Annex 3)	Agronomic	early October / once per crop

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	Machine use	ha	1.0	204.0	204.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine hours (year 2)	ha	1.0	184.0	184.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine hours (year 3)	ha	1.0	236.0	236.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					624.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Simba Solo, Cambridge rollers, Vaderstad drill

Per hectare of land where technology applied. The costs represent the total crop establishment costs (machinery + labour) for this technology. Other costs eg seeds, fertiliser, are not included as these are identical to those incurred by other technologies (UNK1b) at this farm. These costs are related to the prevailing conditions - crop type, state of the soil, climate etc. Crop establishment costs by ploughing were: 224 (year1), 204 (year2), 263 (year3)

Additional info: - Year2: chop straw as low to the ground as possible: after harvest / annual - Year2:incorporate straw to 10cm depth, though this is dependent on density of straw: September / per crop - Year2: additional cultivation: March / per crop - Year2: drilling (2.5-4cm depth): March / once per crop - Year3:chop straw as low to the ground as possible: after harvest / annual - Year3: incorporate straw and relieve compaction of soil: October / per crop - Year3: additional cultivation: October / per crop - Year3: drill (2.5-4cm depth): October / once per crop - Year3: consolidation: October / once per crop

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Equipment costs, slope (higher horse power required for steeper slopes), presence of weeds (higher herbicide costs),

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Hill slopes (some slopes < 8%)

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 high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

50% of the land users are rich and own 60% of the land.
50% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: The time saved by practising non-inversion tillage (52 minutes/ha) allows the land manager to undertake contracted work on other farms

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

• Trust

• Trust

• Trust

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

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

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

• 90-100%

Comments:

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

1 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

Comments on adoption trend: Currently 40% of UK farmers practice non-inversion tillage mainly for economic reasons

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Timely crop establishment + good work rate How can they be sustained / enhanced? good planning
Lower costs How can they be sustained / enhanced? Increased acreage to spread costs
Increased contractor income How can they be sustained / enhanced? as above
improved soil structure - higher organic matter and provision of a better seed bed to drill into How can they be sustained / enhanced? continue with practice

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
cost effectiveness How can they be sustained / enhanced? increase ares under cultivation (economy of scale)
increased work rate
improved soil quality How can they be sustained / enhanced? continuation of current soil management principles
increased biodiversity How can they be sustained / enhanced? price premium for biodiversity-friendly products
improved water quality How can they be sustained / enhanced? no option. The EU Water Framework Directive requires watercourses to be of good status by 2015

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?
narrow weather window	drill non-inversion tillage fields first
grass weeds	crop rotation; new herbicide modes of action
slug management	monitoring slug populations
large acreage required to justify cost of machinery	consider not cropping headlands

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Grass weed control	New herbicide modes of action, more integrated management options
Untidy appearance of field (due to crop residue)	Familiarity with the technology

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guide to managing crop establishment, SMI

Available from where? Costs?

www.smi.org.uk

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Improved soil management for agronomic and environmental gain, SMI

Available from where? Costs?

www.smi.org.uk

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ECAF website

Available from where? Costs?

www.sowap.org