No-till crop production [Russian Federation]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Johannes Kamp
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Fabian Ottiger, Alexandra Gavilano
Nulevaya obrabotka, Notill
technologies_1288 - Russian Federation
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Kühling Insa
Hochschule Osnabrück
Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Agroholding Yubileinij - Russian FederationName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer GmbH & Co (Amazone) - GermanyName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Hochschule Osnabrück (HS Osnabrück) - GermanyName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
University of Muenster (WWU Münster) - Germany1.3 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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
No-till farming (also called zero tillage or direct drilling) is a way of growing crops from year to year without disturbing the soil through tillage.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
No-till seeding (also direct-drilling, or direct-seeding) is most commonly identified by the feature that during tillage operations, as much as possible of the surface residue from the previous crop is left intact on the surface of the ground, whether this be the flattened or standing stubble of an arable crop that has been harvested or a sprayed dense sward of grass.
Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of no-till is to increase working efficiency (i.e. to save fuel, time and labour), increase soil organic matter and nitrogen contents, preserve soil structure and soil fauna, improve aeriation and water infiltration, conserve soil moisture, prevent soil erosion, and increase yields.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: We use field trials to evaluate if and to which extent no-till seeding can contribute to sustainable land-management in Western Siberia. In cooperation with a large local agricultural enterprise, Agroholding Yubileinij, and a German manufacturer of agricultural machinery (AMAZONEN-Werke H. Dreyer GmbH & Co. KG), a field trial on 10 ha was set up near the city of Ishim, Tyumen province. In a randomized block design, two seeding parameters were varied, namely seeding depth and seeding rate (number of wheat seeds/ha). Both options were tested under conventional tillage, and no-till seeding, over three seasons (2013–2015).
The parameters soil moisture, plant available soil nitrogen content and grain yield were compared between all possible options of tillage approach (no-till/till), seeding depth and seeding rate.
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:
Russian Federation
Region/ State/ Province:
Russian Federation
Further specification of location:
Tyumen oblast (province)
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 5000 km2.
We are trailling no-till on 10 ha in Western Siberia, but indicate the potential area that could be farmed with no-till once the technology is established.
Map
×2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- during experiments/ research
- through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):
established technique in many countries and agricultural systems, in the study area: on-farm application of the technology in own field trials from 2013 to 2015
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
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:
- root/tuber crops - potatoes
- wheat
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 170 Longest growing period from month to month: May to September
Forest/ woodlands
Products and services:
- Timber
- Fruits and nuts
Comments:
Major cash crop: Wheat
Major food crop: Wheat
Major other crops: Potatoes
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low yields; soil water content as main limiting factor for crop production
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): low and varying yields, yield uncertainty due to climate variability and changing political framework conditions
Forest products and services: timber, fruits and nuts
Constraints of settlement / urban (towns, villages and cities): population growth
Constraints of infrastructure network (roads, railways, pipe lines, power lines): major oil pipelines
Constraints of wastelands / deserts / glaciers / swamps (massive bogs and fens (mires))
Constraints of recreation (fishing, swimming)
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
- minimal soil disturbance
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
- A3: Soil surface treatment
A3: Differentiate tillage systems:
A 3.1: No tillage
management measures
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures, management measures
Type of agronomic measures: mulching, manure / compost / residues, zero tillage / no-till
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
water degradation
- Ha: aridification
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content
Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Ha: aridification
Main causes of degradation: soil management, crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub)
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: prevention of land degradation
Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: (field staff: moderate, advisor (agronomists): high)
Technical knowledge required for land users: (land user is identical with field staff/agricultural advisor)
Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, increase of surface roughness, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase / maintain water stored in soil
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of infiltration, reduction in wind speed, increase of biomass (quantity)
Mulching
Material/ species: straw is retained as organic material
Quantity/ density: a lot
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: straw is retained as organic material
Zero tillage / no-till
Material/ species: straw is retained as organic material
Change of land use practices / intensity level: change traditional cultivation to no-till cropping system
4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Comments:
NA
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
fuel price, wages
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
Annual rainfall
- < 250 mm
- 251-500 mm
- 501-750 mm
- 751-1,000 mm
- 1,001-1,500 mm
- 1,501-2,000 mm
- 2,001-3,000 mm
- 3,001-4,000 mm
- > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:
297.00
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
No dry period, 170 day growing season
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: temperate
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- flat (0-2%)
- gentle (3-5%)
- moderate (6-10%)
- rolling (11-15%)
- hilly (16-30%)
- steep (31-60%)
- very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
- plateau/plains
- ridges
- mountain slopes
- hill slopes
- footslopes
- valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
- 0-100 m a.s.l.
- 101-500 m a.s.l.
- 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
- 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
- 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
- 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
- 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
- 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
- > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Landforms: Also hill slopes, footslopes and valley floors (all ranked 3)
Slopes on average: Flat (90%) and gentle (5%)
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- very shallow (0-20 cm)
- shallow (21-50 cm)
- moderately deep (51-80 cm)
- deep (81-120 cm)
- very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
- high (>3%)
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 depth on average: Very deep (ranked 1, most soils rather deep, 80% of all cultivated soils in this class) and deep (ranked 2)
Soil texture: Also coarse/light and medium (mix of soil textures)
Soil fertility: Medium (ranked 1). Also very high and high (both ranked 2) and low and very low (both ranked 3)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (ranked 1) and medium and poor (both ranked 2)
Soil water storage capacity: High (ranked 1). Also very high and medium (both ranked 2) as well as low and very low (both ranked 3)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
on surface
Availability of surface water:
good
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Ground water table: On surface (the ground water table is at 0 cm in spring. The water flows then off and fields are sown in late May. Later in the year, drought is often a problem)
Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water, poor drinking water (treatement required) and for agricultural use only (irrigation) all ranked 1, unusable (ranked 2)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
Biodiversity also medium (ranked 2) and high (ranked 3)
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- rich
- very rich
Individuals or groups:
- employee (company, government)
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- women
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged
Difference in the involvement of women and men: due to historical reasons (Soviet workforce structure), many women actively participate, e.g. as tractor drivers
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%
2% of the land users are very rich and own 70% of the land.
1% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: additional sources: shops, slaughterhouses, or other parts of the producing chain. Farmers usually generate most of their income by farming
5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology
- < 0.5 ha
- 0.5-1 ha
- 1-2 ha
- 2-5 ha
- 5-15 ha
- 15-50 ha
- 50-100 ha
- 100-500 ha
- 500-1,000 ha
- 1,000-10,000 ha
- > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- large-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- company
Land use rights:
- individual
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
Quantity before SLM:
2.5 t/ha
Quantity after SLM:
2.75 t/ha
fodder production
Quantity before SLM:
2.5 t/ha
Quantity after SLM:
2.75 t/ha
risk of production failure
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Quantity before SLM:
29 l/ha
Quantity after SLM:
3.7 l/ha
Comments/ specify:
Reduced fuel consumption. On the other hand increased use of agro-chemicals (herbicides and/ or pesticides +20-50%)
farm income
Socio-cultural impacts
Social acceptance
Comments/ specify:
Strong tradition to use conventional techniques
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
evaporation
Soil
soil moisture
Comments/ specify:
+ 40%
soil cover
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
biomass/ above ground C
plant diversity
Comments/ specify:
Increase in weed species
Climate and disaster risk reduction
wind velocity
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 |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | well |
local windstorm | well |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | well |
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
general (river) flood | not known |
Other climate-related consequences
Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
reduced growing period | not known |
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
Comments:
Comments on acceptance with external material support: so far, only used on field trials, not commercially.
There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: slow uptake due to strong tradition in use of conventional techniques
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
as above |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
potential to maintain and improve soil fertility |
potential to increase yields |
potential to safe on-farm costs, i.e. make production per area unit more efficient |
potential to ensure stable yields under varying climatic conditions |
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? |
---|---|
as above |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
need for more chemical plant protection and weed control, therefore more herbicide applications needed, environmental externalities | |
well-educated, leading/advisory staff needed to implement technology |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
http://www.uni-muenster.de/SASCHA/en/index.html
Available from where? Costs?
free!
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules