Technologies

Permanent grassland on peaty and eroded soils [Estonia]

Püsirohumaa turvas- ja erodeeritud muldadel

technologies_3113 - Estonia

Completeness: 90%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Endla Reintam', 'user_id': '3826', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
land user:

Selge Are

Hummuli Agro

Estonia

researcher:

Penu Priit

Agricultural Research Centre

Estonia

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)

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. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A permanent plant cover is maintained or established to protect soil against erosion or peat decomposition.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in sub-humid climate with an average of 696 mm of precipitations per year, from which more comes from July to October and less in March and April. Average annual temperature is +4 C, length of the growing period is 180-195 days. The territory is mostly flat to slopes of 6-10%. Average altitude from the sea level is 50 m. About half of the Estonian territory is above 50 m and half is below it. Soils are from very shallow (less than 0.1 m) inthe north to very deep (> 120m ) in the south. Soil cover is very variable. The peat cover of peatlands varies from 0.3 m to more than 10 m from well decomposed to poorly decomposed peat. On hilly areas the soils are medium textured with low (< 1%) organic matter in topsoil. Groundwater in near the surface in peatlands and deep in hilly areas. Biodiversity of these areas is medium. Market orientation of production system is mixed and off-farm income less than 10%. Relative level of wealth is average from individual households to cooperatives. Soil management is mechanized. Land belongs to land users but is leased also in case of bigger farms (over 1000 ha).
In the agricultural land the area will be excluded from intensive tillage by establishing a permanent plant cover, mainly with grass. The aim is to protect the slopes over 10% against erosion and peaty soils from further intensive decomposition of organic matter and with that the reduction of CO2 emission. The farmers should maintain permanent plant cover in the areas mentioned, or establish permanent plant cover. Renewing of the grassland is allowed from the top (without ploughing) once in a 5 year period. Government pays support of 50 EUR/ha if the area is bigger than 0.3 ha. The technology reduces intensively tilled area and thus the possibility to grow cash crops and/or reduces the yield from grassland. On the other hand it allows to still use wet areas for agriculture (i.e. fodder production).
The rules of the technology are fixed with the Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014-2020 under activity "Support for regional soil protection" (https://www.agri.ee/et/eesmargid-tegevused/eesti-maaelu-arengukava-mak-2014-2020) related to the reguation of the European Parliment and of the Council 1305/2013, article 28. The regulation is relevant more to the South-Estonia in case to reduce erosion, as the landscape is more hilly there. The exclusion of peatlands from agricultural use is relevant more in West-Estonia where the share of peatlands of the total area is the highest. However, it can be applied in whole Estonia if the area of peatland is bigger than 0.3 ha.

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:

Estonia

Region/ State/ Province:

One site at Rapla, second at Tartu, third at Valga (erosion)

Further specification of location:

One site: Rapla county, Pae; second site Tartu county, Annikoru, third site Valga county, Hummuli

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 1-10 km2
Comments:

To get the governmental support the area should be larger than 0.3 ha. Othervise the size is not important, depending on the area covered by hilly area or wet soils in the landscape.
In 2016 it was 10554 ha Histosols and only 40 ha of eroded soils covered with this technology in Estonia. This area excludes grasslands on another soil types. On specific sites: in Rapla county in Pae the size of the field is ca 3.2 ha, at Tartu county, Annikoru 2.8 ha.

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

  • Governmental tool
Comments (type of project, etc.):

The tool is a part of Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014–2020 for soil fertility.
The survey was done by the Soil Survey Bureau of the Estonian Agricultural Research Centre (http://pmk.agri.ee/). The results presented here are partly from this survey and from the work done by the project iSQAPER.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • mitigate climate change 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)

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - barley
  • cereals - maize
  • cereals - oats
  • cereals - rye
  • legumes and pulses - beans
  • legumes and pulses - peas
  • oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other
  • root/tuber crops - potatoes
  • vegetables - leafy vegetables (salads, cabbage, spinach, other)
  • vegetables - root vegetables (carrots, onions, beet, other)
  • wheat
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

For the cereals one harvest per year, for grasslands 1-4 cuts per year. For hay 1 cut, for silage 2-4 cuts depending on the year

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Ranching
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Improved pastures
Animal type:
  • cattle - dairy
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
  • sheep
Products and services:
  • meat
  • milk

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

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)
Cropland

Cropland

Comments:

Usually before the implementation of the technology the land was intensively tilled and used for annual crop plantation. After implementation the grasslands can be used for cutting and grazing.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Comments:

On Histosols the groundwater is close to the surface.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A3: Soil surface treatment
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction

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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/f8/7/f87ad98c-b290-4434-9b19-c10d9c5ac70d.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/97/5/975f686c-3cb4-4434-ac6e-81534bfc24a6.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The requirements to create a permanent grassland depends on soil type.
Species mixture suitable for the permanent grassland on wet soils (Histosols): Bromus sitchensis 30%, Phalaris arundinacea 45%, Phleum pratense 20%, Poa pratensis 5%. Sowing rate 20 kg/ha.
For the drier areas (eroded soils) the next mixture is suitable: Dactylis glomerata 65%, Phleum pratense 26%, Poa pratensis 9%. Sowing rate 23 kg/ha.

Author:

Endla Reintam

Date:

14/08/2017

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/f8/7/f87ad98c-b290-4434-9b19-c10d9c5ac70d.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/97/5/975f686c-3cb4-4434-ac6e-81534bfc24a6.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Author:

Endla Reintam

Date:

14/08/2017

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology unit
Specify unit:

per hectar

other/ national currency (specify):

EUR

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

1.18

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

36-40 EUR/day + taxes

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Tillage (ploughing, cultivation) in spring
2. Collecting stones, slip (by demand) in spring
3. Fertilization in spring complex fertilizer
4. Sowing in spring
5. Rolling in spring
6. Cutting the weeds during growth (summer)
7. Fertilization during growth period after every cut of grass, if cutted grassland, N-fertilizer
Comments:

If renewing the grassland, there will be no ploughing, collecting the stones and sliping. Only chisel plowing and/or sowing with fertilization. If the grassland will be use for grazing, no need for fertilization during growth period.

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 Driver (machinery work) person day 0.5 36.0 18.0 100.0
Equipment Equipment (machinery) cost on establishment year year 1.0 207.0 207.0 100.0
Plant material Seeds kg 22.0 2.47 54.34 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Complex fertilizer kg 500.0 0.42 210.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Ammonium fertilizer kg 100.0 0.33 33.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 522.34
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 442.66
Comments:

For tillage and other operations it is calculated 14-18 EUR/ha.
If to hire equipment the labour costs should be included to the machinery costs - for cutted grassland 225 EUR/ha, for grazed grassland 162 EUR/ha

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Cutting or grazing the grass 1-4 times per vegetation period
2. Fertilization in spring in the beginning of season and after every cut N-fertilizer, after each second year complex fertilizer

4.6 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 Grasslands for cutting - machinery costs year 1.0 141.0 141.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Ammonium fertilizer kg 200.0 0.33 66.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Complex fertilizer kg 200.0 0.42 84.0 100.0
Other Materials for hay making year 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 306.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 259.32
Comments:

The governmental support to establish and to maintain the grassland is 50 EUR/ha.
If to use the land for the grazing, the machinery cost per year is 38 EUR/ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel price.

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:

696.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Average 696 mm, almost equally spread over the year, more from July to October, less in March and April

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Tartu Tõravere

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

LGP 180-195 days

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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • convex situations

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)
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.

Eutric Histosol, well decomposed peat, drained area.N 2.32%; C32.89%; C/N14.20%; P2,62 mg/100g; K 13.73 mg/100g; Ca 1762.32 mg/100g; Mg 166.98mg/100g

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Histosols biodiversity depends on the base saturation and level of groundwater (degree of drainage). Diversity is higher at higher pH and better drainage.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
  • cooperative
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
  • elderly

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
Comments:

There are also small-scale and medium-scale farms applying the technology. At Pae, the farm have 4900 ha of land, from which 1800 are grasslands, at Annikoru the farm have 2320 ha of land from which 390.5 ha are grasslands.

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

Land ownership:
  • state
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • leased
  • individual
  • individual/open access
Comments:

Groundwater belongs to the state. Smaller water bodies can be in individual use, larger are usually open access

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

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The area will be excluded from crop production and it means no cash crops can be cultivated on this area. Instead of crops hay or silage is possible to sell.

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

As it is not allowed to renew these grasslands intensively, the quantity of grass will drop. For short term clover+grasses mixture the average yield is 16 tons/ha per year, for long-term grass mixtures 5.2 tons/ha per year.

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to the change of species in the mixture, the protein level will drop. Instead of red clover grasses will be used in the mixture of long-term grasslands.

animal production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to the changes in silage/hay quality (protein) there can be reduction of milk and meat production if the differences will not be covered with other fodder.

product diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

In case of crop orientation, there are new products to sell - grass, hay, silage, or grasslands to rent.

land management

hindered
simplified
Comments/ specify:

Depending on the farm it can be simplified or hindered. If focus was on crops, then new machinery is needed to manage grasslands (for cutting, hay or silage making).

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

As renewing of grassland is after every 5 years, there is no need to buy seeds every year, as well as pesticides and to till the soil.

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to the reduction of the inputs costs, the income my increase. Also the government pays support 50 EUR/ha for the land under these measures.

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Next to the yield (grass, silage, hay) the support from the government (50 EUR/ha)

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

It may decrease due to no need of every year tillage and sowing and due to the change from 2 year short-term grasslands to the permanent grasslands. However, if not managed grasslands earlier it may increase the workload as cutting and collecting the grass is needed.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

More land under grasslands than under crops. Grasses are suitable for animals feeding, not for human direct consumption.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

If land was eroded before and soil was on the road, everybody can see the differences after establishment of the grasslands. It is not so severe in case of peatlands, however, less tractors will stuck in to the mud on rainy period.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

In case of erosion, no soil will be washed down to the hill as plant cover protects soil surface and increases infiltration. In case of peatlands, grass cover creates better structure and increases water infiltration thus decreases surface runoff during heavy rainfall.

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Grass creates protection to the soil surface and raindrops can't destroy the soil structure any more. Also grass roots create better porosity and structure in the soil leading to better water drainage.

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The difference in soil moisture between mineral and organic soils under cereals and under grassland was ca 5% and 25%, respectively, in favour to the grasslands in autumn 2016.

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

40%

Quantity after SLM:

100%

Comments/ specify:

Under spring cereals soil is covered only 4-5 months per year, under grasses soil is covered 100% of the year.

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

On the slopes depending o the crop and the amount of precipitations, the loss varied from 3 to 60 tons/ha, under permanent grass cover it is less than 0.05 tons/ha per year. Without every year tillage there is no intensive decomposition of the peat, as well as no wind erosion.

soil accumulation

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Under grasses we can increase the soil organic matter content by 0.35 t/ha in 5 year period in peatlands. In eroded soils we can increase 0.02% per year.

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

As plants protect soil surface, raindrops can't destroy the soil structure and there will be no crust formation

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Under the grasslands the bulk density was lower by 0.1-0.2 g/cm3 compared to tilled soil.

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

As the intensive decomposition of the peat stops or there will not be any leaching by water, more nutrients remain in the soil. Also the permanent plant cover during the whole year stops nutrient leaching.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Under permanent grasslands the Corg increases by 0.35 t/ha per 5 year period.

acidity

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Without periodic liming the acidity of peatlands starts to increase. If no CaCO3 in mineral part, also pH of previously eroded soils starts to decrease slowly, as organic acids form during decomposition process.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Thanks to the permanent plant cover there is no period of the year without vegetation.

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

If previously the plant residues were mixed with the soil by tillage, now there will always some extent of plant mass be left above ground (5-10 cm), even if the most is removed for hay or silage.

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Long-term grassland includes at least 4 species in the mixture, short-term mixtures 2-3 species. However, compared with the cereals, the annual weeds will disappear and the diversity may decline.

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

There are more spiders, ants, beets.

beneficial species

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

2 species of earthworms

Quantity after SLM:

3-4 species of earthworms

Comments/ specify:

Under grasslands were 1-2 more earthworm species than under tilled management. More spiders and ground beetles were found there compared to the tilled soil.

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Grasslands create untilled patterns to the landscape.

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Grasses surpress many soil born crops diseases and pests, also annual and perennial weeds.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Grass roots go to the deeper soil and they are not so sensitive to the drought.

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Under permanent grasslands reduced CO2 emission by 1.10 t/ha per year compared to the tilled areas.

fire risk

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

If the grass will not be cutted before winter, the dry grass has the risk of higher landscape fires in the spring.

micro-climate

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

The changes of soil temperature as well as moisture content are smaller under permanent grass cover than under tillage.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

All year plant cover helps to bind nutrients and stop their leaching from the soil. Higher amount of organic matter in the soil increases water holding capacity.

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Organic peat particles are light and are easy subject of wind erosion in dry conditions by tillage. Permanent plant cover stops such kind of erosion

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

On hilly landscape no extra soil is flushed to neighbours fields. In case of peatlands no dust is carried around.

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

In case of erosion, no soil is carried by water or wind to the ditches and on the roads.

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Under permanent grasslands reduced CO2 emission by 1.10 t/ha per year compared to the tilled areas.

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 moderately
seasonal temperature winter increase moderately
seasonal temperature spring increase moderately
annual rainfall increase not known
seasonal rainfall winter increase not known
seasonal rainfall autumn increase not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm moderately
local thunderstorm not known
local hailstorm not known
local snowstorm moderately
local windstorm not known
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave not known
extreme winter conditions moderately
drought moderately
land fire not well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood moderately
storm surge/ coastal flood moderately
landslide well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

In 2016 two hundred four households got the governmental support, in total 10554 ha

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 11-50%
Comments:

Anyway, the use of Histosols and Gleysols is limited due to their properties and regular use of these soils is for grazing or grass cutting.

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
Better soil protection
Possibility to earn money in unsuitable soil conditions.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduces soil erosion on hilly landscape
Reduces the decomposition of peat on Histosol
Reduces CO2 emission from agricultural land.

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?
Loss of income Governmental support (50 EUR/ha)
Problems with the grass (farms without animals) Cooperation with neighbours, selling the hay for energy production
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Farmers don't want to use the technology More effective lobbying
Wrong declaration of the land under the technology Better advisory system and improvement of electronic databases

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

5 within iSQAPER project but more than 20 during another projects

  • interviews with land users

10 within iSQAPER project but more than 20 during another projects

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

8

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

04/06/2017

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bender, A. (koostaja) 2006. Eritüübiliste rohumaade rajamine ja kasutamine. I. ja II. osa. Jõgeva

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bender, A. 2010. Heintaimede sordiaretus ja seemnekasvatus. Jõgeva Sordiaretuse Instituut

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Older, H. 2011. Kohalikud söödad. Eesti Rohumaade Ühing.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014–2020

URL:

https://www.agri.ee/en/objectives-activities/estonian-rural-development-plan-erdp-2014-2020

Title/ description:

Kattetulu arvestused taime- ja loomakasvatuses 2016. Koost: Marju Aamisepp, Helle Persitski. Maamajanduse infokeskus. 2017.

URL:

http://www.maainfo.ee/data/trykis/kattetulu/KATTETULU2016.pdf

Title/ description:

Statistics Estonia

URL:

https://www.stat.ee/en

Title/ description:

Eesti maaelu arengukava 2007-2013 2. telje ning Eesti maaelu arengukava 2014-2020 4. ja 5. prioriteedi püsihindamiseks 2016. aastal läbiviidud uuringute aruanne. Põllumajandusuuringute keskus. Saku 2016.

URL:

http://pmk.agri.ee/mak/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/aruanne_uuringud_2015.pdf

Title/ description:

Eesti tuleviku kliimastsenaariumid aastani 2100

URL:

https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/kliimastsenaariumid_kaur_aruanne_ver190815.pdf

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules