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)

OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN)

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

Institute for Soil Sciences, Centre for Agricultural Research (ATK TAKI) - Hungary

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

No-till agriculture replaces conventional soil tillage in order to reduce costs and labour - and to provide a mulch layer on the soil surface from the residues of the previous crop: this protects the soil surface and its ecology.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

No-till agriculture is applied on arable land, principly for cereals and oil seed grains. It is not suitable for root and tuber crops. Crops are sown by a direct drilling machine capable of placing seeds into undisturbed soil. The soil surface is covered by the residues of the previous crop. There is no soil distubance by tillage as in conventional ploughing and harrowing.
The purpose is to reduce costs and labour requirements and to provide a mulch layer on the surface that creates better soil protection. Changing to no-till from conventional tillage requires the purchase or hire of a special direct drilling machine, and a higher performance tractor is also usually needed.
As a consequence of the adoption of no-till agriculture due to zero soil disturbance, soil microbes and mesofauna (very small invertebrates) are also undisturbed. Soil aggregates are more stable and the tunnel systems of mesofauna and earthworms result in good water infiltration. In addition – due to the mulch cover on the surface – the speed of runoff water is reduced or eliminated, and fewer pollutants reach watercourses.
Under zero tillage systems, mechanical pest and weed control cannot be used, so more intensive chemical weed and pest control is needed, resulting in a potential environmental hazard. Furthermore, as a result of continuous mulch cover, zero soil disturbance and high biodiversity in the soil, wildlife are attracted to these fields to feed on snails, worms and larvae which can cause damage to the crops.
The establishment of the technology is expensive in the short term (purchase of the machines) and yields will decrease significantly. However, labour and other costs (fuel for example) will drop. These turns running cost into positive in the long term again and establishment/ investment costs will also be positive (comparing to conventional tillage system.)

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

2010

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The land user (a farmer) implemented the technology based on his personal experience in the USA as a farm worker.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

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
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	buying direct driller machine	machine is used for 10 years (450 ha/year)

Comments:

New direct drilling machine is used for 10 years. Average annually sowed/drilled area is 450 ha. Price of machine is ca. 130 000 USD, thus specific extra cost per ha is 30 USD compared to the conventional sowing/drilling machine.

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	cost of direct drilling machine per ha	ha	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					30.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					30.0

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

130000.0

Comments:

New direct drilling machine is used for 10 years. Average annually sowed/drilled area is 450 ha. Price of machine is ca. 130 000 USD, so specific extra cost per ha is 30 USD compared to the conventional sowing/drilling machine. Parallel with the application of no tillage there is a reduction in tillage costs ca. 100-120 USD.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No extra costs applies compared to conventional agricultural technologies

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

Comments:

No extra costs applies compared to conventional agricultural technologies. There is a reduction in tillage costs ca. 100-120 USD.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

An extra cost of 30 USD/ha applies, when implementing new direct driller machine, while in the same time 100-120 USD/ha reduction happens in tillage costs. Labour hours is also reduced to as low as 25-30% of conventional technologies.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

hills, valleys, grass, forest, arable land mixed

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, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

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?
seasonal temperature	summer	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	not well at all

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:

less machinery has to be maintained

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 family, 900 ha

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

1 Farmer applies the technology based on personal conviction

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

other (specify):

weed infestation

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

In case of serious weed infestation shallow tillage is applied ocassionally.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
less labour input
less specific costs
less economical risks

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?
less yield, less income	less expenses
hazard of more serious pests and weed infestation	more pest/herbicide is used

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

No-till Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture, Yash P. Dang, Ram C. Dalal, Neal W. Menzies, 2020, ISBN: 978-3-030-46409-7

Available from where? Costs?

Springer, 170 USD

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Saving Money, Time and Soil: The Economics of No-Till Farming

URL:

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/11/30/saving-money-time-and-soil-economics-no-till-farming

7.4 General comments

very detailed