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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1074, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1021, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': ' Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) - Germany', '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:

Strip-till is a form of precision farming and conservation agriculture that combines minimum tillage in strips with no-till on the remainder of the field. The soil over the whole field is protected by a growing crop or mulch from sunlight, and especially from the direct impact of raindrops by providing permanent soil cover.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Conservation agriculture includes cultivation systems with minimum tillage or without tillage (no-till). Minimum tillage uses machinery (cultivators, rotary tillers) that only loosen the topsoil layer without turning it, leaving a mixture of bare soil and crop residues from the previous crop/ cover crop on the surface. No-till refers to sowing and fertilizing directly into the plant residues. Strip-till is a hybrid, where only the strip around the seed furrow is minimum-tilled, leaving up to two-thirds of the area under no-till.
Strip-till increases surface roughness, which slows the flow of surface water after heavy rains, improving infiltration rates and particle deposition, thus preventing soil erosion, nutrient losses and degradation of water quality in downstream channels and rivers. The plant residues reduce soil crust formation and decrease evaporation rates (Gangan et al. 2022). The residues also improve biological activity and the build-up of soil organic matter (SOM) and clay-humus complexes. The increased SOM content improves water storage capacity and thus water use efficiency throughout the growing season (Stadler, 2014; Busari et al. 2015).
Strip-till seeding is a precision farming technology that requires a high precision GPS guidance system and specific machinery, such as seed drills to cut through crop residues. The distance beween the strips depends on the cultivated crop. For maize cultivation it is typically 75cm. Strip-till machinery is often heavier than conventional seeding drills because the undisturbed soil is denser and harder. Often a new tractor with more horsepower is needed to compensate for the heavy weights. If mulch seeding is used, grain harvesters equipped with well-designed straw/chaff spreading devices across the full cutting width are required (Corsi & Muminjanov, 2019).
Strip-till also has negative side effects, which are related to the disadvantages of no-till: delayed soil warming, soil compaction, increased disease pressure, and increased weed pressure. Without ploughing, other measures such as selecting fast-growing and effective ground cover species, early high-density seeding, and/or using herbicides are needed to control weeds, especially in the transition period (first 2-3 years) when the seed bank in the soil is well-filled.
In our documented example, the farmer used strip-till on sandy soils (lacking nutrients, with poor water-holding capacity) and combined it with the application of organic fertilizer. Specifically the strip-till seeding of maize was chosen to make efficient use of digestate from a biogas plant. The digestate is applied in the tilled strips (seed bed) providing organic fertilizer for the whole growing season. A winter-killed catch crop was sown before drilling maize. The technology required expensive machinery and equipment, such as a Volmer Strip-Till Culex ML, RTK station and GPS guidance system. However, the costs were recouped through savings in fuel and fertilizer.

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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmer wanted to have a system to effectively incorporate biogas residues.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

• To effectively incorporate biogas residues.

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• integrated soil fertility management

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 =:

0.91

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Equipment purchase
2.	Installation of precision farming technology (RTK station, GPS guidance system)

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	GPS-guidance system	GPS-guidance system	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Equipment	Volmer Strip-till Culex ML	Vomer Strip-till Culex ML	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Equipment	RTK-station	RTK-station	1.0	17500.0	17500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					67500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					74175.82

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Farmer stated that it is complicated to get subsidies. He said: "equipment subsidies are like a lottery".

Comments:

There are no details available about the operating life of the machinery - thus no "per hectare per year" calculation can be estimated.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Spreading biogas digestate	March/April
2.	Combined strip-till	April/May
3.	Weed bonitour	June
4.	Crop protection measure	June
5.	Silage	September/October
6.	Transport to biogas plant	September/October

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

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

-73.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

80€/ha are covered by the state of saxony, AL_2 Strip seeding/ direct seeding (SMUL Sachsen, 2015)

Comments:

According to the farmer, there are few additional costs to maintain the technology, but there are savings in diesel, labor, etc., resulting in total savings of approx. -73€/ha.

It is not possible for external experts (given the information available) to calculate, independently, the annual costs with any reliability.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

If the work is done by a contracting company, the costs are 10-20% higher.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

Eroded gleysol

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, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The assessment is based on the response of the interviewed farmer and not based on on-site measurements.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The assessment is based on expert judgement of the compiler and not based on local measurements.

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?
other gradual climate change	Changing weather conditions	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well

Comments:

The changing weather conditions lead to a higher motivation and higher willingness to invest.

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

• 1-10%

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

The farmer adopted the technology without receiving subsidy for the machinery and precision farming technology. However, with the most recent subsidy systems it is possible to get hectare-based payments for applying strip-till.

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
Economically beneficial.
Savings of operations in sowing and tillage.
Higher soil moisture, improved water-use-efficiency through the whole growing season.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Less erosion (less bare soil).
Higher water infiltration rates (more macro- and mesopores due to roots and improved biological activities).
Improved soil health and quality. Plant residues/cover crops increase biological activity, such as the presence of earthworms that digest plant residues into clay-humus-complexes, improving soil structure.
Greater planting time flexibility. The new crop can be sown as soon as the previous crop is harvested and weather conditions are suitable.

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?
Component failure of the technology: it is quite susceptible to interference during data transmission.	Thus, in Germany, for example, better grid development is needed.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Increased weed pressure.	However, this often occurs only in the first few years. Planting of cover crops can suppress weeds.
Increased disease pressure.	Can be overcome by diverse crop rotation without direct repetitions (e.g. wheat-wheat, or maize-maize). Grinding of residues for faster decomposition.
Delayed soil warming-	Adjustment can include underfoot fertilization as well as injection fertilization.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Corsi, S. and Muminjanov, H. (2019): Conservation Agriculture: Training guide for extension agents and farmers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Rome, FAO.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.fao.org/sustainable-agricultural-mechanization/resources/publications/details/ar/c/1195731/

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Busari et al. (2015): Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 3(2)

URL:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.05.002

Title/ description:

Stadler (2014): Mulchsaat zu Mais- das „Wie“ entscheidet. LfL

URL:

https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/iab/dateien/mais_2-2014_stadler_mulchsaat2.pdf

Title/ description:

Gangan et al. (2022): Effect of raindrop splashes on topsoil structure and infiltration characteristics. CATENA 212

URL:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106040

Title/ description:

Schmidt et al. (2001): Conservation tillage - A new strategy in flood control. 287-293. In J. Marsalek et al.: Advances in urban stormwater and agricultural runoff source controls. quoted in: LfULG- Landesamt für Umwelt; Landwirtschaft und Geologie: Direktsaat.

URL:

https://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/direktsaat-19689.html

Title/ description:

SMUL Sachsen (2015): Förderperiode 2014-2020- Art. 28 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1305/2013 - Richtlinie Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen (RL AUK/2015)-Sächsisches Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramm (AUNaP)

URL:

https://www.smul.sachsen.de/lfulg/download/AUK-Massnahmen-Ueberblick.pdf