Terasses used for hay production and grazing [Switzerland]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Stefan Graf
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Fabian Ottiger, Alexandra Gavilano
Terasses utilisées pour la produciton de foin et comme paturages
technologies_1193 - Switzerland
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
Key resource person(s)
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Ancient abandonned terraces, formerly used as cropland, were rehabilitated and are used for hay production and grazing mainly without irrigation
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The ancient terraces built during the middle age had been used as cropland till the 1970. Then they were abandonned and transformed as bushlands. In the 90' the bushes were removed and the terraces are since then used as pastures and fields for hay production. They are mainly not irrigated, what gives sometimes one yield of hay and sometimes two, depending on the rain.
Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of this technology is to work with minimal inputs, as extensive agriculture.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: To establish the terraces, a company came to clear the fields from the bushes. Then he put the cows on the fields, and rented/got for free fields from other farmers, and expanded his activities.
The main maintainance is to cut the bushes growing from the terasses into the fields, mainly blackthorn (Prunus spinosa).
Natural / human environment: The cows used in these fields are a local breed (Herens), kept mostly for traditional and folkloric purpuse.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Switzerland
Region/ State/ Province:
Valais
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 0.1-1 km2
Map
×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
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Ranching
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
- Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
- cow
Comments:
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Bushes are growing into the fields, climate is changing and
Ranching: Yes
Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing: Yes
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- mixed rainfed-irrigated
Comments:
Water supply: rainfed, mixed rainfed - irrigated
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- cross-slope measure
- Minimal input agriculture
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures
- V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures
- S1: Terraces
Comments:
Main measures: vegetative measures
Secondary measures: agronomic measures, structural measures
Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, manure / compost / residues
Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation
- Bh: loss of habitats
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bh: loss of habitats, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline
Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub), other human induced causes (specify) (The land was abandoned)
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- prevent land degradation
Comments:
Main goals: prevention 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: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: high
Secondary technical functions: improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in organic matter
Better crop cover
Material/ species: Grassland
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: Manure
Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 20%
Terrace: forward sloping
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1
Spacing between structures (m): 20
Change of land use type: From bushland to extensive grassland
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
CHF
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
1.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
200.00
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | Clearing bushes |
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 | Clearing of the bushes | ha | 1.0 | 8000.0 | 8000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Tractors | Machine | 2.0 | 207000.0 | 414000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Tractor material | Machine | 3.0 | 46000.0 | 138000.0 | 100.0 |
Other | Other | 40000.0 | 100.0 | |||
Other | Farm | Farm | 1000000.0 | 100.0 | ||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 560000.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 560000.0 |
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Cutting hay | |
2. | Maintainance, looking at the cows, clear bushes | |
3. | Clearing Bushes, looking at the cows, manuring |
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
Agro-climatic zone
- semi-arid
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.
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):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
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 fertility is medium
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
5.4 Water availability and quality
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- high
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
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)?
- medium-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- group
- individual, titled
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- 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
fodder production
animal production
risk of production failure
land management
Water availability and quality
demand for irrigation water
Income and costs
diversity of income sources
Comments/ specify:
More subsidies through ecological subsidies
workload
Comments/ specify:
No water pipers needed
Socio-cultural impacts
cultural opportunities
Comments/ specify:
More Herens cows
Ecological impacts
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
plant diversity
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 | not well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | not well |
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
1
Comments:
1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: This technology is with irrigation by many other farmers
There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
Natural food produced (cheese, meat) |
Biodiversity increase |
Traditional landscapes |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Natural food produced (cheese, meat) |
Biodiversity increase |
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? |
---|---|
Low productivity | |
Sensitive to drought |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Low productivity | |
Sensitive to drought |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules