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)

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

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:

Bio-char and zeolite are used in animal production and spread onto the fields as part of organic manure. Zeolite is also used as individual element in crop productions to improve soils. All residues are incorporated into the soil.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

1. Zeolite and bio-char are applied in arable fields. The technology is applied in flatland of Ljubljana with an average altitude of 350 m.a.s.l. The average annual precipitation is 1400 mm. The climate in the area is characterized by often stormy precipitation events and occasional droughts. Silty loam soils in the area are moderately deep to deep with medium soil organic matter. Area has good availability of surface water and groundwater of good drinking quality. The biodiversity in the region is medium and farmers practise basically a commercial agriculture with less than 10 percent of off-farm income. In general farm households are average in wealth and mainly mechanized/motorized. The size of the examined farm applying the technology is of medium scale with land partly owned by the land user and partly leased from the state. All farm households in the region have good access to good services and infrastructure.

2. Bio-char and zeolite as feed additive to pigs and chickens as part of a healthy diet. Animal excreta are spread over fields as part of organic manure (chicken - solid form and pigs - liquid form). Zeolite is spread also as individual element. All plant residues after harvest are left on the ground and incorporated during spring or fall by ploughing.

3. The purpose of technology is
(1) the improvement of the animal production efficiency,
(2) the absorption of nutrients for slower release,
(3) the absorption of toxic chemicals – lock,
(4) to retain more water in the soils,
(5) to prevent nutrients to be out-gassed from soil,
(6) to guarantee the vigour of soils - healthy microbial and fungi activity,
(7) and less unpleasant odours.

4. It is easy to establish and maintain the technology (see point 2. above) and produce multiple positive effects. Cost for establishment and maintenance are the same as no additional or special technology is needed. Main costs are related to buying the bio-char and zeolite. Cost related to feeding process are minor as bio-char and zeolite are added in to regular fodder mixture. Cost (working hours, fuel) can be more moderate when zeolite or bio-char is applied to fields as individual element.

5. Benefits are:
(1) the lower Nitrogen loss,
(2) the locking of toxic chemicals,
(3) healthy animals and plants going with better yields,
(4) and vital and healthier soils.

6a. Land users like:
(1) the avoiding of bad odours,
(2) and the small amount of work for visible results.

6b. Land users dislike the costs of bio-char and zeolite, which can be overcome by good market research.

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:

Slovenia

Further specification of location:

Municipality of Ljubljana

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - barley
• cereals - maize
• cereals - other
• cereals - wheat (winter)
• legumes and pulses - peas

• buckwheat

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

1 main crop (after cereals usually buckwheat)

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): corn (grain) / cereals (winter wheat, winter barley) / buckwheat / peas

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

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

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)

physical soil deterioration

• Pk: slaking and crusting

biological degradation

• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
• Bl: loss of soil life

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The infographic shows the possible application of bio-char and zeolite and it positive impact on the soil. Both can be used as part of the feeding mixture or directly applied on the soil.

Author:

Matjaž Glavan

Date:

02/08/2017

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):

EUR

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

0.89

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

No special establishment machinery is needed.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

No special establishment cost.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

price of bio-char and zeolite

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

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:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information