Technologies

No-till [Poland]

Creation: 06/29/2017 12:04 a.m.
Update: 06/14/2019 2:15 p.m.
Compiler: Magdalena Frac
Editor: –
Reviewers: Ursula Gaemperli, Gudrun Schwilch, Alexandra Gavilano

No-till

technologies_2851 - Poland

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 78%

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)

land user:

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Magdalena Frac', 'user_id': '3946', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}

Lipiec Jerzy

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences

Poland

Usowicz Boguslaw

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences

Poland

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1017, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6100, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences (IA PAS) - Poland', '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?

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

No-till is a system where crops are planted into the soil without primary tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is used in Rogów (N 50.80018 E 23.44883), in Zamosc Region in Poland under cereals or oil crops. The technology is used on about 700 ha area. The case study is embedded in a typical agricultural region on rather fertile soils formed from loess. The altitude at the study site is 238 m.a.s.l., average temperature 17.6°C and precipitation 563 mm. The farmer uses direct sowing technique and the following machines: stubble cultivator, seed drill with disc coulters and combine harvesters. The crop rotation includes the following crops: wheat/maize/wheat/rape. No-till, as well as minimum and reduced tillage, provides the opportunity to reduce energy requirements, increase soil organic matter content and protects the soil against erosion, runoff and compaction. No-till may often increase crop yields. The costs reduction for fuel making this technology more attractive commercially. No-till reduces CO2 emission from fuel during machinery usage. The presence of crop residues on the surface of soil layer can cause plant diseases. It is necessary to use some low amount of herbicides and fungicides in no-till.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Poland

Further specification of location:

Rogów

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

Comments:

Rogów, Poland, no-till, Coordinates: N 50.79988, E 23.4884

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:

during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmer visited farms in the USA where the no-till technology is widely used. Then, he introduced the technology on his own farm in collaboration with local agricultural research units, including Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation in Pulawy and Life Sciences University in Lublin.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

improve production
reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
conserve ecosystem
preserve/ improve biodiversity
reduce risk of disasters
create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

Annual cropping

wheat

Number of growing seasons per year:

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

agronomic measures

A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
A3: Soil surface treatment

A3: Differentiate tillage systems:

A 3.1: No tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

prevent 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/9f/b/9fb87e5d-b7b5-4caa-b396-4b4b926e4f49.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/51/9/51997a66-8cb8-4e39-9077-fc7d3b493e60.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Fig. 1. Crop residues on no-till field under rape
Fig. 2. Seed drill with disc coulters (seeds are introduced into the soil pneumatically)

Author:

Magdalena Frąc

Date:

21/07/2016

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology area

Indicate size and area unit:

1 ha

other/ national currency (specify):

PLN

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

0.28

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

50-100 PLN

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Rill opening of soil	Spring or autumn depending on the crop type
2.	Direct sowing and fertilizing applied at once through direct sowing machine	Spring or autumn depending on the crop type

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:

360.0

Comments:

The costs refer to 1 hectare managed and include fertilizers, equipment and labour.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost of machinery appropriate to no-till and costs to meet bill of machinery contractor

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

sub-humid

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:

not relevant

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):

medium (loamy, silty)

Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):

medium (loamy, silty)

Topsoil organic matter:

medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

Is flooding of the area occurring?

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

high

Habitat diversity:

medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:

Sedentary

Market orientation of production system:

commercial/ market

Off-farm income:

less than 10% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

average

Individuals or groups:

individual/ household

Level of mechanization:

mechanized/ motorized

Gender:

Age of land users:

middle-aged

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

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

family

Land use rights:

individual

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 farmer observed increase of crop productivity in Mg per ha for the following plants: wheat, rape and maize. Grain yield of wheat under no-till vary from 8.8 to 11 t/ha. The yields are greater than those from average yield under conventional plough system.

crop quality

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The no-till technology decreases evaporation due to crop residues on the soil surface.

5.8

Quantity after SLM:

6.9

Comments/ specify:

We observed increase of pH value (6.9) in no-till coil compared to conventionally tilled soil (5.8) that can be related with greater soil organic matter content in no-till soil.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased

increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The farmer observed increase of crop productivity.

beneficial species

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

We observed greater quantity of earthworms under no-till compared to the conventional tilled soil.

pest/ disease control

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Pest/disease control increased in no-till technology due to proper application of pesticides.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

landslides/ debris flows

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The no-till technology decreases landslides/ debris flows by protection of soil against erosion and greater water storage. However, no landslides were not observed in the area.

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The no-till technology desreases emission of carbon and greenhouse gases due to reduction of CO2 and other greenhouse gases realising by mechanical soil loosening.

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:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

1-10%

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

The farmer covered about 700 ha by no-till technology.

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 saw this technology in the USA and wanted to try it in Poland.

6.6 Adaptation

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

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The increase of crop yield and production.
Prevention and reduction of erosion is widely observed under no-till.
Soil organic matter content increase is observed.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Soil structure improvement.
Decrease of environmental damage associated with soil inversion by ploughing.

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?
Weed expansion	Herbicides application

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Plant diseases	Fungicides application

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

field visits, field surveys

interviews with land users

compilation from reports and other existing documentation

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/07/2016

Links and modules

Expand all