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:

This technique can be applied in any crop rotation or soil. Tillage of the soils is done with special machines that do not turn over the soil (non-inversion), and the tillage depth can be more shallow than with conventional tillage (ploughing).

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology is applied in Vredepeel (the Netherlands) on a sandy soil on arable fields. The technology is not by environment limited to these conditions, it could for example be applied on clay soils as well. It is applicable for various crop types. The main point of this technology is the specific machine that is used to do the tillage. The machine is called a rigid-tine cultivator. The machine can be purchased for a few thousand Euros, but in the Netherlands it is also possible to let a contractor do this tillage. The average tillage depth here is around 25 cm, dependent on the crops in the rotation. The purpose of the shallow non-inversion tillage is to keep the soil organic matter in the topsoil, and to disturb the soil as little as possible, which has as benefit that the organic matter levels in the topsoil can increase and soil life is maintained better. Overall, the soil structure in the topsoil will improve. This is also what the land users like about using the non-inversion tillage. The yields when using non-inversion tillage are similar to the yields of ploughed fields. The difficulty of this technology is the control of weeds, since the topsoil is not turned over, small weeds and seeds are not buried, and have a higher change to survive. This may make that more pesticide is used to control the weeds than when you plough the soil, therefore this tillage technique is less favorable amongst organic farmers. Also when grasses are a (large) part of the crop rotation non-inversion tillage might not be the best solution, since it is harder to destroy the grass when preparing the soil for the next crop.

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:

Netherlands

Region/ State/ Province:

de Peel

Further specification of location:

Vredepeel

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

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

• 100-1,000 km2

Comments:

About a quarter of the landowners in the region uses this technique

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2012

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Research results over the last years have shown that ploughing might not always be the perfect solution as tillage technique. By experimenting it is now found that non-inversion tillage might as well do the job, and even improve soil quality on certain points.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - barley
• cereals - maize
• legumes and pulses - peas
• root/tuber crops - potatoes
• root/tuber crops - sugar beet
• vegetables - root vegetables (carrots, onions, beet, other)

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): leek, silage maize, processing pea, carrot, spring barley, sugarbeet, potatoe

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A3: Soil surface treatment

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction

biological degradation

• 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:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The pictures show the machine at work, and what the soil looks like once the soil has been worked.
The machine type is SMS HKK 300, with 6 pins that work in the soil. Dependent on the type of crop the soil is worked about 25 cm deep.

Author:

Harry Verstegen

Date:

23/03/2015

Author:

Harry Verstegen

Date:

23/03/2015

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):

Euro

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

0.87

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

the described operations are the changes compared to conventional tillage which is ploughing

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

Comments:

There are no additional costs for inputs compared to conventional tillage (ploughing in spring). There might be a minor reduction of fuel costs because the ploughing of a field takes more fuel, but on the other hand it is sometimes needed to cultivate the land an extra time, because you cannot destroy the winter crop/green manure at once. So in the end it will be around the same.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The investment costs for adapted machinery are the main factors affecting costs.

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.

antroposol/gleyic podsol; sand to sandy loam with an organic matter content of approx 4%.

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:

• company

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

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

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The technology is running too short still to measure impacts

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological 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

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

website Beter Bodembeheer

URL:

www.beterbodembeheer.nl