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

{'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': 1249, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Department of Crop Production and Soil Science, University of Pannonia - Hungary', '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

Comments:

-

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The aim of conservation tillage is to reduce the soil disturbance. It decreases decomposition of organic matter, enhances cycling of nutrients, soil structure and increases water infiltration.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

1. The case study area is situated within the catchment of river Zala in western Hungary. The climate is moderately warm, moderately humid, the number of sunshine hours per year are high. Mean annual temperature of the region is about 10 ˚C. The average amount of rainfall is between 600 and 700 mm / year. 37% of the total catchment area is arable land which is much lower than the national average, 27% is forest, which exceeds the national average. 15% of the land is under grassland management, 5% is horticulture, 3% is pomiculture, 2% is viticulture, 1% is reed management and fish farming. In arable land non irrigated cereals, maize and oil crops are the main farming system classes. Among permanent crops vineyard and fruit trees are the most significant.
2. In this technology reduced disturbance of the soil is used, non-inversion of soil is applied. At least 30 percent of crop residues are left on the field. Primary tillage is usually carried out by rippers or combinated disk rippers. Machinery is usually supplied by agricultural contractors in case of farms smaller than 100 ha.
3. The purpose of the technology is to improve soil structure, reduce decomposition of organic matter, increase water infiltration, reduce soil erosion and soil compaction.
4. Special equipment is needed for soil management: soil loosener and minimum-tillage equipment to perform tillage and seeding in one pass. Primary tillage is due in autumn, secondary tillage (surface preparation) is performed in early spring.
5. It improves soil microbial activity, biodiversity, deeper rooting. Further to it fuel efficiency is better compared to conventional tillage.
6. Its disadvantage is the higher risk of weed infestation.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2002

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

-

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): wheat, maize, oilseed rape

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)

Comments:

Remained the same.

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

-

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

-

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

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):

Forint

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

257.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Primary tillage (Seedbed preparation and sowing)	autumn

Comments:

Compared to conventional tillage no further activities are required in conventional tillage. Primary tillage is indicated because it needs different equipment, such as ripper or disk ripper.

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

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	primary tillage	day/ha	0.1	15000.0	1500.0	100.0
Equipment	primary tillage machine (0.67 hour 1 ha)	machine hours	0.67	14570.0	9761.9	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					11261.9
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					43.82

Comments:

Cost of primary tillage in conventional tillage would cost 38200 Ft (equipment: 35200 Ft + labour: 3000 Ft). Therefore primary tillage costs 27000 Ft/ha less in conservation tillage than in conventional tillage.
It might be needed to use wider range herbicides for killing higher number of weed species, which can cost extra 10000 Ft/ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost of pesticides can be higher than in conventional tillage, but cost of fuel is significantly less.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

-

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.

Luvisol; pH is 6.5.; CEC = 20 cmol(+)/kg

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

-

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

-

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

-

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (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?
annual temperature		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not known

Comments:

-

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)?

Comments:

If equipment (ripper or disk ripper) is landed for the primary tillage there is no establishment cost for the farmer. If he has to buy the equipment it will benefit in long-term return. The maintenance/recurrent costs both short and long-term is positive, because cost of fuel is significantly less than in conventional tillage.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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

NA

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

-

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
Non-inversion tillage results in better water infiltration, soil aeration and helps to avoid subsoil compaction.
Deeper rooting and all its benefits.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Non-inversion tillage results in better water infiltration, soil aeration and helps to avoid subsoil compaction.
Deeper rooting and all its benefits.

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?
Higher risk of weed infestation.	Precise stable tillage and weed control technologies.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Higher risk of weed infestation.	Precise stable tillage and weed control technologies.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Busari, M. A., Kukal, S. S., Kaur, A., Bhatt, R., & Dulazi, A. A. (2015). Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.05.002

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633915300630

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Corsi, S., Friedrich, T., Pisante, M., & Sà, J. D. M. (2012). Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Conservation Agriculture: a literature review (Vol. 16).

URL:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agp/icm16.pdf