Conservation tillage with incorporated mulched plant residues (mulch-till) [Slovenia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Matjaz Glavan
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Ohranitvena obdelava tal z vdelavo mulčenih rastlinskih ostankov
technologies_5494 - Slovenia
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)
land user:
Mrzlikar Anton
Family farm
Slovenia
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1186, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Department for Agronomy, University of Ljubljana - Slovenia', '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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Conservation tillage with incorporated mulched plant residues (mulch-till) of harvested crop or a green manure that are part of the rotation). Crop residues are partially incorporated/mixed in topsoil layer (down to 10 cm) using a disc harrow, chisel plough, sweeps, field cultivators, that leave more than 30% of the soil surface covered with crop residue. Technology contributes to less soil disturbance, increase of soil organic matter, better soil structure and better water holding capacity of soils.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
1. The technology of conservational tillage with incorporated mulched plant residues (mulch-till) is applied in flatlands around the Municipality of Vrhnika with an average altitude of 290 m.a.s.l. Average annual precipitation is 1400 mm. The area is characterized with often stormy precipitation events and occasional summer droughts. A farmer applies this technology on various soil types from silty loam to silty clay Gleysol to organic Histosol soils (peat). Soils in the area are generally moderately deep to deep with medium soil organic matter (Gleysol) of 3-7% or with a high share of organic matter (Histosol) of >20% (Ljubljana moors). The area has good availability of surface water and groundwater of good drinking quality. Gleysol areas are drained (drainage systems) to prevent floods to enable cultivation. Histosol areas are drained (open-channel drainage systems) to enable arable crop production. However, due to high groundwater and many surface water sources, certain areas are regularly flooded during flood events mostly in late autumn, winter and spring. Salinity is not a problem due to high precipitation and leaching. Farmer practices rotational agriculture. Less than 5% of income coming from off-farm activities. The examined farm household has an average wealth and is fully mechanized/motorized. the farm has good access to services and infrastructure. The examined farm is medium in scale with land partly owned by the land user and partly leased from other private owners.The general biodiversity of the area is medium on Gleysols to high on Histosol where nature protection Landscape Park of Ljubljansko Barje (The Ljubljana Moors Landscape Park) is located.
Part of the farmers land parcels is located inside boundaries of Krajinski park Ljubljansko barje /Ljubljana Moor Landscape park. Park takes a lot of actions to secure peat soils. This almost 16,000 hectares large lowland marshy plain is marked by an interminable mosaic of grasslands, broadleaf woodlands, fields, ditches and hedges.
The farmer decided to abandon conventional ploughing technology and to start with conservational tillage technology when he noticed that the organic layer of peat soils in these areas started to become thinner. Farmer introduced this technology to preserve peat soils of Ljubljana Moors on his parcels in 2015. With ploughing, peat was mixed and decomposing - mineralise. In 18th-century peat layers of up to 2m depth were exploited for the same use as firewood. Only shallow layers of peat soil (up to 1 m) are still covering agricultural areas. As peat is a source of fertility farmers are seeking ways of preserving it. Farmer Anton Mrzlikar took a lead and started with conservational tillage with incorporated mulched plant residues (mulch-till).
Video https://vimeo.com/97415985 presents the effects of conservational tillage with incorporated mulched plant residues (mulch-till) on soil stability. This is a simulation of abundant summer rain and its impact on the tilled soils in terms of water infiltration capacity and erodibility. The result of this simulation is presented very clearly. It shows the difference between long-term conventional versus conservation tillage (mulch-till). Conventional tillage ploughs the top 25-28 cm of the soil at least once or twice a year. The soil is inverted, its structure breaks down and the surface is left bare. The first raindrops break the structural aggregates causing soil surface siltation and blockage of the soil pores. Thus vertical water flow is blocked and redirected as surface runoff, causing distinct erosion. If fertilizers and pesticides are used, the water flow will transport them, along with the soil particles, to surface waters where they cause pollution or surface ponding on the fields. This leads to an uneven distribution of substances across the field surface.
In conservation tillage (mulch-till), a shallow, 10 cm layer of topsoil is mixed with organic residues which are thus retained near and on the surface. In this way, soil structure is reinforced with good soil water infiltration and absorption. Despite heavy rainfall, the soils do not show any signs of erosion. There is no surface flow. Water drains into the soil vertical flow where it is available to the plants.
2. The farmer usees of 4-row-disk harrow tillage machinery (vario-disc) on arable fields for all crop types. When cultivating fields he crosses fields 1 - 2 times (depends on soil moisture). Every few years he uses chisels to break and shatters (aerate) the soils (depends on crop type - cereals and drought years). After main/first crop he seeds various cover crops (if fodder is needed they harvested it otherwise is used for green manure). He uses manure 30-40 t/ha. He applies typical dairy cow farm rotation (cereals/maize/soya/grass-clover mix). Cover crops are classified as rapes, cereals, oats, grass-clover, grass.
3. The main function is an increase of organic matter, retain water, increase soil biodiversity, stabilise soil structure in the soils and reduce water erosion, as well as reduce energy consumption and costs. This leads to better (1) productivity due to nutrients slow-release, (2) better water holding capacity and (3) decreased soil compaction threat. The technology was introduced to prevent decomposition of organic matter on Ljubljana moor peat soils.
4. Major inputs needed to establish is to change machinery and to gain new knowledge and experiences. They had to buy 4-row disc harrows, chisels plough and new seeders (maize). Seeding machines for cereals and oilseed rape are hired from other farmers. It is important that soils are covered all year round. Soils must be dry when cultivated.
5. The benefits are (1) increase in soil organic matter, (2) increase soil water holding capacity, (3) to maintain soil productivity, (4) increase in yields quantity and quality, (5) reduce energy consumption, (6) reduce workload - 3-4 times less time used for cultivation, (7) reduce costs.
6. Land users like (1) reduced workload and energy consumption, (2) positive impact on soil fertility and stability, (3) preserves organic matter - decrease peat soils decomposition, (4) as soils need to be covered all the time they produce more feed for cows, (5) smooths surface fields, (6) with disc harrow is easy to till soils even when residues are present on fields, (7) less soil compaction
Land users dislike: (1) investment cost for new machinery are high, (2) time to change in doing things and practice, (3) on clay soils (Gleysol) surface ponding is occurring, (4) soils need to be drier for tilling in comparison to ploughing.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.4 Videos of the Technology
Comments, short description:
This is a simulation of abundant summer rain and its impact on the tilled soils in terms of water infiltration capacity and erodibility. The result of this simulation is presented very clearly. It shows the difference between long-term conventional versus conservation soil tillage.
Conventional tillage ploughs the top 25-28 cm of the soil at least once or twice a year. The soil is inverted, its structure breaks down and the surface is left bare. The first raindrops break the structural aggregates causing soil surface siltation and blockage of the soil pores. Thus vertical water flow is blocked and redirected as surface runoff, causing distinct erosion. If fertilizers and pesticides are used, the water flow will transport them, along with the soil particles, to surface waters where they cause pollution or surface ponding on the fields. This leads to an uneven distribution of substances across the field surface.
In conservation tillage (mulch-till), a shallow, 10 cm layer of topsoil is mixed with organic residues which are thus retained near and on the surface. In this way, soil structure is reinforced with good soil water infiltration and absorption. Despite heavy rainfall, the soils do not show any signs of erosion. There is no surface flow. Water drains into the soil vertical flow where it is available to the plants.
Date:
04/12/2017
Location:
Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, University of LJubljana
Name of videographer:
Rok Mihelič, Marko Zupan, Matjaž Glavan - Agronomy Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana
Comments, short description:
Presenting 4-row disch harrow in action.
Date:
12/04/2017
Location:
Slovenia
Name of videographer:
Rok Mihelič, Agronomy Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana
Comments, short description:
Presening seeder (cereals/oilseed rape) in action and condition of soil surface after tillage and seeding.
Date:
12/04/2017
Location:
Slovenia
Name of videographer:
Rok Mihelič, Agronomy Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Slovenia
Region/ State/ Province:
Central Slovenia
Further specification of location:
Podlipa, Vrhnika. This specific farmer applies this technology on Ljubljansko barje, othewise is applied all over Slovenia
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?
Yes
If yes, specify:
Part of his land parcels is located inside boundaries of Krajinski park Ljubljansko barje /Ljubljana Moor Landscape park. Park takes a lot of actions to secure peat soils. This almost 16,000 hectares large marshy plain is marked by an interminable mosaic of grasslands, broadleaf woodlands, fields, ditches and hedges.
http://www.ljubljanskobarje.si/?lang=en
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
Comments (type of project, etc.):
Farmer introduced this technology to preserve peat soils of Ljubljana Moors on his parcels in 2015. With ploughing, peat was mixed and decomposing - mineralise. In 18th-century peat layers of up to 2m depth were exploited for the same use as firewood. Only shallow layers of peat soil (up to 1 m) are still covering agricultural areas. As peat is a source of fertility farmers are seeking ways of preserving it. Farmer Anton Mrzlikar took a lead and started with mulch-till.
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
- create beneficial economic impact
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
No
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - maize
- cereals - maize - legumes - grass-clover mix
Annual cropping system:
Maize or similar rotation with hay/pasture
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Is intercropping practiced?
No
Is crop rotation practiced?
Yes
If yes, specify:
cereals/maize/soy/grass-clover mix, additionally cover crops after main crop (soil must be covered all year round
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)
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
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
- A3: Soil surface treatment
A3: Differentiate tillage systems:
A 3.2: Reduced tillage (> 30% soil cover)
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
- Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
Comments:
It is impossible to prevent degradation in the form of peat soil mineralisation in agricultural soils.
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Author:
Matjaž Glavan, Rok Mihelič
Date:
01/09/2017
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:
30 ha
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 =:
0.9
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
50 EUR
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | Preparation of fields: Leveling depressions, reconstruction of drainage channels, using chisels to loose, break and aerate soil in deeper layers | two year before implemenation, dry soil. |
2. | Purchase of 4-row disc harrow | 1st year |
3. | Purchase of seeder for maize | 1st year |
4. | Purchase of seeder for cover crops | 1st year |
5. | Hire seeder for cereals (wheat, barley) | 1st year |
6. | Home made chisel plow for loosening the soil | 2nd year |
7. | Purchase of spraying machine | 3rd year |
8. | Purchase of GPS navigation system | 3rd year |
Comments:
The agricultural technology activities are listed in chronological order. Rotation cycle takes 3 years
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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equipment | chisel plow material (home made) | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 6500.0 | 6500.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | seeder fo cover crops | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 2500.0 | 2500.0 | 50.0 |
Equipment | seeder for maize | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 7500.0 | 7500.0 | 50.0 |
Equipment | 4-row disk harrow | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 23000.0 | 23000.0 | 50.0 |
Equipment | sprayer | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
Equipment | GPS navigation | EUR/piece | 1.0 | 2500.0 | 2500.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | hire seeder for cereals | EUR/ha | 15.0 | 50.0 | 750.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 42762.5 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 47513.89 |
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:
50% - Agency for agricultural payments (EU funds); 25% - sharred among farmers
Comments:
Cost for hiring seeder is calculated for 15ha as cereals cover 15ha of arable land.
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Maintenance of 4-disc harrow | 6 time per year, before or after use of equipment |
2. | Maintenance of Spayer | before use nozzels check, after use cleaning |
3. | Maintenance of seeder for maize | before and after use |
4. | Maintenance of seeder for cover crops | before and after use |
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 | Maintenance of 4-disc harrow | hour | 6.0 | 6.25 | 37.5 | 100.0 |
Labour | Maintenance of Spayer | hour | 6.0 | 6.25 | 37.5 | 100.0 |
Labour | Maintenance of seeder for maize | hour | 4.0 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | Maintenance of seeder for cover crops | hour | 1.0 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Lubricant cartridge for4-disc harrow | cartridge | 18.0 | 5.0 | 90.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Nozzels for Spayer | nozzel | 20.0 | 4.0 | 80.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Lubricant cartridge for seeder for maize | cartridge | 4.0 | 5.0 | 20.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Lubricant cartridge for seeder for cover crops | cartridge | 1.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 301.25 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 334.72 |
Comments:
There is a big difference between conventional and conservation tillage in time spend cultivating fields.
Farmer estimates reduction in workload (no ploughing) for 3-4 times in comparison to the conventional ploughing system.
Farmer points out an increase in green mass yield (clover, grass) due to cover crops which can be used as feed for livestock or green manure. He said that the most important part of this conservational system (mulch-till) is to prevent weeds to germinate, and that's why soil needs to be covered at all times.
He also states that top and subsoil layers are loose.
He states that he still uses the same amount of plant protection products.
The use of herbicides and fertilisers is at the same range as before the shift in practice, but he expects improvements in the future when he will further enhance knowledge on crop types, rotation and cover crops.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The starting cost - The type of machinery is needed that has to be robust and heavy to much-till and seed into the soil.
The machinery must be in use to return a profit. Working hours are reduced now (no ploughing). Machine operators with more competences can reduce costs.
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
- humid
Heavy summer thunderstorms and showers. Local precipitation.
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):
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
- high (>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.
Organic matter on Gleysol is around 6% and on Histosol (peatland) more than 30%. Bellow the peatland is clay (called "polžarica", or "snail clay")
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
< 5 m
Availability of surface water:
good
Water quality (untreated):
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
Water quality refers to:
surface water
Is water salinity a problem?
No
Is flooding of the area occurring?
Yes
Regularity:
episodically
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
On Ljubljana moor, seasonal floods are occurring regularly due to the high water table.
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- high
Habitat diversity:
- high
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
This true especially for the Ljubljana moor.
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:
- women
- men
Age of land users:
- children
- middle-aged
- elderly
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
Comments:
83 ha of agricultural land and 7 ha of forest
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- leased
- individual
Water use rights:
- individual
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?
Yes
Comments:
2/3 of land is hired from The Farmland and Forest Fund of the Republic of Slovenia
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
crop quality
fodder production
Comments/ specify:
It increased due to the fact that soil has to be covered at all times (grass, clover, cover crops) to retain soil moisture and prevent soil erosion and to provide an optimal living condition for soil life (fauna, flora). Previously the land was left bare after harvesting cereals until autumn or even spring.
fodder quality
animal production
Comments/ specify:
Due to more fodder, the farmer managed to increase the number of livestock (dairy cows).
risk of production failure
Comments/ specify:
Due to the fact that soils are not ploughed anymore, a farmer has in wet years (more precipitation in a short period of time, especially in the springtime) problems on organic marshland and clay gley soils being fully saturated. This causes a reduction in the germination of seeds and weaker growth of plants due to hypoxia.
product diversity
Comments/ specify:
More different types of cover crops in production. Some are used as nitrogen fixators or for loosening the soils with deep rots.
land management
Comments/ specify:
The land management simplified due to fewer machines needed and less time need for land cultivation and soil preparation.
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Comments/ specify:
Less petrol nedeed for land cultivation.
farm income
Comments/ specify:
More livestock means more income.
workload
Comments/ specify:
Workload decreased due to abandoning of ploughing.
Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Comments/ specify:
The farmer observed positive impacts and seeks for more knowledge on this topic to improve its practice.
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
evaporation
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
soil crusting/ sealing
soil compaction
nutrient cycling/ recharge
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
biomass/ above ground C
Climate and disaster risk reduction
drought impacts
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
Comments/ specify:
Difficult to quantify. An increase in soil organic matter has an impact on CO2 sequestration.
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 | well | |
seasonal temperature | summer | increase | well |
annual rainfall | well | ||
seasonal rainfall | spring | increase | moderately |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
heatwave | well |
drought | well |
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly negative
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
Comments:
Benefits are on short term slightly negative due to investment costs, but in the long term they are positive - they pay off.
Maintenance benefits are positive for short as well as on long-term returns as less machinery and less land management activities is needed.
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- single cases/ experimental
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
Only one farmer in the area that uses this technology. On the map you can observe his fields. In the last year many of his collegues observed advantages of this technology and hires his machinery as agriculture service of tillage. In majority of times before cover crops seeding.
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 |
---|
Reduction of workload (no ploughing, less time spent on the field) |
Change in farmers mindset is longlasting; they are forced to gain new knowledge on technology impact on soil condition With more knowledge and better handling of technology, the cost of maintenance and time spent in the field can reduce significantly. |
Increase in green mass yield (clover, grass) - it can be used as feed for livestock or green manure. Soil covered all year round + residues impact increase in soil organic matter, soil water content, biological activity, soil structure, less soil compaction. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Cost and time reductions are substantial - 3-4 times less in comparsio to conventional - ploughing. |
Farmers became aware of the importance of conservation soil management and its impact on soil properties and finally on the process of production-chain (soil-feed-milk). With proper shaping of knowledge (advising, education) - Conservational tillage has the potential to develop into the direction of organic farming. |
Soil structure and fertility improve |
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? |
---|---|
On heavy soils (Glaysoils) surface ponding can occur if the farmer is not experienced with using technology. | Observe weather regularly and follow meteorological forecasts. Try to avoid wet periods. |
Weed may be a problem in the warmer part of the year, mainly after cereals are harvested. | They use herbicide and adapt or improve crop types in rotation. |
Peatland on Ljubljana moor. There are small parcels and soil in springtime is wet prohibiting to cultivate at any time (high water table). | Observe weather regularly and follow meteorological forecasts. They have to observe soil water content conditions periodically at peatland parcels. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Farmers still need to use herbicides as weeds are a problem especially in the early stage of crop growing (narrow-leaf) and in the last stage when crops go into senescence and light gets to the ground (broad-leaf). |
As this is a conventional type of farm, they use herbicides. However, with the promotion of organic agriculture, the expansion of vegetable production, and innovations in GPS and sensors technology hoeing/weeding machines/equipment is getting popular. This problem is even more problematic in light/alluvial soils. |
Surface ponding on heavy soils is a problem in case of longlasting rain periods in spring, which are due to climate change more often in the described area. |
It is crucial to use chisel plow in this soils to break soil layers deeper and provide drainage potential of this soils. In light alluvial soils, this problem is not observed. |
When a farmer in under Slovenian agricultural conditions decides to change from conventional to conservation tillage, it has to change all machinery. | Farmers need to get as much as possible information on technology. Farmers have to make a business plan. EU funds can help with subsidy payments for investments on the farm (approx. 50-60%). |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
1 farmer
- interviews with land users
1 farmer
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
1 specialist
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
10/05/2019
7.3 Links to relevant online information
Title/ description:
OHRANITVENA OBDELAVA TAL –STANJE V SLOVENIJI
URL:
http://www.digitalna-knjiznica.bf.uni-lj.si/du1_ograjsek_simon.pdf
Title/ description:
Izzivi uvajanja konzervirajoče (ohranitvene) obdelave tal
URL:
http://www.kmetzav-mb.si/Lombergar_18/Lomb_5_2_18.pdf
Title/ description:
NOVE TEHNOLOGIJE IN SODOBNI TRENDI OBDELOVANJA TAL
URL:
http://www.kgzs-ms.si/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/STAJNKO_NOVE-TEHNOLOGIJE.pdf
Title/ description:
Ohranitvena obdelava : primerjava lastnosti mehansko obdelanih in neobdelanih prsti
URL:
https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-LTCNTC4J
Title/ description:
SZOORT - Slovensko združenje za ohranitveno obdelavo in rodovitnost tal
URL:
http://www.szoort.si/
Title/ description:
Ohranitveni način obdelave tal
URL:
https://www.program-podezelja.si/sl/247-eup/izmenjevalnik-idej/seznam-izzivov/759-ohranitveni-obdelave-tal
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules