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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1074, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6262, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia – Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Maribor (KGZS) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Mulch-till is a method of farming that does not utilise a plough, and thus the soil is not turned over. Furthermore, at least 30% of the cultivated area remains covered with organic residues left over from the previous crop. There are multiple benefits to the soil and carbon dioxide emissions are reduced.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Mulch-till (also called “conservation agriculture” or “minimum tillage”) is a method of land management with modified, less intensive tillage, where land is covered with plant residues year-round (at least 30% cover) or grass, energy consumption is reduced, and there is less trampling/ compaction of the soil because of fewer machine passes and the protected surface. Under mulch-till, special agricultural machinery and attachments are required. Disc harrows and chisel ploughs are used to loosen the soil, and direct drills are employed for seeding. Ploughs are not used and the soil is not inverted. This method of tillage is intended to maintain soil structure, build up humus, improve nutrient supply and soil moisture, increase soil microbiological activity and also to prevent soil erosion. Mulch-till reduces the number of work operations on the cultivated area. Because the soil is disturbed less, this minimises the exposure of soil organic matter to the air, and therefore decreases the formation and release of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The debate over whether ploughing is still necessary has been going on for quite some time. Both mulch-till and ploughing have their advantages as well as disadvantages. Research shows that mulch-till reduces soil erosion and compaction, and this has a significant impact on soil fertility. On the other hand, ploughing better inhibits the spread of weeds and certain types of diseases and pests.
Mulch-till requires complete replacement of machines/tools, and this is a considerable initial investment. Regular annual maintenance of the equipment is needed also. Mulch-till provides full benefits after a number of years, through making sure that minimal soil inversion and organic soil coverage is guaranteed. It also requires good planning of crop rotation, the use of a special seed drill and employment of herbicides after emergence (or surface hoeing). Users mention one advantage being the low costs for tillage, which is less expensive than ploughing, and the reduction of soil erosion on sloping terrain. However, they do not like the high investment for equipment, possible lost of yields and increase in weeds: all tend to arise at the beginning of implementation. Knowledge and experience are required, as the technology is quite demanding, so there are chances of failure.

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:

2020

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

A few years ago, the farmer transitioned from traditional plowing to a mulch-tillage technique and has been using this method since 2020. In 2021, the farmer sought assistance from a consulting service to connect with the Biotechnical faculty in Ljubljana. Tests were conducted to assess the impact of conservation tillage. Following the positive results, the farmer has continued collaborating with the Biotechnical faculty and the public advisory service, further experimenting with the technology and maintaining the new cultivation approach. Today, he is one of the prominent advocates of conservation tillage.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

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
• reduce 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):

EUR

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

0.97

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase of 2-row disc harrow	1st year
2.	Purchase deep chisel plow	1st year
3.	Purchase pneumatic seed drill combined with rotary harrow	1st year
4.	Purchase pneumatic precision planter with rotating elements	1st year
5.	Purchase cover crop seed drill	1st year

Comments:

Tractor should also be considered as part of the investment in implementing the mulch-till technology. The required tractor for operating Mulch-till is at least 110 HP. Let's assume a tractor with four-wheel drive, 95–125 kW (129–170 HP), with an investment cost of 66,400 €. Its usage should be economically justified for the entire farm (used for all farm tasks).

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	Purchase of 2-row disc harrow	piece	29.7	404.0404	12000.0	100.0
Equipment	Purchase deep chisel plow	piece	29.7	101.0101	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Pneumatic seed drill combined with rotary harrow	piece	29.7	909.0909	27000.0	100.0
Equipment	Pneumatic precision planter with rotating elements	piece	29.7	572.3905	17000.0	100.0
Equipment	Cover crop seed drill	piece	29.7	151.5151	4500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					63500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					65463.92

Comments:

The estimated lifespan of the equipment represents only an illustrative measure in terms of total hours, hectares, or machine work until its obsolescence. This data is not considered in the cost calculation. It is generally not economically viable to use a machine until its complete obsolescence, as it may become technologically outdated or require excessive investment for restoration compared to its economic usage. It is more sensible to use the machine's depreciation period. The average depreciation value is determined based on the average annual usage of the machine. The depreciation period for attachments is 12 years.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Tractor operation and maintanance	It is used for all operations related to the technology (without cover crop seed drill operation)..
2.	Deep chisel plow operation and maintanance	1 time per 5 years, on all cultivated field surfaces (29,7 ha), 1.0 h/ha.
3.	2-row disc harrow operation and maintanance	2 time per year, on all cultivated field surfaces (29,7 ha), 0.8 h/ha.
4.	Pneumatic precision planter with rotating elements operation and maintanance	1 times per year, on 50 % of all cultivated field surfaces (14.85 ha), 1.3 h/ha.
5.	Cover crop seed drill operation and maintanance	1 time per year, on all cultivated field surfaces (29,7 ha), 0.8 h/ha (combined with harrow).
6.	Pneumatic seed drill combined with rotary harrow operation and maintanance	1 times per year, on 50 % of all cultivated field surfaces (14,85 ha), 1.4 h/ha.
7.	Purchase cover crop seed mixture Fruh	1 time per year, on all cultivated field surfaces (29,7 ha).

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	Tractor operation	EUR/ha	29.7	18.144	538.88	100.0
Labour	Machine maintenance	EUR/ha	29.7	2.88	85.54	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of tractor operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	29.7	122.598	3641.16	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of deep chisel plow operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	29.7	4.36	129.49	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of 2-row disc harrow operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	29.7	30.432	903.83	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of pneumatic precision planter with rotating elements operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	14.85	29.744	441.7	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of cover crop seed drill operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	29.7	2.872	85.3	100.0
Equipment	Machine avarage total costs of Pneumatic seed drill combined with rotary harrow operation and maintanance	EUR/ha	14.85	52.416	778.38	100.0
Plant material	Cover crop mixture Fruh	EUR/ha	29.7	66.768	1983.01	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					8587.29
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					8852.88

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

It very much depends on the type of soil, what is the structure of the soil. In addition, the planning of the crop rotation and cover crops also affect the costs. As a result, weed development and subsequent herbicide use may be different.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

There are depressions, settlements are in the valley, concave type.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Hydromelioration was carried out in the area, a drainage system and water retention systems (e.g. ponds and basins) were arranged.

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

based on national legal system

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

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 rainfall		decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide	very well

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:

The initial establishment and investment costs for implementing the technology are high, and in the short term, the benefits may not be very noticeable or even negative compared to conservative technology. However, the long-term benefits are more significant and positive. While there are recurring costs involved, such as maintenance expenses, they are considerably lower compared to the initial investment costs. The technology requires substantial upfront investment in equipment, which can initially outweigh the immediate returns. It takes time for the technology to mature and for the full benefits to be realized. As the system becomes established and optimized, the positive outcomes become more apparent over the long run. Additionally, the lower costs mentioned refer to the ongoing maintenance and operational expenses required to sustain the technology (machines), which are generally lower than the initial investment costs. These costs are often outweighed by the benefits gained from improved efficiency, reduced resource consumption, and other long-term advantages. Therefore, while the short-term returns may not be overwhelmingly positive, the investment in the technology pays off over time, with greater benefits and lower operational costs.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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?

Yes

other (specify):

added equipment/mechanization attachments to facilitate technology implementation, improved technology implementation with knowledge and experience

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Added cover crop seed drill. more emphasis on cover crop.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Less depression, erosion and soil leaching.
Cost and time (fewer passes, machine hours, less machine power required).
Care for nature, sustain natural resources.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
In the long term it enables the achievement of better soil conditions, in terms of appropriate ratios of water, air, nutrients, organic matter, microbial activity, pH, microbial activity, pH and other factors of soil fertility.
Compaction and drying of the top layer of the soil is significantly less frequent and as a result losses of young plants are therefore smaller.
It reduces the potential for soil erosion. A major threat to soil fertility is erosion processes (wind, water and other erosion), where the most fertile surface layers of the soil are carried away to other parts of the ecosystem that are not intended for food production.
It brings advantages in terms of energy consumption and the possibility of carrying out production tasks in a shorter time and in difficult weather conditions. Conservation tillage tools typically operate in a shallower soil layer and mix less soil mass, it enables the use of tools with larger working widths and thus less unproductive driving in the field.
Benefits in terms of reduced transfer of phytopharmaceuticals and nutrients excess from the cultivation area to water and other ecosystems.
Reduced tillage improves soil quality, reduces nutrient leaching and lowers greenhouse gas emissions.
Benefits in terms of bioavailability and nutrient uptake efficiency.
Benefits in terms of greater adaptability of crops to extreme weather events.
Benefits in terms of maintaining the overall biological diversity of the agricultural landscape and soil.

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?
A big investment in machinery.	It is possible to start gradually with cheaper and simpler machines (also home-made).
Adaptation of crop protection.	Implementing integrated pest management (IPM).

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
An increase in the occurrence of certain types of weeds and a high dependence on certain types of herbicides. Some studies show that the introduction of conservation tillage slightly increases losses from certain diseases and pests.	For successful weed control, it is important to have a varied crop rotation, frequent sowing of cover crops and intercrops, and that the weeds never leave uncontrolled development on the stubble. The variegated crop rotation is meant as an obstacle that interrupts the development cycle of diseases and pests. How we handle harvest residues is also important. The more finely they are chopped by combines, mulchers or tools for vertical tillage before sowing, the faster they decompose and the worse the chances of harmful organisms developing on them. An evenly distributed mulch of harvest residues should remain, which prevents the emergence of new waves of weeds. These additional measures, together with mechanical weed control with new types of tools, allow limiting the weed population to a level that can be controlled with a limited range of herbicides.
Investment costs in machines designed for the method of soil cultivation can be very high. An important obstacle in the introduction of conservation tillage is the large investments in new machinery... The value of purchasing these tools can well exceed the amount of 100,000 euros for an individual farm, which is a practically unfeasible investment for small farms.	Small farms can take the transition to conservation farming only with the help of hired machinery services from neighbouring large farms that have been able to invest in new equipment. The subsidization of the purchase of machinery and also the economic legal status of the farm in terms of VAT calculation play an important role.
It is necessary to replace all the tools used by farmers according to the old methods of tillage. It is necessary to purchase adapted cultivators, harrows, looseners and especially seeder drills.	Increase in the supply of relatively inexpensive machines from manufacturers from Eastern Europe and Turkey, which can increase the availability of this equipment to smaller farms.
In the first years of the transition period, there may be a significant reduction in yields and poor financial results. There is a yield reduction and financial stress during the transition period to the new system. The transition from conventional cultivation to conservation tillage is usually difficult and risky.	Growers must be financially strong in order to make the transition, and the areas under alternative cultivation systems must increase gradually when they really master the new cultivation technique. Good financial support during the transition period is very important for small farms with weak investment assets. Targeted education and training is necessary, as technological errors due to lack of knowledge regarding the implementation of conservation cultivation in different soil types can be economically very fatal.
A small increase in the seeding rate (10 to 15 %) is often recommended to compensate for losses caused by diseases and pests at the time of plant emergence.	A necessary cost that must be accepted (higher sowing rate for the main crops and additional crops – cover crops) for the successful implementation of the measure.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

TJ Townsend, SJ Ramsden, P Wilson. Analysing reduced tillage practices within a bio-economic modelling framework. Agricultural Systems 146 (2016) 91–102.

Available from where? Costs?

ScienceDirect

Title, author, year, ISBN:

E Houshyar, MJ SheikhDavoodi, M Almassi, H Bahrami, H Azadi, M Omidi, G Sayyad, F Witlox. Silage corn production in conventional and conservation tillage systems. Part I: Sustainability analysis using combination of GIS/AHP and multi-fuzzy modeling. Ecological Indicators 39 (2014) 102–114.

Available from where? Costs?

ScienceDirect

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

C Rozman, K Pažek, M Lešnik. Analiza ekonomske ucinkovitosti alternativne agronomske prakse (AAP) na VVO. Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za kmetijstvo in biosistemske vede, 2018.

URL:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjNtpH7peD8AhWFzaQKHdPXBM4QFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kgzs-ms.si%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F07%2FD.T3.3.1-Study-final-May-2018.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3qni6nXmwUM25mhI0FwPln

Title/ description:

Mimalna obdelava tal – praktični primeri na naših kmetijah (žipo, ropic, horvat)

URL:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiZ6smRpuD8AhWrsaQKHcRSBoMQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kmetijski-zavod.si%2FPortals%2F0%2Flombergarjevi%2FMinimalna%2520obdelava%2520tal%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520prakti%25C4%258Dni%2520primeri%2520na%2520na%25C5%25A1ih%2520kmetijah%2520%5BSamodejno%2520shranjeno%5D.pdf%3Fver%3D2021-12-13-094249-623&usg=AOvVaw1jtWGuL4ovgrvC0rvqm1iS