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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE) - Tunisia

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Direction Générale de l’Amenagement et de Conservation des Terres Agricoles (DG/ACTA) - Tunisia

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

GIZ Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia

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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Meslin consists of a planting mix of cereals and legumes, formulated for both livestock feed and soil rehabilitation purposes.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Meslin is a practice of intercropping that has been introduced in various regions characterized by a minimum rainfall of 250 mm. It can be applied to a wide range of soil textures and even in high-altitude areas such as the mountainous regions of the north-west (e.g., the Kroumirie region) and parts of the central-west (e.g., the Mogod region).

Farmers, driven by the need for food and protein self-sufficiency for their livestock while minimizing inputs, are increasingly turning to meslin. Climate change has prompted them to diversify their food resources, making meslin a strategic solution for grazing systems and a crop cultivated for agronomic, nutritional, and economic benefits. Meslin provides high-quality hay and serves as beneficial ground cover to suppress weeds.

The composition of meslin varies widely, from mixtures with predominantly cereals to purely leguminous crops. It can be used in a variety of ways and on all types of farms (in open fields, alternating with other seasonal crops, as part of a medium-term crop rotation system or in a mature tree orchard).

Before sowing, ploughing is recommended, along with the application of 100 kg/ha of compound fertilizer. Sowing is recommended from September 30 to mid-December. Species are mixed and sown in a single pass at a depth of 2-3 cm and a spacing of 12-15 cm. The sowing rate is 130 kg/ha. This mixture requires no weeding or extra fertilizing, but requires effective water management during critical growth stages.

Meslin can be harvested at different stages depending on weather conditions and the farmer's objectives. To prepare green fodder for cattle, meslin is mowed in slices on a daily basis and pre-mowed half a day before distribution. For silage, mowing must take place at the stage of the first green pods of leguminous plants, followed by silage making after a short pre-tanning period.
Farmers who have embraced meslin have expressed satisfaction, reporting higher economic gains compared to conventional forage like oats.

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:

2021

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:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

From 2003, as part of research projects

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• 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:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-silvopastoralism

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:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Meslin can be intercropped with other varieties of crops

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:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

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):

Tunisian dinars

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

3.1

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Summary plowing	September 30 to mid-October
2.	Seeding	September 30 to mid-December
3.	Irrigation	From November onwards, if no rain, light irrigation once a week
4.	Green mowing	From January to early March
5.	Dry mowing	Mid-April

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Comments:

Under the Prosol project, seed was provided free of charge in the first year of production, while in the second year, farmers paid 50% of the cost of the seed.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Summary plowing	September 30 to mid-October
2.	Seeding	September 30 to mid-December
3.	30 and 100 kg triple superphosphate or DAP	Early October
4.	Irrigation	From November onwards, if no rain, light irrigation once a week
5.	Green mowing	From January to early March
6.	Dery mowing	Mid-April

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:

1595.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Comments:

Under the Prosol project, seed was provided free of charge in the first year of production, while in the second year, farmers paid 50% of the cost of the seed.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

- Plowing and seeding
- Availability of seeds on the market

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Meslin has been tested in Tunisia since 2009, and the results from all plots have been documented by researchers from the National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia. In addition, a post-harvest survey was carried out among farmers to ascertain the results.

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?
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local hailstorm	moderately

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

• 1-10%

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

45 ha

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

Most adopters received subsidies from the PROSOL/GIZ project.

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

other (specify):

Seed availability

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

The composition of meslin has changed due to seed shortage and drought.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Meslin has a positive impact on soil quality.
Meslin production costs are lower than the cost of conventional forage (oats).
Milk quality has changed.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Soil rehabilitation
Solving an economic problem (obtaining production in degraded terrain)
Good-quality forage (source of energy and protein for livestock)

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of seeds	Use locally-adapted seeds
Adoption by farmers	Raising awareness among farmers

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guide des bonnes pratiques agricoles, Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE), 2019

Available from where? Costs?

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rapport d'activités projet PROSOL/ATAE, Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE), 2022

Available from where? Costs?

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Carte agricole de la Tunisie, Ministère de l’agriculture, 2005

Available from where? Costs?

Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate-General for the Development and Conservation of Agricultural Lands

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Factsheet "Successful fodder mixes", Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE)

Available from where? Costs?

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Factsheet "Cover crops", Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE)

Available from where? Costs?

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Factsheet "Combined cropping - six forage mixtures", Association Tunisienne d'Agriculture Environnementale (ATAE)

Available from where? Costs?

Tunisian Environmental Agriculture Association (ATAE)

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Guide technique des mélanges fourragers à base de céréales à paille et de légumineuses, Agathe Legendre, Bertrand Bouffartigue, D. Deleau, Michel Deraedt, Elodie Desmoniere, et al., 2018

URL:

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02788708/document

Title/ description:

Harmonized World Soil Database, FAO, 2009

URL:

https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/