Technologies

Minimum tillage in UK arable cropping systems: Tivington [United Kingdom]

non-inversion tillage (eng); conservation tillage (eng)

technologies_984 - United Kingdom

View sections

Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 69%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Ceris A. Jones', 'user_id': '142', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:

Oborn Jo

Farming wildlife advisory group

United Kingdom

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 28, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Soil and water protection (EU-SOWAP)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1089, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Farmin & wildlife advisory group (FWAG) - United Kingdom', '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

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Non-inversion tillage to create a seedbed

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Non-inversion tillage to provide suitable seedbed for following crop.

Purpose of the Technology: Even and cost-effective crop establishment, saving time and benefiting the environment. Maintenance: annually, per crop,

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: innovative farmer reducing impacts of farming on the environemnt, expanding his businesss and saving time

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

United Kingdom

Region/ State/ Province:

Somerset

Further specification of location:

Minehead

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.78 km2.

Farm is a total of 126ha of which 28ha are grazed, 9ha are under environmental stewardship and 7ha are set aside

Map preview

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - wheat (spring)
  • oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 300 Longest growing period from month to month: Sep - Jul

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion and compaction caused by inappropriate land use and intensive grazing respectively

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Soil erosion and capping of the soil

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: winter wheat - winter oilseed rape - winter wheat - beans - winter wheat

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

agronomic measures

  • A3: Soil surface treatment
Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: early planting, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wo: offsite degradation effects
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pk: slaking and crusting
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Pk: sealing and crusting

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (economic viability), poverty / wealth (lack of captial), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of knowledge)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': None, 'preview_image': '', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': None, 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: improvement of soil structure

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase in soil fertility

Early planting
Material/ species: crop
Quantity/ density: depends on

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: crop residue
Quantity/ density: 2-5 t/ha
Remarks: residue chopped + spread over width of combine

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Remarks: broadcast

Soil conditioners (lime, gypsum)
Material/ species: biosolids (from Aug05)

Breaking compacted topsoil
Remarks: when required

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

£

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

0.56

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

Additional info: - Year2: surface cultivation: mid September / per crop - Year2: drill: mid September / per crop - Year2: roll: mid September / per crop - Year3: shallow sub-soil: November / per crop - Year3: drill: November / per crop

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Year1: shallow sub-soil 3rd-4th week in August / annual
2. Year1: spray with non-selective herbicide (glyphosate) late August/ early September / annual
3. Year1: drill late August/ early September, 3-4 days after spraying / annual
4. Year1: roll (optional) after drilling / annual
5. Year2: surface cultivation (more in Annex 3) mid August / per crop

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
Equipment Equipment (year1)-machine hour
Equipment Equipment (year2)-machine hour
Equipment Equipment (year3)-machine hour
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Vaderstad Carrier, Vaderstad drill and roller

Only crop establishment costs are included as all other costs - seed, fertilisers, pesticides - are equivalent with those for conventionally mouldboard ploughing. The costs highlghted include labour. Equivalent crop establishment costs by ploughing are 225 (year1), 231 (year2), 190 (year3)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

slope (steeper slopes require more horsepower), state of the soil, climate, crop

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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

800.00

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

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.

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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is medium
Soil drainage/infiltration is good

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: < 0.5%

5% of the land users are very rich and own 20% of the land.
10% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land.
85% of the land users are average wealthy and own 60% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Contracting work forms greater part of income

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
Comments:

126 ha

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

  • Other
Land use rights:
  • leased

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

In early years

Other socio-economic impacts

Timeliness of operations

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Operation twice as quick as ploughing

Economic viability

decreased
improved

Input constraints

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Possible increasing herbicide costs

Hindered farm opperations

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

timing of operations critical

High machinery costs

low
high
Comments/ specify:

High capital investment but low running costs

Socio-cultural impacts

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Preparation for new legislation

Comments/ specify:

CAP reform, Soil Action Plan for England, EU Water Framework directive

Acceptance by society

Low
High
Comments/ specify:

Age difference: Technology tends to be taken up by younger farmers

Ecological impacts

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0.01

Quantity after SLM:

1

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Possibility

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

More earthworms compared to land that has been ploughed

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Driven by economics

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased work rate making operations quicker
Better trafficability
Less at risk of weather
Earlier drilling. It is a systems approach - minimum tillage combined with early drilling and low seed rates
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increased work rate

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Better planning
Improved soil organic matter
(Possible) soil structure improvements
Improved soil ecology and other wildlife 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?
Dependent on dry weather Co-operation with other farmers or larger acreage
Machinery more complex and expensive A combination of crop rotation, pesticides and stale seedbeds
Increasing grass weed populations Does not necessarily mean spending money eg utilising old equipment on farm like subsoilers. However, need the right attitude
Need to be experimental Accept advice for varying sources, talk to different people
Advice can be fragmented/ confusing
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Technological knowledge of farmer Training and education, dissemination
Initial high capital investment Extended finance
Possible increasing weed populations More diverse management options - cultural and chemical
Need to expand acreage to cover capital costs More diverse crop rotation but perhaps this is insufficient to retain economic viability

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SOWAP project

Available from where? Costs?

www.sowap.org

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

L and D farming

URL:

www.landdfarming.co.uk

Title/ description:

Vaderstad machinery

URL:

www.vaderstad.com

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules

No modules