No Tillage Field Trials in lower Austria

General

National Id:

Austria_02

Site name:

Several testing areas: Tulln (Coordinates given for Tulln, Mistelbach is more in the norteast), Mistelbach, Pyhra

Summary:

In the framework of a research programme, no tillage field trials have been installed in lower Austria. They showed a significant reduction of runoff, as well as a reduced loss of nutrients. In addition, reduced or no tillage leads to less loss of soil, and an increased content of organic carbon in the soil.

NUTS Code:

Niederösterreich

RBD code:

AT1000

Transboundary:

Data provider:

Sabine Tutte, ACTeon

Source(s):

Minimum Tillage Field Trials in Lower Austria

conserving soil treatment systems- trials in Lower Austria

Telephone -Interview with PhD Josef Rosner

Economic aspects of mulch and direct seeding- reduction of soil treatment, which changes in the operational result have to be expected?

NWRM(s) implemented in the case study:

Green cover

No till agriculture

Low till agriculture

Longitude:

16.060686

Latitude:

48.331585

Site information

Climate zone:

warm temperate dry

Mean rainfall:

550

Mean rainfall unit:

mm/year

Average temperature:

9,2

Type:

Actual Test Site

Light or indepth?:

Light

Average slope range:

5-16%

Vegetation class:

Agricultural fields, where corn, wheat, barley and sugar beet are grown.

Monitoring maintenance

Monitoring impacts effects:

Monitoring location:

Edge of Field/Plot

Monitoring parameters:

Quantity of soil eroded, runoff (seasonally), composition of the eroded material, runoff (N, herbicides...).

Performance

Performance impact estimation method:

Laboratory

Performance impact estimation information:

Three different testing fields: direct comparison of no tillage, reduced tillage and conventional tillage.

Biophysical impacts

Information on increased water storage:

Depending on the testing site, 16% more in Mistelbach, 56% more in Pixendorf and 95% more in Tulln (close to Pixendorf).

Water quality overall improvements:

Positive impact-WQ improvement

Information on Water quality overall improvements:

When tillage is reduced or completely abandoned, the loss of nitrogen and sprayed herbicides decreases.

Water quality Improvements Nitrogen (N):

Wq Improvements n unit:

% reduction pf pollutant

Soil quality overall soil improvements:

Positive impact-SQ improvement

Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements:

Due to reduced / no tillage, there is less soil loss, more organic carbon in the soil, less CO2 emission and more CH4 uptake in the soil.

Soil quality, overall soil pollution:

Soil quality, overall soil pollution unit:

% Reduction

Information on Soil quality overall soil pollution:

CO2 emission

Information on Soil quality overall soil carbon:

32 % more CH4 uptake in the soil.

Soil quality, overall soil nutrients:

Soil quality, overall soil nutrients, unit:

% Reduction

Information on Soil quality overall soil nutrients:

Soil loss

Soil quality, overall soil physical properties:

Soil quality, overall soil physical properties, unit:

% Reduction

Information on Soil quality, overall soil physical properties:

Loss of organic carbon

Lessons, risks, implications...

Key lessons:

Significant reduction of runoff, loss of nutrients, soil and pesticides is possible. Mulch and direct seeding practices are fully developped and work well in practice. The economic benefits must not ignore erosion, nutrient and pesticide movement. Volunteer plants can be a bridge for plant diseases. Cover crops should be sown immediately after harvesting for building up a green manure. Cost reduction is possible.

Financing mechanism:

Financing mechanism information:

There is support on research by the state of Lower Austria. Farmers get subsidies for soil protection measures, such as constant green cover and reduced tillage by the federal government of Austria

Financing difficulties:

Success factor(s):

Type	Role	Comments
Attitude of decision makers	main factor	Support and encouragement for soil protecting agriculture.
Attitude of the public	main factor	Support of innovative techniques. Less erosion means less sediments in villages and drainage systems, and hence less costs for cleaning.
Attitude of relevant stakeholders	main factor	Soil is their most valuable good. As a consequence, there is an interest to conserve soil and limit erosion.

Financing:

Type	Comments
Sub-national funds	The research programme is financed by the state government of lower Austria.
National funds	Subsidies are financed by the federal government of Austria.

Barrier:

Type	Role	Comments
Other	secondary barrier	Not all crops show an increased yield with less soil treatment, such as sugar beet.
Other	secondary barrier	Volunteer crops can act as a bridge for pathogens.
Other	main barrier	Reduced tillage cannot be used on heavy soils

Driver:

Type	Role	Comments
Legal obligations	main driver	The law of soil protection of Lower Austria encourages reduced tillage practices.
Organisation committed to it	main driver	They are constantly searching for new soil treatment techniques and try to introduce them in agricultural practice.
Availability of subsidies	main driver	Austrian Environmental Programme: Farmers receive the more subsidies the longer they have a green cover on the field. Moreover, mulchseeding and CO2 storage in soil are awarded as maximum soil protection measures.

Socio-economic

Direct benefits:

416

Direct benefits information:

Biedermann calculated for corn possible savings of 416 €/ha, which means 43€/t. By reducing tillage, a farm can save up to 10 000 €. When tillage is completely abandoned, savings up to 24 000 € are possible. Reasons for this are: less working hours (5 €/t wheat for salary instead of 14), less fuel consumption (40 l/ha instead of 96), less fixed machine costs. The additional consumption of herbicides and fertilizers is easily compensated and included in the calculations.

Costs investment:

Costs investment information:

Biedermann made its economical monitoring for 100 ha agricultural holding with different crops: winter wheat, winter barley, winter canola, corn, sugar beet and cover plants. He calculated the "cost for doing work" that means: salary (12 €/h), variable costs for machines (fuel, maintenance), fixed cost for machines (interest, depletion, assurance) and means of production (fertilizer, herbicides). When tillage is reduced the farmer should consider selling some of his tractors and increase the operating grade of his machines. The seeding machine is very expensive and in the same time a key element. The farmer should consider to buy it either used, to outsource the seeding or to use it in cooperation with other farmers. As an example, the costs are given here for direct seeding of wheat with a corn yield of 6t/ha.

Costs capital:

Costs capital information:

Salary of the farmer

Costs land acquisition information:

Normally no land needs to be purchased

Costs operation maintenance:

33,75

Costs operation maintenance:

In his calculations, Biedermann considered an additional consumption of herbicides (18 € per ha) and fertilizers (15 kg N/ha í 1,05 €/kg) for direct seeding.

Costs operational:

Costs operational information:

Variable machine costs

Costs maintenance:

Costs maintenance information:

Means of production (including the additional consumption of herbicides and fertilizers).

Costs total:

119

Costs total information:

These are the "costs for doing work". With direct seeding the farmer saves 37 €/t compared to conventional tillage. When mulchseeding is done in an cooperation savings are 19 €/t and mulchseeding with own machines leads to an saving of 10€/t.

Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

When no tillage is applied, the number of earthworms is multiplied by 5. The symbiosis between roots and rhizobiaceae is improved as well. Moreover, the plant roots are able to create a more complex horizontal and vertical network.

Ecosystem provisioning services:

Information on Ecosystem provisioning services:

In the first years when reduced tillage measures are applied, there can be less yield of crops on the fields. However, this is often balanced since there are less expenses for fuel, and less working time needed.

Ecosystem impact climate regulation:

Impact on GHGs (net emissions and storage) including soil carbon

Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation:

Increase of soil carbon, less CO2 emissions.

Ecosystem impact Green House Gas (GHG) soil carbon:

Information on Ecosystem impact GHG soil carbon:

CO2 emission from soil

Ecosystem impact, reduced energy use:

Information on Ecosystem impact reduced energy use:

Ecosystem impact other GHG:

Information on Ecosystem impact other GHG:

More CH4 uptake

Ecosys impact increased permanent biomas:

500

Information on Ecosystem impact increased permanent biomass:

More earthworms

Ecosystem erosion control:

Ecosystem erosion control impact:

Information on Ecosystem erosion control impact:

Per ha and year

Policy, general governance and design targets

Policy description:

Reducing tillage in order to decrease erosion, loss of nutrients and pesticides and increase the amount of humus.

Part of wider plan:

Policy pressure:

Policy requirement directive:

Policy impact:

Policy wider plan:

Policy area:

Policy target:

Target purpose
Runoff control
Erosion Control
Improved Biodiversity

Design & implementations

Application scale:

Field Scale

Installation date:

2003

Age:

Performance timescale:

5 - 10 years

Area (ha):

0,00600000005215406

Size:

Size unit:

Design capacity description:

Cannot be said in general.

Basis of design:

Testing fields for different soil treating techniques (no tillage, reduced tillage and conventional tillage).

Constraints:

Green bridge of volunteer cereals is able to transfer pathogens, with less soil treatment there is a higher risk that there is a higher amount of mykotoxins.

Favourable preconditions:

medium-heavy soils, few weeds

Crop rotation:

1.corn- winter wheat 2. corn-winter wheat- sugar beet- summer barley 3. sunflower-winter wheat

Contractural arrangements:

Design contractual arrangement:

Design consultation activity:

Activity stage	Name	Key issues	Comments
Other	Tillage demonstration events	alternative tillage machines were demonstrated to farmers, sensibilisation for erosion problems

Design land use change:

Design authority:

Authority type	Role	Name	Comments
	Initiation of the measure	local communities	Supprot research on alternative soil treatment techniques since less erosion means less maintenance costs for drainage and sewage water systems
Farmers	Implementation	local farmers	Soil is their most valuable good. Protection of soil means cost savings for fertilizers and constant yield
Other	Other	Lower Austrian State Government	Regulatory frame work as the law on soil protection and the environmental programme ÖPUL (subsidies)

Last updated: 08 Jan 2015 | Top

Miscellanous

Main menu

No Tillage Field Trials in lower Austria

Partners