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. Light or indepth? Light NUTS Code Niederösterreich RBD code AT1000 Transboundary 1 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 Average slope range 5-16% Vegetation class Agricultural fields, where corn, wheat, barley and sugar beet are grown. Monitoring maintenance Monitoring impacts effects 1 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. Design & implementations Application scale Field Scale Installation date 2003 Age 1 Performance timescale 5 - 10 years Area (ha) 0,00600000005215406 Size 60 Size unit m2 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 0 Design contractual arrangement Arrangement type Responsibility Role Comments Name Design consultation activity Activity stage Key issues Name Comments Other alternative tillage machines were demonstrated to farmers, sensibilisation for erosion problems Tillage demonstration events Design land use change Land use change type Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments Other Other Lower Austrian State Government Regulatory frame work as the law on soil protection and the environmental programme ÖPUL (subsidies) 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 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 1 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 0 Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Attitude of decision makers main factor Attitude of the public main factor Attitude of relevant stakeholders main factor Financing 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 Barrier type Barrier 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 Driver type Driver 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. Financing share Financing share type Share Comments 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 0 Policy target Target purpose Runoff control Erosion Control Improved Biodiversity Policy pressure Pressure directive Relevant pressure Policy area Policy area type Policy area focus Name Comments Policy impact Impact directive Relevant impact Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Policy requirement directive Requirement directive Specification 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 14 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 5 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 32 Costs operational information Variable machine costs Costs maintenance 68 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 1 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 1 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 50 Information on Ecosystem impact GHG soil carbon CO2 emission from soil 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). Ecosystem impact, reduced energy use 90 Information on Ecosystem impact reduced energy use 90 Ecosystem impact other GHG 32 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 1 Water quality overall improvements Positive impact-WQ improvement Ecosystem erosion control impact 88 Information on Water quality overall improvements When tillage is reduced or completely abandoned, the loss of nitrogen and sprayed herbicides decreases. Information on Ecosystem erosion control impact Per ha and year Water quality Improvements Nitrogen (N) 88 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 50 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 88 Soil quality, overall soil nutrients, unit % Reduction Information on Soil quality overall soil nutrients Soil loss Soil quality, overall soil physical properties 84 Soil quality, overall soil physical properties, unit % Reduction Information on Soil quality, overall soil physical properties Loss of organic carbon Full Context Pathway(aka Context) Default view Area(aka Level or Site) ALL