Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:24:57.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of conservation tillage in an agro-intensive region: results from a survey of farmers in Scania, Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

Sofia Hydbom ,
Johanna Alkan Olsson  and
Pål Axel Olsson
Sofia Hydbom*
Affiliation:
Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Ecology building, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology building, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden
Johanna Alkan Olsson
Affiliation:
Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Ecology building, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden
Pål Axel Olsson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology building, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden
*
Author for correspondence: Sofia Hydbom, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional agricultural practices can lead to soil erosion and a reduction in soil organic carbon (SOC) content. It has been suggested that less intensive agricultural practices, such as conservation tillage (including no-till and reduced till without soil inversion) may reduce both erosion and loss of SOC. The aim of this study was to determine whether, and why, conservation tillage is used in Scania, which is one of the most agro-intensive regions in Sweden. We also investigated how information on tillage practices is obtained, why one type of tillage may be favored over another, and whether some farmers are more likely to use conservation tillage. The result of this study will benefit policy makers and researchers by pinpointing factors that influence the use of conservation tillage. To collect data, a questionnaire was sent to farmers in Scania in 2016. We found that the majority of the responding farmers used conservation tillage, and that it was more likely to be used if the farmer was highly educated and spent more than 50% of their annual working time on crop production. The use of conservation tillage was also more common if the farm was large and clay soil dominated. Crop rotation was often highlighted as the most important factor influencing the choice of tillage practice, which may be due to crop species requirements. When asked to compare the consequences of reduced tillage and plowing, the perception of farmers using conservation tillage was in general more positive, indicating skepticism toward the practice of reduced tillage until it had been tried. We show that the use of conservation tillage, sometimes in combination with plowing, is widespread in Scania. However, unless changes in, for example, crop rotation and labor requirements occur, the use of conservation tillage will most likely remain the same as today, or only increase slightly in the near future. Farm enlargement may result in an increased conservation tillage use, and so may efforts to educate advisors, increased opportunities for peer-to-peer meetings, and the development of economically viable small farm solutions. Increased conservation tillage may be part of the solution for sustainable crop production, but drawbacks such as increased pesticide use must be addressed further, as well as factors such as crop rotation development and practical knowledge that influence conservation tillage use at the farm level.

Keywords

Conservation tillagecrop rotationfarmerplowingSweden
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agresti, A (1990) Categorical Data Analysis. New York, USA: Wiley. 710 pp.Google Scholar
Al-Kaisi, MM and Yin, X (2005) Tillage and crop residue effects on soil carbon and carbon dioxide emissions in corn-soybean rotations. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awada, L, Lindwall, CW and Sonntag, B (2014) The development and adoption of conservation tillage systems on the Canadian Prairies. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 2, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielders, CL, Ramelot, C and Persoons, E (2003) Farmer perception of runoff and erosion and extent of flooding in the silt-loam belt of the Belgian Walloon Region. Environmental Science & Policy 6, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, MR (1994) Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Florida: Lewis Publishers, ISBN 0873715713, 390 pp.Google Scholar
Carter, MR (2017) Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRS Press, ISBN 9781138505995, 400 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS and Opeña, J (2012) Effects of tillage systems and herbicides on weed emergence, weed growth, and grain yield in dry-seeded rice systems. Field Crops Research 137, 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
County Administrative Board of Skåne (2017) Available at http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Sv/lantbruk-och-landsbygd/lantbruk/jordbruksfastigheter/Pages/index.aspx (Accessed 20 July 2017).Google Scholar
Davies, B and Finney, JB (2002) Reduced cultivations for cereals: research, development and advisory needs under changing economic circumstances. HGCA Research Review No. 48. Available at https://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/288079/rr48-final-project-report.pdf (Accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar
D'Emden, FH, Llewellyn, RS and Burton, MP (2006) Adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions: an application of duration analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73, 630–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dytham, C (2011) Choosing and Using Statistics—A Biologist's Guide, 3rd Edn. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 298 pp.Google Scholar
Eurostat (2013) Agri-environmental indicator—tillage practices. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_tillage_practices (Accessed 4 July 2017).Google Scholar
FAO (2017) Available at http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/sustainable-agriculture-platform-pilot-website/nutrients-and-soil-fertility-management/conservation-tillage/en/ (Accessed 5 August 2017).Google Scholar
Freitas, PL and Landers, JN (2014) The transformation of agriculture in Brazil through development and adoption of zero tillage conservation agriculture. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 2, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, T, Kassam, A and Corsi, S (2014) Conservation agriculture in Europe. In Jat, RA, Sahrawat, KL and Kassam, AH (eds), Conservation Agriculture: Global Prospects and Challenges. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 127–180. doi: 10.1079/9781780642598.0000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germundsson, T and Schlyter, P (1999) Atlas över Skåne: in Sveriges världsatlas. Stockholm, Sweden: Sveriges Nationalatlas. 184 pp.Google Scholar
Gould, B-W, Saupe, WE and Klemme, RM (1989) Conservation tillage: the role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Land Economics 65, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, H and Johansson, C (2008) Reducerad jordbearbetning. Jordbruksinformation 28. Jordbruksverket. 60 pp. ISSN 1102-8025.Google Scholar
Holland, JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 10, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, H and Wiitala, M (1980) Operator and landlord participation in soil erosion control in the Maple Creek Watershed in Northeast Nebraska. U.S. Economic statistics and cooperative services (ESCS) reports. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at http://purl.umn.edu/143687 (Accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar
Ingram, J (2010) Technical and social dimensions of farmer learning: an analysis of the emergence of reduced tillage systems in England. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowler, D and Bradshaw, B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahmar, R (2010) Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe, lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 27, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, LK and Stewart, WH (1983) Landownership and the adoption of minimum tillage. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65, 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexmon, Å and Andersson, H (1998) Adoption of minimum tillage practices: some empirical evidence. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 29–38.Google Scholar
Liebman, M and Davies, AS (2000) Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Research 40, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, W and Sonntag, B (2010) Landscapes Transformed: The History of Conservation Tillage and Direct Seeding. Saskatoon, Canada: Knowledge Impact in Society, University of Saskatchewan, p. 233.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, AS, Tsatsaelis, CA and Dhima, KV (2005) Tillage effects on corn emergence, silage yield, and labor and fuel inputs in double cropping with wheat. Crop Science 45, 2523–2528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mango, N, Makate, C, Tamene, L, Mponela, P and Ndengu, G (2017) Awareness and adoption of land, soil and water conservation practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, A and Mineau, P (1995) The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 55, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, DR (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104, 13268–13272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, NL, Miller, PCH, Orson, JH and Froud-Williams, RJ (2010) The adoption of non-inversion tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and the environment—a review. Soil & Tillage Research 108, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, RE, Blevins, RL, Thomas, GW, Frye, WW and Phillips, SH (1980) No-tillage agriculture. Science, New Series 208, 1108–1113.Google ScholarPubMed
Prokopy, LS, Floress, K, Klotthor-Weinkauf, D and Baumgart-Getz, A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 63, 300–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, AP, Weinkauf, DK and Prokopy, LS (2012) The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana Watersheds. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, HCF, Bleken, MA, Abrahamsen, S, Bergjord, AK and Bakken, AK (2005) Effects of alternative tillage systems on soil quality and yield of spring cereals on silty clay loam and sandy loam soils in the cool, wet climate of central Norway. Soil & Tillage Research 80, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochecouste, J-F, Dargusch, P, Cameron, D and Smith, C (2015) An analysis of the socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture as a climate change mitigation activity in Australian dryland grain production. Agricultural Systems 135, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roger-Estrade, J, Anger, C, Bertrand, M and Richard, G (2010) Tillage and soil ecology: partners for sustainable agriculture. Soil & Tillage Research 111, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, M, Mal, P and Hesse, JW (2015) The importance of conservation tillage as a contribution to sustainable agriculture: a special case of soil erosion. 2nd revised edition, 138 pp. Agribusiness-Forschung. Available at http://www.agribusiness.de/images/stories/Forschung/Agribusiness_Forschung_33_Conservation_Tillage.pdf (Accessed 11 July 2017).Google Scholar
Semb Tørresen, K and Skuterud, R (2002) Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. IV.: Changes in the weed flora and weed seedbank. Crop Protection 21, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, MJ (2001) Soil management and the farm typology: Do small family farms manage soil and nutrient resources differently than large family farms? Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 30, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, MJ, Tegene, A and Wiebe, KD (2000) Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 993–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Sweden (2010) Available at http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__MI__MI0803__MI0803A/MarkanvLan/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=4c479c25-c55b-4df3-83d3-8f51f551fb09 (Accessed 11 July 2017).Google Scholar
Taghizadeh-Toosi, A, Olesen, JE, Kristensen, K, Elsgaard, L, Østergaard, HS, Lægdsmand, M, Greve, MH and Christensen, BT (2014) Changes in carbon stocks of Danish agricultural mineral soils between 1986 and 2009. European Journal of Soil Science 65, 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, GA, Titmarsh, GW, Freebairn, DM and Radford, BJ (2007) No-tillage and conservation farming practices in grain growing areas of Queensland––a review of 40 years of development. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uri, ND (1997) Conservation tillage and input use. Environmental Geology 29, 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uri, ND (1999) Factors affecting the use of conservation tillage in the United States. Water, Air & Soil Pollution 116, 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hulst, FJ and Posthumus, H (2016) Understanding (non-) adoption of conservation agriculture in Kenya using the Reasoned Action Approach. Land Use Policy 56, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauters, E, Bielders, C, Poesen, J, Govers, G and Mathijs, E (2010) Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned behavior in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 27, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, WW and Wortmann, CS (2004) Tillage and crop rotation interactions for corn and soybean grain yield as affected by precipitation and air temperature. Agronomy Journal 96, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hydbom et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1
Download Hydbom et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 137.9 KB