Controlled traffic farming and field traffic management: Perceptions of farmers groups from Northern and Western European countries

Tseganesh Wubale Tamirat,Søren Marcus Pedersen,Robert John Farquharson,Sytze De Bruin,Patrick Dermot Forristal,Claus Grøn Sørensen,David Nuyttens,Hans Henrik Pedersen,Maria Nygård Thomsen

doi:10.1016/j.still.2021.105288

Abstract

As farming machinery size and weight increases, soil compaction continues to threaten mechanized agriculture. Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) minimizes soil compaction in the crop zone by restricting traffic to permanent tracks. The adoption of CTF in Europe is low. This study enhances the understanding of farmers' needs and perceptions concerning the application of CTF by analyzing survey data from 103 farmers sampled from 8 European countries. The study adopted a descriptive approach to data analysis. Awareness about traffic-induced soil compaction is high among surveyed farmers and there are positive perceptions about the potential of CTF. The major factors limiting adoption of CTF appear to be: lack of compatibility in machinery and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) by different manufacturers; expense (equipment purchase, Real-time Kinematic (RTK) signal, machinery modification); lack of demonstrated benefits under local conditions; incomplete knowledge of research findings and decision support tools; and a perception that CTF is not for small farms. The following interventions are suggested for future development and use of CTF: a shift towards lighter, simpler, adaptable, and energy effective machinery; adapted market models for cost-effective provision of basic services; demonstration of costs and benefits under local conditions in tandem with demand-driven decision support tools as well as standardization of equipment and positioning systems.

Highlights

As farm machinery grows bigger and heavier in pursuit of economies of scale, traffic-induced soil compaction has become widespread
This is in line with the evidence that soil compaction is a threat to European agriculture
Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF)-users seem to use a greater number of damage minimization techniques in combination, probably because this group are acutely aware of compaction issues and open to adopting a multitude of measures

Summary

Introduction

As farm machinery grows bigger and heavier in pursuit of economies of scale, traffic-induced soil compaction has become widespread. ESDAC (2008) defined soil compaction as “. Manifestations of soil compaction are multifaceted (Beylich et al, 2010; Raper, 2005). Soil compaction causes a loss of nitrogen from soil (Gregorich et al, 2014; Ruser et al, 2006) resulting in a reduction of soil nitrogen uptake by plants (Gre gorich et al, 2014; Ruser et al, 1998). Yamulki and Jarvis (2002) found that compaction had a more profound effect than tillage on the release of gaseous emissions from agriculture. Tullberg et al 2018) found evidence that trafficked soils have significantly higher N2O emissions than non-trafficked soils (by an average factor of 2.2). Soil compaction causes a loss of nitrogen from soil (Gregorich et al, 2014; Ruser et al, 2006) resulting in a reduction of soil nitrogen uptake by plants (Gre gorich et al, 2014; Ruser et al, 1998). Yamulki and Jarvis (2002) found that compaction had a more profound effect than tillage on the release of gaseous emissions from agriculture. Tullberg et al 2018) found evidence that trafficked soils have significantly higher N2O emissions than non-trafficked soils (by an average factor of 2.2). Pangnakorn et al (2003) documented significant difference in earthworm populations between compacted and non-compacted soils

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion