Direct seeding significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions on farms / Article

The direct sowing or no-till method was tried by eight farms in the “Life Craft” project in the Dobeles region, including Aivars Cimermanis from Bērze parish. A farmer showed Latvian Radio a small sample of soil dug up in a winter wheat field on a shovel, which now has much more earthworms than five years ago.

“I never saw earthworms in my field before, when there was no direct sowing here. Just the fat ones, which are called nightworms,” ​​said Cimmermanis. “Re, one more, four already. The fifth and sixth are still here. And that soil – let’s say that it will divide like this… You can see – that upper layer, usually, if the land is cultivated, it would be very muddy. In the first phase of the project in the year when we measured the density of the soil, it increased at first, but then decreased every year.”

In the first year, Aivars used the direct seeding method in one of the farm’s fields with an area of ​​20 hectares and the farm initially used the technique as a service, but already in the second season he bought his own sowing machine and started using this method in almost all the farm’s areas of about 320 hectares. The farmer concludes that

in addition to the environmental benefits, there are also significant economic benefits.

“It is important that the harvest levels do not fall, and for the time being, after five years, the harvest levels have not fallen on our farm,” emphasized Cimmermanis. “The direct seeding requires a change of plants, because with repeated sowing we tried at first but saw that the results were getting worse. Therefore, since a quarter of the sowing is buttercups, we also see that we can save nitrogen mineral fertilizers and wheat in volumes, we can again use less, because those butterflies attract nitrogen from the atmosphere.”

Cynthia Ambote: Is there also a tangible economic benefit that with direct seeding less machinery is driven to the field?

Aivars Cimmermanis: Yes, certainly. We don’t have two cultivation cycles, a plowing cycle, each consuming fuel. If we used to spend 40-50 liters depending on the year on seeding, now we spend 9-15 liters of diesel fuel. Importantly, it can also save time and you don’t have to work at night, with less equipment and employees to do the same.”

Jānis Kažotnieks, expert of the Rural Consultation Center, adds that

in the test farms, the biological activity of the soil has improved, that is, there are more life forms in it, as well as the content of organic matter has increased, and the air and moisture circulation regime has improved.

On top of all that, farms have significantly reduced CO₂ volume of waste.

“If we count on Zemgalei such a not very high yield of six tons of winter wheat and if we work with traditional technology, then CO₂ emissions from one hectare are three tons and 200 kilograms. If we work with direct sowing, then the emissions are only 680 kilograms per hectare,” said Kažotnieks. “It is only important to understand that direct sowing is not just a waste. Direct seeding means no tillage at all. What happens in direct seeding is that the seed drill returns the open tube where the seed is sown, and then the tube is closed. The only obstacle I see is people’s conservatism and lack of knowledge.”

Another method – incorporation of biochar into the soil – was tested by organic farmer Andris Mangulis of Daugamale Parish, Ķekava County.

Potatoes, cabbage, onions and other vegetables were also grown in the sample plot for five years. However, the farmer concludes that it will take longer to improve the soil and increase productivity.

“We chose a fairly infertile soil, where I had not grown vegetables, such a sandy place. We took manure to improve the basic soil and poured the appropriate mass of charcoal and did not pour coal at all in one piece. Then we grew vegetables crosswise in that field and looked at the comparison,” explained Mangulis. “We tested purely the yield and of course it’s not that there will be an immediate increase in yield, but I didn’t really hope for that either, because it will take another 10 years and only then. Coal should slowly improve the soil.”

Cynthia Ambote: So you don’t see the yield benefit yet, but what about the emissions?

Andris Mangulis: It was more the view of the Nature Foundation that this carbon can be incorporated into the ground in this way. Yes, all this can be done, but the question is whether it is very logical, because it also takes a lot of energy to make that charcoal.

Jānis Reihmanis, an expert of the Latvian Nature Foundation, points out that three farms tested the use of biochar in an area of ​​0.4 hectares, using this mass in different concentrations.

“We did not get unequivocal results. There were years when there was no correlation with the amount of coal, but there were years when a positive correlation appeared on some crops,” said Reichmanis. “On the other hand, if we look at the monitoring, in total we have attracted 1.87 tons of CO in these three farms₂, plus we simply bury the coal in the ground and thereby remove it from circulation in the atmosphere. Purely from market tools, there is no reason to do it in large areas, because it is expensive and the owner does not immediately see the benefit. From the point of view of climate policy, it is still interesting, but then there must be some financial instruments to promote it.”

Agricultural methods that allow to reduce emissions and practical recommendations for their application in Latvian conditions are also summarized in a manual, which will be published soon and the materials will also be available on the website of the Rural Consulting Center and the Latvian Nature Foundation.