Review: Soil compaction and controlled traffic farming in arable and grass cropping systems
¹CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Black Mountain Science and Innovation Precinct, Clunies Ross Street, GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
²Harper Adams University, Engineering Department, Newport Shropshire, TF10 8NB, United Kingdom
³Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Engineering, Tr. Andreja Hlinku 2, Nitra SK94976, Slovakia
⁴Universidad Nacional de Lujan, Departamento de Tecnología, Ruta 5 and Avenida Constitución, Luján 6700, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
⁵University of Southern Queensland, Centre for Agricultural Engineering, Handley street, Toowoomba QLD 4350, Australia
⁶CTF Europe Ltd., Church Road, Maulden, Bedfordshire, MK45 2AU, United Kingdom
⁷Scotland's Rural College, Dairy Research and Innovation Centre, Hestan House, Dumfries DG1 4TA, United Kingdom
⁸Universidad de Almería, CIMEDES. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales (Edificio B), Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, ES04120 Almería, Spain
*Correspondence: speets@harper-adams.ac.uk
Abstract:
There is both circumstantial and direct evidence which demonstrates the significant productivity and sustainability benefits associated with adoption of controlled traffic farming (CTF). These benefits may be fully realised when CTF is jointly practiced with no-tillage and assisted by the range of precision agriculture (PA) technologies available. Important contributing factors are those associated with improved trafficability and timeliness of field operations. Adoption of CTF is therefore encouraged as a technically and economically viable option to improve productivity and resource-use efficiency in arable and grass cropping systems. Studies on the economics of CTF consistently show that it is a profitable technological innovation for both grassland and arable land-use. Despite these benefits, global adoption of CTF is still relatively low, with the exception of Australia where approximately 30% of the grain production systems are managed under CTF. The main barriers for adoption of CTF have been equipment incompatibilities and the need to modify machinery to suit a specific system design, often at the own farmers’ risk of loss of product warranty. Other barriers include reliance on contracting operations, land tenure systems, and road transport regulations. However, some of the barriers to adoption can be overcome with forward planning when conversion to CTF is built into the machinery replacement programme, and organisations such as ACTFA in Australia and CTF Europe Ltd. in Central and Northern Europe have developed suitable schemes to assist farmers in such a process.
Key words:
Axle load, Fertiliser use efficiency, Greenhouse gas emissions, No-tillage cropping, Non-controlled traffic, traffic intensity