Conservation Agriculture

Pictures and text (in part) by Dr Des McGarryContributions from Dr Jack Desbiolles (Ashworth et al., 2010) and Baker et al., (2007)

Jack McHugh

from Local to Global level

via

Conservation Agriculture

Mitigating Land Degradation

&Improving Land and

Environment Condition

Farming in a natural way

Represents:

“a shift in our philosophy towards the land”

“do not beat the land into submission

- rather work in harmony with it”

Conservation Agriculture (CA)

To conserve, improve and make more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of available soil, water and biological resources combined with external inputs.

What is the goal of CA?

CA is a resource-efficient and resource-effective form of agriculture.

What is Conservation Agriculture ?

The foundation underlying the three principles is their contribution and interaction with soil carbon, the primary determinant of long term sustainable soil quality and crop production

Baker et al., (2007)

Baker et al., (2007)

Agricultural policies: to encourage farmers – leads toincreased air & water quality and productivity, and mitigates GHGs

CA is about feeding and greening the world for global sustainability.

Conservation Agriculture- a question of how much soil disturbance

It is a question of soil disturbance – Reduced tillage = Intermediate in soil quality effects.

They define the tillage equipment & operation characteristics as they relate to the soil volume disturbed and the degree if residue mixing.

True Conservation = Carbon & soil moisture Management

Zero till

No till

Conservation tillage

Reduced tillage

Minimum till

Controlled traffic

farming

Ridge tillage

Organic farming

Direct drill

PRB

Direct Seeding

Precision Ag

Direct planting

CA CA

CAStrip

tillage

Mulch tillage

Baker et al., (2007)

There is nothing wrong with our soils except our interference. It can be said with considerable truth the use of tillage has actually destroyed the productivity of our soils. (Faulkner, 1942)

Philosophy of CA

‘Soil does not need tillage for effective crop production’ -This is the basis for the CA philosophy-

Tillage is not necessary for crop production.

Crop residues are a very valuable part of farming systems and must be retained in full and remain on the surface as a mulch.

Permanent all year round soil cover is essential.

Control and promotion of natural biological soil process through rotation.

Soil degradation and erosion is a symptom of an unsuitable farming system.

Vehicle traffic management is adopted within an integrated systems approach.Ashworth et al., (2010)

Important benefits of CA

Increased SOM Improved soil quality Increased available plant nutrients Less runoff and increased plant available water Reduced soil erosion Improved crop production economics Reduced labour requirements Reduced machinery costs Reduced fossil fuel inputs Improved global environment

Fredrick Movie+ & - impact of CA……..aware of issues – farmer support/networksNutrient Efficiency………Dynamics, VAM, Rhizobia, rooting environmentSustainability role……….Drought, erosion, WUECA in Canada…………….Lot to learn Rotations, residue, demands for crops – force farmers to monocultures

CROP ROTATIONS

in CA - are “critical”

- Disease control- Nitrogenous plants

- Biodiversity

ROTATE

ROTATE ROTATE

Jose Benites, FAO

on the Pampas of Argentina – 12 years zero till

Roberto Pieretti

3 years no-till on a Russian chernozem

Improved soil biodiversity…

 Depth (cm)

C W&B

(%)

N C

0 - 10 1.54 0.89

10 - 20 1.45 0.81

20 - 30 1.34 0.71

Soil Carbon data for the 12 Years of No Till (N) and conventional (C) sites (Walkley and Black extracted OC)

Almost 50 % more OC in the no-till site – to 30 cm- 12 years of No-Till

Organic Carbon levels with No-till

Increases – reported globally

McGarry and Sharp, ISTRO, 2003

From - Emilio-Jesús GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ. AEAC.SV – ECAF – University of Córdoba

Weed Control with No-till

Simba (1999). ECO tillage reduces inputs and maximises crop yields. Simba International Ltd., Sleaford, Lincolnshire, England. pp. 26.

Proven reduced Glyphosate (Roundup) use with time under No - Till

Environmental concerns with continued usage of herbicides

Large fields – wheat, cotton, soybean, maize…

Most common perception of CA

Jose Benites, FAO

South S. Amer Video

LABRANZA PÓS COSECHA DE

Sweet pepper

Cassava

CA is applicable to virtually all crops OnionsCucumber

Tomato SquashJose Benites, FAO

Hoe-based farming, 0.5 ha farms; red sandy loam, Zambia

Video

Consequences:- vast labour & time needs- yield losses if it rains- total loss if drought- widespread erosion(see arrows)

Conservation Agriculture:- using “planting basins”- retain crop residues - + rotation crops- 80% time saving

(“drudgery”)- land ready before rains- yields up 65 to 75% (maize &

cotton)

- hunger alleviated- with less resources used

Peter Aagard and Dutch Gibson, CFU, Lusaka, Zambia

40,000ha of CA

FAO – Kazakhstan – CIMMYT project: “CA for Sustainable Crop Production in Northern Kazakhstan”

Prof. Murat Karabayev, CIMMYT

Now 1.3 Mha under CA. (2009)

And a State Policy, actively promoted by Ministry of Agriculture

Kazakhstan; <300mm rain / year

Traditional practice:- mechanical fallow

Picture © CherezdanovPicture © Cherezdanov

Traditional practice (fallow cultivation) - unsustainable- weed control was very poor- soil moisture losses were high- fuel and spares for tractors were scarce and

costly.

Since 2000 - introduce CA components on 4 Farms:- no-till- chemical fallow- green manure crops 1. Already demonstrate “great potential”

2. Wheat production UP by:: 20-200 kg per hectare) 3. Due to better soil moisture under no-till

Machinery based, 1850 ha ; Australia; wheat and sorghum; 500mm rain/yr

No-till (5 yrs), controlled traffic (2 m); 1 tractor (240hp), 1 disc planter, 1 spray-coupe, 1 operator

- extended farm to unproductive clay loams; soil greatly improved- land doubled in value; crops every year; 0.5 t/ha wheat in drought year

“I farm for my soil moisture”

Excellent soil structure

12Mha of CA

Machinery based, ChinaACIAR project: 96/143: “Sustainable Mechanised Dryland Grain Production”

China Agricultural University - University of Queensland, Shanxi Agricultural Machinery Bureau

J.N.Tullberg, D. Freebairn, Prof. Gao Huanwen, Dr Zhai Tongyi

Zero till

Conventional

This project has demonstrated - No-Till with controlled traffic:1. reduces power requirements2. enhances the productivity and sustainability of cropping3. by avoiding the damaging soil energy inputs4. alternate, cheaper and more sustainable methods to conventional farming in these areas…

Experimental sites:- Linfen and Shouyang (Shanxi province) – start: 1997- Zhangbei and Western Shanxi (northern Hebei) -

1999

RESULTS: Water erosion increased by:• tillage (by 30%)• random traffic, tillage and residue burial (by 70%)• residue removal from tilled soil by (~105%)• wheel compaction, residue removal in no-till (by >200%)

1.3Mha of CA (2009)

No-till

Conventional till

Strong visible evidence of improved utilisation of rainfall..

2.65 t/haProtein: 15.5%

2.11 t/haProtein: 11.4%

Same Result – Foggia, eastern Italy

80,000 ha of CA (2009)

No-till “best” in driest years (1997 and 2001)

0

1

2

3

4

5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Average

Gra

in y

ield

(t/

ha)

Conventional tillage

Sod seeding

324

393

226

412

288310

280

319

Data and graph from Professor Michele Pisante

Foggia trial results:: grain yield of durum wheat

From - Emilio-Jesús GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ AEAC.SV – ECAF – University of Córdoba

0.65 Mha of CA (2009)

Brazil, 600 ha ; Brazil – Herbert Bartz; maize and wheat; 800mm rain/yr

No till for 45 years !!!

Excellent soil structure- without cultivation

25.5 Mha of CA (2009)

Traditional farming

New beds each year (FRB)

ZT CTF

PRB

Darker colour, earthy, rough, soft, SOM

Grey colour, blocky, hard,

smooth

China, 0.5ha; Hexi Corridor; maize and wheat; 150mm rain/yr

No till for 4 years

Evolutionary phases of no-till farming (Sá, 2004)

Rolf Derpsch identified that

growers practicing a no till

system without full stubble

retention will probably never

leave the initial phase.

Converting to CA needs higher management skills

The first years might be very difficult for the farmers, therefore they might need support – from other farmers or from extension services – and perhaps even financial support to invest in new machinery such as zero-till planters

Necessary technologies are often unavailable

Few farmers take the risk of buying new machinery

Machinery dealers might not wish to promote CA

What are the issues?

Training, Educational, Empowering

Participatory activities

for farmers, agronomists & technologists

courses, seminars, forums, workshops, field days, farm trial sites, farmer field schools

Extension of CA?

CA field training in Embu/Kenya CA and Gender training – Machakos/Kenya

Women with beans under CA, Karatu/Tanzania Field day in Karatu/Tanzania with jab planter demonstrations

FAO

FAOFAO

FAO

Australia: “harness the power of local farmers”

Soil pit day - Swaziland

Farmer & technologist empowering days..

Uzbekistan: with tractor sales personnel

FFS- Zhangye, Gansu

* http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/AGSE/agse_e/general/OBJECT.htmand John Landers (2000) – World Bank Report

The many attractions and

multiple ecosystem level benefits of Conservation Agriculture *

FarmCommunitiesEnvironmentWatershedGlobal

Reduction in labour, time (less drudgery), fuel and costs

On mechanised farms:

smaller tractors possible (up to 40% smaller)

longer lifetime and less maintenance of tractors (life x2 or x3)

less power and fewer passes

hence reduced fuel consumption (up to 50%)

Better trafficability in the field – from controlled traffic

Earlier sowing (soil preparation eliminated)

Increased yields with decreased inputs

More stable yields, particularly in dry years

Improved infiltration and crop water use efficiencies

From: better soil structure, biodiversity & OM levels

Increased profit, at times from the beginning, after a few years.

Multiple ecosystem level benefits of CAFarm – level:

From - Emilio-Jesús GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ AEAC.SV – ECAF – University of Córdoba

More constant water flows in the rivers, re-activation of wells

Cleaner water due to less erosion

Less flooding

Less impact of extreme climatic situations

Less costs for road and waterway maintenance

Better food security

Increased wildlife (species and populations) in fields (protected

by retained residues; fed by increased biodiversity)

Multiple ecosystem level benefits of CA

Communities/Environment/Watershed:

Carbon sequestration (reduction of greenhouse effect):

CA farmers could receive carbon-grant payments;

Carbon sequestration and reduced energy (fuel) use

could = the human-induced increase in CO2.

Less fuel use in agriculture

Reduced CO2e emissions, and heat (fossil fuel burning)

Less leaching of nutrients and chemicals into

groundwater.

Less pollution of waters (river, lake, reservoir, ocean)

Greatly reduced erosion (wind and water)

Recharge of aquifers through better infiltration

At global level: Multiple ecosystem level benefits of CA

Multiple ecosystem level benefits

with…

Conservation Agriculture

It is strongly possible

&

very practical…to achieve

Finally…