csisa overview

8/3/2019 CSISA Overview

1/62

Conservation Agriculture Systems forImproving Livelihood- CSISA Initiatives

M.L. Jat

Coordinator (Delivery & AdaptiveResearch) CSISA Haryana Hub

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/62

Land and Labour Productivity in GlobalAgriculture


3/62

Land degradation- a global problem

Global land degradation

Water erosion-1100 m ha

Wind erosion- 550 m ha

Mainly taking place on

agricultural lands 74% in Central America

65% in Africa

45% in South America

38% in Asia

Source: Pandya-Lorch (2000),Paroda (2009)


4/62

Source: Scholze et al. (2006)

Blue-tendency to increaseRed-tendency to decrease

Availability of irrigation water

Estimated water loss from aquifers: (13.2 17.74.5 km3/yr)Source: Mathew Rodell et al (2009)


5/62

Biomass Burning

Emitting 3.7 Pg

C/year in theTropics

Source: Lal (2008)


6/62

Annual growth rate (%) for major cropyields

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1961-70 1971-80 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2005

Rice Wheat Maize

Sorghum Chickpea Potato

Source: FAOSTAT (2007), http://faostat.fao.org

Ann

ualGrowthRate(%)
http://faostat.fao.org/http://faostat.fao.org/http://faostat.fao.org/


7/62

Changes in output and input costs for selectedcommodities and fertilizer inputs

Change in output prices (%)Meat Dairy Cereals Oils Sugar Food price Index

2007-08 9 49 80 94 23 52 ( 40)

2006-07 5 35 32 29 -39 12

Change in input costs (%)

Ammonia Urea NPK DAP Crudeoil

Input price Index

2007-08 82 31 213 163 70 99 ( 80)

2006-07 4 29 41 33 -3 19

Source: FAO, 2008


8/62

Wastes

2%

Land use

change

1%

Industrial

processes

8%

Agriculture

28%Energy

61%

Rice cultivation(23 %)

Entricfermentation

(59 %)

Emission from

soils (12 %)

Manure mgt(5 %) Crop residues

(1 %)

Climate change- emission of GHGs

Source: NATCOM, 2004

Global Average from

Agriculture is 13.5 %(IPCC, 2007)


9/62

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

N P2O5 K2O

Fertilizer nutrient scenario in Asia, 2008-2012

Nutrien

tBalance(milliontonnes)

Source: FAO, 2008


10/62

Multiple Nutrient Deficiency in soil of Haryana(2007)-Major Nutrients


11/62

Emerging Multiple Nutrient Deficiency in Haryana


12/62

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

Wheat Chickpea Oilseeds

Maize Cotton

Escalation in Cost of Cultivation

Cultivationcos

t(Rs/100kg)


13/62


14/62

----with growing threats of naturalresource fatigue, escalating input

costs, shrinking profit margins andemerging climatic risks, improvingRESOURCE USE EFFICIENCYis

becoming increasingly important

Concern


15/62

Continued improvement in cropping system

management- The CA approach

Genotype

Land leveling

Tillage/establishment Residues

Rotations

Water Nutrient

-------------

Improving Resource Use Efficiency


16/62


17/62

CSISAs Goals

Provide an overall strategy and umbrella forcontributing new science and technologies to shortand long-term cereal production growth in SouthAsia

More productive and more sustainable cereal-based

cropping and crop-livestock systems Annual grain yield growth of about 1.5% from rice

and wheat

New Public-Private Partnerships: R&D, capacity

building and delivery of new seeds, technologies,and information

Strengthen policy support


18/62

CSISA Objectives

1. Delivery of new technologies through public-private partnerships

2. Future cereal-based systems

3. Rice breeding for current and future systems

4. Wheat breeding for current and future systems5. Maize breeding for current and future systems

6. Technology targeting and improved policies

7. Capacity building: scientists and professional

agronomists8. Project management, communication and impact

assessment


19/62

Focus areas:

Intensive cereal-based systems in South Asia

that provide the bulk of cereals for humanconsumption and other uses

Irrigated or partially irrigated systems, particularlyR-W, Sugarcane-wheat and others

Emerging multiple/relay cropping systems involvingR, W or M, particularly R-M, M-W,

Favorable rainfed R areas with potential forintensification/diversification


20/62

Integrated Crop and Resource ManagementEcological Intensification

Crop Management NRM

Productivity withoptimal external inputs

Variety

Fertilizer

Pesticides

Labor

Energy

Land leveling

Tillage & crop est.

Residue

Water

Climate and soil

Conservation and efficientuse of natural resources

Conservation Agriculture

Profitablecropping

systems


21/62

How to achieve this?

Customized technologies that farmerswant

Strong ag professionals on the ground

Access to information

Linkage with input and output markets Good business models

Suitable policies

Linkages with large-scale investments

Dedicated partners that complement eachother and contribute own resources


22/62

Rationale:

NRM problems are often complex

Technical solutions often site specific, need fine-tuning to fit the socio-

economic endowments of the farmers before a wide spread roll-out

CA is knowledge intensive, Farmer participatory research-extension need

some swift changes / shifts for effective delivery of knowledge to farmers Access to technology and inputs are uneven across regions

Role of input-dealers - Knowledge to be supplied with the products

Pressure on land and water - Resource fatigue

Widening income disparities between and within environments-

- Irrigated ( Canal vs. Tube well);

- Rainfed ( favorable vs. unfavorable rainfall)

New technologies for marginal areas ( rainfed, and flood prone) coming

slowly

Less mobility and weak extension services

Objective 1: Adaptation and widespread delivery of production andpost harvest technologies to increase cereal production and raise incomes


23/62

Objective 1. Adaptation and Delivery of Cereal System Technologies

Focuses on :

Expand the range of technologies and services

Integration of crop and resource management practices for sustainability

Participatory evaluation of key technologies

Extend the reach of new information on CA based technologies

Facilitating professional training on CA

Catalyze links with public-private sector institutions

Extended partnerships, networking with out-reach public institutions, rural agri-business and NGOs

Delivery mechanisms to encourage public-private sector investments intechnology dissemination / service centers/ - around the CSISA Hubs


24/62

From Issues To Actions(1)

High production costs- Resource fatigue and lowfactor productivity

Water scarcity, declining water tables

Imbalanced fertilizer use -Multiple nutrientdeficiencies

Low rice/ wheat yields due to late planting

Alternate sources of productivity growth in wheatnot readily visible and low profit margins inSugarcane-Wheat systems

Herbicide resistance in weeds

Residue burning

Ug 99 threat in wheat, Low seed replacement rates Seed viability, post harvest losses

Conservation agriculture based practices Laser land leveling, AWD, Remove Puddling, DSR,

Skip Furrow irrigation, Bunding (Rainwater) ,mulching, O-tillage and Raised Bed planting Conjunctive use of Organics and fertilizer nutrients

(R,W,M),SSNM, Customized Rec. O-tillage and some ground water development

Surface seeding, Relay crops- intercrops Change Cane planting time, Planting methods, and

practice wheat/ legume intercroppingin Cane

Crop rotations, Herbicide rotation, Residuemanagement, Herbicide resistant crops

Turbo-seeder, PCR planter, partial removal, surfaceretention or incorporation

Farmer participatory seed systems, seedcooperatives and seed quality etc.

Post-harvest solutions (drying, storage, seed viability, seed treatment.)


25/62

From Issues to Actions (2)

Low productivity in fragile (flood/drought prone) areas Fodder shortages

Surface drying of rice in fields-high mortality ofseedlings (para crop)

Non availability of the machinery and inputs in easternplains

Low diversification

Labor / energy shortages

Mismatched Perceptions (farmers- Researchers-Policy makers; e.g. rotavator)

Low Public-Private sector, and research-extensionlinkages and low trained man power forCA

Cultivar choices, Mixed cropping, Fertilizermethods/ schedules

Cover/ intercrops, cultivar choices

Axial flow rice reaper-threshers

Custom service , cooperatives

Intercrops, raised bed planting, cultivar choices

Zero-tillage, mechanization

Information systems (HCP), Policy

Capacity building, study tours, graduate interns,CCA , net working


26/62

Minimum soil disturbance-No-till/minimum till

Rational soil cover- Residue

management

Efficient crop rotations-Crop diversification

Immediate benefit to farmer

Conservation Agriculture ??


27/62

Global adoption of CA

Country Area (million ha)

USA 26.59

Brazil 25.50

Argentina 19.72

Canada 13.48

Australia 12.00

Rest of the South America 3.50

Indo-Gangetic-Plains 3.20

Europe 0.45

Africa 0.40

China 1.33Others (rough estimate) ??

Total 105.86

Source: Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009


28/62

Technological options available forlarge scale dissemination

I ti


29/62

Innovations

No-till research initiative

in 1970s

Could not make impact atfarm level till mid 90s

Innovative improvementsin planters through farmerparticipatory approachtook the technology largeway

No-till in wheat and othercrops accepted by largenumber of farmers in theregion


30/62

Participatory Innovations in SeedMetering System- Indigenous version of

Precision Farming put in to Practice


31/62

No-till drills/planters

P ti i t I ti D l t f


32/62

Participatory Innovation Development forResidue Management under No-Till Conditions

Innovative Planters for Direct Drilling


33/62

Innovative Planters for Direct Drilling

Ri Wh t C i S t


34/62

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Rice Wheat RW System

Conventional Double ZT

Conventional CA practices Difference

Total Cost (US$) 518 379-473 45-139

Net income (US$) 275 345-377 70-102

Produ

ctivity(t/ha)

Economics of CA v/s Conventional tillage in RWCS of western IGP

Rice-Wheat Cropping System

M i Wh t S t


35/62

Maize-Wheat System

0

2

4

6

810

12

NT CT PB

Maize Wheat MW System

GrainYield(tha-1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

NT CT PB

System Profitability (US$ ha-1)

MWCS- 1.9 m ha in India

Higher system productivityunder no-till (NT) andpermanent beds (PB)

Profitability improved byUS$ 200-250 /ha

Potential for CA

RW System Productivity Under No Till


36/62

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

Double no-till with residue Double no-till without

residue

RWSystemproduct

ivity(t/ha)

RW System Productivity Under No-Till-With and Without Surface Residue

CA Practices Improves Photosynthesis:


37/62

Photosynthesis(moleCO

2m-2

s-1)

CA Practices Improves Photosynthesis:Example of wheat at flowering stage

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

Puddled rice-Zero till wheat Zero-till rice-zero till wheat

Keep residue Remove residue

Source: Jat et al (2007), Unpublished

Surface residues: Canopy development


38/62

Surface residues: Canopy development(NDVI) in wheat

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

32 39 45 52 60 67 73 80 90 96 104 111 117

DAS

NDV

NT + Res (0 N) NT + Res CT NT

Source: Gathala et al (2009)

R id C Ad i Cli Ch


39/62

5.0

7.0

9.011.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.021.0

10

DAS

17

DAS

22

DAS

27

DAS

32

DAS

37

DAS

45

DAS

53

DAS

58

DAS

63

DAS

70

DAS

110

DAS

116

DAS

124

DAS

136

DAS

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

NT + R (Morning) NT (Morning)

NT + R (Evening)) NT (Evening)

-7.5

-6.5

-5.5

-4.5

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

110 111 114 115 116 120 121 122 128 130 131 132 135 138 141 143 148 150 151 153

Days after sowing

Temperat

uredifferenceoC)

Residue retained Residue removed

Terminalheat

(4.9t/ha)

(4.55t/ha)

Soil Temperature Canopy Temperature

Residue Cover- Adapting to Climate Change

Without residues, greater T fluctuations

Residue cover buffers the comfort zone-for roots , less energy losses

Better moisture-nutrient interactions forhigher yields

Lower canopy temperature at grainfilling

Better grain filling and higher testweight

Source: Jat et al (2009)

Innovative CA techniques reduces Global


40/62

o Higher GWP in the conventional system was due to more fuel use for tillage, waterpumping and more methane emission in submerged condition.

oAt the current price of C credit (US$ 30 Mg-1 CO2) double no till system fetches anadditional income of US$ 24 ha-1 compared to the conventional rice-wheat system

Innovative CA techniques reduces GlobalWarming Potential (GWP) in RWCS

GWP(CO2equivalent,kg/ha)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Conventional Double no-till Permanent beds


41/62

Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)

Brown Manuring:


42/62

Brown Manuring:Rice+ Sesbania Co-culture

No additional irrigation water needed, Reduces weed density by nearly half, controls

second flush, Recycles nutrients and supplies 15-20 Kg N/ ha

Raised bed planting- An innovative


43/62

Raised bed planting- An innovativesystem for diversification (3)

Alternate Source of Productivity Growth-


44/62

Alternate Source of Productivity GrowthSugarcane +Wheat Intercrops

System 90 cm 67.5 cm

Yield (t/ha)

Cane Wheat Cane Wheat

Sole sugarcane 75.0 -- 73.2 --

S.cane+wheat (FIRBS) 69.5 4.19 61.6 4.10

Wheat fb. S.cane (summer) 53.0 4.15 53.0 4.15

Source: Samar Singh (2009)

Diversification/Intensification of Sugarcane


45/62

Crop establishment Caneyield

(t/ha)

Wheatyield

(t/ha)Sugarcane plant +wheat (FIRB)

78.9(18 %)

4.21

Sugarcane plant crop(sole) after wheatharvest

64.6 4.35

Diversification/Intensification of SugarcaneSystems through Innovation with learning

farmers experiences

Reintroduction of legumes and oilseeds in


46/62

Reintroduction of legumes and oilseeds inirrigated intensive systems - Raised bed

planting shown the way

Diversifying Intensive Systems-


47/62

Cropping System Yield (t ha-1

) Net return (US$ ha-1

)Maize Intercrop Maize Intercrop System

Maize sole 5.97* 0 396 0 396

Maize + Sugar beet 17.00** 6.0 1169 767 1935

Maize + Gladiolus 4.30* 180000$$ 192 1556 1748*Grain, **Green Cob, $$Number of sticks

Diversifying Intensive Systems-Options with Innovative Systems

Maize + Sugarbeet Source: Jat et al, 2006

Raised Bed Planting- High Value


48/62

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Baby corn

+

Coriander

Baby corn

+ Knolhol

Baby corn

+ Raddish

Baby corn

+ Beetroot

Baby corn

+

Fenugreek

Baby corn

+ Pea

Baby corn

+ Potato

Baby corn

Sole

Intercropping Systems

Baby

cornyield(kg

ha-1)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Baby corn +

Coriander

Baby corn +

Knolhol

Baby corn +

Raddish

Baby corn +

Beetroot

Baby corn +

Fenugreek

Baby corn +

Pea

Baby corn +

Potato

Baby corn

Sole

Profitability(US

$ha-1)

Raised Bed Planting High ValueIntercropping in Peri-Urban Agriculture

Indigenous Precision Planting of Vegetables-


49/62

Saving in high value seedBetter yields

Better quality

Indigenous Precision Planting of Vegetables-Participatory Innovation

Imported precision planter for high


50/62

Imported precision planter for highvalue crops

Indigenous Precision Planter for High value Seeds


51/62

g g

Raised bed planting- Diversifying intensive cereal


52/62

p g y gsystems through Horticulture

Straw berry English carrot

Peas

3032343638

404244

Raised beds ConventionalCarrotyield

(t/ha)

Source: Jat et al, 2006

L d L li C


53/62

Large losses of irrigation water due touneven land leveling

Traditional land leveling techniques and

equipments are not efficientPotential benefits of RCTs/CA could not berealized with in-field spatial variability in

topographyPoor input use efficiency

Environmental concerns

Land Leveling: Concerns

Laser Leveling A water revolution


54/62

No.ofla

serunits

Laser Leveling- A water revolution

1 4 8 16 40 57

353

925

3000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Area under laser leveling in IGP= 1.0 m ha Energy saving in RW valued at 60 million USD/year Water Saving ~ 10 km3/year Rural employment generation ~1million /year for 3000 Units)

Farmer Investments: USD 50Million

*

*

* * *

*

*

* * *

*

*

* * *

Source: Jat et al (2009)

Sidhu et al, 2009

Strategic Entry Points for Delivery of Technologies


55/62

Strategic Entry Points for Delivery of Technologies

Laser land leveling, RB, AWD DSR,Remove Puddling

Peripheral bunding

Residue management , SSNM / LCCetc.

O-tillage in flat or RB systems

Relay or Para Cropping and cropsubstitutions in some areas

New chemical molecules tested

Seed increase, cultivar choices

1. Save water, better crop stand

2. Rainwater management

3. Conjunctive use of organic andinorganic nutrients

4. Minimal soil disturbance

5. Crop Intensification and

diversification

6. Weed management/ Herbicide

resistance7. Seed system for cereals

Entry Points: Potential Interventions

Water5


56/62

1LeveledUnpuddled

Transplanted

or DSR- Zero till

Wheat in Flats

_

2FieldBunds

HYV seedingin Controlled

Traffic

Freewheeling

PairedRows

Equallyspacedrows

3Residues

WeedManage

N Manage

3 Splits 80% Basal+LCC/ CustomRecomm.

WaterManage

_

_

_

ZT system is 'divisible and flexible in application under diverse situations

An Example of layering of improved technologies Option Matrix

_

4

Delivery and Adaptation Networks:


57/62

CSISA HubTWG

Farmers

Seed &Input

Suppliers

Rural Agri-business,

ServiceProviders

Millers &

PHT

NARS &IARCs

MassMedia

y pExtended Partnerships

Linkage between Research Platforms and Delivery Hubs


58/62

Research

Platform

Fine TuningInterface

Delivery Hub

engaged inAdaptive Research

With Exp.platforms

FP CA1

CA2 CA3

WeedManagement

VarietalScreening

Fertilizer &

ResideManagement

IrrigationManagement

Linkage between Research Platforms and Delivery Hubs

Roll-out ofTechnologies

TWG/ TDG

FPBestBet P

CAbased

DSR-ZTw

Diversi.CA

based

Systematic Diagram for Scaling out Cereal systemd i h l i i h i


59/62

Low hanging

High hanging

Capacity

building

New cultivars

Diversification

Innovative multi-crop planters

High value crops

Policy and advocacy

TCE and mechanization

ICM/SSNM/LCC

Farmer truthful seed system

Timely planting, cultivars

Laser land levelling/ AWD/DSR

Training

Farmer Participatory T.S

Information data base

Exposure visit

Bio-climate

Climate change

Terminal heat

Flood/draught/PPT

Duration of growth season

Cultivars choices

Land and water Mgt

Nutrient management

Irrigation watermanagement

Groundwater mining

Salinity and waterlogging

PhysiographyComplex ecology (RainfedF/UF, irrigated, upland,midland, lowland)

Socio-economic

Poor Infrastructure

High Production Cost/Lowreturn

Seasonal labour requirement

Low income/credit/highinterest rates

Poor market facilitiesOpportunity cost

Vulnerability

Absentee farmer

Entry points andAction plan

CA based RCT Seed quality and seed

system Scale neutral machinery New cultivars Residue/SSNM Planting dates and time LL/AWD/DSR/Beds

Scale-outtechnologies

Adaptiveresearch

Evaluation andreconsideration

Farmers

Socio-economicProduction systemcharacteristics and

constraints

Resourcemapping

Time line

Production Technologies in South Asia

GO/INGO/NGO

Farmerorganization

P-P partners Service providerAgribusiness Media/Finance/

Bankers Policy makers

Partners


60/62

Complementary roles of public

sector, CSOs and private sector R&D

Information

Delivery of new technologies Rural development

Capacity building

Policies


61/62

Catchment:20-25 km radius

15-20,000 farms30-40,000 ha

Agronomists

Regional servicecenters


62/62

csisa overview

Documents