Some Facts about Agriculture in

LAC

• LAC- < 10% world’s population (600 mil).

• 23% arable land, 46% tropical forests, 31% water.

• LAC >>>> potential as global food supplier.

• > Biophysical Mitigation Potential to largest in LAC and SE Asia

• Major Agroecosystems:– Hillsides (96 Mha)

– Tropical Savannas (250 Mha)

– Forest Margins (44 Mha)

Hillsides:Hillsides:

QuesungualQuesungual Slash and Mulch Slash and Mulch AgroforestryAgroforestry System System

(QSMAS)(QSMAS)

No slash & burnManagement (partial, selective, and progressive slash-and-prune) of natural vegetation

Permanent soil coverContinual deposition of biomass from trees, shrubs and weeds, and through crop residues

Minimal disturbance of soilNo tillage, direct seedling, and reduced soil disturbance during agronomic practices

Efficient use of fertilizerAppropriate application (timing, type, amount, location) of fertilizers

• Honduras:–– Crop productivity: Crop productivity:

maize maize ⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧42%, 42%, common bean common bean ⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧38%38%

• Nicaragua:–– Net income maize Net income maize

+ common bean = + common bean = ⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧83% (vs. SB)83% (vs. SB)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg h

a-1

)

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 2 0 0

1 4 0 0

1 6 0 0

1 8 0 0

2 0 0 0

M a iz e

C o m m o n b e a n s

Gra

in y

ield

(kg h

a-1

)

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 2 0 0

1 4 0 0

1 6 0 0

1 8 0 0

2 0 0 0

M a iz e

C o m m o n b e a n sSlash& Burn QSMAS-F QSMAS+FG

rain

yie

ld (t ha

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43

Gra

in y

ield

(t ha

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43

Gra

in y

ield

(t ha

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43

Gra

in y

ield

(t ha

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43

Maize

Common beanDMS0.05= nsDMS0.05= 0.43Slash& Burn QSMAS+F

• QSMAS farms:– Relatively low emission of nitrous oxide (N2O)– Sink for methane (CH4)– C sequestration (SOC)

GW

P (

kg

CO

2 e

quiv

ale

nts

ha

-1 y

-1)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Slash and Burn

QSMAS

Secondary Forest

GW

P (

kg

CO

2 e

quiv

ale

nts

ha

-1 y

-1)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Slash and Burn

QSMAS

Secondary Forest

42%

• Global Warming Potential

(GWP) where QSMAS is

practiced:

– 12 municipalities, 67,000

inhabitants

– 1143 km²

Savannas: Savannas:

CropCrop--livestock livestock

systemssystems

grass-

legume

pasture

-25000

-15000

-5000

5000

forest savanna sandy

savanna

crops

grass

alone

pasture

GW

P (k

g C

O2 e

qu

ivale

nts

)

GWP20y GWP100y

Integrated Global Integrated Global

Warming Potential Warming Potential

(GWP) of different(GWP) of different

land uses in the land uses in the

savannas of savannas of

Colombia Colombia ((RondonRondon et al., 2006)et al., 2006)

Cumulative nitrous oxide emissions from field Cumulative nitrous oxide emissions from field

plots of tropical pasture grasses plots of tropical pasture grasses (monitored monthly from 2005(monitored monthly from 2005--2008) 2008)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Bare Soil Soybean P.maximum Hybrid Mulato Bh 679 Bh 16888

mg

N2O

-N m

-2 y

-1

Optimization and characterization of Fruit production systems

Optimization and

characterization of production

systems

Life cycle analysis (or eco-balance):

� Assesses the environmental profile of a production system or a food production chain along the whole life cycle of a product.

� Quantifies its resource use and aims to identify significant areas of environmental impact.

� Allows for a better understanding of how to reduce the environmental impact and to increase the sustainability of products and/or farming systems.

� Energy and carbon footprints are important sustainability indicators of production systems

Carbon footprint of fruit production systems in Colombia

Mora (Rubus glaucus)

Area cultivated: 10,743 ha

Yield: 8.7 t ha-1 yr-1

2500 plants ha-1

Economical life: 3 years

Nutrient inputs (kg ha-1 yr-1)

N: 140 – 233

P: 90 – 170

K: 80 – 160

Guanabana (Annona muricata)

Area cultivated: 2,395 ha

Yield: 9.0 t ha-1 yr-1

~ 240 trees ha-1

Economical life: > 10 yrs

Nutrient inputs (kg ha-1 yr-1)

N: 30 - 80

P: 10 - 30

K: 15 – 40

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

CO

eq

.(k

gh

a)

2-1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year

Guanábana

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

CO

eq

.(k

gh

a)

2-1

1 2 3

Year

MoraFertiliser induced

Embodied emissions fertiliser production

Agrochemicals

Carbon footprints of Mora and Guanabana production systems calculated

as CO2 equivalents

Calculated with the Cool Farm Tool, a greenhouse gas calculator for farming systems, provided as open source from the Sustainable Food Lab (http://www.sustainablefoodlab.org)

� High share of fertilizer induced

emissions (mainly N2O) and

embodied CO2 emissions of fertilizer

production.

� Great potential to reduce C

footprint through alternative nutrient

management.

� Further research is required on how

to incorporate C sequestration of

perennial trees into PES schemes.

Carbon footprint of

bioethanol production from

banana and cooking banana

discard (Costa Rica, Ecuador)

Comparison of three production systems:

(1) Agroforestry system where Musa are planted

as shade trees for coffee and do not receive extra

input.

(2) Organic banana producers, where fertilizer

inputs originate from within the farm boundary

(compost, animal manure).

(3) Conventional banana producers who apply

large amounts of mineral fertilizers and pesticides.

rendimiento bananas

rendimiento

numero de plantaspeso de racimo

cantidad desechos

desechos

porcentaje desecho

area de finca

rendimiento etanol por hectarea

etanol

eficiencia de conversion precio gasolina

consumo de gasolina

costos gasolina

rendimiento etanol finca

etanol finca

substitucion de gasolina

substitucion

Table 2. Production data for the Ecuador case studies.

Organic farms (Chimborazo-Guayas)

Conventional farms

(Guayas)

Average farm size (ha) 31.3 2.7

Varieties Bocadillo Tafetan Total Cavendish

Average area banana cultivation (ha) 13.3 6.7 20 2.5

# plants ha-1

1112 625 - 1216

bunch weight (kg) 13.5 16.2 - 28

Yield (t ha-1

yr-1

) 15.0 6.4 21.4 34.1

Waste (%) 8.3 8.3 - 8.3

Waste biomass (t ha-1

yr-1

) 1.3 0.5 1.8 2.8

Pulp (%) 59.1 65.8 - 62.0

Pulp biomass from waste (t ha-1

yr-1

) 0.74 0.35 1.1 1.75

Dry matter (%) 34.6 26.9 - 33.1

Dry matter waste biomass (kg ha-1

yr-1

) 254.8 94.2 349.0 579.9

Starch (%) 82.6 77.0 - 82.3

Starch waste biomass (kg ha-1

yr-1

) 210.5 72.6 283.0 477.3

ETOH per bunch (mL) 84 79 - 122

ETOH from waste biomass (L ha-1

yr-1

) 75.8 26.1 101.9 171.8 ETOH from waste per farm (L yr

-1) 2038 430

1 Data taken from Gibert et al. (2009)

Carbon emissions during bioethanol life cycle

� C costs of bioethanol

production from conventional

banana producers are three

times higher than in

agroforestry system, mainly

due to high amounts of

external inputs.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Cem

issio

ns

(kg

L)

-1

Costa Rica

Agroforestry

Ecuador

conventionalEcuador

organic

Fertilizer

Pesticides

Transportation

Processing plant

Avoided C emissions of bioethanol from Musa discard

� All three bioethanol production

systems yielded avoided C emission,

but values for agroforestry systems and

organic producers were higher than for

the conventional producers.

� It has to be further assessed how

this approach could be integrated

into PES schemes.

Graefe et al. (2010) Energy and carbon footprints of bioethanol production using banana and cooking banana discard:

A case study from Costa Rica and Ecuador . To be submitted to Biomass and Bioenergy

� Farm households could save 220-

1038 kg C yr-1 (depending on farm size)

when replacing petroleum based

gasoline with bioethanol from Musa

discard.

Costa Rica

Agroforestry

Ecuador

conventional

Ecuador

organic

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

C(k

gL

)-1

C emissions bioethanol

C emissions gasoline

Avoided C emissions