Agro-ecological approach conservation agriculture and SRI - Prof. Amir Kassam

Regional Review and Planning WorkshopSRI-LMB, 2-3 June 2015, Siem Reap, Cambodia

Mobilizing Greater Crop and Land Potentials with Agro-ecological Approaches: Conservation Agriculture and

System of Rice Intensification

Amir Kassam University of Reading (UK) and FAO

1

Outline

• Why agro-ecological approaches (instead of industrial)

• Lead examples: Conservation Agriculture and System of Rice Intensification

• Some broad conclusions

2

3

Modern agriculture? – now an intrusive paradigm

First half of the 20th century aimed to industrialise agriculture:• Standardization • Mechanization• Labour-saving technologies• Use of chemical inputs

Second half of the 20th century increasingly shaped as ‘scientific formulations’ of agriculture:

• Genetic potentials• Input utilization • Standard agronomy• Intensive tillage • Energy-intensity• Capital intensity• Little attention paid to soil health and ecosystem services

4

21st century realities

• Arable land per capita will decline• Water available for agriculture will decline• Energy and production input cost are rising• Diminishing returns to inputs are setting in • Stagnation of yield improvements, at high and low levels• The production approach fundamentally inefficient • Millions of households being bypassed• Environmental and degradation concerns• Food security concerns• Climate change

5

All agricultural soils show signs of degradationAll agricultural soils show signs of degradation

World map of severity of land degradation – GLASOD (FAO 2000) Also, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 – 89% our ecosystems Degraded or severly degraded, only 11% in reasonable shape.

World map of severity of land degradation – GLASOD (FAO 2000) Also, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 – 89% our ecosystems Degraded or severly degraded, only 11% in reasonable shape.

backgroundbackground

Degradation of soil, water and biodiversity resources

6

Focus on soil and ecosystem functions:Healthy soil is the base for sustainable crop production

Dirt – The Erosion of Civilizations

degradation/erosion >

naturalsoil

formation= NOT

sustainableSoil tillage

“Dirt – the erosion of civilizations” by David R. Montgomery (Prof. of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, leads the Geomorphological Research Group, member of the Quaternary Research Center):• Soil is a fragile thin skin around the world• Soil formation is very slow, degradation very fast: even with conservation tillage soil erosion is by orders of magnitude higher than soil formation• The decline of important human civilizations can be related to erosion events and soil degradation (Greek, Romans etc.)

7

Projected percentage gains and losses in rainfed cereal production potential by 2080 due climate change

8

BUT Conventional land preparation regular tillage, clean seedbed, exposed

Effects:• Loss of organic matter• Loss of pores, structure soil compaction• Destruction of biological life & processes

9

With rice ……

10

Iguassu Falls, Brazil

This is millions of tonnes of topsoil going over the edge.

11Google image, 16 February 2014Sediment Plumes – The Guardian

12

TILLAGE AGRICULTURE -- Erosion

13

Consequences of tillage-based agriculture at any level of development

• loss of OM, porosity, aeration, biota (=decline in soil health -> collapse of soil structure -> compaction & surface sealing -> decrease in infiltration)

• water loss as runoff & soil loss as sediment• loss of time, seeds, fertilizer, pesticide (erosion, leaching)• less capacity to capture and slow release water & nutrients• less efficiency of mineral fertilizer: “The crops have become ‘addicted’ to

fertilizers”• loss of biodiversity in the ecosystem, below & above soil surface, monocropping • more pest problems (breakdown of food-webs for micro-organisms and natural

pest control)• falling input efficiency & factor productivities, declining yields• reduced resilience, reduced sustainability• Poor adaptability to climate change & mitigation

• Higher production costs, lower farm productivity and profit, degraded ecosystem services

• Dysfunctional ecosystems, water cycle, suboptimal water provisioning & regulatory water services, loss of biodiversity

14

‘Modern’ and post-’modern’ agriculture in development

1. Modern agriculture paradigm is based on intrusive approaches (that disrupt ecosystem functions) with unacceptable negative externalities and loss in productivity, efficiency and resilience.

2. More of the same is no longer appropriate to meet the 21st Century realities and multi-functional role of future agriculture.

3. Alternative paradigm based on agro-ecological or ecosystem approaches (that works in greater harmony with ecosystem functions) are now available for sustainable agricultural intensification (combining productivity with ecosystem services).

15

Call -- What is sustainable intensification?

• Term has become popular in recent years • Ecological definitions – increase in yields with minimum environmental damage, and building resilience and flow of ecosystem services.

• Broader definitions at the food and agriculture system levels – minimizing wastage, institutional development, capacity building, economic growth, social equity etc.

• Sustainable intensification conditions being met with the spread of Conservation Agriculture (CA) based systems.

16

Technical objectives of SI

• Agricultural land productivity

• Natural capital and flow of ecosystems services

Simultaneously

• Enhanced input-use efficiency

• Use of biodiversity – natural and managed (and carbon) to build farming system resilience (biotic and abiotic), including being climate-smart

• Contribute to multiple-outcome objectives at farm, community & landscape, and national scales e.g. climate change mitigation

And• Capable of rehabilitating land productivity and ecosystem services in

degraded and abandoned lands

But how?

17

Reminder -- A healthy soil is a living biological system

18

her

● Fotos grandes. Solo arrastra una nueva imagen y pásala para átras

Path to waterfall on private property brings income to locals in the form of ecotourismMonteverde Cloudforest Reserve

provides important source of water in landscape and downstream

Windbreaks provide habitat and corridors for wildlife, control erosion and protect livestock from wind

Shaded coffee extends wildlife habitat from reserve and reduces erosion

All fences are live rows of trees

Coffee, corn, sugar cane and other products are sold at a local cooperative

Ecoagriculture landscapes: harmonizing multiple objectives at farm, community, landscape scales

19

Reminder--Ecosystem services

Water cycling Carbon cycling Atmospheric circulation

Source: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)

20

Soil productive capacity (vs. fertility) is derived from several components which interact dynamically in space and time:

• Physical: architecture - pore structure, space & aeration• Hydrological: moisture storage -

infiltration• Chemical: nutrients,

CEC, dynamics• Biological: soil life and

non living fractions• Thermal: rates of biochemical

processes• Cropping system: rotation/association/sequence

A productive soil is a living system and its health & productivity depends on managing it as a ‘complex’ biological system, not as a geological entity.

We need to go backTo soil and landscape health.

Soil as a ‘complex’ biological system, not just as a geological entity

21

An effective solution to degradation, and for

rehabilitation and sustainable intensification • Minimizing soil disturbance by mechanical tillage and whenever

possible, seeding or planting directly into untilled soil, in order to maintain soil organic matter, soil structure and overall soil health.

• Enhancing and maintaining organic matter cover on the soil surface , using crops, cover crops or crop residues. This protects the soil surface, conserves water and nutrients, promotes soil biological activity and contributes to integrated weed and pest management.

• Diversification of species – both annuals and perennials - in associations, sequences and rotations that can include trees, shrubs, pastures and crops, all contributing to enhanced crop nutrition and improved system resilience.

These are the principles of Conservation Agriculture which along with other good practices of crop, soil, nutrient, water, pest, energy management provide an ecological foundation for sustainable production and intensification for all systems. CA is a lead example of the agro-ecological paradigm for sustainable production intensification adopted by FAO and many other organizations

22

Worldwide adoption of Conservation Agriculture

FAO Definition: www.fao.org/ag/caConservation Agriculture (CA)

is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. CA is characterized by three linked principles, namely:

1. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance. 2. Permanent organic soil cover. 3. Diversification of crop species grown in sequences or

associations or rotations.

FAO Definition: www.fao.org/ag/caConservation Agriculture (CA)

is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. CA is characterized by three linked principles, namely:

1. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance. 2. Permanent organic soil cover. 3. Diversification of crop species grown in sequences or

associations or rotations.

Conservation Agriculture

http://www.fao.org/ag/ca


Minimum mechanical soil disturbance

(the minimum soil disturbance necessary to

sow the seed)

1

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is based on three principles (FAO, 2009):

Permanent organic soil cover

(retention of adequate levels of crop residues on

the soil surface)

2

Diversified crop rotations including cover crops

(to help moderate possible weed, disease and pest problems)

3

Cons

erva

tion

agric

ultu

re sy

stem

s

23

24

Ecological foundation for sustainable agriculture production is provided by application of Conservation Agriculture principles

through locally formulated practices

No/Minimum soil disturbance Soil Cover Crop Diversity

Biologically dynamic foundation that provides the ecological underpinnings

25

CA does not solve ALL problems (NO panacea) but complemented with

other good practices CA base allows for high production intensity and

sustainable agriculture in all land-based

production systems (rainfed & irrigated, annual,

perennial, plantation, orchards, agroforestry, crop-livestock, rice systems

Ecological Foundation of CA Systems

No/Minimum soil disturbance Soil Cover Crop Diversity

IntegratedPest

Management

IntegratedPlantNutrientManagement

IntegratedWeed

Management

IntegratedWater management

Sustainablemechanization

Compaction management,CTF

Permanent Bed and

FurrowSystems

Systemof RiceIntensification

Good seedGenetic potentialGenetic resources mgmt

Pollinator/Biodiversity

management

Sustainableagriculture

26

Minimum soil disturbance Soil Cover Crop Diversity

IntegratedPest

Management

IntegratedPlantNutrientManagement

IntegratedWeed

Management

IntegratedWater management

Sustainablemechanization

Compaction management,CTF

Permanent Bed and

FurrowSystems

Systemof RiceIntensification

Good seedGenetic potentialGenetic resources mgmt.

Pollinator/Biodiversity

management

Sustainableagriculture

Crop

-Liv

esto

ckint

egra

tion

Agroforestry -

Landscape management

Organic farming

Ecological Foundation of CA Systems

27

Sustainable Land Preparation - smallholders

Planting holes, ripping or mulching, direct drill Planting holes, ripping or mulching, direct drill

28

No-till seeding of wheat into rice stubble/residue - China

29

History and Adoption of CAHistory and Adoption of CA

No-till riceIn North KoreaNo-till riceIn North Korea

30

CHINA: innovation with raised-bed, zero-till SRI field;measured yield 13.4 t/ha; Liu’s 2001 yield (16 t/ha) set

provincial yield record and persuaded Prof. Yuan Longping

CA rice-based system at Saguna Baug, Maharastra – Chandrashekhar Badsavale

31

All crops can be seeded in no-till systems

Potatoes under no-till after rice in North Korea

(Friedrich, 2006)

32

FAO, 2012

Farmer Field School participants harvesting no-till IPM potatoes in lowland rice production systems, Thai Binh, Vietnam, 2011

33

Challenges/issues/Considerationsof transformation and transition

• Weeds/herbicides• Labour• Larger farms• Livestock• Community engagement• Temperate areas

• Farmers working together• Equipment and machinery• Knowledge and technical capacity• Risk involved in transforming to no-till systems• Approaches to adoption and scaling• Policy and institutional support – private, public, civil society

34

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2013

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Global CA Area in Mill. ha


5Connference on Conservation Agriculture for Smallholders in Asia and Africa. 7-11 December, Mymensigh University, Bangldesh4

155 mill. ha

Mil

l. h

a

Year

Global CA Area in Mill. ha

35


***

Connference on Conservation Agriculture for Smallholders in Asia and Africa. 7-11 December, Mymensigh University, Bangldesh14

Area of arable cropland under CA by continent in 2013 (source: FAO AquaStat: www.fao/ag/ca/6c.html)

Continent Area (Mill. ha)

Per cent of global total

Per cent ofarable landof reporting

countries

South America (49.6)*64.0 (33.9%) 41.3 60.0 North America (40.0)*54.0 (40.0%) 34.8 24.0 Australia & NZ (12.1)*17.9 (47.9%) 11.5 35.9

AsiaRussia & Ukraine

EuropeAfrica

(2.6)*10.3(291.2%) (0.1)*5.2(5,100%)(1.6)*2.0(30.1%)

(0.5)*1.2 (154.6%)

6.63.41.40.8

3.0 3.3 2.8 0.9

Global total (107)*155 (47.4%) 100 10.9 (7.5)*% global arable

* in 2008/09

http://www.fao/ag/ca/6c.html

36

CA-Adoption by World Region [mill. ha and %*]

North America54 (24%)

South America 64 (60%)

Europe2.1 (2.8 %)

Ukraine/Russia5.2 (3.3 %)

Africa1.2 (0.9 %)

Asia 10.3 (3 %)

*Average adoption level in each region based on arable land area of reporting countries


6th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Winnipeg, 22-25 June 2014 slide 2/x

Total CA: 155 Mill. ha, about 11% of global arable cropland

Australia/New Zealand17.9 (35.9%)

37


• Increase yields, production, profit (depending on level and degradation) • Less seeds (-50%+ with SRI)• Less fertilizer use (-50%) less pesticides (-20-50%+)• Less machinery, energy & labour cost (-70%)• water needs (-30-40% +)• More stable yields – lower impact of climate (drought, floods, heat, cold) & cc mitigation• Lower environmental cost (water, infrastructure)• Rehabilitation of degraded lands and eco-services

• Increase yields, production, profit (depending on level and degradation) • Less seeds (-50%+ with SRI)• Less fertilizer use (-50%) less pesticides (-20-50%+)• Less machinery, energy & labour cost (-70%)• water needs (-30-40% +)• More stable yields – lower impact of climate (drought, floods, heat, cold) & cc mitigation• Lower environmental cost (water, infrastructure)• Rehabilitation of degraded lands and eco-services

Wheat yield and nitrogen amount for different duration of no-tillage in Canada 2002 (Lafond

2003)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 30 60 90 120

nitrogen (kg/ha

Gra

in y

ield

(t/h

a)

20-year no-tillage

2-year no-tillage

AG department brainstorming, April 12, 2012

Impact pattern with CA + SRI

38


Small scale -- Paraguay, Tanzania, India, China, Lesotho, Zimbabwe ……Large scale – Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan .....

Small scale -- Paraguay, Tanzania, India, China, Lesotho, Zimbabwe ……Large scale – Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan .....

Cross Slot Conference and Tour 2012 – Germany/France

publications

Documented benefits of CA for food security, environment, sustainability, rehabilitation

39

Evidence of some of the major benefits-Soil health quality-Soil carbon and organic matter-Crop establishment-Water related functions – more effective and efficient-Biodiversity/agrobiodiversity-Nutrient response – greater nutrient productivity-Increased yields and farm and national output-Lower farm power requirement -Greater stability – climate change adaptability-Climate change mitigation – C seq., lower GHG emi. & fuel use -In-situ, landscape and territorial ecosystem services-Nutritional and health benefits

The list goes on!CA & SRI are not only climate-smart, they are smart in many other ways

40

Example 1-- Canada: Carbon offset scheme in Alberta

Sequestering soil Carbon with CA and trading offsets with regulated companies to offset their emissions by purchasing verified tonnes

(from ag and non-ag sectors)Source: Tome Goddard et al.

Itaipu reservoir dam today (source: Itaipu Binacional)

Water resources are threatened by conventional tillage agricultural practices. Conservation Agriculture is an alternative to reduce impacts on river’s quality and to maintain a higher level of productivity and

sustainability.

Cultivating Good Water Programme41

Example 2 -- Watershed services in Parana Basin, Brazil

42

Itaipu Dam - Parana basin III, Brazil, August 2011 – Cultivating good water programme

43

Broad conclusions -- 1

• Meeting 2050 food demand is agronomically doable, and land resources are available

• But business as usual not an option to meet future needs sustainably

• Production systems based on ecosystem approach must contribute to meeting future needs

• CA systems (including for SRI-based cropping systems) do this most effectively.

44


• CA with SRI is potentially applicable in most land-based agro-ecosystems.

• CA is increasingly seen as a real alternative and constraints to adoption are being addressed. Now increasing at the annual rate of 10 M ha, and covers more than 155 M ha.

•SRI water management makes it possible for SRI and CA to become integrated.

45


• CA+SRI can improve yields, profit, sustainability and efficiency for small and large farmers.

• CA is capable of rehabilitating degraded lands and ES world-wide.

• Policy and institutional (including education) support, farmer organizations and champions are needed to mainstream the adoption of CA.

46

And, the messages, once understood, even make people dance!

More information: [email protected]://www.fao.org/ag/ca; http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu

Join CA-CoP & SRI-Rice

mailto:[email protected]



47

COMPARISON

A FARMER’S TRIAL – CLODS OF TOPSOIL FROM ADJACENT PLOTS, PARANÁ, BRAZIL (Shaxson 2007)

PRO-BIOTIC ▲ ANTI-BIOTIC ▲

Topsoil after 5 years with retention Topsoil after regularly-repeated diskof crop residues and no-till seeding. tillage, without retention of residues

Soil health and adverse effect of tillage agriculture

48

SOIL CARBON – Mr. Reynolds’ farm in Lincolnshire

4.59%

49

Evolution of SOC under different soil management systems and its effect on

agronomic productivity – Brazil

Sá et al. 2013

NF - native forest; PE - prior the establishment of the experiment in 1989CT - conventional tillage; MT - minimum tillage;NTch - no-till chisel; CNT - Continuous no-till

50

Residue retention distinguishes Conservation

Agriculture from conventional farming systems, which are characterized by leaving the soil bare and unprotected, exposed to climatic agents.

51

Situation in Malawi – Tilled & CA

Tilled CA

52(THOMAS, 2004)

Water infiltration, just after a thunderstorm

53

Gains in Rainfall Infiltration Rate with CALess flooding – improved water cycle

Landers 2007Landers 2007

tillage + cover, measured

no-till + cover, measured

tillage, no cover, measured

tillage + cover, calculated

no-till + cover, calculated

tillage, no cover, calculated

Time (min.)

Acc

um

ula

ted

Infi

ltra

tio

n r

ate

[mm

. h-1]

Benefits of CA Benefits of CA

54

Soil water content in 0-30 cm soil depth;average of 1998 & 1999 under maize

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

11.05. 29.05. 18.06. 02.07. 14.07. 29.07. 12.08. 25.08. 08.09.

Date

Pflug Direktsaat Plough No-tillage

Earthworm population

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

plough no-tillage naturalmeadow

bio

mas

s g

/m2

other species

Lumbricus

56

Good news: Dad’s Army with ‘rattle’ worms is ready to help!

57

Biodiversity

Soil food webs…..

Above groundfood webs &habitates for natural enemies of pests

Ground- nestingbirds, animals and insects

58

Wheat yield response to nitrogen fertilization (Conventional Tillage

Poduction)

Carvalho et al., 2012

Zero N

59

Wheat yield response to nitrogen fertilization (after 11 years of CA)


Zero N

60

Wheat yield response to nitrogen fertilization (according the model)


61

Source: Dijkstra, 1998

Empirical evidence: The Frank Dijkstra farm in Ponta Grossa, Brazil

62

Source: FEBRAPDP & CONAB, 2012, FAO 2013

Empirical evidence: Brazil – adoption of CA and evolution of yields

63

Source: Peiretti, 2002

Empirical evidence: Argentina – adoption of CA and evolution of grain yields

Regional perspective – Southern Africa

Conventional tillage yield (kg ha-1)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Conservation agriculture treatm

ent yield (kg ha-1

)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Planting basins, MozambiqueJab planter, MozambiqueDirect seeding, ZimbabweRipper, ZimbabweDirect seeding, ZambiaRipper, ZambiaDirect seeding, MalawiIntercropping, Malawi

64CIMMYT-Thierfelder et al.

65

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers fields in Malawi - Zidyana

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers fields in Malawi - Zidyana

Zidyana

Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Yie

ld d

iffe

renc

e be

twee

n C

A a

nd C

P (

kg h

a-1

)

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

CAML CAM

C

CIMMYT– Thierfelder et al.

Economic viability-Malawi

Lemu Zidyana CP CA CAL CP CA CAL Gross Receipts 528.6 881.5 979.7 1047.2 1309.5 1293.7 Variable costs Inputs 238.5 341.0 353.6 221.7 323.7 346.1 Labour days (6 hr days) 61.7 39.9 49.4 61.7 39.9 49.4 Labour costs 159.5 103.2 127.9 155.6 100.7 124.7 Sprayer costs 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.2 Total variable costs 398.1 445.9 482.8 377.3 426.1 472.1 Net returns (US$/ha) 130.5 435.5 497.1 669.9 883.3 821.9 Returns to labour (US$/day) 1.8 5.2 4.9 5.4 9.8 7.6

Source: Ngwira et al., 2012

67

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers fields in Malawi - Lemu

Harvest year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ma

ize

bio

mas

s y

ield

(k

g h

a-1)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Conventional control, maize (CPM)

CA, maize (CAM)

CA, maize/legume intercropping (CAML)

aa

a a

b

b

aa

bb

a

a

b

aa

b

a a

CIMMYT – Thierfelder et al.

68

Effect of CA on soil and water:• CA stops erosion, reverses degradation, aquifer recharge (bio-

pores)• improved water quality

CA and climate change:• adaptation: less runoff and

flooding, better drought/temperature tolerance

• mitigation: reduced emission • 60% lower fuel use• 20% lower fertilizer/pesticides• 50% reduction in machinery• C-sequestration 0.05-0.2 t.ha-1.y-1

• no burning, no CO2 release

Effect of CA on soil and water:• CA stops erosion, reverses degradation, aquifer recharge (bio-

pores)• improved water quality

CA and climate change:• adaptation: less runoff and

flooding, better drought/temperature tolerance

• mitigation: reduced emission • 60% lower fuel use• 20% lower fertilizer/pesticides• 50% reduction in machinery• C-sequestration 0.05-0.2 t.ha-1.y-1

• no burning, no CO2 release

Benefits of CABenefits of CA

69

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EXPENSES

70

40

60

77,5

85

REDUC-TION(%)

15 000 €25 000 €Labour

18 347,55 €61 068,88 €TOTAL ANUAL

7 110 €17 460 €Fuel

1 840,40 €8 158,41 €

Maintenance andrepair of tillage/drilling implements

1 507,15 €10 450,47 €Maintenance and

repair of tractors

DIRECT DRILLING(Year 2003)

CONVENTI ONAL TI LLAGE

(Year 2000)

70

40

60

77,5

85

REDUC-TION(%)

15 000 €25 000 €Labour

18 347,55 €61 068,88 €TOTAL ANUAL

7 110 €17 460 €Fuel

1 840,40 €8 158,41 €

Maintenance andrepair of tillage/drilling implements

1 507,15 €10 450,47 €Maintenance and

repair of tractors

DIRECT DRILLING(Year 2003)

CONVENTI ONAL TI LLAGE

(Year 2000)

Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible CSIC , Cordoba, Setiembre 2005

Farm power – 4 tractors with 384 HP under tillage & 2 tractors with 143 HP under no-till Farm near Evora, South Portugal

70

PARTING SHOT FROM TONY REYNOLDSSo ladies & gentlemen, apart from:

Increasing soil fertility Reducing diesel by 50%

Reducing fertiliser by 80% Reducing nitrogen by 50%

Sequestering soil carbon Reducing carbon footprint “Increasing yields”

Increasing environmental benefits Saving the planet

What else do you want!

71

• provisioning: food and clean water• regulating: climate and pests/diseases • supporting: nutrient cycles, pollination• cultural: recreation• conserving: biodiversity, erosion control

• provisioning: food and clean water• regulating: climate and pests/diseases • supporting: nutrient cycles, pollination• cultural: recreation• conserving: biodiversity, erosion control

Benefits of CABenefits of CA

Better ecosystem services:

72

Examples of CA adoption world-wide

73

Mucuna after cotton fb by maize in Burkina Faso

74

Pigeon peas with maize residues -

Kenya

Lablab grown as a cover crop -

Tanzania

The use of lablab

Access to equipment and inputs:• for manual work -- ZambiaAccess to equipment and inputs:• for manual work -- Zambia

What is needed?What is needed?

Access to equipment and inputs:• for animal draftAccess to equipment and inputs:• for animal draft

What is needed?What is needed?

77

TanzaniaTanzania


78

BrazilBrazil

HarvestHarvest

PlantingPlanting

knife rollingknife rolling


79

No-till seeding of wheat into rice stubble/residue - China

80


No-till riceIn North KoreaNo-till riceIn North Korea

81

CHINA: innovation with raised-bed, zero-till SRI field;measured yield 13.4 t/ha; Liu’s 2001 yield (16 t/ha) set

provincial yield record and persuaded Prof. Yuan Longping

82

All crops can be seeded in no-till systems

Potatoes under no-till after rice in North Korea

(Friedrich, 2006)

83

FAO, 2012

Farmer Field School participants harvesting no-till IPM potatoes in lowland rice production systems, Thai Binh, Vietnam, 2011

84

No-till cassava in orange grove -- Paraguay

85

Onions under CA management on broad beds

86

Oil Palm under CA management with mucuna ground cover in Malaysia

87

Olive grove under CA management -- Lebanon

88

Grapevines under CA management with vetch ground cover - Lebanon

89

No-tillage in Europe

(W. Sturny)

90

No-Tillage in Switzerland

(W. Sturny)

91No-till maize Plough

No-till SB No-till SBPlough Plough

Switzerland

92

No-Tillage in France with Cover Crops

(Alfred Gässler)

93

SPRING DRILLING ‘11’ LINCOLNSHIRE, UK

94

Thank you for your attention