Dr. Ken Sayre: Conservation Agriculture based  hub strategy in Mexico  sept 2014 (CIMMYT)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Dr. Ken Sayre: Conservation Agriculture based hub strategy in Mexico sept 2014 (CIMMYT)

on

  • 801 views

Strategies to Develop and Extend Conservation Agriculture-Based Crop Management Practices to Farmers. Sound innovation systems involve multiple agents (especially including farmers), each registering ...

Strategies to Develop and Extend Conservation Agriculture-Based Crop Management Practices to Farmers. Sound innovation systems involve multiple agents (especially including farmers), each registering their expectations and contributing their own comparative advantage towards resolving the problems associate with the development of functional CA systems

Statistics

Views

Total Views
801
Views on SlideShare
745
Embed Views
56

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
19
Comments
0

3 Embeds 56

https://twitter.com 51
http://maize.org 4
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Dr. Ken Sayre: Conservation Agriculture based hub strategy in Mexico sept 2014 (CIMMYT) Presentation Transcript

  • 1. CIMMYT® IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall MMaaiizzee aanndd WWhheeaatt IImmpprroovveemmeenntt CCeenntteerr Strategies to Develop and Extend Conservation Agriculture-Based Crop Management Practices to Farmers CA-based Applied Research and Delivery HUB Ken Sayre – Consultant with the CIMMYT Conservation Agriculture Program
  • 2. HOW CAN CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE BASED TECHNOLOGIES BE DEVELOPED AND DELIVERED TO FARMERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING THEIR PROBLEMS AND WHY MUST FARMERS PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS?
  • 3. Normal Research and Development Systems are Linear • However, the linear flow of knowledge illustrated below which has commonly been used by researchers and extension agents may work for delivery of single component technologies like a new variety or a new herbicide etc. • But it does not easily lead to the transfer and farmer adoption • of more comprehensive, integrated, more knowledge intensive technologies like CA-based technologies because farmers are not involved during the technology development process. They usually become involved too late in the process to provide needed imputs. Researchers conducting formal research in established institutions Basic research Strategic research Applied research Figure 3. A representation of the linear model of technology and knowledge development in agriculture. Based on Ekboir, 2002. Researchers Extensión agencies Farmers Technology transfer Adoption Knowledge flow
  • 4. The Research and Development System that is Best suited for CA-based technologies is integrated and provides a structure for collaboration by all the essential partners • Sound innovation systems involve multiple agents (especially including farmers), each registering their expectations and contributing their own comparative advantage towards resolving the problems associate with the development of functional CA systems. Innovative Farmers Input Suppliers Extension (Change) Agents NARS, NGOs, Private Sector Partners Machinery Manufacturers Researchers
  • 5. In Mexico, CIMMYT has developed the concept of the CA-based Applied Research and Delivery HUB or (In Some Places Called an “Innovation Platform” instead of HUB) approach to effectively involve researchers working in a multi-disciplinary manner together with farmers, agriculture leaders, private sector members and other needed partners to insure the development, testing, fine-tuning and delivery of suitable CA-based technologies to farmers.
  • 6. What Does “HUB” Mean? It is based on the 3 parts of a wagon wheel Wheel HUB = Platform Trials Wheel Rim = Areas of Extension Wheel Spokes = Module Farmers
  • 7. Why Call the Strategy Being Followed a “CA-based Applied Research and Delivery HUB”?? • A wheel is made up of 3 main parts – the Hub in the Center that supports and allows the Spokes and the Wheel Rim to function. • The Spokes and the Wheel Rim cannot function without the HUB and the Hub serves no function without the Spokes and the Wheel Rim – the Hub is key None of the Components of the Wheel nor the Components of the CA-based Hub can function alone – all must work together
  • 8. The Concept of the CA-based Applied Research and Delivery “HUB” Also is Comprised of Three Main Components • Platform Trials • Simple Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trials • More Complex Strategic Research and Development Platform Trials as Needed to Complement the Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trials • Farmer Module Trials in Farmer Fields • Extension Areas of Neighboring Farmers Surrounding the Farmer Module Trials
  • 9. CA-BASED ADAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERY HUB or Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research, Testing FARMERS FARMERS FARMERS FARMERS Soils and Agronomy Component Technology Studies FARMERS Breeding and Testing of different Cultivars FARMERS Innovation Platform Demonstration and Training FARMERS Weed ,disease and Pest Management Component Technology Studies Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules CA-based Agricultural Machinery Development FARMERS Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Socio-economic Evaluations FARMERS NARS/Private Sector/NGO Involvement FARMERS Farmer Practices 1-3 Practices Potential Best Bet CA-Based Practices 2-4 Practices Plots Reserved for Future CA-Based Practices
  • 10. Once a Defined Area has been Selected and an Initial Rapid Survey has been Conducted to Describe the Most Important Farming System to Develop Appropriate CA-Based Technologies Depending upon the defined area’s agro-climatic and farmer characteristics, an initial decision must be made to: •Initially emphasize the identification of interested farmers to begin to test the “Best Bet” CA-based Technologies in Modules in farmer fields before starting a platform trial OR •Initially establish an applied research and delivery platform frial if good, “Best Bet” CA-based Technologies are not well defined before initiating Modules on farmer fields OR •If Conditions and Resources Allow, Immediately Initiate Both Activities Simultanerously
  • 11. Southern Sonora Irrigated (Arid Conditions) 39 masl CIMMYT Headquarters El Batán Mainly Rainfed Low Rainfall (350-600mm) 2249 masl Mexico City Toluca Rainfed High Rainfall (700-1200mm) 2640 masl Locations of 5 Current CA-based HUBs in Mexico (3 more HUBs are being established) MMeexxiiccoo El Bajio Mainly Irrigated: Some Rainfed (600-900mm) 1500 masl Chiapas Tropical, mainly Rainfed High Rainfall (900-1800mm) Variable Altitude
  • 12. The Applied Research and Delivery Platform Trial Provides the Setting for Multi-disciplinary Research Activities that Provides the Opportunity for All Stakeholders to Participate in: •The testing and fine-tuning of new CA-based technologies and the associated agronomic component technologies •The understanding of the potential effects/benefits of these new CA technologies to enhance sustainable production in comparison with the common, prevailing farmer practices •The determination of the potential economic benefits of the new CA technologies compared to the common farmer practices
  • 13. Focus of Collaborative, Multi-disciplinary/Multi-stakeholder/ Farmer Participatory Activities in a Applied Research and Delivery Platform Trial Appropriate Fertilizer Management Selection of Appropriate Cultivars Appropriate Irrigation Management Other Relevant Crop Management Components Appropriate Weed Control Practices Appropriate Crop Residue Management Appropriate Pest and Disease Management Appropriate Seeders/other Implements Dramatic Reduction The Foundation for Developing Suitable and Sustainable Conservation Agriculture-Based Crop Management Technologies s In Tillage Retention of Adequate Levels of Residues on the Soil Economically Viable Diversificati on of Crop Rotations Farmer Perception of sustainability and profitability by adoption Assessment of Relevant Socio- Economic Factors Application of Precision Agriculture Tools and Strategies
  • 14. CA-BASED ADDAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERY HUB THE ADAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERU Y PLATFORM TRIAL PROVIDES A LOCATION FOR MULTI-STKEHOLD COLLLABORQTIVE ACTIVITIES Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trial for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research, Testing FARMERS FARMERS NARS/Private Sector/NGO Involvement FARMERS FARMERS FARMERS Soils and Agronomy Component Technology Studies FARMERS Breeding and Testing of different Cultivars FARMERS FARMERS Weed ,disease and Pest Management Component Technology Studies Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules CA-based Agricultural Machinery Development FARMERS Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules FARMERS Socio-economic Evaluations Demonstration and Training Farmer Practices 1-3 Practices Potential Best Bet CA-Based Practices 2-4 Practices Plots Reserved for Future CA-Based Practices
  • 15. Common Activities Carried Out in an Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trial in the HUBs in Mexico
  • 16. Implement Testing and Development Development of the Multi-Crop/Multi-Use Prototype CA Implement Planting Wheat and banding basal fertilizer Configured for Maize Planting Side-dress banded N application for Wheat Side-dress banded N application for Maize
  • 17. Using the Adaptive Research Platform and Delivery Trial to Compare Different Technology Components Like the Comparison of Tillage/Residue Levels in Permanent Beds Without Residue With Residue
  • 18. Using the CA-Based Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trial to Compare Weed Control Strategies Conventional Till Maize; No Residue Zero Till Maize; With Residues
  • 19. Wide versus Narrow Permanent Beds for Rainfed Conditions
  • 20. Comparison of the Efficiency of Rain Water Use for Conventional Farm Practices versus Conservation Agriculture Practices in Year with “Normal Rainfall” Conventional Tillage with Crop Residues Removed Zero Tillage with Crop Residues Retained
  • 21. Comparison of the Efficiency of Rain Water Use for Conventional Farm Practices versus Conservation Agriculture Practices in Year with “Very Low Rainfall” Conventional Tillage with Crop Residues Removed Zero Tillage with Crop Residues Retained
  • 22. Using the CA-Based Strategic Research Platform Long Term Trials for Multidisciplinary Research Student thesis Research On-going Project Research
  • 23. Long-Term Strategic Research and Development Platform Trial Supporting the Rainfed HUB in the Central Highlands of Mexico
  • 24. The Long-Term Strategic Research and Development Platform Trials that are Part of Some of the CA-based Research and Delivery Hubs in Mexico When Needed and When Needed Resources are Available have Provided Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Research that has Provided Needed Long-Term Yield Comparisons between Farmer Practices and New, CA-based Practices and Generated Revelant Information Concerning Sustainability Topics Including Soil Health Issues Related to Soil Physical, Biological and Chemical Properties
  • 25. Comparison of Rainfed Maize Yield for Different Tillage, Rotation and Residue Management 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Practices over 10 Years in Central Mexico 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Grain Yield (kg/ha) Maize-Wheat; Zero Till Seeding; All Residues Retained Continuous Maize, Conv. Till Seeding; All Residues Removed (Farmer Practice) Maize-Wheat; Zero Till Seeding; All Residues Removed
  • 26. Comparison of Rainfed Wheat Yields for Contrasting Tillage and Residue 8500 7500 6500 5500 4500 3500 2500 1500 Management Practices over 11 Years in Central Mexico 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Grain Yield (kg/ha) Wheat-Maize; Zero Till - All Residues Retained (Best CA-based Practice) Wheat-Maize; Conv. Till; - All Residues Removed (Farmer Practice) Wheat-Maize; Zero Till - All Residues Removed
  • 27. Effect of tillage and residue management over fifteen years on wheat grain yields in the Yaqui Valley, Sonora, Mexico - Irrigated Production Systems 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 2001 20 03 20 05 20 07 Grain Yield (kg/ha) Conventional till beds - residues incorporated Permanent beds - residues burned Permanent beds - residues retained
  • 28. Effect of tillage and crop residue management (averaged over four Nitrogen treatments) on % organic matter for soil samples (0-20 cm) taken in 2003 for a long-term trial initiated in 1993 at CIANO, Cd Obregon, Sonora % Organic matter Conventional till beds; all straw incorporated 1.10 1.05 1.15 1.24 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 Permanent beds; all straw burned Permanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodder Permanent beds; all straw retained
  • 29. Effect of tillage and crop residue management (averaged over four Nitrogen treatments) on Na content for soil samples (0-20 cm) taken in 2003 for a long-term trial initiated in 1993 at CIANO, Cd Obregon, Sonora 655 836 671 LSD (0.05) = 81 ppm 596 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 Na content (ppm) Conventional till beds; all straw incorporated Permanent beds; all straw burned Permanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodder Permanent beds; all straw retained
  • 30. Effect of tillage and crop residue management on soil wet aggregates (Mean Weight Diameter = MWD) for soil samples (0-10cm) taken in 2004 for a long-term trial initiated in 1993 at CIANO, Cd Obregon, Sonora LSD (0.05) = 0.333 Soil Wet Aggregates (MWD) Conventional till beds; straw incorporated 1.121 1.421 1.957 1.262 2.000 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 Permanent beds; straw burned Permanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodder Permanent beds; straw retained
  • 31. Effect of tillage and crop residue management (averaged over four Nitrogen treatments) on soil microbial biomass C content for soil samples (0-7 cm) taken in 2002 for a long-term trial initiated in 1993 at CIANO, Cd Obregon, Sonora LSD (0.05) = 133 mg C/kg soil 464 465 588 600 650 600 550 500 450 400 Soil microbial biomass C content mg C/kg soil Conventional till beds; straw incorporated Permanent beds; straw burned Permanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodder Permanent beds; straw retained
  • 32. Effect of tillage and crop residue management (averaged over four Nitrogen treatments) on soil microbial biomass N content for soil samples (0-7 cm) taken on a long-term trial initiated in 1993 at CIANO, Cd Obregon, Sonora LSD (0.05) = 1.6 mg N/kg soil 4.88 4.46 6.92 9.06 10.50 9.50 8.50 7.50 6.50 5.50 4.50 3.50 Soil microbial biomass N content mg N/kg soil Conventional till beds; straw incorporated Permanent beds; straw burned Permanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodder Permanent beds; straw retained
  • 33. Comparing Genotypes with and without Tillage
  • 34. Performance of Wheat Lines Developed by Parallel Selected by Zero and Conventional Tillage Effects of Cross, Tillage and Selection Systems on Grain Yield Averaged over 2005, 2006, 2005 6500 6000 ha) kg/(5500 yield Grain 5000 4500 SERI/..BERKUT SW94.../PBW65 FILIN./Cross PASTOR MILAN./PASTOR PFAU../AMAD PB, S-ZT PB, S-CT CB, S-ZT CB, S-CT
  • 35. Using the CA-Based Research Platform Trials to Train Technicians, Scientists and Farmers Farmer Training Visiting Scientist Training
  • 36. CA-BASED APPLIED RESEARCH AND DELIVERY HUB THE MODULES IN FARMER FIELDS ALLOW COMPARISONS OF BEST BET CA-BASED TECHNOLOGOES WITH THE COMMON FARMER PRACTICES FARMERS FARMERS NARS/Private Sector/NGO FARMERS FARMERS Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research, Testing Demonstration and Training FARMERS Soils and FARMERS Agronomy Breeding FARMERS FARMERS Weed ,disease and Pest Management Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules CA-based Agricultural Machinery Development FARMERS Farmer Field Adaptive Research and Demonstration Modules Farmer Practices 1-3 Practices FARMERS Socio-economics Potential Best Bet CA-Based Practices 2-4 Practices Plots Reserved for Future CA-Based Practices
  • 37. THE FARMER MODULES IN FARMER FIELDS PROVIDE THE VENUE TO: •Compare One or Two Best Bet CA-based Crop Management Technologies Side-by-side versus the Farmer’s Conventional Practices in the Farmer’s Fields •Fine-tune these CA-based Technologies as Needed in the Farmers’ Fields with Active Farmer Participation Using Simple Superimposed Side-by-Side Comparisons of Weed Control, Cultivars, Rertilizer Management etc as Needed •Organize Regular Field Visits for Surrounding, Neighbor Farmers to Visit the Modules in Farmer Fields and to Observe Different Management Steps for the CA-based Technologies •Allow the Module Farmers to Help Organize and Be the Spokesmen to Explain the New CA-based to Neighboring Farmers •Utilize the Modules in the Farmer Fields for Field Days to Demonstrate the New CA-based technologies to Farmers from the Surrounding Areas and to Facilitate their Potential Adoption of the Technologies
  • 38. Meeting with Neighboring Farmers at a Farmer’s Module to Identify Other Farmers From the surrounding Extension Ares Who Are Interested in Cooperating
  • 39. Using the Comparisons of Farmer Practices and the Best Bet CA-based Technologies in Farmer Modules for Training Technicians, Scientists and Farmers
  • 40. Farmer/Service Provider Training in the Operation of CA-based Seeders in a Farmer Module
  • 41. Using the Comparisons of Farmer Practices and the Best Bet CA-based Technologies in a Farmer’s Module for Farmer Training in Seeding CA-based Technology Farmer Practice
  • 42. Comparing Farmer Practices with the Best Bet CA-based Technologies for Irrigated Wheat in a Farmer Mudule Farmer Practice with Tilled Beds CA-based Permanent Beds
  • 43. Comparing Farmer Practices with the Best Bet CA-based Technologies for Grain Sorghum in a Farmer Module Irrigated Sorghum on Tilled Raised Beds (Farmer Practice) Best Bet CA- Irrigated Sorghum on Permanent Raised Beds
  • 44. Farmer Field Day at Harvest to Compare Farmer Practice and the CA-Based Technology Managed by the Farmer in a Farmer Module
  • 45. Comparison of CA-based Practices versus Farmer Practices in Farmer Modules Farmer Fields in the Central Highlands of Mexico Cropping System Number of Modules in Farmer Fields CA-based Practices Average Maize Yield (kg/ha) Farmer Practice Average Maize Yield kg/ha CA-based Practices Returns Above Variable Costs (Mexican Pesos) Farmer Practice Returns Above Variable Costs (Mexican Pesos) Irrigated Maize 19 8830 6950 17,154 11,926 Rainfed Maize 29 4830 3000 5566 1853 1US Dollar = 13.5 Mexican Pesos
  • 46. Comparison of Rainfed Maize under Farmer Practice versus CA-based Practices in a Farmer’s Module Farmer Practice CA-based Practice