• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Developing ISFM Options for Smallholder Agriculture in Africa: Experiences from WA
 

Developing ISFM Options for Smallholder Agriculture in Africa: Experiences from WA

on

  • 746 views

Historical Perspectives in Addressing Soil Fertility Problems,Key Soil Fertility Research at IITA

Historical Perspectives in Addressing Soil Fertility Problems,Key Soil Fertility Research at IITA

Statistics

Views

Total Views
746
Views on SlideShare
746
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial 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

    Developing ISFM Options for Smallholder Agriculture in Africa: Experiences from WA Developing ISFM Options for Smallholder Agriculture in Africa: Experiences from WA Presentation Transcript

    • Developing ISFM Options for SmallholderAgriculture in Africa: Experiences from WA Sylvester OIKEH (Ph D) Africa Rice Center (WARDA) Cotonou, Benin Seminar for the Position of IITA Soil Fertility Specialist 22 September 2008, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria
    • Outline of Presentation• Background• Historical perspectives on soil fertility• Key soil fertility research at IITA• Concept of ISFM• My vision
    • Outline of Presentation Cont‟d• Linking vision with key experiences• Resource mobilization efforts• Conclusion
    • Background
    • What is Soil Fertility?• Capacity of the soil to supply nutrients (N, P, K and other essential nutrients) to the crop• Mixture of soil chemical, physical and biological factors affecting land potential• Major problem: Inherent low fertility of African soils
    • Macronutrient Application Vs. Losses in Africa 5.0 4.4 Million tons per year 4.5 Loss 4.0 Applied 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 N P K Nutrients Source: Sanchez et al. 1997)• In the developed world, overuse of fertilizer & manure is damaging envt.• In SSA, low use of fertilizer is a major cause of environmental degradation and poverty.• Africa losses USD 4 billion/yr due to soil nutrient mining.
    • SOIL NUTRIENT MINING IS KILLING AFRICA 1995-97 2002-04 Source: IFDC
    • Fertilizer Use Around the Globe Netherlands Source: FAOSTAT, July 2003; Vietnam Norman Borlaug, 2004 Japan UK China France Brazil USA India South Africa Cuba Benin Malawi Fertilizer use: 8 kg per ha Ethiopia Mali in Sub-Sahara Africa is the Burkina Faso Nigeria lowest in the world Tanzania Mozambique Guinea Ghana Uganda 600 Kg/ha• Fertilizer Summit, 2006: „to increase the fertilizer use from 8 to 50 kg ha nutrients 0 100 200 300 400 500 -1 by 2015‟.• Fertilizer is a “golden bullet” to power African Green Revolution (Adesina, 2007)
    • Historical Perspectives in Addressing Soil Fertility Problems Period Paradigm Role of fertilizer Role of organic Experiences inputs 1960s External Use of fertilizer Organic resources Limited success & input alone will ↑ and played a minor role because of Shortfall 1970s Paradigm sustain yields in infrastructure, policy, etc. 1980s Organic Fertilizer played a Organic resources Limited adoption; OM input minimal role are main source of production requires Paradigm nutrients (Alley excessive land & farming system) labor 1990s Sanchez’ Fertilizer use was Organic resources Difficulties to access 2nd essential to were the entry organic resources Paradigm eliminate the main point; but served hampered adoption nutrient functions beside (e.g. improved fallow) constraints nutrients release 2000s ISFM Fertilizer is a Access to organic On-going! Paradigm major entry point resources has both (Here we are!) to ↑ yields and social and supply needed economicAnnon (2007) org. inputs dimensions
    • Key Soil Fertility Research at IITA• Diagnostic studies on identification deficient nutrients in production systems across agroecologies• Fertilizer response studies, but mostly on cereals (maize); limited on roots and tubers• Alley farming/ improved fallow (limited adoption)• Cereal-legume rotations (include ISFM)• Use of phosphate rock in legume rotation systems (limited promotion)
    • Concept of ISFMThe application of soil fertilitymanagement practices (appropriatefertilizer + organic input + improvedgermplasm) and the knowledge toadapt these to local conditions tooptimize fertilizer and organicresource- use efficiency and cropproductivity
    • ISFM + Enabling environment Integrated Soil Fertility Management Strategy Institutions Integrated Pest Soil Conservation and policy management water management ISFM EcosystemResilient germplasm / Servicesfertilizer (Org+Inorg) Markets
    • Vision• Promote ISFM in cereal-legume rotations with focus on promiscuous soybean-maize systems in Africa using participatory approaches• Integrating mineral fertilizer component of ISFM package based on site-specific fertilizer balanced management practices
    • Vision cont‟d• Integrate ISFM principles into conservation agriculture in SSA with linkage to climate change/ land degradation• Transform IITA Nutrition lab to a center of excellence for Bio- fortification studies
    • Vision cont‟d• Review and establish ISFM guidelines for roots and tubers (particular focus on yam & cassava)
    • Promote ISFM in cereal-legumerotations using participatory approach Key issues:• Limited N-use efficient crop varieties• Dynamic nature of N in farmers‟ fields• Limited use of available ISFM options
    • Promote ISFM in cereal-legumerotations using participatory approachExperiences: N-use efficient crop varieties(Screened maize cultivars under variable Nto identify N-efficient cultivar)
    • N Vs. Root Length Density Source: Oikeh, Kling, Horst, & Chude (1999). Field Crop Res. 62: 1-13 0-15Soil depth (cm) 15-30 30-45 45-60 60-75 0 g/plant 2.26 g/plant a • N application stimulated root production in surface soil at 1994/35 DAS 75-90 early growth stage 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0-15 Soil depth (cm) 15-30 30-45 0 g/plant 45-60 0.56 g/plant 2.26 g/plant • Greater root growth and 60-75 distribution observed at 30 kg N 1994/silking 75-90 ha-1 (0.56 g/plant) than at 0N or 120N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Root length density (cm cm-3)
    • Root Length Density of Maize varieties Plant ht RLE DM Cultivar (cm) (mm/day) (g/plant) 0-15 (25 DAP) Soil depth (cm) 25-28 DAP 35DAP 15-30 EV8728 61.5 74.5 17.8 30-45 87TZPB 57.5 69.8 15.2 45-60 SPL 63.5 79.6 18.0 60-75 35 DAS 8644-27 61.3 73.9 15.2 75-90 (HYB) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 TZB 59.5 70.8 14.3 (CTL) LSD 1.6 3.1 2.4 TZB (p=0.1)Soil depth (cm) 0-15 8644 15-30 • Varietal differences in RL at 35DAS 30-45 SPL 45-60 TZPB • All improved cvs. had better RL and EV8728 growth than the check 60-75 75-90 Silking • TZPB & SPL had better root systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 in lower depth at silking Root length density (cm cm-3) Source: Oikeh, Kling, Horst, & Chude (1999). Field Crop Research. 62: 1-13
    • Phenology, grain yield, HI, and N efficiency parameters of maize cultivars as influenced by N ASI LGF Grain yield HI N-util. eff. N-use eff. Cultivar (d) (d) (Mg ha-1) (%) (%) (kg grain/kg avail. N) EV8728 3.4 48.0 5.0 40 50 18.5 87TZPB 5.3 45.6 4.8 36 46 16.6 SPL 3.1 43.4 5.0 41 50 17.4 8644-27 5.2 47.9 5.2 43 54 18.5 TZB-SR 4.2 46.1 4.7 35 45 16.6 SED 0.2* 0.5** 0.1+ 0.5** 0.7** 0.5* CV (%) 3 3 16 9 9 20Source: Oikeh and Horst 2001: In: W.J Horst et al. (eds.). Plant Nutrition: Food security and sustainability of agroecosystems.Development in Plant and Soil Science Book Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
    • Mean N uptake over time as influenced by N N N uptake (kg ha-1) Cultivar (kg ha-1) 35 DAP Midsilk Grain Stover NHI (%) Total N 0 11 42 29 18 60 47 30 18 54 47 25 65 72 120 19 86 87 39 69 126 SED 1* 3** 2** 1** 1** 3** EV8728 17 59 57 26 68 82 87TZPB 15 70 56 29 65 85 SPL 19 55 59 27 68 86 8644-27 15 63 53 26 66 79 TZB-SR 14 56 48 29 58 77 SED 1* 4* 3* 1 ns 1** 3nsSource: Oikeh, Carsky, Kling, Chude, & Horst (2003). Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 100: 181-191.
    • Promote ISFM in cereal-legumerotations using participatory approachExperiences: Dynamic nature of N infarmers„ fields Livelihood analysis: 5 Villages in 3 States, NGS, Nigeria Major constraints as ranked by farmers: • Low soil fertility/lack of fertilizers • Striga hermonthica infestation • Early season drought causing replanting
    • Patterns of NO3-N (0-30 cm)Dynamics in 35 Farmers‟ Fields, NGS (7 fields) (7 fields) (7 fields) (14 fields) Source: Weber, Chude, Pleysier, & Oikeh (1995). Exp. Agric. 31: 333-344.
    • Managing N Dynamics Using ISFM Package ISFM with Stylo organic inputs (fallen leaves + roots) slowed down N mineralization and N losses in soil- plant systemSource: Oikeh, Chude, Carsky, Weber, & Horst (1998). Experimental Agriculture 34: 73-83
    • On-farm ISFM Package 6 1.3 Mg ha-1 yield advantage 5 from legume rotation with Grain yield (t ha-1) N-use eff. maize over 2-yr 4 continuous N-ineff. maize 3 2 TZB-SR (N-ineff.) 1 8644-27 (N-use eff.) 0 Maize Soybean Stylo Previous cropSource: Oikeh, Chude, Carsky, Weber, & Horst (1998). Experimental Agriculture 34: 73-83
    • Mean Mineral N Balance (loss) 160 from Soil-plant System • 140 120 35 – 122 kg N ha-1 lost (leaching) • N loss (kg ha-1) 100 SPL had > 80 capacity to take up N during 60 grainfilling period thus minimizing N 40 losses 20 • SPL had deep fine root system 0 87TZPB-SR EV8728-SR 8644-27 TZB-SR SPL CultivarsNl/g = (Nup(t2) + Nmin(t2))  (Nfert + Nmin(t1) + N(rain)) Source: Oikeh, Carsky, Kling, Chude, & Horst (2003). Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 100: 181-191.
    • Model Maize (Ideotype) for African Savanna (e.g. SPL) Adapted: Oikeh, Kling, Horst, & Chude (1999). Field Crop Res. 62: 1-13• High seedling vigor and dense root system in surface soil at early growth stage• Fine, deep, and dense root system late in season with extended N absorption into grainfilling• Short ASI and LGF• > one ear per plant under low N• High grain yield and harvest index• Good grain processing quality (Oikeh, Kling, & Okoruwa (1998). N fertilizer management effects on maize grain quality in West Africa. Crop Science 38:1056-1061)
    • What Next ?• Promote grain legume-cereal ISFM Africa-wide using participatory approaches• Develop new ideotypes of crops for Africa using experience from maize ideotype• Use existing models to predict nutrient flow and out-scaling ISFM options
    • Integrating mineral fertilizercomponent of ISFM options based onsite-specific FBMP Key issues:• Limited fertilizer recommendations based on site-specific variability in soil fertility• Fertilizer applications based on crop responses/ agroecologies lead to over or under-application in some fields
    • Integrating mineral fertilizercomponent of ISFM options based onsite-specific FBMPExperiences: Cultivar response to fertilizer(cultivar fertilizer) across agroecologies
    • N Vs. Dry-matter Yield Source: Oikeh, Kling, Horst, & Chude (1997). Proceedings 5th Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conf., Arusha, Tanzania 3-7 June 1996. CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 163-167 Dry-matter Yield 16 Total 14 12 Y =8.8 + 6.0N - 1.3N2 R2=1.0 • 5 maize cultivars screened under 4 NYield (t ha-1) 10 levels for 2 yrs 8 • 60 kg N ha-1 Grain adequate for maize 6 production under the Y =2.8 + 3.5N - 0.8N2 R2=0.99 conditions of the 4 experimental site 2 0 0 30 60 90 120 Nitrogen rate (kg ha-1)
    • NPK vs. Mean Grain Yield of 4NERICAs Humid Forest, Nigeria 6 NERICA yield (Mg ha-1) c 60 kg/ha N 5 13 kg/ha P b 4 25 kg/ha K 3 a 2 1 0 N60-P13-K25 N120-P26-K25 Zero N60-P13-K25 N120-P26- Fertilizer treatment K25 N60-P13-K25= 60 kg N, 13 kg P and 25 kg K per ha N120-P26-K25= 120 kg N, 26 kg P and 25 kg K per ha. Source: Oikeh et al. (2006). Fertilizer summit, 2006
    • What Next ?Integrate mineral fertilizercomponent of ISFM optionsbased on site-specific nutrientcontent and crop requirement
    • Integrate ISFM principles into conservationagriculture in SSA with linkage to climatechange/ land degradation Key issues: • Climate change • Land degradation • Declining soil fertility
    • Integrate ISFM principles into conservation agriculture in SSA with linkage to climate change/ land degradationExperience: Cowpea-NERICA Ecotechnology (example of ISFM option developed with farmers in NGS, Benin)
    • Organic inputsFarmer‟s 80-day Cowpea (Katchè) 75-day Dual-purpose Cowpea 85-day NERICA 8 (Resilient, N-use efficient) + Mineral N (20 kg ha-1)
    • Opening Ceremony of Soil Fertility Lab, WARDA Cotonou AAS
    • Cowpea Rotation Vs. Soil-N at 21 and 42 DAS in 5 farmers‟ Fields NO3-N (T21; kg ha-1) Nmin (T42; kg ha-1) Rotation Soil Depth (cm) Soil Depth (cm) 0 – 15 15 – 30 0 – 15 15 – 30 IT89KD-288 11.0 12.8 31.0 26.2 IT90-277-2 17.7 8.6 33.1 22.7 IT97-568-11 20.6 15.1 40.5 25.7 IT97K-1069-6 11.6 14.3 36.4 28.2 IT93K-452-1 15.6 13.9 28.0 23.5 Katechè (local) 12.7 8.5 25.0 27.0 Fallow 12.6 10.4 24.9 22.7 SE (Rot Depth) 2.78 3.31Source: Oikeh, Niang, Abaidoo, Houngnandan, Koichi, Kone, & Toure (??). Cowpea-NERICA Rice Ecotechnology forSustainable Management of Degraded Tropical Savanna Soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal (in preparation).
    • Mean NERICA8 Yield Vs. Previous Cowpea (5 farmers‟ fields, NGS, Benin) 1.2 1 Grain Yield (Mg.ha -1) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 IT90-277-2 IT97-568-11 IT97K-1089-6 IT93K-452-1 Local (Katché) Fallow • Previous crops Previous cowpea (IT97-568-11) + 20N gave 2.4 times > yield than previous fallow + 0N (CTL) in Cowpea-NERICA EcotechnologySource: Oikeh, Niang, Abaidoo, Houngnandan, Toure & Mariko (2008). Abstract Submitted to Annual Meeting of CSA Societies, USA
    • N Fertilizer Replacement Value of Previous Cowpea cv. IT97-568-11 2.5 26 kg/ha N replacement Grain Yield (Mg ha -1) 2 (N savings to the farmer) from NERICA8 Vs. N 1.5 response curve 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 N Level (kg ha-1)Source: Oikeh, Niang, Abaidoo, Houngnandan, Toure & Mariko (2008). Abstract Submitted to Annual Meeting of CSA Societies, USA
    • What Next ?Promote conservationagriculture using ISFMprinciples
    • Transform IITA Nutrition lab to center ofexcellence for Bio-fortification studiesKey issues:• Analyses of samples in advanced lab• High transaction costs in developing micronutrients enhanced crops
    • Transform IITA Nutrition lab to center ofexcellence for Bio-fortification studies Experience: “Micronutrient Enhancement of Maize to Reduce Hidden Hunger” Calcium Deficiency Ricket, WHO Iron Deficiency Anemia, WHO
    • Summary of Findings • Evaluated 49 late- & early-maturing maize across 3 contrasting ecologies for 2 yrs for Fe & Zn conc. • Mean Fe: 16.5 – 23.1 mg kg-1 Late maize • Mean Zn: 16.1 – 23.9 mg kg-1 “ • Mean Fe: 16.9 – 20.7 mg kg-1 Early maize • Mean Zn: 18.2 – 21.2 mg kg-1 “ • Evaluated bioavailable Fe using a Model Gut (mimic digestive system; Glahn et al. 1996)Sources: 1. Oikeh, Menkir, & Maziya-Dixon (2003). Journal of Plant Nutrition. 26: 2307 – 2319. 2. Oikeh, Menkir, Maziya-Dixon, Welch, Glahn, & Gauch JR. (2004). Journal of Agric. Science (Camb.). 142: 543 – 551.
    • A Cartoon of the In Vitro Digestion/Caco-2 Cell Culture Model (Glahn et al. 1996) 500 mg maize sample Pepsin Digestion pH 2, 1 h, 37 C (50 mL tube) Insert ring Pancreatin-Bile DigestionCulture well pH 6.8 – 7.0, 2 h, 37 CDialysis membrane Soluble iron15K MWCO Caco-2 cells Harvest cells for ferritin determination 24 h post start of Panc/Bile digestion
    • ANOVA of location, variety and G  E interactions on Fe bioavailability from Early-maturing maize % of total variation Pr>F Source Fe Fe bioav. bioav. Fe bioav. (%) LOG (%) Loc 0.444 0.523 <1 Var 0.006 0.029 12 VxL 0.586 0.353 10 CV 35 7 (%)Sources: Oikeh, Menkir, Maziya-Dixon, Welch, & Glahn (2003). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 3688-3694
    • Caco-2 Cell Ferritin Formation Early-Maize (as % of Control) 175 * * * * Caco-2 Cell Ferritin 150 (as % of Control) 125 100 Control (22) 75 50 25 0 3 4 2 6 5 11 8 14 1 15 9 19 13 18 20 7 16 10 17 12 VarietySources: Oikeh, Menkir, Maziya-Dixon, Welch, & Glahn (2003). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 3688-3694
    • What Next ?Back-stop breeders todevelop and promotemicronutrient enhancedcrops at IITA
    • Review and establish ISFMguidelines for roots and tubers Key issue: Limited studies on improving soil fertility for roots and tubers in Africa
    • Review and establish ISFMguidelines for roots and tubers Experience: None!
    • What next? Literature review on soil fertility studies on roots and tubers Conduct ISFM studies on roots and tubers Develop ISFM guidelines for roots and tubers production in Africa
    • Resource Mobilization Efforts (2006-2008)Project Donor Value PartnerSmallholder rice-based livelihood and UNDP $ 5.0m Min. of Agric.income enhancement project for Liberia Liberia/WARD A/IITA/ AVRDCAlleviating rural poverty through IFAD $ 1.5m IRRI/WARDAimproving rice production in E. & S.AfricaEnhancing smallholder access to IFAD $ 1.5m WARDANERICA seed for alleviating ruralpoverty in WCADevelopment of sustainable rice MOP $ 0.18m WARDAfarming systems in LAC soils in West JapanAfrican lowlands: Nutrients cycling insawah vs. non-sawah rice farmingsystemsNUE Rice for Africa USAID $4.0m AATF/ARCAR DIA/ WARDA
    • ConclusionThe vision of African Leaders: “toincrease the fertilizer use from 8 to 50 kgha-1 nutrients by 2015” (FertilizerSummit, 2006) can only be actualizedwith the right enabling environments,with the right people in the right places
    • Thank you! Merci!!Asante sana!!! Eshe‟o!!!!