E Gonzalez
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

E Gonzalez

on

  • 1,480 views

Advantages of glyphosate in Conservation Agriculture conditions

Advantages of glyphosate in Conservation Agriculture conditions

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,480
Views on SlideShare
1,480
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
71
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

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

E Gonzalez E Gonzalez Presentation Transcript

  • Roundup Ready® Maize Symposium Brussels, 22-24 March 2010 22- Advantages of glyphosate in Conservation Agriculture conditions Emilio-Jesús GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ AEAC.SV – ECAF – University of Córdoba
  • Did you know that….? that….? One hectare of soil contains the equivalent in weight of one cow of bacteria, two sheep of protozoa, and four rabbits of soil fauna. Every year, soil organisms process an amount of organic matter equivalent in weight to 25 cars per hectare. Several soil organisms can help plants to fight against aboveground pests and herbivores. The elimination of earthworm populations can reduce the water infiltration rate in soil by up to 93%. The improper management of soil biodiversity worldwide has been estimated to cause a loss of 1 trillion dollars per year. European Commission Soils can help fight climate change. DG ENV, 2010
  • MOST OF THE DAMAGE TO SOILS IS CAUSED BY INTENSIVE TILLAGE BASED PRACTISES
  • ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS TYPE OF Erosion / Decrease in CO2 Decrease in Pollution of Pollution by Compactation AGRICULTURE Desertification OM Emissions biodiversity water pesticides Conservation Highly positive effects agriculture Conventional Very negative effects Tillage Positive Very effect; positive Organic Little positive effects, unless Conservation Agriculture lower effect; No farming techniques are implemented content in pesticide N, P, K residues Positive Positive effect; effect; Integrated Little positive effects, unless Conservation Agriculture lower pesticide farming techniques are implemented content in residues nutrients decrease
  • Soria Erosion in Spain
  • An easy formula, about soils Range of depth values vary: 50-500 mm Average of erosion rate: 0.005 to 5 mm per year Time to exhaust: 10 years in the worst cases !!! Some A horizons are already exhausted today
  • XXth Century conventional model 7
  • Conventional practises have driven to….. to….. Soil degradation Water contamination Low soil Organic Matter contents Loss of fertility Lower water availability for crops Loss of biodiversity Agriculture and Climate change: 10% GHG High energy consumption, poor efficiency Reduced profitability at farm level
  • Soil erosion is a major environmental problem
  • Soil is a non renewable resource
  • TILLAGE HELPS TO “DISGUISE” THE EROSION PROBLEMS
  • The risk of ploughing sometimes is not visible.
  • Negatives externalities of soil erosion: dams collapsed erosion:
  • Soil erosion and Organic Matter close relationship Maps of risk of soil erosion and OM contents JRC – European Commission (2003, 2004)
  • Losses of Soil Carbon by the use of ploughs Adapted from Reicosky, 2005 CO2 CO 2
  • Burnings+ploughs: Burnings+ploughs: High releases of CO2 17
  • Water pollutants 1. Sediments 2. Nutrients 3. Pathogens 4. O.M. 5. Metals 6. Pesticides Christensen, 1995
  • Rivers full of sediments
  • CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE is the synonymous with SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Conservation agriculture (CA) aims to achieve sustainable and profitable agriculture and subsequently aimes at improved livelihoods of farmers through the application of the three CA principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations. CA holds tremendous potential for all sizes of farms and agro-ecological systems, but its adoption is perhaps most urgently required by smallholder farmers, especially those facing acute labour shortages. It is a way to combine profitable agricultural production with environmental concerns and sustainability and it has been proven to work in a variety of agroecological zones and farming systems. It is been perceived by practitioners as a valid tool for Sustainable Land Management (SLM). FAO, 2010
  • Conservation Agriculture: the techniques Herbaceous crops No tillage Woody crops Cover crops
  • Conservation Agriculture: the adoption in Europe Cover crops Total Minimum tillage No-till in perennial surface % NT/arable % CA/arable Country (1000 ha) (1000 ha) woody crops CA (1000 land land (1000 ha) ha) Belgium 140 n.d. n.d. 140 17.2 Denmark 230 n.d. n.d. 230 10.1 Finland 550 200 n.d. 750 9.1 34.1 France 3750 150 n.d. 3900 0.8 21.1 Germany 2300 200 n.d. 2500 1.7 21.2 Greece 230 100 n.d. 430 3.7 15.8 Ireland 10 n.d. n.d. 10 0.9 Italy 480 80 n.d. 560 1.0 6.8 Hungary 490 10 n.d. 500 0.2 10.8 Portugal 300 80 30 410 4.0 20.6 Russia 15000 500 n.d. 15500 0.4 12.6 Slovak Republic 320 130 7 457 9.1 31.9 Spain 1500 700 850 3050 5.1 22.2 Switzerland 80 12 10 102 2.9 24.9 United Kingdom 2500 180 n.d. 2680 3.1 46.6 Total 27880 2342 31220 1.2 15.7 (data ECAF 2006/07)
  • 23
  • 25
  • Why do farmers practise Conservation Agriculture? 1. Stop to soil erosion 2. Cost reduction 3. Time saving 4. Environmental-friendly 5. Water increased for crops 6. Higher yields 7. Increase in fertility 8. Easier machinery traffic AEAC/SV survey, 2002
  • Why the EU and National Governments should actively promote Conservation Agriculture? Sustainable system CA Fight climate change Energetically efficient Budget friendly-CAP Food security Environmental key issues …. a win-win practice!
  • AEAC/SV monitoring farms
  • 20 18 0-30% Unprotected Soil 16 30-60 % Protected Soil 14 60-100% Very Protected Soil rosion (tn/ha) 12 10 Er 8 6 4 2 0 10 30 50 70 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cover (%) AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
  • Runoff: - 70 % Erosion: - 92 % 300 40 Conservation Agriculture Conventional Tillage 250 A A A 30 200 A R un O ff (l/m 2 ) osion (tn/ha) A 150 20 Ero A u B 100 B A 10 A A A 50 B B B B B B B B 0 0 C3 C4 C5 J1 J2 S2 H1 H2 H4 C3 C4 C5 J1 J2 S2 H1 H2 H4 Experimental Fields Experimental Fields AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
  • A key point for water infiltration: infiltration: stubble management Usually, the more the better Very clear effects <30 % >60 % 100 % 1 ,350 kg/ha 5,760 kg/ha 11,160 kg/ha Adapted from López, 2010
  • Increased infiltration 34% 9% 0% 1,350 kg/ha 5,760 kg/ha 11,160 kg/ha Adapted from López, 2010
  • 16 1600 Conventional Tillage Conservation Agriculture A 12 1200 NO3 acumulated (Kg /ha) P Acumulated (g /ha) 8 800 A 4 400 B B 0 0 J H J H Experimental Fields Experimental Fields 600 A 500 M.O. Acumulated (Kg /ha) 400 A 300 200 100 B B 0 J Acumulated Fields H AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
  • Nitrog in run off (kg/ha) gen 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 29 AEAC/SV, 2008 jun io 23 60 ag o 25 sto se 06 30 p 06 oc t0 6 28 dic 06 06 fe b 15 m a 07 2 rzo 114 ab 07 30 ma ril 0 m yo 7 29 ayo 07 jun 07 io 07 Prec N CT 05 N CC Date se 10 p 07 Run off CT Run off CC 07 oct 0 30 nov 7 no 07 v0 29 7 en 05 ero m a 08 rzo 23 08 ab ril 08 Run off (l/m2) 0 10 20 30 CT: conventional tillage CC: cover crop 0 50 300 250 200 150 100 Pr recipitation (mm)
  • Reductions CA vs. Conventional NO3-: - 35% P: - 27% K: - 21 % OM in sediment: - 78 % CA increases OM 0-5 cm: + 88 % OM 0-25 cm: + 46% Earthworms (g): + 667% AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
  • A simple but revealing experiment La cobertura facilita la infiltración de agua en el perfil de suelo
  • CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
  • NO TILLAGE
  • The best soil carbon management RATES OF CO2 FIXATION Carbon Fixation rate Reductions in CO2 emissions CA vs. Plough (kg ha-1 year-1) based Emissions from Emissions due to CA <10 CA >10 systems soil energy use years years (kg ha-1 h-1) (kg ha-1 year-1) Cover crops in 5 680 1 310 No data available 30.88 olives groves MEASURE 4.1: OLIVE Hectares GROVES UNDER CA t CO2 fixed (2000-2006) IN HIGH SLOPES Year 1 90,167 514,933 Year 2 74,419 424,998 Year 3 144,998 828,066 Year 4 135,060 771,311 Year 5 158,462 904,957 Year 6 145,371 830,196 Year 7 127,785 729,765 The total ammount of Carbon Dioxide sequestered thanks to this Agrienvironmental measure in Andalusia (Spain) were 5 004 227 t CO2 , saving the emissions made by ~0.5 million Spanish citizens by 2002
  • Productivity in terms of energy use Conventional Minimum No Tillage Tillage Tillage Andalucía YIELD kg / GJ Sunflower after wheat 230 350 500 Chickpea af. sunflower 60 70 80 Wheat af. chickpea 310 280 320 Madrid YIELD kg / GJ Barley 240 280 270 Wheat af. fallow 260 320 310 Vetch af. wheat 1360 1470 1600 AEAC/SV-IDAE, 2009
  • Energy use Conventional Minimum No Tillage Tillage Tillage Andalucía GJ / ha Sunflower after wheat 4,1 3,2 2,2 Chickpea af. sunflower 11,6 10,8 9,9 Wheat af. chickpea 17,8 16,9 16,2 Madrid GJ / ha Barley 12,2 11,3 11,1 Wheat af. fallow 18 16 16,2 Vetch af. wheat 5,6 4,9 5,0 AEAC/SV-IDAE, 2009
  • FUEL CONSUMPTION (in L) IN WHEAT 42,5 50 32,9 40 20,7 30 20 10 0 Conventional No Tillage Minimum Tillage Tillage Perea y Gil, 2005
  • Labour time in Wheat in South Spain 4 3,1 Time (hour per hectare) 3 2,4 2 1,4 1 0 Conventional Minimum No Tillage Tillage Tillage Perea y Gil, 2005
  • FUEL CONSUMPTION (in L) IN SUNFLOWER 67,6 70 60 50 39,7 40 21,7 30 20 10 0 Conventional Minimum No Tillage Tillage Tillage Perea y Gil, 2005
  • Labour time in Sunflower in South Spain 5 5 4 Time hours per hectare 3 3 2 2 1 0 Laboreo Conventional Laboreo Minimum Siembra Directa No Tillage Convencional Mínimo Tillage Tillage Perea y Gil, 2005
  • Soil compaction: influence of cover crop 200 180 160 140 120 sin cubierta I (%) 100 con cubierta 80 60 40 20 0 N. convencionales N. alta flotación Gil, 2005
  • Compaction effect on crops, silty soils NO TILLAGE CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
  • AGRI- AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES-SPAIN 2007-13 MEASURES- 2007- REGION MEASURE SUBSIDY Andalucía No tillage 59,04 €/ha Cover crops in vineyards 102,00 €/ha-200,00 €/ha Aragón Stubble maintain 60,00 €/ha-72,00 €/ha Conservation agriculture in orchads 218,00 €/ha-407,00 €/ha Castilla La Cover crops in woody crops 139,00 €/ha Mancha Galicia No tillage and cover crops 60 €/ha (herbaceous) 140 €/ha (woody) Madrid No tillage 200 € herbáceos País Vasco Cover crops in herbaceous crops 144,59 €/ha inbetween main crops Cover crops in woody crops 90,65 €/ha La Rioja Cover crops in woody crops 135,00 €/ha Asturias Cover crops in woody crops 132,22 €/ha
  • Soil Framework Directive Economic cost for Society due to soil degradation European Commission (COM(2006) 231) PROBLEM COST ( x € 1000 000 000) Erosion Between 0,7 y 14 Decrease in Organic Matter Between 3,4 y 5,6 Compactation Cannot be estimated Salinization Between 158 y 321 Flooding Up to 1,2 per event Pollution Between 2,4 y 17,3 Compactation Cannot be estimated Despite the efforts of several Presidencies, the Council has been so far unable to reach a political agreement on this legislative proposal due to the opposition of a number of Member States constituting a blocking minority. The latest discussions during the Czech Presidency (first half of 2009) have not changed this situation.
  • MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on EU agriculture and climate change (2009/2157(INI)) Organic farming and integrated pest management practices are among the ways ecologically effective systems necessitating further development. However, must also be found to facilitate a transition to more sustainable agriculture in the case of the other systems used on most farmland. Such solutions do exist. In particular, the CAP must take account practices (such as conservation farming) involving simplified cultivation techniques (such as reduced or no-tillage and leaving crop residues on the ground) provide plant cover and facilitate intercropping and crop rotation, thereby maximising photosynthesis and helping to enrich the soil with organic matter. This has been demonstrated, by the SoCo project launched at the EP’s instigation. Such practices also have an economic benefit insofar as they reduce the use of energy and of certain inputs.
  • About glyphosate use in Conservation Agriculture Glyphosate is applied by thousands of farmers practising CA worldwide with highly positive results. Its use in CA conditions is much safer in comparison with conventional uses. Top environmental and economical benefits have been demonstrated worldwide in farms safely using glyphosate in the framework of CA.
  • CONCLUSIONS 1. Conservation agriculture is the best agrarian option for achieving the social and environmental challenges for XXI century. 2. In the EU new approaches are needed. Other agricultural practices, even being positive in some aspects, are not a holistic solution for European agriculture. 3. Policy makers should take into account solid scientific data and successful local experiences to openly support Conservation Agriculture in the EU.
  • LIFE + AGRICARBON. Some basic data Duration of the project: 48 months (01/01/2010 – 31/12/2013) Generic Theme: Reduction of emission of GHG Coordinating beneficiary: AEAC.SV (Spanish Association for Conservation Agriculture . Living Soils) – Non profit making association. www.aeac-sv.org Associated beneficiaries: ◦ University of Córdoba (Spain) ◦ IFAPA (Spain) ◦ European Conservation Agriculture Federation – ECAF (Belgium)
  • Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBON This project aims to encourage the progressive establishment of sustainable agricultural techniques (CA and PA), contributing to GHG emission decreases and the adaptation of the agricultural system to the new climate conditionants found in global warming.
  • Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBON Main actions • Verification and demonstration of adaptive capacity of CA and PA to the expected climate change variations by the evaluation of grain yields and quality parameters, and of the moisture content in the soil (Objectives 1 and 2). • CO2 emission and energy evaluation of farms via a virtual management digital platform through a web page. (Objective 3). • Verification of the sink effect of CA, by the study of carbon sequester rates from laboratory analyses of the organic matter content evolution in soil samples taken at different depths (Objective 4).
  • Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBON: Sinergies MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE Conservation Agriculture: • Use soil as carbon sink. • Reduces CO2 emissions due to the no tillage of the soil. • Need much less fuel in farms. • Promotes a better water use by crops, specially important in drought conditions. Precision Agriculture: • Helps better tractor driving, avoiding overlaps, meaning less inputs needed in farms. • Optimise the use of agrichemicals.
  • Soon www.agricarbon.eu
  • Thank you for your attention Meet you in Madrid, October 4-7, 2010 www.eurocongressca.eu egonzalez@aeac-sv.org