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

CIMMYT®International Maize and Wheat Improvement CenterInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

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

HOW CAN CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE BASED TECHNOLOGIES

BE DEVELOPED AND DELIVERED TO FARMERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO

SOLVING THEIR PROBLEMSAND

WHY MUST FARMERS PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS?

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

Researchers Extensión agencies

Farmers

Technology transfer

Adoption

Knowledge flow

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.

InnovativeFarmers

Input Suppliers

NARS, NGOs, Private Sector

Partners

Extension(Change)

Agents

MachineryManufacturers

Researchers

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.

What Does “HUB” Mean? It is based on the 3 parts of a wagon wheel

Wheel HUB = Platform Trials

Wheel Spokes = ModuleFarmers

Wheel Rim = Areas of Extension

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

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

FARMERS FARMERS

FARMERS

FARMERS

Soils and Agronomy

Component Technology Studies

FARMERS

Breeding and Testing of different Cultivars

FARMERS

CA-BASED ADAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERY HUB or Innovation Platform

Weed ,disease and Pest Management Component Technology Studies

FARMERS

Farmer FieldAdaptive Research and Demonstration

Modules


Modules


Modules

CA-based Agricultural Machinery Development

FARMERS


Modules

Socio-economic Evaluations

FARMERS

NARS/Private Sector/NGO Involvement FARMERS

FarmerPractices

1-3Practices

Potential Best Bet CA-BasedPractices

2-4 Practices

Plots Reserved

for Future

CA-Based

Practices

Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research, Testing

Demonstration and Training

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

Southern SonoraIrrigated

(Arid Conditions)39 masl

CIMMYT HeadquartersEl Batán

Mainly Rainfed Low Rainfall (350-600mm)

2249 masl

MexicoCity

TolucaRainfed

High Rainfall(700-1200mm)

2640 masl

Locations of 5 Current CA-based HUBs in Mexico

(3 more HUBs are being established)

MexicoMexico El BajioMainly Irrigated:Some Rainfed(600-900mm)1500 masl

ChiapasTropical, mainly Rainfed High Rainfall(900-1800mm)Variable Altitude

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

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

AppropriateWeed

Control Practices

Appropriate Crop Residue Management

AppropriatePest and Disease

Management

Appropriate Seeders/other Implements

The Foundation for Developing Suitable and Sustainable Conservation Agriculture-Based Crop Management Technologies

Dramatic ReductionsIn Tillage

Retention of Adequate Levels of

Residues on the Soil

Economically Viable

Diversification of Crop Rotations

Farmer Perception of sustainabilityand profitability

by adoption

Other Relevant

Crop Management Components

Assessment of Relevant Socio-

Economic Factors

Application of Precision

Agriculture Tools and Strategies

FARMERS FARMERS

FARMERS

FARMERS

Soils and Agronomy Component Technology Studies

FARMERS

Breeding and Testing of different Cultivars

FARMERS

CA-BASED ADDAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERY HUB

THE ADAPTIVE RESEARCH AND DELIVERU Y PLATFORM TRIAL PROVIDES A

LOCATION FOR MULTI-STKEHOLD COLLLABORQTIVE ACTIVITIES

Weed ,disease and Pest Management Component Technology Studies

FARMERS


Modules


Modules


Modules


FARMERS

Farmer FieldAdaptive

Research and Demonstration

ModulesSocio-economic

Evaluations

FARMERS

NARS/Private Sector/NGO Involvement

FARMERS

Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trial for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research, Testing

Demonstration and Training

FarmerPractices

1-3Practices


2-4 Practices

Plots Reserved

for Future

CA-Based

Practices

Common Activities Carried Out in an Adaptive Research

and Delivery Platform Trial in the HUBs in Mexico

Implement Testing and DevelopmentDevelopment 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

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

Using the CA-Based Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform Trial to Compare Weed

Control StrategiesConventional Till Maize; No Residue Zero Till Maize; With Residues

Wide versus Narrow Permanent Beds for Rainfed Conditions

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

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

Using the CA-Based Strategic Research Platform Long Term Trials for Multidisciplinary Research

Student thesis Research On-going Project Research

Long-Term Strategic Research and Development Platform Trial Supporting the Rainfed HUB in

the Central Highlands of Mexico

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Gra

in Y

ield

(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

Comparison of Rainfed Maize Yield for Different Tillage, Rotation and Residue Management Practices over 10 Years in Central Mexico

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

8500

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Gra

in Y

ield

(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

Comparison of Rainfed Wheat Yields for Contrasting Tillage and Residue Management Practices over 11 Years in Central Mexico

Effect of tillage and residue management over fifteen years on wheat grain yields in the Yaqui Valley, Sonora,

Mexico - Irrigated Production Systems

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

Gra

in Y

ield

(k

g/h

a)

Conventional till beds - residues incorporated

Permanent beds - residues burned

Permanent beds - residues retained

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

1.10

1.05

1.15

1.24

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

% O

rgan

ic m

atte

r

Conventional till beds; all straw incorporatedPermanent beds; all straw burnedPermanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodderPermanent beds; all straw retained

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

596

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Na

cont

ent (

ppm

)

Conventional till beds; all straw incorporatedPermanent beds; all straw burnedPermanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodderPermanent beds; all straw retained

LSD (0.05) = 81 ppm

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

1.121

1.421

1.957

1.262

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

Soil

Wet

Agg

rega

tes

(MW

D)

Conventional till beds; straw incorporatedPermanent beds; straw burnedPermanent beds; aprox. 60-70% straw removed for fodderPermanent beds; straw retained

LSD (0.05) = 0.333

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

464 465

588600

400

450

500

550

600

650

Soil

mic

robi

al b

iom

ass

C c

onte

nt m

g C

/kg

soil


LSD (0.05) = 133 mg C/kg soil

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

4.884.46

6.92

9.06

3.50

4.50

5.50

6.50

7.50

8.50

9.50

10.50

Soil

mic

robi

al b

iom

ass

N c

onte

nt m

g N

/kg

soil


LSD (0.05) = 1.6 mg N/kg soil

Comparing Genotypes with and without Tillage

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

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

SERI/..BERKUT SW94.../PBW65 FILIN./PASTOR MILAN./PASTOR PFAU../AMADCross

Grai

n yi

eld

(kg/

ha)

PB, S-ZT

PB, S-CT

CB, S-ZT

CB, S-CT

Using the CA-Based Research Platform Trials to Train Technicians, Scientists and Farmers

Farmer Training Visiting Scientist Training

FARMERS FARMERS

FARMERS

FARMERS

Soils and AgronomyFARMERS

Breeding FARMERS

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

Weed ,disease and Pest Management

FARMERS


Modules


Modules


Modules


FARMERS


Modules

Socio-economics

FARMERS

NARS/Private Sector/NGO FARMERS

Adaptive Research and Delivery Platform for Multi-disciplinary Adaptive Research,

Testing Demonstration and Training

FarmerPractices

1-3Practices


2-4 Practices

Plots Reserved

for Future

CA-Based

Practices

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

Meeting with Neighboring Farmers at a Farmer’s Module to Identify Other Farmers From the surrounding

Extension Ares Who Are Interested in Cooperating

Using the Comparisons of Farmer Practices and the Best Bet CA-based Technologies in Farmer Modules for

Training Technicians, Scientists and Farmers

Farmer/Service Provider Training in the Operation of CA-based Seeders in a Farmer

Module

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

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

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

Farmer Field Day at Harvest to Compare Farmer Practice and the CA-Based Technology Managed by the Farmer in

a Farmer Module

Comparison of CA-based Practices versus Farmer Practices in Farmer Modules Farmer Fields in the

Central Highlands of MexicoCropping

SystemNumber of Modules in

FarmerFields

CA-based Practices

AverageMaizeYield

(kg/ha)

Farmer Practice

Average

MaizeYieldkg/ha

CA-based Practices

Returns Above

VariableCosts

(MexicanPesos)

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

Comparison of Rainfed Maize under Farmer Practice versus CA-based Practices in a Farmer’s Module

Farmer Practice CA-based Practice

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

Science

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