Languages
Pages
Legal
Effect of conservation agriculture based cropping system on crop productivity in northern Ethiopia.
Amanuel Gebru 1 Tesfay Araya2, Bram Govaerts 3 1 Ethiopian Catholic Church – Adigrat Diocesan Catholic Secretariat Social and Development Coordinating office of Adigrat, P.O.box 163, Adigrat, Tigray, Ethiopia 2 Mekelle University department of crop and horticultural science, P.O.box 231, Mekelle, Ethiopia 3 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), A.P. 6-641, Mexico D.F. 06600, México.
Corresponding author: Amanuel Gebru
Introduction • Currently, the rate of agricultural crop production and human population growth is not matching due to
mainly crop land degradation, moisture stress, over grazing and less awareness on family planning
respectively.
• To secure the food self sufficiency of ever increasing human population it is important that production
level has to be increased
• Different options to maximize production in an environment friendly manner without substantially
increase cost of production need to be explored.
• To test this proposition, a field experiment was carried out in a rain fed farmer’s training center between 2010
to 2011 in maymesanu village, northern Ethiopia.
Study location, experimental plots and methods
Objectives
• Study effect of CA-based practices vs conventional tillage practices under wheat
(Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) cropping in terms of
crop grain and straw yield
economic productivity
• We aim at linking indigenous knowledge and tillage implements (marasha ard
plow) with the wide knowledge on CA
Residue management
• Experimental plots located in Tigray,
northern Ethiopia (Fig. 1).
• Soil- sandy loam (not seen soil
taxonomically)
• Barley–wheat was grown in rotation
during the study period
• The average amount of rainfall ranges
from 450- 650 mm/annum
• Average temperature ranges from 13oc-
26oc
• Altitude: mid highland 1500- 2300
m.a.s.l
Fig. 2. Map of Ethiopia with study location
• Treatments: (1) conventional tillage (CT): plowed minimum 3 times and crop residue removed (Fig. 4a),
(2) semi-permanent raised bed (SPB): tilled twice, once just after harvest and again during sowing to make
furrows and bed with a 30 cm wide raised bed, retention of crop residue, and glyphosate was sprayed (Fig.
4b), (3) permanent raised bed (PRB) is a system with furrow and permanent raised beds with 30 cm width,
30% of crop residue retained, zero tilled on bed but once refreshed on the furrow plus glyphosate chemical
(Fig. 4c).
Further reading
H-flume + discharge gauge + drums
Results
•Based on the two year data total biomass, yield, plant height and plant density
of permanent raised bed followed by semi-permanent raised bed were
statistically significant over the conventional tillage.
•Water holding capacity of PRB and SPB is much better than CT
•The net return over the control treatment were higher in both years with more
pronounced in 2011
•CA based technology highly increases income of women headed land owning
households and old and disabled land owning households
•In addition, the reduction in draught power requirement will enable a
reduction in oxen density with further natural resource benefits.
• Tewodros, G., J. Nyssen, B. Govaerts, F. Getnet, et al., J.2009. Soil Till. Res., 103, 257-264 • Nyssen, J., B. Govaerts, Tesfay Araya, W.M. Cornelis et al. 2011. Agron. Sustain. Devel., 31, 287-297 • Tesfay Araya, W.M. Cornelis, J. Nyssen, B. Govaerts et al. 2012a. Field Crop Res. ,132, 53–62 • Tesfay Araya, W.M. Cornelis, J. Nyssen, B. Govaerts et al. 2012b. Submitted to Soil Till. Res. Presented at Wheat for Food Security in Africa 2012,
Addis Ababa, CA, October 8-12, 2012
Fig. 4. Leaving 30% crop residues on permanent raised bed and semi-permanent bed
Conclusion
Fig. 4. Conventional tillage (a), semi permanent bed (b) and permanent bed (c) with maresha
a) b) c)
Fig. 12. PBA to look at the economic feasibility
(a)
Fig. 5. photo taken after 95 days
Fig. 6. NDVI reading
Fig. 7. Agronomic parameter results of barley 2010
Fig. 10. plant height in cm (b)
Fig. 8 photo PRB and on CT plots
CIMMYT®
International Maize and
Wheat Improvement
Center
Adigrat Diocesan Catholic
Secretariat (ADCS)
ካቶሊካዊት ቤት ፅሕፈት ዓዲግራት
Tel: (034) 4-45 29 64 / 45 30 30
PO Box 163, Adigrat, Tigray
PRB plot CT plot
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
51 69
ND
VI
Days after planting
PRB SPB CT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Pla
nt
hei
gh
t(cm
)
Days after planting
PRB SPB CT
(b)
Agronomic
parameter mean ±SEM
TRT PB SPB CT
FTN 8±0.6 7.3±0.4 7.3±0.4
NFTN 0.2±0.1 0.2±0.1 0.2±0.0
WC 18±4.9 40.3±6.7 31.3±3.1
Wfw 177.4±24.4 257.1±38.9 208.8±19.3
Wdw 48.9±6.8 71.7±10.7 53.3±4.6
PH 72.6±1.1 68.7±1.3 65.1±1.1
GY 2.7±0.1 2.1±0.1 2±0.1
BY 9.3±0.2 7.6±0.7 6.5±0.6
HI 29.1±0.5 27.4±1.8 31.8±2.1
SS 25.3±0.9 24±0.9 23±0.1
SL 9.3±0.2 9.1±0.1 8.4±0.1
TSW 49.1±1 44.3±1.4 46.4±0.9
FE 1±0.0 2.7±0.3 2.3±0.3
SY 6.6±0.1 5.6±0.6 4.5±0.6
PD 69.7±0.7 57.3±0.6 54.7±0.9
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Grain
yield
Biomass
yield
Grain
yield
Biomass
yield
Barely 2010 Wheat 2011
ton
e/h
a PRB
SPB
CT
Fig. 11. crop grain and biomass yield
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
PRB SPB CT PRB SPB CT
2010-barley 2011- Wheat
ET
B/h
a
Treatments
Partial budget analysis
Gross farm gate
benefits
total variable input
costs
Net return
Net return over
control
Acknowledgment
I am grateful for generous support of from Mekelle University and International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Research funds
were funded by Ethiopian Catholic Church-Adigrat Diocesan Catholic Secretariat- Food Security Program (ECC-ADCS-FSP). Finally, sincere thanks to
the Agriculture office of the Ganta-afeshum woreda for cooperation.
CT plot
PRB plot during residue retention
Fig. 3. lay out of experimental plots
SPB
CT
PB
CT
PB
SPB
PB
SPB
CT Fig. 1. preparation during sowing
Fig. 9 During farmers day at field
PRB plot
East Tigray
Top Related