e gonzalez
DESCRIPTION
Advantages of glyphosate in Conservation Agriculture conditionsTRANSCRIPT
Roundup Ready® Maize SymposiumRoundup Ready® Maize SymposiumBrussels, 22Brussels, 22--24 March 201024 March 2010
Advantages of Advantages of glyphosateglyphosate in in Conservation Agriculture conditionsConservation Agriculture conditions
Emilio-Jesús GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ
AEAC.SV AEAC.SV –– ECAF ECAF –– UniversityUniversity of of CórdobaCórdoba
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
DidDid youyou knowknow thatthat….?….?
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.
Soils can help fight climate change. European Commission
DG ENV, 2010
MOST OF THE DAMAGE TO SOILS IS DAMAGE TO SOILS IS
CAUSED BY INTENSIVE TILLAGE BASED PRACTISES
TYPE OF TYPE OF AGRICULTUREAGRICULTURE
ENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMSPROBLEMS
Erosion / Desertification
Decrease in OM
CompactationCO2
EmissionsDecrease in biodiversity
Pollution of water
Pollution bypesticides
Conservation Conservation agricultureagriculture HighlyHighly positive positive effectseffects
ConventionalTillage
Very negative effects
Organicfarming
Little positive effects, unless Conservation Agriculture techniques are implemented
Positive effect; lower
content in N, P, K
Very positive effect; No pesticide residues
Integratedfarming
Little positive effects, unless Conservation Agriculture techniques are implemented
Positive effect; lower
content in nutrients
Positive effect;
pesticide residues decrease
SoriaSoria
Erosion in Spain
AnAn easyeasy formula, formula, aboutabout soilssoils
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
XXthXXth CenturyCentury conventionalconventional modelmodel
7
Soil degradation
Water contamination
Low soil Organic Matter contents
Loss of fertility
ConventionalConventional practisespractises havehave drivendriven toto…..…..
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
SoilSoil erosionerosion isis a a majormajor environmentalenvironmental problemproblem
SoilSoil isis a non a non renewablerenewable resourceresource
TILLAGE HELPS TO “DISGUISE” THE EROSION PROBLEMSTILLAGE HELPS TO “DISGUISE” THE EROSION PROBLEMS
The risk of ploughing
sometimes is not
visible.
NegativesNegatives externalitiesexternalities of of soilsoil erosionerosion: : damsdams collapsedcollapsed
SoilSoil erosionerosion and and OrganicOrganic MatterMatter closeclose relationshiprelationship
Maps of risk of soil erosion and OM contents
JRC – European Commission (2003, 2004)
Losses of Soil Carbon by the use of ploughsLosses of Soil Carbon by the use of ploughs
CO2
Adapted from Reicosky, 2005
CO2
CO2
Burnings+ploughsBurnings+ploughs: : HighHigh releasesreleases of COof CO22 17
1. Sediments
2. Nutrients
3. Pathogens
WaterWater pollutantspollutants
3. Pathogens
4. O.M.
5. Metals
6. Pesticides
Christensen, 1995
RiversRivers full of full of sedimentssediments
Conservation agriculture (CA) aims to achievesustainable and profitable agriculture and subsequentlyaimes at improved livelihoods of farmers through theapplication of the three CA principles: minimal soildisturbance, permanent soil cover and croprotations. CA holds tremendous potential for all sizes of
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE isis thethesynonymoussynonymous withwith SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURESUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
rotations. CA holds tremendous potential for all sizes offarms and agro-ecological systems, but its adoption isperhaps most urgently required by smallholder farmers,especially those facing acute labour shortages. It is a wayto combine profitable agricultural production withenvironmental concerns and sustainability and ithas been proven to work in a variety ofagroecological zones and farming systems. It is beenperceived by practitioners as a valid tool for SustainableLand Management (SLM). FAO, 2010
Herbaceous crops
No tillage
Conservation Agriculture: Conservation Agriculture: thethe techniquestechniques
Woody crops
Cover crops
Conservation Agriculture: Conservation Agriculture: thethe adoptionadoption in in EuropeEurope
CountryMinimum tillage
(1000 ha)No-till
(1000 ha)
Cover crops in perennial
woody crops (1000 ha)
Total surface
CA (1000 ha)
% NT/arable land
% CA/arable land
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
(data ECAF 2006/07)
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
23
25
1. Stop to soil erosion
2. Cost reduction
3. Time saving
WhyWhy do do farmersfarmers practisepractise Conservation Agriculture?Conservation Agriculture?
4. Environmental-friendly
5. Water increased for crops
6. Higher yields
7. Increase in fertility
8. Easier machinery traffic AEAC/SV survey, 2002
Sustainable system
Fight climate change
Energetically efficient
WhyWhy thethe EU and EU and NationalNational GovernmentsGovernments shouldshouldactivelyactively promotepromote Conservation Agriculture?Conservation Agriculture?
CA
Energetically efficient
Budget friendly-CAP
Food security
Environmental key issues
…. a win-win practice!
AEAC/SV AEAC/SV monitoringmonitoring farmsfarms
12
16
20
10
14
18
rosio
n (
tn/h
a)
0-30%Unprotected Soil
30-60 %Protected Soil
60-100%Very Protected Soil
0 20 40 60 80 10010 30 50 70 90
Cover (%)
0
4
8
2
6
Er
AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
150
200
250
300u
n O
ff (
l/m
2)
Conservation Agriculture
Conventional Tillage
A
A
20
30
40
os
ion
(tn
/ha
)
A A
A
A
Erosion: - 92 %Runoff: - 70 %
C3 C4 C5 J1 J2 S2 H1 H2 H4
Experimental Fields
0
50
100
Ru
B
B
C3 C4 C5 J1 J2 S2 H1 H2 H4
Experimental Fields
0
10
Ero
A
B
BA
BB B
BB
AA
A
B
AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
A A keykey pointpoint forfor waterwater infiltrationinfiltration: : stubblestubble managementmanagement
Usually, the more the better Very clear effects
100 %>60 %<30 %
Adapted from López, 2010
1 ,350 kg/ha 5,760 kg/ha 11,160 kg/ha
34%
IncreasedIncreased infiltrationinfiltration
9%
0%
Adapted from López, 2010
1,350 kg/ha 5,760 kg/ha 11,160 kg/ha
J H
Experimental Fields
0
4
8
12
16
NO
3 a
cum
ula
ted (K
g /ha)
Conventional Tillage
Conservation Agriculture
J H
Experimental Fields
0
400
800
1200
1600
P A
cum
ula
ted (g /ha)
A
B
A
B
J H
Acumulated Fields
0
200
400
600
100
300
500
M.O
. A
cum
ula
ted (K
g /ha)
A
B
A
B
AEAC/SV, 2003-2007
6
8
10
12
14
16
gen
in
run
off
(kg/h
a)
150
100
50
0
recip
itatio
n (
mm
)
N CT
N CC
Prec
Run off CT
Run off CC
20
30
Ru
n o
ff (
l/m
2)
29 ju
nio
06
23 a
gost
o 0
625 s
ep 0
630 o
ct 0
628
dic
06
06 feb 0
715 m
arz
o 0
724 a
bril 0
7
11 m
ayo
07
30 m
ayo
07
29 ju
nio
07
05 s
ep 0
710 o
ct 0
707 n
ov 0
730 n
ov
07
29
enero
08
05 m
arz
o 0
823 a
bril 0
8
Date
0
2
4
6
Nitro
g
300
250
200 Pr
0
10
CC: cover crop
CT: conventional tillageAEAC/SV, 2008
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
La cobertura facilita la infiltración de agua en el perfil de sueloLa cobertura facilita la infiltración de agua en el perfil de sueloA simple A simple butbut revealingrevealing experimentexperiment
CONVENTIONAL TILLAGECONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
NO TILLAGENO TILLAGE
TheThe bestbest soilsoil carboncarbon managementmanagement
MEASURE 4.1: OLIVE Hectares
RATES OF CO2 FIXATION
CA vs. Ploughbased
systems
Carbon Fixation rate(kg ha-1 year-1)
Reductions in CO2 emissions
CA <10 years
CA >10 years
Emissions fromsoil
(kg ha-1 h-1)
Emissions due toenergy use
(kg ha-1 year-1)
Cover crops in olives groves
5 680 1 310 No data available 30.88
MEASURE 4.1: OLIVE GROVES UNDER CA
IN HIGH SLOPES
Hectares(2000-2006)
t CO2 fixed
Year 1 90,167 514,933Year 2 74,419 424,998Year 3 144,998 828,066Year 4 135,060 771,311Year 5 158,462 904,957Year 6 145,371 830,196Year 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
ConventionalTillage
MinimumTillage
No Tillage
AndalucíaAndalucía YIELD kg / GJ
Sunflower after wheat 230 350 500
ProductivityProductivity in in termsterms of of energyenergy useuse
Sunflower after wheat 230 350 500
Chickpea af. sunflower 60 70 80
Wheat af. chickpea 310 280 320
MadridMadrid YIELD kg / GJ
Barley 240 280 270
Wheat af. fallow 260 320 310
Vetch af. wheat 1360 1470 1600
AEAC/SV-IDAE, 2009
ConventionalTillage
MinimumTillage
No Tillage
AndalucíaAndalucía GJ / ha
Sunflower after wheat 4,1 3,2 2,2
EnergyEnergy useuse
Chickpea af. sunflower 11,6 10,8 9,9
Wheat af. chickpea 17,8 16,9 16,2
MadridMadrid 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
42,5
20,7
32,9
30
40
50
FUEL CONSUMPTION (in L) IN WHEATFUEL CONSUMPTION (in L) IN WHEAT
20,7
0
10
20
30
Conventional
TillageNo Tillage
Minimum
Tillage
Perea y Gil, 2005
2
3
43,1
2,4
1,4
Tim
e (
ho
ur
pe
r h
ec
tare
)
Labour time in Wheat in South Spain
0
1
2 1,4
Tim
e (
ho
ur
pe
r h
ec
tare
)
Conventional
TillageNo TillageMinimum
Tillage
Perea y Gil, 2005
67,6
39,7
40
50
60
70
FUEL CONSUMPTION FUEL CONSUMPTION (in L)(in L) IN SUNFLOWERIN SUNFLOWER
21,7
0
10
20
30
40
Conventional
Tillage
No TillageMinimum
Tillage
Perea y Gil, 2005
3
4
5
5
3
2
pe
r h
ec
tare
Labour time in Sunflower in South Spain
0
1
2
3
Laboreo Convencional
Laboreo Mínimo
Siembra Directa
2
Tim
e h
ou
rsp
er
Conventional
Tillage
No TillageMinimum
Tillage
Perea y Gil, 2005
Soil compaction: influence of cover crop
120
140
160
180
200
sin cubierta
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
N. convencionales N. alta flotación
I (%)con cubierta
Gil, 2005
Compaction effect on crops, silty soils
NO TILLAGE
CONVENTIONAL TILLAGECONVENTIONAL TILLAGECONVENTIONAL TILLAGECONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
REGION MEASURE SUBSIDYAndalucía No tillage 59,04 €/ha
Cover crops in vineyards 102,00 €/ha-200,00 €/ha
Aragón Stubble maintain 60,00 €/ha-72,00 €/haConservation agriculture in orchads 218,00 €/ha-407,00
€/haCastilla La Mancha
Cover crops in woody crops 139,00 €/ha
AGRIAGRI--ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURESENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES--SPAIN 2007SPAIN 2007--1313
ManchaGalicia No tillage and cover crops 60 €/ha (herbaceous)
140 €/ha (woody)Madrid No tillage 200 € herbáceosPaís Vasco Cover crops in herbaceous crops
inbetween main crops144,59 €/ha
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
SoilSoil Framework Framework DirectiveDirective
Economic cost for Society due to soildegradation
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
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.
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
Organic farming and integrated pest management practices are among the
ecologically effective systems necessitating further development. However, ways 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)
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTIONMOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTIONon EU on EU agricultureagriculture and and climateclimate changechange
(2009/2157(INI))(2009/2157(INI))
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.
AboutAbout glyphosateglyphosate use in Conservation Agricultureuse 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 Its use in CA conditions is much safer in comparison with conventional uses.
Top environmental and economical benefitshave been demonstrated worldwide in farmssafely using glyphosate in the framework of CA.
1. Conservation agriculture is the bestagrarian option for achieving the social andenvironmental challenges for XXI century.
2. In the EU new approaches are needed.Other agricultural practices, even being
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Other agricultural practices, even beingpositive in some aspects, are not a holisticsolution for European agriculture.
3. Policy makers should take into account solidscientific data and successful localexperiences to openly supportConservation Agriculture in the EU.
� Duration of the project:
48 months (01/01/2010 – 31/12/2013)
� GenericTheme:
Reduction of emission of GHG
� Coordinating beneficiary:
LIFE + AGRICARBON. LIFE + AGRICARBON. SomeSome basicbasic datadata
� Coordinating beneficiary:
AEAC.SV (Spanish Association for Conservation Agriculture . Living Soils) – Non profit makingassociation. www.aeac-sv.org
� Associated beneficiaries:◦ University of Córdoba (Spain)
◦ IFAPA (Spain)
◦ European Conservation Agriculture Federation – ECAF (Belgium)
This project aims to encourage the progressive establishment of sustainable agricultural techniques (CA and PA), contributing to
Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBONProyect LIFE + AGRICARBON
and PA), contributing to GHG emission decreases and the adaptation of the agricultural system to the new climate conditionantsfound in global warming.
ProyectProyect LIFE + AGRICARBONLIFE + AGRICARBONMainMain actionsactions
• Verification and demonstration of adaptivecapacity of CA and PA to the expected climatechange variations by the evaluation of grain yieldsand quality parameters, and of the moisture content inthe soil (Objectives 1 and 2).
• CO2 emission and energy evaluation of farms viaa virtual management digital platform through a webpage. (Objective 3).
• Verification of the sink effect of CA, by the studyof carbon sequester rates from laboratory analyses ofthe organic matter content evolution in soil samplestaken at different depths (Objective 4).
Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBON: Proyect LIFE + AGRICARBON: SinergiesSinergies
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.
Precision Agriculture:
• Helps better tractor driving, avoiding overlaps, meaning less inputsneeded in farms.• Optimise the use of agrichemicals.
• Need much less fuel in farms.
• Promotes a better water use by crops, specially important indrought conditions.
Soon www.agricarbon.eu
ThankThank youyou forfor youryour attentionattention
Meet you in Madrid, October 4-7, 2010