The inclusion of perennial forages and their use to ground the quality of soil is needed for row cropping that optimizes carbon issues and deserves more attention. The mixed animal and crop system can lower the fossil fuel print when an integral part of a cropping system.  Perennial pasturing has a low fossil front print. The mixed animal and cropping farming systems build up of carbon and nitrogen while reducing fertilizer and pesticide footprints but also benefit farmers economically from the higher prices for animal products. It is important to understand the biggest potential for the overall agriculture footprint transformation is more related to optimizing carbon sequestration than minimizing the emission of production practices. An optimized crop and animal system utilizing compost amendments can sequester up to and over a thousand kg/ha/yr. On the other hand, no-till practice alone can result in just about one tenth of that impact. The animal and crop system needs attention to manure composting which will optimize carbon sequestration. Many of our agricultural systems are grounded in soils which are imbalanced for the new systems the chemical and physical limitations should be addressed to make the systems work optimally.  Carbon is optimally sequestered when it is complexed through cationic union with clay and silt. When this is used for the composting method to promote the long-term organic matter persistence which will maximize the favor sequestration which gives greenhouse gas benefit but also works to improve water dynamics allaying potential for drastic drought losses.  

Agree with the points discussed by Paul Reed Hepperly. Apart from carbon sequestration and improving soil physival, chemical and bilogical properties, CA contributes in reducing the annual soil loss. Only concern is suitable weed management practice.

Regarding the second question, have not gone through any literature/work, especially on reduction in fossil fuel consumption or energy needs. In some parts of rainfed agriculture, there had been increasing consumption of fossil fuel through mechanized land preparation due to rainfall aberration and other factors like high cost of draft-animal-powered tillage etc.

The effectiveness of conservation agriculture are:

1. The CA adapts to and mitigates climate change and helps in better nutrient cycling by improving soil organic matter, soil-water conservation, improvement of soil structure and thus rooting zone, improved yield stability in variable weather, greater resilience to drought through better water infiltration and retention, to prevent negative impact of heat, increases biodiversity and air quality.

2. Better distribution of nutrients and soil profile and use of such nutrients by diverse soil organisms results in a greater cycling of available nutrients.Increased nitrogen fixation through certain plant-soil biota and improved nutrient balance from both organic and mineral sources. Higher nutrient use efficiency also results from reduced leaching and minimum gaseous losses: which are associated minimum tillage and increased residue cover.

3. Reduction in soil erosion, improvement of water quality, reduced deforestation due to land intensification and more reliable and higher crop yield, less hypoxia in coastal ecosystems.

4. More reliable and cleaner water supplies resulting in lower treatment cost, less flooding due to better water retention and slower runoff, improved air quality with less wind erosion,

5. Ultimately CA helps in more secure food and water resources resulted economic and industrial development opportunities and quality of life.

Nice question indeed. CA is surely environmentally benign , sustainability in yield is often questioned , quality again is no issue. CA also exploits the natural resources of a given area most befittingly . Ca is often considered very suitable for arid region , more than irrigated region ..? CA is often considered more suitable for perennial crops than annual crops..?

Dr. Malhotra, CA offers an opportunity for arresting and reversing the downward spiral of soil degradation, opportunity to decreasing cultivation costs and making agriculture more input use efficient, competitive and sustainable. CA system sequester carbon from the atmosphere, promote a healthy environment and enhance natural biological processes operating both below and above the grounds.

CA crop production systems are experiencing increased interest in most countries around the world. There are only few countries where CA is not practised by at least some farmers andwhere there are no local research results about CA available. The total area under CA in 2010 is estimated to be 117 million hectares [Kassam et al., 2010]. CA is now practised by farmers from the Arctic circle (e.g. Finland) to the tropics (e.g. Kenya, Tanzania), to about 50º latitude South (e.g. Malvinas/Falkland Islands); from sea level in several countries of the world to 3,000 m altitude (e.g. Bolivia, Colombia), from extremely dry conditions with 250 mm a year (e.g. Morocco, Western Australia), to heavy rainfall areas with 2,000 mm a year (e.g. Brazil) or 3,000 mm a year (e.g. Chile). No-tillage is practised on all farm sizes from less than half a hectare (e.g. China, Zambia) to thousands of hectares (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Kazakhstan).

CA is characterized by three linked principles, namely: (1) continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance; (2) permanent organic soil cover; and (3) diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations. CA principles are universally applicable to all agricultural landscapes and land uses with locally adapted practices. CA enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above and below the ground surface.

By reducing tillage and improving soil cover, moisture conservation,

soil biodiversity and carbon sequestration, CA is an important tool for satisfying the demand for food through sustainable land management while implementing the goals of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [UNCCD 2011], Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD 2011] and Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC 2011].

While the benefits described above are all good, the application of CA is problematic, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where the competition for biomass is strong and the time lag to rip these benefits is unattractive for risk-avoiding small scale farmers. The most important research question is 'what are the potential contributions of the components of CA if applied separately or in combination in terms of carbon sequestration, water retention, soil fertility and so on?'

Yes sir, it is possible to quantify the benefits. Unfortunately, this aspect is not given due emphasis while implementing projects. Else, before & after data can be easily captured. 

I agree to the explanation by Drs. Paul Reed Hepperly, Anoop Kumar Srivastava and J. C. Tarafdar on CA. I understand CA cover much broader area of crop production on sustainable basis not only soil, crop, microbial, and animal health but do help the life-friendly environment.

Dr. Amede, CA improved water infiltration and improved water erosion from soils. Decreased water erosion also reduces excessive silting of rivers, reservoirs, lakes and micro-catchments. As CA sustainability reduces soil erosion and run-off, widespread adoption in a farm area is expected to enhance cleanliness and biodiversity of surface water bodies, protecting their value for fisheries and as sources of drinking water and venues for recreation. This is one of the reason that area under CA has increased globally steadily from 2.8 Mha in 1973 to 117 Mha in 2010 (FAO 2010). However, distribution of CA adoption is skewed due to lack of information on the effects and interactions of key CA components that affect crop productivity under diverse agro-ecologies.

Dr Tarafdar, I agree, these benefits have been proven successful mainly in regions where agricultural mechanization is common, livestock management is intensive and biomass productivity is relatively high. Australia is probably the best example. However, it should not be considered as a universal solution. There has been a lot of preaching about the benefits of CA in sub-Saharan Africa for decades, without success. The only place where it had a chance is in countries where land is abundant and livestock numbers are limited (e.g. Zambia). The other niche for CA is in intensive tree-system based systems (e.g. Coffee-banana based home gardens in Ethiopia).   The priority should be in identifying niches for CA in the respective countries and systems.

You are absolutely right, the priority should be identified depends on the situation accordingly you may modify the technology for adoption to the condition. Moreover, you have to increase the awareness and affordable seeder.  Networking and participatory research and demonstration also very important strategies for facilitating the adoption of CA.

Very interesting points Dr Tarafdar and Dr Amede...Here is some interesting study ..

Farmers Preference of Conservation Agricultural Practices in Kendujhar, Odisha

ABSTRACT: The tribal villages within the district of Kendujhar, in the state of Odisha, India, suffer from marginal land conditions that are having an increasing impact on agricultural productivity. The majority of the population in this area consists of small-holder, subsistence farmers, who produce crops (mainly mustard and maize) on an average of two hectare sized plot. Research results presented here has been focused on the impact of practising Conservation Agricultural Production Systems (CAPS). Specifically: minimum tillage and intercrop to increase the food security and livelihood in this area. Results from structured socio-economic surveys provided the comparative economic analyses of different CAPS necessary prior to implementation to determine the impact of three integrative CAPS and one control (no CAPS) treatment program. Prioritization of these four CAPS systems was completed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to quantify farmers’ preference from a pre-determined set of criteria (objectives) to quantify tradeoffs that farmers considered to be important. These objectives were: Profit, Labor Saving, Yield and Soil Environmental Benefits. This study delineates potential implications and provides insight for natural resource managers regarding the short and long-term tradeoffs these smallholder farmers are willing to make with the selected CAPS. It is also intended as a positive catalyst for environmental awareness, agricultural technology transfer, and extension research in developing countries.

PDF enclosed for further reading...

Interesting observation Dr. Srivastava, but the problem is the advantages of CA on environmental quality emerge rather slowly. Most environmental advantages occur if CA is adopted by majority stakeholder and for year after year. If CA becomes a widespread practice in a large farm area, it would leave most residues in the field for soil protection and fires, dust and the haze may disappear.

Thanks Dr Tarafdar. Why is CA not getting inroads in masses..? What constraints hold CA not so widely practiced , besides so distinct benefits to ecosystem multiple functioning...? 

Very valid question, I think, these are the following reasons:

1. High initial costs of specialized planting equipment and the completely new dimension and dynamics of conservation farming system, which requires high management skills and a learning process.

2. Risk of crop failure and reduced crop productivity in the initial years.

3. New pest and disease problems and shift in dynamics of dominant weed species.

4. Variation in soil strength across the fields and altered root systems (especially under permanent beds).

5. Altered availability of N as some N may be locked up within the aggregates due to better organic matter availability. This leads to difficulties in fertilizer management, mainly in the residue retained plots.

Conservation agriculture has a big learning curve and biologically based system are much more complex than input recipe approach. In addition, the use of some of these systems is only implementable when capitalization is available as in the case of no-till systems require heavy duty implements more powerful tractors etc. In many areas where hand labor is the farming force being able to get an advance to animal tractor would be an amazing advancement. Despite obstacles, the adoption of no-till agriculture has been impressive by any measure. In South America where the practice initiated it is practiced by the vast majority of land owners in Brazil and has become a dominant practice also in North America while Europe among developed societies is lagging. Compost has become very mechanized but the utilization and mechanization for farmers have lagged behind also. Our knowledge is often limiting but our implementation is more so. 

Let me compliment Dr Tarafdar for putting up some real issues of CA to deal with , all sincerity. CA is still felt more in rainfed areas than irrigated areas . I think, if CA finds its application equally well under irrigated areas, our job will be really eased out..

It was found in Kaithal District of Haryana state (India) that CA is not adopted by farming community. Firstly communicate the advantage and benefits of CA to the farming community.

Surely , there are certain embargoes about large scale adoption of CA . Dr Tarafdar has already highlighted these issues so ably. And , these gaps , we need to address through research and extension including TOT..

The integration of poultry into conservation agriculture will go a long way to improve soil fertility in a small scale. I have observed farmers in northern region of Ghana,carry birds in hen coop to farm and open them into the field. The birds eat insects on the field and drop as well. The practice if research on, can bring out significant information about the actual benefits it can contribute to CA. The birds control insects (pests) and also their droppings add manure into the soil.

Sachin , thats an interesting piece of information . the time has come to look at these options as well , to define the   sustainability of any form of agriculture on a long terms basis ..Thanks for providing such information , which is always an eye opener..

Sachin, not only in energy sector, the major economic benefit of CA is higher efficiency in the sense of more output for a lower input.

EFFICIENT USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY – Vol. II - Efficient Use and Conservation of Energy in the

Agricultural Sector - Clark W. Gellings, Kelly E. Parmenter

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems(EOLSS),©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems(EOLSS) 

EFFICIENT USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Summary: The world relies on agriculture to feed humanity. We simply cannot survive without food, and therefore, without agriculture. Energy is an essential component of agricultural production. It fuels the equipment, irrigates the crops, fertilizes the soil, sustains the livestock, transports the food, and processes the food into its final forms. As the population continues to grow, more agricultural production is required to support the increased food demand. At the same time, energy and environmental constraints mandate that agricultural production be accomplished effectively with minimal energy consumption. It is necessary to increase agricultural yields per unit area of land, while preserving the soil

integrity and environment. Efficient energy management practices will help achieve and maintain this delicate balance. This topic and sub-articles present a wide variety of energy-efficiency opportunities as they relate to sustainable agriculture.

Finally I should say the task for policy makers and development partners is to give this innovative approach to agriculture a chance with farmers whose practical experience make them skeptical that crops can not grow on land that has not been prepared with heavy ploughing.

Conservation Agriculture as a driver for Carbon Credit market

Reducing CO2 emission is an unavoidable target by now. Nevertheless the implementation of new technologies will produce effects only in the medium-long term. In the meantime the compensation of CO2 emissions through “carbon credits” generated by agriculture could achieve a double goal, mitigating the impact of climate change and stimulating agriculture itself to become more efficient in the use of energy and more sustainable. Carbon credits representing reductions in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can indeed arise increasing the amount of carbon stored in soils and trees and reducing or avoiding emissions during the productive processes. Scientific literature demonstrated in particular soil management according to the “Conservation Agriculture” principles could significantly increase the soil organic carbon content. Those data were confirmed by the results recently achieved in north Italy (project “AgriCO2 ltura”, ERSAF- Regional Agency for Agriculture and Forests of Lombardy, Italy). In fact, in the Po plain the organic carbon stock currently stored in soils varies from 34 to 60 t/ha and a potential for further uptake in the presence of appropriate soil management has been estimated at least 12.8 t/ha of CO2 equivalent. Therefore, opportunities to develop a carbon market, where the CO2 emissions are compensated by “agriculture credits”, potentially occur. Examples of carbon markets are already running in Canada (province of Alberta) and Australia. In Lombardy the intention is now to test a prototype of a carbon offset system adapted to the specific local situation. The aim is to verify which are the conditions for the development of a voluntary carbon credits market based on offset protocols of interest to agriculture, allowing to provide new economic opportunities for farmers and keep at local level the funds collected through the offset credit trading. The project is expected to address the development of “green marketing” strategies by private companies or public institutions as well as a more precise accounting for the agricultural carbon deposits (in Lombardy almost 10% of total greenhouse gases emissions are ascribed to agriculture). As a first step the development of farm protocols concerning the Tillage management and the Milk Life Cycle is planned. At the same time extension efforts to grow awareness and provide tools and information to support the offset system are needed. In this way, the Life project “HelpSoil” ((LIFE12 ENV/IT/578) is expected to give an important contribution with respect to soil tillage improvement. In fact, the “HelpSoil” project is aimed at verifying on different pedoclimatic conditions and cropping systems of the Po plain how Conservation Agriculture management practices allow to a reduction of fuel consumption for soil works and lead to the sequestration of carbon into the soil Excellent PDF by  Brenna et  al.

SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE

A Framework for Valuing Soil Carbon as a Critical Ecosystem Service..PDF enclosed 

Conservation agriculture is being practices in rice-wheat cropping systems in the IGP and is successful in alluvial soils. But in other soils, it is still under experimental stage. Vertisols, a major soil order for rainfed production in the country need a major research backup for ensuing the success of CA. However weed management is a real challenge. The energy spent for weed management as well as machinery usage may partially offset the overall energy conserved in CA.  This need to be debated.

Weeds are certainly a major obstacle in all farming systems. Find attached the pdf showing how soil quality increases moderate crop and weed competition.  Competition losses results as water and nutrient accessible cannot meet the need for both crops and weeds. In systems of agriculture that improve soil organic matter and nutrient availability, the losses from drought and weeds are reduced greatly. Sustaining our current soil conditions would be better than allowing their historic depletion but the improvement of both productivity energy and the environment is best gauged by benchmarking soil organic matter, developing systematic plans to optimize them, monitoring results and sharing those results with a greater community. Agriculture rather than being a force for greenhouse gas generation and environment degradation has great potential to reverse these issues. This will occur not by an emission concentration alone but rather a total sequestration focus than takes into consideration but emission footprint of practices and the sequestration.  

It is very valid point. To get rid of weeds CA partly relies on the use of herbicides, at least during the initial stages of adoption, Some people worry that CA adoption will increase herbicide use and that in turn will lead to increased contamination of ground water by herbicides. In fact, experience has shown that herbicide use tend to decrease over time as the soil cover practices prevent weed emergence. Reduction in the leaching of pesticides under CA might be caused irreversibly by greater microbial activity, thus, degrading pesticides faster or more organic matter absorbing the pesticides.

I remember that Dr.K.Ramesh has published an excellent review article on weed control in conservation agriculture.He may attach the reference or summary of the article There have been contradictory reports on the magnitude of carbon sequestration in soil under conservation agriculture, especially below 5 cm or lower depth. We need a metaanalysis of  results of a large number of conservation agriculture experiments for assessing the magnitude of carbon sequestered under tropical conditions.

I agree totally with you Dr. Tarafdar , because we have done a similar research and we found that in the first stage,  there is an increase in the weed in the field, but later on it decreases.

 Thanks to Dr A Subba Rao.

This is the link to browse my review on "Weed Problems, Ecology, and Management Options in Conservation Agriculture: Issues and Perspectives" appeared in the Advances in Agronomy

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065211314000157 

Excellent review paper on Weed control in CA................

Do we information on nitrous oxide emissions in conservation agriculture as fertilizer N is applied in surface layer?

 Discerning Agricultural Management Effects on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Conventional and Alternative Cropping Systems: A California Case Study

E. C. Suddick *1, K. Steenwerth 2, G. M. Garland 1, D. R. Smart 3, J. Six 1

1 Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616

2 USDA/ARS, Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, Davis, CA 95616

3 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616

Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management

Chapter 12, pp 203–226

Chapter DOI: 10.1021/bk-2011-1072.ch012

ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1072

ISBN13: 9780841226548eISBN: 9780841226555

Publication Date (Web): October 11, 2011

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Several decades of research have provided crucial understanding of the production of nitrous oxide (N2O) from agricultural soils and the major environmental and managerial factors that play a role in the generation of this potent greenhouse gas (GHG). Due to the increase in demand for food production and the concomitant increase in use of N fertilizers to meet this demand, it is more than ever important to quantify the effects of the different factors contributing to N2O emissions and produce detailed, accurate and reliable annual N2O emission budgets for current and alternative agricultural systems. Within the diverse cropping systems of California, annual budgets are missing or incomplete for some of the state’s more important, high acreage cash crops such as grape and nut crops. Recent research, documented within this paper, highlights the difference in N2O emissions between conventional and alternative management practices in perennial and annual cropping systems of California. We observed measureable differences in N2O emissions between standard and conservation irrigation techniques used in a Northern California almond orchard. Sub-surface drip irrigation had lowered emissions of N2O (0.006± 0.001 kg N2O-N ha-1) compared to surface drip (0.08 ± 0.021 kg N2O-N ha-1) following a four-day fertigation event. In a Northern California vineyard, although not statistically different, standard tillage (ST) led to less N2O emissions compared to no tillage (NT)/conservation tillage (CT) practices, where cumulative emissions were 0.13 ± 0.021 kg N2O-N ha-1 season-1 in the ST system as compared to 0.19 ± 0.017 kg N2O-N ha-1 season-1 from the NT system. We also show that the use of pyrolyzed agricultural wastes (biochar) as a soil amendment has the ability to reduce N2O emissions associated with fertigation peaks by approximately 41%, however, overall cumulative emissions were not statistically different between the biochar amended soils and control soils. Finally, we recommend based on our studies that future investigations in California should include longer term and more robust sampling to be able to create more accurate future emission budgets and mitigate GHG emissions from both vegetable and perennial crops.

Nitrous oxide emissions can be related to rate of application but also on the fertilizer placement and timing and nitrification inhibitors. 

Some interesting responses , Paul, worth appreciating...

N2O is a potent and long-lived GHG, having a global warming potential 298 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) and remaining in the atmosphere for up to 114 years. N2O is produced in soils in the microbiological processes of nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification - the oxidation of ammonium to nitrate - occurs in aerobic conditions while denitrification - the reduction of nitrate (NO3−) to N2O and N2 - takes place in anaerobic conditions. The relative contribution of these two N pathways to N2O formation depends on episodic changes in soil aeration and water filled pore space (WFPS).Residues management and crop rotations can affect N2O emissions by altering the availability of NO3− in the soil, the decomposability of C substrates . The reduction of N2O to N2 is inhibited when NO3− and labile C concentrations are high. The retention of crop residues and higher soil C in surface soils with CA play major roles in these processes. Under anaerobic conditions associated with soil water saturation, high contents of soluble carbon or readily decomposable organic matter can significantly boost denitrification  with the production of N2O favored with high quality C inputs . PDF entitled Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An  Overview ( Source ; Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187 (2014) 87–105) enclosed  for reference 

Interesting discussion, actually adoption of CA  may initially result in N immobilization. However, rather than reducing N availability, CA may stimulate a gradual release of N in the long run and can also reduce the susceptibility of leaching.

It is simply because of the locking of nitrogen associated with elevation in organic carbon content of the soil. but , surely it is that form of immobilised N that would be gradually released , and the same time , protects n getting leached or denitrified , thereby , putting loss of N on hold..

I thought the immobilization of N would be hugely affected by the C:N ratio, which in turn is affected by the quality of the mulching material. If you mulch with legume residues or green manures you expect an improved nutrient release over time. The other factor would be the diversity and intensity of the soil microbes contributing to the decomposition of the plant materials.

Interesting discussion

Prof. Paul, it is interesting to learn that use of pyrolyzed agricultural wastes (biochar) as a soil amendment has the ability to reduce N2O emissions. Yes I agree future investigations  should include longer term and more robust sampling to be able to create more accurate future emission budgets and mitigate GHG emissions from  crops.

Thank you Dr. Tarafdar for intellectual points and elaborations that CA system sequester carbon from the atmosphere, promote a healthy environment and enhance natural biological processes operating both below and above the grounds. But above all higher nutrient use efficiency resulting from reduced leaching and minimum gaseous losses, contribute more for conservation agriculture which are associated with minimum tillage and increased residue cover.

Thank you Abhishek for comprehensive explanations. Your replies are always pertinent and detailed. You deserve compliments. I agree with you that CA can contribute to reduced green house gas emissions from agricultural crop production through reduced fuel use, better aeration of soils that reduces nitrous oxide emissions and, in no-till non-flooded rice (CA-SRI), methane emissions. But more scientific explanations are needed on significant impact on soil fauna and flora communities under diversified crop rotations and minimum tillage practices.

Very pertinent points Dr Malhotra. We have limited studies  studying the budgeting of energy involved versus conventional practices. studies have also shown , GHG emissions are far lesser than conventional practices. It will be interesting to see , how CA exploits both horizontal as well as vertical spaces within a given geographical unit.

Thank you Dr. Abhishek Raj , you have mentioned the most important barriers for adopting the conservation Agriculture, but in our country; Jordan , we face another problem which is the seed drill is unavailable. We have a few number of these seed drills which makes it more difficult to adopt this system.

Dear Dr.Abhishek I appreciate your sincere efforts in providing detailed comments and a lot of published information.With all the good work done in India the area under conservation agriculture is in dispute.To my knowledge there is no internationally accepted figure for the extent of area under conservation agriculture in India.The very good work done by over half a dozen institutes should reach the farmers'fields to a large/perceptible extent.

Abhishek , an excellent efforts , you are making to let everyone know about the developments that have taken place in a given field. Many of the  African countries have already made CA  as a part of their mainstream agriculture . In central India , some the citrus orchards are being raised on the concept of CA , and commercially so successful . But , one thing is undeniable , CA  has number of flexibilities in executing CA in field, similar to organic agriculture. 

You are very true Abhishek, find below an interesting study about CA...entitled...

Conservation agriculture, conservation farming and conventional tillage adoption, efficiency and economic benefits in semi-arid Zimbabwe

Conservation practices can be of great importance in semi-arid regions for obtaining high crop yields and income, but adoption of the conservation practices, economic efficiencies and benefits remain unknown by most smallholders. The paper presents an overview of the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA), conservation farming (CF) and conventional tillage (ConvT), their technical efficiency and economic benefits. The study was carried out in Wards 4 and 17, Chimanimani District, Zimbabwe using a cross-sectional survey of 179 farmers involving participatory was used. A Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) was used to determine relative technical efficiencies between CA, CF and ConvT farmers. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) technique was used to estimate Cobb-Douglas frontier production function. Gross margin (GM) analysis was employed to determine economic benefits by farmer category. Results showed that adoption was 59% for CF 20% for CA techniques and 69% for ConvT. SFA in R revealed that CF, CA and ConvT farmers were 87, 81 and and 64% technically efficient respectively. GM analysis showed that CF had the highest GM/ha of $99.88 and 196.20 with and without family labor cost respectively. This was followed by CA with GM/ha of $63.82 and 158.60.ConvT farmers had the least GM of -$25.16 and 65.20 with and without family labor cost. Most communal farmers considered ConvT to be a traditional practice; this could have been responsible for high adoption of the practice. Farmers showed a negative attitude towards CA despite the high labor requirements for CF. It is recommended that, of all the three practices in semi-arid regions, farmers use CF practice as it gives highest technical efficiency and GM. Source: IJARVol. 12(19), pp. 1629-1638, 11 May, 2017 ,DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2017.12153 , PDF enclosed for further reading... 

So CA is gradually finding its adoption due to its popularity and more closer to organic farming..

The history of CA in South Asia is linked with wheat production constraints in the rice-wheat system ( Ladha et al. 2003). In India, growth of CA is linked in the ill-effects of intensive agricultural practices associated with rice-wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains where rice and wheat are grown annually in sequence on more than 13.5 Mha. This cropping system so far has maintained the balance between food supply and population growth. However, evidences show that productivity and sustainability of this system is threatened as yields of both crops are either stagnant or decreasing. Hence, it was perceived that the conventional production practices used in the region should be improved or replaced by resource conserving technologies (RCTs) . Zero tillage in wheat was introduced in the early 1980s in South Asia by using a NEW Zealand imported seed drill for the first time in Punjab, Pakistan ( Rehman et al. 2015). In 1996, the CIMMYT call through Rice-Wheat consortium (RWC) and collaboration from AICAR, IRRI and National Agricultural Research Institutes helped in executing RCTs. This has given rise to more and more areas of rice-wheat system being brought under CA and from few thousand hectares in 1997-98. It spread to more than 2.18Mha in 2004-05 (Rehman et al. 2015). Over the past few years, adoption of CA has expanded to cover about 1.5 Mha (Jat et al. 2012). This is in short the information available to adopt CA under Indian condition.

Dr.Abhishek,I once again compliment you for the two fact reports attached by you.As Director,IISS Bhopal I participated in several discussions on Conservation  Agriculture especially when ICAR Conservation agriculture knowledge platform leadership was allotted to IISS.I saw in published Indian documents the estimates for conservation agriculture varying from 1.5 m ha to 3.0 m ha though the recently accepted figure is 1.5m ha.One important point is that one has to see how much area is really under permanent conservation agriculture.The rapid spread of conservation agriculture in Kazakhstan from less than 1000ha in 2004 to 1.3 m ha in 2008 is due to excellent government support  in the form of subsidies for herbicides and no till seeding equipment etc.Large holding is also important contributing factor.Great success in CA is noted in countries of South America,followed by North America and Australia and New Zealand.The cropped area under conservation agriculture in Africa,Asia and Europe is 1-3 percent.In India we have to cover a large ground under CA.Under climate change mitigation mission conservation agriculture should receive utmost Government attention.

Well said Abhishek. This is teh reason , we find CA very closely placed to organic agriculture, with both forms of agriculture complimenting each other , but having their merits and demerits..

Dr. Srivastava, to my judgement CA is basically a ZT-based cropping system; the approach is completely different from organic agriculture. The guiding principles of CA are: Do not cultivate fields, Do not burn stubble from the previous crop, Allow livestock to graze on stubble, Sow seed and fertilizer using conservation agriculture seeder, When the rains are late consider early dry-sowing, Control weeds before sowing, Different location specific ways may be adopted to manage soil fertility and control pests and diseases, The most of them differ from organic agricultural management.

Dr Tarafdar , i said CA close to organic agriculture in certain contexts. Certain practices like use of crop residues, introduction of legumes in cropping sequence requiring lesser water r that comensurate with avalable water resources including total ranfall requirement , use of microbial inoculants, maintain sufficient soil moisture, avoid use of chemical fertilizers, have back up of soil and water conservation practices , i think , they all fit well into both kinds of agriculture , be it CA or OA. Please always take into the account  about the kind  flexibilities asociated with either CA or OA..

These all answers helpful me also. Thanks everyone,

I am happy to learn that farmers in India are keen to adopt conservation agriculture because it is highly profitable. For small-scale farmers, the lower production costs are particularly important. There is considerable potential to scale out these technologies. 

This article gives a clear idea that no-till with conventional synthetic fertilizer and agrochemicals could give about 330 kg/ha C carbon sequestration. Lal has suggested that converting the global tillable acreage would counteract about 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. If we take our results from Rodale Institute a cover crop strategy could result in sequestration of 650 to 1200 kg/ha C which would be 2 to almost 4 times conventional no-till. This would suggest a potential to counteract 20 to 40% of the global greenhouse emissions. Long-term use of raw manure can provide sequestration rate similar to no-till while compost can provide sequestration similar to cover crop use. About twice as much land is in pasture and range which has remarkable carbon sequestration potential under intensive rotational grazing. What I hope you can appreciate all these and biochar have more than the ability to completely neutralize present-day excess carbon emissions to mitigate and reverse global climate change. Although most efforts have been focused on emission reductions the best route for approaching greenhouse gas enrichment is available by sequestration. We need to address both emission reduction and sequestration but the highest priority needs to point to sequestration.

Soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a Mollisol in central Ohio as affected by tillage and land use

P. Puget,

R. Lal,

 Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.03.018

Get rights and content

Abstract

Minimum tillage practices are known for increasing soil organic carbon (SOC). However, not all environmental situations may manifest this potential change. The SOC and N stocks were assessed on a Mollisol in central Ohio in an 8-year-old tillage experiment as well as under two relatively undisturbed land uses; a secondary forest and a pasture on the same soil type. Cropped systems had 51±4 (equiv. mass) Mg ha−1 lower SOC and lower 3.5±0.3 (equiv. mass) Mg ha−1 N in the top 30 cm soil layer than under forest. Being a secondary forest, the loss in SOC and N stocks by cultivation may have been even more than these reported herein. No differences among systems were detected below this depth. The SOC stock in the pasture treatment was 29±3 Mg ha−1 greater in the top 10 cm layer than in cultivated soils, but was similar to those under forest and no-till (NT). Among tillage practices (plow, chisel and NT) only the 0–5 cm soil layer under NT exhibited higher SOC and N concentrations. An analysis of the literature of NT effect on SOC stocks, using meta-analysis, suggested that NT would have an overall positive effect on SOC sequestration rate but with a greater variability of what was previously reported. The average sequestration rate of NT was 330 kg SOC ha−1 year−1 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 47 to 620 kg SOC ha−1 year−1. There was no effect of soil texture or crop rotation on the SOC sequestration rate that could explain this variability. The conversion factor for SOC stock changes from plow to NT was equal to 1.04. This suggests that the complex mechanisms and pathways of SOC accrual warrant a cautious approach when generalizing the beneficial changes of NT on SOC stocks.

Keywords

Soil carbon sequestration;

Nitrogen stock;

No till;

Pasture;

Forest;

Meta-analysis;

Soil quality;

Conservation tillage

Dr.Abhishek , agree with your comparison of organic and conservation agriculture to a great extent.But to my knowledge even in long-run one cannot skip herbicide use in conservation agriculture.Pesticides and fertilizers need also be used in conservation agriculture to the desired extent.So as I understand one can not run conservation agriculture on organic farming mode in long run or  under continuous cropping, though the soil ecology and quality changes due to no-tillage  or minimum tillage farming,residue retention  on soil surface and crop rotations.Also as mentioned in one of your earlier responses enhanced yield under conservation agriculture compared to conventional agriculture is not always possible, though soil soil quality improvement including carbon sequestration and good water storage ,transportation  in soil etc are possible.

I find interesting information in the abstract provided  by Dr.Hepperly above.In the 8 years study on mollisol the organic carbon and N increased only in 0-5 cm layer.Below that depth change is not conspicuous.The metaanalysis of CA experiments showed increase of carbon sequestration by about 330kg SOC/ha/yr.The conversion factor for carbon from plow/conventional to conservation agriculture is 1.04 indicating  relatively small change in carbon sequestration.We have to generate similar information for Indian/ tropical conditions.For organic farming the situation is different as one applies decomposed /humified manure in good amount and is also incorporated in soil.This may provide scope for greater C sequestration especially in temperate  regions.

Interesting feedback..we had unfinished discussion on this very important issue..Organic farming versus conservation agriculture..

Organic farmers’ motivations and challenges for adopting conservation agriculture in Europe (Organic Agriculture,December 2016, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 281–295,DOI: 10.1007/s13165-015-0136-0)

Abstract

Conservation agriculture and organic farming are considered as promising sustainable agricultural system for producing food, while minimizing environmental impacts. Despite an increasing number of experimental data on organic conservation practices and various studies dealing with the adoption of conservation agriculture by farmers, none of those studies have specifically addressed conservation agriculture adoption under organic conditions in Europe. We carried out a survey with 159 farmers located in 10 European countries. These farmers had applied at least two of the following conservation practices: (i) no-tillage, (ii) reduced tillage and (iii) green manures. Each farmer assessed socio-economic, agronomic and environmental motivations and problems for each conservation practice, using a Likert scale. For each conservation practice, we ranked motivations and problems and carried out a principal component analysis, followed by clustering to identify groups of farmers. Independent of the conservation practices, the most important motivations were related to soil fertility preservation and challenges were mainly linked to crop management, machinery and yield performances. For all conservation practices, we identify three groups of farmers that shared the same type of motivations and challenges across Europe: “soil conservationists,” “agro-technically challenged farmers,” and “indifferent farmers.” Soil conservationist farmers were strongly motivated by soil preservation and minimizing environmental impacts. Agro-technically challenged farmers mainly expressed agronomic problems and challenges. There were no clear effects of location or farm characteristics explaining these attitudes, but they depended on farmers’ environmental concerns and beliefs. The study demonstrated that research priorities should address agronomic problems caused by the adoption of conservation practices in organic farming, weed control in particular.

Another very interesting work..

Conservation Agriculture in Organic Farming: Experiences, Challenges and Opportunities in Europe ( ChapterConservation Agriculture, pp 559-5780 , Springer publication )

Abstract

Conservation tillage includes a range of tillage practices, mostly non-inversion, which aim to reduce soil erosion by leaving the soil surface covered by crop residues. Despite conservation tillage having been promoted in organic farming (OF) to improve inherent soil quality, several factors hinder its development such as weed control and soil compaction. Consequently, to enhance the adoption of conservation tillage in OF, long-term experiments were established several years ago in Europe. Different tillage techniques have been assessed from mouldboard ploughing to direct drilling under cover crops. In all cases, the effects of conservation vs. conventional tillage on soil fertility and weed and crop development were compared. Preliminary results show that the effects of conservation tillage are closely related to soil and climatic conditions, practices conducted in the field, and initial experimental conditions (level of weeds, previous crop, soil structure, etc.). Direct seeding under a cover crop or mulch remains a major challenge in OF, since weeds are not mechanically controlled, which thus affect crop performance. However, with other reduced tillage techniques, such as using a layer cultivator, weed development has had minimal effects with no impact on yields. In addition, to improved soil fertility, reduced tillage can increase crop yields. Most of the results of conservation tillage effects were obtained from experiments conducted for less than 10 years under OF management. Assessment over longer periods is needed and then shared with organic farmers to design new cropping systems. Introduction of new equipment and knowledge exchanges between conventional farmers practising conservation tillage and organic farmers could improve the adoption of conservation tillage in OF.

Is conservation agriculture better than organic farming?

Organic farming has positioned itself as the current state of the art in "green" agriculture. The industry has exploded, growing by 20 percent every year since the late '90s]. "Organic" isn't only a top choice for the very health-conscious, but also for the ecologically conscious: In organics, synthetic chemicals that can damage the land and leech into rivers are a no-no, and particular crops are planted where they'll thrive naturally, instead of adjusting the land to suit the desired product.In terms of health, it's a logical jump to say that a naturally grown carrot could be better for us than ­one grown using, say, pesticides. But is organic farming as healthy for the Earth as it is for our bodies?

Another approach to farming has emerged that raises this very question. It's not a household word like "organic," but it has been around as a cohesive agricultural practice for decades. Farmers practice conservation agriculture (CA) around the world, but it's only now starting to get a lot of press as an eco-friendly approach to agriculture. CA is challenging organic farming for the greenest of the green labels.

Both methods try to maintain a balance between agriculture and resources. Conservation farming and organic farming rotate crops in order to keep the land fertile, plant cover crops to retain water, and replenish soil's organic matter to cultivate pest-resistance and high nutrient value. Boiled down to its most basic, there is one primary difference between organic and conservation agriculture: Organic farmers till (plow) the soil to prepare for planting, while conservation farmers avoid tilling unless there's no other choice. They leave the soil cover intact and get the seeds in the ground another way.COURTESY U.S. WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Let us frame some opinion , whether oragnic farming and conservation compliment each other..?

How organic farmers practice conservation agriculture in Europe ( Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: Page 1 of 14 doi:10.1017/S1742170514000477)

Abstract

The interest of organic farmers in adopting conservation agriculture principles, including minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotation has been growing since the early 2000s. However, currently there is no network for

organic farmers practicing conservation agriculture, and a lack of knowledge on how organic farmers implement conservation agriculture in practice. Consequently, few technical references are available for organic farmers when they start applying conservation agriculture practices, in particular on controlling weeds without the use of herbicides. The main objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the diversity of conservation agriculture techniques (i.e., reduced tillage, notillage and green manures) practiced among European farmers, and (2) to identify farmers’ main strategies for implementing conservation agriculture and the agronomic and environmental factors that determine these strategies. Strategies were identified by analyzing survey results on: (1) the type and degree of use of conservation agriculture practices by farmers, and (2) the effects it produces in terms of soil disturbance and soil cover (low, medium and high). We carried out a survey of 159 European organic farmers and collected 125 data sets on  management of winter-sown crops. Among the conservation agriculture practices, reduced tillage was used by 89%, no-tillage by 27% and green manure by 74% of the 159 interviewed farmers. Green manures were more frequently used in northern Europe than in the south (below 45°N). Most of the farmers used crop rotations, with a mean duration of 6 years. A wide diversity of conservation agriculture practices were used, with farmers rarely using all three techniques (no-till, reduced till and green manures) within one system. The range of practices was grouped into five strategies ranging from intensive non-inversion tillage without soil cover to very innovative techniques with no-tillage and intercrops. The five strategies for conservation agriculture could be grouped into two larger categories based on weed control approach: (1) intensification of the mechanical work without soil inversion or (2) biological regulation of weeds with cover crops. The diversity of strategies identified in this study shows that organic farmers use innovative approaches to implement conservation agriculture without herbicides. This study’s findings will help organic farmers to experiment with innovative practices based on  conservation.agriculture principles and also benefit conventional farmers who use conservation agriculture practices and would like to reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides.

Heartiest Thanks Dr. Anoop for providing good coverage of information related to CA and Organic farming. The ultimate objective in one line is to maintain a balance between agriculture and resources.

Thanks Dr Malhotra. This wonderful discussion has really opend up pandora box of issues like organic farming , minimum tillage , natural farming  etc etc ..which i feel , compliment each other . If good synergies are developed amongst various kinds of practices , we are sure , we can not only sustain our agriculture without depleting natural resources , but better dividends are also on the cards..

Interesting work..

Conservation agriculture, organic farming and GM crops in Germany..PDF enclosed for further reading

The major advantage of conservation agriculture over organic and traditional agriculture is it improves both soil , water and environmental quality.

I agree totally with you Dr. J. C. Tarafdar, but also it is considered a system to adopt and to cope with the climatic changes especially in the dry lands.

 Compliments to Dr. Taraf and Masnat for good comments. In few words Dr. Taraf has explained benefits. To improve soil water and environment quality, how efficiently we could boost natural biological processes above and below the ground through conservation agriculture. Really we need to look from scientific perspective.

How effective you consider CA with field crops over fruit crops and vice- versa

Conservation agriculture will be more effective with field crops because of frequent crop rotation and shall also check erosion due to crop cover. Whereas for fruit crops in the early stage of newly planted orchard crops field crops need to play role as an intercrop to achieve the very objective of CA. Later on when tree crops are fully grown to canopy, leaf shed will provide good crop cover. But field crops including pulses has to play greater role in both cases.  

Thanks abhishek for very good link you provided. yes we need to look in larger perspective for meeting the food, feed, fodder and energy requirements from plants.

We have debated .CA with emphasis on field crops.Lets have some discussion on conservation horticulture  on one hand and organic horticulture on the other hand since the combination of the two has invariably provided better results than either of the two alone...

Conservation agriculture involves changing many conventional farming including organic horticulture practices as well as mind-set of farmers. Conservation agriculture also has the potential to counter the mistaken perception that soil cultivation is essential for higher crop production. There are instances where system productivity has increased under CA as the sustainability of CA systems largely depends on systematic crop rotations, cropping systems ( agri-horti, silvi-pasture, horti-pasture etc.) and in situ crop residue management coupled with adequate plant nutrition. Thus, the task for policy makers and development partners is to give this innovative approach to agriculture a chance with farmers whose practical experience makes them skeptical that crops can not grow on land that has not been prepared with heavy ploughing.

Some good points are tossed up by Dr Tarafdar . The farmers also need to be warned of , about the on-going changes in climate , thereby , affecting their agricultuire so miserably and so hopelessly . while educating them , CA becomes a very natural choice , though, there are certain very candid myths about CA as well , amidst such a mechanised farming ...

Just now , i was reading through an excellent review entitled Modeling the biomass of energy crops: Descriptions, strengths and prospective..Excerpts are reproduced below:

Abstract

The assessment of the biomass of energy crops has garnered widespread interest since renewable bioenergy may become a substantial proportion of the future energy supply, and modeling has been widely used for the simulation of energy crops yields. A literature survey revealed that 23 models have been developed or adapted for simulating the biomass of energy crops, including Miscanthus, switchgrass, maize, poplar, willow, sugarcane, and Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Three categories (radiation model, water-controlled crop model, and integrated model with biochemical and photosynthesis and respiration approaches) were addressed for the selected models according to different principles or approaches used to simulate biomass production processes. EPIC, ALMANAC, APSIM, ISAM, MISCANMOD, MISCANFOR, SILVA, DAYCENT, APEX and SWAT are radiation models based on a radiation use efficiency approach (RUE) with few empirical and statistical parameters. The AquaCrop model is a typical water-crop model that emphasizes crop water use, the expression of canopy cover, and the separation of evapotranspiration to soil evaporation and plant transpiration to drive crop growth. CANEGRO, 3PG, CropSyst and DSSAT are integrated models that use photosynthesis and respiration approaches. SECRETS, LPJmL, Agro-BGC, Agro-IBIS, and WIMOVAC/BioCro, DNDC, DRAINMOD-GRASS, and AgTEM are integrated models that use biochemical approaches. Integrated models are mainly mechanistic models or combined with functional models, which are dynamic with spatial and temporal patterns but with complex parameters and large amounts of input data. Energy crop models combined with process-based models, such as EPIC in SWAT and CANEGRO in DSSAT, provide good examples that consider the biophysical, socioeconomic, and environmental responses and address the sustainability and socioeconomic goals for energy crops. The use of models for energy crop productivity is increasing rapidly and encouraging; however, relevant databases, such as climate, land use/land cover, soil, topography, and management databases, are scarce. Model structure and design assumptions, as well as input parameters and observed data, remain a challenge for model development and validation. Thus, a comprehensive framework, which includes a high-quality field database and an uncertainty evaluation system, needs to be established for modeling the biomass of energy crops. source :Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(6): 1197–1210, PDF enclosed for further reading...

Excellent feedback Dr. Srivsatava. Worth reading manuscript .

Yes it is correct ultimate aim is to reverse the process of degradation inherent to  intensive agriculture, burning/removal of crop residues. But an integrated management system for different agroclimate is needed based on available soil, water and biological resources combined with external inputs. Question before us is how we can make it more resource efficient and is well accepted by farmers.