Cassava best planting practices use case
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes411 views
The document discusses best planting practices for cassava in Nigeria. It proposes changes for 2017, including reducing costs by limiting plowing to a single plowing and shaping soil through ridging. It also recommends establishing an optimal planting density of 12,500 plants per hectare and assessing fertilizer response under different tillage systems. A revised trial approach is outlined testing plowing, soil shaping, fertilizer, and weed control factors. Implementation details such as site selection and timelines are provided.
Cassava best planting practices use case
- 1. African Cassava Agronomy Initiative (ACAI) First annual review and planning workshop, 5-7 Dec 2016, Ibadan Nigeria Best Planting Practices OYSCGA
- 2. Cassava Best planting practices use case Stefan Hauser, Root & Tuber Crop Systems Agronomist African Cassava Agronomy Initiative (ACAI) First annual review and planning workshop, 5-7 Dec 2016, Ibadan Nigeria
- 3. Best Planting Practices (BPP) Proposed changes for the Implementation in 2017
- 4. 1. Reduce cost of land preparation and crop establishment Keep single and zero plow; (stop double plowing) Double plowing – often only done to control weed and not being successful - has no advantage over single plowing. The disadvantage of zero plowing can be balanced by ridging. 2. Reduce risk of erosion and other soil physical degradation Engage earlier to direct farmers and tractor operators to plow across the slope.
- 5. 3. Establish optimal planting density Depending on final harvest results, reduce to 1 density (most likely 12500 ha-1) 4. Assess fertilizer response x tillage Adjust fertilizer composition and rate according to results of FR and BPP trials.
- 6. NEW! 5. Add a weed control component either as a treatment or integrate observations on weed control and weed infestation. Best herbicide options as determined by the Cassava Weed management project should be used.
- 7. Effect on root yield of different weed control options and frequencies 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Usefulcassavafreshrootyield(kgha-1) 0 1 2 3 4 22.9 Mg/ha Number of weedings / sprayings 24.9 Mg/ha
- 8. Revised Approach: Factors to be tested - (1) Plowing – 2 levels: zero, single (2) Shaping the soil – 2 levels: flat soil versus ridging (3) Fertilizer – 2 levels: Nil versus 75:20:90 kg ha-1 N, P, K (4) Weed control - (x) Planting density – fixed: 12500 ha-1
- 9. Field implementation At 2 levels of plowing a full treatment set (1 replicate) is 16 plots. With early engagement and plow tillage at the charge (choice) of the farmer we need to convince them to not plow a sufficiently large portion of their future cassava field so the Zero plow treatment can be installed
- 10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © Flat Ridged Flat Ridged 29.6 Single plowing Zero Plowing Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NILBest choice herbicide based weed control. Farmers’ choice of weed control
- 11. Farmers may choose to have two plow treatments in different sites as long as field history is the same or very similar. Preference will be given to sites where the 2 plow treatments are in immediate neighbourhood. Ridging has to be done across the slope. Fields will be selected on the basis of permitting erosion control through appropriate tillage operations. Where requested and possible plots will be larger than in 2016. Space between treatments will remain as small as possible to reduce border effects and weed infestation.
- 12. Observations, measurements, samplings At 2 and 4 WAP sprouting / establishment and replacement of missing stakes, At 8 WAP growth evaluation, weed assessment and ceptometer At 12 - 16 WAP growth evaluation, weed assessment and ceptometer At 17-18 WAP sampling of 2 youngest fully developed leaves, weed assessment At 24 WAP growth evaluation and ceptometer readings, weed assessment At 48-50 WAP final harvest
- 13. January and February Hold planning meetings with NARS and development partners. Site selection / drop and select new LGAs and EAs Identify future cassava sites of all participating farmers Explain in detail the trials, objectives and responsibilities to farmers Flag the plow treatments in the future cassava fields Plan the training of the EAs or other person as Spray operator. Time lines
- 14. March Peg trials in Sites that were already plowed. Assess if pre emergence herbicide is advisable and treat. Prepare for the final harvest of the 2016 planted trials. April Conduct the final harvest – start planting if rains permit Enter harvest data immediately to get results and do adjustments based on results. May Continue planting Thereafter according to caldendar
- 15. Thank you TME 419, TMS 30572, Single plow, Single plow, Ridged, Ridged, Intercropped sole cassava, Fertilizer applied, Fertilizer applied 20000 plants/ha 10000 plants/ha
- 16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 80 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 100 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © Flat Ridged Flat Ridged Single plowing Zero Plowing 0 15 17 32 T32T15T0 T17 252487 T8T7 T24 T25 Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL If at 1 fixed plant density, one part of the plots can be treated with herbicide, the other left to farmers’ weed control
- 17. Time of application Type of Fertilizer Applied amounts (kg ha-1) WAP fertilizer rate (kg ha-1) N P K 4 NPK 15:15:15 150 22.5 9.81 18.675 8 NPK 15:15:15 150 22.5 9.81 18.675 12 urea 65.22 30 16 MOP 52.62 26.31 20 MOP 52.62 26.31 total 75 19.62 89.97 Fertilizer types, quantities and application times
- 18. Challenges In most trial sites cows are roaming and in some places trials were partially destroyed by grazing cows. Weed infestation and late or poor weeding will cause yield differences not related to the treatments. Certain observations will produce invalid data (ceptometer) Disregard of simple erosion control measures at the time of the basic tillage – plowing up and down the slope.
- 19. OYSCGA
- 20. Where does Africa stand in cassava production? YIELD In cassava we may well look at a yield gap equivalent to 90% of the yield potential. 80 Mg ha-1 fresh roots are often quoted as a potential but on single plant basis 120 Mg ha-1 are possible.
- 21. Production and yield statistics, general situation 0 30 60 90 Potential Yield Attainable Yield good management poor management Freshrootyield(Mg/ha) India Thailand, Brazil