New FAO INVESTMENT CENTRE - EastAgri note_Print.pdf · 2012. 12. 6. · Kazakhstan (Akmola, Kostanay, and North Kazakhstan regions, which produce about 90 percent of the wheat output

�

Information note - Kazakhstan

FAO INVESTMENT CENTREAdvancement and impact of conservation agriculture/no-till technology adoption in Kazakhstan

Information NoteDecember 6, 2012�

CA/No-till Adoption

Adoption of conservation agriculture/no-till (CA/NT) technology is progressing

steadily in Kazakhstan. According to a recently completed assessment done

by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) -

Kazakhstan,� which updates an estimation done in �008,� no-till in the country

is practiced on at least� �.85 million hectares. A remarkable �00 percent

advancement in 5 years.

CIMMYT surveyed farms and interviewed farmers (�0��-�0��) in northern

Kazakhstan (Akmola, Kostanay, and North Kazakhstan regions, which produce

about 90 percent of the wheat output of the country) to ascertain the actual

� This note presents the findings of a FAO-Investment Centre mission to Kazakhstan (��.�0-�.��, �0��) by Turi Fileccia (Senior Agronomist) and Anara Jumabayeva (Senior Economist) in the framework of a broader Implementation Completion Results Report mission for the World Bank-funded Agriculture Competitiveness Project. The mission interacted with Maurizio Guadagni, Senior Agriculturalist of the World Bank, who shared continuous guidance. The findings were discussed on ��st October, �0�� with the Vice-Minister, Mr. Uniraev, Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of Kazakhstan. � Ресурсосберегающие �е��о�огии �� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� е��о�огии �� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и��е��о�огии �� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и��е��е�е�ии �а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и��а�а�с�а�а�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и��сос�о��ие�� а��уа��е �а�а�и�� а��уа��е �а�а�и��а��уа��е �а�а�и�� а�а�и��а�а�и�� ре�о�е��ации и �ерс�е��и�� и �ерс�е��и��и �ерс�е��и�� ерс�е��и��ерс�е��и�� CIMMYT-Kazakhstan, �0��.� Mekhlis SULEIMENOV for CIMMYT, �008. � The CIMMYT assessment regards the three main cereal producing regions (oblasts) of Kazakhstan: Akmola, Kostanay and North Kazakhstan. By design it does not consider no-till adoption in other oblasts. It is likely that another �00,000 hectares are available in Karaganda and that around �00,000 ha are practiced in the southern oblasts of Kazakhstan. This would move the overall no-till area in the country beyond � million hectares.

�

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2007 2010 2011 2012

600

1220.01440.0

1850.0

Chart 1: Progress of No-till Area in Kazakhstan

'000 hectares

no-till area. The assessment was supported by a grant provided through the

Agriculture Competitiveness Project (ACP), funded by the World Bank and

the Government of Kazakhstan. Under the supervision of acknowledged

experts,5 CIMMYT analyzed information and consulted with officials of the

Ministry of Agriculture subdivisions; local government and territorial agricultural

departments; the research-advisory holding KazAgroInnovation (KAI);

research institutions; financing institutions and commercial banks; agricultural

machinery companies; the Farmers Union of Kazakhstan; and a wide range

of other stakeholders. A three-day seminar and an ad hoc questionnaire� (see

Attachment) was filled by over �50 farmers and chief agronomists at the KAI

Knowledge Dissemination Centre in Shorthandy (Akmola oblast). On-farm

verification questionnaires were subsequently discussed with farm managers.

As a result of this assessment, Kazakhstan can be ranked as the ninth country

in the world in terms of acreage with CA/no-till technology, and second after

Russia in the Eastern Europe - Central Asia (ECA) region.

5 Murat Karabayev and Arman Baitassov of CIMMYT; and Ivan Vasco, an agro-economist and former researcher of the BARAYEV Grain Farming Scientific Research Institute (Shorthandy, Akmola). � The structure of the questionnaire is engineered in a manner that allows the validation of those farms which actually practice no-till technology. A number of farms which otherwise apply Minimum-tillage or that used to follow no-till but that have overtime discontinued this technology, have been excluded.

Chart 1: Progress of no-till area in Kazakhstan

�


Together with China, Kazakhstan appears to have been be fastest� in adoption

speed; while the country has achieved a significant � percent in terms of

proportion of no-till area as compared to the overall cultivated area, which

ranks it at the 13th position in the world, only four scores behind the USA that

otherwise is the first country for no-till total area world-wide.

Impact of no-till technology over wheat production

The latest MOA estimate� on net wheat production in 2012 is of 10.� million tons

out of a reported 13.5 million hectare sown area. At the same time, this year

(2012) the no-till area (considering only �0 percent of the overall updated no-till

� According to an earlier classification (200�, T. �riedrich and �. �epersch), China and Kazakhstan had According to an earlier classification (200�, T. �riedrich and �. �epersch), China and Kazakhstan had respectively, 1.3 and 1.2 million hectares under no-till technology. � �ersonal communication of the Crops �roduction �epartment �irector of MOA (30.10.12). �ersonal communication of the Crops �roduction �epartment �irector of MOA (30.10.12).

Conservation agriculture area

(1000 ha)1 United States of America 26,5002 Argentina 25,5533 Brazil 25,5024 Australia 17,0005 Canada 13,4816 Russia 4,5007 China 3,1008 Paraguay 2,4009 Kazakhstan 1,85010 Bolivia 70611 Uruguay 65512 Spain 65013 Ukraine 60014 South Africa 36815 Venezuela 30016 France 20017 Zambia 20018 Chile 18019 New Zealand 16220 Finland 160

TOTAL 124,067Others 1,000

Source: FAO Aquastat, 2012; Miss ion update for Kazakhstan

Table 1: General overview of CA/No-till Adoption in the World

�

area assumed as used under this crop) would have produced an estimated 1.�

million tons of wheat. The incremental wheat production only because of no-till

area is hence projected to be 0.�2 million tons, equivalent to around 220 million

dollars (average �OB prices).

On the same assumptions, the adoption of CA/No-till technology in Kazakhstan

has enabled an increased wheat production of almost 2 million tons, equivalent

to about 5�0 million dollars incremental income over the last three years (2010-

2012). Importantly, in food security terms this incremental production is in

average able to satisfy the annual cereal requirements of some 5 million people

(@130kg/per capita/year). In terms of Climate Change Mitigation, Kazakhstan

would contribute to the sequestration of about 1.3 million tons of CO2 (@ 0.�

ton/ha, which is the I�CC coefficient).

Chart 2: Conservation agriculture areas as % of cultivated area

80

62

37

36

34

30

26

18

16

10 9

77 6 4 4 2 2

2

1

Argentina

Paraguay

Brazil

Australia

Uruguay

New Zealand

Canada

Bolivia

United States of America

Chile

Venezuela

Finland

Kazakhstan

Zambia

Spain

Russia

China

South Africa

Ukraine

France

Chart 2: Conservation agriculture area as % of cultivated area

�


10,700.0

9,982.1

717.9Wheat production 2012 ('000 tons)

Estimated wheat production 2012 if there wasn't any no -till area ('000 tons)

Incremental wheat production ('000 tons)

Chart 3: Incremental production due to No -till technology in 2012

(A ctual production from no - till area in 2012 is 1.8 million tons)

Chart 3: Incremental production due to No-till technology in 2012

Basic assumptions used for calculations (see also Tables in attachment)

• No-till area: CIMMYT’s latest assessment;• Wheat No-till area: assumed as 80% of the total No-till area (allowing for

20% of fallow and/or other crops);• Traditional agriculture technology yields calculated on total wheat area and

production not considering the no-till area and production;• No-till yields (2010;2011) calculated with higher performances on traditional

agriculture technology yields (+40% in a dry/drought year; +30% in a normal/good year; based also on previous personal assessments (2008, 2009) and validated with no-till Kazakh researchers);

• No-till yields (2012) field direct assessment (farmers, researchers, agronomists) in Kostanay, Akmola (and Karaganda) while for North Kazakhstan, these are estimated based on discussions with a wide range of stakeholders;

• Wheat/All grains area and production from official statistics;• Wheat area and production of 2012 is based on preliminary indications of

MOA Crop Production Department• Incremental production and income (2010-2012) is calculated from actual

production (2012 is estimated) and income of the total area by deducting that which would result from the same area should the no-till area also be under traditional technologies;

• Wheat prices have been calculated through FOB average prices in USD/ton.

(Actual production from no-till area in �0�� is �.8 million tons)

�

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

20102011

2012

0.65

1.58

0.83

1.02

2.34

1.23Traditional technology (t/ha)

No till technology (t/ha)

C ha rt 4: W hea t P ro duc tivityin K a z a hs ta n

Chart 4: Wheat productivity in Kazahstan

364

883

718

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2011 2012

Thousand tons

$75

$283

$219

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2010 2011 2012

US$ million

4% 4%

7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2010 2011 2012

Percentage of Total Production

3

6

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012

Million People Fed

Chart 5: Kazahstan - Benefits resulting from CA/NT adoption at national level

Thousand tons US$ million

Percentage of total production Million people fed

�


In addition to these economic, social and environmental benefits, the adoption of

no-till in Kazakhstan is also enabling cost of production savings to the concerned

farmers that are calculated at around USD �5/ha and would now be standing

at about �0 million dollars per year (less fuel, less seed, and over time less

herbicide use). In this regard, it is estimated that farmers in northern Kazakhstan

have invested about USD �00 million to equip their farms with no-till machinery

(@ �00-��0 USD/ha).

Contribution of the Agricultural Competitiveness Project (ACP)

The objective of the ACP (�00�-�0��)9 was to increase the competitiveness

of the agricultural sector in Kazakhstan. To achieve this objective, the project

intended facilitating access to markets by supporting measures to improve the

quality and safety of agricultural products, enhance access to information, and

harmonize standards. The project was also to help increase the quality, quantity,

and relevance of applied agricultural research and facilitate transfer of knowledge

to farmers. In this respect, ACP supported and contributed in many ways to the

expansion of No-till technology adoption in Kazakhstan. This technology highly

contributed to the achievement of three out of four Key Outcome Indicators of

the project (increased farmers’ income; increased value of agricultural exports;

and beneficiaries’ satisfaction).

One of the project components was set to improve agricultural research and

extension systems in Kazakhstan. The main mechanism to pursue this endeavor

was through the Competitive Grant Scheme (CGS), which is a demand-

driven instrument that required researchers and farmers to work together for

technology on-farm testing and demonstrations. About �� CGS out of 585,

were awarded for reduced tillage initiatives; and �9 grants were specifically

addressing no-till technology. On its own, this would entail investing on some

8,500�0 ha. Following positive results the majority of the farmers have expanded

the technology to the rest of their farm areas (at least �5,000-50,000 ha)��.

9 http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P0�9��/agricultural-competitiveness-project?lang=en.�0 In each farm the area used for CGS activities is around �00 hectares. �� Assuming �9 farms of an average size of �,500 ha (small/medium scale farms).

�

It is estimated that the replication effect of no-till technology induced by ACP

would regard some �50,000 – �00,000 ha (around �0 percent of the overall no-till

area in the country)��. Apart from the obligatory dissemination activity of grant

results imposed to the grantees upon contract signature, the ACP-sponsored

Extension activities managed by KAI have contributed to technology adoption

expansion through seminars in KAI knowledge centers, direct consultancies

and through the KAI-assisted call centers. The Project Coordination Centre also

organized every year country-level conferences, which were widely attended,

to promote the project and its achievements (see also in Attachment a no-till

promotion flyer prepared during project implementation).

Additional considerations on No-till in the Kazakhstan context13

a. Northern Kazakhstan is a semi-arid steppe which is also the wheat basket of

Central Asia (�0-�� million tons per year of wheat, annually).

b. Forty percent of the precipitation (ranging between �50 and �00 mm

depending on location) is in the form of snow. The strong winds typical of the

steppe remove a large share of the snow, which mostly sublimates without

increasing soil moisture. In the worst cases when snow is not captured

and melts abruptly with raising temperatures in spring, heavy runoff with

consequent soil erosion issues are at high risk. Maximum advantage must be

taken of this form of precipitation to enhance soil moisture. No-till is the most

appropriate technology to capture snow (through high stubble left standing

in the fields) and to make optimal use of all precipitations preserved in an

improved soil (structure, organic matter) ‘tank’.

c. No-till allows for yield gains assessed to be in the range of +�5-�0%,

moving to +�0%/+80%, and more during dry/drought years. No-till is also

�� According to Professor Yushenko of the Central Kazakhstan Research Institute, the �000 ha CGS trials in Karaganda region have had a reduced tillage replication effect by progressive farmers of around �00 times (covering some ��% of the entire cropped area in the oblast). A preliminary extrapolation can be made for the entire country (�9 NT CGS @ �00 ha each * �00 times). �� The reader may also want to refer to a previous technical note on No-till technology in Kazakhstan by Turi Fileccia (�009), posted on FAO’s Conservation Agriculture website (http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/Importance_Zero_Tillage_Northern_Kazakhstan.pdf).

�


contributing to improved diversification in Kazakhstan: oil seeds and pulses

area is increasing��.

d. No-till is not new to Kazakhstan. Pioneers (like M. Suleimenov, V.I.

Dvurechesky, K. Akshalov, I. Yushenko, then FAO and the CIMMYT

country office led by Murat Karabayev) have opened and paved the road.

No-till acreage has now reached an appreciable threshold and the trend

is for further expansion. Kazakh farms are improving their organizational

status and are now grouped around a No-till Farmers Association with a

membership of around �50 farmers.�5

e. No-till is still “young” in Kazakhstan and does not yet show its full potential

benefit as it does in countries that have been practicing the technology

for many years. Five to seven years of continued no-till are required for

the technology to produce most of its benefits; before that, the soils may

not have fully acquired the improved structure, weed management is still

complex, and thus benefits compared with traditional technology and even

minimum tillage appear less significant.

f. No-till imposes important farm organizational changes and know-how

updates most of which are necessarily farm-specific. Crop rotation, essential

under proper Conservation Agriculture, is contentious since the market for

crops other than wheat is not yet fully developed in north Kazakhstan. This

is a real challenge which at times discourages farm managers, leading to

reversals. It is important that both farm management and technicians work

at same pace and have the same resilience. Nevertheless, even if it appears

that there have been some reversals from ‘proper’ no-till to minimum tillage,

it also seems confirmed that overall the no-till area is still advancing.

g. GOK has contributed to expand the no-till area by setting an enabling

environment with ad hoc national policies, financial support (subsidies), and with

the World Bank-funded ACP project. Agricultural machinery companies which

are specialized in no-till equipment have also been instrumental in promoting the

technology and are expanding their market position in Kazakhstan.

�� See USDA TRIP reports, and ACP-CGS results and economic & financial analyses.�5 Personal communication of V.I. Dvurechesky, president of the Association.

�0

h. More R&D is required but it should be more business/farm specific

(definitely on-farm with full involvement of farm managers and technicians

like e.g. the ACP CGS model). More international Conservation Agriculture/

No-till expertise and advice is required at farm level. Larger farms have more

opportunity and capacity to move ahead faster; smaller farms (�0% of the

wheat producers) require more assistance and support.

i. Regional collaboration is important; Kazakhstan is qualified to become the

‘champion’ of no-till in the ECA region.

The World Bank and FAO are considering a joint communication effort to disseminate the lessons learned in Kazakhstan. Press releases, regional conferences, documentaries, and other communication channels are being discussed to propose Kazakhstan as a regional champion in the adoption of this technology. The lessons learnt in Kazakhstan can be useful for neighboring countries such as Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia. Given the environmental benefits produced by the adoption of this technology, there could be the potential to attract international financing.

��


ATTAChMENTS

Attachment 1 Definition of Conservation Agriculture/No Tillage (CA/NT)

Attachment 2 CIMMYT Questionnaire

Attachment 3 Main Assumptions and Calculations

Attachment 4 Photos

Attachment 5 ACP Flyer, July 2008

Attachment � Definition of Conservation Agriculture/No Tillage (CA/NT)

According to FAO (http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/), Conservation Agriculture (CA)

is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained

productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing

the resource base and the environment. CA is characterized by three linked

principles, namely:

�. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance.

�. Permanent organic soil cover.

�. 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. Soil interventions

such as mechanical soil disturbance are reduced to an absolute minimum or

avoided, and external inputs such as agrochemicals and plant nutrients of

mineral or organic origin are applied optimally and in ways and quantities that do

not interfere with, or disrupt, the biological processes.

CA facilitates good agronomy, such as timely operations, and improves overall

land husbandry for rain fed and irrigated production. Complemented by other

known good practices, including the use of quality seeds, and integrated pest,

nutrient, weed and water management, etc., CA is a base for sustainable

��

agricultural production intensification. It opens increased options for integration

of production sectors, such as crop-livestock integration and the integration of

trees and pastures into agricultural landscapes.

The three principles of conservation agriculture include:

• Direct planting of crop seeds involving growing crops without mechanical

seedbed preparation and with minimal soil disturbance since the harvest of

the previous crop. The term direct seeding is understood in CA systems as

synonymous with no-till farming, zero tillage, no-tillage, direct drilling, etc.

Planting refers to the precise placing of large seeds (maize and beans for

example); whereas seeding usually refers to a continuous flow of seed as in

the case of small cereals (e.g. wheat and barley). The equipment penetrates

the soil cover, opens a seeding slot and places the seed into that slot. The

size of the seed slot and the associated movement of soil are to be kept at

the absolute minimum possible. Ideally the seed slot is completely covered

by mulch again after seeding and no loose soil should be visible on the

surface. Land preparation for seeding or planting under no-tillage involves

slashing or rolling the weeds, previous crop residues or cover crops; or

spraying herbicides for weed control, and seeding directly through the

mulch. Crop residues are retained either completely or to a suitable amount

to guarantee the complete soil cover, and fertilizer and amendments are

either broadcast on the soil surface or applied during seeding.

• Permanent soil cover, especially by crop residues and cover crops. A

permanent soil cover is important to: protect the soil against the deleterious

effects of exposure to precipitations and sun; to provide the micro and

macro organisms in the soil with a constant supply of “food”; and alter the

microclimate in the soil for optimal growth and development of soil organisms,

including plant roots. The effects of a permanent soil cover include:

- Improved infiltration and retention of soil moisture resulting in less

severe, less prolonged crop water stress and increased availability of

plant nutrients;

- Source of food and habitat for diverse soil life: creation of channels

for air and water, biological tillage and substrate for biological activity

through the recycling of organic matter and plant nutrients;

- Increased humus formation;

- Reduction of impact of rain drops on soil surface resulting in reduced

crusting and surface sealing;

��


- Consequential reduction of runoff and erosion;

- Soil regeneration is higher than soil degradation;

- Mitigation of temperature variations on and in the soil; and

- Better conditions for the development of roots and seedling growth.

• Crop diversity The rotation of crops is not only necessary to offer a diverse

“diet” to the soil micro-organisms, but as they root at different soil depths,

they are capable of exploring different soil layers for nutrients. Nutrients

that have been leached to deeper layers and that are no longer available for

the commercial crop, can be “recycled” by the crops in rotation. This way

the rotation crops function as biological pumps. Furthermore, a diversity of

crops in rotation leads to a diverse soil flora and fauna, as the roots excrete

different organic substances that attract different types of bacteria and

fungi, which in turn, play an important role in the transformation of these

substances into plant available nutrients. Crop rotation also has an important

phytosanitary function as it prevents the carryover of crop-specific pests and

diseases from one crop to the next via crop residues. The effects of Crop

Rotation include:

- Higher diversity in plant production and thus in human and livestock

nutrition;

- Reduction and reduced risk of pest and weed infestations;

- Greater distribution of channels or bio-pores created by diverse roots

(various forms, sizes and depths);

- Better distribution of water and nutrients through the soil profile;

- Exploration for nutrients and water of diverse strata of the soil profile

by roots of many different plant species resulting in a greater use of the

available nutrients and water;

- Increased nitrogen fixation through certain plant-soil biota symbionts

and improved balance of N/P/K from both organic and mineral sources;

and

- Increased humus formation.

Land preparation definitions for northern KazakhstanThe agro-ecosystem of northern Kazakhstan is unusual, with extremely cold and

windy winters, low precipitations, a large share of which is in the form of snow.

Farms in the vast steppe areas are generally large to very large, and mostly

cropped with wheat. In these conditions traditional ploughing� (entailing turning

� Spelled “plowing” in American English

��

over the upper soil layer) is virtually not practiced because soil erosion would be

so strong that farming would not be possible.

Using a global scale, this region widely practices a range of “minimum-tillage”

technologies. The region is also and progressively moving towards “(no) zero-

tillage”, which is just a step behind full-fledged Conservation Agriculture.

The traditional technology in northern Kazakhstan entails several tillage

operations each season with wide (shoe type) blades that cut the roots of

weeds. This disturbs the soil, although less than traditional ploughing.

“Reduced or minimum tillage” in North Kazakhstan is when direct seeding and

a reduced number of pre-sowing / weed removing tillage operations are also

practiced.

In northern Kazakhstan, the adoption of proper “Zero-tillage” technology starts

by keeping the stubble of the preceding crop the highest possible during the

winter; by a chemical weed treatment; and a direct seeding of the seasonal crop

on a field which has maintained the (previous) crop residues. The advantage of

this practice is well acknowledged as it allows improved snow trapping (by the

stubble) and increased yields immediately.

However, a common practice is to have Zero tillage (as described above) for �-�

years in a row followed by mechanical fallow (implying several weed destroying

tillage and soil disturbing operations with wide shoe blades). The sequence is:

wheat-wheat-(wheat)-mechanical fallow. Although this is still to be considered (in

internationally acknowledged terms) a ‘minimum tillage’ stage, if previous year

stubble allows snow trapping, it already increases yields, though such increase

may not be fully sustainable.

Progressively, northern Kazakhstan is adopting Zero tillage with chemical

fallow (fallow using only herbicides). This has been assessed by CIMMYT to be

practiced over �.85 million ha. This also implies machinery and equipment for

direct seeders with narrow tine or disc blades (not the shoe type); crop residue

choppers and spreaders; quality sprayers for weed control; and performing

harvesters. It is the practice which is nearest in definition to “Zero-Tillage /

Conservation Agriculture”. It ensures a soil with improved chemical, physical

and biological properties which, in turn, allows higher crop yields. The main

��


limitation is lack of appropriate crop rotations which makes the control of weeds

and pests more challenging.

Hence, for northern Kazakhstan to move from Zero-tillage to proper Conservation

Agriculture, which is the way towards overall system sustainability, it will have

to abandon fallow by substituting it with actual crop rotations. However, farmers

in northern Kazakhstan see little alternative to wheat. The issue is the marketing

difficulties for crops other than wheat.

Ways forward towards crop rotation:

• Quick option: Barley, oat, and rye are already included in their cropping

system but to a limited extent. In addition, being all of them cereals, such

crops are not the optimal solution to improve long term control weeds and

diseases;

• Intermediate option: pulses such as peas and chickpeas are better placed to

control weeds and diseases, but their roots are more superficial so they are

less drought resistant. Still they are better than fallow and could be harvested

if rains are good, or could be left as a crop cover if rains are bad; and

• High potential (but more challenging) option: rapeseed. The tiny seeds require

better quality planters and harvesters (a major investment) plus special

storage and challenging markets. Canada shows that this is the way. Bayer is

investing heavily on rapeseed. Other less known options are sunflower and

soybean.

��

Attachment �CIMMYT Questionnaire(�0��-�0��)

Всемирный Банк, Министерство сельского хозяйства РК

Проект «Повышение конкурентоспособности сельскохозяйственной продукции»

Опросник по использованию ресурсосберегающих технологий

Дата: « ____»_______________________20__ г.Фамилия, имя, отчество ______________________________________________________Должность ____________________ Название и тип хозяйства ______________________Площадь пашни _______ га. Телефон/факс (с кодом) _____________________________Адрес ____________________________________________________________________Тип почвы:________________________________________________________________Среднегодовые осадки: _____________________________________________________

1. Представляетлинулеваятехнологияинтерес?Да_Нет_Безразлично_

2. ЗнакомылиВыснулевымитехнологиями?Незнаком СлышалнонеприменяюПрименяюс____годанаплощади____га

3. Подкакимикультурамиприменяютсянулевыетехнологии?Культура__________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____Культура__________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____Культура__________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____

��


4. Подкакимикультурамиприменяютсяминимальныетехнологии?Культура_________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____Культура_________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____Культура_________га____урожайностьсредзапосл.двагода(ц/га)____

5. Основнойсевооборотвхозяйстве?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Какойпарвхозяйстве%механический_____химический_____

7. Имеетсяливналичииопрыскиватель? Да_ Нет_

8. Еслида,токакоймаркиопрыскиватель_________________шт.___________

9. Какиесеялкиимеютсявналичии?____________________шт._______________

10. Какойтипсошниковнасеялках?Лапчатый_Долотообразный_Дисковый_ Наральник_Другой(укажите)______________________________

11. Какиепредвидитепроблемысвязанныесприменениемнулевойтехнологиивсвоемхозяйстве?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Вкакойподдержкенуждаютсяхозяйстваприменяющиесберегающееземледелие?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. ЗаинтересованылиВывполученииконсультационнойпомощипонулевымтехнологиям________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

��

Attachment �Main Assumptions and Calculations

Wheat sown area

Wheat production

No-till total and wheat area

��


�0

Oblast level calculations

Country level calculations

��


KazakhstanAkmola oblastKostanay oblastNorth Kazakhstan

Yield estimates

��

�. High stubble and mulch under long term no-till technology (Kostenay, �0��).

Attachment � Photos

�. Sound structure of the soil under no-till technology (Kostenay, October �0��).

��


�. Field under traditional agriculture (Kostenay, October �0��).

��

�. Lower penetrability under traditional agriculture (Kostenay, October �0��).

��


5. Minimum tillage technology. Note low stubble also due to shorter stands in drought conditions (Akmola, October �0��).

�. No-till expanding also in other Oblasts. Snow capturing at initial stages (Karaganda, October �0��).

��

Attachment 5 ACP Flyer, July 2008

The way to increase wheat production in northern Kazakhstan

• No-till allows stubble (�0-�5 cm) to trap snow (see picture below). Increased

soil moisture allows +�0-�0% wheat yield increase in northern Kazakhstan.

• The technology requires investments in machinery and herbicides: UD �0-�0/

ha to adapt existing machinery or USD �50-�00 per ha to buy new state-of-

the art machinery.

• The rate of return of such investment is high (see financial analysis page �9)

In addition to financial benefits, zero-tillage provides major environmental

benefits in terms of erosion control and carbon sequestration. The latter could

also provide some financial benefits to farmers, if a suitable carbon trading

scheme is developed.

Note that no-till does not mean leaving fields without doing anything, without

any mechanical influence. Large and expensive imported drilling machines are

necessary to implement this technology. Also, chemical weeding will increase

costs during the first years.

��


No

-Till

wit

h H

igh

-Stu

bb

le W

hea

t in

No

rth

ern

Kaz

akh

stan

Fin

anci

al R

etu

rn: W

ors

t C

ase

+9%

; Ave

rag

e +1

6%; B

est

Cas

e +2

7%

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

Yea

rsU

S$/h

aIn

vest

men

tT

illag

e sa

vin

gH

igh

er y

ield

Ch

emic

al w

eed

ing

Net

ben

efit

��

Prepared by by• The Agriculture Competitiveness Project. Ministry of Agriculture

of the Republic of Kazakhstan (with partial funding from the World Bank)

• International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Меж�у�аро��й� це��р у�у��е�и� ��е�иц� и �у�уру�� це��р у�у��е�и� ��е�иц� и �у�уру��це��р у�у��е�и� ��е�иц� и �у�уру�� у�у��е�и� ��е�иц� и �у�уру��у�у��е�и� ��е�иц� и �у�уру�� е�иц� и �у�уру��е�иц� и �у�уру�� и �у�уру��и �у�уру�� у�уру��у�уру�� (��ММ��ММ��

• Barayev Grain Farming Research and Production Centre, Shorthandy - KazAgroInnovation

Documents

New FAO INVESTMENT CENTRE - EastAgri note_Print.pdf · 2012. 12. 6. · Kazakhstan (Akmola, Kostanay, and North Kazakhstan regions, which produce about 90 percent of the wheat output