The Benefits and Costs of Zero Tillage RD&E on the Canadian Prairies
Lana Awada
19th ICABR Conference June 17, 2015
Department of Bioresource PBEUniversity of Saskatchewan
Achieving food security is a significant and increasing challenge as the world population continues to grow proportionally
Global population increases by about 80 million people per year and it is expected to reach about 9.1 billion by the year of 2050
The existing capacity to satisfy food demand for the growing population remains uncertain, because of land degradation (U.N. 2002)
Introduction
Agricultural production must increase by 70% by 2050 (The World Bank, 2012)
Figure 1. Global Land Degradation
Source: UN, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2011
Land Degradation negatively impact crop production through losses in nutrients, water-storage capacity, and soil organic matter (SOM)
Wat
er 2
%
Figure 2. The Canadian Prairies
SOM 2%
SOM 4%
SOM 7%
SOM 1%-10%
Land degradation on the Prairies has been recognized as problem by scientists for more than a century
• Soil erosion (wind, water, and tillage erosion)• Soil organic matter depletion• Soil salinity
Prairie Arable land 32 Mha
Land Degradation on the Prairies
In the 1930s, the Prairies experienced a period of severe drought and a number of dust storms: Dirty Thirties or Dust Bowl
High winds moved millions of tonnes of topsoil from fields, resulting in soil degradation
Dust Bowl Soil Erosion
The major cause of land degradation is traditional/conventional tillage combined with the predominant practice of summerfallow
Traditional tillage requires multiple cultivations for weed control during the summerfallow season and for seedbed preparation
Cause of Land Degradation
Conservation Tillage (CT)
CT is defined as a sustainable crop production system that
• Leaves at least 30% of crop residue on the soil surface after crop planting to protect soil from erosion
• Uses specialized seeding equipment to place seed and fertilizer in the soil with minimal disturbance
• Controls weeds by herbicides or by minimal cultivation and herbicides
• Uses crop rotations to break the life cycles of pests and diseases and help in controlling weeds
The alternative to traditional tillage – conservation tillage (CT)• Minimum or mulch tillage • Zero tillage
CT is an innovation package: new management practice; herbicide; seeding equipment; and crop varieties
The development of CT involved farmers, engineers, scientists, and farmer organisations who formally and informally worked together for a period of more than five decades
By the end of the 1970s, CT started to take shape on the Prairies
• In 1974, Monsanto Company introduced Roundup, but at a very high price
• Between the 1970s and 1980s, introduction of new varieties of oilseeds and pulses that can use in rotation with cereal and replace summerfallow
• The introduction of CT seeding equipment: e.g., Haybuster 1206 grain and fertilizer drill and Versatile Noble 2000 seed drill
The Development of CT on the Prairies
For a number of economic, technical, political and social factors, the adoption of CT did not occur on any major scale before the 1990s
• Saskatchewan farm implement developed and manufactured of air-seeders
• The price of herbicide Roundup went down
• The price of fuel went up
• It was well established that CT systems resolved the many shortcomings of TT
The Adoption of CT on the Prairies
Air Seeder
Table 1: RD&E Expenditure on Zero Tillage Projects 1960-2009 ($2014)
Figure 3. Tillage Systems Trends in the Canadian Prairies (1981-2011)
Today, more than 75% of the Prairie’s cropland is under some form of CT with more than 60% under ZT
Objectives
Estimate the benefits of ZT adoption 1985-2012
Use benefit cost analysis to evaluate the returns to public and private investments in zero tillage RD&E
The Benefits of ZT Adoption
ZT Benefits
Onsite Benefits of ZT
Offsite Benefits of ZT
Short-run Long-run
The Onsite Benefits of ZT Adoption
Machinery Operations Labour Cost
Fuel Cost
Yield increase
Summerfallow
HerbicideShort Term Impact
Water use Efficiency
Machinery Cost
Herbicide Cost
1991 1996 2001 2006 20110
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
Total wheat Canola Pulses summerfallow
Statistics Canada, Census of Agriculture 1991-2011
Mil
lion
Hec
tare
s
Figure 4. Trends in Agricultural Land Use on the Canadian Prairies 1991–2011
Soil quality
Soil Organic matter (Nitrogen)
Soil erosion
Soil SalinityLong Term Benefits
The Onsite Benefits of ZT Adoption
Figure 5. Soil Erosion Risk on the Canadian Prairies (1981–2006)
Figure 6. Soil Salinization Risk on the Canadian Prairies (1981–2006)
Figure 7. Soil Organic Carbon Change on the Canadian Prairies (1981–2006)
Offsite Benefits of ZT Adoption
Reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2): • Reduction in soil organic carbon oxidation caused
by the disturbance of soils(The low soil disturbance, ZT, has carbon sequestration potential through storing the organic matter in the soil)
• Reduction in carbon oxidation generated from machinery operations to prepare land for cropping
Reduce Nitrous Oxide (N2O)• The deep banding of N fertilizer under ZT
improves fertilizer use efficiency and reduces gaseous N losses, which in turn reduces N2O emissions into the atmosphere
Prairie Crop Energy Model (PCEM): divide Prairies arable land into 22 districts
In each district land is allocated to 122 cropping activities
The model develops a production vector that defines crop yield, input use and environmental outcomes
Quantify ZT Benefits
Table 2. BENEFITS FROM ZERO TILLAGE ADOPTION ON THE PRAIRIES 1985-2012
Variables Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Total Prairies %
ESTIMATES OF BENEFIT / COST OF ZERO TILLAGE RD&E
Employing a counterfactual framework
• Assume in the absence of RD&E investments, the development of ZT technology would have occurred, but would have been delayed by five years
• This delay would reduce the benefit received from adoption
• This counterfactual forgone benefit is used as a proxy for the benefit from RD&E investments in ZT projects
Table 3. 2014 Present Value of Benefits from Zero Tillage RD&E Prairies 1985-2012
Table 4. Benefit Cost Ratios for Zero Tillage RD&E
The return to ZT research is the highest payback for any agricultural R&D on the Prairies
Conclusion
The results show that total estimated benefits derived from the adoption of ZT are equal to $24.4 billion: $23.4 billion worth of onsite benefits and $997 million worth of offsite benefits
These large onsite benefits help explain the increased incentive of famers to adopt ZT on the Prairies
The high benefits of ZT provide farmers with opportunities to gain a competitive advantage in local and international markets by producing high yielding crop varieties at lower costs, while improving the environmental sustainability of agriculture
Although the offsite benefits are not currently recognized by the market place the contribution of ZT in the reduction of GHG emissions will help Canada meet its commitment under the Copenhagen Accord to reduce GHG emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020
The return to the agricultural sector is $109 on every $1 invested in research by the public sector
The return to the agricultural sector is $61 on every $1 invested in research by the public and private sectors
Farmers capture most of the ZT research benefits
Our findings of very high rates of return highlight the need to introduce policies that will support and foster sustainable innovation in complex farming systems
Conclusion
Questions
Thank You
The future vitality of the ZT system depends on the ability to solve problems of continual evolution of agro-ecological issues
Future research examining the returns might examine the distributional impacts of ZT R&D on the private sector input suppliers, including machinery, fuel, chemical, and seed suppliers
As the adoption of ZT has freed up labour time for use elsewhere, future research might examine the impact of ZT in generating off-farm benefits for farmers
Future Research
Factors Affecting the Adoption of Zero Tillage on the Prairies
significantly and positively influence the adoption of ZT
Results of empirical work indicated (Awada, 2012):
• neighbourhood effect• fuel/Glyphosate price ratio• education• farm ownership• Large farm size• high soil erosion risk class • Humid soil type• Short distance to research station• Provincial dummy • Time dummy
• age • off-farm employment found to be insignificant