A farm field with a mulch soil cover. The bales of straw are a result of the harvesting by a combine. The stubble is used for limited grazing, Tunisia (Zied Idoudi)

Conservation Agriculture in Dryland Mixed Systems (ប្រទេសទុយនីស៊ី)

ការពណ៌នា

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a "ready-to-scale concept" in agriculture that allows a sustainable agricultural production and mitigation of climate change. The documented CA focuses on a dryland mixed system, including a biennial rotation of legume and cereals with integrated livestock management. CA has positive benefits on soil health and significantly reduces the needed inputs (e.g. fuel, labour) and workload for farmers.

Land degradation leading to desertification is an increasingly important problem in the dry land regions of the globe. This does not only affect the bio-physical aspects such as carbon storage, but also the lives of local land users. Land degradation is often initiated by the lack of vegetation cover as is often a consequence of overgrazing and over-ploughing (i.e mismanagement). Furthermore, climate change leads to droughts, intensified rainfall events, increased temperature, and more extreme weather events. These compromised climatic conditions enhance land degradation. This leads to less fertile soils, reducing yields and consequently deteriorates the income and lives of local farmers. Taking the consequence and scale of degradation into account, natural resource conservation interventions are urgently required.

As the lack of soil cover is an, if not the, essential initiating factor in the desertification process, it should be maximally addressed. In the light of this, CA has been developed, based on three leading principles: i) minimizing soil disturbances or no-tillage, ii) maintaining a permanent soil cover with mulch, and iii) adequate crop rotations. Overall, the three principles prevent land degradation and can also rehabilitate the land. This is because soil organic matter is maintained in/on the soil and the erosive power of raindrops are broken by the soil cover. Therefore, CA aims for more sustainable resource use (land and water use) and to optimize climate-resilient and integrated crop-livestock systems to sustainably intensify production in fragile dry areas.

Tunisia is a country that experiences the previously described pattern and results of desertification and where smallholder farmers are largely dependent on livestock for income generation. However, the livestock competes with the concept of CA as plant residues (stubble) are normally grazed by the livestock. Conservation agriculture propagates no or minimum soil disturbance/ tillage. However, the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine appears to be a bottleneck due to high costs since they are hardly produced locally. Nevertheless, there are farmers in the semi -arid areas of Tunisia, who adopted the technology and experience significant benefits such as increased soil fertility and over time increasing yields. In addition, as erosion rates are high in this rainfed area of 300 to 600 mm annual precipitation, a well-covered soil will reduce runoff and loss of top soil. Since ploughing is restricted, the workload and the demanded fuel is reduced, resulting in decreased costs and labour with respect to the conventional practices. Furthermore, integrated crop-livestock is practiced by limiting livestock to graze only the freshly harvested fields while producing manure to enhance soil health (organic fertilization and increase in soil organic matter).
Additionally, according to the third principle of CA, legumes were introduced in the agricultural system (crop rotation), besides the conventional cereal (e.g. durum wheat or barley). Specifically, faba bean is promising, as it has nitrogen fixing effects, enhancing soil health, and increasing and diversifying farm income. Vetch and other forage mixtures have also been successfully introduced to provide farmers with nutritious feed for livestock within the CA concept. In irrigated areas (e.g. parts in Algeria), the practice of CA has an additional benefit as it increases the irrigation water use efficiency due to less evaporation and better infiltration.

The previous agro-pastoral farming practices changed under CA to an integrated crop-livestock system where soil cover is permanent. This mixed system consist of firstly weed control. Secondly, zero-tillage seeding is done directly into the soil even if covered with e.g. mulch/stubble. Faba bean and/or wheat are seeded and rotated yearly. This is beneficial as legumes fix nitrogen in the soil, lowering the amount of nitrogenous fertilizer needed. Thirdly, required fertilizers (for wheat additional nitrogenous fertilizer) is applied with a spreader. Fourthly, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and fungicides are applied with a sprayer for disease control. Fifthly, the field is harvested with a combine. The stubble is then partly grazed by the sheep and goats until there remains a 1-2 cm residue layer i.e. mulch. For one hectare this accounts for a thirty day grazing period for thirty goats or sheep. This results in an integrated Crop-Livestock system under CA (CLCA), as the stubble provides feed for livestock while the livestock provides the soil with manure.

The land users that have adopted CA have indicated that they extremely appreciate the reduction in work, also the cost of labour and fuel, etc. In addition, they saw increased yields due to improved soil health. However, this beneficial impact could only be observed in the long-term since yields take time to increase, which can be considered as a weakness as the small holder farmer tends to prioritize short term profits. Another weakness is that the livestock is constrained since residues ought to remain on the field.

In conclusion, even though there are bottlenecks, the technology of conservation agriculture is a solution to combat desertification while improving the lives of local land users through the process.

Information and data presented is partly made available through the project “Use of conservation agriculture in crop-livestock systems (CLCA) in the drylands for enhanced water use efficiency, soil fertility and productivity in NEN and LAC countries” funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), managed by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and implemented in Tunisia by the National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAT).

ទីតាំង

ទីតាំង: Algeria: M'Sila and Setif; Tunisia: Siliana, ប្រទេសទុយនីស៊ី

ចំនួនទីកន្លែងបច្ចេកទេស ដែលវិភាគ: 100-1000 កន្លែង

ចំណុចយោងភូមិសាស្ត្រនៃទីតាំងជ្រើសរើស
  • 4.36894, 35.9849
  • 5.21489, 36.28214
  • 9.34249, 36.08838

ការសាយភាយនៃបច្ចេកទេស: ត្រូវបានផ្សព្វផ្សាយត្រឹមតំបន់មួយ (approx. 100-1,000 គម2)

តើស្ថិតក្នុងតំបន់ការពារអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍?: ទេ

កាលបរិច្ឆេទនៃការអនុវត្ត: 1999

ប្រភេទនៃការណែនាំឱ្យអនុវត្តន៍៖
Field day on best agronomic practices under Conservation Agriculture which took place in Gboullat District/Beja, Tunisia (Hatem Cheikh M'hamed)
A zero-tillage seeder seeding directly into a stubble field, Tunisia (Zied Idoudi)

ចំណាត់ថ្នាក់នៃបច្ចេកទេស

គោលបំណងចម្បងៗ
  • ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងនូវផលិតកម្ម
  • កាត់បន្ថយ, បង្ការ, ស្តារឡើងវិញនូវការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
  • អភិរក្សប្រព័ន្ធអេកូឡូស៊ី
  • ការពារតំបន់ទីជម្រាល/តំបន់ខ្សែទឹកខាងក្រោមបញ្ចូលជាមួយបច្ចេកទេសផ្សេងទៀត
  • អភិរក្ស/ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងជីវចម្រុះ
  • កាត់បន្ថយហានិភ័យនៃគ្រោះមហន្តរាយ
  • បន្ស៊ាំទៅនឹងការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ/គ្រោះមហន្តរាយ និងផលប៉ះពាល់របស់វា
  • កាត់បន្ថយការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ និងផលប៉ះពាល់របស់វា
  • បង្កើតផលប្រយោជន៍សេដ្ឋកិច្ច
  • បង្កើតផលប្រយោជន៍សង្គម
ការប្រើប្រាស់ដី
ដីប្រើប្រាស់ចម្រុះនៅលើដីតែមួយ បាទ/ចា៎ - Agro-pastoralism ( រួមបញ្ចូលទាំងដំណាំ និងចិញ្ចឹមសត្វ)

  • ដីដាំដំណាំ
    • ដំណាំប្រចាំឆ្នាំ: ធញ្ញជាតិ -​ ស្រូវសាលី (សិសិររដូវរងារ), ពពួកសណ្តែក - សណ្តែកបារាំង, Faba bean, vetch. Cropping system: ដំណាំស្រូវសាលី ឬប្រហែលវិលជុំជាមួយស្រូវ/ស្មៅ
    ចំនួនសារដែលដាំដំណាំក្នុងមួយឆ្នាំ: 1
    តើជាការអនុវត្តន៍ដំណាំចន្លោះ? ទេ
    តើជាការអនុវត្តន៍ដំណាំវិលជុំ? បាទ/ចា៎
  • ដីសម្រាប់ចិញ្ចឹមសត្វ
    • កាត់ និងជញ្ជូន/ គ្មានវាលស្មៅសម្រាប់ចិញ្ចឹមសត្វ
    • livestock allowed to graze only the freshly harvested fields
    ប្រភេទសត្វ: សត្វពពែ, សត្វចៀម
    តើជាការអនុវត្តការគ្រប់គ្រងដែលរួមបញ្ចូលការដាំដំណាំ និងចិញ្ចឹមសត្វដែរឬទេ? បាទ/ចា៎
    ផលិតផល និងសេវាកម្ម: សាច់, ទឹកដោះគោ
      ប្រភេទពូជCount
      សត្វពពែមិនមាន
      សត្វចៀមមិនមាន

    ការផ្គត់ផ្គង់ទឹក
    • ទឹកភ្លៀង
    • ទឹកភ្លៀង និងប្រព័ន្ធស្រោចស្រព
    • ប្រព័ន្ធស្រោចស្រពទាំងស្រុង

    គោលបំណងទាក់ទងនឹងការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
    • ការការពារការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
    • ការកាត់បន្ថយការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
    • ការជួសជុល/ ស្តារឡើងវិញនៃឱនភាពដីធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ
    • ការបន្ស៊ាំទៅនឹងការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
    • ដែលមិនអាចអនុវត្តបាន
    ប្រភេទនៃការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដីដែលបានដោះស្រាយ
    • ការហូរច្រោះដីដោយសារទឹក - Wt: ការបាត់ដីស្រទាប់លើដោយការហូរច្រោះ, Wg: ការកកើតឡើងនូវកំទេចកំទីដីស្រទាប់ក្រោម
    • ការបាត់ដីដោយសារខ្យល់ - Et: ការបាត់បង់ដីស្រទាប់លើ
    • ការធ្លាក់ចុះសារធាតុគីមីក្នុងដី - Cn: ការថយចុះជីជាតិ និងកាត់បន្ថយបរិមាណសារធាតុសរីរាង្គ (មិនកើតឡើងដោយការហូរច្រោះទេ)
    • ការបាត់បង់រូបសាស្ត្រនៃដី - Pk: ការបិទរន្ធដី
    • ការធ្លាក់ចុះជីវសាស្ត្រនៃដី - Bc: ការថយចុះនូវគម្របរុក្ខជាតិ, Bq: ការថយចុះនូវជីវម៉ាស/​ បរិមាណ, Bl: ការបាត់បង់មីក្រូ និងម៉ាក្រូសរីរាង្គរបស់ដី, Bp: ការកើនឡើងនូវសត្វល្អិត ឬជំងឺ បាត់បង់នូវសត្វមានប្រយោជន៍
    • ការបាត់បង់ទឹក - Ha: ការថយចុះសំណើមដី
    ក្រុម SLM
    • ការគ្រប់គ្រងដោយរួមបញ្ចូលការដាំដំណាំ និងការចិញ្ចឹមសត្វ
    • ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងគម្របដី/ ដំណាំគម្របដី
    • កាត់បន្ថយការរំខានដល់ដី
    វិធានការ SLM
    • វិធានការក្សេត្រសាស្ត្រ - A1: ដំណាំ/គម្របដី, A3: ការរក្សាស្រទាប់ដីខាងលើ (A 3.1: មិនភ្ជួររាស់), A6: ការគ្រប់គ្រងកាកសំណល់ (A 6.4: រក្សាទុក)
    • វិធានការគ្រប់គ្រង - M2: ការផ្លាស់ប្តូរការគ្រប់គ្រង/ កម្រិតអាំងតង់ស៊ីតេ

    គំនូរបច្ចេកទេស

    លក្ខណៈបច្ចេកទេស
    The row interspace (C) for wheat and faba bean is respectively 17 centimeter and 35 centimeter. The density [plants per square meter] for wheat and faba bean is, respectively, 300-400 and 25. The spacing between crops in the row (B) for wheat and faba bean is, respectively, 1.5-2 centimeter and 11 centimeter. The slopes of the fields (D) vary between 3% and 10%.

    For the livestock integration with CA, a flock of thirty (goats or sheep) may graze 1 hectare of stubble for a period of thirty days. This yields optimal trade-off between livestock and soil cover. As soil cover a 1-2 cm residue layer remains (A).

    Please note that these values may vary with respect to different terrain, species of plants, flock size, and fertilizer application. For example if a flock contain more sheep or goats, it logically results in less grazing days.
    Author: Joren Verbist
    The local Tunisian zero-tillage seeder is named Sajir. This machine has better results than imported machines in terms of adjustable and homogeneous sowing depth, high germination rate and similar yield. The design is still changing to the recent and ongoing modifications (e.g. designing and manufacturing a local tine) to be better suitable to Tunisian soil context.
    Author: Mohamed Jadlaoui
    "Boudour" is a zero-tillage seeder machine used in Algeria.

    Its technicality: The loading capacity is 150 kilogram of seeds and 150 kilograms for fertilizer.
    The depth can be adjusted and is between 0 and 8 cm. The overall width is 2.8 meter whereas the seed row spacing is 18 centimetres.
    The loading height is 154 centimetres.
    It is suitable for a 65-76 horsepower tractor.
    Author: SOLA

    ការបង្កើតនិងការថែទាំ៖​ សកម្មភាព ធាតុចូល និងថ្លៃដើម

    ការគណនាធាតុចូល​ និងថ្លៃដើម
    • ថ្លៃដើមត្រូវបានគណនា៖ ក្នុងតំបន់អនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស (ទំហំ និងឯកត្តាផ្ទៃដី៖ 1 hectare)
    • រូបិយប័ណ្ណសម្រាប់ការគណនាថ្លៃដើម៖ ដុល្លារ
    • អត្រាប្តូរប្រាក់ (ទៅជាដុល្លារអាមេរិក)៖ 1 USD = មិនមាន
    • ថ្លៃឈ្នួលជាមធ្យមក្នុង ១ ថ្ងៃ៖ 5.3
    កត្តាសំខាន់បំផុតដែលមានឥទ្ធិពលលើថ្លៃដើម
    The initial purchase of the zero-tillage machine (20 000 USD) is dominantly affecting the costs of the technology. However, it should be taken into account, that this machine serves the long term. Because the area under description is dominated by small-scale farmers, access to zero-tillage machines is ensured through hiring private entrepreneurs or through the purchase of machines by farmers’ associations rather than individual farmers. Also, it is important to note that the additional costs of conservation agriculture mainly consists of the machine, the weeding control and the seeding of the legumes. Other costs are either similar or reduced with respect to conventional agriculture. For example, conventional agriculture requires three hours of ploughing and 1 hour of sowing. While conservation agriculture only needs half an hour for chemical weeding, 1 hour for sowing and does not require ploughing. This relates to reduced inputs such as fuel.
    សកម្មភាពបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេស
    1. Purchase Zero-Tillage Seeder (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: None)
    ធាតុចូល និងថ្លៃដើមសម្រាប់ការបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេស
    បញ្ជាក់ពីធាតុចូល ឯកតា បរិមាណ ថ្លៃដើមក្នុងមួយឯកតា (ដុល្លារ) ថ្លៃធាតុចូលសរុប (ដុល្លារ) % នៃថ្លៃដើមដែលចំណាយដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
    សម្ភារៈ
    Zero-Tillage Seeder piece 1,0 20000,0 20000,0
    ថ្លៃដើមសរុបក្នុងការបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេស 20'000.0
    ថ្លៃដើមសរុបក្នុងការបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេសគិតជាដុល្លារ 20'000.0
    សកម្មភាពថែទាំ
    1. Weeding (Total weed control) (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 Early-October)
    2. Seeding Faba Bean (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 Mid-October)
    3. Apply Baseline Fertilization (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 Mid-October)
    4. Apply Herbicide (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 Mid-October)
    5. Apply Fungicide and Insecticide (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 March-Early April)
    6. Limited Grazing/Harvesting (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 1 Late-April/May)
    7. Weeding (Total weed control) (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 Early-November)
    8. Seeding Wheat (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 Mid-November)
    9. Apply Baseline Fertilization (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 Mid-November)
    10. Apply Nitrogenous Fertilization (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 December-January-February)
    11. Apply Herbicide (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 December)
    12. Apply Fungicide (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 March-April)
    13. Limited Grazing/Harvesting (ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់: Year 2 Late-June/Early-July)
    ធាតុចូលនិងថ្លៃដើមសម្រាប់ការថែទាំ
    បញ្ជាក់ពីធាតុចូល ឯកតា បរិមាណ ថ្លៃដើមក្នុងមួយឯកតា (ដុល្លារ) ថ្លៃធាតុចូលសរុប (ដុល្លារ) % នៃថ្លៃដើមដែលចំណាយដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
    កម្លាំងពលកម្ម
    Weeding Person-hour 1,0 100,0
    Seeding Person-hour 2,0 100,0
    Fertilizer Application Person-hour 0,5 100,0
    Harvesting Person-hour 2,0 100,0
    សម្ភារៈ
    The Zero-Tillage Seeder (hiring cost) Machine-hour 2,0 16,5 33,0 100,0
    Sprayer (hiring cost for disease control) Machine-hour 4,5 11,0 49,5 100,0
    Spreader (hiring costs for nitrogenous fertilizer application) Machine-hour 1,5 11,0 16,5 100,0
    Combine (hiring cost for harvesting) Machine-hour 2,0 47,5 95,0 100,0
    សម្ភារៈដាំដុះ
    Seeds Wheat Kilogram 160,0 0,4 64,0 100,0
    Seeds Faba Bean Kilogram 120,0 0,48 57,6 100,0
    ជី និងសារធាតុពុល
    Baseline Fertilization Quintal 2,5 19,9 49,75 100,0
    Nitrogenous Fertilization Quintal 3,0 15,5 46,5 100,0
    Pesticide (for total weed control) Liter 2,0 10,0 20,0 100,0
    Herbicide for grassy weeds Liter 1,0 41,2 41,2 100,0
    Herbicide for broadleaf weeds and sedges Liter 2,0 29,2 58,4 100,0
    Fungicide Liter 1,5 40,0 60,0 100,0
    Herbicide for annual and perennial grasses Liter 1,25 25,5 31,88 100,0
    Insecticide Liter 0,1 66,8 6,68 100,0
    ផ្សេងៗ
    Casual Labour Person-day 12,0 5,3 63,6 100,0
    ថ្លៃដើមសរុបសម្រាប់ការថែទាំដំណាំតាមបច្ចេកទេស 693.61
    ថ្លៃដើមសរុបសម្រាប់ការថែទាំដំណាំតាមបច្ចេកទេសគិតជាដុល្លារ 693.61

    បរិស្ថានធម្មជាតិ

    បរិមាណទឹកភ្លៀងជាមធ្យមប្រចាំឆ្នាំ
    • < 250 មម
    • 251-500 មម
    • 501-750 មម
    • 751-1,000 មម
    • 1,001-1,500 មម
    • 1,501-2,000 មម
    • 2,001-3,000 មម
    • 3,001-4,000 មម
    • > 4,000 មម
    តំបន់កសិអាកាសធាតុ
    • សើម
    • មានភ្លៀងមធ្យម
    • មានភ្លៀងតិចតួច
    • ស្ងួត
    លក្ខណៈសម្គាល់នៃអាកាសធាតុ
    មិនមាន
    ជម្រាល
    • រាបស្មើ (0-2%)
    • ជម្រាលតិចតួច (3-5%)
    • មធ្យម (6-10%)
    • ជម្រាលខ្ពស់បន្តិច (11-15%)
    • ទីទួល (16-30%)
    • ទីទួលចោត (31-60%)
    • ទីទួលចោតខ្លាំង (>60%)
    ទម្រង់ដី
    • ខ្ពង់រាប
    • កំពូលភ្នំ
    • ជម្រាលភ្នំ
    • ជម្រាលទួល
    • ជម្រាលជើងភ្នំ
    • បាតជ្រលងភ្នំ
    រយៈកម្ពស់ធៀបនឹងនីវ៉ូទឹកសមុទ្រ
    • 0-100 ម​
    • 101-500 ម
    • 501-1,000 ម
    • 1,001-1,500 ម
    • 1,501-2,000 ម
    • 2,001-2,500 ម
    • 2,501-3,000 ម
    • 3,001-4,000 ម
    • > 4,000 ម
    បច្ចេកទេសត្រូវបានអនុវត្តនៅក្នុង
    • សណ្ឋានដីប៉ោង
    • សណ្ឋានដីផត
    • មិនពាក់ព័ន្ធទាំងអស់
    ជម្រៅដី
    • រាក់ខ្លាំង (0-20 សម)
    • រាក់ (21-50 សម)
    • មធ្យម (51-80 សម)
    • ជ្រៅ (81-120 សម)
    • ជ្រៅខ្លាំង (> 120 សម)
    វាយនៈភាពដី (ដីស្រទាប់ខាងលើ)
    • គ្រើម/ មានពន្លឺ (ខ្សាច់)
    • មធ្យម (ល្បាយ, ល្បាប់)
    • ម៉ត់/ ធ្ងន់ (ឥដ្ឋ)
    វាយនភាពដី (>​ 20 សម ក្រោមស្រទាប់លើ)
    • គ្រើម/ មានពន្លឺ (ខ្សាច់)
    • មធ្យម (ល្បាយ, ល្បាប់)
    • ម៉ត់/ ធ្ងន់ (ឥដ្ឋ)
    កម្រិតសារធាតុសរីរាង្គក្នុងដី​​ស្រទាប់លើ
    • ខ្ពស់ (>3%)
    • មធ្យម (1-3%)
    • ទាប (<1%)
    ដង្ហើមទឹកក្នុងដី
    • ផ្ទៃខាងលើ
    • < 5 ម
    • 5-50 ម
    • > 50 ម
    ភាពអាចរកបាននៃទឹកលើដី
    • លើស
    • ល្អ
    • កម្រិតមធ្យម
    • មិនមាន/ គ្មាន
    គុណភាពទឹក (មិនបានធ្វើប្រព្រឹត្តិកម្ម)
    • ទឹកពិសារដែលមានគុណភាពល្អ
    • ទឹកពិសារដែលគ្មានគុណភាព (តម្រូវឱ្យមានការសំអាត)
    • ទឹកសម្រាប់តែការធ្វើកសិកម្ម (ស្រោចស្រព)
    • ទឹកមិនអាចប្រើប្រាស់បាន
    គុណភាពទឹក គឺផ្តោតទៅលើ៖ ទឹកក្រោមដី
    តើមានបញ្ហាទឹកប្រៃហូរចូល​​ដែរឬទេ?
    • បាទ/ចា៎
    • ទេ

    ការកើតឡើងនៃទឹកជំនន់
    • បាទ/ចា៎
    • ទេ
    ភាពសំបូរបែបនៃប្រភេទសត្វ
    • ខ្ពស់
    • កម្រិតមធ្យម
    • ទាប
    ភាពសំបូរបែបនៃជម្រកធម្មជាតិ
    • ខ្ពស់
    • កម្រិតមធ្យម
    • ទាប

    ចរិតលក្ខណៈរបស់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដីដែលប្រើបច្ចេកទេស SLM

    ទីផ្សារ
    • សម្រាប់ហូបក្នុងគ្រួសារ (ផ្គត់ផ្គង់ខ្លួនឯង)
    • ពាក់កណ្តាលពាណិជ្ជកម្ម (ផ្គត់ផ្គង់ខ្លួនឯង/ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម)
    • ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម/ ទីផ្សារ
    ចំណូលក្រៅកសិដ្ឋាន
    • តិចជាង 10% នៃចំណូល
    • 10-50% នៃចំណូល
    • ច្រើនជាង 50% នៃចំណូល
    កម្រិតជីវភាព
    • មិនល្អខ្លាំង
    • មិនល្អ
    • មធ្យម
    • មាន
    • មានខ្លាំង
    កម្រិតនៃការប្រើគ្រឿងយន្ត
    • ប្រើកម្លាំងពលកម្ម
    • ប្រើកម្លាំងសត្វ
    • គ្រឿងយន្ត/ ម៉ាស៊ីន
    នៅមួយកន្លែង ឬពនេចរ
    • នៅមួយកន្លែង
    • ពាក់កណ្តាលពនេចរ
    • ពនេចរ
    បុគ្គល ឬក្រុម
    • ធ្វើខ្លួនឯង/ គ្រួសារ
    • ជាក្រុម/ សហគមន៍
    • សហករ
    • មានបុគ្គលិក (ក្រុមហ៊ុន, រដ្ឋ)
    យេនឌ័រ
    • ស្ត្រី
    • បុរស
    អាយុ
    • កុមារ
    • យុវវ័យ
    • វ័យកណ្តាល
    • មនុស្សចាស់
    ផ្ទៃដីប្រើប្រាស់ក្នុងមួយគ្រួសារ
    • < 0.5 ហិកតា
    • 0.5-1 ហិកតា
    • 1-2 ហិកតា
    • 2-5 ហិកតា
    • 5-15 ហិកតា
    • 15-50 ហិកតា
    • 50-100 ហិកតា
    • 100-500 ហិកតា
    • 500-1,000 ហិកតា
    • 1,000-10,000 ហិកតា
    • > 10,000 ហិកតា
    មាត្រដ្ឋាន
    • ខ្នាតតូច
    • ខ្នាតមធ្យម
    • ខ្នាតធំ
    ភាពជាម្ចាស់ដីធ្លី
    • រដ្ឋ
    • ក្រុមហ៊ុន
    • ភូមិ
    • ក្រុម
    • ឯកជន មិនមានកម្មសិទ្ធ
    • ឯកជន មានកម្មសិទ្ធ
    សិទ្ធិប្រើប្រាស់ដី
    • អាស្រ័យផលសេរី (មិនមានការកំណត់)
    • ជាក្រុម (មានដែនកំណត់)
    • កិច្ចសន្យាជួល
    • ឯកជន
    សិទ្ធិប្រើប្រាស់ទឹក
    • អាស្រ័យផលសេរី (មិនមានការកំណត់)
    • ជាក្រុម (មានដែនកំណត់)
    • កិច្ចសន្យាជួល
    • ឯកជន
    ប្រើប្រាស់សេវាកម្ម និងហេដ្ឋារចនាសម្ព័ន្ធ
    សុខភាព

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ការអប់រំ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ជំនួយបច្ចេកទេស

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ការងារ (ឧ. ការងារក្រៅកសិដ្ឋាន)

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ទីផ្សារ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ថាមពល

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ផ្លូវ និងការដឹកជញ្ជូន

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    ទឹកផឹក និងអនាម័យ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ
    សេវាកម្មហិរញ្ញវត្ថុ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អ

    ផលប៉ះពាល់

    ផលប៉ះពាល់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចសង្គម
    ផលិតកម្មដំណាំ
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    Over time the crop production increases as the soil quality increases

    គុណភាពដំណាំ
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    Over time the crop quality increases as the soil quality increases

    ផលិតកម្មចំណីសត្វ
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង

    គុណភាពចំណីសត្វ
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង

    ការចំណាយលើធាតុចូលកសិកម្ម
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    Less fuel needen for ploughing. This was a signficant cost in the conventional system.

    ចំណូលក្នុងកសិដ្ឋាន
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    The farm income increases as there are less costs and higher yields with respect to the previous agricultural acitivites.

    បន្ទុកការងារ
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    Farmers spend less work on the field as the field is not ploughed.

    ផលប៉ះពាល់វប្បធម៌សង្គម
    ចំណេះដឹង SLM / ការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
    កាត់បន្ថយ
    ប្រសើរជាងមុន

    ផលប៉ះពាល់លើអេកូឡូស៊ី
    ការប្រមូលទឹក (លំហូរ ទឹកសន្សើម ព្រិល ។ល។)
    កាត់បន្ថយ
    ប្រសើរជាងមុន


    Less water runs off due to soil cover. Thus more water is collected in the soil.

    លំហូរទឹកលើផ្ទៃដី
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    Due to the soil cover, more water is retained and less water runs-off.

    រំហួត
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    The soil cover provides shade for the soil. Therefore less water is evaporated.

    សំណើមដី
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    The soil is more moist as the soil cover provides shade. So the soil has a lower temperature.

    គម្របដី
    កាត់បន្ថយ
    ប្រសើរជាងមុន


    CA strives for permanent soil cover.

    ការបាត់បង់ដី
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    The soil cover breaks the erosive power of rain drops. Also due to decreased run-off, there is less erosion.

    ការកើនឡើងដី
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    The soil cover eventually decomposes into the soil which lead to accumulation.

    ដីប្រេះ
    កើនឡើង
    កាត់បន្ថយ


    The splash erosion of the rain drops is broken by the soil cover, resulting in less crusting.

    វដ្តនៃសារធាតុចិញ្ចឹម/ការទទួល​​បាន
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង

    សារធាតុសរីរាង្គដី/ការបូនក្រោមដី
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    The soil cover is decomposed in the soil. Which is partly carbon.

    ជីវម៉ាស/ កាបូនលើដី
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង

    ភាពសម្បូរបែបនៃរុក្ខជាតិ
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    CA encourages the use of adequate crop rotation.

    ប្រភេទមានប្រយោជន៍ (​មំសាសី ជន្លេន ពពួកសត្វចម្លងលម្អង)
    ថយចុះ
    កើនឡើង


    CA encourage the use of beneficial species like legumes that fixate nitrogen.

    អាកាសធាតុ
    អាក្រក់ជាងមុន
    ប្រសើរជាងមុន

    ផលប៉ះពាល់ក្នុងបរិវេណ
    កំណកល្បាប់ខ្សែទឹកខាងក្រោម
    កើនឡើង
    ថយចុះ


    As conservation agriculture reduces erosion, it consequently reduces downstream siltation.

    ខ្យល់នាំយកនូវធូរលី
    កើនឡើង
    កាត់បន្ថយ

    ការវិភាគថ្លៃដើម និងអត្ថប្រយោជន៍

    អត្ថប្រយោជន៍បើប្រៀបធៀបនឹងថ្លៃដើមក្នុងការបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេស
    រយៈពេលខ្លី
    អវិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង
    វិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង

    រយៈពេលវែង
    អវិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង
    វិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង

    អត្ថប្រយោជន៍បើប្រៀបធៀបនឹងថ្លៃដើមក្នុងការថែទាំបច្ចេកទេស
    រយៈពេលខ្លី
    អវិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង
    វិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង

    រយៈពេលវែង
    អវិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង
    វិជ្ជមានខ្លាំង

    The maintenance of conservation agriculture is positively experienced because of the reduced workload and inputs as the additional costs of e.g. weeding and pest control are not larger than the original costs of weeding and ploughing. However, the establishment costs are considered negative due to the significant costs of the zero-tillage machine. In the long term, the improved soil conditions should have maximum benefits.

    ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ

    ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ
    សីតុណ្ហភាពប្រចាំឆ្នាំ កើនឡើង

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អណាស់
    បរិមាណទឹកភ្លៀងប្រចាំឆ្នាំ ថយចុះ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អណាស់
    គ្រោះអាកាសធាតុ (មហន្តរាយ) ​
    ភ្លើងឆេះ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អណាស់
    ការរាតត្បាតនៃជំងឺ

    មិនល្អ
    ល្អណាស់

    ការទទួលយក និងការបន្ស៊ាំ

    ភាគរយនៃអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដីនៅតំបន់ដែលបានទទួលយកបច្ចេកទេស
    • តែមួយករណី /ពិសោធន៍
    • 1-10%
    • 11-50%
    • > 50%
    ក្នុងចំណោមអ្នកទទួលយកបច្ចេកទេសនេះ តើមាន​ប៉ុន្មាន​ភាគរយ​ដែល​បាន​អនុវត្តន៍​ដោយ​មិន​បាន​ទទួលការលើក​ទឹកចិត្ត​ជាសម្ភារៈ?
    • 0-10%
    • 11-50%
    • 51-90%
    • 91-100%
    តើថ្មីៗនេះ បច្ចេកទេសនេះត្រូវបានកែតម្រូវ​ដើម្បី​បន្ស៊ាំ​ទៅនឹង​ស្ថាន​ភាព​ប្រែប្រួល​ដែរ​ឬទេ?
    • បាទ/ចា៎
    • ទេ
    ចំពោះលក្ខខណ្ឌប្រែប្រួលណាមួយដែលត្រូវបានបន្ស៊ាំ?
    • ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ/គ្រោះមហន្តរាយធម្មជាតិ
    • បម្រែបម្រួលទីផ្សារ
    • កម្លាំងពលកម្មដែលអាចរកបាន (ចំណាកស្រុក)
    • The demand of the farmers
    The farmers demanded different dimensions for the Zero-Tillage-seeder, related to their desired inter rows spaces e.g. a wider seeder so more area is seeded in the same time.

    សេក្តីសន្និដ្ឋាន និងមេរៀនបទពិសោធន៍

    ភាពខ្លាំង: ទស្សនៈអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
    • Conservation Agriculture (CA) reduces the costs and workload with respects to conventional farming. For example, in conventional agriculture the field was ploughed, which costed machine hours. This cost is cancelled out by conservation agriculture, following the three principles. On top of that, this results in less costs such as depreciation of the plough and less consumed fuel.
    • CA leads to improved soil conditions and reduced/prevented land degradation which leads to increased biomass-production. This does benefit the land user. However, these benefits are noticeable in the long term. So, conservation agriculture is therefore significantly beneficial and (economically) important for family farms, where the land is passed on to future generations.
    • In irrigated areas, conservation agriculture leads to improved irrigation water use efficiency because of less water evaporation from the soil surface. Additionally, in flood irrigated areas, the soil is better protected and not flushed away. Farmers that have limited amount of irrigation water consider this a great benefit. In Algeria for example, the impact of CA practices resulted in a 30–40% reduction in the use of irrigation water and a two- to three-fold increase in barley and wheat production without the use of better seeds.
    ភាពខ្លាំង: ទស្សនៈរបស់អ្នកចងក្រង ឬបុគ្គលសំខាន់ផ្សេងទៀត
    • In Tunisia, it has been proven that CA based on Zero tillage and soil residue retention vs conventional agriculture contributes to make wheat production more resilient to climate change through enhancing wheat yield (15%), improvement of water use efficiency (13% to 18%), increase organic carbon accumulation (0.13 ton/ha/year to 0.18 ton/ha/year-). The reduction of soil loss caused by soil water erosion varies between 1.7 ton/ha/year to 4.6 ton/ha/year of soil loss.
    • CA prevents desertification. This is important as the desertification is increasing in dry lands. Thereby, it reduces the socio-economic capacity of the rural population, because of deteriorated biomass-production. Hence conservation agriculture is important to develop capacity in the rural areas of the dry lands as it ensures increased yields (i.e. higher income)
    • Soil microbial activity is an indicator for soil fertility. Preliminary results showed that soil microbial activity was higher under CA than conventional practices for different studied soil layers (0-15 cm, 15-25 cm and 25-45 cm).
    • Regarding the impact of CA on natural resources, especially soil health and water efficiency. Scientific evidences show that soil loss due to erosion reduced by 14 percent, some 62 kilograms per hectare under CA practices compared to conventional practices.
    ចំណុចខ្សោយ/ គុណវិបត្តិ/ ហានិភ័យ​ : ទស្សនៈអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដីវិធីដោះស្រាយ
    • The competition between livestock is identified as a major issue in terms of effectiveness and adoptability of conservation agriculture (CA). Livestock grazes the stubble and crop residues, reducing the amount of soil cover on the field, thus lowering the protection and improvement of the soil. And as most farmers rely on livestock, this conflict between livestock and CA lowers the adoption rate of the technology. This can be addressed through integrated smart livestock management. The approach should aim at minimizing the harm to soil cover, while maximizing the nutrition intake of livestock. The 30/30-model, in which the optimal trade-off between soil cover and grazing period is found, offers such solution. Here 30 sheep or goats may graze one hectare for thirty days. This leaves enough soil cover and meets livestock demand.
    • The price and availability of the zero-tillage seeder is crucial in the farmer's decision to adopt CA. The purchase of such a machine is namely very high for a farmer. It is unlikely that a farmer is willing to invest this huge amount as the farmer prefers profit in the short term. Investments (private and government) are needed to boost the manufacturing of national made zero-tillage seeder. This would increase the availability of the machine and decrease the price. Furthermore, farmers may organize themselves into communitiy user groups and cooperations hence, lowering the cost per farmer. However, good governance and planning of machine use is essential, as tension may develop during the short sowing period for the use of the machine.
    • The risks of pests and weeds increase during first years of the transition from conventional tillage to CA because of the residues left on the field and the change in the weeds flora. These form a good basis for disease development. In the short term this can be overcome by using herbicides and fungicides. However, this might be paired with other risks. Therefore, there should be research into alternative pest controls measures, such as intercropping or the introduction of natural enemies.
    ចំណុចខ្សោយ/ គុណវិបត្តិ/ ហានិភ័យ​ : ទស្សនៈរបស់អ្នកចងក្រង ឬបុគ្គលសំខាន់ផ្សេងទៀតវិធីដោះស្រាយ
    • The low capacity of farmers to invest in CA, specifically a zero-tillage seeder, is a weakness. This is due to the lack of government support and due to the small scale of most farms (80% of the Tunisian farmers have less than 10 ha of land). Iimprove institutional support by for example the government. The government can support farmers by giving subsides to allow the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine.
      The wider scale adoption of CA requires a change in commitment and behavior of all stakeholders. Such changes call for sustained policy and institutional support that provides both incentives and motivations to encourage farmers to adopt components of CA practices and improve them over time.
    • The increasing use of pesticides for weeding and pest control is a growing concern and risk. Pesticides may have harming effects on the soil, the biodiversity and the public health. Alternatives to pesticides can overcome this risk. However, research is needed to scrutinize this and if it is cost-effective. Possible alternative approaches are intercropping and the introduction of natural enemies. This would not only mitigate the risk of pests and weeding, but also enhance soil health and biodiversity.

    ឯកសារយោង

    អ្នកចងក្រង
    • Joren Verbist
    Editors
    អ្នកត្រួតពិនិត្យ
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    កាលបរិច្ឆេទនៃការអនុវត្ត: 12 ខែ តុលា ឆ្នាំ 2020
    កែតម្រូវចុងក្រោយ: 18 ខែ មករា ឆ្នាំ 2021
    បុគ្គលសំខាន់ៗ
    ការពណ៌នាលម្អិតក្នុងប្រព័ន្ធគ្រប់គ្រងទិន្នន័យរបស់វ៉ូខេត
    ទិន្នន័យ SLM ភ្ជាប់ជាមួយ
    ឯកសារនេះត្រូវបានសម្របសម្រួលដោយ
    ស្ថាប័ន៖ គម្រោង
    ឯកសារយោងសំខាន់ៗ
    • Amir Souissi, Bahri Haithem, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Mohamed Chakroun, Salah Ben Youssef, Aymen Frija, Mohamed Annabi. (7/8/2020). Effect of Tillage, Previous Crop, and N Fertilization on Agronomic and Economic Performances of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf. ) under Rainfed Semi-Arid Environment. Agronomy, 10(8).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11886
    • Amar Rouabhi, Abdelmalek Laouar, Abdelhamid Mekhlouf, Boubaker Dhehibi. (1/3/2019). Socioeconomic assessment of no-till in wheat cropping system: a case study in Algeria. New Medit, 18(1).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9761
    • Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157
    • CLCA Project Page: https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/clca2
    ការភ្ជាប់ទៅកាន់ពត៌មានពាក់ព័ន្ធលើប្រព័ន្ធអនឡាញ
    • Zied Idoudi, Nasreddine Louahdi, Mina Devkota Wasti, Zahra Djender, Aymen Frija, Mourad Rekik. (26/4/2020). Public-Private Partnership for enhanced conservation agriculture practices: the case of Boudour Zero-Till seeder in Algeria. Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11047
    • Mourad Rekik, Santiago López Ridaura, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Zahra Djender, Boubaker Dhehibi, Aymen Frija, Mina Devkota Wasti, Udo Rudiger, Enrico Bonaiuti, Dina Najjar, Zied Idoudi. (26/11/2019). Use of Conservation Agriculture in Crop-Livestock Systems (CLCA) in the Drylands for Enhanced Water Use Efficiency, Soil Fertility and Productivity in NEN and LAC Countries – Project Progress Report: Year I - April 2018 to March 2019. Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10444
    • Udo Rudiger, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed. (1/5/2019). Inspired by Nature - A Tunisian Farmer’s Perspective on Sustainable Integration of Crop and Livestock. (Short version).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10013
    • Peter Fredenburg, Colin Piggin, Michael Devlin. (30/11/2012). Conservation agriculture: opportunities for intensified farming and environmental conservation in dry areas. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5073
    • Hichem Ben Salem. (15/12/2015). Strategic Practical Options for Integrating Conservation Agriculture Cropping and Livestock Systems. Amman, Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4999
    • Hichem Ben Salem. (4/5/2016). Recent trends in conservation agriculture.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4771
    • Aymen Frija. (26/11/2016). Conservation Agriculture: strengthening crop production in marginal areas. URL: https://globalfutures.cgiar.org/2016/11/28/conservation-agriculture-strengthening-crop-production-in-marginal-areas/: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/6120
    • Hajer Guesmi, Hichem Ben Salem, Nizar Moujahed. (1/9/2019). Integration crop-livestock under conservation agriculture system. Journal of New Science, 65(1), pp. 4061-4065.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11423
    • Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157
    • Ayoub Fouzai, Maroua Smaoui, Aymen Frija, Boubaker Dhehibi. (5/5/2019). Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies by Smallholder Farmers in the semiarid region of Tunisia: Resource constraints and partial adoption. Journal of New Sciences, 6(1), pp. 105-114.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9988
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International