Sorghum agronomy for optimization of farmers’ returns Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical Sugar Beet IFAD, Rome 9 th November 2007 remy Woods (Porter Institute and ICEPT, Imperial College London) l: [email protected]+44 (0)20 7594 7315
32
Embed
Sorghum agronomy for optimization of farmers’ returns
Sorghum agronomy for optimization of farmers’ returns. Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical Sugar Beet IFAD, Rome 9 th November 2007. Dr Jeremy Woods (Porter Institute and ICEPT, Imperial College London) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Sorghum agronomy for optimization of farmers’ returns
Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical Sugar Beet
IFAD, Rome9th November 2007
Dr Jeremy Woods (Porter Institute and ICEPT, Imperial College London)E-mail: [email protected]: +44 (0)20 7594 7315
• 1992 to 1995 – EU-funded as part of European Sweet Sorghum Network extension– Zimbabwe (Lowveld, Triangle and Chiredzi Research Station)
• Irrigated and dry-land (v. good water control)• Small-scale generally• Detailed crop modelling and multi-variety trials inlcuding Montieth-based growth profiling and
P/PET analysis for WUE
• 1997 to 2000 – CFC-funded- work on diversification of the sugar industry– Zimbabwe (Lowveld, Triangle and Chiredzi Research Station)
• Small to large scale (60 to 100ha on sugar estate fallow sugarcane land)• Multi-variety including Indian (NARI) and Chinese (CAS) varieties plus EU/US• ‘full-scale’ harvesting crushing and processing trials at Triangle Sugar Mill
• 2004 to 2005 – CFC-funded work on small-holder production trials– Zambia (CEEEZ and University of Zambia trials carried out on small-holder land in all
three agro-ecological zones of Zambia)• Small-holder-based, plus one sugarcane field (vertisol, Kafue Sugar) plus University research farm
• 2005 to 2007 – CEEEZ and UNZA-funded trials– Again on small-holder land in all three agro-ecological zones– Ratooning trial at UNZA
• CARENSA and now COMPETE land suitability modelling work– Helen Watson (UKZN) and Nicholas Dercas (AUA, Greece)
Policy Dialogue ConferenceThe Role of Renewable Energy Policy in Africa for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development
Zambia’s Agro-ecological Regions• Sweet sorghum varieties were
planted in eight localities in the three Agro-ecological Regions.
• Region I trial- planted at Lusitu on Cambisols.
• Region II trial- UNZA Liempe Farm, Magoye CDT and Consolidated Farming LTD, Kafue Sugar. – At UNZA Farm the trial was
planted on Lixisols, at Magoye CDT the trial was planted on Nitosols and at Consolidated Farming LTD, Kafue Sugar, the trial was planted on Vertisols.
• Region III, Mpongwe on Ferralsols.
IIb
III
III
II
I
Figure 1: Agro-ecological Regions.III - Region IIIII - Region IIIIb - Region IIbI - Region I
Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 8
Performance of Sweet varieties at UNZAPerformance of Sweet varieties at UNZA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Sim
a
Ke
lle
r
Ma
dh
ura
Pra
j 1
Ge
2
Ge
2
Wra
y
Co
wle
y
TS
1
Variety
Yie
ld s
tem
s k
g/h
a
T1T2
Apr 21, 2023 Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 9
• The yields obtained are comparable to other places, especially that these were obtained under partial drought conditions experienced in Zambia in the 2004/2005 season.
Potential of Sweet Sorghum
Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 10
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1 2 3 4
Site
Ste
m Y
ield
(k
g/h
a) Sima
TS1
Madhura
Praj 1
GE2
GE3
Wray
Cowley
Keller
• Yield of Sweet Sorghums varied with location (variety x environment interaction)
• In general similar yields were obtained in Region II and I.
Potential of Sweet Sorghum
Apr 21, 2023 Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 11
• There was a reduction of about two times in stem yield in Region III (the high rainfall region) compared to the other two Regions.
• This is attributed to soil type (acidic soils) and photoperiodic response.
• There was also an influence of soil type in Region II. Yield was low on shallow and infertile soils compared to more fertile soils.
• Stem diameter and hieght also varied with locality, soil type and population density.
• The higher population density, the thinner the stems and therefore prone to lodging as had occurred with Madhura.
• Brix% was highest at Mpongwe and lowest at UNZA
1 2 3 4
0
5
10
15
20
Site
Diam (mm)Hieght (m)Brix%
Potential of Sweet Sorghum Production
Accumulation of Sugar
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T1 T2 T3 T4
Growth Stage
Bri
x%
Sima
Keller
Madhura
Praj 1
GE2
GE3
Wray
Cowley
TS1
Munyinda, K. 2005
Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 15
• Sugar content as measured by the Brix% varied with variety and stage of growth as well as environment.
• Most varieties had peaked in sugar content by milk to dough stage, while Wray, GE2 and TS1 were still increasing. These are long season varieties whose growth was interupted by the drought.
• Hieghest values of sugar content were obtained with Wray, Keller, GE2 and TS1, and lowest with Madhura.
Accumulation of Sugar
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Environmental Index
Fre
sh S
tem
Yie
ld (
kg/h
a)
Wray
Keller
TS1
GE3
Site mean Variety Slope Dev RegrTS1 1.105 0.443GE3 1.213 0.272Wray 0.462 0.354Keller 0.916 0.449
Figure 10: Stability analysis of sweet sorghum varieties TS1, GE3, Wray and Keller
•The most responsive variety to input applications were:•GE2, Praj-1 and GE3.
•These varieties should preferentially be grown by farmers with high crop management.
•Sima and Wray are very stable variety across different environments.
•These two varieties are most suitable for low-resource farmers. They have the least difference in yield between sub-optimal and optimal input application. •Wray was higher than that of Sima because it was more acid tolerant and was more adapted to different soil conditions.
Stability – response to inputs
Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 17
RecommendationsRecommendations
Potential for sweet production can beincreased through:• Selection and development of adapted cultivars
especially for Region III.• Selection of sites:
Higher fertility soils should be utilized• Use of irrigation. This could mitigate the effect
of fertilizers.
Munyinda, UNZA and CEEEZ 18
• Use of recommended fertilizers and pesticides (particularly for resource-poor farmers)
• Evaluating appropriate population density.Thicker sweet sorghum stems could be problematic for
• Sorghum is a highly efficient and durable crop– Radiation use efficiency (even better than sugarcane)– Nutrient use efficiency (particularly nitrogen)– Water use efficiency / hydrological impacts– Carbon / GHG use efficiency (full life-cycle basis)
• It is very versatile:– Varieties with variable lengths of growing period– Range of vars from grain to fibre to sugar– Annual or perennial?
• It is at a very early stage in its development. Continued development needs to:– Obtain better genetic material– Match varieties to:
Conclusions cont’d• The high oil price could drive unsustainable development• We need a range of carefully evaluated developmental models• Foreign investment should be welcomed but with caution• Main aim should be to understand how, and how much, value should
be retained at the local level• Then define the tools and policies to enable that to happen
– E.g. multipurpose or speciality breeding required?• Major and sustained investment is needed in capacity building• There is a possible once in a generation opportunity redirect new
investment into sustainable land management in developing countries – it must not be missed!
• With the right approach and careful implementation sweet sorghum could play a major role in the development of new, multi-purpose, pro-poor markets