Zero-tillage wheat allows for a drastic reduction in tillage intensity, resulting in significant cost savings as well as potential gains in wheat yield through earlier planting of wheat. Wheat farmers who adopted zero tillage could enhance their farm income by about US$100 per hectare. The cost-saving effect alone makes zero tillage profitable and is the main driver behind its spread.
The potential environmental benefits of zero tillage have yet to be fully realized and imply tackling the challenge of reducing tillage for the rice crop that follows wheat, retaining crop residues as mulch, and diversification of crops. Equity also poses a challenge: there is a need to extend the gains more rigorously to the less endowed areas and farmers.
The vast majority of farmers in South Asia’s Indo-Gangetic Plains have adopted zero tillage because it provides immediate, identifiable, and demonstrable economic benefits such as reductions in production costs and timely establishment of crops, resulting in improved crop yields. But in spite of the efficiency gains and the recent diffusion of zero tillage, most farmers, especially the small- and medium-scale farmers, have difficulty in following the wider basic tenets of conservation agriculture, particularly year-round tillage reduction, crop residue retention, and crop rotation.
Research and development thus still faces the challenge of adapting and developing sound, economic conservation agriculture practices that all types of farmers will adopt year round across crops and across regions. But the potential is there to build on the success of zero-tillage wheat and thus to use zero tillage and the associated efficiency gains as a stepping stone to conservation agriculture and equitable rural development.
Despite the wealth of information on zero tillage in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, there still are significant knowledge gaps. Particularly scarce are reliable and empirically based zero-tillage diffusion indicators and documented evidence of zero tillage’s socioeconomic, livelihood, and environmental impacts. Addressing these knowledge gaps would significantly enhance our understanding of the sustainability implications and remaining challenges. A better understanding of livelihood implications and stakeholder dialogue/participation would enhance the ability to keep interventions “pro-poor” and need-based.
Download the paper here -