View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Decision support toolsTypes and uses
ASHC team…
Outline1. Types of decisions made and decision making process2. Need for Decision Support (DS) tools (knowledge gaps)3. Existing (common) DS tools4. Reasons for lack of use of DS tools5. Characteristics of good DS tools6. DS tools for SSA
i) Some constraints identified in the region.ii) Suggested DS tools required
-overview-DS tool for Rock Phosphate (PRDSS)- Use of nutrient concentration norms (simple tool-excel sheet)-Using a complex tool (QUEFTS) to derive simple paper tool
7. Way forward
Decision making process
Decision making process (Farmer)
Protein maize
Pigeon pea
Hybrid maize
Pigeon pea
Owned land Communal land
Soil inputs:
Mazao Fertilizer
FYM (?)
Land
preparation
Planting:
Intra-row
intercropping
Pesticide
use
Harvesting Home consumption
and sale
Post-harvest
practices
Weeding:
Manual
herbicide
Decision making process (Hai Region)
Non-agricultural
Prioritize use of resources
Agricultural
Crops Livestock
Cropping systemsOwned land Communal
Management practices
ISFM-inorganic fertilizer
-organic inputs
-Rock phosphate
-Deep tillage
Management practices
ISFM-inorganic fertilizer
-organic fertilizer*
Picture- landscape with many farms
FArm-scale Resource Management
SIMulator (FARMSIM) – Giller et al.,
Climate
Market
Common land
Off-farm
HouseholdObjectives & decisions
Investment, allocation & expenditure
Labour availability
CropPotential,
H2O - & nutrient-limited yields
Weed competition
SoilSoil C dynamics
Water, N, P & K
availability
LIVSIMFeed supply & demand
Meat, milk, traction, manure
HEAPSIMManure collection,
storage & quality
Field
Farmsim
Need for DS tools: Knowledge gaps
Farmers
ResearchersExtensionists,
etc
All
Definitions
Examples of DS tools
End-user
Leaf colour charts
Soil quality indicators**
QUEFTS***
Cropping calendars*
Complex
Moderately complex
simple
DSSAT***
Phosphate Rock DSS***Slightly complex
Tool
Researchers
All
All
All
Researchers
Researchers
Complexity
Reasons for lack of use
• Require use of computers: lack of a computer base among the population
• Complex to learn and use
• use of inputs which are unavailable or inconvenient or difficult to collect
• failure to show cost benefits (Parker and Campion, 1997)
•Sometimes “ideal” DS tools lacking
Characteristics of “good” decision
support tools
-Clear objectives -topic relevant to farmers-issues farmers are finding difficult to think through and solve-easy to use- simple, quick to use-simple-easy to learn-information needed to use the tool should be easy to get, not immense
Problems identified
Summary of problems/opportunities identified in Rwanda, DR Congo, Tanzania and Kenya
● Nutrient deficiencies (e.g. N, P, K)
● Fertilizers are expensive, unavailable, quality?, price unrelated to nutrient content
● Poor yields and unreliable markets
● Erratic/inadequate rainfall
● Plant population and arrangement
● Pests, diseases, striga.
Possible tools
Cropping calendarhttp://www.fao.org/agriculture/seed/cropcalendar/welcome.do
To inoculate or not
Choice of crops
Plant population &
arrangement
Types/ amounts of
fertilizers
Identify the “best” fertilizer options
Timing of activities
Decision Tool/ Description of tool
Comparison of different cropping systems
Comparison inoculated vs non-inoculated
Identify “best” plant population and arrangement
Examples of indicator plants
Couch grass
(Cynodon dactylon)
Bracken fern
(Pteridophyte spp.)
Striga hermonthica
Phosphate Rock DSS: source- Singh 2005
Relative Agronomic Effectiveness
(Maize)Cost ratio of TSP/MPR
Minimum inputs: RP-source, soil pH, Crop,...
Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis (CND)
norms
Insert figure – nutrient conventration vs yield
Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis (CND)
norms
sample
Foliar nutrient concentrations
(%)
filling
value geom
row-centered log
ratios indices
N P K Ca Mg Rd G VN VP VK VCa VMg VRd IN IP IK ICa IMg IRd
1 2.29 0.22 3.88 1.62 0.60 91.39 2.36 -0.03 -2.39 0.50 -0.37 -1.37 3.66 -2.16 -0.42 -0.65 1.68 0.89 -1.74
2 3.15 0.18 3.88 0.98 0.61 91.20 2.21 0.35 -2.53 0.56 -0.81 -1.29 3.72 0.34 -1.25 -0.27 0.15 1.29 -1.03
3 3.15 0.20 3.03 1.21 0.50 91.92 2.17 0.37 -2.41 0.34 -0.58 -1.47 3.75 0.47 -0.55 -1.62 0.96 0.40 -0.71
Want to show excel sheet (tool for lab )
(will improve on this!!)
From QUEFTS to paper tools
Parameters Possible sources of info/data
Indigenous soil
supply NPK
On-going nutrient omission trials
Publications, databases
Potential yields Trials, farmers, databases, publications
NUE Trials, databases, publications
Recovery fractions Trials, databases, publications
Economic benefits Input/output markets, farmers
QUEFTS-Janssen et al., 1990)
Qs:
1. Can tools developed in one
region be used in another region?
2. what tools are possible?
3. Are there tools in shelves?
Last slide and sign off
To be done! Will look for pic of happy farmers
ASHC is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation
Recommended