Spreadsheet: 127124d1320171562-lookup-with-multiple-criteria-on-multiple-tabs-respondents
Sheet: Answers used in analysis

Name | Institution | Q 4: Which crop are you reporting on? | Q 5: Which technology are you reporting on? | REGION | Q 6: Which country/region/area are you reporting on? | Q 7: Is this technology used for this crop in this country/region/area? | Q 8: Type of input system for this combination Tech/crop? | Q 9: Percentage of farms using this technology in this country/region/area? | Improved yields | Reduced yield variability | Reduced production costs | Reduced negative environmental impacts (e.g. better water and soil quality, less pollution) | More efficient use of resources (water, energy, labor) | Higher profitability per unit of area | Other | Q 11: Comments on key benefits of the technology for this crop. | Q 12: Average crop yield under this technology (kg/ha)? | Q 13: Has the technology affected crop yields? | Q 14: Has the technology affected crop yield variability? | Q 15:Has the technology affected soil erosion? | Q 16: Has the technology affected soil fertility? | Q 17: Has the technology affected water quality compared to traditional or previous agricultural practices? | Q 18: has water application changed? | Q 19: Has the technology affected energy consumption? | Q 20: Has the technology changed total labor requirements? | Q 21: Has the technology affected organic and inorganic fertilizer uses? | Q 22: Has the technology affected the use of pesticides? | Q 23: Has the technology affected production costs? | Q 24: Has the technology affected on-farm net profitability? | Q 25: Other POSITIVE impacts of this technology for this crop? | Q 26: Other NEGATIVE impacts of this technology for this crop? | Q 27: Conditions needed for this technology to achieve its full potential? |  | Too costly | Lack of manpower | Incompatible with traditional farming practices | Not adapted to local conditions | Lack of incentives and investments from the government | Lack of knowledge on implementation | Lack of extension services | Other | This technology should be developed and used for this crop in this country/region/area? | Improved yields | Reduced yield variability | Reduced production costs | Reduced negative environmental impacts | More efficient use of resources (water, energy, labor) | Higher profitability per unit of surface | Other | Key conditions are needed for this technology to achieve its full potential?
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | China | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | Improve grain yield, reduce production cost | 5000/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability reduced by less than 10% | in irrigation regions, it can save water | no | Government supports and the seed company involves
Griffin [NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | ARDEC Fort Collins CO | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Don't know | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | Don't know | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | Ontario, Canada- Eastern Canada | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | I see a potential for use of drought tolerant maize on clay type soils which have a very narrow range between field capacity and permanent wilting point. There has been limited but long standing research in Ontario clay soils which suggest a potential break even return for use of irrigation on particular clay soils. With the advent of drought tolerant genetics with not yield drag in normal conditions there could be a market fit. | 1/no yield drag in normal rain [NAME] no negative returns due to technology use.  2/Increase domestic market maize production in a net import market  3/Some key market areas cannot produce profitable maize yields and has resulted in mono or bi type crop rotations thus reducing organic matter returns to the soil- the addition of higher potential for profit allows for 3 crop system thus increasing organic matter returns. | increase of 15kg/ha over convential at min. | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | increase in domestic maize production leading to self sufficiency | maize could be grown on unsustainable land base but as always economic realities should discourage this practice | more breeding
Major [NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | SE USA | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 6000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than  10% | Reduced federal crop insurance payments | None | More conventional breeding, less emphasis on molecular genetics.
Prof. [NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 2 |  | N/A | 5 | 6 |  |  | 1.75t/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | No change in water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Improved food security |  | Extension, inputs (seed, fertilizers, chemicals), availability to farmers, credit facilities, guaranteed minimum price, markets
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Tanzania | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 2 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | - lower risk of crop failure due to shorter vegetation period of new varieties | - risk minimisation | 800 - 1500 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | - might train the idea of long term thinking | - higher yields (compared to local varieties) need higher input of fertilizer, which might lead to higher financial risk in case of crop failure | - availability of seeds  - skilled extension service is needed
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Northern Uganda | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |  |  | 4000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Improved standard of living as a result of increase in disposable income. | Not at all. | Information awareness, Participatory approach and Inputs delivery be done in time.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | sub-saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | Improving drought and low N tolerance has resulted in improved yields and in reduced yield variability, as well as a more efficient use of resources | This technology addresses a weakness in the maize crop when confronted by a stress during the flowering period, but also leaded in to increased staygreen, increased water and nitrogen use efficiencies.   Transgenic solutions in maize to both stresses are under consideration for the region | 4000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Stabilizes family incomes and increases cash surpluses from commercial sales | None | The seed sector has to be able to deliver improved seeds to small-scale farmers to see the real benefits of improved N use efficiency and drought tolerance
Sika Gbegbelegbe |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Sub-Saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | An upcoming study will identify the key benefits provided by the improved technology (drought-tolerant maize) | An upcoming study will identify the key benefits provided by the improved technology (drought-tolerant maize) | Exact information is not available; what we know is that the average maize yield has significantly increased over the years in Malawi and Zambia, 2 countries where the adoption rates of improved maize cultivars are substantial. | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know |  |  | Some of the impacts of the improved technology are not yet quantified; we should be able to get more specific estimates from a study which is currenlty being carried out. The study should also be able to provide the key elements that have made these technologies successful in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA).
Ayinde [NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | [NAME], Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know | 1 | 2 |  | 4 | 3 | 5
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Zambia | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | INDIA | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  | 4 | 3 | N/A |  | 1 |  |  |  | Don't know | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | Philippines | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 4 | 5 | N/A | 3 | 2 |  | The key benefit is the assurance of yield in the farmer's field despite drought. | 3.5 t/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Don't know | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | Drought tolerant rice varieties can not outyield the best varieties suited for the rainfed environments. This is mainly due to yield penalty in drought tolerant varieties caused by the drought tolerance gene/s. | To develop a variety with drought-tolerance inducible gene, so that yield will not be penalized if there is no occurrence of drought during the cropping year.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | Yunnan province, China | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Increased yield, improved stability of yield | 4000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Improved cash income, and transfer from food crops based to cash crops based | Less cultivars used by farmer | Southern Yunnan and major GMS nations
UDAY P SINGH |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | [NAME] | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | By reducing chemical pesticides/chemical fertilizer  we run like sustainable environment. | no
Sekou DOUMBIA |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Côte d'Ivoire | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | Improved food availability  early maturing | 1000 kg/ha | No change in yields (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | strong in fighting hunger period | some people complain about the taste of the new rice variety | reinforce input (seed, chemicals) availability at producer level
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | Nepal/South East Asia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 |  |  |  | 1350 kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | India | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | Predictable yields and farmer income | 1.5t | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability
Zhonghu He |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 2 |  |  | 3 | 4 |  | High yield and good stability over locations/years | 5000 kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by less than 10% | no | no | The extension service needs improvment
ALVARO ZABALAGA |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | N/A | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 |  |  | 1000 kg/ha | Don't know | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | LAC | Bolivia, Upper Valley city of Cochabamba, Anzaldo | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms |  | 3 |  | 6 | 5 | 2 | They use this technology, because the soils are poor and eroded | Acceptable performance   [NAME] control, herbicides   Pest Control, Pesticides | 200 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Increased erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Increased performance | Soil degradation | Provide technical assistance to restore traditional farming practices
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | MENA | OMAN | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | More than 90% of farms |  | 1 |  | 4 |  | 3 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Don't know | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | Capacity building in the field of crop improvemnet (genetics and breeding)
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | USA | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 |  |  | 3000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | More investment and more private sector research.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | Minnesota | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 |  |  | 2800 kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | None | None | Better awareness
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | NAM | Louisiana | Yes
bob redden |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | OCEA | Australia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms |  |  |  |  | 4 | 5 |  |  | 3 t / ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | More reliability | much larger farm crop size
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | OCEA | Canterbury, New Zealand | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know | 4 | 5 |  | 6 | 3 | 2
Prof. [NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Nigeria/ Northern Nigeria/ Kano state | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  | 3 |  | 4 | 2 | 1 |  | The use of heat tolerant wheat varieties results in high yield because the region is prone to terminal heat stress. The heat stress cause poor yields of heat susceptible varieties | 3500 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Encouraging the cultivation of wheat thus creating more employment. | No | Adequate training for extension staff on the production of wheat, provision of soft loans to farmers and availability of fertility and water at affordable price.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | NAM | Northern Colorado | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know |  |  |  | N/A | 1 |  |  | By planting organically with only the use of natural fertilizers and mulch, and planting in extra thick rows, i have been able to select the most vigorous and strongest growers that both seem to be able to compete effectively  (possibly by forming deeper roots), but also able to adapt or scavenge low amounts of Nitrogen from the soil. |  | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | By selecting for the most vigorous and the ones most fit fit for competition, we may be also unknowingly be selecting for corn with deeper roots, and also corn that is adapted to local conditions better than the rest. | none | More public and student plant breeders. Access to free seeds? Information that highlights the benefits of selecting crops to adapt to local conditions.
Olalekan |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | SSA | Nigeria | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  |  | 5 | 3 | 2 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) |  | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | Difficulty fitting the technology into the social/culture of the people | Embedded into the local culture
[NAME] |  | Maize | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | SSA | [NAME] | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 |  |  | 5000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Use of maize hybrids result in a more uniform crop and better quality grain. | Possible dependence on imported seed in the short-term. | Availability of good quality hybrid seed and agro-dealers willing to invest in its marketing.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | ASIA | Nepal/Plain/Irrigated | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 1 |  | Of course improved yield but may face indiscriminate use of resources specially water and fertilizer. | 4.00 t/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | Reduced water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | 1. Improved production and productivity.   2. Helps to solve food production as  the main staple food crop.  3. Reduces dependency on imported rice.  4. Insures meeting food demand  of other part of country. | 1. Possibility of overuse of water.  2. Possibility of overuse of fertilizer.  3. May increase leaching, overflow or volatalization leading to loss of nutrients especially nitrogen. | 1. Proper water management, timely, amount of water and flood control.  2. Proper nutrient management especially Nitrogen and balanced use of other nutrients and even type of N sources..  3. Weed control herbicidal.  4. Promotion of transplanting machine.  5. Promotion of hybrids to increase yield.  6. promotion of aromatics to fetch better price.
Hua zetian |  | [NAME] | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | ASIA | Northeast of China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  | If  a  new rice varieties which use less N can get high yield ,It is a way to slow down the  environmental impacts. | 8250 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% |  |  | More guide technician is needed for farmer from government.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Conventional breeding: nitrogen use efficiency | MENA | iran | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 1 |  | High income for rural people | 1186 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | High income | import technology not indiginous technology | Farmers, breeders, extention people should work togheder under right policy of government
narayan bhat |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | ASIA | india | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  |  |  | N/A | GM Maize is in regulatory stage | 1. Insect resistance  2. Herbicide tolerance | 2.3ton | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | less labour utilisation | nil | Government committment
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | ASIA | Philippines | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | Less pesticide use |  | 6 tons/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Less exposure of farmers to pesticides, better grain quality. | Seeds cost higher but this can readily be recovered from increased yields | Public/consumer acceptance of the technology
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | ASIA | Philippines | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 |  |  | ~8 tons/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Associated social impacts brought by, e.g., less time spent on spraying/tilling. Secondary impacts also include better health for farmers, their family, farm animals, and wildlife, due to decreased use of pesticides. | Less labor opportunity for people who used to be contracted for spraying, tilling, and weeding. | Better access of farmers to capital/financial instruments to be able to afford better seeds.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | ASIA | Philippines | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | There are many key benefits aside from improved yields but the selection above limits response to just one choice. | 8 to 9 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Aside from economic and financial benefits are the psychological benefits to Filipino farmers. I have heard many of them claim that Bt corn has gave them assurance of good yields when harvest time comes without worrying against pest infestation. | None. | Credit or good financing mechanisms for small landholding farmers to be able to purchase the higher-priced Bt seeds, which they can recoup later with their better yields and increased incomes.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | ASIA | Asia Pacific | Yes |  |  | 1 | 2 |  | N/A | 3 | 4
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | EUR | Mediterranean irrigated conditions | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 |  | Reduced input of insecticides. | 12000 | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Don't know | Possible combination of this technology with other favourable technologies that might increase the risk of pest incidence. | [NAME] maize varieties yielding much better than available Bt varieties. | Technology transfer actions for farmers.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | LAC | Argentina | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 |  |  | More efficient use of resources - 5   Higher profitability per unit of area - 3 |  | 7,000 kg/ha | Don't know | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Reduced levels of mycotoxins in grain (impact on human and animal health and grain quality) |  | In Argentina the technology has already achieved its full potential.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | LAC | Brazil/ Center-South/Cerrado area | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 |  |  | 6.000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | LAC | Uruguay | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 |  |  | More eff use of resources - 5  higher profitability per unit of area - 4 |  | 6000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | In Uruguay this technology has already achieved its full potential
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | LAC | Latin America LA | Yes
Priscila Henríquez |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | LAC | Central America | Yes
Major [NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | SE USA | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 5 | 4 | N/A |  |  | 6 | Little effect since corn borer popns are low; mostly higher seed costs. No effect on resource use; generally lower profits due to higher input costs. Root worm bts may change that, but they are rare in this area | Rootworm and ear worm resistances have been slow to arrive, but should be helpful until resistance develops - resistance is ultimately unavoidable, but benefits will accrue in the meantime and better bts will be developed. |  | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Increased erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability reduced by less than 10% | Perhaps 5% of the time we have enough corn borers to justify use. | Generally combined with Round-Up resistance and we now have very serious Round-Up resistant weed problems (Giant pigweeds, especially). | Need a pest for which they are designed. We DO need resistance to earworm and several rootworms, but these bts have been slow to arrive and are usually stacked with transgenes that are not needed (but cost farmers money).
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | Canada | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 8400 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% |  | Improper use could lead to insect resistance | STacked traits that reduce size of refuge required to mitigate resistance
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | US | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 |  | Increased yield with less input, less mycotoxin infection because of less disease | 200 b/acre | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | When coupled with herbicide tolerance also gain reduced soil erosion.  No insect resistance has developed as yet.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | Canada (North America) | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Also, higher quality grain (crop produced has lower mold or mycotoxins than non-Bt maize, so Bt-maize is a better (healthier) livestock feed) | Bt maize in Canada has been sidely adopted because it has helped the corn plant protect itself from insect damage (with both above ground insects and below ground insects).   In some areas, farmers have previuosly used an insecticide to control insects, so Bt-corn is much more convenient and easier to use.   In other areas, they did not experience enough insect pressure to use an insecticide each year, however the simplcity and relatively low cost of Bt-corn allows them ot protect thier crop every year when it was previously not economically vialbe to do so thus they had more viability of yield/income from year to year depending on insect pressure. | [NAME] (approximately - need to verify) | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Crop harvested is clean and better quality (less insect damage in the crop means lower molds and mycotoxins) = better animal feed (in particular for swine) | Insect refuge management system is required to reduce the chance of insects building up a tolerance to the Bt; so farmers plant a section of thier field iwth non-BT corn to maintain a natural population of insects.  There have been questions abouth non-taret insects being effected by the Bt-corn trait. To my knowledge studies have shown that this is not a high risk and that the BT-corn trait are very specific to the target insects (corn borer, earworm, rootworm for example) | Bt corn prpduicts have continually improved and now have "multiple modes of action" meaning that there are several strains of Bt active in the plant which give the farmers even better control of more insects and also reduce the risk of insect resistacne developing.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | N. America | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | Improved efficacy and reduced refuge requirements
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | Canada | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 |  | 5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | #1 - Better insect management with reduced pesticide applications |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | United States | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | NAM | usa | Yes
[NAME] PhD |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | nigeria | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 |  | 3 | 5 | 2 |  |  |  | 1 ton | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | No change in water application | Don't know | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
Kobus Steenekamp |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | South Africa | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 |  | Improved grain quality and reduced dependancy on insecticides. | 4.5t/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Target specific technology to manage stalkborers, no effect on beneficial insects. | None. | Growers need to pay attention to insect resistance management strategies.
Mr. [NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | Republic of South Africa - maize growing region. | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Provides grower security in terms of stalk borer attack seeing that infestations vary from year to year. Approximately 76% of the total maize area of 2.7 million hectares is planted to Bt maize | [NAME] aproxiamtely 5 tons/ha. | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Reduces management time and inputs. Improves grain quality and reduces the levels of secondary fungal infections (mycotoxin levels still being assessed in field trials) | Additional costs (seed purchase) if stalk borer infestation doesn't materialise. | Not much more to be done - every year the adoption rate is increasing even when the total hectarage declines. Farmers see the benefits and continue to order transgenic Bt and HT seed every planting season.
Guillaume GRUERE |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | South Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Profitability increased by less than 10%
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | South Africa | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 3tons/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increased foodsafety especially in the case of reducing exposure to mycotoxins.
Dr [NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | SOUTH AFRICA | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 4 | Better quality crop yield | The Bt Maize enables a farmer to reduce loss resulting from the stalk borer by 15% of the total yields. In a nutshell, other benefits include significant reduction in the cost related to spraying and better environmental quality due to reduced usage of chemical sprays. Yields resulting from this technology have been recorded to increase by between 15% - 35% or more amongst commercial farmers. | 8,640kg/ha for commercial farmers | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Opportunity cost of time reduced significantly | Non | Farmers have to continue using certified seed produced and marketed by certified seed and other input service providers
[NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: Bt maize | SSA | South Africa | Yes
Beate [NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | EUR | Germany | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  | 3 |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed |  | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10%
Hugo [NAME] |  | Maize | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | LAC | Santa Cruz, Bolivia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Don't know | 3 | 4 |  | 1 | 5 | 2 |  | Produce high yields, prevent loss of grain variability and control in productive economic factor is decisive | 2 a 3 ton/hectarea | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Reduced soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Don't know | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Higher yields two crops a year | Soil erosion and water pollution | important crop rotation and rest and fertilization used for 5 consecutive years
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | Asia | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know |  | 4 |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Don't know | No change in water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Don't know
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | Heat and drought are important factors limiting the rice production in China. Breeding for rie variety with heat and drought tolerance is the most economical and effective way to solve the heat and drought problem in rice production. However, practice has proved that it is difficult  for breeding for heat and drought tolerance. Because they are multiple controlled traits. The transgenic method can be an effective way for rice improvement in heat and drought tolerance. | the transgenic rice with heat and drought tolerance is still under lab trail. | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Compared with the conventional breeding, the transgenic breeding needs less land and shorten the period for breeding. | The risk of transgenic rice is still need to be evaluated. | We need to further study the safety issues and have very strict rules ans laws for the transgenic plants
Dr. [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | ASIA | asia | Yes
zewdu |  | Wheat | Genetically modified crops: heat and drought tolerance | SSA | Ethiopia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Don't know |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | better resistance to the envaroment and have good prductivity per hectar. | DK | Don't know | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | No change in water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | increase productivity and solve problm of consumption for small scal farmers. | May be an effect on the mental and physicall growth of children. | willingness of the government bodies and intensive promotion by development wworkers to the local community.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | Bangladesh | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 2 |  |  |  | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know |  |  | Wide dissemination of information, in plain language that farmers can easily understand, about legumenous crops and tree species that can improve soil fertility and provide additional benefits such as food, fuel, fodder, and timber.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | Southern Shan State,Myanmar | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | This technology can produce better crop quality than traditional cropping systems. | In fact, organic farming system is very good for environment as well as human health but this technology is better than organic farming system for the poor countries because the poor farmers are still needed  the more yield for their livelihoods. This technology can give more yield than traditional practices and organic farming but also give a little negative impacts on environment compared with organic farm. | about 4000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | This technology for this crop will maintain soil fertility and conserve land degradation. This technology is also improved crop productivity for long time. This technology is also given the less negative impacts on environment because of combining use of chemical fertilizer and organic composts. | As this crop, this technology can give less yield than the intensive crop production and also more negative impacts on environment compared with organic farming system. | In this region, most farmers'education level is very poor and they did not have Environmental awareness.  That's why, extension workers will transfer this technology and explain all impacts of this technology to farmers to adopt this technology in their farms. The government should be supported the needed requirement to farmers and trained the extension workers to know the advanced technology about agriculture towards sustainable environment.
Kishor Atreya |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | Nepal | Yes
Milada Stastna |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | EUR | Czech Republic/South Moravia Region/Zabcice locality | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 1 |  | 2 | 4 |  | 3 |  |  |  | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10%
[NAME] Jordán |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | [NAME] | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |  | Don't know |  | Increased erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more |  | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10%
Said [NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Vallle central | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  |  | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 |  | [NAME] | Tecnologia por ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Reduced soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed |  | Production costs reduced by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | La mecanización del agro | La sustitución de la mano de obra | Existe una potenialidad [NAME]
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Cochabamba | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  | 3 |  |  | 5 | 4 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Don't know | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Don't know
no name |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | ceara | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 5 |  | 6 | 3 | 2 |  |  | 2000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Brazil | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 |  | 3 |  | N/A | 2 |  |  | 8000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Better understanding of soil-plant processes and interactions | Increase of the amount of fertilizer use without balancing possible environemental side-effects | better understanding and assessment of its environmental impacts; Determination of the fertilizer use efficiency curve.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Valle de Chuquisaca (sur de bolivia) | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 6 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  |  | 1400 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | [NAME] un mejor [NAME], que son poco fértiles y tienen poco contenido de materia organica. | En cierto casos, [NAME] estiercol no está bien fermentado, introduce malezas en los cultivos | Es necesario un manejo integral [NAME], [NAME] el sobrepastoreo y asegurar la provision suficiente de estiercol para la fertilizacion del suelo
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Kenya/Eastern Region/Meru | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 6 |  | 3 |  | 2 |  | Resource poor farmers are supported with grant inputs kits comprising of planting and basal fertilizers (50kg each type) and 10kg of certified seed maize adequate for establishing one acre of maize. farmers are supported with technical and other support services and improved yields have been realized from 3 bags/acre up to 30 bags. the main benefits include improved food security at household level, sale of surplus for other household needs, adoption of this technology by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries through learning from observation. farmers are also diversifying to other enterprises | 19-20bags (90kg) per acre | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  |  | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Farmers now appreciate capacity building support from extensionists  Marketing support for produce through linkages with stakeholders |  | Stable prices of fertilizers  Adequate amounts of rainfall during the production cycle  Access to financial support to enable timely procurement and application of inputs by farmers  Access to output markets
idupulapati rao |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | [NAME] of Colombia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | Building-up of an arable layer through corrective tillage and application of lime has improved maize yield. | 5 t/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Higher grain yield of soybean due to residual soil fertility | Monocropping can lead to reduced soil biological activity | Infrastructure in terms of roads and reduced costs of inputs of lime and fertilizer
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Mexico | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Cochabamba - Cliza | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | NAM | United States | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  | Integrated effects of reduced costs and improved yields are an advantage | 12,000 to 14,000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality |  |  | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Reduced greenhouse gas emissions | None | Increased understanding that this technology will enhance grain quality
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | NAM | Louisa county, Virginia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Western Kenya | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | I just want to note that at the moment, the improved yields (a consequence really of strong management of organic resources) is really something I'm aware of only anecdotally. | Another note--the technologies implemented in this region are largely agroforestry (to varying degrees) and integrated use of manure and mineral fertilizer. I do not work with farmers directly on these technologies, so my opinions here are based on informal conversations I've had with people in the region. |  | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | Don't know | No change in use of pesticides | Don't know | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | W Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 |  |  | 0,8-1T/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | the technology has contributed to protecting/preserving the environment by reducing soil erosion and settling agriculture (thus using less land) |  | - use of quality (more) agri inputs (fertilizers, peticides, certified seeds).  - training on the technology and responsible use of the inputs.  - support for market orientedactivities/entrepreunarial agriculture.   - support for access to credit.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Zaria, Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 |  | Improves the soil texture and structure | 1800kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | it increases resource use efficiency | none | development of farmers capapcity on use of this technology
SEIDU MORO |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Ghana | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms |  | 2 |  | 4 | 3 | 1 |  |  | 4500-5000kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Increased erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality |  | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 10-50% | the technology has shorten the seasonal availabilty of the crop in the market    the high supply of the crop has crop to market has brought the consumer price of the crop down resulting in high demand of the crop. | Many of the producers dont have very in dept knowledge in the application of the technology in their production so in many cases their soil structure are destroyed by too much application of the fertiliser   Moreover misapplication of the fertiliser sometimes leads to food poison   In some instances poisonous chemicals are washed into water bodies which can affect human health when such water are used for drinking,cooking etc.  Cost of the technology is high  Decrease in producer price | Prices of technological inputs should be subsidised  Effective extension should embarked in the production centers on right and recommended way of inputs usage (interms of when to use, right amount of input to use)  Policy makers can help to assist the marketing crops by assisting in coming out with policies that can help to increase producer prices while having in mind consumer prices i.e. aid in making sure that equilibrium market prices prevail in the market so that the technology can be perpetuated.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Nigeria/West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 | 5 | 2 | N/A | 4 | 6 |  | Another benefit of the technology is food security for the household |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | Reduced water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Reduction in cut/slash method of cultivation; reduction in soil erosion; reduced pests and diseases transfer; food increase | High production costs and unaffordability of the chemical fertilizer | Enough land area and other required inputs especially crop varieties and timely chemical fertilizer supply.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Kenya | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 5 |  |  | 1300 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Longer term soil fertility. |  | Access to information on the technology. Access to affordable mineral fertilizer.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Nigeria/West Africa/Sub-Saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 |  |  | 2500 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Don't know | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | ISFM has not only increased the productivity of maize but also stimulated the interest of both farmers in producing the crop  and processors in utilizing it | There is often the issue of glut at harvest due to poor organization of market for the crop | The farmers should produce for a market and ensure that they have all necessary inputs to attain high yields. There is the need for the continuous education of the farmers by Extension Personnel to keep them abreast with latest developments on ISFM and related issues.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Sub Saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | 1 |  | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | farmers can do all work by hand (with hoe) and do not need livestock (ie oxen).  This makes the technolody available to poorer farmers, and means that they can plant at the optimum time, without having to wait for oxen from richer neighbors to become available | 4000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | -enables production of good yields in low-rainfall years  -increases soil organic matter  -makes it possible for vulnerable people (poor, HIV+, old, women, etc) to produce enough food for household needs  -makes it possible to produce good crop when there is no reliable market for agric inputs (seeds, fertilizers)  - improved food security and improved livelihoods for poor households, leading to better prospects for climbing out of poverty |  | -availability of livestock manure to add to planting holes   -organic matter (grass, crop residues, etc) for compost to add to planting holes, and for mulch to cover soil surface
[NAME] (PhD) |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Uganda | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  |  |  | 5 | 4 |  |  | 3 Mg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  |  | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Improves soil health |  | Increased access of inputs by smallholder farmers  Improved access to credit by smallholder farmers  Better markets for farmers' products  Small scale irrigation facilities
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | ZAMBIA | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 2 |  | 3 |  | 1 | when used properly, increased soil organic matter, water infiltration, reduced soil erosion | the technology also helps to distribute labour out of the peak planting period. farmers are able to plant on time and tthe crop benefits from the nitrogen flush at the begining of the rainy season. early planting also ensures that crop is strong enough to survive moisture stress that may be experienced later in the season | 4000kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | encourages incorporation of  crop rotations, nitrogen fixing trees into farming system | increased weed burden hasbeen reported | input and produce markets, timely access to inputs
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Uganda/ Central region | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | N/A | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | Farmers have become certified and high demand for the crop and high prices since they are udign organic inputs unlike the conventional fertilizers | - Increased income hence many farmers are able to afford school fees for their children  - Reduced costs and expenditure on inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides | 1000kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Profitability increased by 10-50% | - Increased awareness of organic agriculutral practices to farmers | - Low level of adoption and its quite difficult for farmers to realise benefits compared to the conventional agriculture practices | - More awareness and training of farmers on the benefits of agricultural inputs compared to the convential agriculture practices and the use of inorganice fertilisers
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Uganda, East Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 |  |  | about 700 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Kenya | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms |  | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 |  | The technology also helps in managing noxious weeds such as [NAME] which affects Maize production in some parts of the country
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Kenya | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms |  |  |  | 6 | 5 | 4
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5
[NAME] Ph.D. |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Eastern Africa | Yes
Mrs. [NAME].W.Wejuli |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Uganda | Yes
OLANIYI OLUMUYIWA AKIN |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Nigeria/ southwest | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 1 |  | 5 | 3 | 2
[NAME] |  | Maize | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Nigeria | Yes
Anand Natarajan |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | India | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | N/A | 6 |  |  | 300 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | increased production | No | India/ Tamilnadu
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 |  |  | 8000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
Dr.(Mrs).NOORJEHAN A.K.A.HANIF |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | INDIA / TAMIL NADU / TIRUCHIRAPPALLI | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 6 | SUSTAINED YIELD OF CROP   INCREASE IN SOIL PRODUCTIVITY | AWARENESS ABOUT THE KEY BENEFITS BE MADE AMONG THE FARMERS/END USERS | 5000 to 6000 Kg/ha differ with variety | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
Dr.[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | INDIA /Tamil Nadu State / Cauvery Delta Zone | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 |  | Ensuring sustainable crop yield without any environmental degradation | 6000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Sustainable soil fertility management, improved yield | Nil | Intensive Extension Work, disseminationg the knowledge to the Farmers in a effective way
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | ASIA | North-west India | Yes
Bertha Cecilia [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | LAC | Peru/Tumbes | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 |  | The content of organic matter incorporated within the soil profile is a factor determining the fertility of  agricultural land, due to its influence on the properties physical, chemical and biological. Many clay soils cultivated with rice have low contents organic matter incorporated. | 90 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Is very import, becouse increase yield of crop | Us very difficult , when it is irrigated by gravity. | It is necessary to train farmers in these technologies, make picnics. Working with organic fertilizers. Apply direct seeding to reduce production costs.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | West Africa | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  |  |  | Don't know | Don't know
[NAME] (PhD) |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Uganda | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 Mg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  |  |  | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more |  |  | Increased access to inputs by smallholder farmers  [NAME] and organized markets  Credit facilities for smallholder farmers  Small scale irrigation
Lawal-Adebowale, [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Nigeria/Ogun State | Yes
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | EUR | Central Europe | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 |  | Less nitrate migration towards groundwater | 6000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Less soil erosion | More disease infection possibilities | Application with the suitable machinery, adjusted to existing soil fertility and soil texture, used as a part of a multi-year cropping pattern with diverse crops.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | EUR | Romania/Ialomita | Yes
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | OCEA | North Eastern Australia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 2 000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Don't know | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  | Don't know | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know |  |  | Improved climate forecasting and improved prices for grain
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | OCEA | New Zealand/Oceania | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 2 |  |  | 9 t/ha grain   +  5 t/ha straw | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | Increased nutrients leached into ground water | Optimised application rates linked to crop demand for water  Reduced variaility in application
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | Mali/Tinbuktu/Diré | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 |  |  |  |  | 290 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | This technology can protect human and environmental health by reducing chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture. |  | This technology is efficace in soil with poor P content.
[NAME] PALUKU SANGALA |  | Wheat | Integrated soil fertility management | SSA | DRC, North Kivu Province | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | N/A | 2 |  | The wheat crop is practiced mainly in the mountains southeast of the province of North Kivu, DRC, with a reduction of potential environmental, climatic and techniques. The population move away from this crop for the cultivation of cassava appears to be more profitable. The technical, financial and material would be a solution. | 250kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | Reduced soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by less than 10% | Profitability reduced by less than 10% | The technology for this crop of wheat may have the positive impact:   - The low cost of production   - The quantity and quality of products improved   - Encouraging the processing and storage of products   - The cost of purchasing standard | - Aggravation of erosions, as the region is very mountainous   - Distrust of population due to too many demands and job training | In this region for the wheat crop, he is obliged to use agroforestry because the ground is almost bare and erosions are in full swing. This option obviously requires sufficient resources, the funds.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | EUR | Spain | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 |  |  | 12000 | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Don't know | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Reduced underground water pollution with Nitrates coming from N fertilizers. | None | - Farmers/Technicians must be more concerned about water scarcity.  - Water must be more expensive  - Farmers/technitians need to realise about the big advantages of precise irrigation scheduling for yield quality, Energy and water cost control and profitability....with an small investment in technology.
GEORGE |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | LAC | sorata | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 2 |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2011-10-15 00:00:00 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 10-50% | use eficienty of wather | more cost economic | politics goverments
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | LAC | Brazil | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 |  |  | 6 | 4 | 2 | Seed production outside normal season. | It works well for seeds production, in rotations with other crops, specially edible beans (more profitable than maize under irrigation). Yield is high at high altitutes that is better for maize production. | 8000 to 10000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Can stabilize supply, reduce effects of dry-spells that normally occurs on rainfed maize production. Can minimize the need for new areas and, consequently, the pressure over the Brazilian Amazon Rain Forest, Cerrado Forest and Atlantic Forest. | Can increase desiases and the pressure over enviroment. | Mapping potential regions for irrigated maize production, improve irrigation and other crop management strategies, develop specific varieties for irrigated conditions. Requires improvement on weather data collection and relasing to users, as well as, soil data for proper irrigation and soil management.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | LAC | Bolivia/Cochabamba/Valle Alto y Bajo | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 3 | N/A | 4 | 5 | 2 | [NAME], la sobreproducción de maíz también les permite [NAME], bebida con contenido alcohólico bastante consumida y comercializada en la zona. Es parte [NAME]. La alimentación de ésta región se basa principalmente en maíz. | También permite intercalar con leguminosas como la alfalfa para el alimento de su ganado vacuno y ovino especialmente. Los excedentes de sus productos, tanto en bruto como transformados (chica, api y tojorí principalmente), se comercializa en las ciudades. | Según datos de la FAO son [NAME] que actualmente se produce gracias a diversas mejoras en el cultivo | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Gracias a sus ingresos [NAME] diversificar también sus actividades, logrando abrir otros negocios de importancia en las comunidades. Muchos se empezaron a dedicar a la producción de leche sin dejar de lado la producción de maíz, pues la chala resultante sirve de forraje [NAME]. [NAME] interesantes ingresos adicionales por venta de leche a las empresas acopiadoras y comercializadoras de derivados lacteos en Bolivia (PIL, planta industrializadora de leche). También en el aspecto organizativo, el uso de bombas sumergibles en pozos profundos les dio la  posibilidad de ser bastante organizados y emprendedores. Son comunidades que valoran tanto [NAME] que en el año 2003 se desható la guerra del agua debido a que se llegó al extremo que querer privatizar incluso, el agua de pozos profundos. En éstas zonas, el uso de agua de fuentes subterráneas les significó acceder a mejores condiciones de vida. Asimismo, éstos agricultores y otros más, han impulsado el crecimiento [NAME] empresa de electricidad en Cochabamba (ELFEC) [NAME] desde 5 hasta 30 HP de potencia, lo que incrementó los ingresos de dicha empresa. ELFEC penosamente fue nacionalizada el año 2010 y la calidad del servicio bajó en picada, provocando en los regantes de pozos profundos un descontento hasta [NAME]. | El uso eficiente del agua. Muchas familias continúan regando por [NAME] aún no sienten la escasés en sus fuentes de agua. En algunos pozos se ha visto una disminución en la producción de agua, pero están perforando a mayores profundidades, en algunos casos se han llegado a los 100 metros, lo que no es mucho comparado con otros países, pero es bastante [NAME] media normal en Bolivia. Es en lo que se debe dar [NAME], concientizar y prevenir a los agricultores. | Considero que deben implementarse políticas acordes a la nueva realidad, pues la legislación sobre el uso de fuentes subterráneas de agua es todavía primitiva y deja demasiados espacios vacíos, tanto que los agricultores pueden hacer [NAME] cualquier lugar y a cualquier profundidad, lo que provocaría impactos negativos si se continúa de ésta manera.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | NAM | USA Western States | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 |  | The key benefits of this technlogy is the more efficient use of water and the reduction of labor inputs | 11000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Less varibility in yield and quality of crop. Less soil impact with less labor |  | Short water supply and low energy costs
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | NAM | central US irrigated maize systems | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 3 | N/A | 5 | 4 | 1 |  |  | 11700 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increase the productivity of other production factors, such as fertilizer, labor, and fossil fuel energy inputs. Also helps to reduce GHG emission intensity, that is, amount of GHG produced per unit yield. | It may have reduced water quality of groundwater reservoir due to inadequate irrigation scheduling | Further refinment of irrigation scheduing, that when and how much water tu apply, is necesssary to achieve high yield and high water productivity together
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | OCEA | Australia [NAME] | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 |  | To clarify I am describing the adoption of sprinkler irrigation for maize production ( actually it is usually maize silage as we are a dairying area) vs the conventional surface irrigation approach. Surface irrigation often results in wasted water, waterlogging, mismatch between plant water requirement and irrigation schedules  and hence lower yields compared to a well managed sprinkler irrigation system ( most often centre pivots). Adoption of soil moisture monitoring is limited at this point in time. | 18000 kg/ha as maize silage (drymatter basis) | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Other positive impact is the ability to fertigate ( add fertiliser to the water) during the crops growing season, This allows for strategic application of nutrients rather than the traditional approach of allpying all of the percieved crop requirements up front at sowing - with greater potential for infieled losses.  Surface irrigation of the lighter more permeable soils in this region does lead to quite large deep drainage losses at each irrigation with resulting leaching of nutrients to the water table and possible soil acidification. Sprinkler irrigation is able to much more closely just meet the crop water demands so dramatically reduce the deep drainage loss | changing from surface irrrigation to presurised irrigation systems requires more energy per ML and with the significant increase in electricity prices in Australia in the past 10 years and the predicted further large increases over the next 5 years farmers are becomming very worried about energy costs to the point where some are choosing to not adopt pressurised irrigation despite the benefits that can be achieved | Key conditions:  Well designed pressurised systems that have system capacities to meet peak crop water requirements  [NAME] training so that they understand the correct scheduling and machine operation proceedures
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | SSA | Uganda | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) |  | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | SSA | Kenya | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 5 |  | Sprinkler and drip irrigation are generally more efficient compared to flood methods eg furrow. For Maize production, furrow is the most common although modernisation to sprinkler and drip systems is happening. There is a huge potential benefit in irrigated maize seed production using sprinkler and drip irrigation.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | SSA | Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4 |  | N/A |  | Improve in quarlity of production. | 50 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Its helfing matter | Chemicaly acumulation. | More enligthment and support by stakeholders.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | MENA | middle east | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 2 | 4 | N/A | 1 | 5 |  |  | 4600 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | No change in profitability
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (drip/sprinkler) | OCEA | Australia | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Increased energy consumption |  | Don't know |  | Don't know | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | ASIA | Nepal/Plain/winter maize | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 |  | This technology fetches better production and productivity than the traditional grown summer or rainy season maize in the said area. | 3.5 t/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Don't know | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | -Crop diversification use of maize and   -Can be fetched as a cash crop (winter green cob for table purposes).  -Better commodity value means more cash per unit area.  -Use of proper inputs in terms of labour, animal utilization in winter time when the land remain usually fallow. | _Might demand more inputs in-terms of fertilizer, pesticides and some cash incetives for small scale farmers. | - Assured irrigation  -Grazing animals control or regulation (usually grazing animals are left free on the farm lands when fallow as a normal practice)
Said [NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | [NAME] | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 5 |  | 6 | 3 | 4 |  |  | La reducción del tiempo | [NAME] | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Positive en la revisaltoria de | La erosión. | Area provincia Cercado
Waldo Ojeda |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | Mexico/SInaloa | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 2 | 3 |  | 5 | 4 | 1 |  |  | 11 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Increased erosion | Reduced soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Economical impact in the region  More technical capacity | No crop diversity.  Corn area about 75% total area | Efficient use of inputs
[NAME] Melgar |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | Bolivia/Cochabamba | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 6 | 4 | 5 | 2 |  | 1 |  |  | 1.5 tm/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | There are more rural income for the use of the rural family. | They need more managment for the water use. | Construction of dams, and rural machinery.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | Argentina | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5
Kendall DeJonge |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | NAM | Colorado | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 |  |  | 11000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | No change in yield variability | Increased erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | NAM | Southeastern United States of America | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 |  |  | 12400 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Increased erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
ORIOLA, [NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Kwara state, Nigeria | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5.2 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Increased erosion | Reduced soil fertility | Don't know | Water application increased by less than 10% | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Opportunity to cultivation all year round | Erosion and fertility depletion | Routine soil analysis
[NAME] |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Ethiopia | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 | - other high nutrition crops like legumes can be grown and used by the family or sold as cash crop.    - during periods of drought, pastoralists have a source of forage for their animals to sustain them till grazing lands recover | - water is harvested from rivers using a diversion dam to supply water to pastoral people who receive 0.3 to 0.5 ha of land.  Improved yields is a major advantage because previously no crops were grown, or a very small piece of land beside the river was irrigated and limited to a small number of families. | 6,000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) |  | No change in erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | - reduces production variability  - improved socio-economic situation for families | - increases incidence of disease with intensive cropping systems using irrigation, especially if proper crop rotations are not utilized | - communities need to work harmoniously to manage the water system and set aside funds for upkeep of the system
AWONIYI SAMUEL OLUGBEMIGA |  | Maize | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | NIGERIA/SOUTHWEST/ONDO | Yes
Bea Kylene Jumarang |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | ASIA | Philippines | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 4 |  | 1 | 2 | 3 |  |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know
Dr.[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | ASIA | Eastern Province, SRI LANKA | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  | Mainly rainfed irrigation dependent on rainfall which is very erratic and also frequent floods at time of harvesting.  Floods/heavy rains at harvest time have caused enormous losses to farmers. | If water management is sound, then this technology can help farmers cultivate 2 seasons and earn high incomes in the area as the soil is very suitable for rice cultivation. | 3500 to 4000 kg/ac | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Increased erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 10-50% | It provides high yields, timely cultivation, uniform crop stand, and higher profits. | Induces heavy use of inorganic fertilizers & pesticides, high labor use and increases cost of production. Need for large capital. | Good water management, credit facilities to especially small farmers, and alternate approaches to soil fertily management and pest control.
Parvej [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | ASIA | india | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  | 3 | 1 | 2
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | Brazil/[NAME] do Sul | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | More than 90% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5400 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increase of crop yield | Pollution of water resources by pesticides; decrease in water availability; soil degradation | More research about efficiency in water use
EzekannaghaOluchi |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Nigeria/South east | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 |  |  | 120 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Farmers necessarily dont need to have swarms to plant rice | None yet | Adequate access to land proximal to water
Nome Sakane |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Senegal/West Africa | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms |  |  | 5 |  | 3 | 2 |  | Because rice is the staple food crop in Senegal, irrigation systems allowed double cropping and hence improve food security of the local farmers. It also created income sources for farmers who rotate rice with vegetable. It thus, improved soil fertility management because of the different crop management. Farmers further created cooperatives and could get loans from the bank to boost rice production in the area. | 8000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Another positive impact could be the sowing time. Farmers had to respect recommended sowing dates in order to make profit because they had to pay back the loan. | The negative impact is the waste of water and the conflicts over the water tour in the irrigation scheme. Farmers usually irrigate more than required water. A recent study showed that water can be saved from the current irrigation systems. (de Vries et al., 2010). By irrigating less, farmers will save production cost. Cost savings are important for these rice farmers because they have to compete with cheap imported rice from Asia in the market. | Quantity of water used in irragtion;  [NAME] of the loans (timely provision);  Extension services;  Improved rice varieties;  Post-harvesting systems;  [NAME] market.
tollander wabwire |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Kenya, Eastern and Western region counties | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | n/a | Two of the schemes are new [Bunyala & Budalangi in western counties]. Located in areas that used to suffer serious perennial flooding and losses: and a testimony that if creative solutions to the food problems in the country can be achieved. Since its rain-fed in areas that receive very high rainfall in a year, its a better way to make use of the natural resources in this area to produce food where there was none. High input (labor-intensive) but lucky labor force is cheap and readily available, if anything creating employment and improving livelihoods. | No idea | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Don't know | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Input [hay and rice-bran] for an emerging high performance dairy industry that was never there at first [Alupe/Lake Basin Development Authority]    Better use of Land [factor of production] | Since there is hardly any crop rotation, the systems are not often sustainable and specific soil nutrients are likely to be depleted over time without marked replenishment. | More government funding to scale up projects into extremely large irrigation schemes because demand is almost unlimited
Dhananjay Kumar |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Easter India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3
Nzeh Emeka Celestine |  | [NAME] | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Nigeria, South East, Enugu State | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  | 6 |  | All year farming activities |  |  |  | No change in erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | It makes the production of the crop to be done in more than one season.
[NAME] Melgar |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | LAC | Bolivia/South America | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 1 |  | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 |  | Generally the improved yields has the rain irrigation. | 1.67 tm/ha | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Increased erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | The positive impact is that stop the migration, and have food por the food security. | The most negative impact is in the environment, because they produced wheat in areas that are not the best soil, producing erossion. | Construction of dams, because water is the key.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | MENA | iran/ Khuzestan/ Ahvaz | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 |  | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | One of the most important problem of using new technologies is the extension of them in farms of farmers and acceptance of these technology by farmers. | In my opinion one of the most important technology for increase crop yield and inputs use efficiency is the preparing soil bed before crop sowing in this region. | 3.5 ton per ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Increased erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | No change in water application |  | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | tolerant cultivar to environmental stress, inputs use efficiency, soil bed preparing, irrigation management
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | OCEA | Australia, Queensland | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know | 1 | 3 | 5 |  | 6 | 2 |  | Furrow irrigation of wheat usually is a spin off from cotton production in Queensland. That is, the infrastructure set up for cotton is used for a crop rotation cotton-wheat-(fallow) if enough water is available. Because wheat is grown in winter (April-September/October) - low ET - not many applications are needed | 6000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Increased erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | yields are far too low for an irrigated crop. As furrow irrigated wheat is only some kind of by-product of cotton production, farmers usually have little interest in improving the efficiency of their wheat production. Plant density in combination with fertilizer rates/distribution and irrigation scheduling are probably the key conditions here that would need to be looked at to achieve the full potential of this production system.
MAHGOUB [NAME] |  | Wheat | Irrigation technologies (furrow) | SSA | Sudan | Yes |  | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  | 1 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | the 9 irrigations, and 14 days as an imntreval of irrigation is very important | This technology is very important regarding the increasing of the yield | The wheat crop in Sudan have to take 9 irrigations
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Laser land leveling | ASIA | Punjab, India | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 |  | Major benefit is water savings in a region where irrigation water is scarce and in a crop where a large amount of water is required. |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Large Water savings, Some yield increases. | none | Availability of more laser units at lower rental prices
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Laser land leveling | LAC | venezuela | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 |  |  | 9000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Laser land leveling | LAC | Cuba | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  |  | 6 |  | 1 | 2 |  |  | 8 t/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | Specialized training is needed
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Laser land leveling | ASIA | Indo- gangetic Plain | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 4 |  |  | 1 | 3 |  | Improved  surfacedrainage,better areation of root zone, reduced energy use for irrigation due to higher uniformity of water application, higher crop yields and above all reduced water requirement |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Don't know | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Laser levelling promotes uniform application of irrigation water and better surface  drainge resulting improved areation in the root zone. Since wheat crop has only meduim tolerance to waterlogging,water stagnation,which often results due to rains during Feburary- March,is avoided. The leaching losses of fertilizers are reduced resutling in higher in productivity and reduced environmental pollution. | There are no negative effects, if levelling operation is undertaken after proper soil and topography survey. If excessive cuts are avoided , then temporay loss of soil fertility which may occur due to exposure of sub soil, can be avoided | The most important factor is the availability of custom hiring services at reasonable cost. The next important factor is the regualted but assured water supply for irrigation. Cooerative extension to educate and train the farmers is another factor that needs to looked into, Finally, availabilty of farm credit  on favourable terms to meet short  term financial needs should be ensured.
Markus LIPS |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | EUR | Switzerland | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  | 4 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 |  |  | 7000 | Yields reduced by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than  10% |  | organic farming must be applied for all production activities | improve acceptance of organic farming by farmers.
[NAME] [NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Bolivia, [NAME], [NAME] | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 3 |  | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 |  |  |  | Don't know | Reduced yield variability
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  | N/A | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | Improved soil fertility and capacity to storage water | We apply agroforestry systems, which improve the soil fertility (legume trees, fall of leaves, loosening of the soil, shadow, protection against windstorm and heavy rain) and the capacity of the soil to storage water, the diversity of vegetation improve the health of the crop, we get enough firewood and from the logs we elaborate biochar to improve the soil even more. |  | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Don't know | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Don't know | Adaptation to climate change | Agroforestry systems need a lot of handicraft and in the andean region it lasts about five to ten years to get palpable results | apreciation through the government  more encouragement through politic and NGO´s  better comercialisation of the bio-products (higher prices)
Teresa FLores |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | [NAME] | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 |  | Farmers are not dependent of external inputs | 2.2 t/ ha | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | No change in production costs | No change in profitability | Organic agriculture is less intense in carbon, and therefore has less impact in climate change | Not for the crop, but in some places due to weather changes, there is some reduction of crop yields | More support from the government and consumers
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Bolivia, departamento de Chuquisaca, municipio de Tarvita (mancomunidad de municipios Chuquisaca Centro) | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | better quality of life for families by eating healthy food | Sustainable use of natural resources (soil, water, vegetation), seed improvement local sustainable yield; organic fertilization. | 1840 kilos/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption |  | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Reduction of post harvest losses up to 20%. | The corn plant to be allogamous is difficult to maintain a pure line. | In Bolivia there is clear support as a state policy to these initiatives, so it is necessary to have laws that encourage organic production, also programs and projects for this purpose.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | [NAME], Departamento Santa Cruz-Bolivia | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  |  | 6 |  |  |  | Mejoramiento genético convencional ([NAME] y [NAME], uso eficiente del  nitrógeno) | [NAME] genéticamente modificados ([NAME] y [NAME], uso eficiente del  nitrógeno) | 4000/Ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more |  | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | el uso de la tecnologia es bastante positivo y no afectara el medio ambiente | [NAME] comerciales venderan menos agroquimicos | [NAME] tecnologia es [NAME] y [NAME] y la salud del prodeuctor
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Increased erosion | Reduced soil fertility |  | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | campo | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 |  |  | 500 kg | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Don't know | More fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | 45 | 32 | 43
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Brazil/Central-south region/Cerrado area | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  | 5 | 4 |  | 1 | 2 | produção de alimento seguro |  | 4 a 5.000 kg/ha | Yields reduced by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Representa um nicho de mercado com a produção de alimento seguro com maior valor e renda [NAME] produtor;  permitira o desenvolvimento de outras cadeias produtivas como ovos, leite e carne orgânica | Ainda não há mercado bem estruturado e tecnologia suficiente para todo o sistema de produção. | Divulgação, produção estável e garantida do produto.
GILKA TANIA RAMALLO LARA |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | LAC | Cochabamba - Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |  |  |  | Yields reduced by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability reduced by less than 10% | Less environmental impact, increased supply of agricultural labor to unemployed people, higher profits in organics and nutrients in food and improving quality and life. | Reduction in the amount of production | Greater knowledge and awareness of the benefits of practicing organic crops. Governmental cooperation to promote these practices.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | MENA | Iran,Middle East | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  |  | 3 |  |  | 5 |  |  | 6000 | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know
FARHAD MIRZAEI |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | MENA | IRAN | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | NAM | United States | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 6 | N/A | 2 | 4 | 1 | I don't necessarily think that reduced yield variability is a reality and I couldn't click n/a as if it were reality it would be of very high importance. | Often increased profits is what motivates many to become organic more so than benefits. | n/a | Don't know | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Don't know | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increased feeling of wellbeing and making a difference.  Higher soil quality. | Limited weed control methods and what does exist is energy intensive (tractor and/or labor). | More incentives and lower certification costs.
no name |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | NAM | USA | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 |  | Cleaning out drip irrigation lines pushes out more water with less energy required. Fertilizer actually gets to the plants and therefore uses less fertilizer rather than have the fertilizer collect in the irrigation system. | don't know | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Don't know | Greatly increases use of organic fertilizers and impact on plants is tremendous. | Slightly higher cost of cleaning irrigation lines may be offset by reduced energy required to irrigate. | Expose to growers and information distributed on benefits
THOMAS LOQUANG |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | KARAMOJA IN NORTH-EAST UGANDA | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 2 | N/A | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | The farmers adopt the technology not because it is their preference, but because they are too poor to invest in other technologies. Furthermore, the returns from marketing the produce from the harvest would not pay back for more sophisticated technologies. Higher prices of maize might tempt some farmers [ most particularly the affluent ones] to invest in external inputs. | It is affordable, as little or no external inputs are purchased by the farmers, apart from tractor ploughing for a few and relief seed and farm tools that might be distributed to farmers by development partners  and / or Government. | 2,000 kg/ha | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | No change in production costs | No change in profitability | Less external inputs are used. Less incidence of pollution. | Lower yields. This negatively affects food and income security. | There is need for reliable rainfall. If not, accurate rainfall prediction.  Training of farmers on improved agronomic practices to maximise the rainfall period by timely commencement of agricultural activities, viz; opening of land, planting, weeding, protection, harverting and threshing.  Training on post-harvest reduction, storage and marketing.  Availability good storage and market for surplus harvest.
THOMAS LOQUANG |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | KARAMOJA IN NORTH-EAST UGANDA | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | Little or no investment on external inputs nor techniques; this is partly influenced by abject  poverty, inadequate extension service and lack of  marketing incentives on the produce. | Reduced production costs due to minimum use of external inputs; e.g; pesticides, fertilizers and certified seeds; hence the food produced is healthy; ie more or less organic. Furthermore there is less pollution that is usually associated with the use of external inputs; as such the environment is conserved. | 400-900 kg/ha | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Increased erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Increased energy consumption |  |  |  | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Healthy food is consumed by the community as the the produce is not contaminated by pesticides.  [NAME] to medium scale fields are utilized to produce the crop, hence less land is has the potential for degradation by erosion, etc.  Affordable, as external inputs are not utilized in the production of the crop. | Relatively low yields; not adequate to meet the population's food needs.  Markets are lacking, as most buyers need large quantities of produce at any given time [for higher profits] and have other stringent conditions, like the need for single colour seed, or produce from any of the commercial varieties on the market.  Lack of incentives to produce more, as the market for organic produce is lacking locally. Consumers do not value any difference between grain produced through low external inputs and that where a lot external inputs are invested. | Policy capacity enhancement to improve the availability and quality of extension service that not only targets low-inputs agricultural production; but also to streamline organic production. Subsistence farmers who even do not know external inputs should be able to recognize and adopt organic production.  Avenue for research to be created on the traditional cultivars, to improve maize varieties - through conventional breeding - for high yields, lager seed, etc; to enhance marketing.
Prof. [NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Nigeria, West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  |  | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 |  | The benefits of manufactured fertilizer technology in terms of yield response and higher revenues is severely constrained by unavailability of fertilizer at the right time, occasioned by the actions of rent seekers and unintended beneficiaries of public policy [NAME] corner the subsidy on manufactured fertilizer in many ways, thereby block access of targeted small scale farmers to the input year after year. Thus the yield of maize, as the lead crop for the application of fertilizer in the country, is suboptimal and much less than the potential for open-pollinated varieties let alone hybrid varieties. | 1.2kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability
Nzeh Emeka Celestine |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Nigeria, South East, Enugu State | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 |  | It can easily be use by local farmers | [NAME]/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | Don't know | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than  10% | It is cost effective | It require capacity of the rural farmers | Intensive extension education from time to time
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Sub Saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | The fact that organic maise farming keeps today's and future generations of woman and mothers with their kids doing the handweeding for several hundred hours pers hectar and season cannot be supported any longer! |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than  10%
BENTA OBALLA BWAN |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | KENYA-KISUMU WEST -KOMBEWA DIVISION | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | N/A |  | Most farmers in this area cannot afford to buy fertilizer hence have been experiencing very low yields  however those who have resorted to the use of organic fertilizers which are easy to make have greatly improved on their yield and even soil fertility | 6750/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed |  | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | This technology had a positive impact not only on increased yield but also incorporating agro-forestry help in improving on fuel wood availability to the women forks,improved on animal feeds | It  needs time hence needs dedication for those who are not dedicated might view it as time consuming | For now though we have not started but I would suggest the use of EM to make compost manure so that more can be ready within a short period
no name |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Southwest, Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  |  | 3 |  | 6 | 2 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Ghana | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 1 | 3 |  | 2 | 6 | 4 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | The technology needs to promoted very well to policy makers in ghana and farmers in general for wider adoption of the technology. when this is done, it will achieve its full potential in Ghana
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Maihula, Taraba state, Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 6 | N/A |  | This particular location is slopy in nature, thus farmers rely on washed away debris from other lands which acts as additional nutrients to their maize. They hardly use fertilizer partly because of poor access of fertilizer and have a long history in using only organic fertilizer for maize farming. | 15 bags of maize (100kg/bag) | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | No long time effects on crop and less likely to affect humans through any form of pollution. It is readily affordable and accessible by small holder farmers. | Limits yield increase because not all the essential nutrients are replaced through the organic fertilizer. Also lack of adequate availability of the organic fertilizer education on farm inputs use | 1. Adequate availability of the required organic fertilizer for maize. 2. Improved education on how best to use it and also knowledge to maximise the planting spacing e.g 25cm space between plants. 3. Proper timing and availability of other essential nutrients such as improved blends of fertilizer to complement the organic fertilizer.
Dr. [NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Ethiopia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms |  |  | 5 |  | 6 | 4
[NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Uganda | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  |  | 2
[NAME] ISANGI |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Don't know
Lars [NAME] |  | Maize | Organic agriculture | SSA | Tanzania | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | Less pesticide use, less negative impact on farmers and consumers, crops with higher nutritional value
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | ASIA | China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 4 | 2 |  | 3 | 1 |  |  | 7000 | No change in yields (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption |  | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more |  | Labor intensitive
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | ASIA | China | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Don't know |  |  |  |  | 1 | 3 |  | Improve human health, increasing biodiversity and ecosystem service | NA | No change in yields (on average) | Increased yield variability
Dr. [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | ASIA | India | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 |  | The technlogy helped to reduce the use of chemical inputs and further pesticides and fungicides. Thus reducing the environmental, soil and water pollution | 30qntls/acre paddy | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Conservation of soil ecosystem and micro and macro flora and fona | Not in larger but the rturns can not be hiked instantly in a year or two. It is slow progressive and time taking but sustainable | More advanced methods on use of organic resources to convert them in to soil degradable and recyclable products which can be reused as source of nutrients
phrek gypmantasiri |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | ASIA | [NAME], thailand | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 |  | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 |  | enganced agro-biodiversity (edible aquatic resources) which is used as food; improved health; better environment; improved social relations (collective cooperation and action) | 3,600kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | better grain filling and graint weight; more tolereant to biotic and abiotic stress | transplanting technique would require more labor (pulling rice seedling, carrying rice seedling to field, and transplanting), but recent farmers' experiments on dry seeded rice have proved promising. It is anticipated that dry seeded rice planting technique will be widely adopted in Chiang Mai valley, particularly in organic rice system | for dry seeded rice technique, better weed control before planting and/or during early stage of seedling establishment is required.  In organic system, composting technology has to be introduced  and adopted by farmers. Other nutrient management practice includes use of bio-fertilizers from plant and animal extracts.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | ASIA | India | Yes
[NAME] Vos |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | LAC | Bolivian Amazon | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |  | Organic agriculture is a traditional practice, mostly because chemical inputs are not available or to costly to be efficient. Although it is thus more a result of the context than a concientious decision, organic farming is considered a positive way of farming (without the health- and environment risks of more intensive production systems), and has been promoted by NGO's and governmental organizations in the region |  | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | No change in production costs | No change in profitability | As mentioned earlier organic farming is the traditional agriculture practiced. Local farming is mostly for family consumption. Efficiency and productivity are not major preocupations for local farmers. The most important positive aspect of organic farming locally is the low costs, since it does not require de adquisition of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. | Since productivity is low, relatively large areas (although generally less than 1 ha) of forests are needed in the slash and burn agriculture practiced. The lack of fertilizers and calcareous limits the possibility to use degradated areas (such as imperata grasslands) for agriculture, thus increasing pressure to natural forests. | Organic low-budget technologies could be introduced to restore degradated areas. Additional funding in the REDD framework should be analyzed.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Organic agriculture | LAC | [NAME] | Yes
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Organic agriculture | ASIA | India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | Drought resistance is important benefit. | This methodology (we do not call it a technology), like the one from which it is derived (SRI, for rice), is not strictly speaking 'organic,' but your listing gave no better category. The more organic, the better, would be the way to describe this. | 4-5 t/ha or more | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Because purchased inputs are not necessary, nor is purchase of new seed, this methodology (we do not consider it a 'technology') is accessible to poor farmers. The main uptake of SRI in Bihar state is by poor landless, illiterate women farmers. From 414 farmers in 2008, the number of poor farmers using SWI in 2010 reached over 48,500. | No | Good extension to explain the principles and ideas behind SWI, and good farmer leadership for farmer-to-farmer extension. The state government in Bihar, pleased with results to date, with yields 2 to 4 times higher than at present, has set an extension target for 2011 of 750,000 hectares, more than double the 350,000 hectare target announced in January for SRI, which has not spread as quickly as SWI. Drought-resistance is as important as yield to poor farmers in the eastern Indo-Gangetic plains.
Jaime Rodríguez Muñoz |  | Wheat | Organic agriculture | LAC | IV Region of Chile | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 |  | 2 |  | Reduced negative environmental impacts,costs and external dependence and it¨is possible to develop a sustentability system for to obtain food health |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Its is possible to obtain healthy foods without to increase the production costs. | This type of technology hs not negative impacts in the environment. | It is neccesary to increase the extention to the small farmers.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Organic agriculture | LAC | Los Lagos  Chile | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | Alimentery safety,bes flabor |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | NO CONTAMINACION DE SUELO AGUA Y AIRE | NO TIENE IMPACTOS NEGATIVOS | VOLUNTAD DE LOS AGRICULTORES Y CONOCIMIENTO DE LOS CONSUMIDORES RESPECTO A LA SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA
Prof. [NAME] |  | Wheat | Organic agriculture | MENA | Egypt | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  |  | 6250 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
RAVINDRA PATHAYYA |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | ASIA | india | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | EUR | Italy | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 |  | 3 | 4 | 1 |  |  |  | 10000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Food safety | DIfficulties in the adoption due to inital cost | Extension service to clearly illustrate the advantages of this technology
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | LAC | Venezuela | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 |  |  | 7000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10%
Juan de Dios Algarañaz Rodriguez |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | LAC | Santa Cruz - Bolivia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | N/A | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | Manejo sostenible del recurso suelo. | La producción sostenible y creciente del cultivo de maiz garantizan la seguridad [NAME] pais - Bolivia. | 3000 Kg/ha | Yields reduced by less than 10% (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application increased by less than 10% | Don't know | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | De acuerdo a lo experimentado los resultados [NAME] producción señalan que es positivo. | El acceso inicial del productor a esta tecnología. | Experiencias practicas en diferentes lugares de la región.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | NAM | USA | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | High initial investment | Availability of loans for producers for purchasing this technology
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | SSA | Nigeria/Savannah/shani | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 6 | N/A |  |  | 5 |  | The use of this technology has also reduced post harvest losses | - reduced lossess  - reduced labor  - | N/A | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | - lack of adequate funds to acquire the technology | - sufficient funds for acquisition of the technology by government  - availability of the technology to the rural farmmers  - involvement of expertise in the procurement of the said technology
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | SSA | Kaduna state, Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 2 | 4 | N/A | 5 | 1 |  |  | 1000kg | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | More income for the village promoters | More labour required  due to need to bury fertilizer during application as opposed to the broadcating in the traditional method of farming | Knowledgeable VPs and willing farmers at demo plots
[NAME] |  | Maize | Precision agriculture | SSA | Nigeria, North West and East | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 |  | Enhanced household food security and livelihood; commercializing agriculture | 4000kg/hectare | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Maize production has now gone beyond areas where it was being traditionally grown. More farmers now use optimum plant population and appreciate the potentials of using hybrid maize seed. | Farmers complain of the labour intensive nature of the technology especially in planting and fertilizer application and so some could not afford the cost. Also high cost of fertilizer. | Provision of available quality seed; libralization of fertilizer sector by the government; availability of functional credit system with affordable interest rate to the farmers; available marketing channels; post harvest equipment, especially threshers and cleaners be made available and affordable to the famers; sustainable capacity building for the farmers and enabling environment for private sector investment in agriculture.
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Precision agriculture | ASIA | India | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 6000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | improved fodder availability and imporved the nutrient content in plants | Increased use of water and fertiliser | Better extension services.  [NAME] and timely input use  Graded mechanisation
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Precision agriculture | ASIA | India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 3 |  | 4 |  | 5 | 6 | Surity against investment | A farmer can practice himself at his discretion and his own techniques | 3000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Community education amongst farmers of similar socioeconomic strata | Time and labour intensive | Perfecting technology of every aspect of crop cultivation variability in time and space which needs variable application and attension
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Precision agriculture | LAC | venezuela | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 |  |  | 9000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than  10%
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | EUR | Europe | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 1 |  |  | 7800 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Higher quality | higher complexity in crop management | farmer training and education, high standards in infrastrucure and data availability/interpretation
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | EUR | Southern New South Wales | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 |  |  | 2000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Optimal use of variable land to increase production and profitability |  | Slow adoption rate is normal but will eventually increase such that it is adopted by the majority of users.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | EUR | Germany | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 |  | Especially in Eastern Germany, where the average size of the farm is much bigger than in the rest of the country and the average yearly precipitation is significant lower, PA is a quite common technology to react to the, in many regions, very heterogenious soil conditions. | 6500 - 8000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | - nitrogen leaching is avoided, if PA is properly used  - farmers used to PA are able to understand their production system better  - PA allows (and demands for...) a complete documentation of the production process and thus allows traceability, which is essential in European organic farming | - if not successful implemented or used in areas without sufficient heterogenity, PA might lead to higher costs | - trained farmers  - easy to use and compatible equipment  - easy to follow prescriptions
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | EUR | Midlands, UK | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | LAC | Mexico | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms |  |  | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 |  |  | 6000 | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  | none, | lower prices for the green seeker. A new model would be several hundred dollars only as opposed to several thousand. This will make the technology also affordable for groups of smaller farmers
REZZOUG |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | MENA | ALGERIA | Yes |  | Less than 10% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 20 | Don't know | Don't know |  |  |  | Water application reduced by 10% or more |  |  |  | Reduced use of pesticides | Don't know | Don't know |  |  | training farmers
Katarina |  | Wheat | Precision agriculture | OCEA | Australia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 |  |  |  | No change in yields (on average) | Reduced yield variability
[NAME] |  | Maize | Water harvesting | LAC | Bolivia/Zona del altiplano y valles | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 |  | Habilita tierras para ampliar y diversificar cultivos | 1.600 Kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | [NAME], se permite la agricultura agroecológica  Se habilitan nuevas tierras [NAME] plantan nuevas especies forestales  [NAME] crean microclimas | Sino hay una adecuada capacitación [NAME], se puede [NAME] y causar una erosión en la tierra | La aplicación de esta [NAME] enfatizar en 3 aspectos al mismo tiempo: a) apoyo en agua, lo que supone capacitación a los agricultores [NAME] recurso agua, Mantenimiento permanente de las fuentes/reservorios de agua, b) Apoyar con semillas certificadas y con abonos naturales [NAME] y c) créditos/capital para la producción, cosecha, venta.  Estos 3 componentes deben ser implementados [NAME] tiempo, es decir de manera paralela
[NAME] Arandia |  | Maize | Water harvesting | LAC | Bolivia/Region/Mizque | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | N/A |  | 3 | 1 |  |  | These systems are inexpensive, easy construction and allow planned use of water, but its disadvantage is that they are not very efficient for avoiding leaks in walls | 650 kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | No change in soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Minimize the effect of long periods of drought caused by climate change in that region of the country and increased yield per acre of this product without inversion. | No negative impacts in this technology. | Reduce water leakage and the effects of evaporation to be less loss of "Atajados" or ecological water storage tanks.  This can be achieved by designing low-cost ponds with impermeable covers.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Water harvesting | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 |  | Ensure the production, therefore the food sobereignity of these communities | 1700 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | The technology is contextualized to the local conditiones: economic, cultural and environmental (hill slopes) |  | Labour
Juan de Dios Algarañaz Rodriguez |  | Maize | Water harvesting | LAC | Santa Cruz - Bolivia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | Ninguna | Se busca una estabilidad de producción a largo plazo.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Water harvesting | MENA | Iran | Yes
[NAME] Rivaldo Alain |  | Maize | Water harvesting | SSA | [NAME] | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 3 | 4 | N/A | 2 | 1 | 5 |  |  | 3260 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Don't know | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more
[NAME] |  | Maize | Water harvesting | SSA | [NAME] | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 2 | 3 | N/A | 4 | 1 | 5 |  |  | 4490 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Don't know | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | This technology is adapted for small irrigation and it doesn’t require a great technical monitoring. | It can reduce the streaming. That can affect the filling of the tank using during the dry period for farm and non farms uses. | - Provide financial credit to the farmers  - Extension of this technology  - Promote chemicals access to the famers  - Assess the impacts of this technology in order to identify these negative and positive effects for its improvement
[NAME] |  | Maize | Water harvesting | SSA | Ethiopia | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 3 |  | 4 |  | 2 | - better family nutriion due to diversity of crops grown  - famlies can maintain herds through drought period, using forage/ crop residues from irrigated fields | - water is harvested from existing river systems and diverted to dry areas previously used for grazing.  Pastoralists change from pastoral livelihoods (which have declined due to changing rainfall patterns) to irrigated agriculture, growing maize, sorghum, legumes.  Main benefit is improved livelihood for former pastoralists | 6000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) |  | No change in erosion | Reduced soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | - better household nutrition  - more stable livelihoods  - less dependence on food aid | - not a problem yet, but as irrigation increases, there could be conflict between water users | - availability of river water close enough to region to make water diversion feasible
KPADONOU Babatoundé Rivaldo Alain |  | Maize | Water harvesting | SSA | West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 4 | N/A | 2 | 1 | 5 |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Water harvesting | ASIA | Indo-gangetic plain | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 |  | 4 | 2 | 1 |  |  | Reduced surface runoff, decresed soil erosion, increased ground water recarge, reduced irrigation requirements and low surface water pollution |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Don't know | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than  10% | Inceased water availablity, reduced energy requirement, reduced fertilizer losses dueto decreased surface run off | No negative effect if excessive water ponding is avoided | Moderate defict of irrigation water, uniform land topograhy or introduction of precision levelling, availabilty of farm implements to make ridges
Oladele O.I |  | [NAME] | Water harvesting | SSA | West Africa Nigeria and Ghana | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | It improves yield, reduce production cost, reduced negative enviromental impacts, more efficient use and higher profitability per unit area | [NAME] production technology | 5t/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | No change in labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | significant reduction in poverty | initial capital outlay is high | support to farmers, extension agents and researchers in terms of training and input
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Water harvesting | SSA | Kano - Nigeria | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 1 |  | Ensure water availability for good crop growth | 850kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increase land productivity | none | Government support in the area of irrigation equipments
Ndaya [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Water harvesting | SSA | Nigeria | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Water harvesting | ASIA | semi-arid rajasthan, India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 |  | wheat is grown as a winter crop, when there is no rainfal.  [NAME], which recharges the monsoonal rainfall, provides greater irrigation potential.  without water harvesting, mustard is the preferred crop, which is less useful for subsistence farmers (can't eat). | ? | Don't know | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Increased energy consumption | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | community cohesion and awareness of environmental impacts of deforesting hills. since water harvesting in place, increased forest growth. | groundwater decline, introduction of tube wells accelerating groundwater use | decentralized community catchment focus, so ownership of structures with community.  currently maintenance an issue.
SANAI LI |  | Wheat | Water harvesting | ASIA | CHINA | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  | 4 | 3 |  | 6 | 5 |  |  | 4000-5000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | Reduced water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Increased energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by less than  10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | use of fertilizer and irrigation increase crop yield and farm income | however, use of use of fertilizer and irrigation have a negative impacts on environment and more investment in agriculture is needed | in the arid area of China, irrigation is particular important to  achieve its full potential for this crop
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Water harvesting | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  |  | 2 |  | 3 |  |  | 1000 kg/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | No change in energy consumption | No change in labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Due to the high requirements for the wheat in our country (). We import flaw (harina!) from other countries, we need to encourage farmer to produce more wheat however the main limitation is scarcity of water, then we need local and adapted technology to harvest water and improved irrigation systems. | if irrigation is not aplied adeqately it may cause soil erosion | an integrated water harvesting system, not only the construccion of small reservoirs but also, how to reach the farm without losing so much water in the land channels
MAHGOUB [NAME] |  | Wheat | Water harvesting | SSA | Sudan | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability |  | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | It will improve the farmer's incomes and from this will reducing the farmer's poverty level. | This techonlogy some time will negatively affected the soil | It should be first practiced on researchers fields, then to be transfered to the farmers.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | ASIA | Ukraine | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 6 000 - 8 000 | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | More information about this (no-till) technologye
Dr. [NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | ASIA | West Bengal, India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  | 2 |  | 4 | 3 | 1 |  |  | 25000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Deep root system |  | Awareness building
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | ASIA | ILOCOS REGION, PHILIPPINES | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 4 |  | Farmers were able to save on land preparation (rotavation) and furrowing which amounted to more or less $130 per ha. If the area to be used is a rice-based, then rice straw could also be applied as mulch to conserve moisture. | For glutinous corn, >3,000 kg/ha while for hybrid corn, >5000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | If moisture still available after harvesting rice, then it will be more beneficial to the farmers | Farmers who do not apply the right amount of fertilizer will definitely deplete all nutrients available in the soil, as we all know that corn is very voracious of nitrogen | The right knowledge on this technology and proper timing on the implementation on it or let say good planting calendar
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | ASIA | East Asia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 1 |  | Erosion control and improved soil fertility; resilience in extreme weather | 6-8 t/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Reduced pollution; improved resilience in extreme weather |  | - availability of suitable no-till direct seeding technology for the crop and for rotational crops with good residue management ability  - technical assistance in the extension  - incentive mechnanizms for facilitating the change and the respective investment.
Markus LIPS |  | Maize | Zero tillage | EUR | Switzerland | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 4 | 2 | 1 |  | 3 |  |  | 10000 | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability reduced by less than 10% |  | negative effect within crop rotation, higher risk of mycotoxin | improve the social accpetance by farmers
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Argentina | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | More than 90% of farms | 4 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 3 |  |  | 9000 | Don't know | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | IMpact on the whole system | Soil ohysical conditions should be studied | It is fully adopted
efrain zelada |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | 2 | 6 | 3 |  | 1 | 5 | soil conservation | use of native varieties, early and late | 1000 - 1200 kg/ha | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | crops can be associated | have problems postharvest | credit facilities, technical assistance
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 500 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application increased by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | less crop cultural practices such as weed control |  | increase the demonstration of its benefits to producers, whether small, medium or large.  Field Demonstrations  producers' own testimony
no name |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Mexico | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 2 |  | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | Reduced production costs can be broken down to reduced labour and reduced machinery activities in the field. | 5000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | - Reduction of agro-chemical inputs in general | - If not well managed, there will be negative impacts (e.g. due to increases in weed population) | - good management and knowledge of the technology  - technical assistance (extension)  - availability of appropriate machinery
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Latin America | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |  |  | 2 tons.ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Don't know | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
Said [NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Tarija-Bolivia | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 2 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 |  | Su utilización puede ser provechosa | Rendimiento por hectarea | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility |  | Water application reduced by less than 10% |  | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Positive | El financiamiento | [NAME]
RESENDE, ALVARO V. |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Brazil | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 2 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  | More efficient use of nutrients due to the crop rotation | 5000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Better nutrient cicling due to the crop rotation |  | Most of the zero tillage area still relies on the soybean/maize rotation. Farmers which work with more diverse combination of crops potentialize the benefits of this technology. So, is necessary to stimulate the inclusion of other crop species in order to achieve the full potential of the no till systems.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Brazil/Centyro-South/Cerrado area | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms |  | 2 |  |  | 1 | 3 |  |  | 6.000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | No change in production costs | Profitability increased by 10-50% | O maior efeito é no meio ambiente, reduzindo as perdas de solo e agua e aumentando a sustentabilidade dos sistemas agrícolas. |  | Estabelecimento de culturas de cobertura adequadas para diferentes ambientes, especialmente aqueles onde há as chuvas são concentradas ou insuficientes.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Central Brazil | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 |  |  | 7000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Earlier sowing due to greater water retention, control of weeds in early steges of crop growth | Excess use of herbicide to dissecate tropical grasses before maize sowing. | Better linkage between research institutions and farming community to develop research that address current technical challenges and efficient communication of applied science to farmers.
Alexis NUÑEZ ZAMALLOA |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | [NAME]; Cusco Peru | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Argentina | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | Nicaragua | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms |  |  | 2 | 1 | 3
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | en la region del chaco | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | LAC | [NAME]Santa Cruz -Bolivia | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | NAM | Canada | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  | Zero-tillage maize has been adopted by some famers, but not all. Livestock famers use manure from thier livestock as fertilizer which needs to be incorporated into the soil using tillage. Farmers who do not have liverstock are more apt to use zero tillage systems. | 8000 Kg/Ha approximately (slightly lower than with tillage) | Yields reduced by less than 10% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Soil conservation is the big benefit.  Farmers who use zero tillage systems are also more efficient with their operation - both labor and equipment. This had allowed some farmers to expand thier operation and be more financailly viable wihtout having to invest more in equipment and labour. Example: 1-2 person family farm operation can expand land base and farm more acres without having to buy additional expensive equipment and hire extra people because they no longer need to make 1-2 tillage passes on each field.  Seed treatment (insecticide and fingicide combined) have helped protect the seed when it is in the ground (zero till fields have colder soil temp and )more chance of seed decay  Improve herbicides (post emergent) have helped farmers control weeds in this system more effectively  Herbicide resistant hybrids (through biotechnology) have helped farmers get adequate weed control in a zero till system. | Zero-till is riskier in corn than in other crops (like soybeans) expecially on heavy soil types (heavy clay soils for example), so while it can save teh farmer money and help protect soil, the risk of getting strong even emergence of the crop. | A combination of plant science (seed treatment, herbicides, seed) and planting equipment improvments. I see continual progress on this over the past 15 years...if progress continues the rate of adoption will continue as well.  In corn, it will not likley be as high as in soybeans or other crops due to the use of livestock manure mentioned earlier.
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | NAM | Eastern Shore of Maryland | Yes
Ogaraku, [NAME] (nee Onu) |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Nigeria/Sourth- Sourth/ Rivers State | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | More than 90% of farms |  |  |  | 2 | 4 | 3 | The benefit of the technogy include avioding soil compactability as a result of wet nature of soil in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. | Incresase maize yield since the soil is not affected by heavy equipment or machine | The current average yeild is 5000kg/ha | No change in yields (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | No change in water application | No change in energy consumption | More labor needed | More fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | No change in profitability | The positive impact of zero tillage technonology on farm productivity is the preservation of soil structure and reduction of erosion which increased soil fertility and crop yeild. | The negative impact could be the small farm size the farmer will cultivate as a result non use of machine in land preparation like zero tillage. | Creating awareness to farmers on the importance of tillage practices  Assisting the farmers by subsidizing the cost of tillage pratcices, also making inputs such as fertilizers and improved of maize to increase yeild
uke praise |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Nigeria/southeast/Abia state | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |  | Due to the soil class found in his region, the textural class, soil structure and pH, the residents of this region are always the first to harvest this crop in most parts of Nigeria. | NA | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10%
no name |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | cameroon | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 |  |  |  |  | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know |  | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50%
[NAME] Faminu |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Nigeria/ Lagos/ Ojo | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | 5 |  | 4 | 2 | 1 |  |  | 1000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Increased yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Encourages mixed cropping | In sandy acidic soils, zero tillage does not encourage turning of topsoil | manure to be incorporated at preparation stages by tilling into soil
[NAME] DIBY |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 |  |  | 2000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Don't know | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | All positive impacts known to me have already been mentionned | Increase soil bulk density | 1) Inform farmers on the best way to apply the technology  2) Extension services to disseminate the technology
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Sub Saharan Africa | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 |  | In combination with selective herbicide use the technology will relive millions of woman from hundreds of hours of painful handweeding every crop season | 3000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 50% or more | Increased productivits will result in less additional forest surface to be cut down |  | Development of micro markets for to deal with surplus harvest (collection, storage and regional distribution)
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Ghana, West Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 3Kg/Ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Less destruction of the soil structure and better soilo conservation and reduced nutrient loss | Increased use of herbicides and id not applied properly following safety standards can be harmful to farmers | relatively flat land and adequate training of farmers ti use the right chemicals, apply using the right techniques and proper disposal of containers after use
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Sub-Saharan Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 |  | Smallholder subsistence farmers who are the most vulnerable and often dependent on food aid generally don't have oxen to cultivate their land, and therefore must work for other farmers, or wait until oxen are available, thereby delaying planting.  By using zero tillage, with a hoe and planting stations, these farmers can plant their crop on time, capitalizing on the early rains and conserving moisture. | 4,000 kg/ha | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality |  | No change in energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 50% or more | - drought resistance,   - stables production variability during droughts or periods of excessive rainfall  - increases soil organic matter,   - allows vulnerable people (elderly, child-headed households, HIV positive individuals) to produce food for their own needs  - allows early planting of crops and earlier harvest which reduces lean season  - improves soci-economic situation in communities because increased production allows parents to send children to school because can pay school fees and purchase uniforms.  Also, families and communities increase their self-esteem by being part of a successful project  - reduces burning of crop residue which wasa common before - the zero tillage system allows people to use the grass residue as mulch |  | - strong extension program to promote the zero tillage system.  ZT is so unlike the conventional cropping system based on tillage that farmers are initially not convinced that it will work.
Olatunde Agoro |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Nigeria/South West | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | More than 90% of farms |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  | 3,000kg | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application increased by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | More labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Coservation of humus in the soil. | increased cost of weeding | Timely availability of required inputs
Dr [NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Ghana | Yes
[NAME] |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Africa | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1
no name |  | Maize | Zero tillage | SSA | Ethiopia and Kenya | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5
Dr. [NAME] |  | [NAME] | Zero tillage | ASIA | West Bengal, India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 4 |  | 5 | 2 | 1 |  |  | 9000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Eco-friendly, less water requirement. |  | Awareness regarding the optimum use of water in cultivation
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Zero tillage | ASIA | East Asia; North Korea | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 6 |  | it also leads to reduced irrigation (flooding) and hence to reduced GHG emissions | 6 t/ha | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | it leads to combination with other concepts, like SRI, i.e. reduced seed use, no flooding in rice, reduced GHG emissions |  | - this is being applied even at manual transplating level not requiring any special tool  - the only input needed is training and extension as well as political support
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Zero tillage | ASIA | India (North-west) | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms |  | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | •	On an average 30% saving in irrigation water,   •	Increase in rice-wheat yields by 17%,   •	Saving in time of operations of farm machinery,   •	Increase in area under plow due to removal of bunds and channels,  •	Benefits are more in vegetable based cropping systems. | •	On an average 30% saving in irrigation water,   •	Increase in rice-wheat yields by 17%,   •	Saving in time of operations of farm machinery,   •	Increase in area under plow due to removal of bunds and channels,  •	Benefits are more in vegetable based cropping systems. | 4000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Better and uniform germination  improves crop agronomy  Uniform water application  Uniform crop stand  Uniform crop ripening and harvest at right time | In highly unleveled fields, cut and fill may be too high leading to shift in upper fertile soil.  Initially may require to have more organic manures in cut areas | •	Enhance training of Laser Leveler service providers,  •	Govt place laser units to service providers,   •	Need for promoting custom service providers,  •	Promote 20 hour usage of Govt. owned laser units in peak season
[NAME] |  | [NAME] | Zero tillage | SSA | Nigeria | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 50 and 75% of farms | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | Key benefits are a combination of increased yield with reduced labor inputs and production costs. | 4000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Don't know | Don't know | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Improved grain quality due to a reduction in red rice infestation. |  | Key conditions to achieve full potential are availability of inputs, specifically glyphosate, and access to guaranteed markets for the final product (paddy or milled rice).
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 4 | 5 | 1 |  | 2 | 3 |  |  | 2370 | No change in yields (on average) | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | Don't know | No change in water application | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | The ZT technology provides some yield evenwhen the farmers are unable to provide lower level of recommended dose of nutrients |  | Institutional development for ensuring machinery service
no name |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | india | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 4 |  | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 |  |  |  | No change in yields (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | more extention services
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | India (North-west) | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 1 | 5 | 2 |  | 3 | 4 |  | •	Saves on water (~30%),   •	Saves on labour,   •	Reduces input cost and improves input use efficiency  •	Improves soil health and system productivity (0.5 to 1 t/ha) (improves soil physical properties)  •	Improves net income by US$ 200-300 per ha  •	Improves carbon sustainability Index by 2.25%  •	Relay cropping of legumes (Mungbean) improves soil health, income and avoids residue burning  •	[NAME] terminal heat effect in wheat crop  •	Reduces NO3-N pollution of ground water aquifers  •	Reduces soil compaction | 5200 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | •	Need to create multi-purpose CA machinery Bankswith Farmer cooperatives in Blocks, divert incentives from tillage machinery to CA machinery   •	Encourage service providers and capacity building of service provider   •	Need to simplify policy to enable farmers buy quality machines    •	promote residue retention and discourage residue burning
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | Central Asia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 10 and 25% of farms | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 |  |  | average above 2 t/ha ([NAME]. reaching 4 t/ha) | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Don't know | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Longer term environmental benefits and changes in farmers livelihoods; economic activity in farming areas increased again. | Respective pesticide use, the technology initially increased pesticide use compared to a previous complete absence; however, the correct longer term application of the technology in a suitable cropping system reduces again the pestice use in the medium term. | - Availability of appropriate low disturbance no-till direct seeding machines  - Technicial knowledge in extension  - Supportive governemnt policies with incentive mechanizms, for example to facilitate the change and investment into new machinery
Dr. [NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | West Bengal, India | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms |  |  |  | 2 |  | 1 |  |  | 22000 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption |  | Less fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 50% or more | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Increase porosity of soil |  | Capacity building
Ram A Jat |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | India | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | N/A | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  | timely sowing of the wheat crop folllowing rice, lesser infestation of [NAME] minor in zero tilled wheat | 4000 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Don't know | No change in erosion | Increased soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Reduced use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by 10-50% |  |  | governemnt incentives and support for new farm machinery, awareness creation, strengthening extension services.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | ASIA | Nepal | Yes | Irrigated agriculture (generally high-input) | Less than 10% of farms | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |  | It could help sustain wheat production in the country otherwise other cash crop may replace. However, market by time variable. | 2.5 t/ha | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | No change in yield variability | Reduced erosion | No change in soil fertility | No change in water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | Increased use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Environmental sustainability | May increase use of herbicides or weed control problem. | 1. Adequate or optimization of time of planting, moisture and use of appropriate machinery and use of genetically modified wheat variety and herbicidal tolerance.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | EUR | Mediterranean rainfed conditions | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  | Besides the above mentioned items, it's the timeliness of field operations that contribute to agronomic, economic and ecological benefits of NT. | 2500 | Yields increased by less than 10% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality |  | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Maintain "marginal" (less suitable) land under cultivation. | As in many other crops, the technology must be performed adequately to obtain the potential benefits. | Incentives to make farmers run the risk of a new technology, and effective and competent technology transfer.
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | LAC | Argentinean Pampas | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 75 and 90% of farms | N/A | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Low soil erosion |  | 4000 | Yields increased by 10-20% (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Don't know | Don't know | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | More fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs reduced by less than 10% | Profitability increased by less than 10% | Using no tillage technology, carbon emissions and soil temperature can be diminished | Using no tillage means increase doses of fertilizers because mineraization is reduced. | the succeed of this technology depends on previous crop, enphasis must be put in crop rotation system.
jorge auza |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | LAC | Bolivia | Yes | High-input rainfed agriculture | Between 25 and 50% of farms | 3 | N/A | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 |  |  |  | Yields reduced by less than 10% (on average) | Don't know | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by less than 10% | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | Less fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides
[NAME] |  | Wheat | Zero tillage | MENA | Morocco | Yes | Low-input/subsistence agriculture | Less than 10% of farms | 1 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  |  | 250-450 | Yields increased by 20% or more (on average) | Reduced yield variability | Reduced erosion | Increased soil fertility | Improved water quality | Water application reduced by 10% or more | Reduced energy consumption | Less labor needed | No change in fertilizer needed | No change in use of pesticides | Production costs increased by 10-50% | Profitability increased by 10-50% | Climate change and drought mitigation  [NAME] farming and sequestration  Cropping system's intensification and diversification  Food security  Seed quality and genetic engineering  Irrigation management in zero-tillage systems | Weed & disease control in the long-term  Livestock integration  Soil compaction  Soil and water contamination with pesticide in the long-term. | Farmer's and extension agents training and capacity building  Crop residues and livestock integration  Machinery development (seed drills)  Policy changes and initiatives vs zero tillage adoption and adaptation  Awareness on zero-tillage benefits and trade-offs by decision making communities   High quality no-till collaboration among research, extension, farmers and professional communities.   Build up a network of scientists, manufacturers, industrials, innovative farmers and opinion developers to expand no-tillage frontiers.  Channels of communication and knowledge dissemination on zero-tillage