8330 - water saving tech

Water-Related Technologies for SustainableAgriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands:

Selected Foreign Experience

May 1983

NTIS order #PB84-102912

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600535

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Preface

This report complements the forthcoming OTA assessment on water and agri-culture in U.S. arid/semiarid lands. The full assessment focuses on U.S. experience.Foreign experience is also important, however, particularly as U.S. agricultural,economic, and foreign aid interests are increasingly linked with those of other coun-tries. The global significance of agricultural research and development on arid/semi-arid lands is underscored by the fact that as much as 20 percent of the Earth’s sur-face is arid and semiarid, containing nearly 16 percent of the world’s population.

Described are selected foreign experiences using technology to develop andsustain agriculture in arid lands. The selection of examples was based on threebroad considerations: I) availability of current reliable information, 2) variety ofexamples both in land use and technology type, and 3) projects of potential interestand relevance to the United States. The examples include breeding crops for droughtresistance, game ranching, improving irrigation management, developing rubberproduction from arid/semiarid plants, and adopting technology-intensive water pro-grams and policies. U.S. cooperative efforts with some of these experiments andtechnology transfer considerations for U.S. arid/semiarid agriculture are alsodiscussed.

This paper was prepared by OTA Project Director Barbara Lausche based onextensive contractor research and with the assistance of OTA Food and RenewableResources Program staff listed in this paper. OTA wishes to thank and acknowledgethe Water and Arid/Semiarid Agriculture Advisory Panel and other contributorsnoted in the footnotes to this document who provided helpful materials and reviewsto the OTA staff.

. . .Ill

Water-Related Technologies for SustainableAgriculture in Arid/Semiarid LandsAdvisory Panel

Vice President,

Alton A. Adams, Jr,Adams & AssociatesVirgin Islands

James B. Kendrick, Jr., ChairmanAgriculture and University Services, University of California, Berkeley

Thomas G. Bahr (resigned May 1982)*Director, Water Resources Research InstituteNew Mexico

Wilbert H, BlackburnDepartment of Range ScienceTexas A&M University

William T. DishmanFarmer/RancherIdaho

Harold E. Dregne, ProfessorDepartment of Plant and Soil ScienceTexas Tech University, Lubbock

Chester E. Evans(Retired, USDA Research Director)Colorado

Larry J. Gordon, Director**Albuquerque Environmental Health Department

Robert M. Hagan, ProfessorDepartment of Land, Air, and Water ResourcesUniversity of California, DavisDavid E. Herrick (Retired, USFS)Western Agricultural Research CommitteeColorado

Helen Ingram, ProfessorDepartment of GovernmentUniversity of Arizona, Tucson

Cyrus McKellDirector of ResearchPlant Resources InstituteUtah

Michael F. McNultyDirectorTucson Active Management AreaArizona Department of Water Resources

Milton E. MekelburgpresidentNational Association of Soil Conservation DistrictsColorado

Clifford J. MurinopresidentDesert Research InstituteNevada

Alice ParkerFarmer/RancherWashington

Cynthia ReedRancherSouth Dakota

Luis TorresProgram DirectorAmerican Friends Service CommitteeNew Mexico

Casey E. Westell, Jr.Director of Industrial EcologyTenneco, Inc.Texas

Norman K. WhittleseyProfessorDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsWashington State University, Pullman

*Resigned to head the Office of Water Policy, U.S. Department of the Interior.**Until August 1982 Deputy Secretary of New Mexico Health and Environment Department.

iv

OTA Water-Related Technologies for SustainableAgriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands Project Staff

H. David Banta, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerFood and Renewable Resources Program

Barbara Lausche, Project Director

Phyllis Windle, Analyst

Rita Dallavalle, Research Analyst

John Willems, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond Carolyn Swarm

Contractors

Daniel W. Gottlieb, ResearcherGrace I. Krumwiede, Editor

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Doreen FosterJoe Henson Linda Leahy Donna Young

Contents

Chapter Page

I.

II.

111.

IV.

v.

VI.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........00.. .“”o””””*ooooo ● “ -

Breeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance . . . . . . . .Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $$. ... OSOOOS. .OO. ... ”.O..Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . . .Collaborative Research Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bean CRSP—Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bean CRSP--Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...””.”””Cowpea CRSP–Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Transfer Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Game Ranching in Africa ...*** **.**** . . . .* .* .**.**. . . . . . . . ● . . . * . ** . . ** . . .Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . $ . . . . . . . . . . .. ..4. .ss. ,$..s “O.a””””o””””.” oIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“ “ “ “ , “ “ ““. .Experiments in Game Ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Hopcraft Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““”Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .”””.”Technology Transfer Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Game Ranches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....””....””” ““Native Herd Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Managing Water on Farms in Pakistan ......0. ● . * * . . . * * ● . . . . . * . * ● *. . . . .* . . . .Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... .. .$.......Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AID Project in Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Collecting and Evaluating Data . . . . . .Project Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Project Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Projects as Outgrowth of PakistanProject in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water Management Synthesis Project .

Technology Transfer Considerations. . . .Interactive Field Research . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ,.$,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.,,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$.,$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,,..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .$ .. ... ... ...$... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $,,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integration of Research Results With Government Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Multidisciplinary Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.”.

Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary ..o.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sources of Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advantages and Disadvantages ofResearch on Guayule in Australia

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . .Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4$... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Developing Guayule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....$.$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Guayule Production and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Cooperation With Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Transfer Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Israel’s Water Policy: A National Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● 0...... . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a..o..a,.a,... .O..oof”””””Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“” “ “ ““ . “ ““”

3

999

1010111112

171717181921242425

29292930303131343434353535353636

414141424244444546464849

535353

vii

C o n t e n t s - c o n t i n u e d

Page

Water Use Programs ... ... ... ... DO....... ... ... ... ... DO....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54State Control of Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Supply and Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Demand Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Selected Irrigation Technology Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Wastewater for Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Drip (or Trickle) and Sprinkler Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Computer-Controlled Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Irrigation With Saline Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Technology Transfer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix A:

Appendix B:Improving

Appendix C:New South

Appendix D:

Tables

Table No.I. Estimates

Contacts List (by chapter) ● .**..* ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.0.... ● .* 67

Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available forIrrigation Water Management in Asia . . . . . . . ...0..0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The Economics of the Commercialization of Guayule inWales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

BARD Abstracts ● . . . . 0 . ● . * * * * . * .....0.0 .0.0.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Pageof Drylands Population by Region and Livelihood Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. CGIAR-Sponsored International Agricultural Research Centers and Programs . . . . . . . . 63. Fiscal Year 1981 U.S. Financial Commitments to Bean/Cowpea CRSP Projects . . . . . . . . 104. Common and Scientific Names of Animals Cited in Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185. Characteristics of Cropped Game Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226. Monthly Deliveries to Nairobi and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237. Potential Domestic Crops and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418. Components of Harvested Guayule Shrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439. Facts About Israel, 1979-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

10. Average Yearly Rates of Change in Percentages in the Major Components of theAgriculture Sector Account, 1968-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

11. Production Comparisons for Various Crops Under Different Irrigation Systems . . . . . . . 6112. Effect of Irrigation Methods on the Yield of Tomatoes and Cucumbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61B-1. Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for Improving Irrigation Water

Management in Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71C-l, Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Dryland Guayule in

New South Wales, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76C-Z. Per Acre Income Above Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Dry Climates of the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Z. Precast Concrete Slab Installation for Panel Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323. Natural Rubber Prices per Metric Ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445. Test Sites, Western Slopes, and Plains of New South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456. Efficient Use of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587. Trickle Irrigation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598. Typical Types of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

. . .Vlll

The Shaded Countries

3

_ T,op, c of Cap, tco,,

Chapter I

Introduction

Are Highlighted in This Paper

‘

%

—

Chapter I

Introduction

This background paper focuses on foreignand cooperative examples of what other coun-tries are doing in arid and semiarid agricultureto cope with problems of aridity. The full as-sessment report, of which this is a part, focusesprincipally on U.S. efforts domestically.

This paper is designed to assist Congress inseveral ways. First, it provides information rel-evant to legislative activities on such broad top-ics as agricultural research, arid/semiarid landresource productivity, and water managementschemes. Second, it illustrates approaches takenby foreign leaders on technology and policyissues affecting agricultural water use in arid/semiarid lands. Third, several examples illus-trate the collaborative role of U.S. agriculturaland scientific experts in international develop-ment and the mutual benefits to be derived byall parties. Finally, by providing examples ofhow other countries are coping with and usingtheir arid/semiarid environments for produc-tive agriculture, this paper contributes to thecontinuing congressional debate on ways tosustain agriculture in U.S. arid/semiarid lands.

This paper touches on only a few of the manyexamples of foreign and cooperative efforts inarid/semiarid agriculture. Numerous oppor-tunities exist through these efforts for informa-tion exchange and scientific advancement inmethods for making arid and semiarid landsproductive.

Approximately 20 percent of all potentiallyarable land in the world is in arid and semiaridclimatic zones, with Africa and Asia account-ing for slightly under 10 percent and the UnitedStates about 3 percent (fig. 1).1 About 16 per-cent of the world’s population lives on thesearid and semiarid lands (table 1), and about 90percent of them live outside the Western Hemi-sphere. Research and development in semiarid

IH. Dregne (cd.), Arid Lands in 71ansition (Washington, D. C.:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1970),pp. 32-33.

and arid agriculture has global significance inlight of these statistics. *

The maintenance of some land productivityin these fragile environments is a particularconcern for countries that have a major por-tion of their population engaged in farming orlivestock production. It is also of concern tocountries with more diversified economies,such as the United States and the Soviet Union,since populations and economies may also de-pend on the productivity of such lands. A num-ber of countries are trying to cope with arid-ity and agricultural production. Israel has adeliberate policy of settling its deserts and asystem for managing water. The Soviet Union,with about one-fifth of its people living onsemiarid and arid lands, has under considera-tion a partial diversion of north-flowing riversto desert areas in the south.2 In the UnitedStates, with about one-third of its land area (ex-cluding Alaska) being arid and semiarid, wateravailability and degradation are topics of grow-ing concern.

Ancient civilizations in arid and semiaridlands—whether located in the SouthwesternUnited States, along the banks of the Nile, inthe Tibesti massif of the Sahara, in the NegevDesert, within the Persian Empire, or on thebanks of the Yellow River in China–all prac-ticed agriculture through some form of irriga-tion. In some cases, great rivers, such as theNile or the Euphrates, provided an inexhaust-ible source of fresh surface water. Systems ofcanals were constructed with ditches andsluices and animal- or human-powered devicesfor lifting water to higher ground.

*Arid and semiarid lands have been defined in a number ofdifferent ways. Their main characteristic is a low average pre-cipitation or moisture, a condition which is directly affected byother variable elements of the climate, such as temperature, sun-shine, wind, and moisture conditions.

‘M. Biswas, “United Nations Conference on Desertificationin Retrospect” (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis, September 1978).

3

4 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

I I // / / t

45”

30”

\

1 i \ 1

60”

75” \ \ \ \ \ ~ Equatorial scale (km)75” 105” 135” 165° ‘“

w E Arid = Cl Dry subhumid

= D Semiarid ❑ Humid

❑ Undifferentiated highlands

SOURCE: H. P. Bailey, “Semi-Arid Cllmates: Their Definition and Distribution,” p. 78, in Hall, et al., Agrlcu/ture In Semiar/d Environment, 1979.

Table 1 .—Estimates of Drylands Population by Region and Livelihood Groupa

Total drylands Livelihood populations in drylands

Population Urban based Percentage Cropping based Percentage Animal based PercentageRegion (thousands) (thousands) of total (thousands) of total (thousands) of totalMediterranean Basin . . . . 106,600 42,000 39% 60,000 57% 4,200 4 %Sub-Sahara Africa . . . . . . 75,500 11,700 15 46,800’ 62 17,000 23Asia and the Pacific . . . . 378,000 106,800 28 260,400 69 10,300 3Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,000 33,700 50 29,300 43 5,100 7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628,400 194,200 31% 397,100 63% 37,100 60/0aMeigg Cl=gification (lgMj including extremely arid, arid, and semiarid area. Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Desertification, 1977. sums are not exactdue to rounding.

SOURCE: M. Biswas, United Nations Conference on Desertificatlon in Retrospect (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, September 1978).

Archeological evidence also suggests that freshwater. Their apparent durability is a resultsince the beginning of recorded history ground of a simple technology that used gravity forwater has been used to grow crops. The qanats energy and kept withdrawals balanced with re-of Iran, built some 3,000 years ago, were under- charge.ground gravity flow channels for distributingwater for distances up to 20 miles. They are Dryland farming, using runoff water collec-still in use and supply 35 percent of Iran’s tion and runoff waterspreading systems, also

Ch. I—Introduction ● 5

was well known in antiquity. These techniquesare still practiced in some arid and semiaridlands of the world. For example, Israeli re-searchers have reconstructed a number of run-off systems from that period. These systemswork on the principle of collecting or divertingprecipitation that is not immediately absorbedby the ground. One method has been to builda dam in a riverbed during the dry season.When heavy rains came, flood waters were col-lected and diverted to irrigate surrounding cul-tivated land, Runoff systems required large top-ographically suitable areas not under cultiva-tion to collect rain that would not be immedi-ately absorbed. This water would be carefullymanaged to meet surrounding agriculturalneeds,

Water runoff from slopes was enhanced byremoving stones from surface canals to releasethe runoff to different fields. This system ofwater management flourished some 1,500years ago. In evaluating such ancient practicesone writer states, “for all their antiquity, thesemethods can form not only a basis for survivaland income for many communities in develop-ing countries, but a source of additional in-come to communities living in the deserts ofdeveloped countries.”3

Ancient societies coped with their arid andsemiarid environments through technologieswhich they tried to adapt to suit their naturalenvironments. Similarly, societies and technol-ogies today in such environments also mustlive within and respect certain natural limits,including the vagaries of climate. This reporthighlights a few examples of how some othercountries are attempting to maintain or in-crease agricultural productivity on their aridand semiarid lands. For example, Israel hasundertaken a national program of total waterresource management (ch. VI). Several coun-tries in Africa are experimenting with gameranching (ch. III). Senegal and internationalresearchers are investigating the potential forgreater bean and cowpea production in aridlands (ch. II).

3A. Issar, “The Reclamation of a Desert by the Combinationof Ancient and Modern Water Systems, ” Outlook on Agriculture,vol. 10, No. 8, 1981, p. 393.

In many instances, foreign projects in arid/semiarid agriculture are being aided by U.S.funds and researchers. The United States,through the Agency for International Develop-ment (AID), for example, has been working onirrigation water management in Pakistan (ch.IV). New South Wales, Australia, has receivedassistance for its research program on develop-ing natural rubber from the guayule shrub fromthe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)(ch. V). The Office of Technology Assessment’spublication An Assessment of the United StatesFood and Agricultural Research System, inchapter VIII, “International Dimensions of Re-search, ” provides a historical overview of theagricultural programs of these agencies.

At the start of the 1980’s, USDA alone wasinvolved in more than 300 international coop-erative research projects. The Office of In-ternational Cooperation and Development,USDA, initiates and administers these projectsabroad. Some of the countries with which theUnited States has cooperative research or sci-entific exchange agreements are Australia,Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Israel, theNetherlands, and Spain.4

Besides bilateral agreements, the emerginginternational agricultural research networkoffers further opportunities to share in theworld’s agricultural expertise and knowledge.Since 1960, 10 international agricultural re-search centers with budgets of nearly $140 mil-lion in 1981 have been established. The Con-sultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) sponsors them as well asthree other related programs. The UnitedStates, through AID, is a charter member andprovides about 25 percent of their total fund-ing. Two of them—the International Crops Re-search Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT) in India and the International Cen-ter for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas(ICARDA) in Lebanon–specialize in problemsof aridity and agriculture. See table 2 for a listof these centers and programs,

4U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of International Coop-eration and Development, Foreign Development, USDA Role(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January1981), p. 12.

6 Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

Table 2.—CGlAR-Sponsored International Agricultural Research Centers and Programs

Year Core funding, 1980a

Location established (in millions)Centers1. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippines 19602. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). . . . . . . Mexico 19883. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nigeria 19884. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia 19885. International Potato Center (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru 19726. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

(lCRISAT).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . India 19727. International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD). . . Kenya 19748. International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethiopia 19749. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

(ICARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syria, Lebanon 197510. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States 1975

Programs11. West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liberia 196812. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) . . . . . . . . . . . Italy 197313. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). . . . . Netherlands 1979

$15,03216,05614,03814,2757,100

10,37510,0318,954

1 1 , 2 9 2

2 , 3 0 5

2,5622,9251,095

abs not Include ~wclal projects, some contributions remained to be allocated to individual centerS/Pro9rarnS.

SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development, 1981.

Collaborative agricultural research and infor-mation exchange is an increasingly importantrequirement for countries concerned aboutmaintaining the productivity of their arid landsin order to meet the needs of their economiesand people. U.S. attention to foreign experi-ence and commitment to cooperative exchangeof research and knowledge in arid/semiaridagriculture have several ongoing and long-termbenefits, including:

●

●

avoiding costly duplication by building onthe experience and research of other coun-tries and of U.S.-funded international agri-cultural research centers;assuring that the results of U.S. foreignassistance activities in agriculture aremade available to U.S. citizens, adapted tothe fullest extent possible to U.S. lands,

●

●

and analyzed for relevance with future for-eign assistance;providing ideas for U.S. farmers who areinterested in direct field experimentationor adaptation of foreign examples to maketheir operations more economical as waterand energy costs rise; andbuilding good will and channels of inter-national communication of benefit beyondthe agricultural sector.

Over the long term, diversification, ratherthan duplication, of research and developmentcan help to strengthen economies. Develop-ment of productive agricultural systems thatcan be sustained on arid/semiarid lands canhelp meet growing worldwide demand for foodand fiber.

Chapter II

Breeding Beans and Cowpeasfor Drought Resistance and

Heat Tolerance

Chapter II

Breeding Beans and Cowpeas forDrought Resistance and Heat Tolerance

SUMMARY

This international cooperative experiencewith plant breeding provides insights for ex-panding food production in U.S. semiaridlands. In particular:

●

●

beans and cowpeas are dryland staples in●

many developing countries and, in the fu-ture, they may provide an alternative dry-land crop for U.S. semiarid lands;collaborative plant breeding programs are

these crops under conditions of droughtand heat stress by combining native vari-eties of Central American and Africanplants with high-yielding Californianstrains; andthis international research has benefitedforeign farmers and U.S. researchers andshows potential for directly benefitingAmerican farmers and consumers.

expected to increase the productivity of

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, plant breeding and testinghave focused more on improving yield, quality,and resistance to disease and less on adaptingplants to natural environmental stresses. Re-cently, however, problems associated with en-vironmental stresses such as heat, drought, andsalinity have attracted more attention. Aboutfour-fifths of the gap between average and rec-ord crop yields in the United States resultsfrom such stresses. The factors that makeplants do better or worse under stress are notwell understood. One path to such understand-ing is through crossbreeding of high-yieldstrains with those that have survived underharsher climates and conditions.1

Some crops grown in the United States underrainfall or irrigation have the potential forbeing grown with less water and producinghigher and more stable yields. Beans (commonbeans that are grown to produce dry beans) andcowpeas are two semiarid crops with suchcharacteristics. Both are legumes and havelong been grown overseas under dryland farm-

IB. Hiatt, “To Increase Survival, ” Mosaic (Washington, D. C.:National Science Foundation, May-June 1982), p. 27.

ing regimes that have produced hardy strains.In Senegal, for instance, the local cowpea isso hardy it has been called “the crop of secu-rity.” The cowpea and bean have been depend-able crops, producing food in arid and semiaridregions when sorghum and pearl millet cropsfailed.’

For many developing countries, beans andcowpeas are dietary staples. In Mexico, for ex-ample, where 40 percent of the bean produc-tion comes from semiarid lands, beans are astaples These legumes provide a major sourceof high-quality and affordable protein and car-bohydrate. In addition, they are an importantsource of the B complex vitamins.4 For this rea-

—.2A. E. Hall, “International Cooperation in Agricultural Re-

search to Develop Improved Cowpea Cultivars for SemiaridRegions of Africa and the United States, ” Office of TechnologyAssessment commissioned paper, April 1982. Supplemented bytelephone interview with Dr. Hall, University of California(Riverside), April 1982.

sM. Wayne Adams, Michigan State University, former direc-tor of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, April 1982, telephone interview.

4Annual Report of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative ResearchSupport Program [CRSP) 1981, BeanlCowpea CRSP ManagementOffice Staff, Michigan State University (East Lansing, Mich.:December 1981].

9

98-353 r - 83 - 3


son, U.S. technical assistance programs have of improving food and nutrition abroad, partic-focused on these legumes as a possible means ularly for subsistence and low-income peoples.

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM

In September 1980, the Bean/Cowpea Collab-orative Research Support Program (CRSP) wasestablished through funds from the U.S. Agen-cy for International Development (AID) underTitle XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of1975.5 The purpose of the program has beento help eradicate hunger and malnutrition inAfrica and Latin America. The program’s re-search focus is on the production and use ofdry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and cowpeasor black-eyed peas (Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp.). Research on environmental stress onthese plants is a major component.6

—SThe Bean/Cowpea CRSP is one of several programs funded

by AID. CRSPs generally involve U.S. universities, research in-stitutions in developing countries, and international agriculturalresearch centers. All contribute resources to the projects. Theirmain purpose is to assist development of research capacitiesabroad, but they are also designed to benefit U.S. agriculture.The description of CRSP is from Bean/Cowpea CRSP AnnualReport and An Assessment of U.S. Food and Agricultural Re-search (Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.Congress, 1981), p. 164.

OAnnual Report, op. cit.

The Bean/Cowpea CRSP is managed byMichigan State University. Nine other univer-sities also participate. The collaborating coun-tries include Brazil, Cameroon, the DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Senegal, andTanzania. The total fiscal year 1981 contribu-tions by all parties are shown in table 3. About25 percent of the total U.S. contribution comesfrom private and public U.S. institutions, re-flecting some sense that potential benefitsmight accrue to U.S. agricultural research in-terests, especially the private sector. A descrip-tion of the CRSP bean projects in Guatemalaand Mexico and the cowpea project in Senegalfollows, to illustrate the kinds of activities andbenefits coming from the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.

Bean CRSP--Guatemala7

Cornell University and the Instituto de Cien-cia y Technologiá Agrícolas (ICTA) of Guate-

7Annual Report, op. cit., app. D.

Table 3.—Fiscal Year 1981 U.S. Financial Commitments to Bean/Cowpea CRSP Projects

Percent of total projectU.S. AID U.S. institution contribution from

Country/institution Plant contribution contribution U.S. institution

INCAP, a Central America/Washington State . . . . . . .Honduras/Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala/Cornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Boyce Thompson Institute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic/Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic/Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal/UC-Riverside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon/Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria/Michigan State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria/Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya/UC-Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania/Washington State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi/Michigan State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dry beanBeanBeanBeanBeanCowpeaBeanBeanCowpeaCowpeaCowpeaCowpeaBeanBeanBean

$159,70050,50089,25083,90083,90083,90092,35092,350

140,000126,00067,20067,200

134,400117,46092,482

$73,13020,07527,87111,61726,80929,70431,16848,32048,83031,54631,54221,33344,84063,68212,928

$1,480,592 $523,395

31‘!02824122426253426203224253512260/o

alnstitute for Nutrition in Central America and panama.

SOURCE: Tfre Annual Repoti of the Bean/Cowpea Co//aborathe Research Supporf Program (CRSP), 1981, Bean/Cowpea CRSP, Management Office Staff, Michigan StateUniversity, December 1981.

Ch. II—Breeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance ● 11

mala are collaborating on bean research to de-termine, on a worldwide basis, how variationsin day length and temperature affect plant de-velopment, maturity, and adaptation. Theseplant characteristics, in turn, affect how muchwater a crop requires. Cornell University scien-tists have found, for instance, that the time ittakes the bean plant to grow to the floweringstage is important in determining its yield. Thetime factor, in turn, is influenced by length ofdaylight and day/night temperature differ-ences.

A number of factors make U.S.-Guatemalancooperation in this research beneficial. Plantgeneticists who work on breeding to producea particular characteristic, such as optimumtime from planting to flowering, need a varietyof beans with that characteristic from whichto draw genetic material. Guatemala, one of theareas in Central America where the bean origi-nated, offers a greater diversity of bean plantsthan does the United States, since the plant hashad a comparatively longer time to developthere. Guatemala also has both high and mod-erate altitude locations in close proximity. Thisprovides a greater variety of day/night temper-ature ranges in which to field-test new strains.

Bean CRSP--Mexico8

Collaborative bean research began in 1982between the Instituto Nacional de Investiga-ciones Agrícolas (INIA) in Durango, Mexico,and U.S. universities. Two initial considera-tions make Mexico a natural partner for beanresearch. First, the bean originated in the high-lands of Mexico as well as Guatemala. Thus,the genetic material available in Mexico alsois rich in diversity. Second, Mexico is the sec-ond largest bean-producing nation in theworld.

The United States and Mexico have collabo-rated on research in two specific areas. Mex-ican researchers have made some progress de-veloping bean varieties that are drought resist-ant. U.S. researchers have worked on improv-ing the process by which beans convert atmos-

‘3 Adams interview, op. cit.

pheric nitrogen to a usable form, allowing pro-duction without the need for supplemental ni-trogen fertilizer. If drought resistance andgreater biological nitrogen fixation can bemerged, bean farmers in both countries maybe able to get along with less fertilizer andwater, Drought resistance in bean productionmay not seem immediately critical to U.S. agri-culture. However, beans already are grown insome semiarid U.S. areas, and nationally thebean is a major crop. As world food demandincreases, production of drought-resistantbeans on U.S. water-limited lands may becomeincreasingly important to make optimal use ofthose lands and help meet world food needs.

The second area that the joint Mexico/U.S.bean research has been pursuing is the furtherdevelopment of strains with a structural adap-tation that deters water loss through transpira-tion. Such bean plants turn their leaves in dryperiods so that the surface through which wa-ter is lost is pointed away from the Sun. Fiveof the top yielding strains of beans being re-searched through this program at MichiganState University have this capability.

Cowpea CRSP--Senegal9

The Cowpea CRSP is especially active be-tween the University of California at Riversideand the Senegalese Institute for AgriculturalResearch, This program began 6 years ago asa small component of an AID-funded effort byUC/Riverside to assist with rural developmentin semiarid Africa with emphasis on the Sahel.The principal reasons that Senegal was so at-tractive for this collaborative research werethat: 1) the cowpea probably originated inAfrica, and 2) Senegalese plant breeders hadbegun using the available diverse cowpeagenetic stock to develop cowpeas specificallyadapted for semiarid zones.

The objectives of the cowpea research pro-gram include: 1) developing improved cowpeavarieties and management methods for subsist-ence farmers in the semiarid zone of Senegal,and 2) developing cowpea varieties with im-

gIbid.


proved drought adaptation, heat tolerance, andyield stability for use in semiarid zonesthroughout the world, including the UnitedStates.10 During the first 2 years (1980-82) of theproject, a number of significant findings weremade by the joint efforts of U. S., Senegalese,and other researchers. The major findingsfollow.

Improving Drought Adaptation

Field screening techniques are being used inCalifornia to select cowpeas with: 1) roots moreable to extract water from the soil, 2) earlierflowering, and 3) greater proportions of totalcarbohydrate in the pods. For example, someof the material produced will mature in 60days, the length of the short rainy season inparts of Africa. Cowpeas with these improvedcharacteristics are being crossed to producesuperior progeny. About 30 of the advancedcowpea lines originating from crosses betweenSenegalese and Californian cowpeas have beenevaluated for drought resistance and yield sta-bility in cooperative tests in Senegal and Cali-fornia.

Screening for Heat Tolerance

Hot weather in both Africa and the UnitedStates causes flowers to drop and therefore

pods never form. This reduces cowpea yields.Research by a Sudanese student at UC/River-side has established a connection between ex-cessive flower drop and high night tempera-tures just before flowering. Cowpeas fromthroughout the world have been grown duringhot weather in the Imperial Valley, Calif., tosearch for strains with tolerance to heat. TwoAfrican strains were discovered that havegreater heat tolerance than both the local vari-eties grown by farmers in Senegal and theblackeye pea types grown in California.

The challenge in research is to overcome theproblems caused by the harsh environments insemiarid zones by breeding into the high-yield-ing California varieties the heat tolerance anddrought adaptation characteristics identifiedin the more hardy Senegalese and other Afri-can cowpeas. According to one UC/Riversidescientist on the project, “the cooperative yieldtests have demonstrated that some of the ad-vanced cowpea lines are adapted to Californiaand have improved drought resistance, where-as other lines are extremely early and requireonly 60 days from sowing to harvest in Africanconditions. During extreme droughts, with ashort rainy season, these early lines have thepotential to produce substantial yields whilemost cowpeas would fail to produce seed.”11

loHa]l, op. Cit., pp. 1-2.

TECHNOLOGY

The bean/cowpea collaborative

‘l Ibid., pp. 3-4.

TRANSFER CONSIDERATIONS

research yields and water use efficiency through thisprojects are relatively new and have not yet collaborative plant breeding research. Cowpeabeen implemented directly in commercial agri- varieties developed by this program with im-culture. Initial signs indicate, however, signifi- proved drought-resistance and heat-tolerancecant potential for improved bean and cowpea characteristics could increase the productivi-

Ch. II—Breeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance ● 13

ty and profitability of dryland and irrigatedagriculture in semiarid regions of both devel-oped and developing countries.

Agricultural productivity of arid and semi-arid lands will become increasingly importantto help meet growing food demands. Cropssuch as the cowpea may not now be of majorimportance to U.S. diets, but they could be-come an important export crop in the yearsahead. This could become a factor in helpingmaintain a favorable U.S. balance of paymentsas well as providing a means of foreign assist-ance. Such foodstuffs would be particularly im-portant for feeding children and pregnantwomen in countries where protein shortagesdevelop.12

Promotion of this collaborative research andits potential benefits depends almost entirely

IZHall interview, op. Cit.

on efforts of the involved scientists. In theviews of some United States scientists partici-pating in this international research, generalU.S. interest in and use of the knowledge gen-erated so far is insignificant. The matter hasbeen given little attention by the U.S. Govern-ment. 13 In contrast, both Canada and Australiahave specific organizations and programs de-signed to encourage international agriculturalcollaboration for use in foreign assistance aswell as in their own agriculture.14 The benefitsto U.S. agriculture from the brief collaborationto date in the Bean/Cowpea CRSPs suggest thatmore U.S. participation in this kind of inter-national research could provide important fu-ture benefits for U.S. farmers in arid and semi-arid agriculture,

lsAn Assessment of U.S. Food and Agricultural Research, op.cit., pp. 151-169 (see footnote 5).

lqDona]d p]ucknett, Science Advisor to the CGIAR Secretariat,World Bank, May 1982, telephone interview.

Chapter III

Game Ranching in Africa

Chapter III

Game Ranching in Africa

This use of dry grasslands in Africa provides ● analogous efforts in the United Statesa striking contrast to most uses of U.S. range- which relate to and draw on the Africanlands. In particular, this chapter illustrates: experience, and

● attempts to make productive use of de- . difficulties inherent in developing animal

graded grasslands and to prevent their fur- agriculture tailored to long-term resource

ther deterioration by relying on native ani- sustainability.

mal species,

INTRODUCTION

In years past, the low rainfall grasslandplains of Africa, with their immensely rich andvaried wild animal populations, formed a ma-jor natural resource of the continent. Todaythese once beautiful and productive areas arein varying degrees of degradation.

Both climatic factors and human exploitationhave influenced the condition of these lands.In many instances, wild animal populationshave been eliminated or threatened as the landhas become degraded and moved increasinglytoward arid and semiarid conditions.

Human activity has played a large role in de-stroying the delicate natural balance betweenvegetation and wild animals.1 Desert shrubshave been stripped from the land for use asfirewood to the extent that local supplies havevirtually disappeared, and charcoal must nowbe shipped 100 to 200 miles for use in somecities. Such woody ground cover normallyserved to hinder erosive water runoff and en-hance retention of water in the soil. Overgraz-ing and compaction of the soil by domestic ani-mals, in a region where land is consideredcommon property by stock owners, also hascontributed to the degradation. 2

‘Southwest Research Laboratories, “The Establishment ofWildlife Ranches in Developing Countries” (Los Alamitos, Calif.:November 1981), p. 1.

ZL. Chatterton and B. Chatterton, “Combating Desertificationin Winter Rainfall Regions of North Africa and the Middle East, ”Outlook orI Agriculture, vol. 10, No. 8, p. 397,

Commercial production of imported domes-ticated livestock (primarily cattle, sheep, andgoats) continues in the African savanna in spiteof the impact on the land. The animals aremaintained in African countries with the assist-ance of much livestock research and social ex-penditure, in part because they have becomean integral part of the local social and econom-ic systems. Owning a large herd is a mark ofprestige; it also ensures a constant milk sup-ply despite the low productivity of milkingcows and the shortness of their milking period.A herd provides insurance for survival throughits meat, dairy, and other products should acalamity such as an outbreak of disease ordrought occur. Sheep are retained becausemutton is the preferred meat of the region. Theconsumption of goat meat is generally re-stricted to the poor. Nevertheless, goat is of par-ticular value in arid lands because it surviveswhen sheep and cattle perish, thus providinga more secure supply of milk, meat, and skinsin emergencies.3 These multiple social benefitshave tended to override the fact that the qual-ity of beef is often inferior to that of beef pro-duced in a more favorable climate. Moreover,seasonal variations in water and forage availa-bility are not conducive to the rapid growth ofcattle, sheep, or goats.

sSmithsonian magazine, vol. 10, No, 5, August 1979, p, 38.

17

18 . Water. Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

In contrast, indigenous animals have natural-ly adapted to the arid and semiarid environ-ment of the African savanna. In one importantaspect they are particularly adapted: they re-quire little water. If fresh grass is available,camels, for example, require virtually no water.Even when water is available in such areas ascentral Sudan, camels are often not given watermore than once every couple of months. TheSudan exports tens of thousands of camels toupper Egypt for meat each year. Because oftheir adaptability, camels in the Sudan are val-ued more highly for their milk and for transpor-tation than for their meat.4

Antelopes, gazelle, oryx, and other game spe-cies also are well adapted to life in arid regions.(See table 4 for scientific names of commonAfrican game species.) The eland, for example,can endure fairly large variations in body tem-perature without sweating, so they can reducewater loss. The ostrich can survive a 25 per-cent loss of body weight, much of which iswater that can be replaced in a single drinksGame animals also have potential as an ex-cellent source of high-quality meat. With itshigher proportion of protein to fat, some gamemeat may be nutritionally superior to domesticmeats. And if allowed to grow naturally on therange, game meat may contain lower levels ofthe kinds of chemicals, including growth hor-mones, commonly used in modern ranching.6

4J. L. Cloudsley-Thompson, “Animal Utilization,” Arid Landsin Transition, Harold E. Dregne (cd,) (Washington, D. C.:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1970),p. 67.

SIbid., p. 68.qbid., p. 58.

Table 4.—Common and Scientific Names of AnimalsCited in Text

Since much information about animals is classified byscientific names, this list is provided to help readers locateadditional data. There may be cases where disputes insynonomy or regional variation are not reflected.

Domestic and wild cattle and their relatives:Domestic cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Domestic goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Domestic sheep. . . . . . . . . . . . . .African buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American bison

(buff ale).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Antelopes and their relatives:

Dik-dik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duiker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gerenuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grant’s gazelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hartebeest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kudu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oryx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Springbok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steenbok. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomson’s gazelle . . . . . . . . . . .Wildebeest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deer and their relatives:Axis deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North American elk. . . . . . . . . . .White-tailed deer . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other animals:African camel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Giraffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Birds:Ostrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ring-necked pheasant . . . . . . . .

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Bos taurusCapra hircusOvis ariesSyncerus caffer

Bison bison

Madoqua spp.Sylvicapra spp.,

Cephalophus spp.Taurotragus spp.Litocranius walleriGazella grantiAlcelaphus buselaphusTragelaphus spp.Aepyceros melampusoryx spp.Antidorcus marsupialsRaphicerus campestrisGazella thomsoniConnochaetes spp.

Cervus axisCervus canadensisOedicoileus virginiana

Came/us dromedariesGiraffa camelopardalisEquus spp.

Struthio came/usPhasianus colchicus

A growing awareness of the serious impacts digenous wildlife species in order to help pre-domesticated cattle, sheep, and goats are hav- serve them.ing on the African savanna has spurred interestin game ranching of native species. In the The feasibility of game farms in severalIWO’S a number of ranches in Africa began ex- African countries is an area of ongoing re-perimenting with a mixture of domestic and search in the more productive use of arid andgame animals to counter growing land degra- semiarid lands. On both experimental and com-dation and to boost the economic value of in- mercial ranches, workers are testing the hy-

Ch. Ill—Game Ranching in Africa ● 1 9

potheses that indigenous species are betteradapted to the savanna environment and thusmore easily and profitably raised than commondomestic animals. For these reasons, gameranching has been called the use and enhance-ment of “nature’s technology.’” The basic con-cept is to take economic advantage of the nat-ural balance between vegetation and wild ani-mals.

Major projects at the following ranches werestarted in the 1970’s: Ubizana and Theunis inNatal, South Africa; Doddieburn and Mkwa-sine in Zimbabwe; Kruger in South Africa; andAthi River in Kenya. The limited data reportedon these ranches to date indicate that the mostsignificant costs of game ranching are in cap-turing and stocking animals, erecting a perim-eter fence, and, when necessary, building proc-essing facilities. Stocking costs have rangedfrom $50,000 at the Ubizana Game Ranch to$146,000 over 3 years at the Theunis GameRanch in South Africa. Fencing costs were es-

7David HopCraft, “Nature’s Technology,” 19, TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change (1980).

timated at $1,044 per kilometer in South Africain the early 1970’s. The Mkwasine Game Ranchin Zimbabwe spent over $56,600 to fence59,304 acres (24,000 hectares). Processing facil-ities that comply with veterinary and healthstandards have been found also to be costly.A canning and drying facility in the Kruger Na-tional Park in South Africa, for example, costthe equivalent of $1.5 million. However, thatfacility returned the investment within 3 years.A smaller, less sophisticated facility on theTheunis Game Ranch, which prepared freshcuts and sausage, cost about $146,000.8

One of the largest experimental game ranchesin Africa is the Athi River, Kenya ranch, es-tablished in the mid-1960’s by David Hopcraft.This experiment has attracted interest fromboth developed and developing countries andis the focus of a major portion of the remainderof this chapter.

%. Mossman and A. Mossman, “Wildlife Utilization and GameRanching,” IUCN Occasional Paper No. 17 (Merges, Switzer-land: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources, 1976).

THE HOPCRAFT PROJECT9

Athi River, Kenya Demonstration WildlifeRanch is located about 25 miles from Nairobi.It contains 20,000 acres, some of which areused for cattle ranching. Hopcraft began hisproject with the help of a 1966 U.S. NationalScience Foundation research grant for a 3-yearcomparison of the land effects and the meatand hide yields of cattle and game raised onKenya grasslands. In the study, he fenced offand halved a uniform 300-acre plot of land. Oneside was stocked with cattle, the other withgazelle.

Hopcraft found the physical effects of thetwo species on the land to be substantially dif-ferent. The cattle significantly reduced grasscover and other types of stable vegetation, cre-ated serious tracking problems, and trampled

QDavid Hopcraft, op. cit.

the vegetation on their daily trek to the waterhole, compacting the soil. In contrast, accord-ing to Hopcraft reports, the gazelle left an areathat retained 32 percent more grass cover and100 percent more self-perpetuating species.The gazelle area did not show either trackingproblems or land devastation around the waterhole.

Economically, Hopcraft found the gazellecarcass to be more profitable than the cattlecarcass. His figures indicated that 47 percentof the gazelle was lean meat, compared to 32percent in cattle; the cattle in this experimentyielded 7.9 pounds per acre per year, the ga-zelle produced 14.6 pounds per acre. Cattleraised under traditional stock raising methods,according to Hopcraft, would yield much lesslean meat than those on his farm.


Income from the gazelle substantially ex-ceeded that from cattle because of the gazelle’shigher market price, almost double that of do-mestic meat, and production of 50 to 100 per-cent more meat per acre. Hide sales favoredthe game species as well, the gazelle hides re-turning a price roughly 25 percent higher thanthat received for cattle hides. Approximately10 acres per head and 3 years were needed toproduce one cowhide, while Hopcraft esti-mated that 1 acre could produce eight gazellehides in only 1 year.

Hopcraft interpreted his findings to indicatethat adaptation to the environment is a very im-portant factor. “An indigenous animal spendsfar less energy than an imported beast in over-coming the harsh environmental conditionssuch as disease, weather, and vegetation. Thus,more energy becomes available for growth. ”The advantage is augmented, he maintains, bythe negligible costs of herd maintenance.Gazelle, for example, require no pesticide dip-pings, inoculations, or night enclosures. Hop-craft estimated that expenses on a cattle ranchconsume about 66 percent of income, com-pared to only 20 percent on a game ranch.

In 1976, Hopcraft received a grant from theLilly Endowment of Indianapolis for the large-scale application of his findings. This grant wasincreased in 1977. The funding covered con-struction of an 8%-foot-high fence around the31-mile perimeter of his ranch, a project requir-ing 15 months to complete. This fence enclosedmore than 5,000 indigenous animals of 20 dif-ferent species–giraffes, eland, wildebeest,dik-diks, impala, zebra, hartebeest, and others.About half were from the gazelle family.

According to Hopcraft, this variety of gamehas helped maximize the productivity of thevegetation. The treetops are forage for the gi-raffe; the higher bushes are eaten by the eland,kudu, and gerenuk; the lower bushes by thegazelle and impala; and the grasses by buffalo,zebra, wildebeest, and hartebeest. Smallershoots and leaves serve the duiker, steinbuck,and dik-dik. The seeds are eaten by the ostrichand other game birds. There is some overlapin browsing, but according to one report this

Photo credit: A@ncy for lnternatbna/ Development

The eland of East Africa is the largest of the plainsanimals that graze across the vast savannas

,

Photo credit: Agency for International Development

Herds of zebra and wildebeest roam across the grassfields inside Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania

arrangement is conducive to helping the vege-tation remain in natural balance.10

Erecting the perimeter fence was a majorendeavor in the large-scale project. Once opera-tional, the project faced a second hurdle andone of its greatest impediments: securing theKenyan Government’s permission to marketthe game meat. Hopcraft lobbied for 7 yearsbefore obtaining an exemption from gamingand food laws. Cropping game on the Hopcraftranch began early in 1981. Plans are to cropabout one-quarter to one-third of the gamepopulation annually. * Now, the ranch’s game

losouthwest Research Laboratories, OP. cit., p. 8.

*Gabriel Von Latham, April 1982, telephone interview. VonLatham and Hopcraft have formed a French-based firm, WildIndigenous Livestock Development (WILD), to export gameranching to other countries.

Ch. IlI—Game Ranching in Africa ● 2 1——- — —- —

meat is sold in hotels and restaurants inNairobi as a luxury item, and outlets are be-ing sought outside Kenya.

Some of Hopcraft’s preliminary findings are:

1. it is possible to live within the natural bal-ance of land and animals in this part ofAfrica and to use extremely profitably thenatural increase of animals for production

2. ranching indigenous animals requires lit-tle input and little imported energy; and

3. far greater production of meat is attainedper acre, gaining profits of nearly fivetimes those of traditional livestock rearing,in a sustained multicultural environment.11

of meat and hides;

Some controversy exists

DISCUSSION

over Hopcraft’sfindings and extrapolation of results obtainedon his relatively small plot of land. The advis-ability of game ranching as an approach to in-creased economic productivity is under ques-tion because of the high capital outlay neededto establish and outfit a fenced range of ade-quate size.

In general, substantial costs are involvedwith game ranching where the project must ac-quire land, construct perimeter fences, stockand harvest the animals, and construct slaugh-terhouse facilities. Hopcraft was able to avoidmany of these costs. Local circumstances, forexample, helped Hopcraft minimize stockingcosts. In fencing the ranch, several thousandanimals were trapped within, saving the time,money, and effort of capturing and transport-ing them from outside. The weaving of thefencing material onsite from local materialsfurther reduced operating costs. Hopcraft alsowas able to purchase inexpensively a mobileslaughterhouse from the United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization.

Similar economizing may be possible inother game ranching developments in the Afri-can savanna and elsewhere if indigenous spe-cies are used. Certain other experiments, how-ever, which must trap and transport game fromoutside, may find their initial costs much high-er. Many game ranchers may have to constructslaughterhouses because of the distance of theiroperations from commercial facilities.

IISouthwest Research Laboratories, op. cit., p. 9.

A group of Cornell University researchersvisited Hopcraft’s ranch several times to con-duct research and to report their findings tothe Lilly Endowment. * They have gathereddata on range ecology and the digestibility ofvarious plant species by game animals. Co-director Daniel G. Sisler has concentrated hisstudy of the project on the economics of meatproduction, handling, and marketing. Dr. Sislerraises a number of points about the economicsof game ranching:

1. Costs of establishing and operating agame ranch. Although Hopcraft has shownthat game meat sales will cover variable operat-ing costs, according to Dr. Sisler, he has notshown that their sales will cover all the fixedcosts associated with setting up a ranch. If thefence, slaughterhouse, cooling facilities, vehi-cle, capture of animals, and labor were all in-cluded, the net income might be well belowthat of a well-managed cattle ranch. The costsof establishing a cattle ranch would have to becompared with those of establishing a gameranch, or the assumption would have to bemade that both kinds of ranches are opera-tional at the time of the comparison.

*This section discussing the controversy over Hopcraft’s re-sults is based on information from Daniel Sisler and RobertMcDowell, Professors of Agricultural Economics, and RobertP. Bauer, graduate student, Cornell University, April 1982, andwith McDowell again in August 1982.


Cropping, handling, and marketing gamemeat are distinctly different from similaroperations associated with domestic animals.Table 5 shows some of the characteristics ofcropped game animals to consider in handlingand marketing. The initial investment inslaughterhouse and refrigeration facilities andtheir operating expenses may be substantial.The services of a veterinarian maybe neededto meet inspection requirements. These costsare in contrast to cattle ranching, where ani-mals are typically sold live, with slaughter andinspection taking place at a publicly ownedslaughterhouse.

In contrast, harvesting at the Hopcraft fa-cility was labor intensive and unusual. Crop-ping of all animals took place at night, with acrew of three men shooting the animals froma Land Rover. Cropping was reasonably effi-cient, and dead animals were at the slaughter-house within 1 hour. During the first year ofoperation, the game meat was found to be ofhigh quality and accepted by customers. Fatcontent was low. Statistics relative to croppingindicated that there was no significant seasonalvariation in carcass weight of game animals.

Sisler estimates that the establishment costsare roughly equal to those in establishing a cat-tle ranch. Net operating income may be aboutequal if the price received for game meat is ap-proximately twice that for cattle (the price ratioin the first year of the Kenya ranch operation).

2. Game ranch management. A well-man-aged game ranch requires highly sophisticatedtechnical knowledge as to rates of growth foreach game species, plant food preferred, degreeof predation by other species, fawning rates,growth rates, sex composition, compatibility

of species, gestation period, and age of sexualmaturity of differing species. The availabilityof this expertise adds cost to the project.

3. Use of energy. Although the energy usedfor a game ranch is less than that for cattleranching, Sisler estimates imported energy fora game ranch is approximately 40 percent ofthat required for a comparable cattle ranch.Vehicles use diesel fuel, as does the operationof the slaughterhouse and chilling facilities.

4. Development of markets. A ready marketexisted for all game meat produced from theHopcraft ranch during 1981 operations. Thisdoes not mean that there would necessarily bea consistently adequate market for game meatwithin Kenya. The absolute quantity of gamemeat marketed is a small proportion of totalred meat consumption in Nairobi. It seemsprobable that any sizable increase in gamemeat production could cause prices to decline.The most serious obstacle facing continued ef-ficient marketing of game meat in Kenya is as-suring a strong market for all would-be pro-ducers. Hopcraft was successful as the onlyproducer operating on a small scale in thecapital city of Nairobi.

The majority of Hopcraft’s clients were res-taurants, although one butchery was a steadyclient. The meat was sold at 25 shillings perkilo, approximately twice the price of qualitybeef. The clientele of these restaurants andbutcheries has been more than 90 percent ex-patriate, and wholesale purchasers knew thatthe high price could be passed onto their cus-tomers. When surveyed, clients stated thatgame meat constituted about 5 percent of totalsales. Restauranteurs estimated that the costof preparing a game meat meal was 20 to 30

Table 5.—Characteristics of Cropped Game Animals

Percent total weight dressed

Species Body length (cm) Shoulder height (cm) Dressed weight (kg) Annual range Average

Thomson’s gazelle . . . . . . . 78 67 13 53-55 54Grant’s gazelle . . . . . . . . . . 108 91 33 52-61 55Kongoni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 119 69 49-52 52Wildebeest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 132 125 49-60 53SOURCE: “An Economic Analysis of Harvesting Techniques, Game Meat Characteristics and Marketing Prospects,” tables 1, 2, and 3, paper by Daniel Sisler, Professor

of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, prelimina~ draft, October 1982.

Ch. III—Game Ranching in Africa 23— ——

percent more than that of a beef, poultry, orpork meal. Retail price per plate, however, isusually about the same for game and traditionalmeats. Table 6 shows the monthly average ofkilos of game meat delivered to four or fiveclients each week and the corresponding rev-enue from each delivery.

Limited quantities of sausage have been pro-duced from the game meat. The market ap-pears to be strong for this high-value product,which could be marketed at a lower expensethan chilled meat. However, equipment forsausage manufacturing is costly, as are someingredients, notably fat. While sausage produc-tion shows signs of profitability, more effortis needed on marketing and promotion of thisspecialty item.

According to Sisler, game meat will continueto be a high-priced specialty meat if game meatproduction is to be profitable. Because of itscost, it seems likely that in the foreseeablefuture game meat will not be a source of lowcost animal protein for native peoples.

5. Price of hides when sold in quantity.Sisler found hide sales extremely difficult tocalculate. If they can be sold at a favorableprice, this would be an added source of rev-enue for game ranching. The development ofa market for specialty hides, however, was dif-ficult for Hopcraft’s 1981 operations.

6. Water use. Theoretically, the expense ofdrilling wells or installing dams and wateringfacilities can be considerably less than what isrequired for cattle. However, a perimeter fence

may prevent migration of animals to naturalwatering points and better range. So any areawould need to be large enough to take care ofthis requirement.

7. Stocking ranches. The financial break-even point for game ranches of Hopcraft’s size,calculated by Cornell University reviewers, isroughly 2,000 animals-about twice the currentlevel of Hopcraft’s harvest. This figure repre-sents about 40 percent of the 5,000 game thatHopcraft estimated in his 1980 report. Morerecent estimates from Cornell indicate that thegame animals on the ranch number about 2,500to 2,800. The costs of establishing a similarranch elsewhere would be extremely high. Alsothe cost of importing animals would be high.In the first year of operation, only four speciesof adult males—Thomson’s gazelle, Grant’s ga-zelle, wildebeest, and kongonis were harvested.It is unclear what will happen to the ecologywhen all cattle are removed and game animalsexpanded.

Other questions remain. What will happento the off-take rate of game animals whenyounger animals and a part of the females ofeach species are harvested? Will the price ofgame meat be less when it is sold in largerquantities? At present, cropping is completedin accord with what can be sold rather thanin a manner to regulate or sustain species com-position and number. Achieving a balance be-tween meat production and the natural sustain-ability of the animals in their local environmentwill be one of the most critical facets of ranch-ing.

Table 6.—Monthly Deliveries to Nairobi and Revenues (game meat only)

Number of deliveries Total monthly Mean weekly Monthly revenueMonth per month delivery (kg) delivery (kg) Kenyan shillings U.S. dollars

January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 954 239.6 23,962 $2,188February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 769 192.3 19,227 1,756March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,008 252.0 25,200 2,301April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 857 214.3 21,430 1,957May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,469 293.8 36,725 3,354June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,614 403.5 40,345 3,685July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,481 296.2 37,025 3,381August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,276 319.0 31,898 2,913SOURCE: “An Economic Analysis of Harvesting Techniques, Game Meat Characteristics and Marketing Prospects,” paper by Daniel Sisler, Professor of Agricultural

Economics, Cornell University, prelimina~ draft, October 1982.

24 ● Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CONSIDERATIONS

Data are not available to make definitivestatements about the economic feasibility of ex-panding game ranching to other parts ofAfrica. However, because of the optimism forHopcraft’s efforts, the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development (AID) has funded a gameranching feasibility study by Hopcraft for theDepartment of Wildlife in Botswana. Hopcraftis looking at the possibility of establishing twodemonstrations similar to the Kenya ranch, onein a communal area and the other on a privateranch in Botswana. The communal area wouldinvolve some 20 farm families living on 5,000acres, who would be trained to manage theanimals. *

Developing international markets for gamemeat would help assure game ranching profitsand increase the desirability of starting suchoperations. Hopcraft has proposed that Rhode-sian and Botswanan game be shipped to Eu-rope through South African ports and airports.The development of widespread markets forthese high-priced specialty meats will take amajor effort, although some researchers believethat a market is there.12 Game meats are stillan insignificant factor in world food produc-tion and world trade. According to U.S. De-partment of Commerce figures, the UnitedStates imported less than $1 million of gamemeats in 1981. Both the United States and Eu-rope (especially West Germany, Switzerland,and England) could prove to have substantialpotential as markets if a reasonably priced,secure supply became available.

Some research on game ranching, parallel tothat in Africa, is under way in the WesternUnited States assessing the advisability of apartial shift to native or imported stock. Asmuch as 85 percent of agricultural land in theAmerican West is used as range, and a grow-ing awareness of the problems of overgrazing,reduced water availability, and lower econom-

*Reservations expressed by AID officials in telephone inter-views in August 1982 are strongest regarding the economic feasi-bility of game ranching without a major export market.

IZFred Wagner, Associate Dean, College of Natural Resources,Utah State University, June 1982, telephone interview.

ic return from ranching operations has influ-enced American ranchers to look into alterna-tive ranching systems. Experimentation withnative American bison is under way, and theadaptation of imported African species as aU.S. cash crop is being considered. In light ofthis American interest in importation, the ob-jectives pursued and results identified by gameranchers in African countries may provide in-sight for U.S. consideration.

Two types of operations in the United Statesare similar to the wildlife management schemesin Africa: 1) game ranches that permit huntingof wildlife, and 2) native game farming or herdmanagement of a single indigenous speciessuch as buffalo or elk to produce meat, hides,and other products.

Game Ranches

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department re-ports more than 800 game ranches in that State.The Exotic Wildlife Association, a group ofgame ranches, has 200 members. The State’sboom in game ranches has been encouraged,in part, by the promotional efforts of energycompanies that provide their top executiveswith trips to such ranches.13

Many ranches have game indigenous to theUnited States, as well as imported animals. The50,000-acre Y. O. Ranch in Mountain Home,Tex., for instance, has 10,000 game animals.Half are drawn from native species. The bal-ance are animals culled from 35 African andAsian species. These include antelopes, axisdeer, zebras, ostriches, and giraffes.14

Game ranches in the United States are almostexclusively focused on sport. They might be-come more profitable if excess animals couldbe slaughtered and marketed. A major factorin marketing game meat is Federal and Statelegislation that bars such sale except undervery restrictive conditions. For example, leg-

IsCharles Schreiner IV, manager and co-owner of Y. O. Ranch,Mountain Home, Tex., April 1982, telephone interview.

laIbid.

Ch. ///—Game Ranching in Africa 25

islation requires inspection of wild animalsbefore they are slaughtered for public con-sumption. Federal laws also require slaughter-house facilities for game that are separate fromthose for domestic meat. If game animals haveto be first captured and then transported to aspecific slaughterhouse for inspection beforebeing killed, the process may make the finalproduct cost prohibitive.15

Native Herd Management

One of the principal wild species being man-aged for commercial exploitation in the West-ern United States is the American bison (buf-falo). Some herds are being raised on semiaridrangeland, particularly on those lands whereprecipitation for forage production for cattleis inadequate. The National Buffalo Associa-tion has some 800 members, of whom approxi-mately 500 have herds. Ironically, the demandfor buffalo meat from some supermarkets andrestaurants exceeds the available supply, main-ly because of the lack of both a centralized mar-keting system and uniform health inspectionregulations. l6

Experts on game ranching abroad are dividedon the feasibility and advisability of introduc-ing foreign (exotic) species to U.S. domesticranges or expanding native species. RaymondDasmann, who helped set up one of the pio-neering game ranches in Rhodesia, believesthat wild ungulates (hoofed mammals), in somesettings, are capable of producing more meatthan domestic animals.17 Certain areas of scrubvegetation in California, he estimates, couldyield up to 550 kilograms of meat per squarekilometer, or more than seven times the aver-age yield from domestic livestock. While theevidence is far from conclusive about the effi-ciencies of wild ungulates versus cattle in con-verting biomass to meat, advocates suggest itis sufficient to justify more research on manag-

lsIbid.16Jud1 Hebbring, Executive Director of the National Buffalo

Association, July 1982, telephone interview.17R. Dasmann, “Biomass, Yield, and Economic Value of Wild

and Domestic Ungulates, ” Transactions of the 6th InternationalUnion of Game Biologists (London: Nature Conservancy), pp.227-233.

ing ungulates for meat production. Raised inproximity with domestic cattle, they do notnecessarily compete with the latter for vegeta-tion but instead actually may assist in maintain-ing a better balance of forage for both.

To help develop a U.S. market for game meat,Texas Tech University is evaluating mixedground meats comprised of venison, pork, andbeef for palatability and nutrition .18 Generally,landowners with large stocks of wildlife are notyet investing much capital and other resourcesinto its management. They are turning insteadto more intensive production of livestock andother primary activities.l9

Other experts state that imported animalswould bring little, if any, ecological benefit.They suggest that such animals usually com-pete with the range of domestic or native spe-cies already competing for forage and may car-ry parasites that can be transmitted to animalsor humans. One expert who holds this viewsuggested five ecological principles to considerin determining the efficacy of introducing anexotic animal to a new environment:20

Every habitat tends to be full. Nature ab-hors a vacuum and there are few vacantspaces in natural communities. Physicalspace alone does not constitute a vacancyin the animal community. Sufficient vege-tation, preferably not that favored by exist-ing animals, must exist to support new ani-mals.Each species has a specific set of toler-ances and must be placed in an environ-ment to which it can adapt. Ecologicalhomologs are the best candidates for in-troduction to new lands. These are ani-mals with identical counterparts, frequent-ly found on another continent. They areoften look-alikes, have identical habits, and

IBRobert Warren, Assistant Professor, Department of Rangeand Wildlife Management, Texas Tech University, April 1982,telephone interview.

IE’G. Burger and J. Teer, “Economic and Socioeconomic IssuesInfluencing Wildlife Management on Private Land” (unpublishedpaper).

‘“James G. Teer, “Introduction of Exotic Animals, ” WildlifeConservation Principles (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Society,1979), pp. 173-175.


●

●

●

occupy similar habitats. The axis deer, forinstance, is a homolog to the white-taileddeer.Plastic species have higher probabilitiesof succeeding. A plastic species is one thatis able to adapt to varying conditions. Sucha species often has large variations in itsappearance as indicated by large numbersof races. North American ring-neckedpheasants, for example, have subtle differ-ences in coloration and other attributeswhich reflect the underlying genetic varia-tion that makes them successful in a vari-ety of locations.Introduced species in direct competitionfor resources with closely related ani-mals will fail. Although dislocations ofnative species can occur, they usually havethe advantage because they evolved inplace.Transplanting animals from complexcommunities, such as their natural habi-tat, to relatively simple communities,such as farms or game ranches, has beensuccessful. The significantly decreasedpresence of other types of life may give ex-otics an advantage in their new environ-ment.

This same expert suggests that the Sonoran andChihuahua deserts of the southwesternUnited States and northwestern Mexico mightbe suitable for oryx, gazelle, or springbok. Butsuch marginal lands are few in North America,

and good rangeland is almost fully used by do-mestic animals.21

Advocates of game ranching believe that thetechnological and ecological aspects of gameranching are favorable. They believe institu-tional factors such as encroachment of wildlifeon neighboring lands, lack of marketing mech-anisms, and health regulations are the mainbarriers to future development.22 The long-termpotential of game ranching, whether in theUnited States, Africa, or elsewhere, will de-pend on economic, social, and ecological con-ditions of the area.

If the potential exists for eventually market-ing low-cost game meat in quantity, game meatcould provide a more significant source of pro-tein than now exists. With more secure mar-kets, game ranching operations that fit into theecology of the area in their use of the water,land, and vegetation also could provide onemore means of economic productivity fromarid and semiarid lands. As human exploita-tion destroys the natural habitats of wildanimals, their existence as a wild species isthreatened. This technology may have theadded benefit of helping to preserve them forfuture generations.

ZIJames G. Teer, Director, Welder Wildlife Foundation, April

1982, telephone interview.ZZRaymond F, Dassman, Professor of Ecology, University of

California, Santa Cruz, August 1982, telephone interview.

Chapter IV

Managing Water on Farmsin Pakistan

Chapter IV

Managing Water on Farms in Pakistan

SUMMARY

This foreign irrigation experience with on-farm water management provides insights forproblem analyses and technology adoption rel-evant to irrigated agriculture in the UnitedStates, in particular:

● use of a multidisciplinary team approachto problem analyses, data collection andevaluation, and design of the most appro-priate technology package for effective on-farm water management;

● maximum farmer participation in develop-ment and adoption of technology solu-

tions, including farmer involvement in wa-ter-use planning, design of the technolo-gies and irrigation practices, and trainingin maintenance requirements for suchtechnologies; and

● information synthesis and disseminationof project results and water managementknowledge and techniques so that otherprojects can analyze the experience forpossible relevance to their own agricul-tural water-use needs.

INTRODUCTION

Meeting future needs for increased food pro-duction will depend heavily on improving ex-isting agricultural schemes that manage water.One study, for instance, projects that aboutone-third of the increased food productionfrom 1975 to 1990 in Asia on irrigated landswould come from improvements to existingsystems. l To what extent these increases canbe achieved depends, in the opinion of manydevelopment experts, on successful water man-agement and other practices at the farm level.As one U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (AID) paper stated:

The present drama in irrigation is not oneof simply more large dams and reservoirs, butthe improvement of water management for thetotal system with a special focus at the farmlevel to help farmers make more efficient useof water for increased crop production. z

IInternationa] Food Policy Research Institute, Investment andInput Requirements for Accelerating Food Production in LowIncome Countries by 1990 [Washington, D. C.: IFPRI, September1979), p, 26.

‘Agency for International Development, ‘‘Planning Conceptsfor a Flexible Irrigation Water Management Strategy in Asia, ”Asia Bureau memorandum, Jan. 25, 1982, p. 4.

Modern agricultural irrigation systems haveinvolved billions of dollars in dams, reservoirs,and water conveyance works. At the sametime, there is growing recognition that little em-phasis has been placed on water allocation andapplication on farms.3 Instead, irrigation plan-ners often have assumed that delivering morewater to farmers would improve crop yieldswithout the need to consider actual farmerpractices and participation. Yet an obstacle toincreased agricultural production in manycountries is poor on-farm management of wa-ter supplies.4 A recent World Bank paper5 pro-posing the establishment of an International Ir-rigation Management Institute identified thefollowing problems with current irrigationschemes:

1. uneven distribution of water to farmsalong the canals, with lower productivity

——.———tIbid.Wolorado State University, “Evaluation of the On-Farm Water

Management Research Project, Colorado State University, ”report to the Agency for International Development, September1979, p. 6.

sProposal by the Technical Advisory Committee to the Consult-ative Group on International Agricultural Research for the es-tablishment of an International Irrigation Management Institute,April 1982.

29


2.

3.

4.

at the plots farthest from the diversionpoint in the canal;low crop yields caused by water loss intransmission;unreliable and untimely water deliveries;andwaterlogging (the condition in which thewater table rises to near the surface of thesoil) and salinity.

Methods exist to improve on-farm watermanagement, but implementing these methodshas been difficult for a number of reasons.Close cooperation among farmers and betweenfarmers and irrigation technologists is re-quired. However, institutional mechanisms forinvolving farmers generally have developedpiecemeal and without regard to deriving les-

sons that may have general application for fu-ture projects. Lack of systematic documen-tation of methods or results has constrainedtransfer of successful experiences from onecountry to another. An analysis by AID statesthat “the flow of scientific knowledge in irriga-tion is slow, erratic, and piecemeal” and that“seldom does one country know what worksunder what conditions at what costs in a neigh-boring country.”6

A recent AID project in Pakistan was an at-tempt to address these problems by improvingon-farm water management.

@Agency for International Development, Asia Bureau memo-randum, op. cit., p. 11.

AID PROJECT IN PAKISTAN*

In 1968, AID contracted with Colorado StateUniversity (CSU) to help Pakistan address itsproblems of low water-use efficiency** onfarms and low food production. A uniqueaspect of the contract was the requirement thatCSU analyze and report the processes devel-oped during the project, so that AID mightdraw from these experiences for use in otherdeveloping countries. CSU also was asked todevelop information and training materials foruse in graduate courses on water management.

The focus was the small farm. The pilot re-search area, the Mona Reclamation Experi-mental Project, covered 30 villages and morethan 10,000 acres. Project work was later ex-tended to other areas of Pakistan. The key par-ticipants were the CSU team, local Pakistaniuniversities, farmers, and local and provincialgovernments.

*The description of this project is based on the evaluation re-port, other project reports, and telephone interviews in Apriland May 1982 with Max Lowdermilk, senior water managementspecialist consultant to AID, and Colorado State University proj-ect personnel, including Gaylord Skogerboe, project coordinator,1974-80, and Thomas Trout, project agricultural engineer,1976-78.

**Water-use efficiency refers to crop production per unit ofwater used, irrespective of water source, expressed in units ofweight per unit of water depth applied to unit area.

Background

The broad objective of the AID-Pakistanwater management project was to improve theeffectiveness of water use through better con-trol of irrigation water. This ultimately wouldhelp to increase economic returns to the farmer.Pakistan has about 25 million acres (10,125,000hectares) of land under irrigation through theuse of canals which divert water from the In-dus River and its tributaries. This irrigation sys-tem is the largest contiguous system in theworld. The river diversion process, large pri-mary canals, and the distributional network ofsmaller canals are outstanding engineeringachievements in diverting and conveying wa-ter. Yet little attention traditionally had beengiven to agricultural use of the water once itwas delivered to the farm. The farmers wereleft to fend for themselves. Water distributionto the fields after release from the canals waspoorly managed. Despite multibillion-dollar in-vestments, crop yields remained low, and prob-lems of waterlogging and salinity frequentlywere severe.7 Salinity control and reclamationprograms in the 1960’s attempted to lower wa-

7Colorado State University evaluation op. cit., p. 7.

Ch. IV—Managing Water on Farms in Pakistan ● 3 1

ter tables and provide additional water sup-plies, but they were not so effective as had beenanticipated. 8 In 1976, as a result of researchfindings, Pakistan approved a $44 millionmatching loan agreement with AID for an on-farm water management pilot program to par-tially line and reconstruct 1,500 watercourses(out of more than 80,000 in the Indus River Sys-tem). The research project continued underthree successive contracts until AID activitiesceased in 1980. The World Bank and the Paki-stani Government are supporting many of theprograms started during the AID/CSU project.

Collecting and Evaluating Data

One of the first tasks of the project was tomeasure watercourse losses that occur betweenthe time water is diverted from canal turnoutsto when it reaches the farmers’ fields. Insteadof 10- to 15-percent seepage losses as had beenassumed by planners in Pakistan, real losseswere found to be 40 to 60 percent.

Once the extent of watercourse losses wasdetermined, the CSU team and farmers dis-cussed various technologies and practices thatcould reduce those losses. They concluded thatmost of the losses could be prevented by re-habilitating earthen watercourses, lining crit-ical reaches, and installing manufactured turn-outs (devices to allow water to flow from thewatercourse into the field).

The findings about losses of water in deliveryto the fields also led to recommending less em-phasis on large water supply works (such asdams) and more emphasis on water conserva-tion and management.

Project Actions

Major project efforts were in technologyadaptation, farmer participation, training, andinformation transfer.

Adapting Technology To MeetLocal Needs

In traditional Pakistani irrigation systems,waterflow to the field is controlled by tempo-rary earthen dams that are removed to releasewater and then rebuilt. This constant destruc-tion and reconstruction has weakened water-course walls, decreased efficiency of water de-livery, and required considerable time andlabor. Working with the farmers to find themost suitable system, the project staff wentthrough several design phases of a new turnoutdevice for controlling water flow to the fields.The final modified version was a simple, dura-ble, locally built, and easy-to-install concreteturnout (see fig. 2). In addition to saving laborand water, the turnouts eliminated weak spotsin the canal walls, improved control over waterflow, reduced seepage loss, and contributed tolocal industry. The choice of concrete, a mate-rial of little intrinsic value in Pakistan, meantthe turnouts would not be stolen or salvagedfor other uses. Existing technology was thusadapted by the local artisans, the farmers, andthe CSU team to solve a common local prob-lem.

Uneven fields were another major factor inoverirrigation. When a field is uneven, farmersoverwater to cover the high areas; this leadsto waterlogging of the lower areas, possible in-creased soil salinity, and uneven crop growth.To address this problem, the CSU team begana precision leveling program. Local artisansmanufactured the equipment for land leveling,and local companies performed the work. Incontrast to the concrete turnout, however, theland leveling program was not entirely success-ful for a number of reasons. *

1. It was less efficient, and thus more expen-sive, on small farms than on large.

qbid.

*In spite of these problems, in 1973 the Pakistani Governmentembarked on a multimillion-rupee program of land levelin g

under an AID loan agreement.


Figure 2.— Precast Concrete Slab Installation for Panel Turnouts(dimensions shown are for a 50-cm diameter turnout)

I I33 cm

1

/’


2.

3.

4.

Leveling a typical small field in the Monaarea required careful scheduling of equip-ment and nonuse of the field for a season.Most Mona area farmers, and in fact mostof Asia, have small farms and cannot af-ford to take land out of production for aseason.Land leveling actually reduced yield for anadditional season because topsoil wasshifted. Most small-farm operators cannotsacrifice the yield necessary to have theirfields leveled.There may be additional environmentalproblems with erosion, since the soils willhave been redistributed and infiltration tostabilize the soils may be reduced for thefirst season at least.

Farmer Participation

Social and economic constraints to effectivewater use and watercourse maintenance cen-tered on the lack of: 1) effective local organiza-tion to mobilize labor and other resources,2) knowledge among farmers regarding themagnitude of watercourse loss, and 3) technicalknowledge among farmers for improving theirwatercourses.

Project workers recognized that, withoutfarmer participation and cooperation on a long-term basis, technological solutions would havelimited impact and any improvements madewould be short-lived. The farmers were there-fore involved in water use planning, designingexperimental technologies and irrigation prac-tices, and learning the maintenance require-ments for such technologies.

The first step was enlisting farmers to assistin improving their watercourses. It was neces-sary to convince the farmers that if somethingneeded to be done, the farmers would have totake the lead responsibility. Farmers wereshown examples from other villages that hadundertaken watercourse improvements withvisibly beneficial results. They were encour-aged by these demonstrations to reline and re-construct their own local watercourses at siteswhere water loss had been greatest. The resultwas that water transport loss was greatly re-

Photo credit: Kay Muldoon for World Bank and IDA, December 1970

Using the traditional Pakistani method, a farmer openshis irrigation ditch to water his wheatfield on his

5-acre farm near the village of Bal

duced in the area and farmers gained a senseof responsibility for their own watercoursemaintenance.

The next step was to setup water user orga-nizations to help distribute the increased flowmore equitably. Unfortunately, since watermanagement in Pakistan is handled on a pro-vincial basis, laws to assist the process had tobe enacted one at a time. Nevertheless, far--reaching legislation was adopted in 1981 in anumber of provinces to give legitimacy to thefarmer organizations and provide them withlegal status for bargaining purposes.9

Training and Information Transfer

The need for training local personnel becameapparent early in the project. Pakistani re-search associates were brought to the univer-sity campus in Colorado for this purpose. Thisexchange proved valuable over the long term.According to one AID report, most of the train-

‘M. Lowdermilk, “State of the Art on Water User Associationsfor Improved Farm Water Management, ” paper for AID (un-dated].


ees who earned doctorates or masters degreesat Colorado “are involved in finding solutionsto Pakistan’s problems today.” In addition,nearly 100 Pakistanis were trained in Pakistanfor on-farm water management teams. The re-search and training functions also provided theopportunity for U.S. graduate students to studythe problems firsthand in Pakistan.10

Perhaps the most significant result of thePakistan project was the development and doc-umentation of methodology for possible trans-fer to other settings. Project coordinators real-ized that in order to reap full benefits from theproject, information would need to be circu-lated both within Pakistan and to other devel-oping countries.

AID has published numerous manuals andtechnical reports explaining in detail the Paki-stani process of onsite problem identificationand the development of site-specific solutionsand their implementation. It has producedhandbooks describing the concrete-turnout de-sign and manufacture, plans for encouragingfarmer participation, and land leveling tech-niques. These handbooks are published inFrench, Spanish, and English. Within Pakistan,agricultural extension agents trained by theprogram continue their outreach work withfarmers. A series of lectures has been video-taped for university instruction. (See app. B fora listing of AID-produced materials on irriga-tion water management.)

IOCo]orado State University evaluation, op. cit., p. 27.

Project Evaluation

Project evaluators identified several impor-tant factors that helped the project achievesome level of accomplishment:

●

●

●

●

●

focus on a real world problem—i.e., “thepoor management of existing irrigationsystems;”use of an interdisciplinary approach, witha CSU team including a civil engineer, anagricultural engineer or agronomist, anda rural sociologist;CSU’s collaboration with a number of Pak-istani organizations responsible for variedaspects of on-farm water management;CSU’s working relations with Pakistanicolleagues (a large proportion of the proj-ect publications were of joint U.S.-Paki-stani authorship); andCSU’s contribution to the project design,made possible by AID’s flexible manage-ment strategy .11

Broadly based data on crop yields as the re-sult of this joint U.S.-Pakistan effort at im-proved water management are not available.On test plots, however, the project team foundthat good fertilizer responses and good yieldswere consistently obtained with irrigation lev-els as much as 40 percent below those previous-ly considered to be optimum. CSU researchershave estimated that yields could be doubled ifPakistani farmers made some simple adjust-ments in their practices to reduce crop lossrisk.12

llIbido

‘zIbid., p. 23.

Project in Egypt worked in Pakistan, the Egyptian project alsohad as its goal improving the productivity of

Based on the successful efforts in Pakistan, the small farm. The project components in-AID embarked on a similar project in Egypt in eluded study of the economic effects of water1978. Designed by many of the experts who distribution methods, fostering farmer organ-


izations and better communications between Synthesis Project. Its purpose was to stimulatefarmers and the Ministry of Irrigation, and con- international exchange of irrigation water man-ducting research on techniques to increase agement knowledge and techniques. The proj-agricultural productivity. This project is ect is managed by the Consortium for Interna-scheduled to continue until mid-1984. tional Development, a group of universities

with experience in providing technical assist-

Water Management Synthesisance to developing countries. The effort in-volves both information transfer and technical

Project* assistance. Information on irrigation develop-

Drawing on the Pakistani and Egyptian proj-ments worldwide is regularly analyzed and sys-tematically distributed to about 700 officials,

ects data, AID launched a Water Management researchers, and other individuals in some 30countries. A few countries have requested as-

*This discussion is based on information received from a tele- sistance applying the Pakistani/Egyptian prob-phone interview with Wayne Clyma, Colorado State University,codirector of the Water Management Synthesis Project, in lem-solving process to their own agriculturalAugust 1982. Utah State University shared project responsibility. water-use needs.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

There is some disagreement within the U.S.agricultural community about the degree towhich the approach to problem analyses andtechnology adoption used in Pakistan is nowused in U.S. irrigated agriculture. Nevertheless,with billions of dollars of new irrigation invest-ments being planned by the United States andother bilateral and international lenders, manyopportunities exist for validating and develop-ing further some of the processes used in thePakistani and Egyptian AID projects. Elementsthat have broad value for planning and imple-menting improved water management schemesinclude:

Interactive

In both projects,

Field Research

research teams workedclosely with local officials, farmers, and re-searchers to identify the practical problemsand those areas that appeared to have highpotential for payoffs. This interaction also wasimportant to obtain feedback as the new tech-nologies and methods were tested. The projectsdemonstrated that when farmers perceive po-tential or actual benefits from improved watermanagement, they become more active in con-tributing their ideas, labor, and capital.

CONSIDERATIONS

Integration of Research ResultsWith Government PoIicy

In Pakistan, the project findings of 40 to 60percent water losses were received skeptical-ly by many Government agencies and officials.The project team, in conjunction with Paki-stan’s Water and Power Development Author-ity’s planning unit, persisted in its efforts toconvince policy makers of the validity of thefindings through individual discussions, semi-nars, publications, and the replication of theresearch on additional watercourses.13 The re-sult was a draft “Revised Action Programmefor Irrigated Agriculture” calling for lining24,000 watercourses and rehabilitating 48,000more by 1990. In Egypt, the government hashigh expectations for the project, and both theMinistries of Irrigation and Agriculture alreadyare looking to the project personnel for generalguidance on the design of further programsthat will increase agricultural production.14

IsCo]orado State University evaluation, Op. Cit., p. 43.

14Mid.Project Evaluation Report of the Egypt Water Use andManagement Project prepared for the Agency for InternationalDevelopment, November 1980, p. 19.


Multidisciplinary Approach

This was considered a significant factor byproject participants and evaluators. The multi-disciplinary approach brought together eco-nomics, institutional aspects, and sociology,along with the traditional disciplines of engi-neering and agronomy, in planning, implemen-tation, and training. The multidisciplinarytraining of water management specialists isone of the major innovations required in thefuture. Demand for broad-based water special-ists may exceed supply, given the scale ofplanned investments in existing and new irri-gation schemes. The International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI) estimates, for in-stance, that in eight Asian developing nationsalone, an additional 55,000 professionals, tech-nicians, and extension personnel will be re-quired annually until 1990 to manage and oper-ate new irrigated areas. 15

An outgrowth of CSU’s work in Pakistan andother developing countries was a grant fromthe Ford Foundation for partial support ofan intensive interdisciplinary course. * Thecourse, offered in 1981, is noteworthy in itscoverage of social, institutional, and technicalaspects of improved irrigation water manage-ment. Most participants were from foreigncountries.16

Information Dissemination

Worldwide

The Water Management Synthesis Project isa step toward creating an information systemto meet irrigation management informationneeds. Such an organization would need to be:international in scope, cross-disciplinary, con-cerned with improving irrigation systems man-agement, focused on developing countries and

ISIFpRI, op. cit., p. 63.*The Ford Foundation also has considered support for an

international center to conduct interdisciplinary research andtraining in the irrigation management field. This idea, whichwas viewed as having a high priority by the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research, a multidonor-sponsoredorganization with headquarters in Washington, D. C., was re-jected, however, for budgetary reasons.

16 David M. Freeman, Associate Professor of Sociology, COl-orado State University, August 1982, telephone interview.

small farms, directly linked with action on re-search, able to identify and report on improvedmanagement practices, and backed by suffi-cient resources. No organization currently pub-lishing and distributing information on irriga-tion combines all these features.17

United States

Irrigation technologies and the institutionalarrangements for implementing them are gen-erally site-specific. Nevertheless, U.S. projectparticipants in the Pakistan and Egypt effortsmaintain that the experience gained in thoseprojects provides insights for solving irrigationproblems in the arid lands of the AmericanWest. One of the Pakistan project participants,for instance, applied the problem analysis andtechniques he developed abroad to work beingconducted with Colorado farmers. The projectinvolved organizing farmers to use water man-agement technologies to reduce the salinity ofdischarge into the Colorado River from theGrand Valley .18 This demonstration project,funded by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), was later expanded with sup-port from USDA’s Soil Conservation Service.

Another example comes from the feedbackof Pakistan’s project and the development ofCSU’s interdisciplinary short course on watermanagement. Although practically all of the at-tendees have been foreign students, adminis-trators, and researchers, the course is open toU.S. citizens. The cofounder of the course,Everett Richardson, recognizes that the institu-tional setting for irrigation in the WesternUnited States is different from that in Pakistanor many other developing countries. Neverthe-less, he feels that “the principles of problem-solving and organization building are directlyapplicable to U.S. situations. ” In addition, anumber of potential applications of these for-eign projects to the Colorado situation wereidentified. They include:

● the research development process;

ITCons~tative Group on International Agricultural Research,op. cit., p. 28 (see footnote 5).

‘e’’ Modest Technologies,” A40saic (Washington, D. C.: NationalScience Foundation, January/February 1977), pp. 46-47.

Ch. IV—Managing Water on Farms in Pakistan . 37

●

●

●

●

foliar spray techniques for applying nutri-ents, which are not used widely in Colo-rado but could be and which are beingused in the Columbia Basin;an inexpensive canal outlet for water con-trol and measurement;project publications covering such itemsas the design of buried pipelines and fur-row irrigation systems; andimproved surface methods and water man-agement techniques that do not involve thecostly investments for sprinkler, bubble, ordrip irrigation systems which many Colo-

rado farmers feel are the only means to in-crease water efficiency. *

*Mr. Richardson prepared an informal paper, “Egyptian Expe-riences Applied to Colorado, ” for AID in 1982. He said in a tele-phone conversation in August 1982 that one or two Coloradofarmers were interested in working with him to implement someof the methodology from the Egyptian project. Irrigation farmsin Colorado face a fivefold increase in their water charges in1983 because of assessments on irrigation districts for construc-tion of new dam spillways. Before these assessments, Coloradofarmers could afford to hold on to extra shares of water. Richard-son believes the increase from $20 to $100 per share (each shareequals 7 acre-feet) will make it more attractive to sell shares andto become more water efficient.

Chapter V

Developing Guayule (NaturalRubber) as a Commercial Crop

Chapter V

Developing Guayule (NaturalRubber) as a Commercial Crop

SUMMARY

This report of Australian and U.S. efforts to forts have used and advanced those car-develop guayule suggests that new agricultural ried out earlier by the United States; anduses exist for arid lands. In particular: ● continued cooperation is expected to en-

hance U.S. commercialization of guayule● guayule is a water-conserving plant, native

to the United States, which has important production and to protect both countriesfrom threats to other supplies of natural

potential strategic and industrial uses;● Australian research and development ef- rubber.

INTRODUCTION

The United States depends on other nationsfor a number of industrial materials that areimportant to U.S. industry. Some are calledstrategic, meaning critical to our national de-fense, and must be acquired and stored in theUnited States to meet national defense needs.Study and research is taking place to determinethe economic and political feasibility of pro-ducing some of these industrial materials fromplants. (See table 7 for a list of selected poten-tial domestic crops and the materials theycould replace.)1 One such strategic material, the

——IHoward C. Tankersley, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, and

Richard Wheaton, Program Manager, Natural Rubber Program,USDA, “Strategic and Essential Industrial Materials FromPlants—Thesis and Uncertainties,” (OTA draft), November 1982.

subject of this chapter,cause natural rubber is

is natural rubber. Be-a strategic material, it

is advantageous to have domestic control ofsupplies rather than importing and stockpilingthem.

In 1981 the world’s natural rubber supply fellshort of demand by 110,000 metric tons.2 TheWorld Bank has estimated that world rubberneeds will increase by 5 percent annually forthe remainder of this decade; recent changesin the international economy may make that

‘Natural Rubber IGuayule) Research in the United States, ACombined 1980 and 1981 Report on Implementation of theNative Latex Commercialization and Economic DevelopmentAct of 1978, Joint Commission on Guayule, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, August 1982 (draft), pp. 2-3.

Table 7.—Potential Domestic Crops and Uses

Crop To replace

Guayule (Parthenium argentatum A. Gray) Hevea natural rubber, resinsCrambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst. ex High erucic rape oil and petroleum

R. E. Fries) feedstocksJojoba (Simmondsia chinensis (Link) C. Schneid) Sperm whale oil and imported waxesLesquerella spp. Castor oilVernonia spp.—Stokesia spp. Epoxy oilsKenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) Imported newsprint and paperAssorted oilseeds Petrochemicals for coatingsSOURCE: L. H, Princen, Alternate Industrial Feedstocks From Agriculture (Peoria, Ill.: Northern Regional Research Center,

1980). Agricultural Research Service, US. Department of Agriculture in “Strategic and Essential Industrial MaterialsFrom Plants-Thesis and Uncertainties,” OTA draft, November 1982

41

42 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience—...—— —

estimate high. During this decade, however,natural rubber, as opposed to synthetic, is ex-pected to retain its one-third share of the totalrubber markets

As the largest single user of natural rubber,the United States greatly influences the worldsupply-demand formula and the price of natu-ral rubber. Contributing to the rising demandfor natural rubber is the boom in radial auto-mobile tires, which require about 40 percentnatural rubber, almost twice as much as thatrequired in nonradial tires. While radials wear

longer, their growing popularity creates addi-tional demand for natural rubber. Moreover,synthetic rubber still lacks the elasticity, resil-ience, and resistance to heat buildup of naturalrubber, indispensable factors for bus, truck, andairplane tires.4 Consequently, radial tires havecaptured an increasing market share of theoriginal auto equipment package in the UnitedStates. For example, radial tire sales expandedfrom 25 percent for the 1973 car models to 99.9percent for the 1981 models.5

sNational Academy of Sciences, Guayule: An AlternativeSource of Natural Rubber, 1977, p. 54.

Most of the world’s rubber comes from twosources: the hevea rubber tree (Hevea brasilien-sis (wind. ex A. Juss.) (Muell.-Arg.) and synthet-ics made from petroleum feedstocks. A numberof factors raise doubt about the reliability ofHevea as a secure and expanding source of nat-ural rubber?

●

●

●

Hevea only grows within a restricted areaof the tropics.Brazil, a major natural rubber supplier,had its production wiped out by leaf blightearly in the 20th century. Leaf blight hasbeen a serious constraint to further pro-duction, although blight-resistant strainsare being developed. Chemical control alsomay be a possible, but expensive, answerto controlling future blight.Hevea is one of the most labor-intensivecrops in the world.

‘3 National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., pp. 2 and 60; and in-terview with Richard Wheaton, Program Manager, DomesticRubber Program and Executive Secretary, Joint Guayule Com-mission, April 1982.

‘Ibid., p. 2.sEarl Kraher, Statistics Office, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers

Association, July 23, 1982, interview.

●

●

Several of the primary producing coun-tries, mindful of Hevea's production costs,are switching to less labor-intensive andmore profitable crops.Southeast Asia, which accounts for about90 percent of world production, has beensubject to political instability.

Simultaneous with the uncertainty of an ade-quate future natural rubber supply, the produc-tion of synthetic rubber is being affected by ris-ing costs of the petrochemical feedstocks fromwhich it is produced. This relatively recent de-velopment reinforces the prediction in a Na-tional Academy of Sciences report that the de-mand for natural rubber will continue.7

These factors have contributed to a growinginterest in guayule (Parthenium argentatumGray) as a promising alternative source of nat-ural rubber. Guayule is a shrub which growswild in some semiarid regions of North Amer-ica.

7National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., p. 2.

ADVANTAGES AND DlSADVANTAGES OF DEVELOPING GUAYULE

Guayule has a number of properties that ● Its rubber has chemical and physical prop-make it attractive as a source of commercial erties virtually identical to those of Hevea.rubber: ● It grows well under plantation conditions

Ch. V—Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop ● 43— —.—

and can be improved through crossbreed-ing.

● It appears to be only slightly affected bylatitude or altitude and therefore may beof interest to nations lying outside theTropics that cannot produce synthetics.8

Certain characteristics of guayule make itparticularly suitable for semiarid land cultiva-tion. These relate to temperature and droughttolerance, yield, and durability. Guayule growswell in temperatures ranging from 770 to 1040F (250 to 40

0 C), and wild guayule can survivetemperatures below 32° F (0° C). Most lit-erature suggests 16 inches (40 millimeters[mm]) of rainfall is optimal for growth. U.S.plantings during World War II showed that 11to 25 inches (280 to 640 mm) were needed forcommercial production. Experience with theshrub also indicates that if precipitation fallsbelow about 14 inches (350 mm), supplemen-tal irrigation may be needed. Within this mois-ture range, however, rubber yield is only slight-ly affected as water is reduced toward thelower ranges of tolerance. Finally, the root sys-tem can penetrate to a 20-foot depth (6.5 me-ters), with plants living for 30 to 40 years intheir native environment.9

Despite these apparent advantages, guayulefaces many technical and economic barriersto commercial development. Much technicalrefinement is required to reduce the cost of pro-ducing guayule to a level that is economicallyattractive. Some of the major difficulties in-volve solving problems at the early stages ofagriculture production, such as developingguayule strains that contain uniformly highquantities of rubber.10 The rubber content of

aIbid., pp. I-10.BFor a more complete description of guayule’s characteristics,

see L. W. Owens, Report on Guayule Potential and Research inSouth Australia, February 1981, sec. 3 (unpaginated); and A. R.Bertrand, “A Review of Guayule Research: 1941 -1981,” memoto Chairman of Joint Guayule Commission, in Joint CommissionReport, appendix.

10 Nationa] Academy of Sciences, op. cit,, p. 12; and E. G. Knoxand A. A. Theison (eds. ), 1981 Feasibility of Introducing NewCrops: Production-Marketing-Consumption [PMC) Systems, ch.VI, Guayule, G. L. Laidig, pp. 100-I2o (Emmaus, Pa.: RodalePress].

harvested shrubs, for example, can vary from8 to 26 percent of dry weight (table 8). Verticil-lium and Phytopthora root rots are the majordisease problems, both of which are aggravatedby excessive soil moisture. In its native habitat,guayule is rarely affected by disease, but undercultivation its susceptibility increases. Anotherproblem is providing a secure supply at a pro-duction level that could meet demands consist-ently. In addition, the economics of the inter-national rubber market must shift if there is tobe commercial guayule development. One esti-mate is that guayule will be competitive whenHevea reaches 90 cents per pound.11 The aver-age price of Hevea from January to June 1982was only 46.6 cents per pound, even thoughit reached a peak of nearly 74 cents in 1980 (fig.3). If the international economy revives, marketprices might again rise, providing incentive forguayule investment.

In spite of these difficulties, one country withconsiderable arid and semiarid land, Australia,has begun to research the feasibility of the com-mercial production of guayule. The next sec-tion reviews some of the principal elements ofthe Australian experience as one example ofthe growing interest in the commercializationof guayule.

II Wheaton interview (see footnote 6).

Table 8.—Components of Harvested Guayule Shrub

Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-60 percentRubber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26 percenta

Resins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 percenta

Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-55 percenta

Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-20 percenta

Cork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 percenta

Water solubles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12 percenta

Dirt and rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VariableaDry weight basis.

SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, Guayu/e: An Alternative Source ofNatural Rubber (Washington, D. C.: NAS, 1977)


Figure 3.—Natural Rubber Prices per Metric Ton

1,600

1,500

1,400

1,300

1,200

= 800

700

600

500

400

300

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985Price per metric tona

Price per pound0/0 increase or decrease + 20%

aNew ‘fork price R.S.S. 1 Rubber bJan.-June Average

SOURCE: Joint Commission on Guayule, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural l?ubber(Guayu/e) Research in the United States, A Combined 1960 and 1981 Reporton Implementation of the Native Latex Commercialization and Economic Development Act of 1978, August 1982 (draft), P. 3.

Background

Australia became interested in guayule in1941, when the Japanese takeover of Malaya(now Malaysia) cut off its natural rubber sup-plies. A guayule project was particularly attrac-tive to Australia, a country where three-quar-ters of its land area—1.9 million square miles(490 million hectares)-–was arid and not in anycompeting use at that time. As can be seen infigure 4, the entire interior of the country is alarge arid basin, experiencing high tempera-tures and an evaporation rate of 100 to 120inches (2.5 to 3 meters) per year.12 Some of thearea is favorable for guayule production. In Ju-ly 1942, Australia began a wartime project toinvestigate alternative sources of natural rub-

IzR. 0. S]awer and R. A. Perry (eds,], Arid Lands of Australia(Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1969), p, 56.

10O—

20°—

30°—

Figure 4.—Australia

—10°

—20 0

–30°

Aridv —40 0

0 500 1000 mi

SOURCE: Distribution of Arid Homoclimates. Eastern Hemisphere. WesternHemisphere. U.N. Maps No. 392 and 393, Revision 1, by PeverillMeigs, UNESCO, Paris, 1960,

Ch. V—Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop ● 45

ber. A principal focus was guayule, a plant notnative to Australia. The United States, whichwas conducting a similar experiment in theU.S. Southwest, provided Australia with seedsand technical information.13

This early Australian experiment made someprogress in determining plant growth and rub-ber production potential. The project ceased,however, when the war situation improved forthe Allies in 1943 and Hevea rubber becamemore plentiful. Limited guayule cultivationcontinued into the 1950’s entirely as a researcheffort with no goal of commercialization, andwas abandoned at the end of the war.

In 1980, guayule research was resumed inAustralia in New South Wales, a state in theeastern corner of the country. Figure 5 showsthe shaded region considered potentially suit-able for guayule development. This area con-sists of the western slopes and plains which fallalong a north-south belt through the traditional—.

lsFor an account of this early project see R. L. Crocker andH. C. Trimble, Investigations of Guayule in South Australia(Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia, Council for Scientificand Industrial Research, Bulletin No. 192, 1945).

Figure 5.—Test Sites, Western Slopes, and Plains(shaded) of New South Wales

r

SOURCE I A. Siddiqul and P Locktov, A Feasibility Study on the Commerclall-zatfon of Guayule m New South Wales, Australia, December 1981, Cal-ifornia Department of Food and Agriculture

cropping areas in New South Wales. Nine testplots in this region were planted with guayule–Condobolin, Yanco, Narrabri, Trangie, NorthStar, Warialda, Hillston, Wagga Wagga, andDeniliguin. The project was funded for 3 years.Its overall goal has been to determine the feasi-bility of guayule commercialization under dry-land conditions in New South Wales. (See app.C for estimated costs of producing 1 acre ofguayule in New South Wales.) The Common-wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Orga-nization (CSIRO) in Australia is assisting withthe research. In addition, the United States isexchanging research and development infor-mation through a joint agreement with the NewSouth Wales Government. The priority re-search objectives of the project are:14

●

●

●

●

Developing techniques for direct seedingof guayule under dryland conditions.—CSIRO anticipates that higher yields ofrubber can be gained by spacing guayuleplants in a manner similar to that used ingrowing cereal grains.Understanding the physiology of guayulegrowth and rubber production.—Informa-tion from test plots about the effects ofsolar radiation, temperature, and soil wa-ter on key plant parameters will be usedto identify the most favorable environ-ments for guayule production.Developing guayule strains best suited toAustralian dryland environments.—TheUnited States is providing some of its high-est yielding rubber varieties for testing inAustralia. 15

Investigating alternative processing meth-ods for guayule.

Results of this Australian research alreadyshow a number of promising signs. First, thereappears to be the potential for considerable sav-ings in seedling costs, one of the more expen-sive aspects of guayule production. Consultantsto CSIRO have projected eventual seedling

14G, Alan stewart, Convenor, CSIRO Working Party on Guay -ule. Correspondence to Dr. B. T. England, May 17, 1982.

IUI. A. siddiqui and P. Locktov, A Feasibility Study on the Com-mercialization of Guayule in New South Wales, Australia, Cali-fornia Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of PlantIndustry (Sacramento: December 1981), p. 12.

46 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience—- —

costs of $6 per 1,000. This is significantly belowthe price of $80 to $100 per 1,000 seedlingscharged by two California nurseries in 1982,although such costs were affected by relativelylow production volumes.16

Second, Australia is making progress in de-veloping technology for processing the guay-ule. Table 7 from chapter III shows the com-ponents of a harvested guayule shrub. Themethod preferred by researchers at CSIRO toextract the rubber from the debris includesshrub deresination and solvent extraction ofthe rubber. This complicated chemical processinvolves parboiling and cleaning the shrub,hammermilling it through a fine-grade screento extract the resin, and finally extracting therubber by dissolving it in a solvent. With thisseparation process, up to 95 percent of the rub-ber can be recovered.17 An alternative extrac-tion method involves a pressure vessel towaterlog the debris accompanying the rubber,which in a subsequent slurry tank sinks, leav-ing the rubber afloat. But the water require-ment for this alternative process is a major dis-advantage in arid areas.18

Future Research

A report of U.S. scientists who visited Aus-tralia in 1982 indicates that the New SouthWales project has already made progress. Thetrip was made under the Memorandum ofAgreement between New South Wales and theU.S. Department of Agriculture for the inter-change of research information, germ plasm,

161nterim Report, Guayule Working Party, CommonwealthScientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Mar.25, 1982, p. 16.

17pJational Academy of Sciences, op. cit., p. 35.InIbid., pp. 50-52.

and scientists involved in guayule research. Ex-tensive research data and information were ex-changed, accompanied by discussions in re-viewing the problems and potential areas of re-search in New South Wales. Sites visited in-cluded Narrabri, Trangie, Condobolin, andHillston. The U.S. research team, whichtraveled some 700 miles (1,100 kilometers) byauto throughout the project site, obtained im-portant information on the environmental con-ditions under which guayule would be grownin New South Wales. The report recommendspriorities for future research in a number ofareas, three of which have particular relevancefor arid and semiarid lands:

evaluation of existing varieties, both forresistance to drought and for high rubberyield;determination of water requirements un-der various plant spacings and with cultur-al practices which conserve or collect wa-ter; andevaluation of direct seeding in the fieldunder irrigation versus using transplantsfrom nurseries.19

In addition, the report recognizes the need forresearch in areas involving infrastructure forcommercial guayule production—namely, har-vest mechanization, processing, and market-ing. The challenge, as summarized by Austra-lian scientists, is that guayule is “a new cropto Australia and to the world” and “will requirea significant research and development effortbefore becoming a commercial crop on a largescale.” 20

lgTechn ica] Report, U.S. Scientific and Technical ExchangeTeam Visit to New South Wales, Mar. 26 to Apr. 17, 1982 (draft).

ZOInterim Report, CSIRO, op. cit., p. 57.

U.S. GUAYULE PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH

Guayule has been periodically exploited for ever, when the wild plants were overused andcommercial purposes in the United States. not replanted. In 1910, guayule mainly fromEarly in this century, for instance, wild stands Mexico provided nearly 50 percent of the nat-in parts of Texas were harvested. The guayule ural rubber consumed in the United States andrubber industry in Texas disappeared, how- 10 percent of world consumption. Production

Ch. V—Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop 47—.—— . -

resumed briefly in the 1920’s when British con-trol of Malaya’s rubber monopoly causedprices to triple.21

The United States again became interestedin guayule, as did Australia, in December 1941when Malaya fell to the Japanese. The UnitedStates, like other Allied nations, lost more than90 percent of its natural rubber supply. TheU.S. Government started the Emergency Rub-ber Project (ERP) in February 1942 to developguayule commercially. This project involvedmore than 1,000 scientists and technicians.Supported by a work force of 9,000 workers,ERP planted almost 32,000 acres of guayule at13 sites in 3 States. The project produced 1billion guayule seedlings. Toward the end ofthe project, 15 tons of rubber were being pro-duced daily at mills near the California townsof Salinas and Bakersfield.

In spite of its promising future, the ERP hada short life. By the end of the war, syntheticrubber was being produced in commercialquantities, and surplus stocks of natural rub-ber began arriving from Southeast Asia. Withthese developments, the wartime economicand strategic justification for guayule produc-tion in the United States faded. When the proj-ect formally ended in 1946, about 21 millionpounds of rubber on 27,000 acres had to beburned or plowed under so that the land couldbe used for other crops. Most of the seeds fromthe genetic improvement program were de-stroyed along with hundreds of millions ofseedlings. 22

In recent years, several factors have createdrenewed interest in developing a domestic nat-ural rubber industry based on guayule. In-cluded among these are larger deficits betweenworld production and consumption, total U.S.dependency on foreign sources, and the in-crease in Hevea prices over the past decade. 23

In 1978, the Native Latex Commercializationand Economic Development Act was passed,calling for the establishment of a U.S. Joint

ZINatiOnal ACadernY of Sciences, op. cit., pp. 17-23.ZZIbid,~sJ[]int (~ornrn lsslOn Report, op. cit., pp. 2 and 3 (See fOOtnOtC g).

Commission on Guayule Research and Com-mercialization, The goal of this Commissionhas been to determine the potential for U.S.commercialization of guayule.24 Commissionmembers are drawn from the U.S. Departmentsof Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior, andthe National Science Foundation. In fiscal year1981 these agencies had a combined budget ofabout $2.6 million for guayule research, andin fiscal year 1980, $1.4 million. The funds havebeen used for research in genetics, agronomic,and processing technology. Since its founding,the Commission has developed an additional7-year program to carry forward research anddevelopment beyond the initial authorizationperiod which ends in 1983. The Commissionplan calls for refining the technology for grow-ing and processing guayule to the point whereit can be transferred to the private sector forcommercialization. 25 The future of the Com-mission and its work under the Latex Act isuncertain.

Also, in 1978 the California legislature en-acted a pilot program to determine the feasibil-ity of the commercial production of guayule inCalifornia. The State of California in 1980 en-tered into a cooperative agreement with theNew South Wales Government to assist in es-tablishing a guayule research and developmentp r o g r a m .

The modest program of guayule research inthe United States is being conducted undergovernment auspices or with government as-sistance. Firestone and Goodyear Tire andRubber Companies, for example, have been en-gaged periodically in research on guayuleplantings, some of which involves governmentsupport. 26 Texas A&M University, New Mex-ico State University, Los Angeles State andCounty Arboretum, and the University of Ari-zona also have been doing selected guayuleresearch with some government assistance,

Generally, the move toward a massive U.S.commercialization project has been tempered

ZqNa~iVe LateX cornrnercia]hat]on and Economic DevelopmentAct of 1978 (Public Law 95-592).

j,25 ol nt Corn mi ss i o n Report, 01]. (: i t., [). 14 ( sf?t> foot Ilott: ~]).zfi~~~he;lton inter~,ieli, ( see foot Ilot(: 6 ].


by political and economic constraints. To re-place completely the imported Hevea withdomestically produced guayule, the UnitedStates would have to plant more than 5 millionacres, an area about the size of New Jersey .27

Even if this were possible, the implications oftotal U.S. rubber independence for U.S. bal-ance of payments and foreign trade with pres-ent rubber-producing countries make the un-dertaking politically complicated at present.28

A small step in the direction of U.S. commer-cialization was made, however, in September1982 when the Department of the Navy awardeda $400,000 contract to the Gila River Indian

2TlgTT NatiOnal ReSc3UrCeS Inventory (revised 1980), Soil Con-

servation Service, USDA.ZeIbid,

Community of Sacaton, Ariz., for growing andprocessing guayule. The contract calls for thepreparation of 10 technical reports on grow-ing and processing a prototype domestic guay-ule rubber industry in the United States. It alsoprovides for a $20 million guaranteed loanfrom the Federal Financing Bank to undertakepilot research work. Under this contract, theGila River Indians will cultivate approximately5,000 acres of guayule shrubs with harvestplanned for 1987. They will negotiate a subcon-tract with the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. forresearch and development of the prototypeprocessing facility. The Indians will own andoperate the facility. 29

Jopress Release, Senator Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Sept. 29,1982.

U.S. COOPERATION WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

The United States has entered into a few co-operative arrangements with other countrieson guayule research. As mentioned earlier, theUnited States and New South Wales (throughtheir Departments of Agriculture) signed a co-operative agreement in 1982 to help expeditetheir respective research projects with the ex-change of information on research and devel-opment several times each year.30 Exchangesof seed lines, plant materials, and raw rubberproducts also are planned.

The U.S. and Australian projects comple-ment each other, the former focusing on irri-gated guayule production, the latter on drylandproduction. If Australia is able to fulfill thefindings of feasibility studies on guayule com-mercialization, it could become not only self-sufficient in natural rubber but also “a majorexporting nation.”31 This development couldserve both U.S. and Australian national secu-rity interests by providing them with an addi-tional, stable source of supply for natural rub-ber and its products.32 In addition, the commer-

~Summary Report (draft), U.S. Delegation, Scientific and Tech-nical Exchange between Departments of Agriculture, New SouthWales, Australia, and United States, Apr. 9, 1982.

Sl]bid.Szowens, op. cit. (see footnote 9).

cial production of guayule in New South Walesmay be more favorable than in California. First,the New South Wales land is available at rel-atively low cost. Second, rainfall is evenlydistributed in the proposed planting areas;thereby requiring little or no irrigation.33

The United States is also cooperating withMexico on a less formal basis in guayule re-search and development through a Joint Work-ing Group on Agriculture, formed under theU.S.-Mexico agreement for scientific coopera-tion.34 Of particular interest to American re-searchers is the Mexican Government’s pilotprocessing plant in Saltillo, Mexico. This plant,the world’s only commercial processing plantfor guayule, uses a flotation extraction processand has a capacity to process 1 ton of wildguayule daily.35 Joint projects will be developedbased on exchanges of plant material, informa-tion, and scientists associated with specificprojects.36

Sssiddiqui and Locktov, op. cit., p. 10.sqJoint commission Report, op. cit., pp. 12-13 (SH? fOOtnOte 9).s~wheaton interview (see footnote 6).s8Joint commission Report, op. cit., app. 15 (see footnote ~).

Ch. V—Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop ● 49

Other countries have expressed interest in These include Brazil, Chile, India, Kenya,cooperating with the United States in develop- Israel, and Egypt.37

ing guayule as a potential commercial crop. 371 bid., p. 13.


The United States can expect to gain muchscientific and technical information aboutguayule growth and production from coopera-tive research with other countries. With respectto the U.S.-Australian exchange, benefits in-clude: 38

●

●

●

speeding up the solution of many of theproblems of agronomic production, genet-ic improvement, and new plant selections;developing scientific data relative to dry-land cultivation and new varieties that willsignificantly aid U.S. natural rubber devel-opment; andstrengthening the U.S. and Australian alli-ance, which is important in case of any fu-ture interruption of Hevea supplies fromSoutheast Asia.

More specifically, the United States has re-cently considered dryland guayule productionin Texas, and studies in New South Walesshould particularly benefit this U.S. effort. For

aOTechnica] Report, U.S. Scientific and Technical ExchangeTeam Visit to New South Wales, Mar. 26 to Apr. 17, 1982.

example, in New South Wales, different meth-ods for extracting rubber from guayule arebeing compared. Both the United States andNew South Wales are interested in finding ause for byproducts of guayule processing. Re-search has begun in New South Wales to iden-tify oils, waxes, and volatile compounds thatcan be obtained from guayule leaves. U.S. re-searchers such as those at the USDA Biomateri-als Conservation Laboratory in Peoria, Ill.,should find exchange of information most help-ful to them in their work.

As these cooperative exchanges have alreadyshown, there can be complementary value toeach country in such an effort. Research andinternational cooperation are important notonly for guayule, Plant research and develop-ment for industrial feedstocks as well as forfood products has national and internationalbenefits. Such research not only provides alter-native sources of supply but also develops a bet-ter scientific knowledge and research base forextrapolation to other areas where potentialmay exist for greater use of arid and semiaridplants (see ch. II).

.-

Chapter VI

Israel's Water Policy:A National Commitment

—

Chapter VI

Israel's Water Policy:A National Commitment

SUMMARY

Israel’s concerted national response to its se-vere water problems involved the use of severalmeasures that may have relevance for some ofthe arid/semiarid U.S. agricultural regions.These include:

● development of a vigorous water-data col-lection and evaluation project, includingthe mapping of ground water resources todetermine their sources and ages;

● close monitoring of withdrawals and

recharge to predict ground water levelchanges and allowable withdrawals;

● management of water demand through theuse of such tools as water-use metering,pricing, and allocation; and

● extensive and ongoing research, training,and technical assistance programs that in-volve the farmer in the design, manufac-ture, and application of new water man-agement devices and techniques.

Israel’s approach to water management hasbeen defined largely by limited freshwater re-sources, poor natural distribution of those re-sources, and an expanding and dispersed pop-ulation. 1 The latter aspect has been nearly asimportant a factor in determining water policyas the physical characteristics of the land andwater resources (see table 9). The populationof Israel has more than quintupled since thecountry’s founding in 1948, increasing from

about 800,000 to nearly 4 million largely be-cause of a liberal immigration policy. To ac-commodate this growth, Israel directed its newcitizens away from established population cen-ters to new settlements throughout the coun-try. This created not only a demand for morewater but also a need to distribute the waterto dispersed and remote users at an equitablecost.

The major obstacles to meeting these de-mands have been:2

IS. Arlosoroff, “Israel-A Model of Efficient Utilization of aCountry’s Water Resources,” paper prepared for United Nations zM. Ben Meir, “Development and Management of Water Re-Conference on Water. Much of this section is derived from this sources in Israel, ” Water and Irrigation Review, Journal of thearticle and an interview in April 1982 with the author. Water Workers Association of Israel (Tel Aviv), July 1981, p. 15.

Table 9.—Facts About Israel, 1979-80

Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,921,700Number employed in agriculture . . . . . . . 83,200Total area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,021,000 acres (2,032,000 hectares)Cultivated area , . . . . . . . . . . . ., ... , . . . . . 1,055,117 acres (427,000 hectares)Irrigated areaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469,490 acres (190,000 hectares)Total freshwater available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,378,400 acre-feet 1.7 billion cubic meters/yearAgricultural water available . . . . . . . . . . . . 973,000 acre-feet 1.2 billion cubic meters/yearaFrom Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1981.

53


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

There is no rainfall during the 6 monthsof summer, and total rainfall varies greatlyfrom year to year.The principal sources of water, the JordanRiver and Sea of Galilee, are located main-ly in the northern half of Israel, while morethan half of the arable land is in the south.Capacity in the Sea of Galilee and the twomajor aquifers is insufficient to meet bothperennial and seasonal storage needs.Most of the water is needed at elevationsmuch higher than these main sources ofsupply; the Galilee, actually a lake, is morethan 200 meters below sea level. Watermust be pumped, and its distribution isenergy intensive.The coastal areas next to the Mediterra-nean contain ground water, but withdraw-als must be controlled to prevent seawaterintrusion.Freshwater in deeper limestone reservoirsis adjacent to highly saline water bodies.To prevent intrusion of brackish waterinto the reservoirs, withdrawals must bekept below the annual recharge rate.

Israel’s available freshwater resources amountto about 1,378,400 acre-feet (1.7 billion cubicmeters) annually. By 1985, an estimated 1,621,700acre-feet (2 billion cubic meters) per year willbe needed or about 15 percent more water.3

Israel has limited options for increasing watersupply. Virtually no untapped sources of fresh-water exist, and present ground water levels

3Arlosoroff, U. N., op. cit.

are not likely to increase. Other water sourcesare questionable, particularly in terms of quali-ty, and not yet fully developed. They includereclaimed sewage, brackish water, and stormwaters. The Israeli Government’s plan for agri-cultural development during the first half of the1980’s estimates that the total volume of wateravailable to agriculture in 1985 will grow onlyslightly—from a 1980 level of about 973,000acre-feet (1.2 billion cubic meters) to 1,135,200acre-feet (1.4 billion cubic meters).4

By the end of this century, it is expected that30 to 40 percent of the water used for irriga-tion will be reused effluents, and 10 percentof the total amount of water used for agricul-tural purposes will be brackish water of highsalinity.5 This projection reflects a shift in focusin water resources during the last decade fromthe development of additional supplies to man-agement of demand.6 Demand managementaims to make a given physical volume of waterprovide the maximum possible benefit to thecommunity. Since the early 1970’s, Israel hasfollowed a policy by which development ofnew water resources has been considered andweighed against the investments and benefitsof demand strategies. This policy has been in-formally called “drip and automation versusdams, deep boreholes and pipes.”*

4Six Year Plan for Agricultural Development, 19801985 (Jeru-salem: Ministry of Agriculture, 1981), p. 84.

SIbid., p. 141,8Meir, op. cit. p. 2.*Comments made by S. Arlosoroff, former Deputy Water Com-

missioner for Israel in correspondence, Oct. 28, 1982.

WATER USE PROGRAMS

Israel has pursued a concerted, integrated re-sponse in dealing with its severe water prob-lems. Managing demand for water is a majorelement. Other elements include national con-trol of water resources, development of a na-tional water supply system, and technical as-sistance to farmers and to all sectors of wateruse.

These programs have been possible for anumber of reasons. Israel is a small country;its size has facilitated the widespread installa-tion of water-related technologies. Consequent-ly, distribution of water has not required pro-hibitive investments in pipelines and canals.The country as a whole has had a serious com-mitment to the development of a strong nation-

Ch. VI—Israel’s Water Policy: A National Commitment ● 5 5—— —

al water policy and program effort. The lackof a traditional farming community or a strongprivate water property rights system at thebirth of the nation also has reduced oppositionto an extensive national water legislation withstrict enforcement provisions.7

State Control of Water Resources

Under Israeli law, the water resources in thecountry are public property. They are subjectto the control of the state and are intended forthe use of its inhabitants and for the develop-ment of the country. The country’s first waterlaw regulations were drafted and enacted in1949. The legislation was gradually amendedand perfected until the current comprehensivewater law went into effect in 1959.8

Supply and Distribution9

Israel embarked on an ambitious scheme inthe late 1950’s to create a national water supplysystem to meet the demands of a growing pop-ulation and to distribute water equitably. Thebackbone of the system, known as the nationalwater grid, is the National Water Carrier,which began operation in 1964.

The Carrier, Israel’s largest single develop-ment project, consists of a 155-mile (250-kilom-eter) system of pipelines, canals, and tunnelsextending from the Sea of Galilee in the northto the Southern and Western Negev Desertwith an extension up to Eilat on the Gulf of theRed Sea. From 1964 to 1975 it transferred anaverage 283,800 acre-feet (350 million cubicmeters) of water annually, operating to maxi-mize use of the land’s storage capacity. Region-al exchanges of water between sources withhigh and low salt concentrations have helpedto mitigate problems of salinity, During the wetperiod, when demand is not so great, waterfrom the carrier is used to artificially rechargewells and aquifers. Thus, heavier withdrawals

7Arlosoroff interview.‘%. Arlosoroff, ‘‘Water Resources Development and Manage-

ment in Israel, ” KIDMA, published by the Israel Chapter of theSociety for International Development (Jerusalem), vol. 3, No.2 (No. 10/1977), p. 5.

‘Arlosoroff, U. N., op. cit.; and Meir, op. cit.

Photo credit” .Ernbassy of Israel

Israeli’s National Water Carrier, known asthe national water grid

are possible during the dry season. Recharginghas the additional effect of mixing high-qualitywater with lower quality ground water. Waste-water, after tertiary treatment, also is used forrecharging. The flexibility of this system of re-charge and water transfer enables Israel toachieve a very high degree of efficient wateruse.

As part of this program, the Government con-ducts a vigorous water exploration and re-search project, including mapping of groundwaters to determine their source and age, pros-pecting for new resources, and increasing theflow and use from sources already known. Thenational grid and close monitoring of with-drawals and recharges allow Israel to predictground water levels to within a few centime-ters. Wastewater reuse, desalinization researchand application, and operational cloud seedingfor enhancement of precipitation also area partof this effort.

Demand Management10

In view of its limited water supplies, Israelhas chosen to focus heavily on demand man-agement. This policy has required a completepackage of elements, including legislation, ad-ministration, sanctions, funds for research and

IOArloSoroff inh?rvietir.


demonstration projects, and in some casesfunds to support adoption of the preferred tech-nology. It has been justified in light of the needto maintain or increase irrigated agriculturalproduction under arid/semiarid conditions,when government resources for developmentof new water resources are limited.

Under this policy, water use is strictly regu-lated within a licensing and allocation system.The water law prohibits inefficient water use.The primary tools used to discourage ineffi-cient water use are metering, pricing, andallocation.

Metering

All water users, whether in agriculture, in-dustry, or the domestic sector, are metered.Water users are licensed by the Governmentand the license must be renewed annually.Failure to use water in a manner consistentwith the license can lead to its forfeiture. Eachlicense prescribes the quantity of water thatcan be withdrawn from any source, includingunderground, runoff, * and sewage effluentsources. Underground sources supply 60 per-cent of the water consumed by Israel. Thewater commission has the right of unlimitedaccess to water meters and inspects them reg-ularly. Most water meters must be installed out-side buildings. If a meter is inside under lock,the state inspector must be given the key. Farmunits are included within the metering re-quirements, and all farm wells are metered andinspected.

Pricing

The price of water is state controlled. Thosepeople living in areas where water costs lessto produce, such as the coastal Mediterraneansector which has access to a shallow aquifer,must pay a levy (based on cubic meter of use)to a national Water Charges Adjustment Fund.In the more remote or high-elevation regionswhere water costs are high, the Fund pays asubsidy to users. In addition, water rates are

*Runoff is that portion of the precipitation on a drainage areathat is discharged from the area in stream channels. Types in-clude surface runoff, ground water runoff, or seepage.

set on a progressive block basis—that is, asmore water is used, the marginal unit cost be-comes higher.

Allocation

As much as 70 percent of Israel’s water with-drawal is designated for agricultural water use(table 9). So it is important that allocation ofwater for farming be strictly managed. Eachfarmer, cooperative rural settlement (moshau),or collective farm settlement (kibbutz) receivesa yearly allocation, based on the type of cropand the average water use for the particulararea over time. A citrus grower, for instance,will be told that the allocation for the comingyear will be “x” amount. Moreover, the growermay also be told that, in the following year, itwill be “x” minus an amount which should besaved because of increased water use efficien-cy. * This policy of further restricting alloca-tion for the next year is not implemented everyyear.

The farmer may appeal an allocation judg-ment to the water commissioner, then to a spe-cial Water Tribunal which serves as a courtdealing with water disputes. In the event of anadverse decision of the Water Tribunal, thefarmer may appeal to the Supreme Court ofJustice. Once the allocation is set, however, thefarmer must either: 1) implement new tech-niques to use water more efficiently, or 2) letyields drop as water supplies are reduced andplants are overly stressed using the existingpractices. The incentive in this system is thatany surplus water a farmer can gain by effi-ciency may be used to irrigate more land, andthus farmers have a strong motivation to adoptinnovative techniques because most of themhave more land than available water can irri-gate.

As might be expected, the Government’sstrict regulation of water use has caused a num-ber of problems in administration and enforce-ment. For instance, it has been suggested thatfarmers who want to use water without pay-

“Water-use efficiency refers to crop production per unit ofwater used, irrespective of water source, expressed in units ofcrop weight per unit of water depth applied to unit area.

Ch. VI—Israel’s Water Policy: A National Commitment ● 5 7

ing the per-cubic-meter equalization charge ora higher rate block charge could simply reversethe flow of water through the water meter sothat increased water use is subtracted from thereading. 11 This is a criminal offense. However,it forces the water commission to police waterusers regularly.

On the other hand, the Israeli system encour-ages farmers to develop and use water-efficienttechnologies and farming practices. Evenwhen water is restricted, the farmers generallycooperate when they are assured that by adopt-ing new technology and practices they canmanage with less water, still boost crop yields,and in most cases increase their net incomeover time even with the additional capitalinvestments.

Technical Assistance12

Finally, the Israeli Government assists farm-ers in implementing more water-efficient tech-nologies by providing technical assistance.This assistance includes:

● promoting the research and developmentof efficient cropping and irrigation meth-ods and systems,

● offering technical assistance in their intro-duction,

● granting loans at attractive interest rates,● reducing temporarily market prices

water-efficient appliances,of

llAr]osoroff interview.IZIbid.

SELECTED

● providing applied research and demon-stration projects, and

● wide-scale immediate dissemination of thepositive and negative results throughoutthe country.

The key to Israel’s technical assistance andadoption success is the link between the re-search effort and the farmer. The Israeli Gov-ernment conducts ongoing agroeconomic stud-ies to convince farmers to adopt new tech-niques and methods. These studies covercrops, irrigation techniques, and methods thatimprove water efficiency and profits. Then, byworking with progressive farmers, the Govern-ment field-tests new technologies such as plas-tic sprinklers, drip irrigation techniques, auto-matic metering, and computerized irrigationcontrols. New irrigation devices and tech-niques commonly are manufactured by farm-ing communities themselves, an important fea-ture of Israel’s technology adoption success.The manufacturers, being also the users, areunlikely to market something that does notwork.

Similarly, researchers and kibbutz farmersoften are the same individuals. They may workin research in the morning and on the farm inthe afternoon, or take leave from the kibbutzto work full time in research. Almost every kib-butz sends a significant proportion of its mem-bers for advanced studies (master- and doctor-ate-level programs) each year. Consequently,there is an ample supply of agriculturalengineers and scientists.

IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

Israel is recognized as one of the most ad- and other management aspects to improve agri-vanced nations-in applying certain irrigationtechnologies. These include: 1) irrigation withtreated effluent water, 2) drip and sprinkler ir-ligation, * 3) computer-controlled irrigation,and 4) saline water irrigation. The technologieshave been introduced along with new croppingsystems, fertilization regimes, plant varieties,

—.—“Drip or trickle irrigation is a system for supplying filtered

water directly onto or below the soil surface, Water is carriedto each plant through an extensive pipe network which is gener-ally stationary once installed. Sprinkler irrigation is a system

cultural yields. ‘Application of fertilizers, pes-ticides, and other agricultural chemicals withthe water through the drip or sprinkler systemshas forced farmers to be very careful abouteach unit of water applied in order to achieveoptimal water, nutrient, and chemical applica-tion and distribution.—.of applying water to a field with the use of one or more rotatingsprinklers, spray nozzles, or perforated pipes. With each method,water is sprayed into the air under pressure and falls to theground in various sized drops.


It is difficult to obtain data on increased cropyields resulting from the application of theseirrigation technologies because they are an in-tegral part of the larger management packages.Overall, Israel has reported a net agriculturalproduction increase over the decade 1968-78of an average of 6.8 percent annually. For thesame period, purchased inputs rose at an aver-age annual rate of only 4.7 percent (table 10).This was achieved with an approximate 21 per-cent reduction over the same period in theamount of water allocation per unit of irrigatedland (fig. 6). Among the kinds of new technol-ogies Israel has used to increase water efficien-cy and crop yields are those discussed below.

Agricultural and other reuse of domesticsewage and industrial waste is a high priorityin Israel. Under the water law, wastewater ispublicly owned and is treated legally as if itwere freshwater. Although a separate ministryis responsible for wastewater, a legal mecha-nism exists to coordinate freshwater andwastewater management. According to one re-port, by the end of the century more than 30percent of Israel’s total wastewater flow willhave been recycled for irrigation or industrialuse.13

1’J. Shalhevet, “Deciding on Agricultural Research Prioritiesin Israel, ” KIDMA, vol. 7, No. 1 (Jerusalem: spring 1982), p. 24.

Table 10.—Average Yearly Rates of Change inPercentages in the Major Components of theAgriculture Sectora Account, 1968-78 (percent)

1968-73 1973-78 1968-78

Real rate of change in:Agricultural production . . . . . . 5.6 5.5 5.5Agricultural outputb . . . . . . . . . 5.9 5.8 5.8P u r c h a s e d i n p u t i n a g r i c u l t u r e 6 . 3 3 . 2 4 . 7Agricultural net domestic

product c d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 8.4 6.8a#@~ultU~al sector rnean9 all agricultural ~tlvity (including livestock Produc-

tion, etc.).bAgrlcultural output Ig defined as agricultural production less intermediate Pro-

duce plus production for investment.cNet domestic product is defin~ as Income originating in agriculture less cOm-

dpansation for damage by nature.Reflects total income includlng nonwater-related production.

SOURCE: Centrat Bureau of Statistics and Computations of the Survey and Ad-vice Department, Plannlng Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, publishedin S/x-Year P/an for A@cu/tura/ Oeveloprnerrf, 1980-85 (Jerusalem:Ministry of Agriculture, 19S1), p. 34.

Figure 6.— Efficient Use of Water

Irrigated area (hectares) 8

1948 1956 1967 1973 1978 1960 1981

SOURCE: Adapted from Israel Water Commission, from J. Shavalet, KIDMA(Jerusalem), vol. 7, No. 1, spring 1982, fig. 1, p. 24.

A major effort to use wastewater in Israel isthe Dan Region Sewage Reclamation Project.14

The first stage (1975-80) of this project involvedtreatment of 12,200 acre-feet (15 million cubicmeters) of wastewater for reuse. Preliminaryfindings indicate that the treated water couldbe fully integrated with the National Grid Sys-tem if the supply network in the south wereconverted to a dual system separating waterfor potable and nonpotable uses. With tertiarytreatment and the addition of water from othersources, reclaimed water may be suitable forwidespread agricultural use.

The Dan Region Project plans to use 113,500acre-feet (140 million cubic meters) of waste-water annually from the metropolitan Tel Avivarea for irrigation in the south of Israel. Theeffluent from Tel Aviv is treated in oxidationlagoons or algae ponds, which eliminate muchof the contamination. Additional biological,chemical, and physical (sand filtration) treat-ments are also employed. Besides agriculture,the project also plans to produce treated water

14J3. I&]Ovit&, “wasteWater Reclamation by Advanced Treat-ment,” KIDMA, vol. 3, No. 2 (No. 10/1977), pp. 30-35.

Ch. VI—lsrael’s Water Policy: A National Commitment

for recharging ground water sources and sup-plying water for industrial and domestic non-potable purposes.

Irrigation with treated effluent has not beenwithout problems. In 1970, a cholera outbreakwas traced to the illegal irrigation of saladcrops with raw sewage effluent from East Jeru-salem in the West Bank. The water had beencollected from the discharge stream. Regula-tions for effluent quality were tightened, andefforts to broaden the scope of wastewatertreatment and use were intensified.15 A 1971amendment to the water law now limits the useof treated effluent in irrigation to industrialcrops, such as cotton, or to food crops whereeither the water does not contact the producedirectly or the produce is normally cooked be-fore being eaten.16

Drip (or Trickle) andSprinkler Irrigation

Israel has focused heavily on improving low-pressure sprinkler and drip irrigation technol-ogies. In normal gravity fed field or furrow ir-rigation, plants do not use much of the appliedwater because of evaporation, percolation pastthe root zone, and runoff from the surface.With standard sprinkler systems, evaporationand runoff losses also can be heavy. The prob-lem is compounded with heavy runoff becausethe runoff water takes with it natural or addednutrients critical for the plant growth. In con-trast, low-pressure sprinklers and drip irriga-tion systems deliver virtually all of the waterand any added nutrients directly into the plantroot zone. The national water grid supplieswater under pressure which accommodatesthese systems, so the use of drip irrigation isexpanding. Drip irrigation today accounts forabout 10 percent of Israel’s total irrigatedarea. 17 Figures 7 and 8 show the trickle andsprinkler systems of irrigation, respectively.

IS1bid., p. 30.leAr]oSoroff, KIDMA, p. 10.“’’Irrigation in Israel, “ in special issue of Zrrinews (No. 25,

1982), Newsletter of the International Irrigation InformationCenter, Bet Degan, Israel.

● 5 9

Figure 7.—Trickle Irrigation System

Lateralemitters

Trickle irrigation is a system for supplying filtered waterdirectly onto or below the soil surface. Water is carriedthrough an extensive pipe network to each plant. The outletdevice that emits water onto or into the soil is called an“emitter.” After leaving the emitter, water is distributed to a“wetted zone” by its normal movement through the soil.

Surface application by the trickle method. Water is appliedvery slowly onto the surface of the soil through specialoutlet emitters in plastic pipe.

SOURCE: J. Howard Turner and Carl L. Anderson, P/amr/n67 form Irrigation SYs-terrr (Athens, Ga.: American Association for Vocational InstructionalMaterials, 1980).

Traditional irrigation technologies used por-table metal pipe systems that were towed alongthe fields and stationary irrigation grids withpermanent pipes laid in the soil. The increas-ing cost effectiveness of using plastic tubingis causing a shift toward stationary irrigationsystems because portable systems are labor in-tensive and unwieldy.

60 ● Water. Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

Figure 8.—Typical Types of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems

Self-propelled II Hand- or tractor-moved

Single-sprinkler

Tractor-moved I Self-propelled

,Boom-sprinkler

SOURCE: J. Howard Turner and Carl L. Anderson, Planning for an Irrigation System (Athens, Ga.: American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials, 1980).

However, for large rectangular plots of fieldcrops, such as grains, cotton, maize, and sor-ghum, Israel is experimenting with draglinesprinkler systems. * These systems use pipes orsprinkler booms positioned across each fieldand supported on tall towers mounted on trac-tor-like vehicles on each side of the field. Thesevehicles move back and forth picking up waterfrom a channel that parallels the field, pump-ing the water through the pipes for distribu-tion on the soil by means of dragline hoses. Thesystem uses lower water pressure and causesless runoff damage than most other sprinkler

————*The United States is experimenting with a similar system

called in some publications the linear-move lateral system.

systems. It can apply water more uniformlyand can cover a considerably larger area.

In contrast, the drip or trickle irrigation sys-tems involve the placement of plastic tubeswith low rate emitters along rows of plants.There is one emitter per plant or a pattern ofemitters in the case of orchard trees. Using thismethod, water flow is continuous and slow,evaporation loss minimal, and plants can befertilized at the same time they are watered.This technique is particularly well suited toperennials such as fruit trees. It also is beingapplied successfully to cotton and other rowcrops. The continuous flow method saves laborby eliminating the necessity of turning the irri-gation system on and off.

Ch. VI—lsrael’s Water Policy: A National Commitment . 61. — . —

To overcome some of the problems with dripirrigation lines, Israeli technicians have devel-oped a variety of filters that solve most of theclogging problems resulting from water thatcontains organic and colloidal suspensions.The problem of chemical clogging when fertil-izer is fed through the lines is being solved byusing acids mixed with water.18

Results with drip irrigation, according to anIsraeli Ministry of Agriculture report, havebeen favorable for such vegetable crops as tabletomatoes, peppers, eggplants, squash, straw-berries, artichokes, and grapes. For fruit treessuch as apple, apricot, peach, and almond, dripirrigation also is the preferred method for sav-ing water and maintaining water quality. Per-colation of water to the ground water table andextra runoff to surface water is eliminated orreduced, avoiding agricultural, chemical, andnatural salt contamination of those water bod-ies. This method appears to be the least expen-sive of the irrigation systems for these crops.19

Tables 11 and 12 are the results of experi-ments in the Negev conducted under extremearid zone conditions with brackish water,showing comparative yields using drip, sprin-kler, and furrow irrigation.

Computer-Controlled Irrigation

Irrigation can be almost totally automated byusing pressurized irrigation systems. This re-quires linking the irrigation water lines to aremote control mechanism that uses small

IBMoshe Boaz and Irzhak Halevy, Extension Service, Ministryof Agriculture, Israel, “Trickle Irrigation” (unpublished paper,undated).

Ye Ibid.

Table 11 .—Production Comparisons for VariousCrops Under Different Irrigation Systems

Muskmelon yields

Yield (tons per hectare, t/ha)

Irrigation methods Total Export grade

Sprinkler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 13.0Furrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 16.7Drip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.0 35.0SOURCE: D. Goldberg, B. Gornat, and D. Rimon, Drip Irrigation (Kfar Shmaryahu,

Israel: Drip Irrigation Scientific Publication, 1976). Published in Ilan Amirand Benjamin Zur, “Irrigation in Arid Zones: The Israeli Case, ” in AridZone Setflerrtenf Planning (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979)

computers. Israel introduced these computer-ized controls into its farm management sys-tems in the early 1970’s, At that time, the prin-cipal reason for the program was protectionfor farmers who were in danger from landmines and snipers when they went to the fieldsto maintain irrigation controls. Later, auto-mated irrigation was developed into a water-efficient technology and a means of increas-ing crop yields.

Over the past decade, Motorola Israel Ltd.(a subsidiary of Motorola, Inc., U. S. A.) hasbeen the principal company marketing com-puterized irrigation control systems in Israel.The company manufactures one system forsmall farms of up to 320 acres (130 hectares)and another for farms of 1,000 to 5,000 acres(400 to 2,000 hectares) or more. In the largerunits, a central computer can send instructionsvia wireless radio or cable to field units equippedwith sensors to relay information back to themain system. For large farms, many controlmechanisms are run from a central computer.Since the 1970’s, more than 50 large units and1,000 smaller ones have been installed in Israel.They have been exported and are now gradual-ly coming into use in the United States (primar-

Table 12.—Effect of Irrigation Methods on theYield of Tomatoes and Cucumbers

Arava Valley growing season El Arish (Coastal Sand Dunes)yield (t/ha) growing season yield (t/ha)

Crop Drip Sprinkler Drip Sprinkler

Tomatoes . . . . . . Sept.-March 65.3 39.0 Sept.-March 79.0 30.0Cucumbers . . . . . Nov. -Feb. 39.0 0.0 Apr. -Junea 1.5 3.6%ummer growth–out of season in this region.

SOURCE: D Goldberg, B. Gornat, and D. Rimon, Drip Irrigation (Kfar Shmaryahu, Israel Drip Irrigation Scientific Publication,1976). Published in Ilan Amir and Benjamin Zur, “Irrigation in Arid Zones: The Israeli Case, ” in Arid Zone SettlementPlanning (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979).

62 ● Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience --- — .

ily in California, Arizona, and Hawaii) andother countries.20

In either the small or large systems, the com-puter can control water flow; detect leaks; shutoff faulty lines; adjust water application forwind speed, air temperature, and soil moisturecontent; and apply fertilizer on schedule. Anadded advantage of the computerized systemsis their ability to locate malfunctions and alertthe operators to make necessary repairs beforethe faulty element causes too much damage orwater loss.

On the basis of systems implemented in Is-rael, Motorola Israel reports the following ben-efits:

●

●

●

●

increased efficiency in water and energyuse in the range of 10 to 30 percent;increased yields in the range of 2 to 10 per-cent;accurate and precise application rates, re-sulting in minimized return flow, aquiferand stream pollution, and related drainageproblems;labor savings in such areas as the opera-tion of valves, gates, and checking of lat-erals.21

The kibbutz Kfar Aza in the Negev providesan example of a successful computerized irri-gation control program. An evaluation of thecomputerized system installed at that kibbutzreported an overall water savings of 15 percentof the kibbutz allocation.22 Crop height remaineduniform, indicating even plant development.Other advantages cited by a kibbutz official in-cluded reduced labor, energy, fertilizer, andmaintenance costs. Exact yield increases causedby the computerized controls are difficult to

estimate because other management factorsalso played a large part in crop production. Butone estimate put the general yield increase atabout 3 percent for vegetables. In addition, thesystem saved an estimated 25 workdays perseason. Furthermore, 25 breakdowns were lo-cated in one season, saving an estimated 20acre-feet (25,000 cubic meters) of water as thesystem automatically shut the faulty linesdown. As a whole, the Israel experience hasbeen that automated systems pay for them-selves within 3 to 5 years, even when installedat market interest rates.

Irrigation With Saline Water

Israel has sizable supplies of brackish water,much of it underground in the Negev Desert.At 2,500 parts per million total dissolved salts,the concentration of salt is too high for use intraditional irrigation or for most industrialuses. However, it has been estimated that ifuses were found for the water, approximately81,100 acre-feet (100 million cubic meters)could be drawn from this source annually with-out serious effect.23

Israel has an intensive program of researchand development in the use of brackish waterfor agriculture. In particular, irrigation tech-niques are being fine-tuned and adapted tolocal conditions to minimize buildup of saltsin the soil while making use of brackish water.At the same time, the genetic improvement ofsalt-resistant crops is being studied. Brackishwater management packages are being usedsuccessfully with vegetables, wheat, and cot-ton. Expectations are that with more researchand intensive management experience, addi-tional production advances will be made. *

ZOTelephOne interview with Motorola official.ZIElisha Yanay, “Computerized Irrigation Control Systems and

Their Application in Drip Irrigation, ” Drip/Trickle Irrigation(Fresno, Calif.: Agribusiness Publications, spring 1981), p. 23.

ZZAmi Kaham, “A Computer Controlled Irrigation SJMWII irlKibbutz Kfar Aza” (unpublished paper, undated).

ZsArlosoroff, U. N., op. cit., p. 49.*In the United States, a salinity level that has been considered

high and has led to the construction of desalinization plants isconsidered a low level in Israel as the result of their brackishwater management (S. Arlosoroff, correspondence, Oct. 28,1982).

Ch. VI—lsrael’s Water Policy: A National Commitment 63—— — . —— —


Israel’s success in implementing its agricul-tural and water-use policy has been the resultof a unique combination of factors, includingcountry size, a national program commitment,the public status of water, and special charac-teristics of its agricultural technology program.The agricultural element has involved educatedfarmers who have become manufacturers ofwater appliances and technologies, and leadingagricultural researchers who verify and testthese technologies,

Water has always been a limiting and criticalfactor in the national development of Israel’sagriculture. Israel’s generally arid land leaveslittle alternative for agriculture other than astrong national effort at total management ofthe scarce water resource. In addition, the stat-us of Israel’s water as a public resource sub-ject to total public control avoids some of thelegal complexities related to management andcontrol likely to be encountered in the UnitedStates. The United States can still learn, how-ever, from the Israel experience in applicationof technologies.

The United States and other countries haveadapted, to varying degrees, many of the irriga-tion technologies used by Israel. For example,Motorola Israel Ltd., which first introduced itsline of automated irrigation control systems inIsrael, subsequently began manufacturing themfor the United States and other markets. About100 small units and four large systems had beensold in the United States as of 1982.24 Drip ir-rigation is another technique that has becomemore popular in the United States followingIsraeli commercialization proving the tech-nique to be highly efficient, The experience ofIsrael with the use of drip, trickle, and sprinklerirrigation systems is also being shared with

—..—z4C. G. Karasov, “Irrigation Efficiency in Water Delivery,”

Technology, March/April 1982, p. 71.

other countries. Israel’s methods of allocatingand pricing water and reusing effluents are at-tracting more interest in such areas as theWestern United States as demands increase forlimited water supplies.25

In light of the mutual benefits to be derivedin arid and semiarid agriculture, the UnitedStates and Israel have been cooperating to pro-mote agricultural research for many years. TheUnited States-Israel Binational Science Foun-dation (BSF) was established in 1972 by an en-dowment to promote continued cooperation inscience and technology research between thetwo countries. Through this program, propos-als are submitted by collaborating U.S. and Is-raeli investigators. Of the proposals submittedbetween 1974 and 1981, 223 were for agricul-tural research; 69 of these (8 percent of the totalnumber of grants) were approved. 26

In 1977, the United States-Israel BinationalAgricultural Research and Development Fund(BARD) was established to provide a more for-mal mechanism for the United States and Israelto share and collaborate on agricultural re-search of mutual benefit. Since this programis devoted entirely to agricultural research anddevelopment, the number of BSF grants in agri-culture has been reduced. In 1978 BARD beganfunding proposals out of the income from its$80-million endowment.27 A Technical Advi-sory Committee comprised of five U.S. and fiveIsraeli scientists makes recommendations onthe research proposals submitted. Most of theprojects have been for 3 years, and many ofthem are with the University of California atRiverside and Davis. Administration of the pro-gram in the United States is handled by theU.S. Department of Agriculture. Appendix E

ZsArlOSOrOff interview.zounited stateS-lSrael Binational Science Foundation, Annual

Report 1981, Jerusalem, Israel, 28 pp.Z7BARD Ab~ractS of SupWrted Projects 1979-1980, U.S. De-

partment of Agriculture, Federal Building, Hyattsville, Md., 259 pp.

—


contains abstracts of some of the proposals re- tion between the two scientific communitieslated to water management in Israel. Although and the exposure of different approachesit is too soon to determine specific techno- should contribute to new developments andlogical benefits from this research, the coopera- discoveries of mutual benefit.

Appendix A

Contacts List (by chapter)

General

Thomas G. BahrOffice of Water PolicyU.S. Department of the InteriorJ a m e s C o w a nNASULGWashington, D.C.Robert M. Hagan(advisory panel)Gerry J. HammondUSDA/SCSWashington, D.C.David E. Herrick(advisory panel)Carl HodgesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonWilliam LongU.S. Department of StateD a v i d M c C l i n t o c k

( f o r m e r l y w i t h A I D )

C y r u s M c K e l l

( a d v i s o r y p a n e l )

C l i f f o r d J . M u r i n o

( a d v i s o r y p a n e l )

D o n P l u c k n e t t

C o n s u l t a t i v e G r o u p o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l

A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c hT h e W o r l d B a n kW a s h i n g t o n , D . C .

S t e v e R o l l i n s

U S D A / A R SBel t sv i l l e , Md .

Chapter I

Contacts

Harold E. Dregne(advisory panel)M. EvenariDepartment of BotanyHebrew University of JerusalemRehovot, Israel

F r e d e r i c k L . H o t e sT h e W o r l d B a n kW a s h i n g t o n , D . C .

A. IssarBen Gurion University of the NegevBeersheva, IsraelJames WalkerAID

Chapter II

M. Wayne AdamsDepartment of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingAnthony E. HallDepartment of Botany and Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideDon IsleibBean/Cowpea CRSPMichigan State UniversityEast LansingD o n P l u c k n e t t( s e e g e n e r a l l i s t i n g )

D j i b r a i l S e n eM i n i s t e r o f R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n tS e n e g a l

D o n a l d H . W a l l a c eD e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n t B r e e d i n g

C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y

Organizations

Centro International de Agricultural TropicalCali, ColumbiaInstituto de Ciencia y Technologiá AgrícolasGuatemalaInternational Crops Research Institute for the

S e m i t r o p i c s

A n d h r a P r a d e s h , I n d i a

N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r A g r o n o m i c R e s e a r c hB a m b e y , S e n e g a l

67

68 ● Water-elated Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience— —.-

Chapter

Contacts

L. H. BlankenshipTexas A&M Research ExtensionUvalde, Tex.Lewis CohenAIDRaymond F. DasmannUniversity of California, Santa CruzCharles DeYoungDean, College of AgricultureTexas A&I UniversityWilliam GoodwinLilly EndowmentHorace GoreTexas Parks & Wildlife DepartmentDavid HopcraftAthi River, KenyaRobert McDowellDepartment of Animal ScienceCornell UniversityArt MossmanHumbolt UniversityJohn NeaveAIDCharles Schreiner IVY-O RanchMountain Home, Tex.Daniel SislerDepartment of Animal ScienceCornell UniversityJames G. TeerDepartment of WildlifeTexas A&M UniversityGabriel Van LathamN H Bank of ParisNew YorkFrederic H. Wagner

and Fisheries Sciences

College of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganCharles WilliamsNational Center for Housing ManagementWashington, D.C.

Organizations

AfricareInternational Livestock Center for AfricaNairobi, KenyaMax McGraw Wildlife FoundationDundee, Ill.National Buffalo AssociationCuster, S. Dak.Southwest Research LaboratoriesLos Alamitos, Calif.Welder Wildlife FoundationSinton, Tex.

Chapter IV

Contacts

Michael CerneaWorld BankWayne ClymaColorado State UniversityFort CollinsRalph Cummings(former chairman, Technical Advisory

Committee to CGIAR on proposedInternational Irrigation Management Institute)

Worth FitzgeraldAIDDavid M. FreemanDepartment of SociologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsTejpal S. GillAIDMax K. LowdermilkASIA/TR/ARDEverett RichardsonEngineering Research CenterColorado State UniversityFort CollinsGaylord Skogerboe(from Colorado State University)Visiting Professor at Department of AgricultureUtah State UniversityLogan

App. A—Contacts List (by chapter) 69

Thomas TroutSnake River Conservation Research CenterSoil and Water Conservation DivisionUSDA/ARSFort Collins, Colo.

Organizations

Bureau for Program and Policy CoordinationStudies DivisionU.S. Department of StateConsultative Group on International

Agricultural ResearchWorld BankInternational Center for Agricultural Research

in the Dry AreasBeirut, LebanonAleppo, SyriaInternational Crops Research Institute

for the Semi-Arid TropicsHyderbaad, IndiaInternational Food Policy Research InstituteWashington, D.C.International Irrigation Information CenterBet Dagan, IsraelWater Management Synthesis ProjectColorado State UniversityFort Collins

Chapter V

Contacts

Robin ClaxtonChief, Division of Plant IndustriesDepartment of AgricultureSydney, AustraliaFrank CuttingPrincipal AgronomistDepartment of AgricultureSydney, AustraliaGary DayCommissioner for North AmericaGovernment of New South WalesLos Angeles, Calif.Kenneth FosterOffice of Arid Land StudiesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonGerald GleasonSecretary, Premier’s DepartmentSydney, Australia

W. C. K. HammerAgricultural CounselorEmbassy of AustraliaEnrique Campos LopezDirector, Centro de Investigaciones en Quimica

AplicadaSaltillo, CoahuilaMexicoRichard WheatonDomestic Rubber ProgramUSDA

Organizations

Board on Agriculture and Renewable ResourcesNational Academy of SciencesDivision of Plant IndustryInstitution of Biological ResourcesCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research OrganizationCanberra City, AustraliaThe Joint Commission on GuayuleUSDA/Department of Commerce

Chapter V I

Saul Arlosoroff*World BankJacob AvniAgricultural CounselorEmbassy of IsraelMarvin E. JensenUSDA/ARSFort Collins, Colo.Jan van SchilfgaardeU.S. Salinity LaboratoryRiverside, Calif.Elisha YanayMotorola Israel Ltd.Tel Aviv, Israel

Organizations

Applied Research InstituteBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeersheva, Israel

*Mr. Arlosoroff's comments are personal and given from his previouswork experience. They do not represent or reflect the views of the WorldBank.

.

70 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience.——.— —...—— -————

Faculty of Agricultural EngineeringIsrael Institute of TechnologyHaifa, IsraelFaculty of AgricultureHebrew University of JerusalemRehovot, IsraelInstitute for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevSde Boker, IsraelInternational Irrigation Information CenterBet Dagan, IsraelIrrigation and Soil Field ServiceMinistry of AgricultureTel Aviv, IsraelIsrael Center of Waterworks AppliancesRamat Aviv, Israel

Israel Water Workers AssociationTel Aviv, IsraelRural Planning and Development AuthorityMinistry of AgricultureJerusalemSoils and Water InstituteBet Dagan, IsraelTechnical Assistance and Foreign Relations

DepartmentMinistry of AgricultureJerusalem, IsraelWater CommissionMinistry of AgricultureTel Aviv, Israel

Israel Chapter of the Society for InternationalDevelopment

Jerusalem

Appendix B

MaterialsIrrigation

Preliminary Inventory ofAvaiIabIe for Improving

Water Management in Asia*

The ASIA/TR/ARD Irrigation Team Studies offive Asian countries to identify major issues andstrategies for the 1980’s found a critical need fortransfer of irrigation knowledge within and acrosscountries,

In the field of Irrigation Water Management,ASIA/TR/ARD is making an effort to bring togetherrelevant technical handbooks, manuals, and train-ing materials which will be useful to Mission staff

and host country individuals. It is hoped thattechnical materials produced by projects and hav-ing potential transfer value will be added to this listover time. (The above text has been condensed fromthe original,)

*Evaluated and compiled by Max K. Lowdermilk of ASIA/TR/ARD staffas a resource to Missions and host countries, June 1981. These are tobe updated periodically.

Table B-1 .—Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for Improving Irrigation Water Management in Asiaa

Technical Report AID: Project nameType/name of materials No. (TR)b and number

A. Technical Reports/Manuals1. Problem Identification Manual by Lowdermilk, et al., 1980 TR 65B Pakistan Water Management

Research Project ContractAIDllR-c-1411

2. Development of Solutions Manual by Sparling, et al., 19803. Project Implementation Manual by Hautaluoma, et al., 19804. Analysis of Basin-Furrow Irrigation by Peri and Skogerboe, 19805. Development and Design of Water Course Function Jet

Pumps by Kemper, Trout, and Aust, 19806. Recalibration of Small Cutthroat Flumes by Skogerboe, 19797. Watercourse Improvement Manual by Trout and Kemper, 19808. Evaluation and Improvement of Basin Irrigation Systems by

Peri and Skogerboe, 19799. Evaluation and Improvement of Basin Irrigation Systems by

Peri, Skogerboe, and Norum, 197910. Summary of Skimming Well Investigations by Meworter, 198011. Evaluation and Improvement of Border Irrigation by Peri,

Norum, and Skogerboe, 197912. Matching Cropping Systems to Water Supply Using an

Integrative Model by John Ruess, 198013. Installation and Field Use of Cutthroat Flumes for Water

Management by Skogerboe, Bennet, and Walker14. Design of Irrigation Drop Structures by Soon-Kuk Kwan15. Calibration and Application of Jensen-Haise Evaporation

Equation by Clyma and Chowdhry16. Optimization of Lengths of Alternative Watercourse

Improvement Programs by John Reuss, 1980

TR 65C, 1980TR 65D, 1980

TR 61

.“

.

TR 64(Special report)

TR 58

.

.

.

TR 49A .

TR 49BTR 63

.“

TR 49C “

TR 62 .

TR 19TR 33

.“

TR 40 .

TR49 .

Type/name of materials AID publication number

17. Farm Irrigation System Evaluation: A Guide for Management by J. L. Merrian and Jack Keller PN-AAG-74518. Water Requirements Manual for Irrigated Crops and Rainfed Agriculture by G. H. Hargreves PN-AAB-67619. Irrigation System Evaluation and Improvement by J. L. Merrian, Jack Keller, and J. F. Alfaro PN-AAB-43920. Small Wells Manual: Location, Design Construction, Use and Maintenance by U. P. Gibson

and R. D. Singer, U.S. Office of War on Hunger Health Service AN-935123621. Dryland Agriculture in Winter Precipitation Regions of the World: Status of State of the

Technical Art by Oregon State University, Office of International Agriculture, 1979 PN-AAH-329

71


Table B-1 .—Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for ImprovingIrrigation Water Management in Asiaa—Continued

Type/name of materials AID publication number

22. The Impact of Groundwater Development in Arid Lands: A Literature Review and An-notated Bibliography, Arizona State University, Office of Arid Lands Studies, 1977 PN-AAH-500

23. Solar Energy, Water, and Industrial Systems in Arid Lands, Techno-ecological Overviewand Annotated Bibliography by C. Duffield, University of Arizona, Office of Arid LandsStudies, 1978 PN-AAH-499

AID project nameType/name of materials AID Duplication number and number

24. Technical Reports to Accompany Planning Guides under C2 toC6 headingc will be made available on the topics of PrecisionLand Leveling, Small Pumps, Farmer Involvement and SmallStructures by DS/AGR Water Management Synthesis Project(WMSP) during late 1981 and early 1982

25. Optimization of Lengths of Alternative Water Course ImprovementPrograms, by John Reuss

26. Trapezoidal Flumes for Egyptian Water Use Project byRobinson, 1980

27. Cutthroat Flume Metric Equations by Helal, 1980

TR 57 Water ManagementSynthesis ProjectAID DSA N-C-0058

Pakistan WaterManagementResearch ProjectAID/TR-C 1411

Staff Report FC-1 AID/NE-c-1351Staff Paper No. 6 .

Type/name of materials Available from

28. On-Farm Water Management Field Manual, December 1980,Volume I Reference Manual on soils, inventory and planning,soil-water-plant relationships, agronomy, engineering, equip-ment, economics, and management

29. On-Farm Water Management Field Manual, Volume II,Precision and Leveling, 1980

30. On-Farm Water Management Field Manual Ill, Water CourseEquipment, 1980

31. On-Farm Water Management Field Manual III, Volume IV,Irrigation Water Management, 1980

32. On-Farm Water Management Field Manual Standards forPractice Materials and Studies, 1980

33. Annual Reports which contain technical material andmethods

a) Pakistan Water Management Project, 1970-80b) Egyptian Water Use and Management Project, 1978

34. Technical Papers from Egyptian Water Use and ManagementProjectVolume lV Technical Articles

a) Optimal Design of Furrow Irrigation Systems byJ. Mohan Reddy and Wayne Clyma, 1980

b) Irrigation System Improvement Concepts by WayneClyma and Thomas W. Ley, 1980

c) A Data Management System for InterdisciplinaryResearch in Agricultural Water Use by J. C. Loftis andWayne Clyma, 1980

Volume Illd) STAFF PAPER #23: A Procedure for Evaluating the Cost

of Lifting Water for Irrigation in Egypt by HassanWahby, Gene Quenemoen, and Mohamed Helal, June 1980

e) STAFF PAPER #28: Roller Bedshaper for Basin-FurrowIrrigation by N. Illsley and A. Cheema, 1980

f) STAFF PAPER #29: Economic Feasibility of ConcreteLining for the Beni Magdoul Canal and Branch Canal byGamal Ayad, G. Nasr Farid, and Gene Quenemoen,April 1978

g) STAFF PAPER #30: Programs for Calculators HP-67 andHP-97 by Gamal A. Ayad, 1980

Water management wing ministry of food,agriculture, and cooperation, Government ofPakistan, Islamabad

.

.

“

.

AID/Ta-C-1411AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

App. B—Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for Improving Irrigation Water Management in Asia ● 73

Table B-1 .—Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for ImprovingIrrigation Water Management in Asiaa—Continued

Type/name of materials

h) STAFF PAPER #45: Optimal Design of Border IrrigationSystems by J. Mohan Reddy and Wayne Clyma, 1980

i) STAFF PAPER #46A: Irrigation System Improvement bySimulation and Optimization: 1, Theory by J. MohanReddy and Wayne Clyma, 1980

j) STAFF PAPER #46B: Irrigation System Improvement bySimulation and Optimization: 2, Application by J. MohanReddy and Wayne Clyma, 1980

k) STAFF PAPER #37: A Systematic Framework for Devel-opment of Solutions by Max K. Lowdermilk, April 1980

1) STAFF PAPER #39: Evaluation of Furrow IrrigationSystems by Thomas W. Ley and Wayne Clyma, 1980

m) STAFF PAPER #40: Evaluation of Graded Border Irriga-tion Systems by Thomas W. Ley and Wayne Clyma, 1980

35. Special Technical Reports from FAO on Irrigation andDrainage (order direct from FAO Sales Agents in yourcountry or FAO, via della Terma di Caracalla 00100, Rome, Italy)

Available from

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID/NE-c-1351

AID project nameType/name of materials AID publication number and number

B. Water Management Training Materials (manuals and audio visuals)1. Training Manual for Agricultural Water Management Specialists,

edited by Westfall, 1980

2. Monitoring and Evaluation Manual: Diagnostic Analysis on FarmIrrigation Systems (Volume 1, Systems Analysis Conceptual;Volume 11, Specific How-to-do Procedures)

3. Investment in Water Management (137 slides and cassette tape,written script) by Kemper, et al., 1979

4. Pakistan Land of Promise (slide show, cassettes, written script)shows system problems and potential, by Lowdermilk, et al., 1978

5. Water Management on Small Farms (slides, cassettes, writtenscript, strategy

6. Precision Land

7. Technical FilmLand Leveling,

guide, and technical guide)Leveling (16mm movie), 1970

on Survey and Steaking a Field for Precision1970

8.

9.

10.

Research-Development Process for Improvement of Farm WaterManagement, a Videotape Interdisciplinary by Colorado StateUniversity, Instructional-Media Division, Fort Collins, Colo.,expected completion fall 1981 by Clyma and Lowdermilk inspring 1982Improving Agricultural Production through On-Farm WaterManagement by Lattimer, et al.

Training Manuals for On-Farm Analysis of Irrigation Systems,Volumes I and II, summer 1981

C. Planning Guides for improved Water Management1. Planning and Implementing Procedures for Constructing

Agricultural-Related Research Programs in Low-Income Nationsby Lowdermilk, et al.

TR 64

TR 64

with ASIA/TR/ARD

with ASIA/TR/ARD

AID SouthwestResearch Institute 1980

with ASIA/TR/ARD

with ASIA/TR/ARD

available from CSU

no number

no number

TR 46

Pakistan WaterManagementResearch ProjectAID/Ta C-1411

Water ManagementSynthesis ProjectAID-DSAN-C-0058

Pakistan WaterManagementResearch ProjectAlD/Ta C-1411


AID/Ta-1479



No project


AID

Pakistan WaterManagementResearch ProjectAlD/Ta C-1411

74 ● Water. Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

Table B-1.—Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available for improvingirrigation Water Management in Asiaa—Continued

AID project nameType/name of materials AID publication number and number

2. Planning Guide for Precision Land Leveling Programs (available No. 1 Water Managementsummer 1981) by Clyma, et al. Synthesis Project

AID-DSAN-C-00583. Planning Guide for Low-Lift Pumps in Irrigation Projects Water Management

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

(available winter 1982) by Keller, et al.

Planning Guide for Farmer Involvement in IrrigationImprovement Projects (available summer 1981) by Lowdermilk, et al.

Planning Guide for Small Structures for Water ManagementImprovement (available spring 1982)

Planning Guide for Water Management for Small Farmers(available fall 1981)

A Research-Development Process for On-Farm WaterManagement by Clyma, Lowdermilk, and Corey, 1977

Development Process for Improving Water Management on

Synthesis-ProjectAID-DSAN-C-0058

No. 2 Water ManagementSynthesis ProjectAID-DSAN-C-0058

No. Water ManagementSynthesis ProjectAID-DSAN-C-0058

No. Water ManagementSynthesis ProjectAID-DSAN-C-0058

TR 47 Pakistan WaterManagementResearch ProjectAID/Ta C-1411

TR 65A Pakistan WaterFarms by Skogerboe, Lowdermilk, Sparling, and Hautaluoma, 1980 Management

Research ProjectAlD/Ta C-1411

D. Other Materials1. Social Organizational Aspects of Irrigation Water Management: A Bibliographic Resource (write to Dr. David Freeman, Sociology

Department, Natural Resources Group, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. 80523)2. Water Management News: occasional Newsletter on WM developments around the world. Send request to be placed on

Mailing List to Water Management Synthesis Project Coordinator, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colo. 80521

3. Asian Regional Irrigation Communication Network (a newsletter of which the 10th issue was September 1980. Provides listof reports, monographs, and descriptions of new research projects, with a primary focus on socioeconomic dimensionsof water management). Write to Agricultural Development Council Office, Bangkok, P.O. Box 11-1172, Bangkok 11, Thailand

4. /RR/NEWS: Newsletter of the International Irrigation Center, lsrael-Volcani Center, P.O. Box 49,50250 Bet Dagan or Canada,P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa KIG3H9

5. WAMANA: A quarterly newsletter on water management. Indian Institute of Management, 33 Langford Road, Bangalore, India560027

aFAO ~aterlals ~rlglnally li~t~ by AID have been omitted from this table, since they did not result from AID’s Pakistan and other Asian lrr19ation prolects.

~Td;n~d#&chnical Report. The AID Technical Reports and Manuals are gradually being placed in the AIDIDIU file, and copies are made available through that office.

SOURCE: Max K. Lowdermilk, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1981,

Appendix C

Economics of the Commercializationof Guayule in New South Wales*

Guayule as an Alternative Cropin New South Wales

In addressing the subject of guayule as a poten-tial dryland crop in New South Wales, it must berealized that it is not suitable as a replacement forany currently profitable cash crop but for use onland which can no longer support crops that re-quire an excess amount of water.

Various crops are dryland farmed along the west-ern slopes of New South Wales including wheat,barley, sorghum, and sunflowers. Of these, wheatis by far the most predominant crop.

There is not sufficient data on guayule to ac-curately make a comparison with other crops. Tak-ing into consideration that such factors as rubberyield per acre and price per lb/rubber are strictlyprojections, a budget can be developed that willcontribute to a broad understanding of the eco-nomic potential of guayule in New South Wales.

Due to the fact that there is no commercial guay-ule that has reached productive maturity in eitherthe United States or Australia, budgets must be de-veloped from information attainable from othercrops and meager data on guayule.

The Office of Arid Lands Studies in Tucson,Ariz., under a contract with the State of California,Department of Food and Agriculture, has recentlydeveloped budgets for guayule production in fourdifferent areas of California including the San Joa-quin Valley, Southern California desert, Sacra-mento Valley, and the central coast area. Of thesefour budgets, the San Joaquin Valley area is themost favorable of the four locations because of itslow cost of production per acre. This particularbudget will serve as a model from which to developthe estimated costs of producing 1 acre of drylandguayule in New South Wales.

*Source: A. Siddigui and P. Lockton, A Feasibility Study on the Corn.mercialization of Guayule in New South Wales, Australia, Division ofPlant Industry, California Department of Food and Agriculture,Sacramento, Calif., December 1981.

Estimated Costs of Producing 1 Acreof Guayule in New South Wales

With respect to the estimated cost of producing1 acre of dryland guayule, the following pointsshould be made.

A 5-year growing cycle is used in this budgetalthough this time period is variable due to theamount of rainfall a specific site would receive.Plant density varies according to irrigated or dry-land cultures. Because of an increase in potentialclimatic uncertainties contributing to plant loss(due to a longer production period of 5 years), atotal of 15,000 seedlings/acre is used at a cost of$().() S/seedling. Seedlings cost approximately $0.04each delivered, although growers anticipate that anincrease in commercial plantings will result in adrop to $0.03 per plant.

Weeds have been a problem in various experi-mental guayule plantings and will invariably pre-sent a problem in New South Wales, In this budgetchemical weed control, cultivation, and hand hoe-ing are all included. No herbicides are registeredfor guayule and, therefore, the chemical weed con-trol cost is an estimated amount. Fertilizer is alsoincluded in this budget, although exact amountswould typically be dependent on results from soilanalyses taken from specific sites.

Although rent value of land, interest on variablecosts, and a charge for management profit are notnecessary out-of-pocket costs, they are legitimatecharges. If the land was not planted with guayule,the landowner has the option of leasing the landfor other crops. An interest charge of 15 percenton borrowed production costs is included. This hasbeen calculated on variable production costs andrent value of land,

A return to management of $26 per acre per yearis used. In various parts of California a percentageof the gross is the accepted method, but with thetime lag of 5 years between planting and harvestingfor guayule, a uniform charge per year is used.

Scenarios A and B represent two different yieldsof rubber per acre. It must be stressed that these

75

76 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience— — .

are estimated amounts and are not necessarily ap-plicable to typical dryland yields.

Following these calculated production costs is abreak-even table that is based on the estimated totalproduction costs and a variety of yields and prices.Yields vary from 1,000 to 3,000 lb of rubber peracre, while rubber prices run from $0.40 to $1.00/lb.

Scenario A Australian $Total production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $-1,099Processing ((),235/lb X 1,500 lb rubber) . . . . . . . . +353

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,452Less byproduct value

(0.244/lb X 1,500 lb rubber) ., , ., . . . ... , ... , –366

Total costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . $1,086Break-even price for rubber (1,500 lb/acre) , . . . . $0.72411/30/81 New York price of rubber 0.485 ..., . . 0.422

Loss/lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . $0.302Loss/acre . . . . . . ... , , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $657

A yield of 1,500 lb of rubber per acre over a 5-yearperiod represents a current realistic figure of a dry-land situation. This figure is based on personal in-terviews with various California guayule research-ers and estimates of yield conducted by the Emer-gency Rubber Project.

Scenario B Australian $Total production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,099Processing (0.235/lb X 3,000 lb rubber) . . . . . . . . +705

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,804Less byproduct value

(0.244/lb X 3,000 lb rubber) . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . –732

Total costs ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . ., $1,072Break-even price for rubber (3,000 lb/acre) . . . . . $0.35711/30/81 New York price of rubber 0.485 ., . . . . 0.422

Profit/lb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . $0.065Profit/acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $195

R e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d b y t h e C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t -

m e n t o f F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t hv a r i o u s o t h e r g u a y u l e r e s e a r c h e r s h a s r e s u l t e d i nt h e b e l i e f t h a t n e w i m p r o v e d v a r i e t i e s o f g u a y u l eshould produce more rubber in less time, and,therefore, a yield of 2,500 to 3,000 lb of rubber peracre is a representative estimate of future yields.It is hoped that seed from these varieties will be-come available in approximately 5 to 10 years,

Table C-1 .—Estimated Costs of Producing 1 Acre ofDryland Guayule in New South Wales, Australiaa

Australian $

First yearEstablish stand (idle farm land)

Disk (2 x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List and shape beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seedlings—15,000/acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CultureCultivate (2 x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cash farm overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Second yearCultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cash farm overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Third yearChemical weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cash farm overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fourth yearChemical weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cash farm overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fifth yearCash farm overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dig plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Windrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Haul (field to processing plant) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rent value of land @ $8/acre/yr x 5 yrs. . . . .interest—5 yrs @ 150/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Profit to management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14124

13392

80

515

139

22

1377

27

77

14

77

14

539

97844

175

$767

40162130

$332

$1,099aBa~~ on the rate of exchange as of NOV. 30, 19S1: $1.00 U.S. = $0.87 Australian.

Table C-2.—Per Acre Income Above Costs (processing costs included)

Yield Price of rubber per pound

Pounds of rubber per acre . . . 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.001,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –690 –590 –490 –390 –290 –190 –901,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –486 –336 –186 –36 + 114 +264 +4142,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –281 – 8 1 + 1 1 9 +319 +519 +719 +9192,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 7 7 + 1 7 3 + 4 2 3 +673 +923 +1,173 +1,4233,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 1 2 8 + 4 2 8 + 7 2 8 + 1 , 0 2 8 + 1 , 3 2 8 + 1 , 6 2 8 + 1 , 9 2 8NOTE: If 2,000 lb of rubber per acre were produced, rubber prices would have to be near $O.6011b to break even or pay all pro-

duction costs. In December 19S1, smoked sheets of rubber in New York were priced at less than $0.501ib. At currentprices, guayule Is not an economical crop to grow at present estimated yields of 1,500 Iblacre.

New improved varieties of guayule should produce more rubber in less time, and therefore a yield of 2,500 to 3,000lb of rubber per acre is a reaiistic projection of future yieids. The table shows that at 2,500 lb of rubber per acre, rubberprices would have to be near $(X50/lb to break even, and at 3,000 ib of rubber per acre they would have to approach $&IO/lb.

App. C—The Economics of the Commercialization of Guayule in New South Wales . 7 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The development of a guayule industry in NewSouth Wales would have a significant impact on thestate’s economy. Most importantly, it would createa viable agro-industry to supply local and exportmarkets and would lessen Australia’s reliance onimported rubber. In addition, it would create em-ployment opportunities in remote areas.

An optimistic assessment of the potential of de-veloping a guayule rubber industry in the westernslopes and plains of New South Wales is based onthe following factors:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Millions of hectares of light textured soils, es-pecially the “Mallee” types, are available.The economics of growing guayule in NewSouth Wales is more favorable than in theUnited States because of the relatively low costof land along the north-south belt stretchingthrough central New South Wales.With the average annual rainfall of 350 to 500mm distributed evenly throughout the year inthe central north-south belt through New SouthWales, guayule would require little or no irri-gation.Prevailing temperatures and soil types in thecentral north-south belt appear suitable forguayule cultivation.Unlike the hevea rubber industry, guayule isnot a labor-intensive crop, as it is easilyadapted to mechanization.The New South Wales Department of Agricul-ture has a successful record of introducing newcrops (e.g., cotton, rapeseed, and lupins) intothe state. The Department, therefore, has a ca-pable staff and the necessary facilities to initi-ate a guayule development program in NewSouth Wales.

Recommendations

The establishment of guayule as a commercial in-dustry in New South Wales is dependent on notonly environmental conditions but such factors asland prices, the present-day agricultural situation,and, most importantly, the implementation of a suc-cessful development program,

The following are recommendations that weremade by the senior author to the Premier of NewSouth Wales and the Department of Agriculture atthe conclusion of his trip to New South Wales in

November 1980. At this point, all of the recommen-dations have been accepted and are being imple-mented. The program is now 1 year old.

Along with each recommendation is a summaryof the corresponding action that has been put intoeffect by the New South Wales Department of Agri-culture, This information has been excerpted fromthe Initial Report of Guayule Research and Development in New South Wales by P. L. Milthorpe.

1. A 3-year guayule development programsimilar to the one in the State of California be ini-tiated immediately in New South Wales to deter-mine whether or not a viable industry can be es-tablished.

Early in 1981, a special Treasury grant was ap-proved by the Premier which allocated the requiredfinancial support necessary to implement a 3-yearguayule development project. The project consistsof four steps as follows:

a) identification of the most suitable soils andclimate for guayule cultivation;

b) development of the optimum package of agro-nomic technology;

c) evaluation of genetic material to identify thebest material developed in overseas breedingprograms; and

d) evaluation of the rate of rubber accumulationin the laboratory.

2. Guayule test plots ranging from 0.25 to 5.0hectares be established at Narrabri, Trangie, Con-dobolin, Hillston, and Yanco. Both transplant anddirect seeding methods of planting should be ex-plored under irrigated and dryland farming situa-tions.

Initial plantings of seedlings were made at Con-dobolin and Yanco in November 1980 followed byfurther plantings at the research centers at Narrabriand Trangie in mid-January. Additional plantingswere made at North Star, Warialda, Hillston,Wagga Wagga, and Deniliguin.

Generally, the same procedure was adopted forplanting at each site. This involved hand planting8- to 10-week-old hardened-off seedlings. Thesewere initially grown in 10 cm plastic pots and laterin 4 x 4 x 15 cm tubes, The plants were immediate-ly irrigated when planted and then were wateredperiodically until the rain began,

To date, no work has been conducted on directseeding, Once pelleted seed is available, thismethod of planting will be evaluated.

3. A guayule genetic resource collection of allvarieties received from California and othersources should be established at Condobolin withthe goal of increasing the seed of these varieties.

Appendix DBARD Abstracts

Supported Projects 1979-80

Soil and Water

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.8.

9.

Soil Salinity Effects on the Spatial Variability ofHydraulic ConductivitySolute Transport in Heterogeneous UnsaturatedField Soil: Measurements, Prediction, and Appli-cation to Crop ProductionWater Management Model for Drainage of Irri-gated Lands in Semi-Arid ZonesSalinity Control in Irrigated Agriculture UnderDynamic ConditionsApplication of Pesticides via Drip IrrigationSystemsEffect of Moisture Content, Soil Texture, SoilStructure, ESP, and Soil Solution Concentrationon Bulk Soil ECThe Chemistry of Soil Crust ManagementUse of Solar Energy for the Detoxification ofOrganic Pollutants in Water for AgriculturalReuseThe Effect of Clay-Organic Complexes in Soilson the Behavior “and ‘Activity of Soil AppliedHerbicides

Agricultural Engineering

1. Utilization of Waste Heat From Power Plants for

2

3

4

Agricultural UsesGreenhouse Operation for Best Aerial Environ-mentEngineering Analysis of Mechanical Damage toFruits and Vegetables Resulting From ImpactSeparation of Clods and Rocks in a Fluidized Bed

5. Determining Optimum Performance for MilkingEquipment, Procedure, and Systems

6. Engineering and Horticultural Research on Im-proving the Mechanical Harvesting of Peppers

7. System Analysis and Design of Biofilters for theThree Components of Macrobrachium Produc-tion

Plant Protection

10

2.

3.

78

Spiders as Biological Control Agents of Agricul-tural PestsPlant Protection by a Plasmid Induced KillerSystem for a Plant PathogenDevelopment and Epidemiology of Fungicide-Resistant Plant Pathogens in an Integrated Pest

4

Management Program for Pome and StoneFruit ProductionForecasting Epidemics of Non-Persistent Vi-ruses in Annual Crops by ELISA and Use of the“Helper” Factor for Resistance Breeding

5. Characterization and Mode of Action of Phvto-

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

200

toxins Produced by Alternaria dauci and OtherAlternaria spp., and Their Potential Use in Se-lection for Disease Resistant CropManagement of Scale Pests Through Utilizationof Their Pheromones, Kairomones, and NaturalEnemiesThe Role of Epiculticular Leaf Waxes in Resist-ance of Plants Against Powdery MildewsAscorbic Acid Deficiency in Phytophagous In-sects—Its Biochemical Nature and Its Role inInsect Hostplant RelationshipControl of Soil-Borne Plant Pathogens by Solar-ization of Soils by Means of PolyethyleneMulching: Phytopathological, Microbiological,Agronomic, Chemical, and Physical Ap-proachesResponses of Tephritid Fruit Flies to BaitsA Study of the Mechanism of PhotosyntheticHerbicide Action With the Aim of ImprovingWeed Control and Thereby Increasing the Effi-ciency of Water and Soil UtilizationGenetic Studies of Meal-Fly Preparatory to Bio-logical Control Using Pseudo-Y ChromosomeMeiotic DriveResistance and Interference phenomena inPlant-Virus InteractionsQuantitative Evaluation of Natural Enemy Im-pact Against the Homopteran Pests of CitrusManagement of Bulb Mites (Rhizoglyphus spp.)Through a Study of Their Biology and EcologyBiological Control of Sap Beetles AttackingFruit Crops (Dates and Grapes)Serological Detection of Strawberry Mild Yel-low-Edge VirusStudies on Baculoviruses as a Potential Agentfor Pest ControlStudies of Plant Root-Knot Nematode (Meloido-gyne incognita and M. javanica) Interrelation-shipsEpidemiology and Control of Bacterial LeafSpot Diseases in Vegetables: Pseudomonas lach-rymans—Angular Leaf Spot of Cucumbers,Xanthomanas vesicatoria–Bacterial Scab ofPepper and Tomato, Pseudomonas tomato—Bacterial Speck of Tomato

App. D—BARD Abstracts 79

Food Technology

1. Design and Delivery of Optimal Thermal Steri-lization Processes for Low-Acid Canned Foods

2. The Role of Calcium in Fruit Ripening and inAlleviating Post-Harvest Physiological Dis-orders

3. Biochemical Aspects of the Effect of AlteredCompositions of Atmospheric Gases on StoredProduct Insects

4. Production, Regulation, and Mode of Action ofEthylene in Fruit Ripening, Senescence, andDecay

5. Kinetics of Oxidation of Dehydrated Food atLow Oxygen, and Development of AcceleratedTests

6. Mechanism of Heat and Irradiation Synergism7. Physiology and Prevention of Latent Infections

in Fruits8. Application and Mode of Action of Plastic Film

to Extend Life of Fruits and Vegetables9. Improving the Keeping Quality of Agricultural

Perishable Commodities Under Controlled At-mospheres

10. Prevention of Browning in Fruits and VegetableFoods

Field Crops

1. Breeding Potential of the Wild Genepool ofLentil

2. The Collection, Evaluation, and Utilization ofWild Emmer (Triticum dicoccoides) for WheatBreeding

3. Genetic Resources Information System forIsrael and the United States: A Feasibility Study

4. The Effect of Water Stress on Solarium Speciesof Potential Use as Source of Steroidal Drugs;Physiological, Biochemical, Agricultural, andGenetical Aspects

5. Physiological Disorders in Vegetable Crops:Basic and Practical Aspects

6. Development of Melons Suitable for Once-OverMechanical Harvest

7. Physiological Genetics of Cold Tolerance in theTomato

8. Development of a Management-Oriented Dy-namic Simulation Model for Cotton Production

9. Pennisetum americanum X purpureum: A Po-tential Forage Crop for Maximum Productionof Digestible Nutrients Under Subtropical Con-ditions

10. Utilization of System Analysis for the Develop-ment and Implementation of Improved Deci-sion Criteria for Cotton Crop Management

11. Peanut Breeding for Higher Yields and Qualityand Evaluation of Methodology

12. Heritability and Physiology of Anther Cultureand Inhibitor Selections in Wheat

13. The Dynamic Aspects of Heterosis in Inter-specific Crosses of Cotton—A Plant ModelingApproach

Horticulture

1. Concentration and Metabolism of IndolycGrowth Hormones in Fruit Trees

2. Citrus Protoplasm Fusion3. Climatic Requirements for Rest Completion in

Dormant Peach and Apple Buds4. Improvement of Yield Levels in Citrus With

Special Emphasis on Shamouti and ValenciaOranges: Hormone and Carbohydrate Inter-actions

5. Administration and Management of CitrusGroves With Aerial Color Infra-red PhotographyUsing Low-Cost Microprocessors

6. Development of a Mechanized Meadow OrchardSystem for Fresh Market Peaches

7. Vegetative Propagation of Selected Clones ofEucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn

Animal Production

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.9.

10.11,

Optimization of Dairy Cattle Breeding Strategyin Israel and in the United StatesInvestigation of Genetic and Physiological Vari-ability of Milking Cows by Biochemical andMetabolic Studies of Milk Production in Udder,on the Cellular LevelOyster production in the Outflow of Salt WaterFish PondsIntroduction of the Giant Malaysian PrawnMacrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man) IntoBrackish Water AquicultureNutrition and Reproduction of Turkeys UnderDifferent Environmental ConditionsGenetic Variation in Minimum Body WeightRequired for the Onset of Sexual Maturity inBroiler Chickens, and Its Genetic CovariationWith Growth-Rate ComponentsBreeding Efficiency and Milk Yield of DairyCows in Relation to Nutritional Status andPlanned Differences in Conception IntervalsThe Control of Meiotic Maturation in MammalsStudy of Systemic Granuloma, a Diet RelatedDisease of the Cultured Marine Fish SparusaurataSelective Breeding of Farmed FishHormone Production by the Bovine Blastocyst


12. The Promotion of Prolific Strains of Sheep byCrossbreeding and by Nutritional and Manage-rial Means

13. Rotifer Resting Eggs and Their Application toMarine Aquiculture

14. Development of Systems for Integrating Aqua-culture With Water Storage and Irrigation

Animal Protection

1. Genetic Factors Affecting the Rate of Develop-ment of Immunological Maturity With Respectto Disease Agents in Poultry

2. Studies on the Ecology of Animal InfluenzaViruses in Israel

3. Virologic, Immunologic, Epidemic, and Patho-genetic Studies of Slow Viral Lung Diseases inSheep

4. Study of the Lymphoproliferative Disease ofTurkey and Its Causative Virus

5. Specific Biochemical Test for Detecting FattyLiver in Farm Animals

6. Early Embryonic Environment and Early Em-bryonic Death in Dairy Cattle

7. Development of a Method for Obtaining Sal-monella-Free Poultry Feed. Pilot Scale Study forSubsequent Large Scale Implementation

8. Physiological Age-Grading and Survival Rate in

9

10

Culidoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) as aMeans of Determining Vector CapacityEndocrine Control of Prolapsed Oviduct inHensBacterial and Leucocytic Contents and EnzymeLevels in Milk as Methods for the Determina-tion of Milk Quality and for the Early Detectionof Mastitis

11. Interaction of Newcastle Disease Virus Strainsof Different Virulence With Cell Receptors

12. Vaccination of Chickens Against Mycoplasmagallisepticum

Agricultural Economics

1. Agricultural Planning With Production Rigidi-ties: Theory and Practice

2. Grain Stocks and Price Policies in Israel3. Some Dynamic Aspects of Technological Change

in Agriculture4. Multi-Product Agricultural Supply Response Es-

timation in Israel and the United States5. Analysis of Efficient Regional Allocation of Irri-

gation Water With Emphasis on Salinity and theRelated Cost Sharing Scheme

6. Agricultural Growth-Methodology, Measure-ment, and Applications to Israeli Agriculture

i’. Welfare Implications of Price Stabilization Pol-

icies Implemented by Israeli Agricultural Mar-keting Boards

8. The Impact of Inflation on Investment in Agri-cultural Capital

9. Estimation of an Agricultural Production Func-tion From Data Obtained From Complex Sam-ple Surveys

General

1. The Mechanism of Osmotic Accommodation toWater and Saline Stress in Plant Cells; and theRole of Hormones in Modulating This Response

2. The Role of Polyamides in Growth and Senes-cence of Plants Under Stress Conditions WithSpecial Reference to Horticulturally ImportantOrgans and Tissues

3. The Chemical Identity and Physiological Actionof Regulatory Peptides in Reproductive Matura-tion of Insects

4. Drought and Freezing Damage to Plants in Rela-

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10,

110

12.

13.

14.

15,

tion to the Structure and Function to the ATPSynthesizing Enzyme From ChloroplastsImprovement of Salt Tolerance in HigherPlants—Research on the Levels of the WholePlant, Isolated Tissues, and CellsDevelopment of Somatic Hybridization SystemsInvolving Cytoplasmic TraitsPlastom Manipulation in Plant Protoplasm Sys-temsPlanning of Research in Agricultural Extensionand Extension TrainingInteractions Between Ethylene and OtherGrowth Regulators in Aging TissuesThe Effect of Plant and Environmental Factorson Photosynthetic EfficiencyFactors Determining the Sensitivity of Abscis-ing Plant Organs to Ethylene, With Special Ref-erence to Auxin Metabolism and TransportThe Introduction of Vesicular-Arbuscular My-corrhizae Into Modern Crop Production Prac-ticesDevelopment of Gene Transplant Technologyfor Crop PlantsA Comparison of the Mechanism of CelluloseSynthesis in Bacteria and Higher PlantsResistance to Water and Salt Stress ThroughSomatic Cell Selection

Approved Subjects 1982

Soil and Water

Slow-release water-borne microparticles for incor-poration of pesticides into soils

App. D—BARD Abstracts 81

The mineralogical and chemical forms of boron,molybdenum, and selenium in fly ash and theirmobility and interaction in soils

Reactions in soil and response of plants to variousfluorine sources

Control of nonfumigant nematicide distributionand activity in irrigated soils

Improving estimates of evapotranspiration frommeteorological data for the control of irrigationfor cotton and other field crops

Managing multi-source irrigation water of differentqualities for optimum crop production

Crop response to saline water management in thepresence of spatially variable soil waterproperties

Developments of methods for designing drainagesystems for irrigated lands with nonuniformboundary conditions

Agricultural Engineering

Separation of extraneous matter from agriculturalproducts by the difference in the coefficient ofrestitution

Long distance vertical spreader for granularmaterials

Plant Protection

Naturally occurring steroids from solanaceousplants as potential insect antifeedants

Natural arthropod defense mechanisms of decidu-ous trees, adaptable for use in agriculture

Evaluation of parasitoids for the control of white-flies

Genetic and biological control of Septoria diseasesof wheat

Double stranded RNA-infectious hypovirulence fac-tors in plant protection

Genetic manipulation of almond moth (Ephestiacautella) populations as a means of reducingor preventing insecticide resistance

Enhancement of citrus resistance to tephritid fruitflies

Studies on nutrition, physiology, and moleculargenetics of spiroplasmas with reference todiagnosis and pathogenesis

Food Technology

Chilling injury during avocado and mango fruitstorage: development and prevention

Mechanisms and prevention of lipid oxidation inmuscle foods

Protection of grain from insect damage throughstorage in semiarid and arid regions

Post-mortem quality changes of the freshwaterprawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii duringrefrigerated/ice-chilled storage

Factors influencing the quality characteristics offrozen and dehydrated fruits and vegetables

Field Crops

Regulation of corn dormancyTesting the efficiency of different lamps and illumi-

nation regimes for photoperiodic irradiation ofagricultural crops

Development of cantaloupe varieties and advancedbreeding lines with resistance to the fungusdisease complex in both the USA and Israelwith special emphasis on resistance to downymildew

Genetic diversity of wild emmer wheat, Triticumdicoccoides, in the Near East in relation towheat breeding

Genetic and chemical control of alkaloid biosyn-thesis in Papaver bracteatum and Papaversomniferum

Studies on carcinogenic solarium plants of poten-tial value as source of active vitamin D-likederivatives

Study of cytoplasmic male sterility in lentil

Horticulture

Isozyme markers as a tool in avocado researchAvocado fruit abscissionResponse of peach and nectarine germ plasm to an

annual top removal pruning system

Animal Protection

Physiological criteria for improvement of produc-tion efficiency in beef cows subjected to nutri-tional and environmental ‘stress’ due to fluctu-ating seasonal grazing conditions

Development of improved methodology for estimat-ing genetic merit of bulls and cows in the USAand Israel

Nutrition-physiology-environment interactions inturkeys

Stable isotope ratio as naturally occurring tracersin the aquiculture food web

An integrated approach to the breeding, nutrition,reproduction, and management of geese

Animal Protection

Detection of rift valley fever ELISA antibody andantigen in livestock

Studies of pathogenesis and prevention of milkfever of dairy cows


Immunization of cattle with antigens derived from Economic development and changing structure ofcontinuous in vitro cultures of Babesia bovis the family farm

Evaluation of polyethylene intramammary device(IMD) in mastitis control General

Agricultural Economics Photoacoustic monitoring of plant leaves, in combi-nation with photothermal radiometry and fluo-

Grain stocks and price policies in Israel; an evalua- rescence—tools for assessing plant condition,tion of alternative policy combinations and photosynthesis, and productivitytheir performance under rapid inflation

Pricing and R&D for quality of agricultural prod-ucts: the case of tomatoes

o

8330 - water saving tech

Documents

acknowledgethe water

aridsemiarid plants

ota staff

forthcoming ota assessment

aridsemiarid lands

professordepartment

foreign experiences

assistance of ota food