1 Farmer Managed Research to Assess Legume

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 Farmer Managed Research to Assess Legume 1 FARMER MANAGED RESEARCH TO ASSESS LEGUME INTERCROPPING IN CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS IN RURAL ZIMBABWE BY MICHAEL SALOMONS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Plant Science University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba Copyright © 2018 by Michael Salomons 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Dr. Martin Entz and his team for their invaluable assistance in planning, conducting, and analyzing the work leading to this thesis; To the office staff at the Department of Plant Sciences for their help with the practicalities of the thesis process; And finally to Maguy, Lucas and Caleb – for giving me the time and space needed to work on and complete this thesis; 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 5 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 6 Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Conservation Agriculture .......................................................................................... 12 2.2 Intercropping ............................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Sustainability Impacts of Intercropping ................................................................ 19 2.2.2 Productivity and Profitability Impacts of Intercropping .................................... 21 2.2.3 Impacts of Intercropping on Equality .................................................................... 24 2.2.4 Resilience Impacts of Intercropping ....................................................................... 25 2.2.5 Food Security Impacts of Intercropping ................................................................ 26 2.2.6 Challenges with Intercrops ...................................................................................... 26 2.3 Integrating Conservation Agriculture and Intercropping .................................... 27 2.4 Intercropping Species for this Study ........................................................................ 29 2.4.1 Cereal Crop: Maize (Zea mays (L.)) .................................................................. 29 2.4.2 Legume Crops ...................................................................................................... 30 2.4.2.1 Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) ....................................................... 31 2.4.2.2 Lablab (Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet) ........................................................... 33 2.4.2.3 Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) ......................................................... 35 2.5 Farmer Managed Research ........................................................................................ 37 3. Intercropping in Conservation Agriculture Systems for Smallholders in Zimbabwe – effects on maize yields and total biomass production.......................................................... 39 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................... 45 4 3.2.1 Study Sites .................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.2 Experimental Design ................................................................................................ 46 3.2.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 53 3.3 Results and discussion .................................................................................................... 54 3.3.1 Weather ................................................................................................................. 54 3.3.2 Maize Yields .......................................................................................................... 58 3.3.3 Total Biomass Produced...................................................................................... 64 3.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 69 4.0 Economic and Food Security Impacts of Intercropping ................................................. 72 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 72 4.2 Materials & Methods ....................................................................................................... 76 4.2.1 Economics ............................................................................................................. 76 4.2.2 Nutrition ................................................................................................................ 78 4.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 81 4.3.1 Economics ............................................................................................................. 81 4.3.2 Nutrition ................................................................................................................ 86 4.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 92 5. Final Discussion & Conclusions ........................................................................................... 94 5.1 History of Intercropping in Africa ........................................................................... 94 5.2 Challenges of Intercropping ...................................................................................... 98 5.3 Improving Agricultural Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa ......................................... 103 5.2.1 Future Research: What ........................................................................................... 105 5.2.2 Future Research: How ............................................................................................ 107 6.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 112 Appendix A: Experimental Design Information Sheet .................................................. 131 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 132 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Experimental Treatments ........................................................................................ 48 Table 3.2: Agronomic information for the three study sites ................................................ 50 Table 3.3: Treatment means (n=2) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for selected agronomic parameters from study sites in Zimbabwe ......................................................... 53 Table 3.2: Ratio of Intercrop Biomass to Maize Biomass (in %) at experimental sites ..... 66 Table 4.1: Grain Yield Increase from intercropping in mulched and un-mulched plots. 82 Table 4.2: Economic value (USD) of crops produced on a hypothetical 0.5 ha CA plot . 82 Table 4.3: Annual profit:loss calculations ............................................................................... 87 Table 4.4: Annual profit:loss calculations ............................................................................... 87 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Jane Wajicko, from Murang’a County, Kenya ................................................... 14 Figure 2.2: Intercropping of maize and lablab bean ............................................................. 18 Figure 2.3 Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) intercropped with Sorghum .............................. 20 Figure 2.4: Intercropped maize & pigeon pea, Kenya .......................................................... 23 Figure 2.5: Maize (Zea mays) ................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2.6. Cow pea (Vigna unguiculata) ............................................................................... 31 Figure 2.7: Lablab bean (Lablab purpureus) .......................................................................... 34 Figure 2.8: Pigeon Pea (Cajanus Cajun) .................................................................................. 35 Figure 3.1: Total CA Hectarage by ward in Zimbabwe in 2015 .......................................... 42 Figure 3.2: Zimbabwe Agro-Ecological Zones ....................................................................... 46 Figure 3.3: Hand hoe dug planting basins in a mulched CA field
Recommended publications
  • Biblical Holism and Agriculture: Cultivating Our Roots
    Book Manuscript Final Draft Title: Biblical Holism and Agriculture: Cultivating our Roots Submitted to: William Carey Library Publishing Office Submitted by Editors: David J. Evans, Ronald J. Vos, and Keith P. Wright On 03 October 2003 CONTENTS Editors and Contributors Forward Introduction Building Consensus for Biblical Holism in Agriculture David J. Evans and Keith Wright The Agriculturist and God Chapter 1: Reclaiming a Biblical Vision for Agriculture Wayne A. Kobes Chapter 2: The Worship of God through Agriculture Jesse T. Njoka The Agriculturist and Humanity Chapter 3: Social Principles for ‘Good’ Agriculture Ronald J. Vos Chapter 4: Behold I Give You: A Christian Perspective on Farming James Ball The Agriculturist and Creation Chapter 5: Production Principles for ‘Good’ Agriculture Robert De Haan Chapter 6: Enabling Creation’s Praise: Lessons in Agricultural Stewardship from Africa Harry Spaling The Agriculturist and Knowledge Chapter 7: Affinity, Dominion, and the Poverty of our Day: Calling and Task of Agri- Culture in a World That Belongs to God John H. Kok i The Agriculturist and Purpose Chapter 8: Agriculture and the Kingdom of God Darrow Miller Chapter 9: On Dams, Demons, Wells and Witches: Managing the Message of Transformational Development Bruce Bradshaw The Agriculturist and Ethics Chapter 10: The Bible as Ethical Standard for Appraising Modern Agricultural Practices Michael Oye Chapter 11: Integration Towards Ethical Agriculture: Challenges, Principles and Practice in International Perspective E. John Wibberley The Agriculturist and Economics Chapter 12: Is Our Agricultural House Built on Sand? Biblical Holism in Agriculture and the Assumption of Monotonicity in the Utility Function Kara Unger Ball Chapter 13: Redeeming Agriculture and Economics through Worldview Transformation Greg De Haan Conclusion Give Us this Day our Daily Bread: A Prayer to the First Farmer David J.
    [Show full text]
  • Research and Education for the Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fishfarming Systems in the Tropics DEC 2 1
    S'H ICLARM STUDIESAND REVIEWS16 I. 207 I SR76 #.16 C.t 1 Research and Education for the Development of , r Integrated Crop-livestock-Fish Farming t \ Systems in the Tropics P. Edwards R.S.V. Pullin J.A. Gartner I If - I:' '!Io, .. .... \D ',- .'. , r . ~ _frl~TERNATIONAL C~NTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAG.EMENT , " i ' :1 i I .I earch and Education for the Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish Farming Systems in the Tropics J.A. Gartner INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MANILA, PHILIPPINES Research and education for the development of integrated crop-livestock-fishfarming systems in the tropics DEC 2 1 P. EDWARDS R.S.V. hum J. A. GARTNER Published by the International Center for Living Aauatic Reswrces Mana~ement.MC P.O. Box 1501. ~hcati,Metm Manila, Pklippiis with fmancid assistance from the United Nations Development Programme New York. USA Printed in Manila. Philippines Edwards. P.. R.S.V. Pullin and J.A. Gamer. 1988. Research and education for the development of integrated cmp-livestock-fish farming systems in the tropics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 16.53 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. ISSN 01 15-4389 ISBN 97 1-1022-46-X Cover: Small-scale integrated crop-livestock-fish farming in a rainfed area of Northeast ?hailand. ?his ria farm has a small fishpond that provides fish. pennits dry season cultivation of vegetables on rhe dikes and suppliis drinking water for livestock. ICLARM Contribution No. 470 Contents Preface ................................................. Introduction .............................................. The Concept of Integrated Farming Systems A Definition of Integrated Farming ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Culture: Compounds and Derivatives with ‘Culture’
    THE ENGLISH OF AGRICULTURE: COMPOUNDS AND DERIVATIVES WITH ‘CULTURE’ ENGLESKI U POLJOPRIVREDI. SLOŽENICE I IZVEDENICE S RIJEČI “CULTURE” ANICA PERKOVIC*, GEORGETA RAŢĂ**, IOAN PETROMAN** *J. J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia **Agricultural and Veterinary University of the Banat, Timişoara, Romania Abstract: Agriculture (whose name was attested Sažetak: Poljoprivreda (čiji naziv se pojavljuje pvi for the first time between 1425 and 1475) has been puta između 1415. I 1475.) se razvija od davnina. developing from times immemorial. New Nove poljoprivredne grane su rezultirale i agricultural branches have brought about new uvođenjem posebnih termina za njihovo terms to designate them, from horticulture označavanje počevši od horticulture (pojavljuje se (attested ever since 1670-1680) and going on with od 1670. – 1680.) zatim floriculture, floriculture, arboriculture, terms appeared during arboriculture,terminima koji su se pojavili tijekom the 19th century, and with mariculture, 19. stoljeća, potom mariculture, monoculture, monoculture, polyculture, and citriculture, terms polyculture i citriculture, terminima koji se appeared during the 20th century, to permaculture javljaju u 20.st. do permaculture (termina koji se (a term that appeared sometime in the 1970s), or to pojavljuje 1970-ih ) ili do aeroculture, aeroculture, agrosilviculture, algaculture, agrosilviculture, algaculture, animaliculture, animaliculture, boviculture, caniculture, boviculture, caniculture, heliculture, heliculture, mosaiculture, multiculture, mosaiculture,
    [Show full text]
  • Agrobot- a Robot for Leaf Diseases Detection 1 2 Ruchita Bharat More , Prof
    DOI 10.4010/2016.1743 ISSN 2321 3361 © 2016 IJESC ` Research Article Volume 6 Issue No. 6 Agrobot- A Robot for Leaf Diseases Detection 1 2 Ruchita Bharat More , Prof. D. S. Bhosale ME Scholar1 Department of E&TC JSPM’s BSIOTR, Wagholi, Pune, India [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Diseases on plants cause significant damage and economic losses in crops. Subsequently, reduces the diseases on plant by early diagnosis results in substantial improvement in quality of the product. Incorrect diagnosis of disease and its severity leads to inappropriate use of pesticides. The goal of proposed system is to diagnose the disease by using image processing and artificial intelligence techniques on images of plant leaf. This system is divided into two phases, in first phase the plant is recognized on the basis of the features of leaf, it includes pre- processing of leaf images, and feature extraction followed by ANN based training and also classification for recognition of leaf. In second phase the classification of disease which is present in the leaf is done, this process includes K-Means based segmentation of defected area, feature removal of defected portion and the ANN based classification of disease. Then the disease grading is done on the basis of the amount of disease which is present in the leaf. Crops can be managed from early stage to harvest stage that is mature. It involves monitoring of plant diseases and also identification of disease, controlled irrigation, nutrition deficiency and controlled use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although the amount of remote sensing solutions is increasing, the availability and ground visibility during critical growth stages of crops continue to be major concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercropping Empower Reduces Insect Pests and Increases Biodiversity in Agro-Ecosystem
    Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 8, 1120-1134 http://www.scirp.org/journal/as ISSN Online: 2156-8561 ISSN Print: 2156-8553 Intercropping Empower Reduces Insect Pests and Increases Biodiversity in Agro-Ecosystem Sadia Afrin1, A. Latif2, N. M. A. Banu2, M. M. M. Kabir1, S. S. Haque1, M. M. Emam Ahmed1, N. N. Tonu3, M. P. Ali1* 1Entomology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), Gazipur, Bangladesh 2Department of Entomology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh 3Department of Plant Pathology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh How to cite this paper: Afrin, S., Latif, A., Abstract Banu, N.M.A., Kabir, M.M.M., Haque, S.S., Emam Ahmed, M.M., Tonu, N.N. and Ali, Currently insect pest management solely depends on chemical pesticide that M.P. (2017) Intercropping Empower Re- continuously affects on environment, biodiversity, animal as well as human duces Insect Pests and Increases Biodiver- health. Outbreak of secondary insect pest is also the cost of pesticide use in sity in Agro-Ecosystem. Agricultural Sciences, 8, 1120-1134. field leading crop more vulnerable to more pests. These negative impacts of https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2017.810082 pesticides have provoked growing interest in the adoption of multi-function agricultural biodiversity that promote pest management, creating interesting Received: August 30, 2017 Accepted: October 20, 2017 challenge for traditional approaches to regulatory compliance. To address Published: October 23, 2017 multi-function agricultural practice, we tested several intercropping systems with mustard and their effect on pest management. Our results revealed that Copyright © 2017 by authors and intercropping systems mustard with onion, garlic, radhuni and coriander sig- Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential of Intercropping System in Sustaining Crop Productivity Sagar Maitra, Jnana Bharati Palai*, Pilli Manasa and Dibbagandla Prasanna Kumar
    International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology Citation: IJAEB: 12(1): 39-45, March 2019 DOI: 10.30954/0974-1712.03.2019.7 ©2019 New Delhi Publishers. All rights reserved AGRONOMY Potential of Intercropping System in Sustaining Crop Productivity Sagar Maitra, Jnana Bharati Palai*, Pilli Manasa and Dibbagandla Prasanna Kumar Department of Agronomy, M.S. Swaminathan School of Agriculture, Centurion University of Technology and Management, Paralakhemundi-761211, Odisha, India *Corresponding author: [email protected] (ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5565-2765) Paper No. 763 Received: 14-10-2018 Accepted: 20-01-2019 ABSTRACT Intercropping, an age old agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops in the same space at the same time is generally adopted for more production by utilizing available growth resources. Choice of crops is very important to reap a better harvest from intercropping. The selection of a suitable intercropping system is sort of complicated issue as the success of intercropping depends much on the interactions between the component crop species, proper management practices and favorable environmental conditions. Intercropping has a huge potential and multiple advantages. The advantages are like efficient utilization of resources, enhancement of soil fertility by including legumes as component in mixture and soil conservation through covering the greater ground cover. Moreover, intercropping reduces attack of insect pest, checks the incidence of diseases and restricts weed population and thus minimizes the use of protection plant chemicals. This article addresses an overall view with a focus on prime advantages supported by evidences from the literature based on earlier research. Highlights m Types and advantages of intercropping m Crop choice in intercropping Keywords: Cropping system, intercropping, crop productivity, sustainability The greatest challenge of the present time in the intensity.
    [Show full text]
  • (04-264-01P) Seeking a Determination of Non- Regulated Status for C5 Plum Resistant to Plum Pox Virus
    Approval of USDA-ARS Request (04-264-01P) Seeking a Determination of Non- regulated Status for C5 Plum Resistant to Plum Pox Virus Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) prior to approving a petition (APHIS Number 04-264-01p) for a determination of nonregulated status received from USDA-ARS under APHIS regulations at 7 CFR part 340. The subject of this petition, plum line C5, is genetically engineered to express the coat protein gene of plum pox virus, which confers resistance to the virus. On May 16, 2006, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 28296-28298, Docket no. 2006–0084) announcing the availability of the draft EA for public review and comment for the designated 60-day comment period ending on July 17, 2006. One thousand, seven hundred twenty-five comments were received and addressed, where appropriate, in the preparation of the final EA, which is attached to this document. This includes additional discussion analysis in the final EA that addresses concerns raised in public comments. In the draft EA, APHIS considered three alternatives: Alternative A – No Action Alternative; Alternative B – Determination that C5 ‘HoneySweet’ plum trees are No Longer Regulated Articles, in Whole; Alternative C - Determination that C5 plums are No Longer Regulated Articles, in Part. APHIS proposed Alternative B as its preferred alternative because of the lack of plant pest characteristics displayed by the C5 plum. Based upon analysis described in the final EA, APHIS has determined that the preferred alternative, to grant the petition in whole, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and no Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared regarding this decision.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey on Solar Powered Autonomous Multipurpose Agricultural Robot
    Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Innovative Mechanisms for Industry Applications (ICIMIA 2020) IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP20K58-ART; ISBN: 978-1-7281-4167-1 A Survey on Solar Powered Autonomous Multipurpose Agricultural Robot Prof.Shweta Madiwalar Dr.Sujata Patil M.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering Ph.D. Electronics and Communication Engineering KLE Dr.M.S.Sheshagiri College of Engineering and KLE Dr.M.S.Sheshagiri College of Engineering and Technology Technology Belagavi, India Belagavi, India [email protected] [email protected] Nikhila Sunita Meti, Domanal, Kaveri ugare B.E Electronics and Communication Engineering KLE Dr.M.S.Sheshagiri College of Engineering and Technology Belagavi, India Abstract—Agriculture is considered as one of the most important products. Lag in collecting, spreading and improper seedbed economic activities in India. This paper deals with trade and preparation reduces the yield of the crop. Hence, the development of low cost, low power and less human effort robot modernization of automation in the field of agriculture helps in the agronomic applications. Agricultural automata are widely to overcome from the above challenges [6]. To beat these real used at the collecting phase, tunneling, cultivating and seeding. time issues automatic robots were used . This robot is intended to reduce the farmer’s effort. The designed Robotics techniques are efficient for achieving the tasks such as automatic cultivating, seed providing, water sprinkling, The main goal of developing farming automation knowledge insecticide spraying and Grassland wounding with the help of is to moderate the labor energy[7]. Automation and artificial solar energy. Seeds are spread in 4 rackets at a single instant.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Journal of Engineering Science And
    [ICITAIC-2019] ISSN 2348 – 8034 Impact Factor- 5.070 GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND RESEARCHES AN AGRICULTURIST’S PARTNER-AGROBOT Suchismitha.K.N*1, M.Rithika, Bangali Sri Chandana2, Dr.B V Ramana Murthy3 & Mr.CKishor Kumar Reddy4 *1,2,3&5Stanley College of Engineering and Technology for Women, Hyderabad ABSTRACT The Indian Primary Sector is mainly comprised of Agriculture. It was always deemed necessary to improve the agricultural industry for the development of India as a whole. With online services becoming an integral part of India, it is only natural that we take our agricultural services online. Agricultural services most usually extend to queries on information on crops, growing techniques, diseases, about fertilizers, pesticides, organic and inorganic techniques. Such queries are hard to handle person to person. With the implementation of AI to create chatbots, such problems can be faced easily. In our paper, we describe the chatbot we have created to implement agricultural services in an easier and more efficient way. This chatbot, also known as the “Agrobot” can have a one-on-one conversation with its user, acting as a virtual partner. The methodology to create and implement the chatbot has been described step by step, hence giving an insight to the overall capacity of the bot. Keywords: Agriculture, Chemical Fertilizer, Pesticide information, Chatbot, Organic Farming, I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 About the Project The Agrobot is a conversational AI bot. The name Agrobot would translate to “Agricultural bot”, created for farmers as a developmental aid for better and improved farming techniques. Hence, it would ultimately be a farmer’s or an agriculturist’s partner.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Agriculturist
    Problems in Egyptian Agriculture Item Type Article Authors Mehrez, A. G. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Arizona Agriculturist Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 19:54:17 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/302915 · ..·• ·•··.. · ..·•··•··•.. • .. •··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•· z � ; i ! ARIZONA AGRICULTURIST j i •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,........................... •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• t .T. i VOL. II MARCH, 1925 No. 3 i t ! i M : PROBLEMS IN EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURE By A. G. MEHREZ, '25 Egyptian Farmers Seem to be Confronted with Problems Similar To Those of Our State-In This Article the, Writer Has Endeavored to Briefly Outline the Methods Adopted in Egypt to Solve These Problems � UE to the similarity of the � climate, variety of crops, and weather conditions of Egypt and parts of Arizona, there is considerable resemblance in the problems pertaining to agriculture. ) Xmong these being the prob­ Ilems of alkali control, irrigation, maintenance of soil fertility and de­ te ioration of cotton varieties. In this short article it will be impossible for me to discuss all these problems in full, but instead, I shall try to reveal some of the most important methods in the handling of these problems in Egypt, which will probably be of some interest to the farmers of this state. While tilling has been gomg on in Egypt for centuries, it is a compar­ atively new industry in this state, thus the Egyptian farmer is very well acquainted with the methods of agri­ culture that has been handed down to him through generations. However, the advancement of science has en­ AN AIROPLANE VIEW OF THE ELKHARIA BARRAGE SITUATED AT THE abled the farmers of Arizona to solve DELTA OF THE NILE.
    [Show full text]
  • Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: the Case of the Land Institute
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Sociology Sociology 2017 Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: The Case of The Land Institute Alicia Hullinger University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.215 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hullinger, Alicia, "Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: The Case of The Land Institute" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Sociology. 33. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/sociology_etds/33 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Sociology by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Land and Power: Sustainable Agriculture and African Americans
    Land Power& Sustainable Agriculture and African Americans A collection of essays from the 2007 Black Environmental Thought conference edited by Jeffrey L. Jordan Edward Pennick Walter A. Hill Robert Zabawa Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Land Power& Sustainable Agriculture and African Americans A collection of essays from the 2007 Black Environmental Thought Conference Edited by Jeffrey L. Jordan, Edward Pennick, Walter A. Hill, and Robert Zabawa First Edition Published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, with funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. DepartmentAbout SAREof Agriculture SARE is a grant making and outreach program. Its mission is to advance—to the whole of American agriculture—innovations that improve profitability, stewardship and quality of life by investing in groundbreaking research and education. For more information about SARE’s grant making program and information products, visit www.sare.org or contact: SARE Outreach Associate 10300 Baltimore Ave., BARC, Bldg. 046 Beltsville, MD 20705 [email protected] (301) 504-5236 SARE Regions North Central Alaska Northeast West Guam CNMI South FSM Hawaii AS USVI PR Size and placement not to scale SARE’s four regional offices and outreach office work to advance sustainable innovations to the whole of American agriculture. 155 This book was published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program under cooperative agreements with USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, University of Maryland and University of Vermont. Online: Visit www.sare.org. By check or purchase order: Make payable to Sustainable Agriculture Publications and send to Sustainable Agriculture Publications P.O.
    [Show full text]