#intercropping maize and beans

[farmerstrend]

Maize vs. Nyota Beans Farming in Kenya: A Comprehensive Profitability Analysis

“Kenyan farmers: See detailed per-hectare analysis of maize vs. Nyota beans. Learn which crop offers higher profits, lower risks & better market potential in Kenya’s agricultural sector.” Farming remains the backbone of Kenya’s economy, employing more than 40% of the total population and about 70% of the rural population, according to data from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). Two…

[mixotrophics]

food crops basics: legumes

( image sources: Pollinator and Adam Jones on wikimedia )

legumes! If you're veggie/vegan you probably know what I mean already because these bad boys are very very important for us in terms of proteins.

Common legumes folks may encounter at the store include peanuts, soy/edamame, chickpea/garbanzo bean, beans in general, lentils. Legumes can be eaten by humans directly, also used for oil (peanut/soy), or grown for animal feed (clover/alfalfa). Some were used more historically (e.g. gorse) than nowadays, which can cause problems with the plants spreading and taking over other habitats.

They are very important in a lot of diets worldwide. The dried pulses can be stored for a long time without having to worry about refrigeration and such.

There are some really great things that legumes do for us, of course, context dependent.

1 ) as mentioned earlier: Legumes are a very great source of protein for vegan/vegetarian/etc diets, so often they are integral for people who want to reduce their reliance on CAFOs (factory farms) or animal agriculture in general. However, soy & peanuts (& legumes more generally) are major allergens, with many people not being able to be in the same room where legumes were cooked. Combined with wheat (gluten e.g. seitan) being a major allergen, a lot of culinary creativity is required to navigate low/no-animal diets for many people as legumes are so central.

2 ) also (and why legumes are so protein-rich): Nitrogen fixation. Briefly, nitrogen is a very common element in the atmosphere & it is very important for life (proteins, DNA, you name it!), but the atmospheric nitrogen (dinitrogen) form isn't something most organisms can use. Dinitrogen is two nitrogens bonded together very strongly and only a few life-forms can break it into something useable (ammonia). Many legumes are important nitrogen fixers as their roots have little nodules on their roots that are like "houses" full of bacteria that can break the dinitrogen bond. So legumes can turn dinitrogen into useful forms, and when a legume plant dies, that nitrogen is now available to other things around it.

Here's a picture of the nodules on Wisteria, a pretty flower:

common ways of using this nitrogen include crop rotation and intercropping. For crop rotation, legumes and non-legumes are grown in a field in an alternating pattern (also including fallow times where the field isn't used for crops). Often, dead legumes are left where they are, sometimes legumes are mixed into the soil while still green ("green manure"). This means that the nitrogen they contain is available to the non-legumes grown in that field. Sometimes, fallow fields and pastures can be used as nitrogen-fixers in this way, as clover and alfalfa are eaten by animals while also providing nitrogen fixing. Intercropping is growing multiple different crops in the same area. Nitrogen-fixing legumes & non-fixing non-legumes are mixed. For example, growing soybean around coconut, as the plants don't get in each others way (e.g. blocking light), and making more efficient use of the space between coconut trees(1). Also, using "fertilizer trees", which are often legumes, but are basically trees that fix nitrogen that are grown amongst crops for harvest like maize(2).

now this nitrogen fixation thing is great but again has some caveats.

One concern is with allergens, beyond just mentioned in ( 1 ) above. Sometimes intercropping (etc) can contaminate other crops with allergens, so legume-intercropping may cause harm to people with allergies(3), not 100% clear on the risks & strategies here but it is something I see often discussed in disability circles around intercropping (not just with legumes). Legume allergies can be incredibly severe & allergies in general are a growing concern (correlated often with pesticide exposure(4), ...so often poorer/farmworker families...?). so this aspect needs to be addressed robustly & specifically.

Another concern is with nitrogen pollution. Nitrogen is great because it makes life possible but sometimes that life is algae blooms. fertilizers of all kinds can get washed out of a field and into a river or lake or ocean or whatever, where they fertilize algae that can be toxic on its own, or can cause major problems when it dies off and leaves the water an oxygen-deprived death gunk. industrial-scale legume production can cause this, even without irresponsible fertilizer application(4). Growing tons of soybeans without intercropping and/or crop rotation means there's a lot of nitrogen to be washed away, and often these soybeans are grown for animal feed in CAFOs, but changing their end-use w/o changing the ways they are being grown isn't going to fix the issue here.

overall though, Very Cool Guys and we know how to incorporate legume agriculture & legume-eating into our lifestyle very well! There is still work to be done re:allergies but that can also be mitigated by examining the overuse of pesticides that is implicated in the rise of allergies (& cancer). there is a lot of potential & legumes are worth discussing and seeing what people have tried over centuries of legume cultivation.

thanks for reading! This post is dedicated to the guy from high school who would get very mad if he saw beans.Hope you're doing well, king. (he did not like the taste of beans, fair, which became a funny melodrama in-joke upon demanding beans get removed from his presence). ...

1 ) Nuwarapaksha, T D., Udumann, S S., Dissanayaka, D M N S., Dissanayake, D K R P L., & Atapattu, A J. Coconut based multiple cropping systems: An analytical review in Sri Lankan coconut cultivations. Circular Agricultural Systems 2022 2:8. 2 ) Ajayi, O C., Place, F., Akinnifesi, F K., & Sileshi, G. W. Agricultural success from Africa: the case of fertilizer tree systems in southern Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe). International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2011 9(1):129-136. 3 ) Kiær, L. P., Weedon, O D., Bedoussac, L., Bickler, C., Finckh, M R., Haug, B., Ianetta, P P M., Raaphorst-Travaille, G., Weih, M., & Karley, A. J. Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops. Frontiers in Plant Science 2022 13. 4 ) Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, World Hunger, 2015.

[satzy]

“Compared to a large farm field of a single crop, an allotment plot or kitchen garden is a polyculture!”

Also known as intercropping, polyculture is the simultaneous cultivation of multiple diverse crops and animal species. Although this practice makes it more difficult to harvest a specific crop, it increases diversity, improves productivity, and creates a self-sustainable pest-management regime.

Indigenous peoples throughout North America cultivated different varieties of the Three Sisters, adapted to varying local environments. The individual crops and their use in polyculture originated in Mesoamerica, where squash was domesticated first, followed by maize and then beans, over a period of 5,000–6,500 years.

European records from the sixteenth century describe highly productive Indigenous agriculture based on cultivation of the Three Sisters throughout what are now the Eastern United States and Canada, where the crops were used for both food and trade. Geographer Carl O. Sauer described the Three Sisters as "a symbiotic plant complex of North and Central America without an equal elsewhere".

Polyculture offers multiple advantages, including increasing total yield, as multiple crops can be harvested from the same land, along with reduced risk of crop failure. Resources are used more efficiently, requiring less inputs of fertilizers and pesticides, as interplanted crops suppress weeds, and legumes can fix nitrogen. The increased diversity tends to reduce losses from pests and diseases.

Polyculture can yield multiple harvests per year, and can improve the physical, chemical and structural properties of soil, for example as taproots create pores for water and air. Improved soil cover reduces soil drying and erosion. Further, increased diversity of crops can provide people with a healthier diet.

Once established, polyculture is pretty much self-sustainable, but the planning process can be challenging if you want to grow a great variety of crops. Other issues can include things like:

Intercropping requires knowledge of plant families and their needs

Planning process can be complicated

Planting and harvesting processes are more time-consuming

Individual crop yields are often lower than in a monoculture

Thorough research into companion planting is required

[theinclusionmasala]

Ever heard of the three sisters?

It’s an ancient intercropping method where maize, beans and squash are planted together.

The maize provides support for beans, beans enrich the soil with nitrogen, and squash covers the ground, preventing weeds!

🧡 Follow for more on sustainability

#ESG #ESGconsultancy #sustainability

[adalidda]

How Small Farmers in West Africa Can Boost Their Revenues

West Africa has a huge potential for agricultural and agrifood development, but many small farmers face challenges such as low productivity, poor market access, and climate change.

To overcome these challenges and increase their revenues, small farmers can adopt the following strategies:

Focus on profitable crops Small farmers can increase their incomes by growing the most profitable crops such are: Maize and cassava: These are two of the main staple food crops in the region, and they have multiple market applications, such as flour, starch, animal feed, ethanol and beer. Maize and cassava can also be processed into value-added products such as snacks, chips, bread and cakes. Some of the best practices to improve their productivity and quality are:  Adopting improved varieties that are high-yielding, drought-tolerant, disease-resistant and suitable for local preferences and markets.  Applying appropriate amounts and types of fertilizers to enhance soil fertility and crop nutrition.  Practicing integrated pest management (IPM) to control pests and diseases that affect maize and cassava.  Practice of intercropping will increase the farmers' income. For example, growing legumes like soybean or beans in the Maize field or in the Cassava field will give more income, and legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen in soil and help to increase the yield of maize or Cassava. Rice: Rice is another staple food crop that has a high demand in West Africa, but the region currently imports about 70 percent of what it consumes. By increasing their rice production and quality, small farmers can reduce their dependence on imports and tap into the lucrative domestic and regional markets. Rice can also be processed into products such as noodles, crackers and puffed rice. Some of the best practices to improve rice production are:  Adopting improved rice varieties that are adapted to different agro-ecological zones and have desirable traits such as high yield, drought tolerance, pest resistance and good grain quality  By following "System of Rice Intensification” , (SRI) is the latest technology to increase the Rice yield by 35 -40% more, by spending lesser money on seed ,fertilizer, pesticides, labor and less water .  Implementing good agricultural practices (GAP) that optimize rice yield and quality. GAP includes land preparation (bunding and leveling), crop establishment (sowing time and method), weed management (manual or mechanical weeding), fertilizer management, water management (irrigation or rainfed) and harvest management.  Improving post-harvest operations to reduce losses and maintain the quality of rice. Post-harvest operations include threshing, drying, cleaning, parboiling, milling and storage.

Sorghum and millet: These are two important cereals for food security in the Sahel region, where they are consumed as porridge, couscous, bread, and beer. Sorghum and millet have low water requirements and can withstand drought and high temperatures, making them suitable for the changing climate. Some of the best practices to enhance sorghum and millet production are:  Adopting improved sorghum and millet varieties that have higher yield potential, better adaptation to harsh environments, and higher resistance to pests and diseases.  Applying adequate amounts of organic or inorganic fertilizers to improve soil fertility and crop nutrition.  Practicing integrated Striga management (ISM) to control the parasitic weed that affects sorghum and millet production. ISM involves combining different methods such as crop rotation, intercropping, resistant varieties, soil fertility improvement, Striga seed destruction, and herbicide application.

Tropical fruits and vegetables: These include mangoes, pineapples, bananas, plantains, papayas, avocados, tomatoes, onions, peppers, okra, and leafy greens. They have a high nutritional value and are in strong demand in local and regional markets, especially in urban areas. They can also be exported to international markets if they meet quality and safety standards. Tropical fruits and vegetables can be processed into products such as juices, jams, sauces, dried fruits, and pickles, which can increase their shelf life and value. Some of the best practices to improve tropical fruit and vegetable production are:  Adopting improved varieties or cultivars of tropical fruits and vegetables that have high yield, good quality, pest and disease resistance, and consumer preference  Implementing good agricultural practices (GAP) that ensure the safety and quality of tropical fruits and vegetables. GAP includes site selection (avoiding contaminated soils and water sources), crop management (using certified seeds or planting materials, applying fertilizers and pesticides judiciously), harvest management (harvesting at optimal maturity, using clean tools and containers), and traceability (keeping records of production activities).  Applying appropriate post-harvest handling techniques to reduce losses and maintain the quality of tropical fruits and vegetables. Post-harvest handling techniques include sorting, grading, washing, trimming, peeling, slicing, packaging, cooling, storage and transportation. Proper post-harvest handling can prevent physical damage, microbial contamination, enzymatic browning, water loss and ripening of tropical fruits and vegetables.

Cashew nuts and sesame: These are two emerging niche products that have a high potential for export growth in West Africa. Cashew nuts are rich in protein and healthy fats, and they are used as snacks, ingredients and oil. Sesame is a versatile crop that can be used as food, feed and oil. Both cashew nuts and sesame have a growing demand in Asia, Europe, and North America. They can also be processed into products such as butter, paste, candy and flour.

Some of the best practices to improve cashew production are:  Adopting improved cashew varieties that have high yield potential, good nut quality, pest and disease resistance, and adaptation to different agro-ecological zones.  Implementing good agricultural practices (GAP) that ensure the health and productivity of cashew trees. GAP include site selection (avoiding waterlogged or saline soils), planting density (10 x 10 m or 12 x 8 m), pruning (removing dead, diseased or crossing branches), fertilization (applying organic or inorganic fertilizers according to soil test results), pest and disease management (using integrated pest management or IPM strategies), and harvest management (picking ripe nuts from the ground).  Improving post-harvest handling and processing of cashew nuts to reduce losses and maintain quality. Post-harvest handling and processing include sorting, drying, shelling, peeling, grading, packaging, storage and transportation. Proper post-harvest handling and processing can prevent damage from moisture, fungi, insects and rodents, as well as enhance the appearance, taste and nutritional value of cashew nuts.

Some of the best practices to enhance sesame production are:  Adopting improved sesame varieties that have higher yield potential, better oil quality, weed competitiveness and market preference.  Implementing good agricultural practices (GAP) that optimize sesame yield and quality. GAP include land preparation (ploughing and harrowing), crop, weed management (manual or mechanical weeding at 2-3 weeks after sowing), fertilizer, pest and disease management, and harvest management (harvesting when 75% of capsules are ripe).  Improving post-harvest operations to reduce losses and maintain quality of sesame seeds. Post-harvest operations include threshing, winnowing, cleaning, drying, storage and marketing. Proper post-harvest operations can prevent damage from shattering, moisture, impurities and adulteration.

Produce value-added products Small farmers and Farmers cooperatives can increase their revenue with the following products: Dried fruits and vegetables: Drying is a simple and low-cost method of preserving fruits and vegetables that are abundant in certain seasons. Dried fruits and vegetables can be sold as snacks, ingredients, or animal feed. They have a longer shelf life and can be transported easily. Some examples of dried fruits and vegetables are mangoes, bananas, pineapples, tomatoes, onions, and peppers. Honey and beeswax: Beekeeping is a sustainable and profitable activity that can be done by small farmers with minimal land and resources. Honey and beeswax are valuable products that have many uses in food, medicine, cosmetics, and candles. Honey and beeswax can also help pollinate crops and improve biodiversity. Herbs and spices: Herbs and spices are plants that have aromatic or flavorful properties that can enhance the taste and quality of food. They can also have medicinal or nutritional benefits. Herbs and spices can be grown in small spaces, such as pots, containers, or gardens. They can be sold fresh, dried, or processed into oils, teas, or powders. Some examples of herbs and spices are basil, mint, rosemary, turmeric, ginger, and pepper.

Direct sales to Cut Out the Middleman Many small farmers in West Africa rely on middlemen for the sale of their agricultural products. One possible way to avoid middlemen is to form or join a farmer cooperative that can directly sell their products to exporters or processors. This can help them get better prices, access to finance, inputs, and training, and reduce the risks of fraud and corruption.

Branding strategy Keep your branding simple. Small farmers and farmer cooperatives often have limited resources, so it is important to keep their branding simple. This means using clear and concise language, avoiding too much visual clutter, and using consistent branding elements across all marketing materials. Use social media. Social media is a powerful tool for small farmers and farmer cooperatives to connect with their customers and promote their products or services. By creating engaging content and using targeted advertising, small farmers and farmer cooperatives can reach a wide audience with their branding message. Partner with other organizations. Partnering with other organizations can help small farmers and farmer cooperatives to reach a wider audience and gain access to new markets. For example, small farmers can partner with food processing companies to produce value-added products, or they can partner with export companies to export their products to international markets. Use visual branding elements that can be easily understood. This could include using symbols, icons, or pictures to represent your brand. For example, you could use a logo that shows the name of your cooperative and an image of your main product, such as cocoa beans or coffee beans. Use branding messages that can be easily communicated verbally. In countries with a strong oral tradition, it is important to use branding messages that can be easily communicated verbally. This could include using simple language and avoiding jargon. For example, you could use a slogan that summarizes the benefits of your product or service, such as “Quality cocoa from West Africa” or “Fresh coffee from our farms”.

In conclusion, West Africa has a great potential to develop its agricultural and agrifood sector, but it also faces many challenges that hinder its growth. This article has discussed how small farmers can overcome these challenges by focusing on profitable crops, producing value-added products, and branding their products. These strategies can help small farmers increase their revenues, improve their livelihoods, and contribute to the food security and economic development of their region. Therefore, it is important to support small farmers in West Africa by providing them with adequate resources, training, and market access. This will enable them to harness their potential and achieve sustainable development.

I hope you enjoyed reading this post and learned something new and useful from it. If you did, please share it with your friends and colleagues who might be interested in Agriculture and Agribusiness.

Illustration Photo: Women buying cassava from farmers in a local farmers' market at Onipepeye area, Ibadan Nigeria (credits: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture / Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0)

Read the full article by clicking here https://dekoholding.com/dekoposts/6HoFFc2TuJ3hxPq5t/how-small-farmers-in-west-africa-can-boost-their-revenues/dekonews

[rhaenys-queenofkhyrulzz]

Discuss the view that the Maya demonstrated an advanced level of economic organisation when compared to the Taino.

In examining ancient civilizations of Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, two prominent groups are the Maya and Taino respectively. As people settled in the Yucatan Peninsula since 1800 BC, the Maya were able to establish an advanced society with high economic organisation when compared to the semi-nomadic Taino who, in contrast, were unable to achieve the same level of economic advancement. This essay seeks to evaluate six aspects of the Mayan and Taino economies to demonstrate that the former achieved superior advancement in trade, various cultivation methods, division of labour and craft.

To commence, the Mayans’ strongest economic activity was their Trade, successful both internally and externally, in part due to their highly developed roads and the fact that they had external trade on a larger scale. According to Foster, inter-territorial trade was the norm between Mayan city states as each one monopolised the production of a certain commodity in accordance with their resources (Foster, 2002). As a result, there was a greater variety of Mayan goods available including crops such as beans, squash and pumpkins in addition to manufactured goods like pottery. Evidence also shows that external trade existed with the Aztecs (Thomas, 1995). Conversely, the Taino practised subsistence farming. As they drew most of their resources from the land, trade was not on as large a scale as that of the Maya. However, it did exist. The Taino preferred to engage in external trade between the islands using large canoes. According to Campbell and Cateau, the Taino trade consisted mainly of tools, textiles, pottery and basketry with some surplus food. Thus, both groups traded pottery and textiles and made a special type of intoxicating drink, but whereas the Maya deliberately produced crops and manufactured goods for trade, the Taino only grew what was necessary for survival and sold their surplus. 

Additionally, both groups developed methods of cultivation. For the Maya, producing food in abundance like maize, manioc and beans was a necessity to feed their large population. Accordingly, the entire success of the Mayan civilization truly rested on the peasants’ crops. (Claypole and Robottom). As peasants were the ones tasked with growing food, they had to deal with seasonal flooding, droughts and changes in soil quality. Hence, various agricultural practices emerged. In contrast, the Taino relied on few agricultural practices due to their nomadic nature. Their focus was not on promoting longevity for a single plot of land but rather what practices would provide them with the necessary produce in the shortest period. 

Firstly, the Maya created Milpa cultivation wherein they planted maize, beans and squash on the same plot. These crops replaced the nutrients the other absorbed from the soil and provided shade and trellises for the others to thrive. However, the land was left fallow after two years of annual crop rotation (Mesoamerican Research Centre). The Taino equivalent to this practice was conuco farming which was specially devised. The conuco was a large mound packed with leaves to prevent soil erosion and improve drainage. Crops like cassava and sweet potato were raised within them so that they could grow regardless of the weather condition. Both methods of intercropping were sustainable since nutrients returned to the soil and soil erosion was prevented. Though Milpas required more land, conucos increased the surface area of the land through the formation of knee-high mounds, thus effectively overcoming the Taino’s problem of limited space in the highlands. 

Secondly, the Mayans implemented Swidden agriculture mainly to grow maize. In this practice, fields are burnt and cleared, the trees are left to dry and then burnt, and the resulting ash is used as a natural fertiliser (Hammond, 1987). Swidden agriculture is thought to contribute to the overall health of ecosystems in the area because the fallow period returns nutrients to the soil. On the other hand, the Taino simply used the slash and burn method. The cultivation area was burned and abandoned after each harvest and the people moved on to a more fertile area. Although both groups established a similar method of slash and burn, the Mayans were able to carry out this task in a more sophisticated and controlled manner. The Mayans delegated fire managers to oversee the controlled low-temperature burning unlike the Tainos. This ensured that no uncontrolled wildfires caused unnecessary destruction, also demonstrating the Mayans’ respect for the environment. Another factor which proved the Mayan advancement over the Tainos was that they used biochar to return nutrients to the soil and prevent the need for additional fertilisers. Therefore, it can be stated that Mayan Swidden was an advanced sustainable practice while the Taino slash and burn was not. 

Furthermore, the Mayans engaged in three distinct agricultural practices for which the Taino had no or very little equivalent. They are raised fields, arboriculture and terracing. The Maya lowlands were distinguished by tropical rainforests which were often impenetrable and poor in soil quality (Sanders). The Mayans were able to utilise swampy lowlands areas to create raised fields by shaping the mud two to four feet above surrounding water canals. These canals also allowed them to practise aquaculture and form extremely inventive and efficient irrigation systems. In this way, they were able to manipulate the land around them and increase their land space, enabling them to support their large population. The Tainos had no need to undertake such a venture as they could choose where to settle. Moreover, the Maya discovered arboriculture; a sustainable method of exploitation. They specially planted trees to exploit their timber and use for food, spices, craft, construction materials, binding (resin) and for heating and fuel. The Tainos mainly used trees for canoe building. However, they did not use them in a sustainable manner. The Maya, in contrast, farmed in a more scientific way and always planted trees after exploitation, thinking of the future. Equally notable, both groups engaged in terracing. Though the Tainos did so on a smaller scale than the Mayans because they lacked adequate hilly landscape, living on the coasts as they did. When the Mayans practised terracing, it was a very sustainable system. By cutting steps into the mountainside, it reduced the speed of water run-off and increased the surface area for cultivation. Evidently, the Mayans engaged in more advanced methods of cultivation as they had to provide for a much larger population and could not continuously move to new land once they exhausted the resources of the initial area.

Apart from this, the division of labour in both societies shows the Mayans’ advancement. In regards to agriculture, most of the labour was performed by the lower class in Taino society. Men felled the trees, cleared and ploughed the land. Women were in charge of maintaining crops, planting seedlings and reaping crops. Women engaged in more agriculture since the Taino believed they were more suited to the task due to their reproductive systems. Amongst the Mayans, men were hunters and women worked the milpa, prepared food, tended the animals, raised the children and wove the clothing. In both Taino and Mayan society, the lower classes undertook tasks of manual labour whilst the upper class took roles of leadership. Though one key difference remained. Apart from agriculture, in the Mayan civilization, the greater level of stratification led to the presence of a separate merchant class. The Ppolms risked their lives for trade and acted as spies in times of war, thus rendering them vital to the survival of the empire (Milles, 1999). The Taino had no such class. Thus, the Maya had further economic advancement due to the presence of a merchant class. 

In addition, the Mayans showed further economic advancement via the establishment of their thriving manufacturing and craft industry. The Mayans purposefully manufactured goods for trade. Their industry flourished in salt, metallurgy, baskets, textiles, jewellery, chocolate, cotton and tools (Foster, 2002). This allowed for new occupations to emerge. As people were no longer confined to being farmers, there was a chance for upward social mobility. To facilitate this trade, huge city markets were established in temple cities. Mayan women developed the art of making feather costumes for soldiers and the nobility. Priests also wore bright feather coats and costumes. As well as basketry, rope making was very important to the Maya as it was needed in the building industry for men to pull huge rocks and mortar into position. Pottery was well developed and clay dishes and jars were sold on a large scale. Balanced against the Maya, the Taino could not call their craft trade an industry. While they too engaged in weaving hammocks, basketry and pottery, these were all basic household items and food storage items necessary for subsistence. In sum, the Mayans had higher economic advancement that the Taino due to their craft trade being on a large enough scale to be considered an industry.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the Maya demonstrated an advanced level of economic organisation when compared to the Taino. This is due to their superior advancement in trade as it was conducted on a much larger scale both internally and externally. Also, the Maya had superior cultivation methods such as Milpas, Swidden and terracing and were more innovative to implement arboriculture and raised fields—two methods for which the Taino had no equivalent. Finally, their advancement includes the presence of a merchant class and the establishment of a craft industry.

Free essay anyone?

I'm feeling to post a 1500 word essay on the Mayan Economic advancement over the Taino. (Dear God how will I ever write that much in 40 minutes)

[foodjusticeisus]

American Indigenous Knowledge and Agricultural Practices

Indigenous Americans are broken into communities, or tribes, and span the entirety of Turtle Island, or North America. Due to the different regions in the United States specifically, these tribes used varying modes of subsistence, in accordance with what was available to them and what they had traditionally been accustomed to. Many Indigenous Americans were hunters and gatherers, such as the Plains Indians who migrated along large mammals like bison and caribou, and gathered other foods along the way. Examples of these groups were the Lakotas, Crows, and Blackfoot, who would trade the buffalo meat and hide they caught with Plains Indians that did more crop cultivation to sustain themselves, often trading the meat and hide for vegetables. Some of these tribes include the Mandas and Hidatsas, who cultivated crops like corn, beans, and squash. They and the Pawnees, another village-based Plains Indian tribe, used the floodplain terraces of the region for their croplands. Women were the ones who cleared the land, planted, and harvested crops. [Source].

Figure: Lakota People.

Figure: Crow Person.

Figure: Blackfoot People.

Figure: Mandan People.

Figure: Drawing of Hidatsa Person.

Figure: Pawnee People.

For the Northern tribes like the Inuit, their primary subsistence method was hunting and fishing. Other fishing tribes included the Tlingit and Salish, who would catch fish or marine mammals. [Source] Farming was mostly done by Southern tribes, such as the Hopi, Navajo, and Cherokee. Some of the Indigenous agricultural strategies included terracing, crop rotation, irrigation, and planting windbreaks (such as trees). [Source]  Seed selections and plant varieties were developed in accordance with the climatic conditions of that region. Indigenous Americans often cleared land near streambeds or within floodplains, to obtain the best conditions for growing. [Source] Native farmers generally employed crop rotation or used plants in another strategic way that let them get away with not using organic matter for fertilizer. East of the Rocky Mountains, farmers maintained field fertility using crops like beans, which they planted on the same hill as the maize in order to restore nitrogen to the soil. They often mineralized nutrients into the soil by slashing and burning, which also acted as a weeding technique. Areas that were exhausted after long-term cultivation were often abandoned, and left to be restored by nature over time. [Source]

Figure: Inuit People.

Figure: Tlingit People.

Figure: Salish People.

Figure: Hopi People.

Figure: Navajo People.

Figure: Cherokee People.

Duties within Indigenous food systems were gendered, but everyone had their role to play. As explained before, women did the clearing of the land, planting, and harvesting for some Plains tribes, but east of the Mississippi River, it was the men who prepared the soil, while the women planted, weeded, and harvested crops. Outside of the Southwest, women domesticated plants, cultivated crops, and controlled use of the land. Women in Southwestern tribes did not typically control the land, outside of the Hopi, whose women inherited land through a matrilineal system. [Source]

Indigenous Americans are highly praised for their knowledge of their ecosystems, and harmony with their environment. They practiced something called intercropping, instead of the European traditional row-cropping. This was done in accordance with their climatic and subsistence needs, but was also beneficial to diversity, nutrient content of soil, weed suppression, and a reduced susceptibility to disease, since the same crop types were not all kept together. Indigenous Americans, while causing changes to land through disturbance and use, were able to keep healthy ways of living that left their people with food, shelter, and community for thousands of years. Their knowledge is necessary to be sought, credited, and intentionally utilized if we are to regain control of our food systems to ensure that members of our society are healthy, with food, shelter, and community. We must also engage in Indigenous knowledge and practice such that food justice is enacted in every corner of this country, and that we can continue to provide for ourselves and our communities in a sustainable way. [Source]

[lupine-publishers-sjfn]

Lupine Publishers | Structural Mapping of Beans (Cowpea) Marketers in Imo State, Nigeria

Lupine Publishers | Scholarly Journal of Food and Nutrition

Abstract

The study is on structural Mapping of beans (cowpea) marketers in Imo state, Nigeria. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were employed to select twenty- four (24) wholesalers and forty-two (42) retailers. Descriptive statistics, marketing margin analytical technique and Gini coefficient analytical technique were used to analyze the data collected. Results and Conclusion showed that majority of the beans traders were males, within the age range of 31-40 years, literate, married and have acquired marketing experience which ranges from 11-20 years. Beans’ marketing in the study area has two main channels, the major channel starts with the producers (beans farmer) to rural assembler, wholesalers, retailers and final consumer. The Gini coefficients for wholesalers and retailers were 0.663 and 0.656 respectively indicating inequality in the distribution of the traders. This also shows that the market structure for beans in the study area is imperfectly competitive.

Keywords: Structural; Organization; Beans (Cowpea); Marketers; Imo State

Introduction

Agriculture has been the backbone in the growth and development of many developing countries. It is a major sub-sector and has emerged to have a great importance in the development of economic sector of many developing countries including Nigeria. From the economic standpoint, according to [1] agricultural sub-sector has contributed profusely, constituting about 56.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) with 23% from crop production, employing about 70% labour force and providing over 80% of the food consumed in the country. The expansion of agriculture in Nigeria has greatly resulted to an increasing employment rate, foreign exchange rate and food security thereby elevating the standard of living of the populace [2]. Similarly, [3] also reported agriculture as a key driver to national survival, unemployment, food and foreign exchange earnings. However, the contribution of agriculture to Nigeria economy declined to 36.2% in [2] which was due to problem of flooding and other weather-related problems which adversely affected crop production and drastically brought down agricultural productivity in many part of the country [1,4]As a result, it is essential to resuscitate and heighten agricultural production in Nigeria specifically in the area of crop production to meet the appreciating demand for grains and leguminous crops and further ensure continual food supply to the growing population especially in the rural areas where income generation and livelihood heavily depend on agriculture, hence the ultimate goal of food security and sustainability can be attained. Beans (vigna unguiculata) are grains that are rich in protein source, consumed around the globe.it is a leguminous plant protein crop with protein content of 23%, rich in vitamins and minerals. According to [5] beans were introduced in the world mainly in the west and central Africa through slave trade and grow in tropical and sub-tropical area of the world [6]. It is cultivated in Nigeria mainly from its seed; [7] also reported that beans are essential staple food crop produced mainly for domestic consumption and animal feed. However; its role cannot be overemphasized. It is a cover crop commonly known for its capacity of improving and repairing soil fertility by converting atmospheric nitrogen through its root nodules to soil nitrogen which is in turn used up by plants.

This makes it able to strive well in poor and deteriorated soil. It is also intercropped with other crops such as maize, millet, sorghum in order to improve their yield. According to Muimui beans play a very important role in improving the livelihood of rural farmers by providing a source of income adding to its role to food and nutrition security. Market structure demonstrate the interrelated behavior of a market, such as the number and related strength of buyers and sellers, degree of freedom in determining the price, level and forms of competition, extent of product differentiation and ease of entry into and exit from market. The fundamental component of the structure conduct and performance (SCP) model described by [8] is the market structure. [9] also defined market structure as those features of the organization which seems to impact strategically the nature of competition and pricing within the market. [10] identified those factors considered to be of importance in determining the market structure of a product as the degree of product differentiation, the ease of entry and exit of the buyers and sellers into and out of the market and the status of knowledge about cost, price and market conditions among the participants in the market. The structure a market exhibits can be used to classify it based on the types of market structure that exist which includes perfect competition, monopolistic, oligopolistic and pure monopoly. Nigeria is currently the largest producers of beans in the world, yet, the demand for beans in Nigeria is running a domestic supply deficit of 518400 metric tons per year [11]. Moreover, expansion in beans production and marketing is hindered by inadequate research, poor information and record keeping which encourages weak production and distribution of beans in Nigeria. This is in line with [12] who reveals that Farmers usually accept lower prices for their products because of inadequate market information and capital to expand their beans production and access major markets for their produce. Beans marketing have a plethora of issues surrounding its prevalence, these necessitate the various research questions aimed to proffer solutions that can increase the organization of structure of beans marketing in Imo state Nigeria; the following research questions guided the study

a) What are the socioeconomic characteristics of beans marketers in Imo state?

b) What is the concentration of beans wholesalers and retailers in the study area?

c) What is the mapping of beans marketing channels in the study area? Therefore, this study aims at examining the structural mapping of beans marketers in the study area with the following specific objectives

a) Examine the socioeconomic characteristics of beans marketers in the study area.

b) Assess the organization of beans marketing in the study area through the channels

c) Ascertain the structural identity of beans marketing through the seller concentration.

Material and Methods

The study was conducted in Imo state, the state is situated in the South Eastern part of Nigeria. The state is divided into three agricultural zones which are Okigwe, Orlu and Owerri and consists of twenty-seven (27) local government areas [13] It lies within the latitude 40451N and 70151N and longitude 60501E and 70 251E with land area of about 5,100km2 (National Bureau of Statistics, 2014). It is bordered by Abia state on the East, River Niger and Delta state on the West, by Anambra State to the North and Rivers State to the South. It has an annual rainfall varying from 1,500mm to 2,200mm, an average annual temperature above 20oC and an annual relative humidity of 75% with humidity reaching 90% in rainy season. The estimated population is 4.8 million and the population density varies from 230-1,400 per square kilometer. The main occupation in Imo state is trading, civil service and agriculture [13]. The zonal main market was purposively selected due to relative high concentration of marketing activities and beans trade in these markets. These include owerri main market, orlu main market and okigwe main market.

From each zone, one rural LGA was randomly selected. In each of the rural LGAs, a major market was selected for the study, making it three (3) urban and three (3) rural markets to arrive at a total of six (6) markets. In each of the urban markets 6 beans wholesalers and 6 beans retailers were randomly selected. This gives 24 wholesalers and 24 retailers from the urban markets. From the rural markets, 6 retailers were randomly selected, giving 18 retailers on the whole. Therefore, this research was carried out using 24 wholesalers and 42 retailers (24 urban and 18 rural retailers) to give a total of 66 respondents for the study. Primary data was used for the study and it was obtained through the use of a structured questionnaire which was administered and retrieved from to 62 respondents. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistic, marketing margin analytical technique and Gini analytical technique. Gini coefficient is used to determine the market concentration of sellers in the market. It can be computed using the formula: G.C = 1 -ΣXY

Where, G = Gini coefficient

X = Percentage share of each class of seller.

Y = Cumulative percentage of the sales

The Gini coefficient ranges from zero to one. A perfect equality in concentration (low) of sellers is expected if Gini coefficient tends toward zero, while perfect inequality in concentration (high) of sellers is expected, if Gini coefficient tends towards one. This was also used by [1].

Results and Conclusion

The result of socioeconomic characteristics presented in Table 1 above reveal that majority (72%) of the pooled beans traders were males, in the wholesaler category, 75% of the traders were male while 71% of the retailers were male and falls within the age range of 31-40 years which are referred to as economically active and usually self-motivated and innovative. The male involvement in beans marketing implies that beans marketing is vigorous and impose a lot of risks such as risk of travelling a long distance to the northern part in search of beans and as such may defer female participation in wholesale marketing considering their feminine nature and their significant role in home-keeping and child care. The response on their level of educational attainment shows that majority (67%) of the wholesaler, (60%) of the retailers and (62%) of the pooled beans traders has spent 7-12 years in school with the mean years of 12years and 11 years for wholesalers and retailers respectively. This implies that most of the bean’s traders are literate and are enlightened and can easily adopt innovative ideas that will enhance their performance and efficiency in carrying out their marketing activities. This is in line with the opinion of [14] that an educated marketer is in a better position for more investments and rational decisions for increased income than an uneducated one. The results in Table1 also revealed marketing experience of the beans marketers, it was indicated that about 42% of the wholesalers, 48% of the retailers and 45% of the pooled traders had been in beans marketing. The mean marketing experience was 8years and 9 years for wholesalers and retailers respectively. This implies that beans marketers have gained a rational knowledge in marketing which will enable them to manage their business more effectively while maximizing profit. The table showed that majority of the bean’s marketers were married, this could be attributed to the fact that married trader have more responsibility to cater for and also have free supply of family labor. The traders in the study area were found to belong to their trade/co-operative association, essence being to help them pool their resources together and purchase in bulk and also gain access to credit facilities to enable them to expand their businesses.

Marketing Channels for Beans

(Figure 1) Marketing Channels for Beans Marketing in the study area Pp= Purchase price, Sp= Selling Price, TMC = Total Marketing Cost, GM= Gross Margin, NM= Net Margin Source: Field Survey data, 2019. The result in the diagram above shows detailed marketing channels for beans. The first stage in the marketing channels starts with the major channel which is the producers (beans farmer) who sell to the rural assembler in the production area or in the local market [15]. The rural assembler then assemble the produce and sell to the wholesalers who normally comes from distant place to purchase the product, they normally purchase in large quantity from different rural assemblers and sell in small quantities to retailers who are normally traders, they are those retailers who sell to consumers and some of the local processors of moimoi and Akara. The minor channel is where the wholesalers sell their produce directly to consumers. This normally happened in the urban markets where beans processors directly purchase from the wholesalers as soon as they arrive from the Northern States where beans are purchased. The direct linkage between the producers and consumers is non-existent and not feasible because of the high market risks and financial requirement involved in purchasing it from the producers in the North.

Market concentration for beans marketers in the study area

In Table 2 (a), it was shown that total sales of the sampled wholesalers was 54.75 metric tons and only 25% of them (wholesalers) sold a total of 35.47 metric tons representing 64.78% of the total beans sold by the wholesalers in the area while the majority of the wholesalers (75%) sold only 19.29 metric tons (35.22%) of the total beans marketers. It shows that only few traders (in this case 25%) can significantly influence the beans wholesale trade. The Gini coefficient for wholesalers was 0.663 which is higher than 0.35 that illustrates market equality. This indicates level of inequality of 0.663 among the distribution of the wholesalers [16]. This implies that there is 66.3% inequality in size distribution of wholesalers’ concentration. Thus, the market is 66.3% less competitive (Imperfect). In other words there is low level of competition in the wholesale beans market; it was found that there are few marketers who engaged in wholesale marketing because of the large investment of capital required and the marketing risk associated with travelling, sourcing and assembling of beans from different markets of Northern States. These few wholesalers could influence supplies by increasing or decreasing the quantity marketed. In other words, few wholesalers’ share was significant part of volume of trade in the market such that it could affect the market price which would invariably lead to market imperfection. In Table 2(b), it was shown that total sales of the sampled retailer was 14.35 metric tons, only 4.76% of the retailer sold 28.30% (4.06 metric tons) of the beans marketed, 28.51% of the retailers sold 19.81% (2.84) of the beans marketed, 14.28% of the retailers sold 14.50% (2.08 metric tons) of the beans marketed and 7.14% of the retailers sold 11.92% (1.71 metric tons) of the beans marketed. The Gini coefficient for retailers was 0.656 which is higher than 0.35 that illustrates market equality. This indicates level of inequality of 0.656 among the distribution of the retailers. This implies that there is 65.6% inequality in size distribution of retailer’s concentration thus, the market is 65.6% less competitive (imperfect) [17].

Conclusion

From the findings, it could be deduced that beans marketing is male dominated having majority of them in wholesaling than in retailing and are still at their active age. The beans move from the producers through the local assemblers, wholesalers, retailers and then to the final consumers. The market structure of beans in the study area is imperfectly competitive; this is because the Gini coefficient of the wholesalers and retailers were 0.663 and 0.656 respectively which is categorized as imperfectly competitive of oligopolistic market. This could be due to high level of inequality in the distribution of the traders resulting from existing market barriers to free entry and exist to the market, High initial capital requirement, risks associated with wholesale marketing and market skills

 https://lupinepublishers.com/food-and-nutri-journal/fulltext/structural-mapping-of-beans-cowpea-marketers-in-imo-state-nigeria.ID.000130.php

For more Lupine Publishers Open Access Journals Please visit our website: https://twitter.com/lupine_online

For more Food And Nutrition Please Click

Here: https://lupinepublishers.com/food-and-nutri-journal/

To Know more Open Access Publishers Click on Lupine Publishers

Follow on Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/lupinepublishers Follow on Twitter   :  https://twitter.com/lupine_online

[farmerstrend]

How Climate Change is Reshaping Farming in Kenya’s Nyandarua and Laikipia Counties

Discover how climate change is reshaping farming in Nyandarua and Laikipia Counties. Learn how farmers are adapting with intercropping, staggered planting, and drought-resistant crops to combat unpredictable weather. Kenyan farmers are abandoning traditional planting calendars due to erratic rainfall. Find out how this shift impacts food security, pest control, and local agricultural trade in…

[annieboltonworld]

Juniper Publishers-Open Access Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources

Forage Production Potential of Maize Cowpea Intercropping In Maichew-Southern Tigray, Ethiopia

Authored by Abraha Negash

Abstract

Needless to mention the ever increasing pressure on cultivated land for food & commercial crops, diminishing the area for forage production. RCBD five treatments with three replications experiment compared maize grown as sole crop with maize-cowpea intercropped to assess agronomic, nutritional and economic returns of forage production. Average plant performance ranged 122.85-174.19cm maize plant height; 20.7-26.4cm ear length, & number of leaves/maize plant was 9.13-10.52. The effect of intercropping treatments on maize forage yield was significant (P<0.05), however, there was no significant difference in grain yield among the cropping systems though T5 yielded higher and higher 100 maize grains weight followed by T4 yield and 21.74g average 100 maize grain weight; T3 (3.05ton/ha) and 21.84g average 100 maize seeds and the least in yield was actually the sole maize T2 (2.24ton/ha), confirming that intercropping has at least, some scenario better than sole cropping practices. There was no significant soil NPK effect pre-sowing and postharvest. Nutritionally, feed quality of maize parts was significant difference among the intercropping systems that stated in their descending value of cowpea hay, as follows: NDF (T3>T1>T5>T4); ADF (T1>T5>T3>T4) and typical in CP. lignin content (T1>T5>T4>T3), while IVDMD% (T3>T4>T5>T1). NDF content was significantly higher in maize stem and least in grain. Maize husk significantly over dominated in ADF content than stem, leaf and grain in descending order. ADF content was great significant in the entire parts that maize husk has higher than stem which exceeds leaf. Grain was the least in ADF content of all maize parts. Similarly, maize stem was significantly higher in lignin than husk, leaf and grain. LER was 1.45 in the mixtures indicating yield advantage over sole crops. T4 has the potential for enhancing cowpea and maize performances. Favorable seasons for better DM yield and chemical composition of both crops should be researched.

Keywords: Maichew; Forage; Maize-Cowpea Intercropping; Yield; Chemical Composition

Introduction

Background and Justification

Farming systems in most Africa is under serious threat due to increasing population growth and environmental degradation. The difficulty has highlighted the need to take an overall view of land management that is not limited only to livestock & crop production systems but also includes the need to conserve natural resources [1,2]. Currently, arable farming is expanding at the expense of traditional grazing land. This is putting pressure on grazing resources resulting inadequate feed resource for livestock both in terms of quality and quantity [3,4]. Belete [5] also reported that production increases resulted from expanding cultivated area not from increasing yield, despite the fact that the land frontier, especially in the highlands, has shrunk. Under these situations, development of integrated forage-cereal-livestock systems offers method of accommodating & improving crop - livestock production systems [6,7]. Although farmers often appreciate the need for fertilizer inputs, the demand isn’t effective due to high prices, insecure supplies, and in some cases because farmers have a high aversion to the risks associated with food production in marginal agroclimatic &socioeconomic conditions. Fertilizer prices at farm gate are also excessively high due to thin markets, lack of domestic production capacity, poorly developed infrastructure, and inefficient production systems [8].

Statement of the Problem

90% of animal feed supply is expected from natural range. This however, is available in marshy areas, rift-valleys, mountain scarves which are also diminished from time to time because of overstocking, overgrazing, and frequent droughts. Due to ever increasing pressure on cultivated land for food and commercial crops, it may not be possible to increase the area for forage production [9]. Integration gap in livestock-crop interactions created problems facing forage development in Ethiopia acting bottleneck to livestock productivity [10]. Growing of forage legumes intercropping enables to use the small farm land for both crop and feed production. The system offers a potential for increasing fodder without appreciable reduction of grain production.

Objectives of the Study

a) To evaluate effect of maize and cowpea mixtures on the agronomic practice.

b) To determine impact of intercropping on nutritional content of the crop parts.

c) To assess forage production potential of maize and cowpea intercropping on economic returns.

Materials and Methods

Description of the Study Area

The research was conducted in Maichew ATVET farm land, from July 20- December 30, 2011, located at 12° 47’ N latitude 39° 32’ E longitude, 2450m.a.s.l. It has 600-800mm rainfall, 12-24oC temperature, and 80% relative humidity. The hottest months are April-June with average 22.92°C; whereas the coldest months are November- January with 12.47°C on average. The district is situated about 120 km south of Mekelle city, North of Ethiopia. In the highland mixed crop- livestock farming system, maize, wheat, normal barley, 6 row barley (“Abiy-ekli”), Teff, pulses such as dekoko, chickpea, vetch, beans and peas are the main cash crops in the zone. Despite the mountainous terrain which limits availability of cultivable land, the combination of fertile soils, adequate rainfall and suitable temperatures produce good yields which make this zone food sufficient comparatively.

Experimental Design and Treatments

Five treatments (two monocultures and three mixtures of maize & cowpea) were included in the experiment with a proportion; 1C:1M for T4, 1C:2M for T5 and 2C:1M for T3 and sole crops of cowpea (T1) and maize (T2) included as check to compare yields of intercropped mixtures. The experimental design was RCBD with three replications. The treatments included seed proportions as follows 144:0 (100% cowpea), 0:144 (100% maize), 96:48 (67% cowpea: 37% maize), 72:72 (50% cowpea: 50% maize) and 48:96 (33% cowpea: 67% maize). The land was ploughed and ridged then divided into 15 plots (3.6m x5.4m= 19.44 m2 each) and 1m plot spacing, in 18.2m *22m= 400.4m2 leveled total area. Frost damaged the cowpea forage on 26th December 2011 night that Maichew meteorological station recorded -10c, after 10% pod formation and early blooming. Based on the indigenous knowledge practices of the surroundings, the research maize (Katumani/Beletech) termed “Arkib or Fetino” for its fast growing yellowish small sized deemed as reliable in the late on set and early cessation rainfall pattern and Cowpea, the multipurpose legume was supposed to minimize the cost of production for fertilizer under nitrogen-limiting conditions and under water-limiting conditions, so that the requirements for maintenance of high intercrop maize yields can be defined.

Sampling Procedure, Data Collection, and Analysis: Soil sample collected diagonally from the middle 3 rows of the plot for both pre-sowing (surface level during bed preparation) and post harvest (from roots of the crops). Laboratory analysis for soil and plant NPK was conducted using wet chemistry technique while DM and Fiber contents using NIRS. Dry oven used to determine plant DM% and other chemical analysis in 65oC for 24 hours and to analyze soil NPKs in 105oC for 24 hours. Fresh matter yield was estimated from harvesting herbage from 3.6m x5.4m quadrant in the central rows of each plot. The dried composite forage and grain samples from each treatment were milled to pass via a 1mm sieve for targeted analysis. Maize and cowpea forages as well as maize grain quality were determined in terms of percentage: - NPKs, CP, Ash, DM, ADF, NDF, ADL, IVDMD and soil NPK analysis. Yields were assessed based on intercropping indices as measures ratio of individual LERs, Monetary Advantage Index (MAI) an indication of the economic values of grain and stover produced estimation, germination rate and time to reach blooming were considered for quantitative statistics. In each experiment, sowing was done by row method. All other cultural management practices including (watering, thinning and weeding) were kept normal and uniform for all the treatments Table 1.

The collected samples analyzed for DM, CP and ash according to the procedures and NDF, ADF and ADL determined according to the method of Van Soest [11]. For DM yield determination, two middle rows were harvested when the maize component reached dough stage and the harvested biomass was then be separated in to grass and legume components. The fresh weight recorded just after partitioning and the sub samples of each component species forced in dry oven at 65oC for 24 hours to determine the DM content. This percentage DM used to determine herbage yield on per hectare basis. Biological yield advantages and species compatibility of the intercropping were assessed using LER. If LER is greater than one, then intercropping has a yield advantage [12-14]. The chemical analysis of the feed samples was done using the standard methods AOAC. Nitrogen was analyzed using the Kjeldhal procedure and crude protein was determined by multiplying %N by the factor 6.25. NDF and ADF determined by the procedures described by Goering and Van Soest. IVDMD was determined using Tilley and Terry in vitro technique. Soil and plant NPK was determined followed by maize and cowpea plant parts Near-infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. Samples were dried, ground and sieved.

Statistical Data Analysis

Data analyzed by ANOVA, Correlation manipulated using basic statistics and LSM difference student’s t test of JMP 5 (2002) The statistical model was:

Yij = μ + Bi +Tj + Eij

Where, Yij=observation in block i and treatment j, μ=Overall sample mean, Bi=Effect of block j, Ti= Effect of treatment i, Eij = Error.

Materials and Methods

Germination rate was more than 75% for both crops within a week time and maize started tasseling on 3rd month while cowpea begun blooming on the end of 4th month. In the study plot 400m2 there have been 713 cowpea and 955 maize plants that had 1780 maize ears (1.86 ears/maize plants) of which 937 ears (52.64%) had been fruitful bearing seeds and 5.73% out of the total maize, were also damaged by birds even though closely guarded during early mornings and late evenings. Damaged ears were covered using maize leaf or plastics. In both crops, sole cropping and higher ratio of respective seed outweigh the intercropping due to minimum inter-competition. In cowpea (Table 2) forage yield T1 was highly significant (p<0.05) than other cowpea intercropping systems which were likely to each other. T1 produced more DM% than in intercropping systems. T5 has the lowest cowpea DM, and shortest cowpea plant height, due to reduced cowpea growth. Cowpea DM production in sole cropping increased with increasing cowpea density and produced more DM compared to intercropped planting patterns. This indicated that competition for resources in intercropping reduced cowpea growth and also resulted in a decreased growth rates (Figure 1). The effect of forage integration treatments on maize forage yield was significant (P<0.05), however, there was no significant difference in grain yield among the cropping systems though treatment 5 yielded higher (5.46 ton/ha) and higher 100 maize grains weight (24.98g), followed by treatment 4 (4.38 ton/ha) yield and 21.74g average 100 maize grain weight; treatment 3 (3.05 ton/ha) and 21.84g average 100 maize seeds and the least in yield was actually the sole maize treatment 2 (2.24 ton/ha) as indicated in (Tables 2 & 3).

There were no remarkable differences (P > 0.05) in maize plant height due to the intercropping, rather the maize sole crop outweighed, followed by reducing proportion of the cowpea. Maize leaf number/plant were 99.7% similar (p>0.05) among treatments that there was no use of variation in cropping system, however, T4 formed significantly higher leaf number from other treatments. Maize biomass was higher in the sole crop followed by T5 where the seed ratio outweighed others. T4 and T3 maize biomass was typical also (Figure 1). There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in maize ear length and grains/cob among the treatments. However, T4 were significantly higher from others, both in maize ear length and grains/cob, indicating that maize ear length determined number of grains/cob in maize plants (Table 2).

Similar to many studies, number of growing days in the highland (2450 m.a.s.l) was supposed to reach in 3 months, but everything delayed to 5 months. The research result agree red with Samuel and Mesfin [15]; Diriba and Lemma [4], who reported that high biomass of maize in sole crop, compared to their respective intercrops has been obtained due to interspecific completion and rust damage of the maize. Maize yield reduction in intercropped compared to T2 could be due to a higher degree of interspecific competition in mixed stands and the absence of interspecific competition in the sole crops similar to the investigation [9]. Results from previous studies indicated that shade effects on growth and yield of legume crops decreased DM yield and increased plant height [15]. Thobatsi [14] has also reported that taller maize cultivars result in lower yield of intercropped cowpeas, compared to shorter cultivars due to the increased shading effects. Contrary to the studies of shade effect on the cowpea, the research enabled to determine maize nursing effect from frost damage on cowpea.

The increase in DM% production of maize in intercropping compared T2 might be attributed to the fact that maize is a more aggressive component crop in the intercropped system. Similar results had been reported by numerous investigators [15] who found that DM production increased when maize is intercropped relative to sole maize. Cowpea DM production in sole cropping increased with increasing cowpea density and produced more DM compared to intercropped planting patterns. This indicated that competition for resources in intercropping reduced cowpea growth and also resulted in a decrease in growth rates. Legume growth suppression by maize in intercropping systems has been reported [16]. Maize-cowpea intercrops reduced density and weed biomass when compared to sole crops. This was similar with the findings of many researches. In biomass, T2 dominated followed by T5 and T4, indicating interspecific competition scenarios in between maize and cowpea crops, which disagree with many investigators. However, maize seeds/cob directly linked with ear length that was shown in T4 similar to [16]. Mean grain yields for maize under intercropping were 51% less and for cowpea 12% less than in the respective sole crops [17]. Furthermore, maize stover yield was 14% lower under intercropping, although the additional legume stover may more than compensate because of its higher nutritive value. T4 was the best combination of component crops in intercrop due to maize seeds per cob, ear length, cowpea plant height and biomass and fair shade and frost effects. This combination of component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops in this study.

Sole cowpea was significantly populated than other intercropping. T3 and T4 were likely to each other, but value wise, T3 was more populated than T4, indicating that with increase cowpea rows, there was an increase in cowpea population, getting freedom to compete alone for access to water, nutrients and sun light. Practically there was great over dominance of maize in three of the T5 replications, that cowpea plants were out of competition. T4 was significantly different from T5, though insignificant (P>0.05) from T3 and T1 which, were likely to each other in cowpea plant height. The same trend was also observed in cowpea nodule number per plant, where T1 was exceptionally different from T5. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference in cowpea biomass among the intercropping systems, however, sole cowpea had scored significantly higher biomass followed by T4 with the least T3 (Figure 1). Cowpea plant root depth among the treatments were almost 81% similar between treatments (p>0.05) not significant but T4 was greatly significant (P>0.05) than T5, T3 and T1 in descending order (Table 2). Intercropping had a consistent deleterious effect on cowpea performance, but any competitive effects were small. Cowpea plant height positively correlated with its biomass and number of cowpea plant/plot with nodule number, that indicated they do affect each other. But there was no correlation in between number of cowpea plants/ plot with plant height and cowpea root depth.

There was no correlation in between number of nodule with cowpea plant height, cowpea biomass and cowpea root depth. Maize plants/plot was almost perfectly positively correlated with maize biomass (0.98) & maize ear number/ plant (0.96) that positively correlated with plant height but no correlation with ear length, grains/cob and grain weight. Maize leaf number was only positively correlated with plant height that indicated directly influenced to each other, no relation with ear length, grains/ cob, ear number/plant, grain weight and biomass. However, leaf number should be correlated with maize biomass, which correlated with plant height. Maize plant height also positively correlated with ear length, biomass and ear number/plant, but not correlated with grain weight and grains/cob indicating no influence. Maize biomass was also perfectly positively correlated with ear number/plant that directly affected. There was weak correlation in between biomass of maize & cowpea that there may not affect each other. Number of cowpea plants/ plot did not affected number of maize plants/plot that do weakly correlated, but negatively affected maize grain weight. Nodules/ cowpea plant was negatively correlated with maize ear length which affected number maize grains/cob.

Thobatsi [14] reported that maize grain yield was significantly correlated to number of ears/plant and to 100 seeds weight. The planting pattern T5 has displayed lower cowpea plants performance in height and population that contradicts with Moriri [9] study who reported the 2rowsM:4rowsC pattern has the lowest cowpea dry matter, and taller cowpea plant height, all of these being attributed to reduce cowpea growth. In agreement with Moriri [9] study T4 pattern was the best combination of component crops in intercrop due to higher dry matter production. This combination of the component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops in the study. Thorne [17] reported maize grain lower (0.5 ton/ha) than the bench marked production of the study area (0.7 ton/ha) and the actual intercropped low input farming trial as reported in (Table 3).

Effects Intercropping on Plant Chemical Composition

The levels of DM, IVDMD, NDF and ADF were higher in maize than in cowpea. However, lignin, CP and ash were higher in cowpea than maize.The interaction impact significantly (P<0.05) affected in cowpea forage composition in many of the criteria such as DM, Ash, NDF, ADF, lignin and IVDMD in different angles. There was significant difference among the intercropping systems that stated in their descending value, as follows: NDF% (T3>T1>T5>T4); ADF % (T1>T5>T3>T4) and typical in CP% as well as lignin content % (T1> T5>T4>T3), while IVDMD% (T3>T4>T5>T1). There was marked (P <0.05) effect of intercropping in cowpea forage DM% that T5 was higher while T1 was the least. Cowpea Ash content was also significant (P < 0.05), and that of T4 has higher value while T3 was the least. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in between maize leaf and husk as well as maize grain and stem in DM% content. However, Maize leaves were significantly higher while maize stem was the least of all. Ash content was significantly (P < 0.05) different with higher value in maize leaf and least in grain which was actually higher in CP% (P < 0.05; 9.86) than leaf (6.57), husk (4.40) and stem (3.64). Interaction significantly (P < 0.01) affected NDF content that maize stem was higher and the least in grain. Maize husk was significantly over dominant in ADF content than stem, leaf and grain with their descending order. There was great significant in ADF content in the entire maize parts that maize husk has higher ADF than stem which exceeds leaf. Grain was the least in ADF content of all the maize parts. In general, low NDF values are desired because NDF increases as forages mature. Similar to the general fact maize stem was significantly (p<0.05, 7.87%) higher in lignin than husk (6.62%), leaf (4.13%) and grain (1.23%). There is significant difference in IVDMD% content from maize grain to leaf, husk and stem, that grain was better digestible and absorbed in body tissues. Grain was the least in ADF; husk was the highest, indicating that it is poor in digestibility.

The chemical composition of the research forage was in the range of Ethiopian forage nutritive value as stated by Duncan [18]. In turn, cowpea also presented CP values similar to those found in the literature. Dahmardeh et al. [19] reported that maximum ADF (31.85%) was recorded by sowing maize alone while increasing the proportion of cowpea seeds to 50% in intercropping with maize, resulted in the lowest ADF (25.89%). Intercropping of cereal and legume can improve forage quality in terms of Ash. There was no difference in Phosphorus and IVDMD composition in maize stover and in maize grain of DM and CP, from Duncan [18] findings, higher ADL (6.2%) than 3.98%.

Intercropping Effects on Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Contents

The soil parameters did not vary significantly (p>0.05) across treatments pre-sowing and post harvest. However, it is worth noting that intercropped plots did not receive fertilizer, and yet available nitrogen and phosphorus content was not significantly different. However, there was slight difference that higher N2 and P available pre-sowing, this indicated that total yield per unit area was improved through intercropping without visible impact on soil nutrient status. Available nitrogen was markedly lower and differences were less evident at the final sampling, probably, due to the increased use of the nutrients by the improved growth of the crops. There was significant Potassium (K) variation (p<0.05) pre-sowing and post harvest ppm. The result in NPK ranged in medium as to recommendations. Available potassium in the soil post harvest was diminished and higher in the maize leaves and husks.

This coincided with Lindquist [20] that intercropping means sowing forage seeds usually legumes in a field where other crops are already growing, that has an advantage of producing additional animal feed from land that is already used, improves the feeding value of the crop stubble and improves soil fertility [21]. The research result coincided with Thorne et al. [17] who stated as stover fraction of the maize plant contains fewer nutrients than the grain. However, the removal of stover as fodder, construction material or fuel still represents a significant additional outflow of nutrients from the plot.

Economic Return of the Forage

Intercropping has improved economic return that T5 (1C:2M) followed by treatment 4 (1C:1M) intercropping were better to perform than treatment 2 (sole maize) and treatment 3 (2C:1M) cropping, be it for minimum competition or to resist frost damage. Cowpea had been crop of the lowlands, but the research trial could be witness that it could be feasible not only for forage value but also for seed production. With this the mono-crop was the least in terms of 100 maize grain weight and grain yield, while treatment 5, 4 and 3 the real intercropping system intervention do better performed in their sequential order. Forage yield was the reverse that mono-crop (50.38 ton/ha) was significantly different followed by T5 (26.46 ton/ha), T4 (20.82 ton/ha) and lastly T3 (15.85 ton/ ha), indicating that higher proportion of maize outweigh, due to the nature of the crop to cover a large canopy area.

A partial budgeting model was applied for economic-evaluation of the biological data. Both crops forage yield and maize grain were valued at farm-gate prices (Table 4). Incremental benefit and incremental cost for each crop treatment was calculated. The resultant benefit cost ratio (BCR) was derived as the ratio of net incremental benefit to incremental cost. It is the absolute marginal rate of return (or loss, if negative) to incremental cost. BCR is the choice criterion for ranking the alternative maizeintercrops against respective control practices. A positive BCR implies that a particular crop treatment is economically superior (yields positive marginal return) to the control treatment or practice, and vice versa. The higher the positive BCR, the more economically superior the crop treatment and vis-a-vis. From a hectare of the planting pattern 257225.60 birr was considered as return. Results indicated that the overall LER was 1.45 in the mixtures indicating a yield advantage over sole crops (Figure 2). Therefore, 45% more land should be used in sole cropping in order to obtain the same yield of intercropping, which indicates the superiority of the intercrops over pure stand in terms of the use of environmental resources for plant growth. LER > 1.0 has been reported in Eskandari, but LER<1 was reported in Thobatsi Table 5.

*Correlation significant level; ns = not significant; ht= height; wt = weight; Cwpea = cowpea; Mgrains = Maize grains

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study obviously suggested the possibility of exploiting short-term forage legume-cereal rotations where farmers could gain the benefits of forage legumes to grain production. If developed in to an intervention that can be implemented, such approach could be of an immense value to the animal and crop enterprises in mixed farming systems of highlands. In conclusion, it can be safely said that intercropping has shown its merit as a viable means of intensifying crop production, under unfertilized conditions and biotic (pests and diseases) and abiotic (frost) stresses, in the study area. The research disapproved that crop of the lowland; cowpea could perform well in highland, especially, with the global warming, increasing desertification and increasing temperature.

Maize and cowpea competed well with each other for light and nutrients in T4 mixed stand, producing a good total DM yield with moderate protein content. Cowpea deemed crop of the lowlands, but the research trial could be witness that it could be feasible not only for forage value but also for seed production. The research enabled to observe, frost damage versus intercropping that there was minimum impact on T4 of the intercropping for maize acted as nursing crop and provided protection against frost damage of the cowpea.

Frost damage was more severe in the sole cowpea than the intercropped case. On the other hand, the establishment of climbing by this legume in relation to stage of maize development was vital in intercropping providing support. Birds’ damage of the cob was higher in the sole maize for the denser population enabled to hide the birds. Frost cowpea damage was lesser in the T5 and T4 arrangements. The overall performance of the intercropping was better in the T4 arrangement which was the suitable planting pattern and has the potential to increase DM yield of maize production thereby also enhancing crop growth. In cowpea, sole cropping produced more DM than in intercropping systems. From this study it was found that the T4 and T3 arrangements have the potential for enhancing cowpea and maize growth and also reducing weed growth this combination of the component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops. Maize treatment 4 indicated to have better in CP% than other planting patterns.

a) Inorganic fertilizer seemed to be an indispensable component to maximize yield output, from interventions like intercropping.

b) For highest yields, plant the targeted maize in 75 cm rows apart with in-row spacing of 30 cm.

c) Favorable seasons for better grain and forage yields of both crops as well as chemical composition during scarcity of green feeds should be researched.

To know more about Juniper Publishers please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/manuscript-guidelines.php

For more articles in Open Access Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/index.php

[asgcontemporarydrawing]

Mimosa scabrella

Mimosa scabrella (Bracatinga) is a tree in the subfamily Mimosoideaeof the family Fabaceae. It is a cross pollinating, mostly tetraploid plant with 52 chromosomes.

Mimosa scabrella is native to the southern region of Brazil. There it grows naturally in associations called “Bracatingais”. The Cerrado zone is a centre of biodiversity of Mimosa, where about one quarter of all Mimosa species are found. However M. scabrella evolved to grow in colder humid weather south from this region, in a sub-type of Atlantic Forest, called "mixed ombrophilous forest" (also known as Araucaria moist forests).

It is one of the fastest growing trees in the world. Within 14 months Mimosa scabrella grows up to 5 m, in 2 years it reaches 8–9 m, and in 3 years it can grow to a height of 15 m.

The long fibres can be used for paper production. Because of abundant flowering M. scabrella can be used in honey production. Its wood is suitable for firewood and can also be used as lumber. Before the advent of the diesel locomotive, M. scabrella wood was grown to fuel railroads in parts of Brazil.

In agroforestry M. scabrella shades coffee plants. It is also used in intercropping systems in association with maize and beans. Because M. scabrella is a legume tree it doesn't need fertilization and with the decomposition of the leaves, big amounts of nitrogen become available for other plants. Because M. scabrella has beautiful “feather” leaves, it is often used as an ornamental tree or live fence.

Because of its fast growth it can be used for reforestation.

[innspubnet]

A study was conducted to examine fodder yield and silage quality of maize (Zea mays L.) and climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping with different planting structure. Maize was cultivated alone and intercropped with climbing bean as follows;1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean (1M1K), 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean (1M2K) and 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean (2M1K). The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with four treatments and three replications. The crops were harvested when the maize reached at milk stage and climbing bean at R7 stage. The results indicated significant increase in fresh biomass and dry matter production of maize fodder alone as compared to maize intercropped with climbing bean fodder. However, no difference (p>0.05) was observed in ether extract (EE), and ash (%) of nutrient composition of fodder among the four treatments After 45 days of ensiling period, silage samples were analysed for pH, organic acids (lactic, acetic, and butyric), ammonia-N(NH3-N), dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), calcium (Ca), sodi

[juniperpublishers-agriculture]

Carbon Stock of Luvisols as Influenced by Cropping System of Abela Lida, Southern Ethiopia-Juniper Publishers

Assessing and quantifying carbon stock by taking into consideration the type of land use and soil type would have great contribution for an appropriate land use decision and sustainable carbon soil stock management. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of cropping systems on carbon stock of Luvisols of Abela Lida, Southern Ethiopia. Three representative adjacent cropping systems (enset, coffee and maize-haricot bean intercropping) were considered for the study. The mean values of soil organic carbon (SOC) ranged from 1.72 to 2.75%, medium to high status, respectively. The highest mean value of SOC (2.75%) was recorded in soils under coffee. In the other hand, the lowest mean value (1.72%) of SOC was recorded under the soils of maize-haricot bean intercropping. The results of the study showed significant difference (P≤ 0.05) in soil organic carbon stock under the different cropping systems. Soil under coffee cropping systems had significantly higher values of SOCst (51.01.9Mg ha-1) than enset and maize-haricot bean intercropping (46.61 and 34.58Mg ha-1, respectively). It could be concluded that cropping systems have significant influence on soil organic carbon status and carbon stocks of the soils of an area. Therefore, it is important and advisable to consider cropping systems of a given area for soil management to optimize organic carbon status and carbon stock in a sustainable manner

Keywords: Land use; Organic carbon; Soil management

    Introduction

Carbon exists as inseparable components of biomass and soil organic matter. Its storage in soil organic matter is important in mitigating global climate change and improves the livelihood of resource- poor farmers [1]. Soil organic carbon represents a key indicator for soil quality [2], both for agricultural functions (production and economy), especially for resilience and sustainability of agriculture and for environmental functions (carbon sequestration and air quality)[3]. Due to these facts, carbon stocks have received considerable attention in the recent past [4].

Soil organic carbon (SOC) plays an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle. Soils have the potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere with proper management [5]. It is generally assumed that soils are the largest C sinks in terrestrial ecosystems [6] with C stock of (~1500Pg), which approximately twice the amount held in the atmosphere and three times the amount contained in terrestrial vegetation [7]. In the other hand, the global emission of soil carbon dioxide is well recognized as one of the largest contributors to worldwide carbon fluxes [8]. Therefore, increasing attention has been paid to soil carbon sequestration over recent decades [9].

Carbon stock of an area could be influenced by land use, soil type and soil management practices. The amount of carbon in any soil is a function of the soil forming factors including climate, relief, organisms, parent material, and time. Over the centuries, humans, usually included as part of the “organisms” factor, have profoundly influenced the dynamics and sequestration of carbon in soils by their land use and management practices [10,11]. Generally, the type of land use system is an important factor that controls SOC levels [12,13]. Therefore, assessing and quantifying carbon stock by taking into consideration the type of land use and soil type would have great contribution for an appropriate land use decision and sustainable carbon soil stock management for the study area, where there is little information in this regard. It has also been suggested that monitoring the effect of land use on soil quality attributes within an ecosystem can provide a useful way to control land degradation and achievement of sustainable management [11]. Moreover, in order to estimate the change in the C stocks of soils, it is first necessary to establish baseline data [14].

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area

The study was conducted at Abela Lida, mid altitude parts of Shebedino district of Sidama zone in southern region of Ethiopia. It has an altitude of 1877masl with a bimodal rainfall pattern where the short rain falls from mid-February to April and the long rain fall during the period of June to September. The mean annual precipitation ranges between 1200-2500 mm and mean annual temperature ranges 12-20°C [15].  

The soil type of the study area is Chromic Luvisols [16] and it is locally characterized as Shakado, Kakacha and Dora. The base for their classification is the fertility status of the soils. Shakado soils are found near the farmers’ house, which developed through the continuous application of organic manure and house refuses, and have deep top soils of very dark brown color. The soil is friable and very easy to manipulate. This type of soil is mainly planted enset and coffee along with high value fruits and vegetables. Kakacha soils are less fertile than Shakado. They are found at some distance from the homestead and seldom received manure and used mainly to maize-haricot bean cropping. Dora soils, on the other hand are characterized as the least fertile soils of the area and very small area support coffee plantation, although the trees give production once in two years.  

Major crops grown in the study area are enset, coffee, maize and haricot bean. The enset and coffee are traditional component of the farming system of the area. From fruits and vegetable, avocado, banana, orange, papaya and sugar cane are common in the area.

Soil sampling and analysis

Three representative adjacent cropping systems (enset, coffee and maiz-haricot bean intercropping) were considered for the study. In each cropping system, four composite soil samples were taken by thoroughly mixing forty subsamples that had been taken randomly in three replications within 0 to 20cm depth. Twelve undisturbed samples were also collected with core sampler for determination of bulk density. The samples were air-dried, ground with mortar and pestle to pass through 2mm sieve.

Bulk densities were determined by core sampling [17]. Particle size distribution was determined by Bouyoucos hydrometer method [18]. Soil pH was measured using a 1:2.5 soil to water ratio [19], whereas OC was determined by wet digestion method [20].

The soil organic carbon stock of the different cropping systems was estimated with the following equation [21]:

 Where: SOCst is soil organic carbon stock (Mg C ha-1); SOC the soil organic carbon concentration (%); BD is the bulk density (gcm-3); D is the depth (cm); multiplied by 100 to convert from g C cm-2 to Mg C ha-1.

Statistical analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using General Linear Model (GLM) procedure [22] version 9.2. Mean separation was carried out using LSD at P < 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Selected soil physical and chemical properties of the study area

The selected soil physical and chemical properties of the study area are presented in Table 1. The textural class of the study area was loam, irrespective of the cropping systems. Texture as an inherent characteristic of the soils does not easily influence by cropping system and soil fertility management. The highest (29.08%) mean value of clay was obtained from maize-haricot bean cropping system, whereas relatively the lowest (24.07%) mean value of clay was recorded under enset cropping system. In previous study, it was stated that highest clay content of soils was recorded under maize and the suggested reason was due to accelerated weathering as the result of disturbance caused by continuous cultivation as compared to enset and coffee cropping systems that have minimum disturbance [23]. The highest (40.65%) mean value of silt was recorded under enset, while the lowest (36.64%) was obtained under maize-haricot bean intercropping. With respect to sand, the highest (39.01%) mean value was recorded under coffee cropping system.

The mean values for bulk density of surface soils (0-20cm) of the considered cropping systems ranged from 0.93 1.02gm/ cm3 (Table 1). The result of the study agrees with Brady and Weil [24], who indicated that the range of bulk density between 0.8 and 1.2g/cm3 is a typical characteristic of loamy A horizon. The bulk density values of the soils under enset and coffee cropping systems are relatively lower as compared to that of maizeharicot bean intercropping. The reasons for relatively lower bulk density in the case of enset and coffee cropping systems might be intensive manure application, decomposition of fallen leaves, left over of harvesting and processing. [24,25] stated that dung decomposition plays a role in reducing surface compaction by increasing the volume of soils macro-pores. On the other hand, relatively the highest bulk density value was under maize-haricot bean intercropping, which might be due to the low levels of organic matter and compaction effect as a result of continuous tillage activities. These soils did not receive application of manure and there has been complete removal of crop residues from the fields for different purposes

The mean soil pH values of the considered cropping systems ranged from 6.31 to 7.59. The highest mean soil pH value (7.59) recorded in soils under enset, which might be due to the relatively high amount of manure application. Previous study confirmed that the application of farmyard manure led to higher soil pH [26,27]. Moreover, decomposition of the large enset leaves biomass, left over of harvesting and processing enrich exchangeable bases that are responsible for high soil pH values. The mean pH value (6.52) under coffee was relatively low, basic cations removal due to harvesting might be the reason. Heavy cropping coffee over a period of years would reduce level of potassium and the pH would fall [28]. Relatively the lowest mean value of pH was recorded under maize-haricot bean. The reason might be due to long-term cultivation and fertilization. The pH of the surface few centimeters of soil usually decreased rapidly when high rates of nitrogen fertilizers is used [29].

The effluence of cropping system on carbon stock of Luvisols

The mean values of soil organic carbon (SOC) ranged from 1.72 to 2.75% (Table 2), medium to high status respectively [30]. The highest mean value of SOC (2.75%) was recorded in soils under coffee, which might be due to the decomposition of fallen leaves of shade trees and grasses. Generally, the mean values of SOC were high in coffee and enset cropping systems. The application of manure and decomposition of fallen leaves might be the reason. The no tillage practices of the farmers in these cropping systems may also contribute these values. Long term no tillage systems protect SOC through formation of stable sand and silt sized particles [31]. It was reported that SOC was significantly higher in the upper 0 to 5 cm depth under no tillage farm [32]. The lowest mean value (1.72%) SOC was recorded under the soils of maize-haricot bean intercropping. The reason could be continuous oxidation of organic matter due to intensive cultivation and complete crop residue removal for different purposes. Tillage practices can alter the distribution of SOC. Several studies under varies soils and climate conditions have shown the impact of tillage on SOC [33].

The mean values of soil organic carbon stock (SOCts) of the copping systems ranged between 34.58 to 51.01 Mg ha-1 within 0 to 20cm soil depth. There were significant differences (p<0.05) in mean values of SOCst among the cropping systems (Table 2). The highest mean value of SOCst (51.01Mg ha-1) was obtained in coffee cropping system. In this cropping system, there was high status of organic matter due to the decomposition of fallen leaves of shed trees and continuous application of manure. In the other hand, the lowest mean value (34.38 Mg ha-1) was obtained in maizeharicot bean intercropping. Comparable result was obtained from cultivated land of Kersa sub watershed, eastern Ethiopia [34]. In this cropping system, the organic matter was depleted duet to continuous cultivation and complete removal of crop residues.  

Conclusion

The findings of this study clearly showed that cropping systems significantly influenced the soil organic carbon contents and carbon stock. The organic content and carbon stock of coffee and enset cropping systems were greater than the maize-haricot bean intercropping. It is therefore important and advisable to consider cropping systems of a given area to optimize organic carbon status and carbon stock of the soils in sustainable manner.

To know more about Journal of Agriculture Research- https://juniperpublishers.com/artoaj/index.php

To know more about open access journal publishers click on Juniper publishers  

[lupine-publishers-sjfn]

Lupine Publishers| Forage Production Potential of Maize - Cowpea Intercropping in Maichew - Southern Tigray, Ethiopia

Lupine Publishers | Scholarly Journal of Food and Nutrition

Abstract

Needless to mention the ever increasing pressure on cultivated land for food & commercial crops, diminishing the area for forage production. RCBD five treatments with three replications experiment compared maize grown as sole crop with maizecowpea intercropped to assess agronomic, nutritional and economic returns of forage production. Average plant performance ranged 122.85-174.19cm maize plant height; 20.7-26.4cm ear length, & number of leaves/maize plant was 9.13-10.52. The effect of intercropping treatments on maize forage yield was significant (P<.05), however, there was no significant difference in grain yield among the cropping systems though T5 yielded higher and higher 100 maize grains weight followed by T4 yield and 21.74g average 100 maize grain weight; T3 (3.05ton/ha) and 21.84g average 100 maize seeds and the least in yield was actually the sole maize T2 (2.24ton/ha), confirming that intercropping has at least, some scenario better than sole cropping practices. There was no significant soil NPK effect pre-sowing and postharvest.

Nutritionally, feed quality of maize parts was significant difference among the intercropping systems that stated in their descending value of cowpea hay, as follows: NDF (T3>T1>T5>T4); ADF (T1>T5>T3>T4) and typical in CP. lignin content (T1>T5>T4>T3), while IVDMD% (T3>T4>T5>T1). NDF content was significantly higher in maize stem and least in grain. Maize husk significantly over dominated in ADF content than stem, leaf and grain in descending order. ADF content was great significant in the entire parts that maize husk has higher than stem which exceeds leaf. Grain was the least in ADF content of all maize parts. Similarly, maize stem was significantly higher in lignin than husk, leaf and grain. LER was 1.45 in the mixtures indicating yield advantage over sole crops. T4 has the potential for enhancing cowpea and maize performances. Favourable seasons for better DM yield and chemical composition of both crops should be researched.

Keywords: Maichew, Forage, Maize-Cowpea Intercropping, Yield, Chemical composition

Abbrevations: BCR: Benefit Cost Ratio, MAI: Monetary Advantage Index

Introduction

Background and Justification

Farming systems in most Africa is under serious threat due to increasing population growth and environmental degradation. The difficulty has highlighted the need to take an overall view of land management that is not limited only to livestock & crop production systems but also includes the need to conserve natural resources. Currently, arable farming is expanding at the expense of traditional grazing land. This is putting pressure on grazing resources resulting inadequate feed resource for livestock both in terms of quality and quantity [1]. Belete [2] also reported that production increases resulted from expanding cultivated area not from increasing yield, despite the fact that the land frontier, especially in the highlands, has shrunk. Under these situations, development of integrated forage-cereal-livestock systems offers method of accommodating & improving crop - livestock production systems [3]. Although farmers often appreciate the need for fertilizer inputs, the demand isn’t effective due to high prices, insecure supplies, and in some cases because farmers have a high aversion to the risks associated with food production in marginal agroclimatic &socioeconomic conditions. Fertilizer prices at farm gate are also excessively high due to thin markets, lack of domestic production capacity, poorly developed infrastructure, and inefficient production systems [4].

Statement of the Problem

90% of animal feed supply is expected from natural range. This however, is available in marshy areas, rift-valleys, mountain scarves which are also diminished from time to time because of overstocking, overgrazing, and frequent droughts. Due to ever increasing pressure on cultivated land for food and commercial crops, it may not be possible to increase the area for forage production [5]. Integration gap in livestock-crop interactions created problems facing forage development in Ethiopia acting bottleneck to livestock productivity [6]. Growing of forage legumes intercropping enables to use the small farm land for both crop and feed production. The system offers a potential for increasing fodder without appreciable reduction of grain production.

Objectives of the Study

1. To evaluate effect of maize and cowpea mixtures on the agronomic practice,

2. To determine impact of intercropping on nutritional content of the crop parts, and

3. To assess forage production potential of maize and cowpea intercropping on economic returns

Materials and Methods

Description of the Study Area

The research was conducted in Maichew ATVET farm land, from July 20- December 30, 2011, located at 12°47’ N latitude 39°32’ E longitude, 2450m.a.s.l. It has 600-800mm rainfall, 12- 24oC temperature, and 80% relative humidity. The hottest months are April-June with average 22.92°C; whereas the coldest months are November- January with 12.47°C on average. The district is situated about 120km south of Mekelle city, North of Ethiopia. In the highland mixed crop livestock farming system, maize, and wheat, normal barley, 6 row barley (“Abiy-ekli”), Teff, pulses such as dekoko, chickpea, vetch, beans and peas are the main cash crops in the zone. Despite the mountainous terrain which limits availability of cultivable land, the combination of fertile soils, adequate rainfall and suitable temperatures produce good yields which make this zone food sufficient comparatively.

Experimental Design and Treatments

Five treatments (two monocultures and three mixtures of maize & cowpea) were included in the experiment with a proportion; 1C:1M for T4, 1C:2M for T5 and 2C:1M for T3 and sole crops of cowpea (T1) and maize (T2) included as check to compare yields of intercropped mixtures. The experimental design was RCBD with three replications. The treatments included seed proportions as follows 144:0 (100% cowpea), 0:144 (100% maize), 96:48 (67% cowpea: 37% maize), 72:72 (50% cowpea: 50% maize) and 48:96 (33% cowpea: 67% maize). The land was ploughed and ridged then divided into 15 plots (3.6m x5.4m= 19.44m2 each) and 1m plot spacing, in 18.2m *22m= 400.4m2 leveled total area. Frost damaged the cowpea forage on 26th December 2011 night that Maichew meteorological station recorded -10c, after 10% pod formation and early blooming. Based on the indigenous knowledge practices of the surroundings, the research maize (Katumani/Beletech) termed “Arkib or Fetino” for its fast growing yellowish small sized deemed as reliable in the late on set and early cessation rainfall pattern and Cowpea, the multipurpose legume was supposed to minimize the cost of production for fertilizer under nitrogen-limiting conditions and under water-limiting conditions, so that the requirements for maintenance of high intercrop maize yields can be defined.

Sampling Procedure, Data Collection, and Analysis

Soil sample collected diagonally from the middle 3 rows of the plot for both pre-sowing (surface level during bed preparation) and post harvest (from roots of the crops). Laboratory analysis for soil and plant NPK was conducted using wet chemistry technique while DM and Fiber contents using NIRS. Dry oven used to determine plant DM% and other chemical analysis in 65oC for 24 hours and to analyze soil NPKs in 105oC for 24 hours. Fresh matter yield was estimated from harvesting herbage from 3.6m x5.4m quadrant in the central rows of each plot. The dried composite forage and grain samples from each treatment were milled to pass via a 1mm sieve for targeted analysis. Maize and cowpea forages as well as maize grain quality were determined in terms of percentage: - NPKs, CP, Ash, DM, ADF, NDF, ADL, IVDMD and soil NPK analysis. Yields were assessed based on intercropping indices as measures ratio of individual LERs, Monetary Advantage Index (MAI) an indication of the economic values of grain and stover produced estimation, germination rate and time to reach blooming were considered for quantitative statistics. In each experiment, sowing was done by row method. All other cultural management practices including (watering, thinning and weeding) were kept normal and uniform for all the treatments.

The collected samples analyzed for DM, CP and ash according to the procedures and NDF, ADF and ADL determined according to the method of Van Soest, et al. [7]. For DM yield determination, two middle rows were harvested when the maize component reached dough stage and the harvested biomass was then be separated in to grass and legume components. The fresh weight recorded just after partitioning and the sub samples of each component species forced in dry oven at 65oC for 24 hours to determine the DM content. This percentage DM used to determine herbage yield on per hectare basis. Biological yield advantages and species compatibility of the intercropping were assessed using LER. If LER is greater than one, then intercropping has a yield advantage [8,9]. The chemical analysis of the feed samples was done using the standard methods AOAC. Nitrogen was analyzed using the Kjeldhal procedure and crude protein was determined by multiplying %N by the factor 6.25. NDF and ADF determined by the procedures described by Goering and Van Soest [7]. IVDMD was determined using Tilley and Terry in vitro technique. Soil and plant NPK was determined followed by maize and cowpea plant parts Near-infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. Samples were dried, ground and sieved (Adesogan 2000).

Statistical Data Analyses

Data analyzed by ANOVA, Correlation manipulated using basic statistics and LSM difference student’s t test of JMP 5 (2002). The statistical model was:- Yij=μ + Bi + Tj+ Eij,

Where, Yij=observation in block i and treatment j, μ=Overall sample mean, Bi=Effect of block j,

Ti= Effect of treatment i, Eij = Error.

Results and Discussion

Germination rate was more than 75% for both crops within a week time and maize started tasseling on 3rd month while cowpea begun blooming on the end of 4th month. In the study plot 400m2 there have been 713 cowpea and 955 maize plants that had 1780 maize ears (1.86 ears/maize plant) of which 937 ears (52.64%) had been fruitful bearing seeds and 5.73% out of the total maize, were also damaged by birds even though closely guarded during early mornings and late evenings. Damaged ears were covered using maize leaf or plastics. In both crops, sole cropping and higher ratio of respective seed outweigh the intercropping due to minimum inter-competition. In cowpea (Tables 1 & 2) forage yield T1 was highly significant (p<.05) than other cowpea intercropping systems which were likely to each other. T1 produced more DM% than in intercropping systems. T5 has the lowest cowpea DM, and shortest cowpea plant height, due to reduced cowpea growth. Cowpea DM production in sole cropping increased with increasing cowpea density and produced more DM compared to intercropped planting patterns. This indicated that competition for resources in intercropping reduced cowpea growth and also resulted in a decreased growth rates (Figure 1). The effect of forage integration treatments on maize forage yield was significant (P<.05), however, there was no significant difference in grain yield among the cropping systems though treatment 5 yielded higher (5.46 ton/ha) and higher 100 maize grains weight (24.98g), followed by treatment 4 (4.38 ton/ha) yield and 21.74g average 100 maize grain weight; treatment 3 (3.05 ton/ha) and 21.84g average 100 maize seeds and the least in yield was actually the sole maize treatment 2 (2.24 ton/ha).as indicated in (Tables 2 & 3).

There were no remarkable differences (P > 0.05) in maize plant height due to the intercropping, rather the maize sole crop outweighed, followed by reducing proportion of the cowpea. Maize leaf number/plant were 99.7% similar (p>0.05) among treatments that there was no use of variation in cropping system, however, T4 formed significantly higher leaf number from other treatments. Maize biomass was higher in the sole crop followed by T5 where the seed ratio outweighed others. T4 and T3 maize biomass was typical also (Figure 1). There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in maize ear length and grains/cob among the treatments. However, T4 were significantly higher from others, both in maize ear length and grains/cob, indicating that maize ear length determined number of grains/cob in maize plants (Table 2).

Similar to many studies, number of growing days in the highland (2450m.a.s.l) was supposed to reach in 3 months, but everything delayed to 5 months. The research result agreed with Samuel and Mesfin [10]; Diriba and Lemma [1], who reported that high biomass of maize in sole crop, compared to their respective intercrops has been obtained due to interspecific completion and rust damage of the maize. Maize yield reduction in intercropped compared to T2 could be due to a higher degree of interspecific competition in mixed stands and the absence of interspecific competition in the sole crops similar to the investigation [5]. Results from previous studies indicated that shade effects on growth and yield of legume crops decreased DM yield and increased plant height [10]. Thobatsi [9] has also reported that taller maize cultivars result in lower yield of intercropped cowpeas, compared to shorter cultivars due to the increased shading effects. Contrary to the studies of shade effect on the cowpea, the research enabled to determine maize nursing effect from frost damage on cowpea (Table 1).

The increase in DM% production of maize in intercropping compared T2 might be attributed to the fact that maize is a more aggressive component crop in the intercropped system. Similar results had been reported by numerous investigators [10] who found that DM production increased when maize is intercropped relative to sole maize. Cowpea DM production in sole cropping increased with increasing cowpea density and produced more DM compared to intercropped planting patterns. This indicated that competition for resources in intercropping reduced cowpea growth and also resulted in a decrease in growth rates. Legume growth suppression by maize in intercropping systems has been reported (Moririt et al. 2010). Maize-cowpea intercrops reduced density and weed biomass when compared to sole crops. This was similar with the findings of many researches [1].

In biomass, T2 dominated followed by T5 and T4, indicating interspecific competition scenarios in between maize and cowpea crops, which disagree with many investigators. However, maize seeds/cob directly linked with ear length that was shown in T4 similar to Moriri, et al. [11]. Mean grain yields for maize under intercropping were 51% less and for cowpea 12% less than in the respective sole crops Thorne et al. [12]. Furthermore, maize stover yield was 14% lower under intercropping, although the additional legume stover may more than compensate because of its higher nutritive value. T4 was the best combination of component crops in intercrop due to maize seeds per cob, ear length, cowpea plant height and biomass and fair shade and frost effects. This combination of component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops in this study.

Sole cowpea was significantly populated than other intercropping. T3 and T4 were likely to each other, but value wise, T3 was more populated than T4, indicating that with increase cowpea rows, there was an increase in cowpea population, getting freedom to compete alone for access to water, nutrients and sun light. Practically there was great over dominance of maize in three of the T5 replications, that cowpea plants were out of competition. T4 was significantly different from T5, though insignificant (P > 0.05) from T3 and T1 which, were likely to each other in cowpea plant height. The same trend was also observed in cowpea nodule number per plant, where T1 was exceptionally different from T5.

There was no significant (P > 0.05) difference in cowpea biomass among the intercropping systems, however, sole cowpea had scored significantly higher biomass followed by T4 with the least T3 (Figure 1). Cowpea plant root depth among the treatments were almost 81% similar between treatments (p>0.05) not significant but T4 was greatly significant (P > 0.05) than T5, T3 and T1 in descending order (Table 2). Intercropping had a consistent deleterious effect on cowpea performance, but any competitive effects were small. Cowpea plant height positively correlated with its biomass and number of cowpea plant/plot with nodule number, that indicated they do affect each other. But there was no correlation in between number of cowpea plants/plot with plant height and cowpea root depth. There was no correlation in between number of nodule with cowpea plant height, cowpea biomass and cowpea root depth.

Maize plants/plot was almost perfectly positively correlated with maize biomass (0.98) & maize ear number/ plant (0.96) that positively correlated with plant height but no correlation with ear length, grains/cob and grain weight. Maize leaf number was only positively correlated with plant height that indicated directly influenced to each other, no relation with ear length, grains/ cob, ear number/plant, grain weight and biomass. However, leaf number should be correlated with maize biomass, which correlated with plant height. Maize plant height also positively correlated with ear length, biomass and ear number/plant, but not correlated with grain weight and grains/cob indicating no influence. Maize biomass was also perfectly positively correlated with ear number/plant that directly affected. There was weak correlation in between biomass of maize & cowpea that there may not affect each other. Number of cowpea plants/ plot did not affected number of maize plants/ plot that do weakly correlated, but negatively affected maize grain weight. Nodules/ cowpea plant was negatively correlated with maize ear length which affected number maize grains/cob.

Thobatsi [9] reported that maize grain yield was significantly correlated to number of ears/plant and to 100 seeds weight. The planting pattern T5 has displayed lower cowpea plants performance in height and population that contradicts with Moriri, et al. [11] study who reported the 2rows M:4rows C pattern has the lowest cowpea dry matter, and taller cowpea plant height, all of these being attributed to reduce cowpea growth. In agreement with Moriri, et al. [11] study T4 pattern was the best combination of component crops in intercrop due to higher dry matter production. This combination of the component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops in the study. Thorne, et al. [12] reported maize grain lower (0.5ton/ha) than the bench marked production of the study area (0.7 ton/ha) and the actual intercropped low input farming trial as reported in (Table 3).

Indicate for the control sole cowpea (T1) and T2 for sole maize and hence there will no data for the alternate crop.

a,b,c, letters connected by different alphabet were significant difference ( within the same row);

Ns = not significant; SEM = Standard error mean; 1 ton= 1000Kg; 1hectar =10000m2

Effects Intercropping on Plant Chemical Composition

The levels of DM, IVDMD, NDF and ADF were higher in maize than in cowpea. However, lignin, CP and ash were higher in cowpea than maize.The interaction impact significantly (P<.05) affected in cowpea forage composition in many of the criteria such as DM, Ash, NDF, ADF, lignin and IVDMD in different angles. There was significant difference among the intercropping systems that stated in their descending value, as follows: NDF% (T3>T1>T5>T4); ADF % (T1>T5>T3>T4) and typical in CP% as well as lignin content % (T1> T5>T4>T3), while IVDMD% (T3>T4>T5>T1). There was marked (P <.05) effect of intercropping in cowpea forage DM% that T5 was higher while T1 was the least.

Cowpea Ash content was also significant (P < 0.05), and that of T4 has higher value while T3 was the least. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in between maize leaf and husk as well as maize grain and stem in DM% content. However, Maize leaves were significantly higher while maize stem was the least of all. Ash content was significantly (P < 0.05) different with higher value in maize leaf and least in grain which was actually higher in CP% (P < 0.05; 9.86) than leaf (6.57), husk (4.40) and stem (3.64). Interaction significantly (P < 0.01) affected NDF content that maize stem was higher and the least in grain. Maize husk was significantly over dominant in ADF content than stem, leaf and grain with their descending order. There was great significant in ADF content in the entire maize parts that maize husk has higher ADF than stem which exceeds leaf. Grain was the least in ADF content of all the maize parts. In general, low NDF values are desired because NDF increases as forages mature. Similar to the general fact maize stem was significantly (p<.05, 7.87%) higher in lignin than husk (6.62%), leaf (4.13%) and grain (1.23%). There is significant difference in IVDMD% content from maize grain to leaf, husk and stem, that grain was better digestible and absorbed in body tissues. Grain was the least in ADF; husk was the highest, indicating that it is poor in digestibility

The chemical composition of the research forage was in the range of Ethiopian forage nutritive value as stated by Duncan [13]. In turn, cowpea also presented CP values similar to those found in the literature. Dahmardeh [14] reported that maximum ADF (31.85%) was recorded by sowing maize alone while increasing the proportion of cowpea seeds to 50% in intercropping with maize, resulted in the lowest ADF (25.89%). Intercropping of cereal and legume can improve forage quality in terms of Ash. There was no difference in Phosphorus and IVDMD composition in maize stover and in maize grain of DM and CP, from Duncan [13] findings, higher ADL (6.2%) than 3.98% (Table 4).

Intercropping Effects on Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Contents

The soil parameters did not vary significantly (p>0.05) across treatments pre-sowing and post harvest. However, it is worth noting that intercropped plots did not receive fertilizer, and yet available nitrogen and phosphorus content was not significantly different. However, there was slight difference that higher N2 and P available pre-sowing, this indicated that total yield per unit area was improved through intercropping without visible impact on soil nutrient status. Available nitrogen was markedly lower and differences were less evident at the final sampling, probably, due to the increased use of the nutrients by the improved growth of the crops. There was significant Potassium (K) variation (p<.05) presowing and post harvest ppm. The result in NPK ranged in medium as to recommendations. Available potassium in the soil post harvest was diminished and higher in the maize leaves and husks.

This coincided with Lindqvist [15] that intercropping means sowing forage seeds usually legumes in a field where other crops are already growing, that has an advantage of producing additional animal feed from land that is already used, improves the feeding value of the crop stubble and improves soil fertility. The research result coincided with Thorne, et al. [12] who stated as stover fraction of the maize plant contains fewer nutrients than the grain. However, the removal of stover as fodder, construction material or fuel still represents a significant additional outflow of nutrients from the plot.

Economic Return of the Forage

Intercropping has improved economic return that T5 (1C:2M) followed by treatment 4 (1C:1M) intercropping were better to perform than treatment 2 (sole maize) and treatment 3 (2C:1M) cropping, be it for minimum competition or to resist frost damage. Cowpea had been crop of the lowlands, but the research trial could be witness that it could be feasible not only for forage value but also for seed production. With this the mono-crop was the least in terms of 100 maize grain weight and grain yield, while treatment 5, 4 and 3 the real intercropping system intervention do better performed in their sequential order. Forage yield was the reverse that mono-crop (50.38 ton/ha) was significantly different followed by T5 (26.46 ton/ha), T4 (20.82 ton/ha) and lastly T3 (15.85 ton/ ha), indicating that higher proportion of maize outweigh, due to the nature of the crop to cover a large canopy area.

A partial budgeting model was applied for economic-evaluation of the biological data. Both crops forage yield and maize grain were valued at farm-gate prices (Table 5). Incremental benefit and incremental cost for each crop treatment was calculated. The resultant benefit cost ratio (BCR) was derived as the ratio of net incremental benefit to incremental cost. It is the absolute marginal rate of return (or loss, if negative) to incremental cost. BCR is the choice criterion for ranking the alternative maize-intercrops against respective control practices. A positive BCR implies that a particular crop treatment is economically superior (yields positive marginal return) to the control treatment or practice, and vice versa. The higher the positive BCR, the more economically superior the crop treatment and vis-a-vis. From a hectare of the planting pattern 257225.60 birr was considered as return (Table 5).

Biological Competition (Potential) Functions

SPI= (MS / CS x CI) + MI=MI= 3.39 ton/ha, where, CS x CI=0, since cowpea was perished. The Monetary Advantage Index (MAI) which gives an indication of the economic advantage of the intercropping system was calculated according to Ghosh [8] as follows:

MAI=257225.60(1.45-1)/1.45=79828.63 Ethiopian Birr

Economic values of grain and stover produced was estimated based on the average prevailing prices during the time period of the year from 3 main markets in the surroundings. Results indicated that the overall LER was 1.45 in the mixtures indicating a yield advantage over sole crops (Figure 2). Therefore, 45% more land should be used in sole cropping in order to obtain the same yield of intercropping, which indicates the superiority of the intercrops over pure stand in terms of the use of environmental resources for plant growth. LER > 1.0 has been reported in Eskandari [5], but LER<1 was reported in Thobatsi [9].

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study obviously suggested the possibility of exploiting short-term forage legume-cereal rotations where farmers could gain the benefits of forage legumes to grain production. If developed in to an intervention that can be implemented, such approach could be of an immense value to the animal and crop enterprises in mixed farming systems of highlands. In conclusion, it can be safely said that intercropping has shown its merit as a viable means of intensifying crop production, under unfertilized conditions and biotic (pests and diseases) and abiotic (frost) stresses, in the study area. The research disapproved that crop of the lowland; cowpea could perform well in highland, especially, with the global warming, increasing desertification and increasing temperature.

Maize and cowpea competed well with each other for light and nutrients in T4 mixed stand, producing a good total DM yield with moderate protein content. Cowpea deemed crop of the lowlands, but the research trial could be witness that it could be feasible not only for forage value but also for seed production. The research enabled to observe, frost damage versus intercropping that there was minimum impact on T4 of the intercropping for maize acted as nursing crop and provided protection against frost damage of the cowpea. Frost damage was more severe in the sole cowpea than the intercropped case. On the other hand, the establishment of climbing by this legume in relation to stage of maize development was vital in intercropping providing support [16].

Birds’ damage of the cob was higher in the sole maize for the denser population enabled to hide the birds. Frost cowpea damage was lesser in the T5 and T4 arrangements. The overall performance of the intercropping was better in the T4 arrangement which was the suitable planting pattern and has the potential to increase DM yield of maize production thereby also enhancing crop growth. In cowpea, sole cropping produced more DM than in intercropping systems [17-20]. From this study it was found that the T4 and T3 arrangements have the potential for enhancing cowpea and maize growth and also reducing weed growth this combination of the component crops proved to increase crop growth rates of both crops. Maize treatment 4 indicated to have better in CP% than other planting patterns [21].

1. Inorganic fertilizer seemed to be an indispensable component to maximize yield output, from interventions like intercropping

2. For highest yields, plant the targeted maize in 75 cm rows apart with in-row spacing of 30cm,

3. Favourable seasons for better grain and forage yields of both crops as well as chemical composition during scarcity of green feeds should be researched

https://lupinepublishers.com/food-and-nutri-journal/pdf/SJFN.MS.ID.000108.pdf

https://lupinepublishers.com/food-and-nutri-journal/fulltext/forage-production-potential-of-maize-cowpea-intercropping-in-maichew-southern-tigray-ethiopia.ID.000108.php

For more Lupine Publishers Open Access Journals Please visit our website: https://lupinepublishersgroup.com/

For more Food And Nutrition Please Click

Here: https://lupinepublishers.com/food-and-nutri-journal/

To Know more Open Access Publishers Click on Lupine Publishers

Follow on Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/lupinepublishers Follow on Twitter   :  https://twitter.com/lupine_online