See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344015980

Agronomic and socio-economics performance of rice in Tigray, Ethiopia

Book · September 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 42

3 authors, including:

Alem Redda Fetien Abay Abera

Ashanti-Ghana Mekelle University
23 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   744 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Maize production in the face of Climate Change View project

Agroecology and Sustainable Development, SIDA, Sweedish View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alem Redda on 01 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


 
  
#         
  

  #
  
 $ % 
  &$  '

   %&' ##   ( 


  

 
   ! #     #
( 

  # 

  #  $  #
 
 $ )
   # 
!
 *  
 $  

$
 #     
 

  
   

+,'     
$!

    
 
 
-*. 

 *     $     

   /! 01! 1/
 21 34#

 #     +,' /! 5
 6 4#


 
 $  7) 8  # #  
 #  $  
  #



  64#
+,' # 21 34#
 %+  $   
   
---94#
: //1! ($ # 


 #  # ## 

     ($# ##   ( 

$ # 
$  #

      $#   
  # 
   #
    #    
   
    #  #

25;  #    #
     $ 
   

$  







   

 (  <6=0  $3! "#
 > ? 
(
 
 
$
  # )     $

   0//2 # @
 8 % 0/<<! # ?  ' 3   

 






 
$
  # '   
 
 $

( 8 A
& #  3


  
# 
 '
 (
7! 
!
"#





    
 

  


       

 
! "#

  
 












 













 




 !"#
$
"%&
'

!
!
()
* '


 




 

 

 
   

 
   
 

 


 
  

 

 
 




 ! 

 

"



 
# 

 

$  !%
 !

   
& 
$

'  

 
'  

($
 

' 

# %
 %
)   %
*  %
'  
  $


'
 

 

+ 
 


" %
 
 
 

&

'  !

#  




  
$,

 

( 

$



  

 
 
-
 
 
   
. 
 
   

 
 

 
 
  

 
  
 

  

 


 ! 

"-
 
 


 


 


(

  %
 

 



  


  


 


. 



 
 %

 %

 %
 
 %




$ 

  
 

 
$



$ -




 
 

 
 -

 






  

 

 


 


-
-

/

/
 
$$$   

0 

 

1"
1"#23.
" 
 







  


4&
)*
5
/
+)

* !6!&
7!8%
779:9
& %
  

) -
2 

; !  

*
 

&





 
 



/- 
<
:=9>
4&
)*
5
/
+)

"
3 
 

"
 

& 
:=9>
DEDICATION

This piece of work is dedicated

To:

SOCRATES
Who sacrificed his life for the sake of TRUTH and drank the fatal
hemlock in front of the guardians and said: ³2PHQKDUGLWLVQRWWR
avoid death; it is rather far harder to avoid wrongdoing. Be not angry
with me speaking the truth, for no man will escape alive who
honorably and sincerely opposes you or any other mob. Remember, no
evil can happen to a good man either in life or after death. So for me,
death is better than wrongdoing. But for you and me, the hour of
departure has arrived, and we go our ways:
I to die while doing the right; you to live while doing the wrong.
:KLFKLVEHWWHU"2QO\*RGNQRZV´

And

MOM, ADDU AND LILLI

The reasons to always look towards my goals.



 BIOGRAPHY
The author was born to his father Ato Redda G/medhin and his mother W/o Ametemichael
$U¶D\D RQ  $XJXVW  in Tigray and raised in Wellega, Ethiopia. He attended his
elementary school at Anno elementary school in Eastern Wellega and attended his
secondary education both at Bakko (Western Showa) and Wukro (Eastern Tigray). He then
joined the then Ambo College of Agriculture in September 1999 and graduated with
diploma in plant sciences in 2000. After graduation, he was employed at the then Raya
Valley Project. After serving for a while, he was recruited by the Tigray Agricultural
Research Institute (TARI) at Mekelle Research Center where he served as a technical
assistant in the Agronomy Department for two years. Then he got scholarship by SIDA
project and reentered Ambo University in 2005 on regular basis and graduated with BSc in
2007 in Crop Production and Protection with Great Distinction. Immediately after
graduation he was assigned to Wellega University by the Ethiopian Ministry of Education.
But due to his special interest to research, he was returned back to Tigray Agricultural
Research Institute (TARI) and served as junior agronomy researcher at Maitsebri
Agricultural Research Center and worked for three years. He joined the Department of
Natural Resource Economics and Management at Mekelle University in 2010/11 for his
postgraduate study in the field of Agroecology and Sustainable Development. The author
can fluently speak Tigrigna, Amharic and Afan Oromoo.

ŝŝ

ABSTRACT
The decline in soil fertility is widespread in Tigray and is threatening food security. The ever-
increasing price of inorganic fertilizers (IF) is becoming a main problem for majority of farmers.
Hence there is a need for alternative low cost soil fertility enhancing technologies. Farmyard manure
(FYM) can be an alternative but its shortage limits its use as organic fertilizer. Integrated Nutrient
Management (INM) which implies combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers and helps
to overcome the problems associated with single application of either source for enhanced crop
productivity. Based on this fact, an experiment was conducted, in 2011/12cropping season, to evaluate
the effect of integrated application of inorganic fertilizers and FYM on soil fertility status and on yield
and yield components of upland rice. A 4x3 factorial experiment consisting of four levels of inorganic
fertilizers (0, 25, 50 and 75 kg/ha) and three levels of FYM (0, 6 and 9 t/ha) was laid out in RCB
Design with three replications. Rice (variety: NERICA-3) was planted in rows. The results revealed
that Organic Carbon, CEC, ava.P and ava.K contents of the soil increased with the use of FYM in
conjunction with IF (p<0.05). The results also revealed that application of 9t/ha FYM with 75 kg/ha of
IF resulted in grain yield of 44.4Ql/ha (p< 0.05) and delayed flowering and maturity by about 14.67
days and 20.33 days respectively, but the dominance analysis showed that the higher agronomic yield
(44.4 Ql/ha) did not brought highest profit because the value of the increase in yield is not enough to
compensate for the increase in costs. The highest MRR (2018%) was between treatments 1 and 9 and
use of 6t/ha of FYM with no inorganic fertilizer. The second highest MRR was 2013%. Hence,
farmyard manure (FYM) could be used instead of inorganic fertilizers to get higher net economic
benefit but due to the problem of unavailability of FYM in excess amount, farmers could use the third
highest MRR which is 1356%. Hence, it would be reasonable to conclude that integrating FYM along
with inorganic fertilizers would be the best alternative because this not only increased the rice yield
but also improved the fertility status of the soil, and could save part of the money that would
have been paid for the greater doses of the chemical fertilizer and is socially acceptable. The
perception of the respondent farmers to inorganic fertilizers showed that 76% of the respondents had
no willingness to use inorganic fertilizers at full dose. Therefore, taking the findings of the present
study into consideration, it may be concluded that the farmers at the Tselemti wereda may apply a
combination of 9t/ha FYM and 75kg/ha inorganic fertilizer to improve the yield, soil fertility and
economy of the farmers in rice cultivation. However, more such studies need to be conducted at
various soil and agro-climatic conditions to generate more detailed information.
Key words: Fertilizers, Manure, Maitsebri, NERICA, Socioeconomics, Sustainability, Rice.

ŝŝŝ

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Next to God, any successful accomplishment is possible with the effort of many people and
institutions and this piece of work is not different. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to
my research advisors: Dr. Fetien Abay, Dr. Girmay Tesfay and Dr. Kindeya G/hiwet for their
genuine guidance, provision of references and constructive comments. My most heartfelt
gratitude is to my dearest supervisor Dr. Fetien Abay, by whom the idea of this study was sown,
for her support, encouragement and enthusiastic guidance to do this research on my favorite
crop i.e. rice.. The visit made by Dr. Fetien to my research site located at very remote area on
her own expense is highly appreciated and I thank her beyond words could say. I would also
like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Fassil Kebede, Dr. Kiros Habtegebriel and Dr. Nigusse
Shewazenna (Rice Researcher in Tanzania) for their valuable comments and corrections.
I express my heartfelt gratitude to the institutional support of the Tigray Agricultural Research
Institute (TARI) for giving me the opportunity to attend this post graduate study; SIDA for its
financial grant and Mekelle University for allowing me to study such nature-imaged subject.
My special thanks go to all staff members of Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center who
helped me a lot and with whom I shared the scarce office resources during my research work.
My heartfelt thanks go to the agricultural experts, DAs and all the respected farmers of Tselemti
wereda without whom it would be difficult to understand agriculture in reality.
My gratitude goes to all my parents and family: Ametemichael Araya, my mother; Tirhas
Solomon, my wife; Adonay Alem, my son; and Lilli Alem, my daughter for their love,
encouragement, and prayer during my study, especially during the time when I was deeply
saddened because of the sudden death of my younger brother during when three days were left
for the final exam. My brother Dr. G/hiwet D. and my sister Genet F., thank you for your moral,
financial and material support and for your stay with me and comforting me with all what this
life can deliver.
Above all , I would like to thank The Almighty God who gave me health of body and peace
of mind to withstand such unbelievable realities and inconveniences which I came across only
after leaving Wellega University and before joining Mekelle University. Oh! Lord, keep me
away from those people and places where truth is stranger than fiction. Glory be to Jesus Christ!
Amen!!!

ŝǀ

 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGR Asian Green Revolution
ALC Adult Literacy Campaign
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DA Dominance Analysis
DAP Di-ammonium Phosphate
EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
et al. [et alii, Latin] - ³DQG others´
FYM Farm Yard Manure
ibid [Íbbi dèm, Latin] - ³from same previously cited source´
INM Integrated Nutrient Management
LSD Least Significant Difference
LDR Law of Diminishing Returns
MRR Marginal Rate of Return
MyARC Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center
NERICA New Rice for Africa
NRRDSE National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia
PBA Partial Budget Analysis
pH Potential Hydrogen; "power of Hydrogen"
PPS Probability Proportional to size Sampling
RCBD Randomized Complete Block Design
SRI System of Rice Intensification
SUPERICA Supper NERICA
TARI Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
TVC Total Variable Cost

ǀ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ
1.2. Statement of the Problem͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ
1.3 Objectives of the Study͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ
1.3.1 General Objective͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ
1.3.2 Specific Objectives:͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ
1.4. Significance of the Study͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱ
1.6 Hypothesis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱ
1.7 Research Questions͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱ
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 6
2.1 Sustainable Agriculture͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲ
2.2 Slowing Yield Growth of the Green Revolution͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳ
2.3 Rice and its Global Food Supply͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵ
2.3.1 Rice Uses, Research and Status in Ethiopia͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϬ
2.3.2 Rice Uses and Research in Tigray͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϭ
2.4 Soil Properties and Nutrient Availability to Plants͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϯ
2.4.1 Soil physical Properties͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϯ
2.4.2 Soil Chemical Properties͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϰ
2.5 Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϴ
2.6 Soil Fertility Situation and Management by Farmers in Tigray͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϮϬ
2.7 Inorganic Fertilizers and their Effect on Rice Yield and Soil Fertility͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϭ
2.8 Farmyard Manure and its Effect on Rice Yield and Soil Fertility͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϭ
2.9 Socioeconomic Impacts of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϮϮ
)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQRI2UJDQLFDQG,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϮϮ

ǀŝ

 2.9.2 Economic Aspects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϰ
Chapter III: MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................... 26
3.1 Description of the Study Area͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϲ
3.1.1 Location͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϲ
3.1.2 Climate͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϲ
3.1.3 Topography and Soil͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϵ
3.1.4 Pre-Sowing Surface Soil and FYM Properties͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϵ
3.1.5 Land use͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϭ
3.1.6 General Farming System͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϭ
3.1.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϯ
3.2 Experimental Design and Layout͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϯ
3.2.1 Experimental Material͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϰ
3.2.2. Experimental Designs, Treatments and Procedures͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϰ
3.3. Soil Sample collection and physiochemical Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ
3.3.1 Soil Sample collection͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ
3.3.2 Soil Physicochemical Lab Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ
3.4 Data Collection͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ
3.4.1. Agronomic Parameters͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ
3.4.2 Socioeconomic Parameters͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϴ
3.5. Methods of Data Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϵ
3.5.1 Agronomic Data Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϵ
3.5.2 Economic Data Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϬ
3.5.3 Social Data Analysis͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϮ
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 43
4.1. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility Status͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϯ
4.1.1 Soil pH͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϰ
4.1.2. Total Nitrogen͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϰ
4.1.3 Organic Carbon (%)͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϱ
4.1.4 Available Phosphorous (avi. P)͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϲ
4.1.5 Available K͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϬ
4.1.6 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϬ
4.1.7 Correlation of Major Soil Parameters͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϭ

ǀŝŝ

 4.2. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Phonological growth, Yield and Yield
Components of Rice͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϮ
4.2.1 Phonological and Growth Observations͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϮ
4.2.2 Yield and Yield Components͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϵ
4.2.3 Correlation of Grain Yield and Some Yield Related Attributes of rice͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϳ
4.3 Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on the Economic Benefit of Rice͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϬ
4.4 Results of Social Perceptions͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϰ
)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQVWRZDUGV2UJDQLFDQG,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϰ
)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQRI,QWHJUDWHGXVHRI)<0DQG,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϴ
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 81
6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 84
7. APPENDIXES.......................................................................................................................... 96

ǀŝŝŝ

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1: Location map of the Tselemti wereda .......................................................................... 27

Figure 2: Five years monthly total rainfall (mm), monthly ave. max and min temperature (oC)28

Figure 3: Monthly average min. and max. Temperature of the experimental year, 2011. .......... 28

Figure 4: Livestock Population of Tselemti Wereda ................................................................... 32

ŝdž

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Annual Yield Growth Rates (%) of Major World Cereal Crops, 1970s-........................ 8
Table 2 : Area and Production of rice and participant farmers, 2009, Ethiopia.......................... 11
Table 3: Some Selected physicochemical characteristics of the surface soil (0-30cm) of the
experimental site before starting the experiment, at Maitsebri, 2011. ......................... 30
Table 4: Chemical Composition of the Organic Manure (FYM) ................................................ 31
Table 5: Treatment Combinations used in the Experiment ......................................................... 35
Table 6: Sample size of the respondents using PPS .................................................................... 38
Table 7: Mean Square for soil pH, OC, av. P, av. K., TN and CEC ........................................... 43
Table 8: Soil nutrient status as influenced by the main effects of organic and inorganic
fertilizers at Maitsebri, 2011......................................................................................... 48
Table 9: Soil Nutrient Status as influenced by the combinations of organic and inorganic
fertilizers, at Maitsebri, 2011........................................................................................ 49
Table 10: The Correlation Matrix of Major Soil Parameters ...................................................... 51
Table 11: Mean square for DE, DF, DM, PH and PL ................................................................. 52
Table 12: Main effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on days to 50% Emergence (DE),
50% flowering (DF), 90% maturity (DM), Panicle length (PL) and Plant height (PH)
of rice at Maitsebri, 2011.............................................................................................. 55
Table 13: Rice Phonological and growth parameters as influenced by the integrated nutrient
management at Maitsebri, 2011. .................................................................................. 58
Table 14: Mean square for NT, NSpPP, NSePP, AGBY, GY, SY, HI and TSW....................... 59
Table 15: Yield and Yield components of rice as influenced by the main effects of IF and FYM
...................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 16: Grain and straw Yield of rice (Ql/ha) as influenced by the main effects of organic and
...................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 17 : Yield and Yield parameters of upland rice as influenced by the integrated nutrient
management, at Maitsebri, 2011. ................................................................................. 66
Table 18 : The correlation matrix of yield and some yield components of upland rice at
Tselemti, 2011 .............................................................................................................. 69
Table 19: Result of the Total Variable Cost (TVC) and Net Benefit (NB) as influenced by ..... 71
Table 20: Dominance Analysis for Integrated use of FYM with Inorganic Fertilizers............... 73
Table 21 : Farmers use of farmyard manure (FYM) (N=75) ...................................................... 74
Table 22: Reasons why farmers do not use manure on rice ....................................................... 75
7DEOH)DUPHUV¶(FRQRPLFYLHZRI,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV1  ......................................... 77
Table 25: Percent distribution of the respondents according to agreement with the statements of
integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers in rice production (N=75) ............. 80

dž

 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
During the past fifty years, agricultural development policies have been remarkably
successful at emphasizing external inputs, such as pesticides and inorganic fertilizers as the
means to increase food production quantitatively without taking into account the adverse
ecological, socioeconomic and environmental effects they had (Lichtfouse et al., 2011;
Khosh, 2004; Moghaddam, 2005; Roling and Pretty, 1997)%XWGXULQJWKH¶VLWZDVIHOW
that the high productivity of the conventional agriculture had been achieved at the cost of
massive damage to the natural environment and troublesome social disruptions (Alonge and
Martin, 1995). Generally, agriculture of this period emphasized on productivity i.e. the focus
RISURGXFWLRQZDVPDLQO\RQWKH³SURGXFW´DQGQRWRQWKH³SURFHVV´0RJKDGGDP
The high input agriculture had many critics across a wide spectrum of dissatisfaction which
includes the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and fertilizers on the
environment and human health (Evans, 1998). Hence, despite the dramatically quantitative
achievements of modern agriculture, in the early of 1980s, the green revolution technologies
were criticized seriously (Rahman, 2003). As Rahman (2003) quoted, delayed consequences
of the Green Revolution technology on the environment and the question of sustainability of
agricultural growth received priority only recently. This concern has promoted a number of
initiatives to promote the adoption and diffusion of more sustainable agricultural
technologies.
It is crucial that agricultural performance must evaluated according to the holistic principles
of sustainable production systems (Bagheri et al., 2008). Sustainable agriculture has been
defined and described in many ways; despite the diversity in conceptualizing sustainable
agriculture, there is a consensus on three basic dimensions of the concept, namely:
ecologically sound, economically viable and socially acceptable (ibid). Any new technology
can be evaluated in terms of its impact on the productivity, profitability, acceptability and
sustainability of farming systems; and clearly these criteria are interdependent and all have
biological, economic and social dimensions, although the attention devoted to each criterion
has differed both among disciplines and over time (Duncan et al., 1990).

ϭ

 In a world of growing complexity, it is becoming ever more obvious that the economic,
environmental, technological, political and social problems of our times are systemic and
cannot be solved within the current fragmented and reductionist model of our academic
disciplines (Gliessman, 2007). That is, if only agronomic aspects are evaluated, this can lead
to distorted decision-making, which in turn, can lead to economic and social dumping
(Bagheri et al., 2008).
The impact of increased fertilizer use on crop production has been large, but ever increasing
cost of energy is an important constraint for increased use of inorganic fertilizer particularly
for resource poor farmers (Lay, 2002; Assefa, 2005). Furthermore, ecological and
environmental concerns over the increased and indiscriminate use of inorganic fertilizers
have made research on use of organic materials as a source of nutrients very necessary
(Muhammad et al., 2003). Use of chemical fertilizers is an essential component of modern
farming but sustainable production of crops cannot be maintained by using only chemical
fertilizers; and similarly FYM has long been recognized the most desirable organic fertilizer
to improve soil quality but it is not possible to obtain higher crop yield by using organic
manure alone due mainly to their unavailability in excess amount (Sarker et al., 2011).
Therefore, an integrated nutrient management in which both organic manures and inorganic
fertilizers are used simultaneously has been suggested as the most effective method to
maintain a healthy and sustainable soil system while increasing crop productivity
(Bodruzzaman et al., 2010).
The problem of decreasing land fertility, use of high doses of inorganic fertilizers and the
ever increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers are factors considered harmful for sustainability
of production systems (Adhikari, 2011). Studies by Bhandari et al. (2002) attributed the
reduced productivity of the rice system to declining SOM, decreased soil fertility, and
occurrence of nutrient imbalances. Hence, integration of legumes, green mannuring and farm
yard manures in rice-based cropping systems can increase soil fertility and yield higher than
the conventional practices of using inorganic fertilizers alone year after year (Adhikari,
2011). In most long-term experiments, a combination of mineral fertilizers and farmyard
manure has been suggested as the most effective method to maintain a healthy and
sustainable soil system while increasing crop productivity (Uphoff, 2005; Satyanarayana,
2002; Zelalem et al., 2010; Balesh, 2006).

Ϯ

 For Ethiopia, as a new rice grower country, it is important to know how rice reacts with the
farming system and to the social and physical environment (Tareke, 2010). FYM is is an
important organic resource for agricultural production in crop-livestock based farming
systems (Hailu, 2010). Thus, there is a lot of potential for use of farmyard manure in the
fertilizer schedule of rice and to reduce total dependence on inorganic fertilizers. However,
no such study has been done so far for adoption of Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)
technologies in Tigray region.
The present research was therefore, conducted to study the influence of separate and
combined application of farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizer on soil fertility, agronomic
(growth, yield and yield components) and socioeconomic attributes. The results obtained in
the analysis are used to develop recommendations for sustainability of rice cropping systems.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Tigray is classified in the World Bank (2007) as a drought-prone area with inadequate and
unreliable rainfall. Fertilization may not be profitable when water is the first limiting factor.
So far application of fertilizer to mitigate problems of nutrient limited yields in Ethiopia has
been based on conventional blanket recommendations, without taking in to account the
possibility of indigenous nutrient supply. Moreover, use of different soil fertility options
depends on the social set-up and economic status of farmers. Rice production in Tselemti
Wereda is becoming an important asset for food security. However, we have little known
about the future sustainability of the current production systems. Intensive rice mono-culture
using only agrochemicals may lead deteriorating soil fertility, and declining rice productivity
(Quang et al., 2006). Furthermore, farmers are arguing that the price of the inorganic
fertilizers is getting up and the increased rate is having burning effect on crops. On the other
hand the use of FYM is constrained by its unavailability. Therefore, it is important to
integrate and use minimum rates of both the organic and inorganic fertilizers so as farmers
use them to the best of their indigenous knowledge in coping with such sustainability
problems. Therefore, the present investigation was undertaken to observe the performance of
the integrated use of farm yard manure (FYM) and chemical fertilizers to sustain soil
fertility, rice productivity and the existing socioeconomic set-up in rice cropping system by
giving options that match with their complex agricultural systems and socioeconomic status.

ϯ

 1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

ƒ The general objective the study was to measure /examine the effects of integrated use of
organic and inorganic fertilizers on agronomic, economic and social dimensions of
sustainable upland rice production.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives:

¾ to evaluate the effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil
nutrient status,
¾ to evaluate the effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on
productivity of upland rice,
¾ to determine the economic viability of integrated use of organic and inorganic
fertilizers on upland rice productions and
¾ to assess the perception of farmers towards the integrated use of organic and IFs in
upland rice production.

1.4. Significance of the Study

The top-down extension system in Tigray is confined with the increased use of external
inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides where little or no effort has been made to encourage
farmers to use locally available resources of plant nutrients such as FYM. All extension
initiatives have focused on the dissemination of the same recommendations for fertilizer use
to farmers under all kinds of socioeconomic conditions and across all agro-ecological zones.
However, fertilization needs to be rationally used because unwise application of fertilizers
negatively affects the soil fertility, future crop productivity and farmers' economy
(Lichtfouse, 2011). Moreover, no research has been done in this area of interest regarding the
integrated use of organic and inorganic sources of plant nutrients in rice production and
encouraging farmers in using locally available resources. The importance of this study is
therefore to rice producers and to all actors in rice research and extension system. Since
Tselemti wereda is rice basket of the region, detailed information on how the rice production
is currently functioning and identifying the pros and cons of the production system helps
governmental and non-governmental organizations to redesign appropriate intervention

ϰ

 measures. Besides, since Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center (MyARC) is established in
this wereda and is conducting rice research in the region, the information contained in this
study could also partially fill the gap in rice production and the questions of future
sustainability of the crop and socioeconomic aspects of farmers in general and the poor
farmers in particular. Furthermore, the document also would serve as a reference for
researchers to embark upon similar or related research works in other parts of the region and
the country.

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study had its scope with regard to the rice production system in Tselemti wereda by
evaluating the integrated use of organic and inorganic sources of plant nutrients in upland
rice production by analyzing the productivity (yield), economic IHDVLELOLW\ DQG IDUPHUV¶
perception. The main constraints that faced the study were: lack of means of transportation,
ILQDQFLDOFRQVWUDLQWVGHOD\LQODERUDWRU\UHVXOWVDQGFROOHFWLRQRIWKHIDUPHUV¶GDWDGXULQJWKH
survey and convincing them (because farmers are reluctant to give appropriate information as
they link it with many aspects). The main limitation of this study is that the results indicated
DUH RQH \HDU UHVXOW DQG KHQFH WKH UHVLGXDO HIIHFW RI )<0 FDQ¶W EH generalized and needs
further research to come to concise results.

1.6 Hypothesis
Ha: Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers can positively and significantly sustain
the physicochemical qualities of soils, crop productivity and the socioeconomic setups in rice
production due to their positive interactions and complementarities between them.

1.7 Research Questions

9 Is there a real difference in productivity (yield) of upland rice and on soil fertility status
due to integrated application of FYM and inorganic fertilizers?
9 Is the use of inorganic fertilizers economically feasible?
9 :KDWGRHVIDUPHUV¶SHUFHSWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHXVHRILQRUJDQLFIHUWLOL]HUVDQG)<0ORRN
like?
9 What are the potential and limitations of the use of Farm Yard Manure (FYM) for Rice
production?
9 Why most farmers are not willing to demand (purchase) inorganic fertilizers?
ϱ

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Sustainable Agriculture
7KHFKDOOHQJHIRUDJULFXOWXUHRYHUWKHFRPLQJGHFDGHVZLOOEHWRPHHWWKHZRUOG¶VLQFUHDVLQJ
demand for food in a sustainable way (Snyder and Spaner, 2010). Declining soil fertility and
mismanagement of plant nutrients have made this task more difficult. As long as agriculture
remains a soil-based industry, major increases in productivity are unlikely to be attained
without ensuring that crop plants have an adequate and balanced supply of nutrients (Peter et
al., 2000).
The concept of sustainable agriculture is a relatively recent response to the decline in the
quality of the natural resource base associated with modern agriculture (Audirac, 1997).
Today, agricultural production does not get evaluated in purely technical terms but also with
regard to a more complex set with social, cultural, political and economic dimensions
(Lichtfouse, 2011). The sustainability concept has prompted much discussion and has
promoted the need to propose major adjustments in conventional agriculture to make it more
environmentally, socially and economically viable and compatible (Gliessman, 2007).

Inorganic fertilizers supply only nutrients and exert no beneficial effects on the soil's
physical condition; moreover, the continuous and unbalanced use of inorganic nutrients
from the chemical fertilizers under intensive cropping system has been considered to be
the main cause for stagnating or declining crop productivity (Guggari and Kalaghatagi,
2000; Mathew and Karikari, 1990). Similarly, Shivanand (2002) reported that application of
organic materials like FYM, compost or green manure in combination with inorganic
fertilizer improved soil physical and chemical properties; available N, P, and K were
increased significantly with organic materials in conjunction with inorganic materials.

The sustainable agricultural system is based on minimizing the use of costly external inputs,
such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, by increasing and efficiently utilizing farm-based
resources (Ramesh et al., 2005). It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on
management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. The use of
organic and locally available sources of plant nutrients in agriculture is a sustainable and
environmentally friendly production system that offers the world in general and poor farmers
in particular with a wide range of economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits
ϲ

 (Ntanos and Koutroubas, 2002; UN, 2008; Astaraie, 1996). An experience from India has
indicated very good results to increase rice production. Using 5.6 tons of animal manure
fertilizer caused 47% yield increase and using same rate of nitrogen of 67 kg/ha caused yield
increase in 63% and the combined use of organic and chemical fertilizers together increased
yield in 118% (Rehana et al., 2003). In china at low fertility soil conditions, using of 15 tons
animal manure fertilizer with 70 kg/ha nitrogen caused increases wheat production by 40%
(Malakoti, 1996).

2.2 Slowing Yield Growth of the Green Revolution

Despite the continued development of new and improved modern varieties and greater use of
chemical fertilizers, yield growth began to slow in the latter part of the 20th century (Peter et
al., 2000 7KH ZRUOG¶V DQQXDO FHUHDO \LHOG JURZWK UDWH KDV GHFOLQHG IURP DQ DYHUDJH RI
2.18% in the 1970s to 1.12% in the 1990s (Table 1). Wheat yields in Asia grew at an average
annual rate of 4.33% during the 1970s but yields dropped to the far slower growth rate of
0.72% per year during the 1990s. After rapid growth of almost 2.51% per year during the
1980s, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) rice yield growth fell to -0.56% per year in the 1990s. This
global slowdown has raised concerns that yield growth may have reached a plateau or begun
WRGHFOLQHLQPDQ\RIWKHZRUOG¶VPRVWIHUWLOHDUHDV,Q6XE-Saharan Africa, the situation is
even more dramatic with cereal yield growth decreasing steadily from 1.9 percent during the
1970s to 0.7 percent in the 1990s (Table1). These declines in Sub-Saharan Africa are partly
attributable to poor soil management, which in turn has been accentuated by a number of
other factors, including inappropriate policies, insufficient commitment to investment in
agricultural research, demographic pressures, land availability constraints and others (Peter et
al., 2000).

ϳ

 Table 1: Annual Yield Growth Rates (%) of Major World Cereal Crops, 1970s-
1990s

Crop Region 1970s 1980s 1990s

Asia 4.33 3.71 0.72
Wheat Latin America 0.60 3.40 2.36
SSA 3.54 0.92 -0.81
World 2.10 2.78 0.42
Asia 1.61 2.42 1.55
Latin America 0.70 2.97 3.71
Rice SSA 0.02 2.51 -0.56
World 1.49 2.37 1.54
Asia 3.43 2.75 1.55
Latin America 1.49 0.61 3.82
Maize SSA 2.26 1.72 2.09
World 3.19 0.60 1.76
Asia 2.90 2.79 1.46
All Latin America 1.69 1.28 3.12
Cereals SSA 1.90 0.56 0.66
World 2.18 1.79 1.12
Source: Peter et al. (2000); SSA=Sub-Saharan Africa

ϴ

 2.3 Rice and its Global Food Supply
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) has supported a greater number of people for a longer period of time
than any other crop since it was domesticated between 8,000 to 10,000 years ago (Fairhurst
and Dobermann, 2002). Unlike maize or wheat, less than five percent of total rice production
is traded on world markets. Thus, the emphasis in all rice economies is on self-sufficiency. In
many Asian countries, rice self-sufficiency and political stability are interdependent issues
(Greenland, 1997). Because of its political, economic, and social significance, rice remains
the most important crop grown in South-east Asia (SE Asia).
Rice is the leading cereal crop of Asia, which is the thickly populated region of the world.
Due to this fact it is known as the ³(DVWHUQFURS´. In some Asian languages, the same word
LVXVHGWRPHDQµeat ¶DQGµeat ULFH¶ (Rutger, 1994). China and India are the leading wRUOG¶V
rice producing countries; tRJHWKHU WKH\ SURGXFH PRUH WKDQ  RI WKH ZRUOG¶V \HDUO\
harvest. Rice production and consumption is ever increasing in Africa, Nigeria being the
leading rice producer. Today rice is not a luxury food to millions of Africans but has become
the cereal that constitutes a major source of calories for the rural and urban poor with
demand growing annually (Oikeh et al., 2010). In spite of its uses and adaptable to sub-
merged soils and wider soil types, rice is not well known by majority of Ethiopian farmers
mainly due to lack of information (Oikeh et al., 2010; MyARC, 2010).

Rice is an annual, vascular and hygrophyte (water loving) grass. Rice is a cereal grain and
belongs to the grass family, Gramineae. But unlike other cereal crops it best thrives in soils
with excess moisture. Rice thrives best in many tropical areas because of their warm and wet
climate. On an annual basis, irrigated rice is often 100 times more productive than upland
rice, over 12 times more productive than deep-water rice, and five times more productive
than rain-fed rice (Reddy, 2004). The factor that has contributed most to exploiting the yield
potential of modern varieties, however, has been the increase in the use of inorganic
fertilizers. Rice can be grown in a wide range of locations and climates. It is grown in the
wettest areas in the planet to the driest deserts. It is cultivated in relatively warm places to
areas of considerable cold. There are primarily four ecosystems where rice is grown:
irrigated, rain-fed lowland, upland, and flood-prone (Rutger, 1994). Each of these
environments has its own ideal growing conditions, as well as limiting factors. The main
factors that limit rice yield include poor management of production inputs, losses from

ϵ

 weeds, pests, and diseases, inadequate land formation, irrigation water, and drainage that
may lead to a build-up of salinity and alkalinity. Rain-fed lowland rice is grown in bunded
fields that are flooded with rainwater for at least part of the cropping season. Bunds are
mounds or embankments made of earth designed to contain water in the field. Rain-fed
upland rice is grown in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. About 14 million hectares of land is
dedicated to upland rice, accounting 4% of global rice production. Also, some upland rice
fields are frequently bunded in areas with scarce water. Upland rice is grown under dryland
conditions in mixed farming systems without irrigation and puddling.
Modern rice varieties give higher crop yields but respond to more nutrients than local
varieties because of higher amount of potential biomass production. Bodruzzaman et al., (
2010) pointed out that farmers in less developed countries (e.g. Bangladish) use only about
102 kg nutrients/ha (70 kg N, 24 kg P2O5, 6 kg K2O, 2 kg S+ Zn) annually for rice while the
crop removal is 200 kg/ha and hence, soil fertility is declining.

2.3.1 Rice Uses, Research and Status in Ethiopia

Over 85 percent of the total populations of Ethiopia are rural smallholder and they dependent
on mixed farming and practice rain-fed agriculture (Tewolde Berhan, 2006). The Ethiopian
smallholder peasant agriculture accounts for more than 95% of the total food production. The
production system varies with about 19.6% of the farmers engaged in exclusive crop
production, about 2% are exclusive livestock producers and a majority (78%) of farmers are
involved in crop-livestock (mixed) production systems (Feleke, 2002). A variety of
biological and economic interactions between crop and livestock make crops-livestock
integration appealing to the Ethiopian farmers.
Rice was introduced to Ethiopia in the 1970s and has been cultivated in small pockets of the
country (Zenna et al., 2008). Ethiopia is fast emerging as one of the big rice-producing
countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Tareke, 2010). Rice has a great potential to food security in
Ethiopia. For this reason, its production system has focused mainly on the introduction of
improved varieties from a range of different sources. NERICA rice varieties have been
introduced to Ethiopia and are showing good adaptation to most of the agro-ecology of the
country.
According to the National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia (2009), the
trend in the number of rice producing farmers, area allocated and production showed high

ϭϬ

 increase especially since 2006. Area rose from 6,000 hectares in 2005 to nearly 222,000
hectares in 2010 and paddy production from 15,460 tons to 887,400 tons, at the same time,
the number of rice farmers increased from 18,000 to more than 565,000 (MoARD, 2010). By
now rice is one of the strategic cereal crops of Ethiopia in alleviating poverty and insuring
IRRGVHFXULW\DQGJRWWKHQLFNQDPH³CROP OF THE MILLENNIUM´ (Kebebew, 2011).
As Table 2 showed, out of the total national production of rice in 2009, 43.9% is produced in
the Amhara regional state, 3.4% in Tigray region, 6.5% in Benshangul-Gumz, 8.3 % in
Oromia, and 8.5% in Gambella , 10.7% in Somalia, 18.7% Southern region (NRRDSE,
2009).

Table 2 : Area and Production of rice and participant farmers, 2009, Ethiopia

Participants
S.N Region Area % Production %
1 Amhara 218,375 68,430 43.9 199,761 40.740
2 Tigray 6,855 5,150 3.4 14,505 2.80
3 B.Gumuz 3830 10080 6.5 32256 6.578
4 Oromia 25065 12940 8.3 41408 8.445
5 Somali 8300 16780 10.7 67120 13.689
6 SNNPR 22443 29156 18.7 92562 18.877
7 Gambella * 13350 8.5 50720 10.344
Total 284868 155886 100 498332 100
Source: Report of MoARD, 2010 *Data not available

2.3.2 Rice Uses and Research in Tigray

Rice is among the basic targeted cereal commodities that have received due emphasis in the
promotion of agricultural production and expected to contribute to ensuring food security in
Ethiopia. Despite its relatively very recent history of cultivation in Tigray, rice is one of the
potential grain crops that could contribute to the efforts for the realization of food security in
the region (MyARC, 2010). The lowlands of Western and North Western Zones, some
swampy areas of Southern Zone and irrigated areas in the East could be mentioned as some
of the potential areas for rice cultivation in Tigray (Tareke, 2007). However, it is only during

ϭϭ

 the last 4-5 years that the crop has got attention and started being tested in different parts of
the region.
Rice is a highly adopted cereal crop in Tigray. In addition to its adaptability to Ethiopian
climatic conditions, its amenability to various foods used by the Ethiopians makes it
acceptable by farmers (MyARC, 2010). The fact WKDWLWFDQEHPDGHLQWRµLQMHUD¶µGDER¶ and
µJHQIR¶ LVJRRGHQRXJKIRULWVUDSLGDGRSWLRQHYHQWKRXJKPRUHUHFLSHVOLNHµNLQFKH¶µPRRN¶,
µWHOOD¶µDUDNL¶, etc can also be prepared. Of course, this is in addition to rice being consumed
boiled and mixed with different sauces as is done in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the
world. The other important reason for its great adoption by farmers is the palatability of its
straw for livestock (ibid).
Since the first rice research in Tigray region, by Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center
(MyARC) in 2008, rice has got great attention by the national and regional governments of
Ethiopia. Rice also got great adoption by farmers and was praised for its various uses. Rice
production trend in Tselemti wereda of the Tigray region, the number of households involved
in rice production and its area coverage is also increasing due to the demand for food security
and availability of water logged Vertisols that can be used for rice production.
According to the report of National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia
(NRRDSE, 2009), in the Tigray regional state the estimated area and production of rice was
5150 ha and 14505 tons respectively. In spite of its uses and adaptable to sub-merged soils,
rice is not well known by majority of Ethiopian farmers in general and Tigray farmers in
particular due mainly to lack of information (MyARC, 2010).
The first rice research in Tigray region was undertaken by Maitsebri Agricultural Research
Center (MyARC) in June 2007. An observation trial on station site using two rice varieties
(N-3 and N-4) was carried out in June 2007 to verify its adaptability to the area of North
Western Tigray. By then farmers, experts and even researchers were very much interested for
the well-being of the crop in such water lodged soils where other crops had given very little
or no yield at all. So due to this amazing fact, an adaptation trial of eleven varieties was
undertaken in June 2008. From this experiment NERICA-3, Kokit and NERICA-4 yielded
36.91, 35.24 and 33.81 kg/ha respectively in the history of Tigray (MyARC, 2010). By then,
it was found promising to introduce and undertake adaptation trial of different varieties of
rice so as to select the best adaptable and high yielding varieties. An adaptation trial of 11
varieties in 2008 and 10 varieties in 2009 were undertaken. Generally the NERICA varieties
ϭϮ

 got great adoption by farmers. NERICA (New Rice for Africa) is a crossed product of two
species of cultivated rice to produce plants that combine the best traits of both parents
(Sokat, 2006) i.e. high yields from the Asian (Oryza sativa) and the ability to thrive in
harsh environments from the African parent (Oryza glaberimma). The name NERICA was
trademarked in 2004 by WARDA. This crop is highly praised by farmers and had got great
adoption by farmers of the other nearby weredas due mainly to its relatively higher yield and
its adaptive nature to water-logged soils. The relatively higher yielding potential of this crop
is due to increased use of inorganic fertilizers and to some extent attributed to the newness of
the crop to the area and the natural capability of the crop to use all available nutrients from
the soil due to its effective root system. However, there are growing evidences that intensive
rice production using only external fertilizers and with little or no use of organic manure will
be a big question for researchers in the near future because of severe fertility deterioration of
soils resulting in stagnating or even declining of crop productivity (Ali et al. 2009).

2.4 Soil Properties and Nutrient Availability to Plants

2.4.1 Soil physical Properties



2.4.1.1 Soil Texture

Soil texture refers to the relative proportion of stone, gravel, sand, silt and clay in a
specified quantity of soil. Sand particles are 2.00-0.05mm in diameter, silt 0.050-
0.002mm and clay <0.002mm. Soil texture determines soil workability, water-holding
capacity, soil structure and nutrient retention. Compared to sandy soils, clay soils
hold more water and retain nutrients. Clay particles are lighter than sand particles,
and once detached by erosion they are easily transported. Therefore unchecked erosion
leads to a loss of soil productivity (Brady and Weil, 2002). Soil texture appears to have an
important impact on the amount, distribution and chemical properties of soil organic matter
(SOM) components (Mulugeta and Karl, 2010).

2.4.1.2 Soil Structure

The movement of air, water, and plant roots through a soil is affected by soil
structure. Stable aggregates result in a network of soil pores that allow rapid
exchange of air and water with plant roots. Good soil structure can be maintained by
ϭϯ

 practicing beneficial soil management such as crop rotations, organic matter additions,
and timely tillage practices (Samuel, 2011). In sandy soils, aggregate stability is often
difficult to maintain due to low organic matter, clay content and resistance of sand
particles to cementing processes. Soil structure also affects plant root growth and
development, the cycling of carbon and nutrients, the exchange of gasses in the root zone,
the physical habitat for soil biota, and the energy required for root penetration and ground
engaging tools.

2.4.2 Soil Chemical Properties

2.4.2.1 Soil pH
Soil pH is JHQHUDOO\UHIHUUHGWRDVDµGeneral Master´YDULDEOHEHFDXVHLWUHJXODWHVDOPRVW
all the biological and chemical reaction in the soil (Brady and Weil 1996). As such, it is also
a useful tool in making management decisions concerning the type of plants suitable for
location, the possible need to modify soil pH (either up or down), and an indicator of the
plant availability of nutrients in the soil and the negative response of many plant species to
soil acidity (Sumner, 2000; Conway, 2001). Soil pH is mostly related to the nature of the
parent material, climate, organic matter and topographic factors (Tamirat, 1992). Distribution
of soil pH may provide a useful index of the weathering status, potential nutrient
holding capacity and fertility of soil types. The soil in high altitude and those higher
slopes had low pH values, probably suggesting the washing out of solutes from these parts
(Mohammed et al., 2005). Continuous cultivation practices, excessive precipitation,
steepness of the topography and application of inorganic fertilizer could be attributed as
some of the factors which are responsible for the reduction of pH in the soils (Hussain et
al., 2006).
2.4.2.2 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

Any element with a positive charge is called a cation and in this case, it refers to the basic
cations: calcium (Ca+2), magnesium (Mg+2), potassium (K+1) and sodium (Na+1) and the
acidic cations, hydrogen (H+1) and aluminum (Al+3). The amount of these positively charged
cations a soil can hold is described as the CEC and is expressed in milli-equivalents per 100
grams (meq/100g) of soil. The larger this number, the more cations the soil can hold

ϭϰ

 (Sumner, 2000). A clay soil will have a larger CEC than a sandy soil. In highly weathered
soils, the dominant clay type is kaolinite which has very little capacity to hold cations. The
CEC gives an indication of the soils potential to hold plant nutrients. Increasing the organic
matter content of any soil will help to increase the CEC since it also holds cations like the
clays. Organic matter has a high CEC but there is typically little organic matter in most soils.
The more acidic a soil is and the lower the soil pH value, the closer the acidity number will
be to the CEC number. CEC is the ability of soil solid phase to attract or store and exchange
cation nutrients with the soil solution and render them available to plants through exchange
reaction (Brady and Weil 1996). CEC is an important parameter of soil because it gives
an indication of the type of the dominant clay minerals present in the soil and its capacity to
retain nutrients against leaching. The CEC is strongly affected by the nature and amount of
mineral and organic colloids present in soil. Soils with large amount of clay and organic
matter have higher CEC than sandy soils which are low in organic matter.

2.4.2.3 Soil Organic Matter (SOM)

Soil organic matter (SOM) is primarily plant residues, in different stages of

decomposition. The accumulation of SOM within soil is a balance between the return or
addition of plant residues and their subsequent loss due to the decay of these residues by
micro-organisms. Organic matter exists on the soil surface as raw plant residues and
their mulch helps protect the soil from the effect of rainfall, wind and sun. Removal
or burning of residues and various straw mulches exposes the soil to negative climatic
impacts, and removal or burning deprives the soil organisms of their primary energy
source (Brady and Weil 1996). The soil organic matter content has a positive correlation with
the fine soil particle content of the soil, i.e. with the soil textural classes (Mulugeta and Karl,
2010).
Soil organic matter is important for physical, chemical and biological soil properties.
Organic matter depletion has been by far one of the most serious problems leading to soil
degradation. This situation must be reversed and accumulate carbon in the soil which
help preventing soil degradation (Filho et al., 2001). This decline can be improved by
leaving and incorporating crop residues in the soil and by adding organic manures to the soil.
The rate of organic matter decline is also higher in semi-arid environments due to
high rates of decomposition and mineralization. The organic matter builds and improves
ϭϱ

 soil structure, thereby improving soil drainage, infiltration of water into the soil, aeration and
water holding capacity. The improved soil structure results in well-developed plant root
systems and healthier, more disease resistant crops. Soil organic matter increases the cation
exchange capacity of a soil and provides a neutralizing or buffering effect on soil pH
(preventing rapid changes in pH). Soils that are high in organic matter content have water
stable aggregates that bind soil particles together and are resistant to being broken down by
the impact of raindrops soils (Tisdale and Nelson, 1995). Soil management practices such
as reduced tillage, mulching, composting, manure application, fallowing, agroforestry,
diverse rotation, introducing forage legumes and grass mixtures in the rotation cycle
are not only expected to increase the rate of carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake from the
atmosphere but also to contribute to erosion and desertification control and enriched
biodiversity and then increasing crop production through improving soil properties such
as nutrient uptake and nutrient cycling, moisture retention, and tilth (Swift et al., 2004).
Organic matter can increase CEC and availability of phosphorus in soils (Tisdale and
Nelson, 1995).
2.4.2.4 Total Nitrogen

Nitrogen is a major nutrient element determining crop yield. It is one of the most
essential elements that is taken up by plants in greatest quantity after carbon, oxygen
and hydrogen, but it is the most frequent deficient nutrient in crop production (Havlin et al.,
1999). The total nitrogen content of a soil ranges from less than 0.02% in subsoil to
greater than 2.5% peat soils which is attributed to the general low biomass production
and fast oxidation of organic matter in such climate zone (Havlin et al., 2002). The
differences of nitrogen contents in soil are depended on soil organic matter content and hence
there is a strong positive relationship between soil nitrogen and soil organic matter
content.
The demand of rice for N is strongly related to its growth stage. Rice plants require N at
early and mid-tillering (branching) stages to ensure a sufficient number of panicles (grain
bunches). Nitrogen significantly improves yield of rice by improving the yield components
like panicle number, thousand grain weight, and reduced grain sterility grain harvest index
and plant height which are positively associated with grain yield (Fageria et al. 2011). Low
total nitrogen content (N deficiency) is visible in highly weathered soils and sodic soil of

ϭϲ

 arid and semi- arid regions due to low organic matter content which is attributed to the
general low biomass production and fast oxidation of organic matter in such climatic zones
(Havlin, et al., 2002). In cereals N recovery efficiency at global level is reported to be less
than 40% (Fageria et al., 2011). The low recovery efficiency of N is associated with its loss
by leaching, denitrification, volatilization and soil erosion (ibid). Landon (1991) classified
soil N availability of < 0.1% as very low; 0.1-0.2% as low; 0.2-0.5% as moderate, 0.5-1% as
high and > 0.1% as very high.
2.4.2.5 Available Phosphorus (ava. P)

Phosphorus (P) is an essential element classified as a macronutrient because of the

relatively large amounts of P required by plants. One of the main roles of P in living
organisms is in the transfer of energy. Adequate soil phosphorus (P) availability for plants is
essential for optimal crop yields. Phosphorus (P) enables a plant to store and transfer energy,
promotes root, flower and fruit development, and stimulates early plant growth and hastens
maturity. Although P is essential for plant growth, mismanagement of soil P can pose a
threat to water quality. There may be a large total amount of P in a soil with very little
available to plants. Variability of the level of available P is related to land use, altitude, slope
position and other characteristics, such as clay and calcium carbonate content (Mohammed et
al., 2005). Many studies have shown that soil devoted to crop production lost far more P to
steams than do those covered by relatively undisturbed forest or natural grass land (Brady
and Weil, 2002). Crop maturation is extended under conditions where phosphorus (P) or
other nutrients are deficient (Fairhurst and Dobermann, 2002). Most of the P in animal
manure is in an organic form and must be converted to plant-available forms via soil
biological activity, a process known as mineralization. The net effect of this characteristic is
that P derived from animal manure may act more like a slow-release fertilizer than
commercial inorganic fertilizers, which are more soluble and readily available to plants.

2.4.2.6 Available Potassium (ava. K)

Potassium (K) is absorbed by plants in large amount than any other nutrient except
nitrogen. K exists as unavailable, readily available and available forms to plant which
accounts 90-98%, 1-10%, and 0.1-2% respectively (Havlin . et al., 1999). Available K
exists in soils solution while exchangeable K is absorbed on the soil colloidal surface

ϭϳ

 from where it is slowly released to soil solution so as to be available to plants. Plants then
directly absorb K from soil solution where it is found in the most readily available form for
plant absorption (Brady and Weil, 2002).

2.5 Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)

The integrated nutrient management paradigm acknowledges the need for both organic
and inorganic mineral inputs to sustain soil health and crop production due to positive
interactions and complementarities between them (Sanchez and Jama, 2000). It is a strategy
that incorporates both organic and inorganic plant nutrients to attain higher crop
productivity, prevent soil nutrient depletion, and thereby help meet future food supply needs
(Ahajan et al., 2008; Shalini et al. 2002). The use of organic materials in combination with
inorganic fertilizers to optimize nutrient availability to plants is a difficult task as organic
materials have variable and complex chemical nature. Numerous trials have compared the
yields from a given amount of inorganic fertilizer (A), an organic material (B), and their
combination (A+B), and in many situations (A+B) have produced higher yields than A or B
alone (Zahir and Ahmad, 2006). It should not be surprising that the combination does better
because more total nutrients have been added than A or B alone.

The use of organic manure as a fertilizer in less developed countries like Ethiopia has
received much attention from economic point of view (Place et al., 2003). In view of the
current worldwide shortage of chemical fertilizers and its anticipated adverse effect on
food production, the endeavor to discover and develop efficient techniques of utilizing
organic materials as fertilizer is urgently needed. Organic fertilizers were regarded as
important, but it was realized that organic fertilizers would not be available in sufficient
amounts to increase food production drastically (ibid).
An integrated approach recognizes that soils are the storehouse of most of the plant nutrients
essential for plant growth and that the way in which nutrients are managed will have a major
impact on plant growth, soil fertility, and agricultural sustainability (Peter et al., 2000).
Integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated nutrient supply (INS) system aims at
achieving efficient use of chemical fertilizers in conjunction with organic manures because
long term intensive fertilizer experiments revealed a declining trend in productivity
(Mahajan et al., 2008; Bodruzzaman et al., 2010; Shalini et al. 2002).

ϭϴ

 In the past 30-40 years, mineral fertilizers boosted the rice yield, but their ever rising cost
and diminishing resources led to search for alternative sources of plant nutrients (Mahajan et
al., 2008). A study by Mugwe et al. (2007) in Kenya showed that combining 30 kg/ha/year
inorganic N fertilizer with legume plants or cattle manure obtained a significantly higher
yield of maize as compared with the application of legume plants, organic and inorganic
fertilizer separately. This is an indication of achieving better yield out of all options from the
YDULHWLHV RI WHFKQRORJLHV IRU IDUPHUV¶ FKRLFHV to improve their yield by giving options that
match with their complex agricultural system.
Nowadays sustaining agricultural production has become a central issue through agricultural
management. But overcoming the complex problems of smallholder farming system is
impossible under single recommendation such as the simple yield increase by using ready-
made inorganic fertilizers as is being done by majority of the agronomists (Jama and Pizzaro,
2008). Therefore, the concern centers on the need to develop technologies and practices
which are affordable, socially acceptable, economically feasible and effective to improve
their food production under their own choices. Hence agronomists should rethink (Pretty,
2008).
Long-term experiments have shown that neither organic sources nor mineral fertilizers alone
can achieve sustainability in crop production. Integrated use of organic and mineral
fertilizers has been found to be more effective in maintaining higher productivity and
stability through correction of deficiencies of secondary and micronutrients in the course of
mineralization on one hand and favorable physical and soil ecological conditions on the other
(Ali et al., 2009).
In most long-term experiments, a combination of mineral fertilizers and farmyard manure
has generally given the best crop yield, enhanced soil quality and economy of farmers
(Bodruzzaman et al., 2010; Bhatti and Khan, 2000). Organic mannuring also improves the
physical and microbial conditions of soil and enhance fertilizer use efficiency when applied
in conjunction with mineral fertilizers. Thus, all the major sources of plant nutrients such as
soil, mineral, organic and biological should be utilized in an efficient and judicious manner
for sustainable crop production in rice-rice cropping system. A study held in Kabete, Kenya,
showed that treatments with only mineral fertilizers initially out-yielded the no-input and
FYM treatments but later tend to decline rapidly (Nandwa and Bekunda, 1998, as cited by
Hailu, 2010). Another similar result was reported by Bhandari et al. (2002) where there was
ϭϵ

 lack of sustainability under high input agriculture in that rice yield has stagnated and
declined during the Asian Green Revolution (AGR). Therefore, there is a need to develop
and promote management strategies to use both organic and inorganic sources of plant
nutrients for sustained crop production (Indrani et al., 2008).

2.6 Soil Fertility Situation and Management by Farmers in Tigray

In the history of Ethiopian civilization, agricultural development in the northern highlands of
Ethiopia particularly in Tigray has undergone a series of revolutionary developments in crop
and livestock production (Mitiku and Fassil, 1996). Tigray at large is identified as a high
erosion and moisture deficiency part of the country (Hailu, 2010). It is classified in the
World Bank (2007) as a drought-prone area with inadequate and unreliable rainfall. Tigray is
a region with higher land degradation and the widespread decline in soil fertility is
threatening food security in the region (Hagos et al., 2002 as cited by Hailu, 2010). This is
because of the continuous and intensive cultivation at least since the 13th century, therefore
soil organic matter (SOM) content and nutrients are generally lower (Tewolde Berhan, 2006;
Assefa, 2005). Farmlands are extremely deficient in nitrogen, available phosphorous and
organic matter (Mitiku et al., 2003). The nutrient depletion in Ethiopia in general and in
Tigray in particular has several causes such as the limited applications of organic fertilizer
like crop residues and manure, and the socio-economic problems in the use of mineral
fertilizers (Aseffa, 2005).
The increasing land use intensity with little or no use of organic manure have caused severe
fertility deterioration of soils resulting in stagnating or even declining of crop productivity
(Ali, 2009). Soil fertility deterioration is a major constraint in any intensive rice production
system and hence use of organic matter to meet the nutrient requirement of crops would be
an inevitable practice in years to come, particularly for resource poor farmers
(Satyanarayana, 2002). One of the greatest challenges for our generation will be to develop
and implement soil, water and nutrient management technologies that enhance the quality of
soil, water and air and if we do not improve and/or sustain the productive capacity of our
fragile soils, we cannot continue to support the food demand of our growing population
(Tisdale et al., 1995).
The long years of mixed farming system in Tigray go side by side with local soil fertility
management practices such as shifting cultivation (fallowing), mannuring, use of crop

ϮϬ

 residues, crop rotation intercropping etc to cope with declining soil fertility, which differ
among farmers and among locations (Aseffa, 2005). Farmyard manure (FYM) is among the
important soil amendments to which farmers have access in mixed farming system (Teklu et
al., 2004).

2.7 Inorganic Fertilizers and their Effect on Rice Yield and Soil Fertility

Inorganic fertilizers are very important in the cultivation of cereal and horticultural crops and
are increasingly being used because unlike the organic fertilizers (e.g. FYM), they
immediately supply nutrients needed by crops. As do most other field crops, rice responds
well to improved management practices, among which N and P fertilization plays an
important role in producing satisfactory yields. But various research reports showed that use
of inorganic fertilizers in the tropics had stagnated, and this was explained by poor marketing
and inadequate profitability from inorganic fertilizer use (William, 1999; as cited by Daniel,
2006). The amount of inorganic fertilizer used in most smallholder farming systems falls far
below standard extension recommendations, due to poor purchasing power, risk aversion,
poor and unreliable rainfall, and lack of significant returns. Mineral/ inorganic fertilizers
require high purchasing power, need to be applied seasonally and are highly risky in low
rainfall areas.

2.8 Farmyard Manure and its Effect on Rice Yield and Soil Fertility
Among the means available to achieve sustainability in agricultural production, organic
manure and bio-fertilizer play an important role because they possess many desirable soil
properties and exert beneficial effect on the soil physical, chemical and biological
characteristics (Tran et al. 2001; Indrani et al. 2008). Continued use of organic fertilizers
results in increased soil organic matter, reduced erosion, better water infiltration and
aeration, higher soil biological activity as the materials decompose in soil, and increased
yields after the year of application (residual effects). Recent studies comparing conventional
and organic farming have shown an increase in organic matter, nutrient content, and
microbial biomass in organically managed soils (Edmeades, 2003 as cited in Sisay, 2006).
Livestock manures are the most traditional and widely recognized organic fertilizers. Since
manure is a combination of feces and urine, along with other bedding (litter) materials its
composition is quite variable and hence better than the inorganic fertilizers (Indrani et al.,

Ϯϭ

 2008). In addition to its nutrient supply, farmyard manure improves the
physicochemical conditions of soils due to its residual effect in the VRLO¶V IHUWLOLW\ VWDWXV
(Elias, 2002, Place et al., 2003). The FYM production capacity of farmers varies from farmer
to farmer and effects of using FYM vary based on the amounts applied. However,
availability of FYM in enough amounts is always a concern because it is dependent on the
animal holding and family labor (Bodruzzaman et al., 2010; Mahajan et al., 2008; Lay,
2002).
An application of farmyard manures at 10 t /ha contributes 30-70 kg N/ha in rice besides
leaving a significant residual effect on succeeding crops (Rekhi et al., 2000). Long-term
studies on rice have shown increased yield and yield components due to application of
farmyard manure and these effects are largely attributed to improved soil organic matter, soil
physical, chemical and microbial properties with application of farmyard manure (Bhandari
et al., 2002). A study by Hailu (2010) reported that the cumulative biomass yield of fields
with FYM was significantly higher than control and mineral fertilizer yields. The same
method and rate of application is repeated with each new crop not taking into account the
crop cycle and residual effects of manures (Nancy and Lalanne, 2001). For a particular
animal, the actual nutrient content of the manure depends on the nutritional quality of the
aniPDO¶V IHHG KRZ WKH PDQXUH ZDV KDQGOHG DQG WKH FRQGLWLRQV XQGHU ZKLFK LW KDV EHHQ
stored (Kiros and Mitiku, 2009).

2.9 Socioeconomic Impacts of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers

2.9)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQRI2UJDQLFDQG,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV

Any new technology should be evaluated in terms of its impact on the productivity,
profitability, acceptability and sustainability of farming systems (Gliessman, 2007; Roling
and Pretty, 1997; Jackline, 2002). If D IDUPHU¶V actual experience with the innovation is
satisfactory, his/her perceptions probably will become more favorable.
The current extension system in Ethiopia is along the lines of the Green Revolution approach
to agricultural development (Elias, 2002). Use of mineral fertilizers is seen by the Ethiopian
officials as the easiest and simplest way to improve soil fertility and hence increase
agricultural productivity. All extension initiatives have focused on the dissemination of the
same recommendations for mineral fertilizers use to all farmers under all kinds of

ϮϮ

 socioeconomic conditions and across all agroecological zones; no nation-wide effort has
been made to encourage farmers to efficiently use the locally available sources of nutrients
such as manure (ibid). This is a clear indication that the agricultural policy of Ethiopia failed
to realize the complex nature of soil fertility problems, the prevailing diverse social settings
and economic status of farmers and the future negative impact of agrochemicals. Use of
blanket recommended fertilizer on grain crops in Tigray consists of DAP (Diammonium
Phosphate) in combination with Urea at the rate of 100 kg each ha-1 year-1; however, the
open willingness of farmers to demand inorganic fertilizers still remains very much low due
mainly to economic constraints, fear of the burning effect and risk aversion (Hailu, 2010;
Assefa, 2005).
)DUPHUV¶ RSLQLRQV WRZDUGV WKH XVH RI HLWKHU RUJDQLF RU LQRUJDQLF VRXUFHV RI SODQW QXWULHQWV
are influenced by a variety of factors such as: information sources, ethical concerns about the
HQYLURQPHQW IDUPHUV¶ NQRZOHGJH HFRQRPLF FRQVLGHUDWLRQV FRVW DQG EHQHILW DVSHFWV
marketing procedures, the rationale of the extension system and the like (Chouichom and
Yamao, 2010). Many researchers reviewed lots of reasons that farmers are frustrated in using
mineral fertilizer such as: the ever increasing price of mineral fertilizer is becoming beyond
WKH SXUFKDVLQJ SRZHU RI IDUPHUV WKH JUDGXDO VRLO¶V IHUWLOLW\ GHSOHWLQJ HIIHFW RI LQRUJDQLF
fertilizers and fear of burning effect by chemical fertilizers on crops in case of moisture
inadequacy ( Hailu, 2010). Generally, the frustration of the smallholder farmers is to escape
possible crisis when the prices of their farm products are too low or lost in the unpredictable
rainfall situation (World Bank, 2007).
Therefore, farmers are inclined into locally available resources and technologies such as use
of FYM, crop rotation, soil and water conservation (e.g. terracing) and planting multipurpose
trees than using mineral fertilizer (Hailu, 2010). For example, FYM does not need money but
labor, which is locally available in each farming family. It is easily understood technology.
Of course FYM has labor requirement mainly for preparation, caring and transportation. But
for many farmers, labor is not major obstacle because labour shortage can also be minimized
at least by group work. This is because input costs continue to rise while the return from
agricultural products fall (Indrani et al., 2008). For example, Gruhn et al. (2000) reported
that the domestic prices of mineral fertilizer in Africa are as such that one kg of nitrogenous
fertilizer can cost between 6 and 11 kgs of grain. That is why some times farmers complain
that using mineral fertilizer is a waste of money (Harris, 1998). Farmers of Tselemti wereda
Ϯϯ

 also argued that the market price of crops is much less than that of the inorganic fertilizers
(personal observation).

2.9.2 Economic Aspects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers

As agriculture is a livelihood, the social and economic outcomes are of paramount

importance (Pretty et al., 2010). Agricultural technology has been defined as any behavior
or practice that involves the interaction of individuals within the production system
(Bagheri et al., 2008). Any new technology can be evaluated in terms of its impact on the
productivity, profitability, acceptability and sustainability of farming systems (Duncan et al.,
1990). Integrated nutrient management practices are survival and risk avoidance strategies
for farmers (Mahmood et al., 1997). Many farmers understand the role of FYM in improving
soil quality and sustaining yield. The existing cultural and social institutions of communities
make labor demanding systems appropriate (Hailu, 2010). Farmers are looking for socio-
economic independency at local level, which is better income without being trapped into debt
problem (Somda et al., 2002).
The conventional wisdom is that the best way to improve the productivity of resource poor
farmers is through the use of high-yielding variety of crops and chemical fertilizer; however
research evidences show that the resulting yield increases may not be sufficient to pay for
these inputs (Christopher, 1994). The addition of any amount of fertilizer is interesting to
farmers if and only if it is profitable through the enhancement of either yield or quality
(Kiros, 2010). However, maximum profits are rare at maximum yields because the last
increment of fertilizer to produce a little more yield may cost more than the yield increase is
worth. Fertilization may not be profitable when water is the first limiting factor; and due to
other hindrances such as market because an increase in yield may have less value compared
to the cost of fertilizers (ibid).
Without economic analysis, one cannot have good idea about how long such a technology
will persist in the face of rising household costs and increasing competition. Many new
technologies, though technically acceptable, failed to function for a longer period of time
because of their high financial requirements (CIMMYT, 1988). The economic analysis helps
researchers to look at the results from the farmers' viewpoint (ibid).
Partial Budget Analysis (PBA), as the name indicates, measures changes in income and
returns to limited resources (inputs) that change along the treatments. It provides a limited

Ϯϰ

 assessment of risks and further more suggests a range of prices and costs at which a
technology becomes profitable. PBA helps to carry out Marginal Rate of return (MRR)
analysis which is important for the correct evaluation of alternative technologies, where the
MRR analysis is carried out on both the treated and untreated (Control) treatments
(CIMMYT, 1988). Often, a minimum rate of return is set as a base line above which the
treatment options can be accepted and costs of capital, inflation and risk can be accounted
for. A 100% minimum rate of return is considered as a minimum value up on which farmers
could be willing to invest given their level of poverty and the fragile nature of the
environment (ibid). This comparison is important to farmers because they are interested in
seeing the increase in costs required to obtain a given increase in net benefits.

Ϯϱ

Chapter III: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location
Tigray, located in the northern tip of Ethiopia is bordered with Afar region in the East, Sudan in the
West, Eritrea in the North and Amhara region in the South. It extends from 12 013' to 14054' North
latitude and from 36027' to 40 018' East longitudes (Figure 1). It covers an area of 102,000 km2 and
has more than 4 million inhabitants, of whom 85% are rural dwellers (CSA, 2006). Tigray region has
seven administrative zones and 36 districts (weredas), which in turn are sub divided into 672 sub-
districts (tabias). Tselemti woreda is found in North Western Tigray administration zone. The field
experiment was conducted at the research station of Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center located
in Tselemti Woreda which is 400km west of Mekelle and 85km from Shire along the way Shire to
Gonder. The research station lies at 130¶ 1RUWK /DWLWXGH DQG 0¶ (DVW /RQJLWXGH and has an
altitude of 1350 masl.

3.1.2 Climate
Tselemti wereda has an altitude range of 800 to 2870 masl and the altitude of the experimental site is
1350masl. The agro-Ecological Zone of the wereda is Hot to warm-moist lowlands (M1-7) and Tepid
to cool-moist mid highlands (M2-5) with 2.65% µDega¶ (cool highland), 19% µWeinadega¶ (mid
KLJKODQGDQGµKola¶ (hot lowland). The mean annual temperature ranges from a minimum of
15.66 oC (November-January) to an average annual maximum of 36.64oC (February-May). It is a low
altitude area with average ( 5 years) annual rainfall of 1296.5 mm. Total rainfall during the growing
period of the crop was 912.3mm and had a mono-modal pattern. Generally, rainfall starts in June and
ends in September (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Ϯϲ

 3.1.3 Topography and Soil
In the study Wereda, the most dominant soil types are Cambisols, Fluvisols, Nitosols and
Vertisols. Soil classes of Cambisols and Fluvisols constitute the largest soil group that covers
about 75% of the soils in the Wereda (MyARC, 2010). Regarding the soil of the study site it
is deep heavy black soil that cracks (shrink) when dry and swells when moistened. Although
there is no intensive research regarding soils of the wereda, the soil type could be described
based on the soil texture analysis of the soil (USDA, 1999). A clay soil with a weighted
average of 30 percent or more clay in the fine earth fraction either between the mineral soil
surface and a depth of 18 cm and had cracks that open and close periodically is Vertisols
(ibid). According to Desta (2000), Vertisols soils generally have high clay content and
consequently a high moisture storage capacity. The pH is slightly acidic to neutral. The most
important characteristic of Vertisols is their high water-holding capacity (commonly 60-
70%), a consequence of the deep profile and high content of clay. The available information
on the chemical properties of Vertisols is very limited. In the surface horizons (0-30 cm)
most of the Vertisols contain about 3-10% organic matter. Total N contents vary from 0.08 to
0.22%. Vertisols in Ethiopia generally contain more than 40% clay in the surface
horizons and close to 75% in the middle part of the profiles (Samuel, 2011).The soil analysis
of the experimental site showed that it had 42% clay; pH of 6.08; CEC of 57.8
(meq/100gsoil) and total nitrogen of 0.102%. Therefore, based on this information, the soil
type of the study site would probably be classified as Vertisols.

3.1.4 Pre-Sowing Surface Soil and FYM Properties

3.1.4.1 Selected Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil of the Study Site
Physical and chemical analyses of the soil were carried out for the surface composite soil (0-
30cm) of the experimental field. The result of the soil analysis ( Table 3) showed that the
textural class of the surface soil was clay in texture with particle size distribution of 25%
sand, 33% silt and 42% clay and chemical characteristics: pH of 6.08, available phosphorus
of 1.2 (ppm), CEC of 57.8 (meq/100gsoil), organic matter of 1.83%, and total nitrogen of
0.1022%. According to Foth and Ellis (1991), the soil is moderately acidic (5.6-6.1) in
reaction with a pH of 6.08. Furthermore, according to Landon (1991), the soil at the
experimental site had low total N (0.1-0.2%), and low plant available phosphorus (<5ppm)
and according to Defoer (2000), deficient soil organic carbon (0.9-1.7). These results
Ϯϵ

 explicitly justify the need for the external application of organic or/and inorganic sources
based on the base recommendation for the different crops grown in the area. The low organic
carbon content (1.06%) in surface soils of the study area obtained might be due to low
biomass incorporation to the soil because of its use as a fuel and animal feed. The low
amount of organic matter in the soil is also related to environmental conditions, particularly
to vegetation, climate and to the history of cultivation. The farmers have been practicing
continuous cropping system. In addition to this, total removal of the crop residue might have
contributed to the low level of organic matter and total nitrogen.

Table 3: Some Selected physicochemical characteristics of the surface soil (0-30cm) of the
experimental site before starting the experiment, at Maitsebri, 2011.

Characteristics Unit Value

Sand (%) 25
Silt (%) 33
Clay (%) 42
Textural Class Name - Clay
pH (soil: water=1:2.5) - 6.08
Organic Carbon (%) 1.06
Organic Matter (%) 1.83
EC (dSm-1) 0.32
CEC (meq/100g soil) 57.8
Total N (%) 0.1022
Available P (ppm) 1.2
Available K (ppm) 130.363

3.1.4.2 Selected Chemical Properties of the Farmyard Manure (FYM)

The chemical composition of the FYM used in the experiment was characterized through
laboratory analysis (Table 4  7KH )<0 FRQWDLQHG  RUJDQLF PDWWHU µ9HU\ +LJK¶
Barber 1994)  QLWURJHQ µYHU\ KLJK¶ /andon, 1991); 451.6 ppm available
SKRVSKRURXVµ9HU\KLJK¶ Landon, 1991) and 18679.87 ppm of available potassium.

ϯϬ

 Table 4: Chemical Composition of the Organic Manure (FYM)

Organic pH EC CEC OC OM TN C:N Av. P Av. K

material (dSm-1) meq/100g (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)

FYM 8.81 10.91 48.40 14.75 25.43 1.3202 11.2 451.6 18699.87
OC= Organic Carbon; TN=Total Nitrogen; CEC=Cation Exchange Capacity;
EC= electrical conductivity.

3.1.5 Land use

Tselemti has various land use types that could be classified into cultivated land, irrigated
land, grazing land, forest land, home stead and the like. The wereda has a total area of 70926
ha with 37365 ha arable land, 4577ha forest land, 14882 ha grazing and bush land and 1410
2ha gully and mountainous land (MyARC, 2010). For the land under cultivation in this
wereda, 79.16% was planted in cereals, 1.82% in pulses, and 4.24% in oilseeds; and the
remaining with vegetables and fruit trees. 88.76% of the farmers practice mixed farming
(crops and livestock), while 7.45% grew only crops and 3.8% raised only livestock
(MyARC, 2010).

3.1.6 General Farming System

Agriculture is the predominant occupation of the people in Tselemti wereda. People are also
engaged in traditional gold mining (TGM) as a main off- farm income. Land tenure in this
woreda is distributed amongst 88.49% owning their land, and 11.49% renting. Sorghum, teff,
maize, sesame and flax are cultivated on the low lying plains, valleys and foothills. The main
crops cultivated for consumption are sorghum, maize and millet and nowadays rice. Sesame
is cultivated as a cash crop. Abundant pasture and availability of water for livestock supports
the ownership of fairly large livestock herds. Based on the current study, the average land
holding for households was 1.34 ha with minimum of zero and maximum of 3.25ha. Five
percent of the respondents have no land at all. About 32% of the respondent farmers have
farm land of one and below 1ha and 92% of the households have farm sizes of 2 hectare or
less. In the other words, the majority of them were small- scale farmers. In the study area,
farmers try to get access to additional farm land for rice production through renting.

ϯϭ

 3.1.6.1 Crops Production
The major cereal crops of the wereda includes Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea
mays), finger millet (Eleusine coracana), rice (Oryza sativa), and to some extent teff
(Ergrostus tef). Majority (44.4%) of the respondents grow the staple food crops sorghum,
finger millet and rice as their three major crops in order of importance as they are put.
Sorghum is the priority and most important crop and got the first rank in that it can grow in a
wide range of soils and can give a relatively good harvest with less attention to its
management options (ploughing, weeding etc.) and its tolerance to drought. Rice is the third
most important cereal crop due to the fact that it can grow in marginalized farms where other
crops do not grow due to water logging. The fact that rice can give excellent yield is another
important factor for their ranking. The major reason for growing rice is home consumption.
Rice straw is also widely used for animal feed. In terms of land utilization, an average of 0.5
hectares of land per household is allocated for rice.
3.1.6.2 Livestock Production
Livestock constitute an essential part of the farming system in the study. Major livestock
herds in the woreda are cattle, sheep and goats, horse, mule, donkey and chicken (Figure 4).
Oxen are the main source of farm power for plowing, and threshing. About 49.3% of the
respondents owned one pair of oxen, 9.3% had one ox, 8% owned three, 20% owned four,
2.7% owned five, 4% owned six and 1.3% owned 8 oxen. The sample respondents have an
average of 2.6 of oxen per household head.

>ŝǀĞƐƚŽĐŬWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨdƐĞůĞŵƚŝtĞƌĞĚĂ
ϯϮϴϭϯϲ
ϯϱϬϬϬϬ
ϯϬϬϬϬϬ
ϮϮϳϳϬϳ ϮϭϯϮϰϯ
ϮϱϬϬϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬϬϬ
ϭϱϬϬϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬϬϬ >ŝǀĞƐƚŽĐŬEƵŵďĞƌ
ϱϬϬϬϬ ϴϳϲϭϵϵϴϲ ϴϭ ϰϵ ϴϲ
Ϭ

Figure 4: Livestock Population of Tselemti Wereda Source: Tselemti wereda Bureau of Agriculture, 2011

ϯϮ

 3.1.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA, 2007)
of Ethiopia, this woreda has a total population of 138,858, of whom 70,108 are men and
68,750 women. With an area of 3,858.66 square kilometers and 37,367ha cultivated land,
Tselemti wereda has a population density of 35.99 people per square kilometer. A total of
30,485 households were counted in this woreda, resulting in an average of 4.55 persons to a
household (ibid). According to the wereda bureau of agriculture and rural development
(WBARD), the population of the sampled tabias (sub-districts), Tsaedakerni, Mezekir and
M/alem have 5101, 4630 and 8500 total population; 666, 849, and 1100 male headed
households and 67, 50 and 180 female headed households respectively.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents (Appendix Table 27) revealed that they
are low educated, fairly aged and much experienced in farming. About 41.3% of the
respondents belonged to the age group ranging from 46-60 years old with minimum and
maximum age of 28 and 78 respectively and an average age of 49.28 years. The farming
experience of 90.7% of the respondents is more than 20 years. In the case of educational
level, majority of the respondents are illiterate (49.3%), 1-6 years of formal schooling
(40%), 7-12 years of formal schooling (6.7%) and non- formal education (4%). Regarding
occupation, all of the respondents reported mixed agriculture as their major occupation.
Whereas, due to small land holdings and need for additional income few of them had non-
farm incomes which is basically traditional gold mining (TGM). Regarding landownership,
5% of the respondents were landless. The average land holding for households was 1.34 ha
with minimum of zero and maximum of 3.25ha. About 32% of the respondent farmers have
farm land of one and below 1ha and 92% of the households have farm sizes of 2 hectare or
less. Majority of the respondents were small- scale farmers. Of the 75 sampled respondents
about 90.7% were male headed and the remaining 9.3% are female headed households.

3.2 Experimental Design and Layout

Field experiment and survey study were employed to get detailed information on the same
issue (integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers). In this study both quantitative (the
agronomic part) and qualitative methods (the socioeconomic part) were employed. Semi-
structured key informant interview and personal observation methods were used to gather the
required data.

ϯϯ

 3.2.1 Experimental Material
5LFH FXOWLYDU µ1(5,&$-¶ ZDV XVHG DV SODQWLQJ PDWHULDO ,W ZDV LQWURGXFHG WR 7VHOHPWL
wereda of Tigray by MyARC from Adet Agricultural Research Center (AdARC) in 2008. It
is moderately tillering type and could bearing 3-5 effective tillers. Under rain fed conditions,
it had a yield potential of 36-42 quintal per hectare under research experiments and 25-40
quintal per hectare unGHU IDUPHUV¶ PDQDJHPHQW. It is moderately tolerant to disease and
lodging with an average plant height of 104 cm (MyARC, 2010).

3.2.2. Experimental Designs, Treatments and Procedures

This study was carried out during the rainy season of 2010/11 at Tselemti. The treatments
consisted of a factorial combination of four levels of inorganic fertilizers and three levels of
FYM. The experimental design used was RCBD in 3 x 4 factorial arrangements with three
replications. A plot size of 1.4m x 3 m (4.2 m2) was used. The blocks were separated by
1.5m, whereas plots within a block were 1m apart from each other. Each plot consists of 7
rows of 3m length, with a spacing of 20 cm between rows.
The treatments were organic (FYM) and inorganic (DAP plus Urea) sources of plant
nutrients with rice as a test crop. The sources of the inorganic fertilizers were DAP (Di-
ammonium phosphate (18%N, 20%P) and Urea (46%N). Full dose of DAP and half of Urea
were applied at the time of planting and the remaining Urea was side dressed at panicle
initiation stage of the crop. The source of the manure was cattle manure. There were three
levels of the organic fertilizer (FYM) i.e. FYM1=9t/ha; FYM2=6t/ha and no manure
(Mo=control). Organic manure (FYM) was uniformly applied to each plot as per treatment.
The inorganic fertilizer (IF) treatments were comprised of four levels: control (IFO=no DAP
and no Urea), IF1=75kg/ha DAP + 75kg/ha Urea; IF2=50kg/ha DAP + 50kg/ha Urea and
IF3=25kg/ha DAP + 25kg/ha Urea.
The seeds were sown at a depth of 2.5 cm and seed rate of 70kg/ha was used. All other
cultural practices (ploughing, cultivation, seed rate, sowing method, weeding and others)
were applied uniformly to all plots as per standard recommendations for the crop. Sowing
was done as per the on-set of the main growing season, 21 June 20. The experimental area
was kept weed free by hand pulling two times throughout the cropping season. At
physiological maturity, grain yield was obtained from the net central five rows with a net
area of 2.6m x 1m excluding plants from either end of the rows by 0.2m. The cropping

ϯϰ

 history of the experimental field showed that it was sown with rice crop in the previous
cropping year. The treatment details are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Treatment Combinations used in the Experiment

Organic fertilizer Inorganic Treatment
(FYM) fertilizer Description
Trt # (DAP/Urea)
rate Rate
(t/ha) (kg/ha)
trt1 0 No FYM +No D + No U

trt2 75 No FYM + 75 kg/ha D + 75 kg/ha U

trt3 0 50 No FYM + 50kg/ha D + 50kg/ha U

trt4 25 No FYM + 25kg/ha D + 25kg/ha U

trt5 0 9t/ha FYM + No D + No U

trt6 75 9t/ha FYM + 75kg/ha D + 75kg/ha U

trt7 9 50 9t/ha FYM +50 kg/ha D + 50 kg/ha U

trt8 25 9t/ha FYM +25 kg/ha D + 25 kg/ha U

trt9 0 6t/ha FYM +No D + No U

trt10 75 6t/ha FYM + 75 kg/ha D + 75 kg/ha U

trt11 6 50 6t/ha FYM +50 kg/ha D + 50 kg/ha U

trt12 25 6t/ha FYM+25 kg/ha D + 25 kg/ha U

FYM=farmyard manure; D= DAP; U=Urea; trt= treatment; t= ton;

The net plots were harvested and sun-dried for 5 days in the field and the total above ground
biomass weight, yield and some yield attributes such as 1000-grain weight were recorded.
Before harvesting, yield parameters such as number of tillers/plant, number of effective
tillers/plant, plant height, panicle length etc. were recorded from five randomly selected
plants. Grain yield data were recorded after drying, threshing and cleaning of the grain.
Straw yield was obtained by subtracting the grain yield from total above ground biomass
yield. The Partial Budget Analysis (PBA) of the rice was computed by considering the costs
of production that vary along the treatments, i.e. costs of inorganic fertilizers and the costs of
collecting and distributing of FYM.

ϯϱ

 3.3. Soil Sample collection and physiochemical Analysis

3.3.1 Soil Sample collection

Surface soil samples (0 to 30 cm) were collected with an auger before and after sowing from
the borders and central areas of the field before planting and from each plot of the three
replications. There were totally 36 soil sample plots. Composite soil samples of 1kg,
which were mixed thoroughly, were collected from the experimental field after harvest.
Soil samples were analyzed at TARI Soil Laboratory center to determine texture, soil
pH, total Nitrogen, available Phosphorus, available Potassium, CEC, EC, and Organic
matter. Soil samples were air dried, crushed and passed through a 2mm mesh sieve for
physicochemical analysis.

3.3.2 Soil Physicochemical Lab Analysis

Surface soil samples (0-30cm) were collected before sowing and after harvesting from 36
spots and composited and analyzed in the laboratory for selected chemical and physical soil
properties. Soil texture determination was done by hydrometric method (Day, 1965; Gee and
Bauder, 1986). Organic matter was determined based on the oxidation of organic carbon with
acid dichromate medium following the Walkley and Black method as described by Dewis
and Freitas (1970). Kjeldahl method (Dewis and Freitas, 1970) was used to determine total
N. The available soil P was determined according to the methods of Olsen and Dean (1965);
available K using the Morgan method (Morgan, 1941); CEC using Ammonium Acetate
method (Okalebo, et al, 1993), and EC using EC Meter (Sahelemedhin and Taye,
2000). Soil pH was determined in 1:2.5 soils: water ratio using a glass electrode attached to
a digital pH meter (Sahelemedhin and Taye, 2000). In all the treatments pH, EC, CEC, TN,
organic carbon and available P and K were measured after harvesting time.

3.4 Data Collection

3.4.1. Agronomic Parameters

3.4.1.1 Phonological Observation
Major phonological events such as days to 50% emergence, days to 50% flowering, days to
90% maturity were recorded. These three phonological observations were recorded as
number of days starting from sowing date. Days to 50% emergence was recorded when half
ϯϲ

 of the seedlings per net plot area were emerged. Days to 50% flowering was also taken when
half of the plant population on the net plot area started to flower. Days to 90% maturity was
recorded when 90% of the rice plants turned their leaves yellow or brown. Each
phonological stage was determined from visual observation.

3.4.1.2 Crop Growth Observations

Crop growth parameters included plant height and panicle length. Plant height was recorded
as the height of plant crown from the ground level. From five randomly sampled plants from
each plot, average plant height, numbers of tillers per plant number of spikes per plant,
panicle length, number of seeds per panicle, were recorded as per the following details:
Number of spikes per head was recorded by counting the branched spikes bearing seeds in
the sampled plants. Numbers of seeds per panicle were recorded by counting the total
number of seeds of a panicle from five randomly sampled 5 rice plants from each plot. Plant
height of the main stem was measured from the ground surface to the tip of the apex using a
ruler and expressed in cm.
3.4.1.3 Yield and Yield Components

At maturity all the plants from the net plot area (2.8m 2) were harvested and data on grain
and straw yield were measured. Grain yield and above ground dry biomass yield per plot
were recorded and expressed in Ql/ha. 1000-seed weight was expressed in grams. Harvest
index was worked out as the ratio of rice grain yield to total above ground biomass yield
multiplied by 100 and was expressed in percentage. Number of tillers per plant and number
of effective tillers of the same plants were counted from the five randomly selected and
tagged plants. After the leaves turned yellow and the stems brown, plants of the central five
rows of the plot were harvested. Threshing was done by collecting the plants from each plot
and allowed to dry thoroughly in open sacks so as to prevent grain loss. Then, the yield of
each plot was weighed using sensitive balance in kgs and converted to ha basis. Thousand
seed weight was determined from the count of 1000 seeds after sun drying and expressed in
grams. On the other hand, since a serious follow up was made, there were no problem of
shattering, lodging and disease or insect infestation. Therefore data on shattering, lodging as
well as disease or insect infestation were not analyzed.

ϯϳ

 3.4.2 Socioeconomic Parameters
3.4.2.1 Sampling Procedure
The choice of Tselemti wereda for this research was due to its well-known rice production
activities in the region. The study area is selected purposively since the area has high
potential for rice production. The wereda has 21 PAs and 2 town kebeles (Maitsebri and
'LPPD$PRQJWKHVH3$VWKUHH3$V7VD¶HGD- kerni, Mezekir and Medhanealem) were
selected purposively (Purposive Sampling) based on their accessibility and extensive
experience in rice production using Probability Proportional to Sample size (PPS) method.
Probability proportional to size (PPS) is a sampling technique for use with surveys in which
the probability of selecting a sampling unit (e.g., village, zone, district, health center) is
proportional to the size of its population (McGinn, 2004).

3.4.2.2 Sample Size and Sampling Method

Three kebeles (sub-districts) were selected for this study based on their potential of rice
production and experience of the farmers in rice production. As of 2007, these tabias had
PRUHWKDQILYH\HDU¶VH[SHULHQFHVRIULFHFXOWLYDWLRQTo make it have sense of statistic, using
the PPS method, 75 households were selected from these 578 households (Table 6).
Table 6: Sample size of the respondents using PPS
Name of the No of HHs Using PPS method area covered by rice
Tabia (ha)
7VD¶HGD.HUQL 258 33 farmers 126
Mezekir 180 23 farmers 98
Medhane-alem 140 19 farmers 86
Total 578 75 farmers 310
Source: Tselemti wereda BoARD (2011); PPS= Probability proportional to size
3.4.2.3 Social Data Collection
Descriptive survey design for data collection was adopted in the present study. Both primary
and secondary data were collected for the study. Primary data were collected from the
primary sources (respondents) with the aid of a structured interview schedule consisting of
both open and close ended questions. The secondary data were gathered from various sources
LQFOXGLQJ 7VHOHPWL %R$5' )7&V )DUPHUV¶ 7Uaining Centers) and Maitsebri Agricultural
Research Center (MyARC). Besides, relevant literature, official reports and memos were also
ϯϴ

 consulted as secondary data source. Primary data were collected from sampled farmers who
had involved at least for three years in rice production. Household survey and personal
observation methods were employed to gather the information required. Pre-tested interview
schedule and checklists were employed as survey instruments. Survey was conducted in
November to December 2011 and 75 farmers were interviewed in three study kebeles using
specific questionnaire regarding their perception on organic and inorganic fertilizers.

3.5. Methods of Data Analysis

3.5.1 Agronomic Data Analysis

All data obtained on crop and soil parameters were subjected to analysis of variance
(ANOVA) following a procedure appropriate to a factorial experiment in randomized
complete block design as suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984) and was computed using
Gen-Stat 12th statistical software (Gen-Stat, 2009). Treatments that showed significant
difference were subjected to DMRT (Duncan Multiple Range Test) for mean separation at
5% level of probability. Simple correlation analysis was also done to determine the
association of various agronomic (yield and yield components) and soil nutrient parameters.
The statistical model used for analysis of the data collected from the experimental field for
two factor design is given by:

Yijk = P + Ai + Bj + ABij +eijk

Where: Yijk = the response variable

P = the overall mean
Ai = ith level treatment effect of factor A (i.e. manure)
Bj = jth level treatment effect of factor B (i.e. inorganic fertilizer)
ABij = ijth interaction effect of A and B
Eijk = random error component for interaction

ϯϵ

 3.5.2 Economic Data Analysis
For economic evaluation of the cost and benefit in using the different combinations of
organic and inorganic fertilizers, the Partial Budget Analysis (PBA), which includes the
Dominance Analysis (DA) and Marginal Rate of Return (MRR), was used following the
CYMMYT procedure (CIMMYT, 1998). In this study, the Partial Budget Analysis was made
to determine the most economically acceptable treatment combinations by estimating the
costs and benefits based on the current market price of rice, inorganic fertilizers and the
transportation and spreading costs of farmyard manure for the 2011-12 cropping season at
the study wereda. The varying labor costs were estimated based on the existing rate of
payment to daily farm laborers. Grain and straw yield harvested from the experimental plots
were converted into hectare bases. Subsequently, the market value of both components was
based on the prevailed market price. To estimate economic parameters, rice was valued at an
average open market price of 450.00 birr per quintal (100kg) of grain. Rice straw has high
PDUNHWGHPDQGDQGLWVPDUNHWSULFHRQRSHQPDUNHWLVELUUSHUµVKHNLP¶µ6KHNLP¶LVORFDO
measure which is one head / back load by an adult person and weighs 20kg on average.
7KHUHIRUH WKH SULFH RI RQH TXLQWDO  µVKHNLPV¶ RI ULFH VWUDZ LV  ELUU [ELUU  7KH
straw yield of rice is estimated to be 88 shekims per hectare (Astewel, 2010). Hence, for the
economic analysis of the rice straw, 90 birr per quintal is used. The price of 10 workdays
(WD) per hectare for collection and transportation of FYM was used (Astewel, 2010) and
wage rate of 35 birr per workdays was used. The price of inorganic fertilizers used is 1280.00
birr per quintal for DAP and 980.00 birr per quintal for Urea. Experimental yields are often
higher than the yields that farmers could expect using the same treatments; hence in
economic calculations yields of farmers are adjusted by 15% less than that of the research
results (CIMMYT, 1998).
The partial Budget analysis was undergone through the following stages:
1. Net Income: Estimate the net benefit arising from all alternative treatments. Net income
(NI) or net benefit is calculated as the amount of money left when the total variable costs for
inputs (TVC) are deducted from the total revenue (TR).

NI = TR - TVC

ϰϬ

2. Dominance Analysis (identification and elimination of inferior treatments): Before
proceeding with the calculation of Marginal Rates of Return, an initial examination of the
costs and benefits of each treatment, called dominance analysis is important. Dominance
analysis is used to eliminate some of the treatments from further consideration in the MRR
and thereby simplifying the analysis of MRR. i.e., those treatments which involve higher cost
but do not generate higher benefits (called dominated treatments) are eliminated. The
dominance analysis was carried out by first listing all the treatments in their order of
increasing costs that vary (TVC) and their net benefits (NB) are then put aside. Any
treatment that has higher TVC but net benefits that are less than or equal to the preceding
treatment (with lower TVC but higher net benefits) is dominated treatment (marked as
³D´). The dominance analysis illustrates that to improve farmers' income, it is important to
pay attention to net benefits rather than yields, because higher yields do not necessarily mean
high net benefits.
3. The Marginal Rate of Return. MRR is used to assess relative profitability among
alternative treatments. It measures the percentage increase in net income in relation with
each additional input of expenditure ('TVC) and the 100% rate of return is considered as a
minimum value up on which farmers could be willing to invest given their level of poverty
and the fragile nature of the environment (CIMMYT, 1998). MRR was calculated as the ratio
of change in return of the average of each replicated treatment to the change in total cost with
regard to the control. It compares the increments in costs and benefits between pairs of
treatments.

ઢࡺࡵ
MRR = x100
ઢࢀࢂ࡯
Where:
ȟܰ‫ ܫ‬ൌ Change in Net Income;
'TVC = change in Total Variable Cost
The marginal rates of return appear in between two treatments. It makes no sense to speak
of the marginal rate of return of a particular treatment because the MRR is a characteristic
of the change from one treatment to another.

ϰϭ

4. Identification of a candidate recommendation from among the non-dominated treatments.
This is the treatment which gives the highest net return and a marginal rate of return greater
than the minimum considered acceptable to farmers.

3.5.3 Social Data Analysis

The social data collected were analyzed with the aid of the descriptive statistical tools of
frequency count and percentage. Simple descriptive statistics such as simple measures of
central tendency, mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentages and cross tabulation were
used for the survey data gathered from the sampled farm households. Statistical package for
social science (SPSS) version 16 was employed to analyze the data. The analyzed data were
presented using tables, graphs and charts.

ϰϮ

 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility Status
The mean square of the main factor effects and their combined factor effects of organic and
inorganic fertilizers on soil quality parameters was displayed in Tables 7. The statistical
analysis revealed that application of organic manure as a main factor showed significant
effects for all the soil nutrient parameters, but its interaction with inorganic fertilizers was
non-significant for pH and total Nitrogen. The soil pH, % OM, %total N, available P,
available K and CEC content of the soil significantly responded to the application of organic
fertilizers (Table 7).
Table 7: Mean Square for soil pH, OC, av. P, av. K., TN and CEC
Source of Df pH OC Av. P Av. K TN CEC
variation (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (Meq/100g)

Replication 2 0.005 0.009 0.07 20.65 0.001 1.4

M 2 0.03** 0.58** 3.9** 9319** 0.002** 14.15**
IF 3 0.02** 0.02ns 1.75** 2360** 0.0001ns 0.8ns
M x IF 6 0.001ns 0.044** 1.25** 1422** 0.0001 ns 7.88**
Residual 24 0.01 0.0096 0.08 7.4 0.0001 0.68
Total 35
M= Manure; IF= Inorganic Fertilizer; DF=degrees of freedom, * significant at p<0.05,
** = highly significant at p<0.01; OC= Organic Carbon; TN=total Nitrogen;

Comparison of soil fertility before and after cropping revealed that incorporation of organic
and inorganic fertilizer increased the soil organic carbon content, CEC, available P and
available K, indicating that there is improvement of the fertility status of the soil (Table 7).
The analysis of variance showed that application of organic manure significantly affected all
the main chemical properties of soil (OC, soil pH, available P and K, TN and CEC.
Improvement in the soil properties with application of organic manure might be a result of
buildup in the organic carbon, solublization of different organic nitrogenous compounds in to
simple and available form, acidifying action of FYM on applied P at the time of
decomposition making more available, and reduction of K fixation (Seyed et al., 1998; as

ϰϯ

 cited by Daniel, 2006). But inorganic fertilizers had significant difference for soil pH,
available P and available K but not for organic carbon, total nitrogen and CEC.

4.1.1 Soil pH

Soil reaction has a direct influence on chemical and biological soil properties and parameters.
Low productive soils and sites were associated with low pHs and corresponding low levels of
exchangeable bases and organic matter. The results of the mean squares analysis of the
effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the major soil chemical properties are shown in
Table 7 and appendix Table 3. The soil pH was highly significantly affected by the main
effects of the organic fertilizer FYM (p<0.01) and by the main effect of inorganic fertilizers
(p<0.05) but not by their combined effect (Table 7; appendix Table 28). For the FYM as a
main factor, the highest pH value (6.27) was observed for the highest rate of FYM used
(9t/ha). As of the effects of the FYM as a main factor, soil pH on treatment plots was
increased after harvest except for the control plot (pH=6.10). When 9t/ha of FYM was
applied, the soil pH showed small (2.8%) but significant increase (6.27) than the absolute
control (6.10). For increased application of the different rates of the FYM, the soil pH also
increased but there was no significant difference for the application of 6T/ha of FYM than
the zero application (Table 8). This concurs with the findings of Bodruzzaman (2010) who
suggested in his results that organic manures could increase pH of low pH soils by addition
of base cations. He also reported that cattle manure amended soils had significantly higher
pH than non-amended soils. Again with regard to the main effect of inorganic fertilizers,
highest soil pH of 6.26 was observed when 75kg/ha of inorganic fertilizer was applied which
is an increase of 2.6% than the absolute control (pH=6.10). There was significant difference
between lower rates and higher rates but no significant difference was observed for the 25
and 50 kg/ha rates of inorganic fertilizers used. The interaction effect of FYM with
inorganic fertilizers indicated no significance effect on soil pH.

4.1.2. Total Nitrogen

The results of the mean squares analysis of the effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on
total nitrogen are shown in Table 7 and appendix Table 3. The ANOVA Table for Total
Nitrogen showed that the N content of the soil after harvest was significantly affected by of
the use of FYM (Table 7, appendix Table 8). FYM as a main factor showed significant

ϰϰ

 effects for all the soil nutrient parameters including total nitrogen, but its interaction effect
with inorganic fertilizers was non-significant for total Nitrogen (Table 7, 8 and 9; appendix
Table 8). The N content of the soil after harvest was not significantly affected by either the
application of inorganic fertilizes as a main factor or by the combined effect of organic and
inorganic fertilizers (Table 7; appendix Table 8). This might be attributed to the nutrient
uptake by the crop during the growing period. The increase in total N by the organic manure
(FYM) might be due to the direct addition of N through organic manure added to the soil
because the low recovery efficiency of N is associated with its loss by leaching,
denitrification, volatilization and soil erosion (Fageria, 2011). Indrani et al., (2008) also
observed that available nitrogen content of the soil increased significantly with the addition
of organic manure. They stated that this might be due to the decomposition of organic matter
and greater multiplication of soil microbes which converted organically bound N to inorganic
form.
Total Nitrogen content of the post-harvest soil did not showed much variation as compared to
the before planting data (Tables 7; appendix Table 8). The total N content of the soil
increased as the level of FYM and inorganic fertilizers increased though the difference was
non-significant. Percent total N increase for the organic manure receiving treatments were,
57.5% and 47.5% for the rates of 9t/ha (0.06TN) and 6t/ha (0.059TN) respectively than the
absolute control (TN=0.04) but the percentage increase was not significantly different.
Although not statistically different, the inorganic fertilizers also showed percentage increase
of total nitrogen than the absolute control. This result agrees with the findings of
Bodruzzaman, (2010) who indicated that reduction of % total N in control and inorganic
fertilizers treatments is a consequence of reducing %OM and possibly the higher removal of
N from soil.

4.1.3 Organic Carbon (%)

The two way ANOVA (Table 7; Appendix Table 4) showed that the main effects of organic
fertilizers (FYM) had high significant effect (p<0.001) on Organic Carbon (OC) content of
the top soil (0-30). Organic carbon showed no significant response to the application of
inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) alone, but there is significant effect by the FYM and the
interaction of FYM with the inorganic fertilizers (Table 7). The organic carbon was
significantly increased as the rate of application of FYM is increased from 0-9t/ha. The

ϰϱ

 results of organic carbon at harvest showed significant variations among the treatments.
There was higher improvement of OC % in all the treatments that received the highest level
of FYM when combined with the four levels of the IF than the combinations of lower level
of the FYM. The treatments which received both inorganic fertilizers and FYM as a main
factor showed higher (av. 1.60 for both) organic carbon when compared to initial level (1.06)
which could be due to addition of organic manures.
Here, application of 9t/ha of FYM increased the organic carbon percent from 1.4% (the
control) to 1.8% (the treatment with 9t/ha) which is by 28.6%. The organic carbon of the soil
after harvest also slightly increased for the applications of inorganic fertilizers than the
absolute control but lower increases were observed for the higher rates (Table 8). This agrees
with the findings of Indrani et al. (2008) where they concluded that the differences of organic
carbon content due to application of fertilizers might be the result of differential rate of
oxidation of organic matter by microbes. Abay et al. (2011) also showed there was an
increase in soiORUJDQLFFDUERQDIWHUKDUYHVWRIµWHII¶ZKLFKPLJKWEHDWWULEXWHGWRGHFD\VRI
weeds and roots of the test crop and/or reduction of organic matter decomposition rate during
the growing period of the crop. This investigation is similar to that of Rekhi et al. (2000)
who reported that an initial low level of OC was raised to a medium level after 3-years rice-
wheat cropping system with FYM application. The results indicate that continuous
application of organic manure could cause % OM to accumulate in soil although the
decomposition rate of OM in high humidity and temperature condition in subtropical region
is quick as is reported by Bodruzzaman (2010).

4.1.4 Available Phosphorous (avi. P)

As Table 7 and appendix Table 6 clearly show, both the main factors (FYM and IF) and their
combined effects had highly significantly influenced the content of the available
phosphorous after harvest. With regard to the main effects of the inorganic fertilizers (Table
7), although the effect was high, the available phosphorous content of the soil showed a
general decreasing trend (reverse action) with increased rate of inorganic fertilizers. Higher
and significant increase of available phosphorous was recorded with the 25kg/ha of inorganic
fertilizers than the higher rates which is 107.8% (1.8 to 3.74ppm) increase than the absolute
control. For the main effect of FYM, as the application rate of the manure is increased from
zero to 9 t/ha, the available P also increased significantly from 2.55ppm to 3.66ppm (Table

ϰϲ

 8). However, the average increment (1.44) of the three levels of FYM from the absolute
control is small, which might be attributed to phosphorous uptake by the crop. This confirms
with the findings of Abay et al. (2011). Application of 9t/ha of FYM had a significant
increase over the control which is by 103.3%. The interaction effect of FYM with inorganic
fertilizers (DAP and Urea) also indicated significance effect on available P (Table 9).
However, the increment with available P is higher in the combined effect of organic and
inorganic fertilizers than their main effects, where highest value of available P of 4.48ppm
was found when 9t/ha of FYM is incorporated with 25kg/ha of inorganic fertilizers, followed
by 9t/ha of FYM and 50kg/ha of the recommended dose of the inorganic fertilizer. The
improvement in available P of the soil might be accounted to the organic sources that might
have favored the release of higher amount of available P from the soil. This result agrees
with the findings of Daniel et al. (2006) where he indicated that improvement in the soil
properties with application of organic manure might be associated with organic carbon,
solublization of different organic nitrogenous compounds in to simple and available forms,
acidifying action of FYM on applied P at the time of decomposition making more available
P. The results indicate that addition of PM had added higher amounts of P to the soils.
Increase of available phosphorus might be due to the decomposition of organic matter
accompanied by the release of appreciable quantities of carbon-di-oxide, as carbon-di-oxide
production plays an important role in increasing phosphate availability.as is reported by
Indrani et al., (2008).

ϰϳ

Table 8: Soil nutrient status as influenced by the main effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers at Maitsebri, 2011.

Variable OC % Av. P % Av. K % TN % CEC % over pH %

(%) over (ppm) over (ppm) over (%) over control over
control control control control (Cmol(+/kg) control

IF
(kg/ha)
75 1.58ab 12.85 2.93c 62.8 158.42b 43.28 0.057a 42.5 52.67a 5.3 6.26a 2.60
50 1.65a 17.85 3.31b 83.8 174.92a 58.21 0.057a 42.5 53.3a 6.6 6.21b 1.81
25 1.55b 10.7 3.74a 107.8 156.77b 41.79 0.052a 30 53a 6 6.22b 1.96
0 1.63ab 16.4 2.74c 52.2 135.43c 22.5 0.05a 25 53.32a 6.6 6.15c 0.82
Abs.Control 1.4 1.8 110.56 0.04 50 6.10
SEM (±) 0.033 0.095 0.96 0.003 0.28 0.013

FYM
(t/ha)
9 1.8a 28.6 3.66a 103.3 184.82a 67.2 0.059a 47.5 54.34a 8.7 6.27a 2.8
6 1.65b 17.86 3.32b 84 155.2b 40.4 0.06a 57.5 52.5b 5 6.19b 1.5
0 1.37c * 2.55c 41.7 129.12c 16.8 0.04b 0 52.42b 4.8 6.17b 1.14

Abs.Control 1.4 1.8 110.56 0.04 50 6.10

SEM (±) 0.028 0.082 0.8 0.003 0.24 0.011

Means within the same column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at the 5% level of significance; IF=
Inorganic fertilizer; FYM= farmyard manure; OC= organic carbon; TN= total nitrogen; SEM= standard error of the mean;
CEC= cation exchange capacity; abs.control=absolute control

ϰϴ

 Table 9: Soil Nutrient Status as influenced by the combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers, at
Maitsebri, 2011.

Trts Trt pH CEC OC (%) OM (%) AV.P TN (%) Ava.K

Combinations (ppm)
FYM IF
(t/ha) (kg/ha)

trt1 0 0 6.1f 50.6e 1.40e 2.407e 1.8g 0.04 110.6j

trt2 0 75 6.24bcd 51.8de 1.41e 2.423e 2.64f 0.04 130.4i

trt3 0 50 6.14ef 52.7cd 1.53de 2.63de 2.04g 0.04 135.3h

trt4 0 25 6.6.2cde 54.6ab 1.12f 1.927f 3.72bc 0.04 140.3g

trt5 9 0 6.21cd 55.43a 1.85a 3.180a 2.96ef 0.06 150.2e

trt6 9 75 6.31a 54.4ab 1.71abc 2.94abc 3.12de 0.06 174.9b

trt7 9 50 6.23ab 55ab 1.81ab 3.113ab 4.08ab 0.06 239.3a

trt8 9 25 6.25abc 52.4d 1.81ab 3.113ab 4.48a 0.0573 174.9b

trt9 6 0 6.14ef 53.8bc 1.65bcd 2.84bcd 3.46cd 0.050 145.6f

trt10 6 75 6.23cd 51.8de 1.63cd 2.807cd 3.02def 0.07 170.0c

trt11 6 50 6.18de 52.2d 1.61cd 2.767cd 3.80bc 0.07 150.2e

trt12 6 25 6.2cde 52.2d 1.72abc 2.96abc 3.04def 0.06 155.1d

CV 0.2 3.12 13.76 13.77 25.21  20.06

(%)
SEM((±)  0.28 0.05 0.06 0.134  5.23
Means within the same column followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at the 5% level of
significance; IF= Inorganic fertilizer; FYM= farmyard manure; OC= organic carbon; TN= total nitrogen; SEM=
standard error of the mean; CEC= cation exchange capacity.

ϰϵ

 4.1.5 Available K

Available potassium (K) content also increased in use of farmyard manure either alone or in
combination with inorganic fertilizers (Table 9). The interaction effect of FYM with DAP
and Urea indicated significance effect on OC (organic carbon), Available P, available K and
CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) but not for soil pH and total Nitrogen (Table 9). FYM
indicated significant effects for all the soil nutrient parameters, but its interactions effect with
inorganic fertilizers was non-significant for pH and total Nitrogen. The study clearly
revealed that there was significant effects by FYM, IF (inorganic fertilizers) and FYM by IF
interactions for available P and K. Organic Carbon, CEC, available P and K contents of the
soil increased with the incorporation of FYM in conjunction with inorganic fertilizer
(Table 9). FYM as a main factor increased the available K as more rate of FYM is used. Ava.
K increased by 67.2 % by adding 9t/ha of FYM (184.82ppm) than the absolute control
(110.56ppm). Daniel (2006) reported similar results in which CEC, av. P, av. K and organic
carbon were significantly increased with organic matter in conjunction with inorganic
fertilizers. Increase of potassium might be attributed due to direct addition of potassium to
the available pool (Indrani et al., 2008).

4.1.6 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

The main effect of FYM and the interaction of FYM with inorganic fertilizers made a
significant (p< 0.05) effect on the CEC of the soil (Table 7). But the effect of inorganic
fertilizers on the CEC of the soil as a main factor showed no significant difference (Table 7).
The interaction effect of FYM with inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) indicated
significance effect on Exchange Capacity (CEC) but not for soil pH and total Nitrogen
(Table 7). The combined application of 9t/ha FYM in conjunction with 50kg/ha and 75kg/ha
dose of the inorganic fertilizer improved the CEC of the soil. CEC showed no significant
response to the application of inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) alone, but there is
significant effect by the manure and the interaction of manure with the inorganic fertilizers.
Though not significantly different, the highest CEC (55.43) of the soil was observed in
treatment plots that received 9t/ha of FYM with no IF (Table 12). Generally, when
comparing the main effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the nutrient profile of the
soil, the extent of increase was higher when organic manure are used (Table 7). The results
ϱϬ

 also clearly indicated that the N content of the soil was not significantly affected by the
application of inorganic fertilizes. The increase in P and K in farmyard manure application
treatment could be attributed to enhanced availability of these nutrients due to improved soil
structure and increased microbial activity. The study clearly revealed that there was
significant effects by FYM, IF (inorganic fertilizers) and FYM by IF interactions for
available P and K. Organic Carbon, CEC, available P and K contents of the soil increased
with the incorporation of FYM in conjunction with inorganic fertilizer (Table 8). Indrani et
al., (2008) reported similar results in which CEC, available P, available K and organic
carbon were significantly increased with the integrated use of organic manure in conjunction
with inorganic fertilizers.

4.1.7 Correlation of Major Soil Parameters 

The results of estimates of correlation coefficients between each pair of the characters
studied are presented in Table 10. Results on simple correlation coefficients revealed that the
soil fertility after harvest exhibited significant (p<0.001) positive correlation with the major
soil quality characters such as available P, available K, organic carbon etc. Available P was
positively and strongly correlated with available K (r= 0.51**; p<0.01) and significantly with
soil pH (r=0.42*; p<0.05), indicating that available P increased as both av. K and pH
increased. Available K was significantly correlated to pH (r=0.69**), organic carbon (r=
0.56**), available phosphorous (r=0.51**), total nitrogen (r=0.42*) and with CEC
(r=0.45**) as is indicated in Table 10.
Table 10: The Correlation Matrix of Major Soil Parameters
pH %OC %OM Ava. P Total N Ava.K CEC
(ppm) (%) (ppm) Cmol(+)/kg
pH 1.0000 0.3320* 0.3320* 0.4168* 0.2167ns 0.6859** 0.4151*
%OC 1.0000 1.0000 0.3189ns 0.4890** 0.5606** 0.1997ns
%OM 1.0000 0.3189ns 0.4890** 0.5606** 0.1997ns
Ava. P (ppm) 1.0000 0.2641ns 0.5123** 0.2263ns
Total N 1.0000 0.4187* 0.0231ns
Ava.K (ppm) 1.0000 0.4520**
CEC 1.0000
* & ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% probability level, respectively; ns= non-significant

ϱϭ

4.2. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Phonological growth,
Yield and Yield Components of Rice

4.2.1 Phonological and Growth Observations

As is depicted in Table 11, days to 50% emergence (DE), days to 50% flowering (DF), days
to 90% physiological maturity (DM), plant height (PH) and panicle length (PL) were
significantly (P 0.05) influenced by the main effect of FYM and inorganic fertilizers except
that panicle length was not significantly affected by the main effect of FYM.
Table 11: Mean square for DE, DF, DM, PH and PL
Source of Df DE DF DM PH PL
variation

Replication 2 0.36 7.44 17.69 83.08 2.99

M 2 3.53** 184.52** 692* 84.23* 4.8ns

IF 3 0.92* 19.51* 172.3* 228.7** 6.52*

M x IF 6 0.64* 28.12** 23.44** 9.2ns 1.57ns
Residual 24 0.21 4.11 80.28 22.6 1.48
Total 35
df=degree of freedom; M= manure (FYM); IF= inorganic fertilizer; DE= days to emergence;
DF= days to flowering; DM= Days to maturity; PH=Plant height; PL= panicle length;
ns=non-significant.

4.2.1.1 Days to 50% Emergence (DE)

The results of the main effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers and their
interactions in relation to days to 50% emergence are presented in Tables 11 and 12. As the
analysis of variance for the main effects showed, more number of days to seedling
emergence of rice was recorded due to the application of FYM than its non- application and
the reverse held true for inorganic fertilizers. However, relatively inorganic fertilizer had a
more significant influence on the shorter days to 50% emergence. This could be due to the
fact that the bulky nature of the FYM may suppress the seeds of rice to emerge quickly.
Days to 50% emergence ranged from 5.5 to 6.6 days after planting for the main effect of
manure and 5.5 to 6.22 days for the inorganic fertilizers as a main effect. As per the main
ϱϮ

 effect of manure, shorter days to 50% emergence (5.5) were observed in plots that got no
manure. And for the inorganic fertilizers as a main factor, the shorter days to 50% emergence
was observed in plots that received the higher doses. For this parameter (DE), inorganic
fertilizers took less longer days to seedling emergence than the FYM.
This clearly shows that inorganic fertilizers hasten seed emergence or germination.
Generally, the two main factors (organic and inorganic fertilizers) had significant effect on
the days to emergence which is shorter than the control (6 days) depending on the levels of
the two main factors on which the seeds were planted.

4.2.1.2 Days to 50% Flowering (DF)

With regard to days to 50% flowering, plots that got manure took longer days (max. 84days)
than the inorganic fertilizers (max. 82days) and the two main factors took longer days than
the control (71.33days). The effect of the main factors on days to 90% physiological
maturity is similar as that of the days to 50% flowering. In both parameters (DF and DM),
FYM application took longer days to flower and mature over the application of the inorganic
fertilizers. The influence of FYM and IF (inorganic fertilizers) interaction on the days to 50%
emergence, 50% flowering and 90% maturity have been depicted in Tables 11 and 12.
A significant (P 0.05) difference occurred on the average mean number of days to 50%
flowering, 50% flowering and 90% maturity due to FYM and IF (inorganic fertilizers)
interaction. The average days to emergence, flowering and maturity took 5-7days, 75-86
days and 100-126 days after planting respectively. The mean shortest days to seed emergence
(5 days after planting) were observed when either 9t/ha of FYM is applied along with
75kg/ha of the IF or 75kg of IF is used with zero FYM. When all treatments other than the
control were considered, shortest days to 50% flowering (75 days) were observed in plots
that received the level 25kg/ha of IF along with no FYM (Table 13). The longest days to
flowering (114.3 days) were observed where 7.5 t/ha of FYM is incorporated with 50 kg/ha
of IF. When FYM is incorporated with IF, the mean shortest days to maturity (103.7 days)
were observed when 75kg/ha of IF is applied with no FYM or when 25kg/ha of IF is used
with 5t/ha of FYM (Table 13).

ϱϯ

 4.2.1.3 Days to Maturity (DM)
The results of main effect of different treatments and their interaction in relation to
days to flowering and maturity are given in Table 11. Organic and inorganic fertilization
significantly influenced days required for flowering and to attain physiological maturity in
rice (Table 11). Application of 9t/ha FYM with 75 kg/ha of inorganic fertilizers delayed days
to flowering and maturity by about 14.67 days and 11.3 days respectively as compared to
the unfertilized treatment (control). Similarly, increasing FYM application from 0 to 9t/ha
prolonged the days to flowering by about 13 days than the control.
The main effects of organic fertilizers (FYM) and inorganic fertilizers (IF) on the number of
days to 90% maturity are depicted in Table 12. A statistically significant (p<0.05)
difference was observed on the days to 90% maturity due to the two nutrient sources. Use of
IF (as DAP and Urea) decreased the number of days to maturity as compared to the organic
sources. Greater number of days (122.5) to physiological maturity was recorded when
higher dose (9t/ha) of FYM was used as a main factor.
The interaction of different rates of recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers with various
levels of organic manures (i.e. FYM) had a significant effect on days to maturity (Table 11).
The application of 75kg/ha dose of N/P alone significantly reduced the days to maturity as
compared to the organic sources which resulted in longest maturity period about 122.5 days
(Table 12). This agrees with the findings of Orkaido (2004) who reported that application of
commercial fertilizers resulted in increased yields and earlier maturity of maize.

ϱϰ

Table 12: Main effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on days to 50% Emergence (DE),
50% flowering (DF), 90% maturity (DM), Panicle length (PL) and Plant height (PH) of rice at
Maitsebri, 2011.

Variable DE DF DM PL PH

IF
(kg/ha)
75 5.556b 81.78a 118.22ab 17.44a 79.8a
50 6.111a 82a 120.56a 16.91ab 74.2b
25 6.222a 80.67ab 110.33c 15.69b 71.3bc
0 6.222a 78.78b 116.11b 15.82b 67.8c
SEM(±) 0.15 0.67 0.94 0.41 1.58
LSD (0.05) 0.45 1.98 2.77 1.18 4.65
FYM
(t/ha)
9 5.55a 84.33a 122.5a 16.98a 76.1a
6 6.58b 81.5b 118.58b 16.67a 73.07ab
0 5.5c 76.58c 107.8c 15.76a 70.78b
SEM(±) 0.13 0.58 0.82 0.36 1.37
LSD (0.05) 0.38 1.7 2.4 Ns 4.02
CV 12.21 5.54 6.90 9.01 9.15

IF=inorganic fertilizers; FYM=farmyard manure; DE=days to 50% emergence; DF= days to

50% flowering; DM=days to 90% maturity; PL=Panicle length; PH=plant height

The increase in days to maturity of rice using FYM could be due to the fact that more
nitrogen fertilizers increase the vegetative growth of the crop and hence the crop tends to
have more number of days to mature than the non-fertilized plots.
This research result agrees with the findings of Krishnippa (1989) where he concluded that
high level of Nitrogen fertilizers increased the leaf area which increases the amount of
solar radiation intercepted and consequently, increases days to flowering, days to
physiological maturity, plant height and dry matter production of different plant parts. This
result of the experiment disagrees with the findings of Daniel (2006) who reported that

ϱϱ

 integration of organic manure with inorganic fertilizers fasten maturity period of the potato
crop at Bako Agricultural Research Center.
4.2.1.4 Plant Height (PH)
Main effect of inorganic fertilizers and organic fertilizers on the progressive development of
plant height of rice is presented in Table 12. There was a significant difference due to
the two soil fertility enhancement options (FYM and IF) with respect to plant height.
However, use of inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) showed significantly higher plant
height as compared to that of use of the organic sources (FYM) in the time course of
observations ( Table 12). The difference in plant height between the two options was
observed at the maturity stages of the crop. Plant height increase in response to the
fertilization treatment may be attributed to stem elongation. This could be due most likely to
the ready-made nutrient availability of the inorganic fertilizers and the slow nature of
nutrient release by the organic sources. When the main effect of inorganic fertilizers is seen,
higher mean height (79.8cm) was observed on plots that received the higher level (75kg/ha),
while the lowest (67.89 cm) was recorded at zero level of inorganic fertilizers.
The analysis of variance of plant height showed significant differences (p<0.05) for
the main effects of organic fertilizers and highly significant differences (p<0.01) for the
main effects of inorganic fertilizers (Table 11; Appendix Table 12). Plant height increased
from 70.7 to 76.06 cm as the rate of FYM increased from 0 to 9t/ha. Similarly, the plant
height also increased from 67.89 to 79.8cm as the rate of inorganic fertilizer increased from 0
to 75 percent of the recommended rate. The increase in plant height might be due to
better availability of N and the enhancing effect of N on the vegetative growth by
increasing cell division and elongation (Daniel, 2006).
The interaction effect of different rates of recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers with
various rates of organic manure (FYM) had shown no statistically significant effect on plant
height (Table 11). However, there is much numerical difference among the different
treatment effects. Although the interaction effect of inorganic fertilizers and organic
fertilizers on the final plant height was not statistically significant (Table 13), highest plant
height of 83.1cm was recorded when 9t/ha of FYM is used in conjunction with 75kg/ha of
inorganic fertilizers which is 18.43cm longer than the control (64.67). Application of 9t/ha of
FYM integrated with 75 percent of the recommended rate of inorganic fertilizer (75kg/ha)

ϱϲ

 had recorded maximum plant height (83.1cm) followed by the combination of 75 % of IF
and 5t/ha of FYM which resulted in (79.57 cm).
The results of the experiment confirm the findings of Gonzalez et al. (2001) who
reported that organic manure and inorganic fertilizer supplied all the essential nutrients at
seedling stage resulting in increase of measured variables like the plant height.
Generally it was observed that treatments that received both organic and inorganic
fertilizer produced plants with more height as compared to plants in unfertilized plots.
4.2.1.5 Panicle Length (PL)

The main effect of inorganic fertilizers had significant effect on the panicle length of rice but
the main effects of organic fertilizers and the combined effect of organic and inorganic
fertilizers did not significantly influenced the panicle length of rice (Table 11). However,
higher mean panicle length (18.4cm) was obtained where 9t/ha of FYM and 75kg/ha of IF
were combined while lower mean panicle length (14.23cm) was recorded at the plot of
absolute control (treatment 1). Likewise, higher mean panicle length of 17.44cm was
observed at the main effect of the inorganic fertilizer with 75kg/ha but which is not
significantly different from the level of 50kg/ha inorganic fertilizer (16.91cm). The fact that
higher panicle length was observed with higher manure level indicates that N/P nutrients
affect the panicle length which directly affects the yield.

ϱϳ

Table 13: Rice Phonological and growth parameters as influenced by the integrated nutrient
management at Maitsebri, 2011.
Treatm Combinations DE DF DM PH PL
ents FYM IF
(t/ha) (kg/ha
)
Trt1 0 0 6abc 71.33f 102.7cd 64.67 14.23
Trt2 0 75 5d 77.33de 103.7bc 76.73 16.73
Trt3 0 50 5.667bcd 82.67abc 113a 73.70 16.87
Trt4 0 25 5.333cd 75e 95.33d 68.00 15.20
Trt5 9 0 6abc 83.33abc 111.7a 70.07 16.77
Trt6 9 75 5d 86a 113.7a 83.10 18.40
Trt7 9 50 6.333ab 83.33abc 114.3a 74.87 16.47
Trt8 9 25 6.667a 84.67ab 114a 76.20 16.27
Trt9 6 0 6.667a 81.67bc 112.3a 68.93 16.47
Trt10 6 75 6.667a 82bc 110.7ab 79.57 17.20
Trt11 6 50 6.333ab 80cd 108.7abc 74.00 17.40
Trt12 6 25 6.667a 82.33bc 112.3a 69.77 15.60
CV(%) 7.6 2.51 4.28 6.49 7.37
LSD(0.05) 0.776 3.433 7.926 8.05 2.057
SEM(r) 0.21 4.111 21.907 22.599 1.475
Means within the same column followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at
the5% level of significance; IF= Inorganic fertilizer; FYM= farmyard manure; DE=days to 50%
emergence; DF= days to 50% flowering; DM=days to 90% maturity; PL=Panicle length; PH=plant
height

ϱϴ

 4.2.2 Yield and Yield Components

The mean square values of the yield and yield components of rice are depicted in Table 14.
As a main factor, the inorganic fertilizers had significant effect on all the yield and yield
components except for the harvest index; and the organic fertilizer (FYM), had no significant
effect only for NSpPP (number of spikes per panicle) and HI (harvest index). On the other
hand, the combined effect of organic (FYM) and inorganic sources (DAP and Urea) had
significant effect on grain yield (GY), number of tillers per plant (NT) and 1000 seed weight
(TSW) but not on the rest yield components of rice (Table 14).
Table 14: Mean square for NT, NSpPP, NSePP, AGBY, GY, SY, HI and TSW
Source of df NT NSpP NSePP AGBY GY STYld HI TSW
variation P
Replicatio 2 0.07 0.57 126.39 3.78 0.98 8.59 8.69 0.01
n
M 2 0.38n 1.57ns 145.02 536.79* 143.9** 126.67* 6.73ns 2.89*
s * * * *
IF 3 3.29* 4.65* 201.86 758.1** 151.33* 240.84* 7.64ns 1.16*
* * * * *
ns ns ns ns n
M x IF 6 0.57* 0.53 80.44 44.34 18.26* 13.99 11.86 0.654
s
*
Residual 2 0.21 1.09 43.09 28.28 6.3 14.12 5.27 0.24
4
Total 3
5
IF=inorganic fertilizers; M=farmyard manure; NT=Number of tillers per plant; NSpPP=Number of
spikes per panicle; NSePP= Number of seeds per panicle; AGBY=above ground biomass yield;
GY=Grain yield; SY=Straw yield; HI=Harvest index; TSW=thousand seed weight; df=degrees of
freedom, * significant at p<0.05, ** significant at P<0.01; ns= non- significant

The results of the analysis of variance of the main factors and their interaction effects for
yield and yield components are given in Tables 15 and 17 respectively. The ANOVA showed
that significant differences existed among treatments for most of the parameters for the main

ϱϵ

 effects of both FYM and inorganic fertilizers. The organic source (FYM) showed significant
effects except for NT, NSpPP and harvest index (HI). The inorganic sources, as a main
factor, showed significant effects for all the yield and yield components except for the HI
(Table 14).

4.2.2.1 Number of Tillers (NT)

Number of tillers (NT) per plant varied significantly among the use of different levels of
inorganic fertilizers but non-significantly among the use of organic sources. Number of
tillers per plant was highly influenced by the effect of the inorganic fertilizers but not by the
main effect of FYM. Higher average number of tillers per plant (i.e. 4.8) was recorded when
inorganic fertilizers are applied at the higher level (75kg/ha), while the lowest number of
tillers (3.4) per plant was also recorded with the main effect of the inorganic fertilizers when
zero level was used. Although there was no significant difference among the different levels
of FYM on the number of tillers, there was more number of tillers with all the levels of the
FYM than the control (Table 15).
4.2.2.2 Number of Spikes per Panicle (NSpPP)

As Table 14 clearly depicts, number of spikes per panicle (NSpPP) was significantly affected
by the different levels of the inorganic fertilizers as a main factor but no significant
difference by the use of different levels of organic sources as a main factor. But when
compared to the control plot, both of the main effects brought higher number of spikes per
panicle. Number of spikes per panicle (NSpPP) for the main effect of the inorganic fertilizers
ranged from 8.12 when no inorganic fertilizer (IF) is used to 9.71 when the highest level of
this IF was used (75kg/ha). Although no significant difference, the same trend was true for
the FYM, i.e. Number of spikes per panicle (NSpPP) increased when more level of FYM was
used (Table 15).

ϲϬ

Table 15: Yield and Yield components of rice as influenced by the main effects of IF and FYM
at Maitsebri, 2011.

Variable NT NSpPP NSePP AGBY GY SY HI 1000sw

IF
(kg/ha)
75 4.8a 9.71a 78.90a 86.34a 40.42a 45.92a 46.85a 24.13ab
50 3.8bc 8.8ab 71.01b 76.48b 36.23b 40.24b 47.43a 24.440a
25 4.1bb 8.27b 68.72b 70.39c 32.34c 38.05b 46.03a 23.77bc
0 3.4c 8.12b 69.18b 64.92d 31.45c 33.47c 48.19a 23.660c
SEM(±) 0.15 0.35 2.19 1.77 0.84 1.25 0.76 0.16
lsd (0.05) 0.45 1.02 6.4 5.2 2.45 3.67 Ns 0.48
FYM
(t/ha)
9 4.0a 8.95a 75.13a 81.33a 38.47a 42.86a 47.44a 24.53
6 4.2a 8.92a 72.48ab 74.3b 35.31b 38.99b 47.65a 23.9b
0 3.8a 8.31a 68.24b 67.96c 31.45c 36.41b 46.26a 23.57b
SEM(±) 0.13 0.3 1.89 1.54 0.73 1.08 0.66 0.14
lsd (0.05) Ns Ns 5.5 4.5 2.12 3.18 Ns 0.41
Means within the same column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at the 5% level of
significance. IF=inorganic fertilizers; FYM=farmyard manure; NT=Number of tillers per plant;
NSpPP=Number of spikes per panicle; NSePP= Number of seeds per panicle; AGBY=above ground
biomass yield; GY=Grain yield; SY=Straw yield; HI=Harvest index; 1000sw=thousand seed weight;
t=ton
4.2.2.3 Number of Seeds per Panicle (NSePP)

Number of seeds per panicle (NSePP) was significantly affected by the main factor effects of
both FYM and inorganic fertilizers but not by their combined effects (Table 14; Appendix
Table 16). With regard to the FYM and IF 9 inorganic fertilizers as a main factor (Table 15),
more number of seeds per panicle (78.9) were found for the inorganic fertilizers with the use
of higher level (75kg/ha). On the other hand, the highest number of seeds per panicle for the
organic sources is 75.13 kg/ha when 9t/ha of FYM is used. In both cases, the number of
seeds per panicle increased for the increased level of the two nutrient source options. For the
ϲϭ

 combined effect of the organic and inorganic sources, though no significant difference,
higher number of seeds per panicle (81.87) was obtained when 75t/ha of FYM was used in
conjunction with 75kg/ha of the inorganic fertilizers and the lowest value was obtained for
the control (58.9) (Table 15).

4.2.2.4 Biological Yield ±Above Ground Biomass Yield (AGBY)

The mean square table, the main factor effect and the combined factor effect of FYM and IF
are depicted in Tables 14, 15 and 17. The results showed that all organic (FYM) and
inorganic fertilizer (IF) treatments significantly (P<0.05) increased the biological yield of
rice compared with the control treatment (Appendix Table 17). For the main factor effects of
inorganic fertilizers, the maximum biological yield of 86.34ql/ha was obtained in treatment
receiving N/P from 75 kg/ha of DAP and Urea and for the FYM as a main factor the
maximum AGBY was observed from the application of 9t/ha FYM which is 81.33Ql/ha.
As for the combined effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers, the biological yield was
maximum (94.39 Ql/ha) for the treatment receiving 75kg/ha of IF in conjunction with 9t/ha
of FYM. The minimum biological yield (54.91Ql/ha) was obtained in the control receiving
no DAP/urea or FYM. These results indicated that the yield of biological mass (AGBY) was
more in response to combined application of DAP + Urea and FYM. These findings are in
agreement with Zahir and Ahmad (2006), who reported significant increases in wheat grain
and straw yields with addition of FYM to inorganic fertilizers as compared to no FYM.

4.2.2.5 Straw Yield (SY)

The main and interaction effects of both the organic and inorganic sources of plant nutrients
up on the grain and straw yield of the upland rice is shown in Table 16 and Table 17
respectively. The straw yield of the upland rice varied from 30.64Ql/ha (the control) to
49.99Ql/ha where 9t/ha FYM is combined with 75kg/ha of inorganic fertilizer (Table 17).
Generally, each and every treatment produced higher straw yield than the control. The
highest straw yield 49.99Ql/ha was observed in treatment 6 i.e. when 9t/ha FYM is combined
with 75kg/ha of the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer, which was numerically higher
than all other treatments though not statistically different. The lowest straw yield (30.64
Ql/ha) was obtained in trt1 (the control). When the effects of the main factors are considered,
just like that of the grain yield, there is an increased straw yield when more level of either the
ϲϮ

 organic or inorganic sources was used. When comparing the organic and inorganic sources as
to their main effects, more average straw yield was obtained with the use of inorganic
sources (Table 16). The combined effect of 75kg/ha of DAP and Urea with 9t/ha of the FYM
gave the highest straw yield (49.99Ql/ha) which is 63.15% higher than the control
(30.64Ql/ha) which is much higher than the percentage increase by the main effects of the
inorganic fertilizers (49.87%) and the organic ones (39.9%) as a main factor. Therefore, the
combined effect of organic and inorganic sources gave higher grain and straw increments
than their respective main effects. These results indicated that under the given experimental
conditions, combined application of FYM and DAP/Urea significantly improved straw yield
of rice. Like the biological yield, this result agrees with the findings of Zahir and Ahmad
(2006) who reported that Urea was indicated as a quick and more potent source of nitrogen
for increasing the vegetative growth as compared to FYM but the combination of the two
sources in was found more effective.
Table 16: Grain and straw Yield of rice (Ql/ha) as influenced by the main effects of organic and
inorganic fertilizers at Maitsebri, 2011.
Variable Grain Yield % Straw Yield %
(Ql/ha) over control (Ql/ha) over control
IF (kg/ha)
75 40.42a 66.5 45.92a 49.87
50 36.23b 49.3 40.24b 32.31
25 32.34c 33.3 38.99b 25.3
0 31.45c 29.6 33.4c 9
Abs.Control 24.27 30.64
SEM(±) 0.725 1.25
FYM (t/ha)
9 38.47a 58.5 42.86a 39.9
6 35.31b 45.5 38.99b 27.3
0 31.55c 29.9 36.41b 18.3
Abs.Control 24.27 30.64
SEM(±) 0.84 1.09
Means within the same column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at the 5%
level of significance; IF= Inorganic fertilizer; FYM= farmyard manure; Ql/ha= quintal/ha

ϲϯ

 4.2.2.6 Grain Yield (GY)

The main effects of FYM and inorganic fertilizers (IF) as well as their interaction effects on
grain yield of rice were depicted in Table 15 and Table 17 respectively. Analysis of variance
showed significant (p<0.05) difference both for the main effects of organic and inorganic
fertilizer on grain yield of rice (Table 14). Each and every treatment produced significantly
higher grain yield over the control. The interaction of different rates of recommended dose of
inorganic fertilizers with various rates of organic manures (FYM) also showed a significant
effect on grain yield of rice (Table 14). The lowest yield was recorded in the control
treatment.
Whenever both organic and inorganic fertilizers were used, grain yield of rice increased
significantly among all the treatments. As a main factor, the highest rate of the inorganic
fertilizer (75kg/ha) produced significantly higher rice grain yield (40.42Ql/ha) than the other
corresponding lower levels and the control (Table 16). The FYM as a main factor, showed
significant mean differences among the different rates being used but the overall trend was
that it is less than the mean yield obtained by using the inorganic fertilizers as a main factor
(40.42Ql/ha) (Table 16) and also less than the highest mean (44.4Ql/ha) (Table 17) of the
combined application of both organic and inorganic fertilizers. Higher mean grain yield was
obtained on the use of inorganic fertilizers while a relatively lower mean grain yield per
hectare was recorded on the FYM (Table 16). This could be attributed to the gradual
decomposition and slow release of nutrients in FYM applied treatments and its slow
availability throughout the growing period of the crop (Daniel, 2006).
The grain yield (40.42Ql/ha) due to 75kg/ha rate of inorganic fertilizer was significantly
higher than the application of 50 and 25kg/ha. The grain yield also increased significantly
with increasing rates of FYM from 6t/ha to 9t/ha. Application of the different recommended
rates of inorganic fertilizers along with different levels of organic manures (FYM)
significantly increased grain yield when compared with plants that received no fertilization
(the control).
As is depicted in Table 16, when compared with the application of the organic sources
(FYM), the 75kg/ha of the recommended rate of inorganic fertilizer yielded 40.42Ql/ha and
increased the grain yield by 66.5% over the control (24.7Ql/ha) while the 75kg/ha of the dose
of this rate when combined with 9t/ha of the FYM resulted (44.4Ql/ha) in 82% increase of
ϲϰ

 grain yield over the control (24.7Ql/ha). This confirms with the finding of Daniel (2006)
which has showed integration of organic fertilizers with inorganic fertilizers has improved
the yields of potato and more than their main effects. The result, therefore, clearly showed
that the yield of rice could be maximized by the combined application of organic and
inorganic fertilizer.
The interaction among the organic and inorganic treatments also revealed that integration
of 9 t/ha FYM in conjunction with 75kg/ha of dose of the inorganic fertilizers made
superior yield (44.4Ql/ha) than the other treatment combinations ( Table 17). All
integrations of the 75%, 50% and 25% of the recommended doses of inorganic fertilizers
along with all rates of the organic sources were also superior to the unfertilized plot (Table
17; Figure 5). The increase in the grain yield of rice with combined application of FYM with
the different rates of inorganic fertilizers could be attributed to their favorable effects on the
other yield components such average number of tillers per plant, plant height, panicle length
and dry matter production. This results agree with the findings of Sanchez and Jama (2000)
who reported that integration of organic and inorganic inputs increase and sustains crop
production due to their positive interactions and complementarities between them. These
results also agree with the findings of Indrani et al., (2008), where they reported that
highest yield was observed in the application of green manure along with NPK fertilizer
where in both grain and straw and the percent increase was increased over the control.
Bodruzzaman (2010), also concluded that the crop yields and nutrient availability were
higher in plots applied with FYM than the non-applied ones indicating that Organic manures
(like the FYM) were more effective in producing higher crop yields and providing nutrients
because of their higher nutrient content than the inorganic fertilizers. From the above results,
it may be concluded that the combined use of FYM and IF was the most suitable for both
improving soil properties and increasing crop yields in rice production systems.

ϲϱ

Table 17 : Yield and Yield parameters of upland rice as influenced by the integrated nutrient
management, at Maitsebri, 2011.
Trts Combinati NSpPP NSe NT BY SY GY HI TSW
ons PP
FYM IF
(t/ha) (kg/
ha)

Trt1 0 0 7.167c 55.63 3.000c 54.91 30.64 24.27f 44.15 23.03f

Trt2 0 75 9.33 76.9 4.600a 82.04 43.94 38.11b 46.5 24de
Trt3 0 50 8.3 68.27 3.80abc 71.38 36.8 34.6bcd 48.42 24.57cd
Trt4 0 25 8.4 64.93 3.667bc 63.51 34.26 29.25e 45.92 23.47ef
Trt5 9 0 8.7 71.77 3.667bc 73.13 36.5 36.66bc 50.17 24.63bcd

Trt6 9 75 9.67 87.07 4.667a 94.39 49.9 44.40a 47.1 26.23a

Trt7 9 50 9.3 65 3.600bc 78.19 41.2 37.01bc 47.4 25.27bc
Trt8 9 25 8.37 68.7 4.133ab 79.61 43.8 35.8bcd 45.1 25.47ab
Trt9 6 0 8.5 75.7 3.667bc 66.72 33.3 33.4cde 50.2 24.13de
Trt10 6 75 10.13 87.5 4.667a 82.58 43.8 38.74b 46.9 24.07de
Trt11 6 50 8.9 77.9 4.000ab 79.86 42.7 37.11bc 46.5 24.47cd
Trt12 6 25 8.13 67.6 4.333ab 68.05 36.0 31.97de 46.9 24.13de
CV (%) 11.99 11.39 13.52 7.14 9.53 7.15 4.88 2.17
LSD(0.05) 1.772 13.93 0.912 9.007 6.362 4.251 3.89 0.898
r)
SEM(r 1.095 67.70 0.29 28.291 14.111 6.307 5.278 0.281
Means within the same column followed by the same letter or by no letters do not differ significantly at
the 5 % level of the lsd test. IF=inorganic fertilizers; M=farmyard manure; NT=Number of tillers per
plant; NSpPP=Number of spikes per panicle; NSePP= Number of seeds per panicle; AGBY=above
ground biomass yield; GY=Grain yield; SY=Straw yield; HI=Harvest index; TSW=thousand seed
weight; df=degrees of freedom

ϲϲ

 4.2.2.7 Thousand Seed Weight (1000SW)
Manure, inorganic fertilizers as well as their interactions significantly influenced the 1000
seed weight of rice as is presented in Table 14. There was highly significant (p<0.01)
influence of the different levels of organic and inorganic fertilizer as a main factor and
significant (p<0.05) interaction effect by the application of organic manures and inorganic
fertilizer levels on 1000 seed weight (Table 14). These effects are typically represented by
grain yield and straw yield data which shows that application of farmyard manure (9t/ha) in
combination with inorganic fertilizers of level (75kg/ha) produced an optimum grain yield
when compared to other treatment combinations (Table 17). This result agrees with the
findings of Fageria et al., (2011) who indicated that integrated use of organic and inorganic
sources of plant nutrients significantly improved yield of rice by improving the yield
components like panicle number, thousand grain weight, grain harvest index, plant height
and reduced grain sterility which are positively and directly associated with grain yield.
4.2.2.8 Harvest Index (HI)

The effect of different sources of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the harvest index of
upland rice is indicated in Table 14. FYM and inorganic fertilizer application as well as their
interactions did not significantly affected the harvest index of the upland rice (Table 14).The
reason is that as the application rate of both the organic and inorganic sources of fertilizers
increase, both the grain yield and the above ground biomass yield also increase which
directly makes no or little change on the ratio of the grain yield to the above ground biomass
yield which is the harvest index. This agrees with the findings of Zelalem et al.(2009) where
increasing the levels of nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) fertilizers as well as their
LQWHUDFWLRQVGLGQ¶WEURXJKWDQ\VLJQLILFDQWLQIOXHQFHRQWKHKDUYHVWLQGH[RISRWDWRZKLFKLV
a highly nutrient feeder crop just like that of rice.

4.2.3 Correlation of Grain Yield and Some Yield Related Attributes of rice
The results of correlation coefficients between each pair of the characters studied are
presented in Table 18. All yield parameters such as days to flowering (DF), days to 90%
maturity (DM), Panicle length (PL), plant height (PH), Number of tillers per plant ( NT),
number of spikes per panicle (NSpPP), number of seeds per panicle (NSePP), above ground
biomass yield (AGBY); grain yield (GY), straw yield (SY), harvest index ( HI) and 1000
ϲϳ

 seed weight (TSW) were positively and significantly (p<0.001) correlated both with total
biological yield and the grain yield.
Grain yield (quintal/ha) per hectare was positively correlated and significantly associated
with days to flowering (r=0.65**), number of seeds per panicle (r=0.56**), plant height
at maturity (r=0.66**), number of spikes per panicle (r=0.50**), panicle length
(r=0.57**), above ground biomass yield (r=0.94) and number of tillers per plant (r=0.57**).
These indicate that application of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased grain yield of
rice by positively affecting the important yield components of the crop.
Similar finding was presented by Gebre (2006) where positive and highly significant
correlation of seed yield per hectare with the final plant height, number of seeds per capsule
and number of seeds per plant of sesame was observed. Grain yield showed negative and
non-significant correlation (r=-0.18) only with days to emergence. Moreover, plant height
(PH), above ground biomass yield (AGBY), and straw yield (SY) showed highly significant
correlation (p<0.01) with almost all the indicated parameters except for the days to
emergence (Table 18). Harvest index (HI) showed non-significant correlation for all
parameters except for days to maturity (r=0.349).

ϲϴ

Table 18 : The correlation matrix of yield and some yield components of upland rice at
Tselemti, 2011

HI
DE DF DM PL NSpPH NT PH NSePH AGBY GY SY TSW
DE 1.0000 0.19ns 0.23ns -0.06ns -0.13ns -0.24ns -0.12 ns -0.07ns -0.18ns -0.18ns -0.17ns 0.009ns 0.0000
DF 1.0000 0.713** 0.47** 0.28 ns 0.34 ns 0.44** 0.32* 0.63** 0.66** 0.56** 0.18ns 0.62**
DM 1.0000 0.63** 0.40* 0.21 ns 0.48** 0.45** 0.55** 0.65** 0.43** 0.349* 0.62**
ns
PL 1.0000 0.77** 0.382* 0.54** 0.80** 0.51** 0.57** 0.41* 0.25 0.44**
NSpPH 1.0000 0.423* 0.49** 0.61** 0.48** 0.49** 0.43** 0.06ns 0.22ns
NT 1.0000 0.45** 0.349* 0.55** 0.56** 0.49** 0.07ns 0.30ns
PH 1.0000 0.45** 0.65** 0.66** 0.58** 0.12ns 0.32ns
NSePH 1.0000 0.49** 0.55** 0.39* 0.25ns 0.355*
AGBY 1.0000 0.94** 0.95** -0.02ns 0.51**
GY 1.0000 0.79** 0.32ns 0.53**
ns
STYld 1.0000 -0.31 0.45**
HI 1.0000 0.14ns
TSW 1.0000
*and ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% probability level, respectively; ns= non-significant; DE=days to 50% emergence; DF= days to 50% flowering;
DM=days to 90% maturity; PL=Panicle length; PH=plant height; NT=Number of tillers per plant; NSpPP=Number of spikes per panicle; NSePP= Number of
seeds per panicle; AGBY=above ground biomass yield; GY=Grain yield; SY=Straw yield; HI=Harvest index; TSW=1000 seed weight.

ϲϵ

 The yield parameters such as panicle length (PL), number of spikes per panicle (NSpPP),
number of seeds per panicle (NSePP) and number of tillers are positively and significantly
correlated to each and to the grain yield and straw yield indicating that the final yield (either
grain or straw) is directly dependent on the value of these yield parameters (Table 18). The
grain yield per hectare of rice had positive and strong correlation (r=0.95) with above ground
biomass yield indicating that as the above ground biomass of rice increased the yield also
increased. This could be resulted due to the tillering capacity of the crop. Daniel (2006),
while studying potato at Bako (Ethiopia), reported similar pattern in that there was a
significant linear correlation between yield and yield components of potato. The positive
and significant correlation coefficients (r values) between grain yield and growth
parameters indicate that grain yield is greatly influenced by these growth parameters. Thus,
any management practices that provide favorable influences on these variables are likely to
enhance grain yield.

4.3 Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on the Economic Benefit of Rice
Economic yields and added benefits as influenced by integrated use of chemical fertilizers
and organic materials on rice have been calculated and presented in Table 20. The highest
grain yield of 44.4 Ql/ha and straw yield of 49.9 Ql/ha was recorded in treatment 6
(Appendix Table 23). On the basis of the prevailing prices of inputs and outputs during the
cropping season, the economic analysis revealed that the highest mean net return of birr
18867.24 per hectare was recorded for the plot that received 9t/ha FYM together with
75kg/ha of the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer which is birr 7240 more than the net
returns from the control (birr 11627.24). The second highest mean net benefit of birr
16567.41 per hectare was obtained from plots that received 9t/ha FYM and no dose of
recommended inorganic fertilizers. On the other hand, the lowest net return (11627.24
birr/ha) was obtained with the control treatment (Table 19). These observations are in
agreement with those reported from Kenya by Makokha et al. (2000). High net return from
the foregoing treatments could be attributed to high yield and the low net return was
attributed due to low yield.

ϳϬ

Table 19: Result of the Total Variable Cost (TVC) and Net Benefit (NB) as influenced by
integrated use of chemical fertilizers and organic materials on rice
dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐ &zD /& 'ƌŽƐƐZĞƚƵƌŶ ds EĞƚZĞƚƵƌŶ EĞƚZĞƚƵƌŶ
;ƚͬŚĂͿ ;ŬŐͬŚĂͿ ;ďŝƌƌͬŚĂͿ ;ďŝƌƌͬŚĂͿ ;ŝƌƌͿ ŽǀĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ƚƌƚϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϭϲϮϳ͘Ϯϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϭϲϮϳ͘Ϯϰ ydždž
ƚƌƚϮ Ϭ ϳϱ ϭϳϵϯϴ͘ϰϵ ϭϲϵϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϮϰϯ͘ϰϵ ϰϲϭϲ͘Ϯϱ
ƚƌƚϯ Ϭ ϱϬ ϭϲϬϰϮ͘Ϭϱ ϭϭϯϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϵϭϮ͘Ϭϱ ϯϮϴϰ͘ϴϮ
ƚƌƚϰ Ϭ Ϯϱ ϭϯϴϬϵ͘ϬϮ ϱϲϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϯϮϰϰ͘ϬϮ ϭϲϭϲ͘ϳϴ
ƚƌƚϱ ϵ Ϭ ϭϲϴϭϮ͘ϰϭ Ϯϰϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϱϲϳ͘ϰϭ ϰϵϰϬ͘ϭϳ
ƚƌƚϲ ϵ ϳϱ ϮϬϴϬϳ͘Ϯϰ ϭϵϰϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϴϴϲϳ͘Ϯϰ ϳϮϰϬ͘ϬϬ
ƚƌƚϳ ϵ ϱϬ ϭϳϯϬϲ͘ϲϬ ϭϯϳϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϱϵϯϭ͘ϲϬ ϰϯϬϰ͘ϯϲ
ƚƌƚϴ ϵ Ϯϱ ϭϳϬϰϰ͘ϵϳ ϴϭϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϮϯϰ͘ϵϳ ϰϲϬϳ͘ϳϯ
ƚƌƚϵ ϲ Ϭ ϭϱϯϯϯ͘ϲϲ ϭϳϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϱϭϱϴ͘ϲϲ ϯϱϯϭ͘ϰϯ
ƚƌƚϭϬ ϲ ϳϱ ϭϴϭϳϭ͘ϴϭ ϭϴϳϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϯϬϭ͘ϴϭ ϰϲϳϰ͘ϱϴ
ƚƌƚϭϭ ϲ ϱϬ ϭϳϰϲϰ͘ϵϱ ϭϯϬϱ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϭϱϵ͘ϵϱ ϰϱϯϮ͘ϳϮ
ƚƌƚϭϮ ϲ Ϯϱ ϭϰϵϭϵ͘ϴϬ ϳϰϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϭϳϵ͘ϴϬ ϮϱϱϮ͘ϱϲ
FYM= Farmyard Manure; IF= Inorganic Fertilizer; TVC=Total Variable Cost; MRR= Marginal Rate
of Return
From the agronomic point of view, it was apparent from the above results that 9 t/ha of FYM
in conjunction with 75kg/ha of the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer yielded better
than the rest of treatment combinations which is 44.4Ql/ha (Table 17).
The dominance analysis for integrated use of FYM and inorganic fertilizers is shown in
Table 20. As per the procedure needed for dominance analysis, the treatments were arranged
in their order of increasing total variable cost (TVC) and their corresponding benefits were
put aside. Treatment 1 showed the least TVC and treatment 6 showed the maximum TVC
(1940 birr) and all the remaining treatments were confined between these two ranges. As is
clearly indicated in Table 20, as one goes from treatment 1 to treatment 9 and then to
treatment 5, the TVC as well as the net profit increased for all the treatments. But for
treatment 4 through treatment 10 the TVC increased and they all showed lower net benefits
than treatment 5 (birr 16567.41). That is treatment 5 had minimum TVC (birr 245) but
highest net benefit than these treatments, and hence all these treatments are dominated and

ϳϭ

 VLJQHG DV ³'´ DQG ILQDOO\ QRW FRQVLGHUHG IRU IXUWKHU DQDO\VLV RI 055 +RZHYHU WKH ODVW
treatment (Trt 6) had both higher TVC and net benefit than treatment 5 and hence not
dominated and was considered for MRR. Therefore, based on the principles of dominance
analysis, only four treatments (1, 9, 5 and 6) have passed for the final analysis of MRR
(Table 20). Here it is worth mentioning that (Table 20) the yields of treatments 2, 7, 10 and
11 are higher than those of treatment 5 (36.66Ql/ha), but the dominance analysis showed that
the value of the increase in yield is not enough to compensate for the increase in costs (TVC)
of these treatments. Kiros (2010) also indicated that the addition of any amount of fertilizer is
interesting to farmers if and only if it is profitable through the enhancement of either yield or
quality; and maximum profits are rare at maximum yields because the last increment of
fertilizer to produce a little more yield may cost more than the yield increase is worth. From
Table 20, use of FYM at the rate of 9t/ha and 6t/ha and the use of 9t/ha of FYM in
conjunction with75kg/ha of inorganic fertilizers could be considered to have an economic
advantage over the use of other alternative combinations. Hence, to improve farmers' income
it is important to pay attention to net benefits rather than yields because higher yield does not
necessarily mean high net benefit (Table 20).

ϳϮ

Table 20: Dominance Analysis for Integrated use of FYM with Inorganic Fertilizers
Trt # Combinations Grain TVC Net Dominance MRR
 Yield (birr) Benefit (D) (%)
D /& (Ql/ha) (birr)
ƚƌƚϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϯϰ͘Ϯϳ Ϭ ϭϭϲϮϳ͘Ϯϰ Ͳ 
ƚƌƚϵ Ϯ Ϭ ϯϯ͘ϰϬ ϭϳϱ ϭϱϭϱϴ͘ϲϲ Ͳ ϮϬϭϴ
ƚƌƚϱ ϭ Ϭ ϯϲ͘ϲϲ Ϯϰϱ ϭϲϱϲϳ͘ϰϭ Ͳ ϮϬϭϯ
ƚƌƚϰ Ϭ ϯ Ϯϵ͘Ϯϱ ϱϲϳ ϭϯϮϰϰ͘ϬϮ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϭϮ Ϯ ϯ ϯϭ͘ϵϳ ϳϰϬ ϭϰϭϳϵ͘ϴϬ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϴ ϭ ϯ ϯϱ͘ϴϬ ϴϭϬ ϭϲϮϯϰ͘ϵϳ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϯ Ϭ Ϯ ϯϰ͘ϲϬ ϭϭϯϬ ϭϰϵϭϮ͘Ϭϱ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϭϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϯϳ͘ϭϭ ϭϯϬϱ ϭϲϭϱϵ͘ϵϱ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϳ ϭ Ϯ ϯϳ͘Ϭϭ ϭϯϳϱ ϭϱϵϯϭ͘ϲϬ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϮ Ϭ ϭ ϯϴ͘ϭϭ ϭϲϵϱ ϭϲϮϰϯ͘ϰϵ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϭϬ Ϯ ϭ ϯϴ͘ϳϬ ϭϴϳϬ ϭϲϯϬϭ͘ϴϭ  Ͳ
ƚƌƚϲ ϭ ϭ ϰϰ͘ϰϬ ϭϵϰϬ ϭϴϴϲϳ͘Ϯϰ Ͳ ϭϯϱ͘ϲϮ
Trt= Treatment; TVC= Total Variable Cost; D= dominated; MRR= Marginal Rate of Return;
M=manure; IF=inorganic fertilizer (DAP + Urea).

Finally, MRR was calculated for the four treatments that showed no dominance (i.e. 1, 9, 5
and 6) to compare the increments in costs and benefits between pairs of treatments. The
highest MRR was recorded between treatments 1 and 9 which is 2018%. This means these
two treatments (trt 1 and 9) had change in net income of 3531.42birr (i.e. 15158.66-
11627.24) and change in TVC of 175 (i.e. 175-0). The rate of return for these two treatments
is therefore 20.18 birr which means that the rate of return is 2018% above the cost for
additional input investment (TVC). That is if farmers invest birr 175 in using 60 Ql/ha of
FYM with no inorganic fertilizer, they could recover the 175 birr plus an addition of birr
3531.42 which is 20.18 times the cost incurred (3531.42 = 175x20.18) or it is the difference
in net benefit of treatment 9 and 1 (i.e. 3531.42 = 15158.66-11627.24). In this case, the
marginal rate of return (MRR) for changing from Treatment 1 to Treatment 9 is 20.18 or
2018%. This means that for every 1birr invested in using 60 Ql/ha FYM and its application,
farmers can expect to recover the 1birr and obtain an additional of 20.18 birr.

ϳϯ

 The marginal rate of return (MRR) for going from Treatment 9 to Treatment 5 is 2013% (or
birr 20.13 increment) which is relatively smaller than the highest MRR in this experiment
(MRR b/n treatment 1 and 9). Thus, for incurring TVC of birr 245 in using FYM at a rate of
9 t/ha gave a marginal rate of return of 2013% i.e. for every one birr invested in the use of 9
t/ha FYM, it is possible to recover the one birr invested and an additional of 20.13 birr (i.e.
20.13 birr is 2013% of one birr). The third MRR of 135.6% was recorded between treatment
5 and treatment 6. This MRR of 1356% (or 1.356 birr increase) is much less than the
previous ones.

4.4 Results of Social Perceptions

This chapter deals with the findings and descriptive statistics of the social issues on the use
and perception of organic and inorganic sources of fertilizers on rice production in Tselemti
woreda.

)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQVWRZDUGV2UJDQLFDQG,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUs

)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQRI)DUP\DUG0DQXUH
The study area is one of the potential livestock producing corners of the region. Due to this
fact, there is high potential of using farmyard manure in the wereda. According to the
respondent farmers, 98.7% of them use FYM for their general crop production.
Table 21 : Farmers use of farmyard manure (FYM) (N=75)
YƵĞƐƚŝŽŶ  <ĞďĞůůĞEĂŵĞ dŽƚĂů ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ džϮ ƐŝŐ
 dƐĂĞĚĂŬĞƌŶŝ DĞnjĞŬŝƌ DͬĂůĞŵ
ŽLJŽƵƵƐĞ zĞƐ ϯϯ ϮϮ ϭϵ ϳϰ ϵϴ͘ϳ  
ŵĂŶƵƌĞ͍ EŽ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ͘ϯ  
dŽƚĂů ϯϯ Ϯϯ ϭϵ ϳϱ ϭϬϬ Ϯ͘Ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϯϭϴŶƐ
ŽLJŽƵƵƐĞ zĞƐ Ϭ ϰ ϭ ϱ ϲ͘ϳ  
ŵĂŶƵƌĞĨŽƌƌŝĐĞ EŽ ϯϯ ϭϵ ϭϴ ϳϬ ϵϯ͘ϳ  
ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͍ dŽƚĂů ϯϯ Ϯϯ ϭϵ ϳϱ ϭϬϬ ϲ͘ϲϳ Ϭ͘ϬϯϲΎ
X2= chi-square test; *= significant at p<0.05; ns= not significant

ϳϰ

 The farmers have their own amount (rate), methods and time of application based on the type
of the crop to be grown. Since livestock manure is very much respected by the farmers, they
apply to their major cereal crops such as sorghum, maize, finger millet and to some extent
rice. According to the farmers, unless shortage of manure happens, there is no substitute for
FYM. But, the use of high quality organic fertilizers is rarely practiced mainly due to
management problems. The chi-square test indicated that there is no as such a significant
difference among the farmers of the study kebeles in using or not using the farmyard manure
because majority of the farmers use it. However, there is a significant difference (p<0.05;
Table 25) among the three kebeles in the use of the FYM in rice production. Relatively more
farmers in the Mezekir kebelle are using FYM for rice production (Table 21).

Table 22: Reasons why farmers do not use manure on rice

S.N Reasons Frequency Percent
1 Priority to other crops 27 36.0
2 lack of knowhow on the use of FYM 17 22.7
on rice
3 Lack of labor 10 13.3
4 lack of enough manure 8 10.7
5 Told to use only IF 2 2.7
6 Others 6 8.0
Total 70 100

The reasons behind why farmers are not currently using manure on rice are depicted in Table
22. Majority (36%) of the respondent farmers do not use manure in rice production because
they give first priority to other cereal crops such as sorghum, maize and finger millet; 22.7%
of the respondents responded that they lack experience and knowhow on the use of manure
on the production of rice. The remaining respondent farmers answered lack of labor (13.3%);
lack of enough manure to be used (10.7) and 2.7% of the respondents responded that they are
told by the extension workers to use inorganic fertilizer in rice production but no idea to use
manure. Still 8% of the respondent farmers answered that they have many other reasons such
as remoteness of the rice fields from their homesteads (Table 22).
)DUPHUV¶Perception of Inorganic Fertilizers (IF)

ϳϱ

 Table 23)DUPHUV¶Perception of Inorganic Fertilizers (N=75)

Question Response Kebelle Name Tot %

Ts/kerni Mezeki M/ale al
r m
Are you Yes 12 4 2 18 24
willing No 21 19 17 57 76
to take Total 33 23 19 75 100
IF?
I have enough manure 1 4 3 8 14
My farmland is fertile 1 1 2 4 7
If IF deplete soil fertility 7 4 5 16 28.1
no IF have Burning effect 10 3 1 14 24.6
Why? IF need yearly appl. 2 5 4 11 19.3
Others (lack of 0 2 2 4 7
NQRZKRZ«
Total 21 19 17 57 100
N= Sample Size; IF= Inorganic Fertilizer
According to the current study, majority (76%) of the farmers of the study wereda have no
willingness in using inorganic fertilizers such as DAP and Urea (Table 23). The reasons are
very much complex and vary among farmers. As is depicted in Table 23, 76% of the
respondent farmers in the study kebeles do not have any willingness in using such external
inputs. The farmers argued that they are very much keen in accepting a technology but only
when it satisfies them in different ways. Among the 57 (76%) respondent farmers who
showed no willingness in demanding inorganic fertilizers, 28.1% of them answered inorganic
fertilizers deplete soil fertility i.e. inorganic fertilizers leave no residual nutrient for the next
crop; 24.6% of them answered inorganic fertilizers have burning effect on crops; 19.3%
answered inorganic fertilizers need yearly application at an increased rate; 14% answered
they have enough manure; 7% of the respondents answered that their farmland is fertile and
does not need any fertilizer and the remaining 7% of the respondents answered that they lack
enough knowhow in using inorganic fertilizers properly. Kiros (2010) also concluded that
fertilization may not be profitable when water is the limiting factor. Only 24% of the farmers
showed willingness in using inorganic fertilizers and their direct justifications are because
WKH\GRQ¶WKDYHHQRXJKPDQXUHRWKHUZLVHinorganic fertilizers can never be compared with
manure. Their other reasons were inorganic fertilizers boost productivity and are easy to
handle.

ϳϲ

 )DUPHUV¶(FRQRPLFSHUFHSWLRQRI,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV,)

As Table 24 showed, majority of the farmers (94.7%) argued that the use of inorganic
fertilizers is not economically feasible. These farmers who argued the economically
infeasibility of inorganic fertilizers classify the infeasibility in to many crucial aspects.
Table 23 : Farmers¶(FRQRPLFYLHZRI,QRUJDQLF)HUWLOL]HUV1 
Question Kebelle Name Total Perce
Ts/kern Mezekir M/al nt
i em
Is use of Yes 3 1 0 4 5.3
IF No 30 22 19 71 94.7
economica Total 33 23 19 75 100
lly
Feasible?
High price of IF 23 13 8 44 62
Mkt price of crops is by 3 3 1 7 9.9
far below IF
Burning effect of IF 2 2 3 7 9.9
minimize yield
If not Forced to take IF and 1 4 6 11 15.5
Why? unwilling to pay back

Increased price of IF 0 0 1 1 1.4

Others ( paying credit 1 0 0 1 1.4
when crop price is low)

Total 30 22 19 71 100
Mkt=market; IF=inorganic fertilizer; N= Sample Size

From the 71 farmers who answered use of DAP and Urea is not economically viable, 62% of
them viewed the initial price of IF is higher. This agrees with the findings of Bagheri et al.,
(2008) who found that the awareness of farmers regarding the use or no use of agricultural
technologies is mostly confined with the visible impacts such as the direct economic gain.
Other 9.9% answered the market price of crops grown using inorganic fertilizers is by far
below the initial price of the inputs used and hence the sale of such crop yield is not enough
to pay back the loan of the inorganic fertilizers. This agrees with the findings of Christopher
(199ZKRVDLG³7KHFRQYHQWLRQDOZLVGRPLVWKDWWKHEHVWZD\WRLPSURYHWKHSURGXFWLYLW\
of resource poor farmers is through the use of high-yielding variety of crops and chemical
fertilizer, however, research evidences show that the resulting yield increases may not be
sufficieQWWRSD\IRUWKHVHLQSXWV´Again another 9.9% of the respondent farmers argued that

ϳϳ

 inorganic fertilizers have burning effect on the crops being grown and hence minimize the
final yield especially during years of low rainfall. Another 15.5% of the respondent farmers
argued that they are taking inorganic fertilizer out of their will (even while they had enough
PDQXUH DQG VR WKH\ GRQ¶W XVH WKHP SURSHUO\ EXW SD\ WKH SULFH 7KLV LV VR EHFDXVH WKH
H[WHQVLRQ V\VWHP GLGQ¶W FRQVLGHU D JUHDW weight for the manure as that of the inorganic
fertilizers and this is affecting the positive attitude they had for manure. Only 1.4% of the
respondents claimed that DAP and Urea are not economically viable due to the fact that their
price is ever increasing; and finally a small number of the respondents (1.4%) perceived that
the loan for the inorganic fertilizers is paid when the market price for such crop is low
(especially during the harvest time). The chi-square test for the economic view of the
respondent farmers showed that there is no significant difference among the farmers of the
three study kebeles with regard to the economic views of the farmers to inorganic fertilizers
(Table 24).

)DUPHUV¶3HUFHSWLRQRI,QWHJUDWHGXVHRI)<0DQG,QRUJDQLF)ertilizers
Table 25 depicted WKH UHVSRQGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQV WRZDUGV LQWHJUDWHG XVH RI RUJDQLF DQG
inorganic fertilizers in rice production. As data show, the respondents were fairly aware of
the nutrient depletion impacts of applying inorganic fertilizers. Percent scores of the
influence of manures on improving soil fertility indicated that the respondents had positive
perceptions about it (Table 25). As percent scores show, majority of the respondents were in
agreement with the application of FYM. Majority (61.3%) of the respondents disagreed
(24%) and strongly disagreed (37.3%) the idea that rice yield could be increased only by
increased use of chemical fertilizer, i.e. they do not perceived inorganic fertilizers as the best
means to increase production at the present time. Most of them were against the idea of
increased application of only inorganic fertilizers and did not believe the process would lead
to long term increased productivity. 37.3% remained undecided (Table 25). This result
agrees with the findings of Bagheri et al. (2008) who concluded that in spite of IDUPHUV¶
positive perceptions about manure, agrochemicals as external inputs are substituting them.
With regard to the idea that whether farmers' benefit could be increased by decreasing
chemical fertilizer and using other options in the long run or not, majority (46.7%) of the
respondent farmers agreed strongly, 12 % agreed and 41.3% remained undecided. Finally
the idea of the farmers with regard to the integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer up

ϳϴ

 on rice production was assessed and 45.35 of the respondent farmers have agreed strongly,
22.7% simply agreed and the remaining 32% remained undecided (Table 25).

ϳϵ

Table 24: Percent distribution of the respondents according to agreement with the statements of
integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers in rice production (N=75)

Statements (Do you think :)? Statement Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
No Agree Disagree
Do you believe that the use of IF is NOF 4 - - - 71
economically feasible?
% 5.3 - - - 94.7
Do you think rice yield can be increased NOF - 1 28 18 28
only by increased use of chemical % - 1.3 37.3 24 37.3
fertilizer?
Do you think paddy farmers' benefit can be NOF 35 9 31 - -
increased by decreasing chemical fertilizer - -
and using other options in the long run? % 46.7 12 41.3
Do you think that application of animal NOF 75 - - - -
manure can increase soil fertility better - - - -
than IF? % 100
Do you think that the use of FYM alone NOF - - 29 8 38
can't increase rice production? % - - 38.7 10.7 50.7
Do you think part of IF and part of FYM NOF 34 17 24 - -
can enhance crop productivity? % 45.3 22.7 32 - -
NOF= Number of farmers; N= Sample Size

ϴϬ

 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The observed favorable effects of combined application of farmyard manure along with
inorganic fertilizer could be understood from the improvements made in soil chemical
properties, crop productivity (yield) and socioeconomic setups. The statistical analysis
revealed that application of organic manure (FYM) significantly increased the chemical
properties of the soil at the study site. Addition of FYM brought about improvement in most
of the soil chemical properties. Soil pH, organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorus
etc. were improved. The organic carbon increased significantly as the rate of application of
FYM is increased. Organic Carbon, CEC, available P and K contents of the soil increased
with the incorporation of FYM in conjunction with inorganic fertilizers.. Hence it can be
concluded that the combined use of organic manure with inorganic fertilizers performed
better than inorganic fertilizers alone to sustain soil fertility and improve productivity.
Rice was found to respond significantly to the combined effects of FYM and inorganic
fertilizers for the majority of the agronomic parameters too. Greater number of days (122.5)
to physiological maturity was recorded when higher dose (9t/ha) of FYM was used. The
application of the highest dose (75kg/ha) of inorganic fertilizers alone significantly reduced
the days to maturity as compared to the organic sources which resulted in longest days to
maturity (122.5 days). Although the interaction effect of inorganic fertilizers and FYM on
the final plant height was not statistically significant, highest plant height was recorded when
9t/ha of FYM is used in conjunction with 75kg/ha DAP and 75kg/ha of Urea. Higher mean
grain yield was obtained on the use of inorganic fertilizers as a main factor while a relatively
lower mean grain yield per hectare was recorded on the FYM as a main factor. This could be
attributed to the gradual decomposition and slow release of nutrients in FYM applied
treatments and its slow availability throughout the growing period of the crop. Highest mean
grain yield of 44.4 Ql/ha was found from the combined application of both organic and
inorganic fertilizers at the higher rates. These results showed that yield of rice could be
maximized by the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizer.
Gross economic analysis revealed that integrated use of organic and inorganic
fertilizers recorded considerably higher net returns over the control treatment. The
highest mean net return of birr 18867.24 per hectare was recorded for the plot that received
9t/ha FYM together with 75kg/ha of each DAP and Urea which is birr 7240 more than the

ϴϭ

 net returns of the control. The second highest mean net benefit of birr 16301.81 per hectare
was obtained from plots that received 6t/ha FYM and 75kg/ha recommended dose of
inorganic fertilizers. But these all are not necessarily true when considering the MRR.
From the agronomic point of view, it was apparent from the above results that 9 t/ha of FYM
in conjunction with 75kg/ha of each DAP and Urea yielded better than the rest of the
treatment combinations which is 44.4Ql/ha. However, considering the costs that vary (TVC)
the dominance analysis showed that the higher agronomic yield did not brought highest
profit. Therefore, based on the principles of dominance analysis, only four treatments (1, 9,
5 and 6) were considered for the final analysis of MRR. Here it is worth mentioning that the
yields of treatments 2, 7, 10 and 11 are higher than those of treatment 5 (36.66Ql/ha), but the
dominance analysis showed that the value of the increase in yield is not enough to
compensate for the increase in costs (TVC) of these treatments. The highest MRR was
recorded between treatments 1 and 9 which was 2018%. That is if farmers invested birr 175
in using 60 Ql/ha of FYM with no inorganic fertilizer, they could recover the 175 birr plus an
addition of birr 3531.42 which is 20.18 times the cost incurred. The second highest MRR (for
going from Treatment 9 to Treatment 5) was 2013% and the third MRR was 1356%. This
MRR of 1356% (1.356 birr increase) is much less than the previous two. Therefore,
according to the law of the dominance analysis, to improve farmers' incomes it is important
to pay attention to net benefits, rather than the agronomic (physical) yields because higher
yields do not necessarily mean high net benefit.
Finally, the social perceptions regarding the use of organic or inorganic fertilizers and their
integrated use were also addressed. According to the respondent farmers, 98.7% of them use
FYM for their general crop production. Majority of the respondent farmers do not use
manure in rice production because they give first priority to other cereal crops. Mean scores
of the influence of farmyard manures on improving soil fertility indicated that the
respondents had positive perceptions about it and they give great weight for the manure. The
open willingness of farmers to demand inorganic fertilizers is very much low. 76% of the
respondent farmers showed no willingness to use external inputs. Finally issues regarding
fDUPHUV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RQ LQWHJUDWHG XVH RI )<0 DQG LQRUJDQLF IHUWLOL]HUV ZHUH DGGUHVVHG
Majority of the respondents were in agreement with the application of FYM. With regard to
the integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on rice production 45.35 of the
respondent farmers have agreed strongly.

ϴϮ

 Hence, it would be reasonable to conclude that farmyard manure (FYM) could be used
instead of inorganic fertilizers to get higher net economic benefit but due to their
inaccessibility, integrating FYM along with inorganic fertilizers would be the best
alternative. Combined use of FYM with inorganic fertilizers not only increases the rice yield
but also improved the fertility status of the soil, and could save part of the money that
would have been paid for the greater doses of the chemical fertilizer and is socially
acceptable.

Recommendations
9 Farmers at the Tselemti wereda could use FYM instead of IFs to get higher net
economic benefit but due to their inaccessibility, integrating 9t/ha FYM with 75kg/ha
IF could be good in rice cultivation under rain fed conditions.
9 But for optimum production of rice, other research should be conducted using increased
levels of both treatments.
9 This is one year result. However, the capacity of FYM in leaving a significant residual
nutrient effect on the succeeding crops needs further long-term research because
nutrient is residually accumulated each year.

9 Such studies need to be conducted at various soil and agro-climatic conditions to

generate more reliable information.
9 To improve farmers' income, it is important to pay attention to net benefits, rather than
the agronomic (physical) yields because higher yields do not necessarily mean high net
benefit.
9 Any policy and program aimed at sustainable rice production has to give due attention
and priority in training and mobilizing farmers that help in raising their perception level
based on their own choices only.

ϴϯ

 6. REFERENCES
Abay Ayalew, Kelsa Kena and Tesfay Dejene, (2011). Application of NP fertilizers for
better production of teff on different types of soils in southern Ethiopia; Journal of
Natural Science Research, Volume 1, no1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Adhikari R. A. (2011). Economics of Organic Rice Production; The Journal of Agriculture
and Environment Vol:12, Jun.2011, Technical Paper, pp:98
Ali M.E., Islam M.R. and Jahiruddin M., (2009). Effect of Integrated Use of Organic
Manures with Chemical fertilizers in the rice- rice cropping system and its impact on
Soil health. Journal of Agricultural Research: 34(1):81-90, Bangladish.
Alonge A.J. and Martin R.A., (1995). Assessment of the Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
Practices: Implications for Agricultural Education. Journal of Agricultural Education
3(3): 34-42.
Altieri M.A. and Rosset P. (l995). Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale
conventional systems to sustainable Management. International Journal of
Environmental Studies 50: 165-185.
Assefa Abegaz, (2005). Farm Management in Mixed Crop-livestock Systems in the
Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Resource Management Papers, Number 70,
p. 224.
Astewel Takele, (2010). Analysis of Rice Profitability and Marketing Chain: The Case of
Fogera Woreda, South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia , Msc
Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Audirac Y. (l997). Rural Sustainable Development in America. New York. John Wiley and
Sons.
Bagheri A., Shabanali H., Rezvanfar, Asadi A and Yazdani S. (2008). Perceptions of
Paddy Farmers towards Sustainable Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Haraz
Catchments Area in Mazandaran province of Iran. American Journal of Applied
Sciences 5 (10): 1384-1391,Tehran University, Iran.

Balesh Tulema, (2006). Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Crop Production in the
Central Ethiopian highlands, PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences,
Norway.

ϴϰ

 Barber, R. (1994). An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in the
Ethiopian highlands; their impacts and hazards. 23, LUPRD, MoA and FAO.
Bhatti A. U., Khan F. and Khattak R. A. (2001). Soil and nutrient losses through sediment
and surface runoff under maize mono-cropping and maize legume inter-cropping.
Bodruzzaman M. A, Meisne C.A, MA Sadat and M. I. Hossain, (2010). Long-term effects
of applied organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on yield and soil fertility in a
wheat-rice cropping pattern; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Australia.
Brady N. C. and Weil, R. R . (2002). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 13th Edition. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Page 960.
Chouichom S. and Yamao, M., (2010). Comparing opinions and attitudes of organic and
non-organic farmers towards organic wheat farming system in north-eastern
Thailand, Journal of Organic Systems, pp-25.
Christopher M. and Stephen F., (1994). An Economic Analysis of Ecological Agricultural
Technologies among Peasant Farmers in Honduras. Ecological Economics 12 (1995):
237-248. USA.
CIMMYT (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual. Completely Revised Edition. Mexico. D.F.
Conway T. 2001. Plant Materials and Techniques for Brine Site Reclamation. Plant
Materials Technical Note No 25, U.S. department of Agriculture- Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Bridger, Montana.
CSA (Central Statistics Agency), (2007). Ethiopian Statistics Abstract, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Daniel Mekonen, L. M. Pant and Nigusse Dechassa, (2008). Effect of integrated Nutrient
Management on yield of potato and soil nutrient status at Bako, West Shewa.
Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources: 10 (1): 85-101, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Daniel Mekonnen, (2006). Effects of integrated nutrient management on agronomic
performance of potato (Solanum tuberosum. L.) and fertility of nitosol at Bako. MSc
Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Dawis and Frietas, (1970). Physical and Chemical methods of soil analysis. FAO Bulletin
No. 10, Rome, Italy, p 275.

ϴϱ

 Defoer T., Budelman A., Toulmin and Carter S.E, (2000). Managing Soil Fertility in the
Tropics, Amestardem, The Netherlands.
Desta Beyene (2000). Soil fertility research on some Ethiopian Vertisols. Holleta
Agricultural Research Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Duncan B., Eric C., Mark K. and Bruno H. (1990). Economic Analysis of On-Farm Trials: A
Review of Approaches, and Implications for Research Program Design, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper No. 90-78, Michigan State University, USA.
Edmeades D.C., (2003). The long-term effects of manures and fertilizers on soil productivity
and quality. In: Sisay Hailu, (2006), Effects of Combined Application of Organic-P
and Inorganic-N fertilizers on Yield and Postharvest Quality of Carrot, MSc. Thesis,
Haromaya University, Ethiopia.
Elias Eyasu (2002). Farmers' Perceptions of Soil Fertility Changes and Management. ISD
and SOS-Sahel International (UK). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Evans L.T., (1998). Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge
University Press, UK, pp. 247.
Fairhurst T.H. and Dobermann A. (2002). Rice Production and its Global Food Supply,
Special Supplement Publication, Volume 16.
Fageria N. K., Moreira A. and Coelho A. M., (2011). Yield and Yield Components of Upland
Rice as Influenced by Nitrogen Sources. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34:361±370.
Feleke Asrat (2002). Economics of Crop-livestock Integration: The case of smallholders in
Boreda woreda of Southern Ethiopia, MSc thesis, Agricultural Economics, Alemaya
University, Ethiopia.
Filho C., Cochjane T.A Norton, L.D, Aviglione I.H, and Johanson L.P (2001). Land
degradation assessment tools and techniques for measuring sediment load.
Foth H. D. (1990). Fundamentals of Soil Science, 8th edition, John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New
York, USA, 360p.
Gebre Hadgu , (2006). The Effect of Planting Methods and Spacing on the Yield and Yield
Attributes of Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) in the Lowland Plain of Humera, Western
Tigray, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Gee G.W., and J.W. Bauder. (1986). Particle-size analysis. p. 383±411. In: A. Klute (ed.)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd edition, Agronomy Monograph no. 9, ASA and
SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.

ϴϲ

 Gen-Stat (2009). Gen-Stat for Windows (12th Edition) Introduction. VSN International,
Hemel Hempstead.
Girmay G., Mitku H. and Singh B.R, (2009). Agronomic and economic performance of
Reservoir sediment for rehabilitating Degraded soils in Northern Ethiopia, Mekelle
Ethiopia.
Gliessman, S. R. (2007). Agroecology: The Ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC
Press, USA.
Gomez A. K.and A. A. Gomez. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research with
Emphasis on Rice. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines.Pp.354.
Gonzalez D., Avarez J. and Matheus M., (2001). Comparison of three organic fertilizers for
the production of sweet corn. Proceedings of the Inter-American Society for Tropical
Horticulture, 45: 106-109.
Grace P, Ladd JN, Skjemstad JO (1994). The effect of management practices on soil organic
matter dynamics. In 'Soil biota: management in sustainable farming systems. CSIRO
Publishing, Melbourne.
Greenland D.J. (1997) The Sustainability of Rice Farming. CAB International/ IRRI, Los
Banos, Philippines.
Guggari A.K and S.B. Kalaghatagi, (2000). Effects of Permanent Mannuring and Nitrogen
Fertilization on pearl Millet. J. Karnataka Agri. Sci. 14(3): 601-604
Hailu Araya, (2010). The effect of compost on soil fertility Enhancement and yield
increment under smallholder farming, The case of Tahtai-Maichew district - Tigray
region, Ethiopia, University of Hohenheim, Germany, PhD Thesis, pp. 186.
Hagos F., Pender J. and Gebresilassie N. (2002). Land degradation and strategies for
sustainable land management in the Ethiopian Highlands, Tigray Region. In: Hailu
Araya, (2010). The effect of compost on soil fertility Enhancement and yield
increment under smallholder farming, The case of Tahtai-Maichew district - Tigray
region, Ethiopia, University of Hohenheim, Germany, PhD Thesis, pp. 186.
Havlin J., Beaton D., Tisdale L., and Nelson L., (1999). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: An
Introduction to Nutrient management. 6th Ed. Pearson Edition (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.,
Indian Branch, India.
Hussain M.Z, Rehman N.T., Khan M.A. and Roohullah S.R., (2006). Micronutrients status
in agricultural landscapes-³Are We Asking the Right Questions?´ Agriculture, Land

ϴϳ

 degradation assessment tools and techniques for measuring materials technical note
No 25, U.S. department of Agriculture.
Indrani P. B., Arundhati B. and Jasbir S. (2008). Integrated use of legume green, manure and
inorganic Fertilizer on soil health, nutrient uptake and Productivity of rice. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Research 42 (4): 260-265, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Jackline B. W., (2002). Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural Technologies:
The Case of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District of Eastern Uganda,
MSc Thesis, Virginia University, USA.
Khosh G., (2004). Harnessing Science and Technology for Sustainable Rice-based
Production Systems. FAO Rice Conference, Rome Italy.
Kiros Habtegebriel (2010). Mineral Nutrients, Plant Uses and fertility Management of Soils.
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Kiros H. and Mitiku H., (2009). Introduction to Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility
Management, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Krishnippa KS, (1989). Effect of fertilizer applications on dry matter and N, P and K
accumulation in the potato at different stages of growth. Mysore J. Agri. Sci. 23:349-
354.
Landon J. R., (1991). Booker Tropical Soil manual: A handbook for Survey and Agricultural
Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Sub Tropics. Longman Scientific and Technical
Press, Essex, New York, USA, 474p.
Lay G.G., Baltissen W., Veilcamp W., Nyaki A. and Schrader T., (2002). Towards
Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Tanzania. Developing farmers' options and
responsive policies in the context of prevailing agro-ecological, socio-economics and
institutional conditions. KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lichtfouse E., Navarrete M., Debaeke P., Souchère V., Alberola C. (Eds.) (2011). Alternative
Farming Systems, Biotechnology, Drought Stress and Ecological Fertilization;
Sustainable Agriculture Review: Springer/EDP Sciences, Review 6, 1012 p. France.
Mahajan A.M, Hagat R.M, AND Gupta R.D (2008): Integrated Nutrient Management In
Sustainable Rice-Wheat Cropping System For Food Security In India. Journal of
Agriculture vol. 6 no. 2 , India.

ϴϴ

 Makokha S.S, Kimani S., Mwangi S. and Musembi F. (2000). Determinants of fertilizer and
manure use in maize production in Kiambu, Kenya. Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute (KARI), Nirobi, Kenya.
Malakoti M.G. (1996). Sustainable Agriculture and Optimizing Performance Increase in
Fertilizer. Publisher Agricultural Education Publishing. Karaj. Iran.
Mathew I.P and S.K., Karikari, (1990). Horticulture Principles and Practices. The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
McGinn T., (2004). Instructions for Probability Proportional to Size Sampling Technique,
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, USA.
Mitiku H. and Fassil, K. (1996). Soil and moisture conservation in Semi-arid areas of
Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the Third Conference of Ethiopian Soil Science Society
(ESSS). February 28-29, 1996, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mitiku H., Berhanu, G. and Amare, B. (2003). The Status of Soil Fertility in Tigray. In:
3URFHHGLQJ RI WKH ³3ROLFLHV IRU 6XVWDLQDEOH /DQG 0DQDJHPHQW LQ WKH +LJKODQGV RI
7LJUD\ 1RUWKHUQ (WKLRSLD´ 6RFLR-economics and Policy Research (Working Paper
No. 54) ILRI. 28-29 March 2002, Ethiopia.
Moghaddam K., Karami, and J. Gibson (2005). Conceptualizing Sustainable Agriculture:
Iran as an illustrative Case. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(3): 25-56. Iran.
Mohammed Assen, P.A.L., Leroux, C.H., Barker, Heluf Gebrekidan, (2005). Soil of Jelo
Micro-Catchment in the Central Highlands of Eastern Ethiopia.
Morphological and Physiochemical Properties. Ethiopian Journal of Natural
Resource, Vol. 7, issue 1,Pages 55-81.
Morgan M. F, (1941). Chemical Diagnosis by the Universal Soil Tests System. Conn.Agr.
exp. Sta (New Haven) Bull. 450.
Mugwe J., Mugendi, D., Kungu, J. and Mucheru M., (2007). Effects of plant biomass,
manure and inorganic fertilizer on maize yield in the Central Highlands of Kenya.
African Crop Science Journal, 15(3): 111-126.
Muhammad U, Ehsan U., Ejaz A. AND Amir L., (2003). Effect of Organic and Inorganic
0DQXUHVRQ*URZWKDQG<LHOGRI5LFH9DULHW\³%DVPDWL±´. International Journal
Of Agriculture &Biology, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2003, , Faisalabad University of Agriculture,
Pakistan.

ϴϵ

 Mulugeta Demelash and Karl Stahr, (2010). Assessment of integrated soil and water
conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder, North-Western
Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management Vol.
1(7), pp. 164-176.
MyARC (2010). Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center: Rice Production Techniques
Manual, Maitsebri, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Nandwa S.M. and Bekunda M.A. (1998). Research on Nutrient Flows and Balances in East
and Southern Africa: State-of-the-art. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 71: 5-
18. In: Hailu, 2010. The effect of compost on soil fertility Enhancement and yield
increment under smallholder farming: The case of Tahtai-Maichew district - Tigray
region, Ethiopia, University of Hohenheim, Germany, PhD Thesis, pp. 186.
Nigatu W. and A. Parikh (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption
of agricultural technologies in the Moret and Jiru Woreda of Ethiopia. Agricultural
Economics 21 (1999) 205-216.
Norman Uphoff , (2005). Agroecologically Sound Agricultural Systems: Can They Provide
IRUWKH:RUOG¶V*URZLQJ3RSXODWLRQV? USA.
NRRDSE, (2009). National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia; Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ntanos D. A. and Koutroubas S. D., (2002). Dry Matter and N Accumulation and
Translocation for Indica and Japonica Rice under Mediterranean Conditions. Field
Crops Research. 74: 93 -101, India.
Oikeh S.O., Nwilene F.E., Agunbiade T.A. and Oladimeji O. (2010). Growing Upland
Rice:A Production handbook. Africa Rice Center (WARDA), Cotonou, Benin.
Okalebo J.R., Guathua K.W.and Woomer P.L., (1993). Soil laboratory Methods and Plant
Analysis. Working Manual, Karhsobf, Nairobi, Kenya. pp55.
Olsen S.R., Cole C.V., Watnable F.S and Dean L.A. (1954). Estimation of Available
Phosphorous in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. USDA.
Omar K.K , Natarajan K. and Gopalswamy A. (2000). Effects of organic and inorganic
nitrogen combinations on rice yield and N uptake. Indian Journal of soil Sciences 48
(2):398-400.

ϵϬ

 Orkaido Olte (2004). Effects of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Yield and yield
Components of Maize (Zea mays L.) on Black soil of Regede Konso, MSc Thesis,
Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia.
Peter G., Francesco G., and Montague Y. (2000): Integrated Nutrient Management, Soil
Fertility, and Sustainable Agriculture: Current Issues and Future Challenges,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Place, F., B. Christopher, B. Barrett, A. Freeman, D. Bernard and D. Vanlauwe, (2003).
Prospects for integrated soil fertility management using organic and inorganic
inputs: Evidence from smallholder African agricultural systems. Food Policy 8(2003):
365-378.
Pretty Jules, (2008). Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence. Biol
Sci., 363:447±65.
Pretty Jules, (2010). The Top 100 Questions of Importance to the Future of Global
Agriculture: International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8(4), 219-236. Earth
Scan Printers, UK.
Quang Tran Tuyen, Cao Van Phung and Tran Kim Tinh (2006). Influence of Long Term
Application of N, P, K Fertilizer On Major Soil Elements. Omonrice 14: 92-96, Can
Tho University.
Rahman S., (2003). Environmental Impacts of Modern Agricultural Technology Diffusion in
%DQJODGHVK DQ DQDO\VLV RI IDUPHUV¶ SHUFHSWLRQV DQG WKHLU GHWHUPLQDQWV. Journal of
Environmental Management 68:183-191.
Rani Devi, Ashok Kumar and Bishaw Deboch, (2007). Organic farming and sustainable
development in Ethiopia. Scientific Research and Essay Vol. 2(6), pp. 199-203.
Raun W. R., Solie B. S., Johnson G. V., Stone M. L., Mullen R. W., Freeman K. W.,
Thomson W. E., and Lukina E. V. (2002). Improving nitrogen use efficiency in cereal
grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. In: Fageria N. K.,
Moreira A. and Coelho A. M., (2011). Yield and Yield Components of Upland Rice as
Influenced by Nitrogen Sources Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34:361±370.
Reddy S.R. (2004). Agronomy of Field Crops. Kalyani (pub.), India.
Rehana B., Mian, M.H., Tahirruddin, M. and Hasan, M.A. (2003). Effect of Azolla- Urea
Application on Yield and NPK Uptake by BRRI Dhan 29 in Boro Season. Pakistan
Tournal of Biological Science. 6: 968-971.

ϵϭ

 Rekhi R. S., Benbi D. K., and Bhajan S., (2000). Effect of Fertilizers and Organic Manures
on Crop Yields and Soil Properties in Rice-Wheat Cropping System. Rice-Wheat
Consortium Paper Series 6. New Delhi, India.
Roaling N. and J.N. Pretty, (1997). The Role of Extension in Sustainable Agricultural
Development. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Rutger Neil, (1994). The Rice Plant, USDA. In: World Book Encyclopedia (1994), Rice,
pp322-327, USA.
Sahelemedhin Sertsu and Taye Bekele (2000). Procedures for Soil and Plant Analysis.
Technical paper #74. National Soil Research Center, Ethiopia Agricultural Research
Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Samuel Fisseha, (2011). The Effect of Irrigation on Soil Qualities under Different
Management Practices Using Maize (Zea mays) as Indicator Crop in Meremeti
Watershed, Enderta Wereda of Tigray, MSc Thesis, Mekelle University, Mekelle,
Ethiopia.
Sanchez P.A and Jama B.A, (2000). Soil fertility Replenishment and Takes-off in East and
Southern Africa. In: Vanlauwe B., Diels, J. Sanginga, N. Merckx (Eds.). Integrated
plant nutrient management in Sub-Saharan Africa: From concept to Practice. CABI,
Wallingford, UK, pp 23-45.
Sarker M. M., Matin M. A., Hossain M. G. and M. Ahmed, (2011). Effect of Tillage
Intensity, Fertilizer and Manuring on Physical Properties of Soil and Rice Yield.
Journal of Expt. Biosci. 2(2):61-66.
Satyanarayana V., Vara P., Murthy R. and Boote K. (2002). Influence of Integrated Use of
Farmyard Manure and Inorganic Fertilizers on Yield and Yield Components of
Irrigated Lowland Rice. Journal of Plant Nutrition, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 2081±2090,
India.
Shalini S.B., H.T. Channal, N.S.Hebsur, P.R, Dharmatti, and P.A. Sarangamath, (2002).
Effect of Integrated Nitrogen Management on Nutrient uptake in Knolkhol, Yield
and Nutrient Availability in the Soil. J. Karanataka Agri. Sci.15 (1): 43-46.

ϵϮ

 Seyed I.G., Malewar W. and Yelvikar R.V., (1998). Influence of FYM and gypsum on soil
properties and yield of groundnut grown in Vertisols. In: Daniel Mekonnen, (2006).
Effects of integrated nutrient management on agronomic performance of potato
(Solanum tuberosum. L.) and fertility of nitosol at Bako. MSc Thesis, Alemaya
University, Ethiopia.

Sheikh A.D., T. Rehman and C.M. Yates, (2003). Logit Models for Identifying the Factors
WKDW,QIOXHQFHWKH8SWDNHRI1HZµ1R-7LOODJH¶7HFKQRORJLHVE\)DUPHUVLQWKH5LFH-
Wheat and the Cotton-Wheat Farming Systems of Pakistan. Punjab. Agricultural
Systems 75: 79 - 95.

Shivanand, I.T, (2002). Integrated Nutrient Management on Physical Conditions, Soil

Fertility and Productivity of Crops in Dryland Vertisol. J. Karnataka Agri.Sci.15 (1):
186-187.

Smathers W.M.Jr. (1982). )DUPHUV¶Attitudes, Perceptions, and Risk; Overlooked Variables

in Soil Test Values: Biodynamics of Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century, Mt.
Vernon ME 04352.

Sokat Yiech, (2006). Nitrogen Uptake and Yield Response Of Rainfed Rice Varieties To
Fertilizer N On Fluvisols of Gambella Region, M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University,
Ethiopia.

Somda J., Nianogo, A.J., Nassa, S. and Sanou, S. (2002): Soil Fertility Management and
Socio-economic Factors in Crop-livestock Systems in Burkina Faso: A Case Study of
Composting Technology. Journal of Ecological Economics, 43: 175-183.

Strock H., Berhanu A., Bezabih E., Borowiecki A. and Shimelis W. (1991). Farming
Systems and Farm Management Practices of Smallholders in the Harrarghe Highlands.
In: Kebede Manjur, (2006). )DUPHUV¶ 3HUception and Determinants of land
Management Practices in Ofla woreda, Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis,
Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

ϵϯ

 Swift M.J., Izac, A.M.N., van Noordwijk, M., (2004). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
in Agricultural Landscapes- Are we Asking the Right Questions? Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 104, 113±134.

Tamirat Tsegaye, (1992). Vertisol of Central Highlands of Ethiopia: Characterization and

Evaluation of Phosphorus Statues. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Tareke Berhe (2003). Rice: a high potential emergency and food security crop for Ethiopia.
Report-2, Online: Sasakawa Global 2000 /Guina Agricultural Project. Available from:
www.eap.gov.et. [Date accessed: 04.11.2011].

Teklu E., K. Stahr and Getachew T, (2004). Integration of organic and inorganic
fertilizers: effect on vegetable productivity. International research on food
Security, National Resource Management and Rural Development. Humboldt.
Univeritat Zu Berlin.

Tesfaye Beshah, (2003). Understanding Farmers: Explaining soil and water conservation in
Konso, Wolaita and Wollo, Ethiopia. Tropical Recourse Management Papers, No
41.Ph.D Dissertation. Wageningen University, Netherlands.

Tesfaye Molla (2006). Effects of Planting Methods And In-Situ Water Harvesting On Striga
Infestation And Productivity Of Sorghum Under Integrated Nutrient Medium In
Ebinat Dryland, Amhara Region, MSc. Thesis, Haromaya University, Ethiopia.

Tewolde Berhan, G.E. (2006): The Role of Forest Rehabilitation for Poverty Alleviation in
Drylands. Journal of the Drylands. 1(1): 3-7.

Tisdale S.L., W.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton and J.L. Havlin, (1995). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers.
5th ed., Macmillan, New York, USA.

Tran N. S., Vu van Thu, Luu H. and Hiraoka H. (2001). Effect of organic and bio- fertilizer
on quality, grain yield and soil properties of soybean under rice based cropping
system. Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan.
United Nations, (2008). Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations
Environment Programme, Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, UN, New
York and Geneva.

ϵϰ

 USDA, (1999). Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and
Interpreting Soil Surveys. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Agriculture
Handbook, 2nd Edition, Number 436, USA.

William T., (1999). Factors Influencing Manure Application by Farmers in Semi-arid West
Africa. In: Daniel Mekonnen, (2006). Effects of integrated nutrient management on
agronomic performance of potato (Solanum tuberosum. L.) and fertility of nitosol at
Bako. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

World Bank (2007). Ethiopia: Accelerating Equitable Growth Country Economic

Memorandum. Africa Region Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit,
Washington DC.

Yasir M., Muhammed b., Muazzam S. and Muhammad A., (2011). Benefit Cost Ratio of
Organic and Inorganic Wheat Production. World Journal of Applied sciences
13(1):p175-180, Pakistan.

Zahir Shah and Mian Ishaq Ahmad, (2006). Effect of Integrated Use of Farm Yard Manure
and Urea on Yield and Nitrogen Uptake of Wheat. Journal of Agricultural and
Biological Science. Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN), VOL.1, NO.1,
Peshawar, Pakistan.

Zelalem A., Tekalign T. and Nigussie D., (2009). Response of potato to different rates of
nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on Vertisols at Debrebirhan, in the central
highlands of Ethiopia, Haromaya University, Ethiopia.

Zenna S. Nigussie, Gebretsadik Zewdie and Tareke Berhe (2008). Rice today: Moving up in
Ethiopia [online]. Available from: www.irri.org/news/index.php/rice today. [Date
accessed: 3.2.2011].

ϵϱ

 7. APPENDIXES
A. 48(67,211$,5(21)$50(56¶3(5&(37,21

PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION / IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Questionnaire No__________________

1.2 Name of the interviewee signature______________
1.3 Date of interview_________________
5HVSRQGHQW¶V$GGUHVV:HUHGDBBBBBBBBBBTabia (PA) ________
Kushet
PART 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERSTICS of the HHH
2.1 HH Head Characteristics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SN Name of the HHH Sex Age Relationship Marital Educational Main Religion
to the family Status Level Occupation
1

Codes for Section 2.1

x For Sex: 1=Male, 2=Female
x For age: 1. 18-30 2. 31-45 3.46-60 4. 61-75 5. >75
x For Relationship, 1=wife, 2= Husband, 3=daughter, 4=Son, 5= others
x For Marital Status: 1= Single, 2= Married, 3= Divorced 4= Widowed and 5= Separated
x For Main Occupation: 1=Farming Activities, 2=Petty Trade 3= Daily laborer, 4=Student
5= Others (specify)__________________________
x For Educational Level: 1= illiterate, 2= 1-4 years of schooling, 3=5-8 Years of
schooling 4= 9-12 5= >12 grade 6= Non-formal education
x For Religion: 1= Orthodox 2= Muslim 3= Protestant 4= Others (specify)_______________
Note: Non-formal educations include religious education, and education gained
from adult literacy Campaign
2.2 What is your main source of income?
1. Farming 2. Trading 3. Farming and Trading
4. Wage laborer 5. Others (specify) ____________

ϵϲ

 2.3 What is your total family size (only those who eat from the same pot) _____
1. Number of male_____ 2. Number of female________
2.4 Number of HH members permanently working on farm_________
2.5 Number of HH members working off- farm activities ___________
2.6 How long have you been in farming (farming experience)? _________years
1. 1-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16-20 5. >20
2.7 Social status of the household head:
1. Village government management body
2. Religious Leader
3. Local cultural leader
4. None 5. Others (specify) _________________
PART 3: HOUSEHOLD RESOURCE ENDOWMENT
3.1 Do you own land? 1. Yes 2. No
3.2 For Q. No 3.1 above, LI\HVZKDWLV\RXUWRWDOODQGKROGLQJBBBBBBBBBBBBµWLPDG¶
3.3 Main source of income of the household
1. Crop production 2. Livestock production
3. Mixed farming (crop and livestock production) 4. Farming and Trading
5. Trading 6. Wage laborer 7. Others (specify) _________________

PART 4: CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEM

4.1 What are your major crops? Put in their order of importance:
1. SorgKXP0DL]H5LFH)LQJHU0LOOHW³WHI´
6. Vegetable crops 7. Others (specify)________________________
4.2 Has rice cropping improved your livelihood? 1. Yes 2. No
4.3 If your answer for question number 4.2 above is yes, reason out.
1. More income
2. The fact that it can be made into different food items
3. House Construction
4. Sending of Children to School
5. Covering of other fees
6. Others (specify)______________
4.4 Presence of problems related to rice cropping: 1= No, 2= Yes

ϵϳ

 4.5 For question number 4.4 above, if your answer is yes, prioritize the problems:
1. Lack of dehulling machine
2. Market problem
3. Susceptibility to weed
4. It grows only on black and water- logged soils
5. Impurity problems (mixed seeds)
6. Unavailability of improved Seeds
7. Others (specify) _______
4.6 Involvement in rice production:
1. Only this year
2. This year & in the previous years
3. in the previous year but not this year
4. Never involved.
4.7 Your future plan of involvement in rice production
1= Continue 2= Discontinue
4.8 For question number 4.7 above, if your answer is 1, main reason(s) for continuation:
1. High yield and earliness in maturity 2. High market demand of the crop
3. Possibility of growing on water-logged soils 4. High palatability of its straw by
livestock
5. The fact that it can be made into different food items
6. Others (specify) ______________
4.9 For question number 4.8 above, if your answer is 2, reasons for discontinuity:
1. Poor yield performance 2. Poor market demand
3. Lack of dehulling machine 4. Its high demand of fertilizer
5. Lack of money & credit 6. Others (specify)__________________

4.10 Which type of agricultural operation(s) is (are) critical to you and need higher labor in rice
production?
1. Plowing, 5. Mannuring
2. Sowing, 6. Storage
3. Weeding, 7. Others (specify) ___________
4. Threshing

ϵϴ



PART 5: LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEM

5.1 Do you have livestock? 1. Yes 2. No
5.2 How many livestock do you have?
Livestock type Numbe TLU
r(s)
Cows
Calves
Bulls
Heifers
Oxen
Sheep
Goats
Donkeys
Mule
Camel
Poultry
Honey traditional
Bee modern
Others (specify)




5.3 What are your major livestock?

1. Cattle 2. Shoat 3. Equine 4. Others (specify) ______________
5.4 Did you face any shortage of oxen during the last cropping season?
1. Yes 2= No
5.5 For question number 5.4 above, if your answer is yes, how did you solve the problem?
1. Hiring oxen 2. Labor exchange for oxen
3. Help from family/ relatives 4. Others, specify_____________________
5.6 As a paddy (rice) farmer, what is your main problem?
1. Shortage of land 2. Lack (shortage) of oxen
3. High price of fertilizers 4. Others, specify_______________

PART 6. INORGANIC FERTILIZER

6.1 For how long have you used inorganic fertilizers?
1. 1-2 years 2. 3-5 years 3. 6-10 years 4. 10 years 5. Never Used
6.2 Have you ever used the following farm inputs and practices?
Type of farm 1=Yes Which is best If NO why?
input or farm 2= No for you (Rank (Reasons, see below)
practice WKHP«
Fertilizer
Manure
Crop rotation
Fallowing
Intercropping
Others
Reasons
1= Not available; 2=Too expensive; 3=Not economically feasible; 4=Lack of labor;
5=Never heard of it 6. Lack of farmland
6.3 Do you really believe that the use of inorganic fertilizers is economically feasible?
1 = Yes 2 = No

ϭϬϬ


6.4 For question number 6.3 above, if your answer is no, why?
1. High price of fertilizers (Not economically viable)
2. Market price of crops is by far below the price of the fertilizer
3. Fertilizers have burning effect on crops and hence no significant return on the final yield
4. I am taking fertilizers against of my will
5. Inorganic fertilizers need yearly application (no residual nutrient effect)
6. Others (specify) __________________________________
6.5 Have you used chemical fertilizer on rice crop during this cropping season?
1. Yes 2. No
6.6 For question number 6.5 above, if your answer is yes, what is your Fertilizer rate
of application?
1. Apply the standard recommended rate
2. Below the standard recommended rate
3. Above the standard recommended rate
,GRQ¶WNQRZWKHVWDQGDUGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQ
5. Others, specify___________
6.7 Reasons for below recommendation use of Inorganic fertilizers:
1. High price of fertilizers
2. Due to large farm size
3. We take it without enough knowledge of it
4. Others, please specify _________

6.8 Are you willing to take /use inorganic fertilizer every year? 1=Yes 2= No

6.9 For question number 6.8 above, if your answer is no, reason out:
1. I have enough manure
2. My farmland is fertile
3. Prolonged use of inorganic fertilizers deplete (do not sustain) soil fertility
4. Inorganic fertilizers have burning effect on crops
5. Unlike manure, inorganic fertilizers need yearly application and not cost effective
6. Lack of enough knowhow (rate, time etc. of its application
7. Others, specify_________________

ϭϬϭ

 
'R\RXWKLQNSDGG\IDUPHU¶VEHQHILWFDQEHLQFUHDVHGE\GHFUHDVLQJFKHPLFDOIHUWLOL]HU
use in long term?
1. Strongly agree 2.Agree 3. Undecided 4.Disagree 5.Strongly disagree
6.11 Do you think rice yield can be increased only by increased use of chemical fertilizers?
1. Strongly disagree 2.Disagree 3. Undecided 4.Agree 5. Strongly agree

PART 7: MANURE ± ORGANIC FERTILIZER

7.1 Do you use manure for crop production? 1= Yes 2= No
7.2 For question number 7.2 above, if your answer is no, why?
1. Lack of livestock 4. Priority to inorganic fertilizers
2. Use of animal dung as fire wood 5. Transportation Problem
3. Labor shortage (Management and 6. Termite Problems
Transportation) 7. Others (specify) ______________
7.3 Do you have enough manure to be used? 1= Yes 2= No
7.4 For question number above 7.5, if your answer is no, why?
1. Lack of livestock 2. Termite problems
3. Large farm size 4. Others (specify) ________________
:KDWFKDOOHQJHVGR\RXIDFHLQXVLQJPDQXUH\RXKDYHLWEXW\RXGRQ¶WXVHLW"
1. Lack of knowhow 2. Lack of labor 3. Lack of proper handling
4. The enforcement of government bodies to take inorganic fertilizers
5. Others (specify) ______________________
7.6 Before the introduction of inorganic fertilizers, what methods were you using to improve your soil
fertility?
1. Use of manure 2.Intercropping 3.Crop rotation
4. Other (specify)_____________________
7.7 Do you use manure for rice production? 1= Yes 2= No
7.8 For question number 7.7 above, if your answer is yes, if yes, how much for a
µWLPHG¶" ____________________
7.9 For question no 7.7, if not, why?
1. Priority to other crops 2. Lack of knowhow
3. Lack of labor 4. Use of animal dung for fire wood
5. Lack of enough manure 6. Use of inorganic fertilizers as an alternative
7. Others (specify)_______________
7.10 Which is better to enhance crop productivity?
1. Manure 2. Inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea)
ϭϬϮ



7.11 For question number 7.10 above, if your answer is manure, reason out:
1. Once you apply it, it has residual effect on yield for the coming cropping year
2. It is easily accessible- manure is already in the home and around the farm and is
most often used.
3. Using manure is cheaper because it does not involve buying from the outside.
4. It is less costly (economically feasible)
5. Better experLHQFHRILWIURPIDUPHUV¶VLGH
6. Others, specify_____________________________________
7.12 Do you think that application of animal manure can increase soil fertility better than IF?
1. Strongly agree 2.Agree 3. Undecided 4.Disagree 5.Strongly disagree
7.13 Do you think that the use of animal manure alone cannot increase rice production?
1. Strongly disagree 2.Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree
7.14 Do you think a part of fertilizer and part of manure can enhance productivity?
1. Strongly agree 2.Agree 3. Undecided 4.Disagree 5.Strongly disagree

ϭϬϯ



B. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

Appendix Table 1: Monthly Total Rainfall (mm) of the study site, 2006-2011.
 zĞĂƌ
ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬϬϴ ϮϬϬϵ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬϭϭ
:ĂŶ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϭ ϯ͘ϳ ϯ͘ϴ
&Ğď Ϭ Ϭ ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
DĂƌ ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ ϱ͘ϳ ϵ͘Ϯ ϯ
ƉƉ ϲ͘ϭ ϳϯ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϯ ϭϭ͘Ϯ ϳ͘ϭ
DĂLJ ϱϮ͘ϵ ϳ͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ ϱϰ͘ϲ ϭϬϲ͘ϭ
:ƵŶ ϮϮϬ͘ϴ ϭϳϴ ϭϭϬ͘ϵ ϭϴϰ ϭϭϳ͘ϯ
:Ƶů ϯϵϵ͘ϭ ϰϭϲ͘ϱ ϱϳϱ͘ϯ ϰϬϱ͘ϳ ϮϬϮ͘ϴ
ƵŐ ϱϰϬ͘ϱ ϰϯϴ͘ϳ ϰϬϬ͘ϯ ϰϱϱ͘Ϯ Ϯϴϳ͘ϴ
^ĞƉ ϮϮϵ͘ϭ Ϯϵϳ͘ϴ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϯϱϰ͘ϲ ϭϵϴ͘ϯ
KĐƚ ϰϲ͘ϭ ϭ͘ϯ ϭϭ ϰϳ͘ϭ Ϯϭ͘ϯ
EŽǀ Ύ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϭ
ĞĐ Ύ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
Source: Tigray Regional Meteorological Agency, Mekelle; * data not available
Note: Data are missing for 2007.

Appendix Table 2: Five years monthly average min and max temperature of the study area, 2006-2011
 YEAR
ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬϬϴ ϮϬϬϵ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬϭϭ
DĂdž DŝŶ DĂdž DŝŶ DĂdž DŝŶ DĂdž DŝŶ DĂdž DŝŶ
:ĂŶ ϯϯ͘ϱ ϭϲ͘ϭ ϯϮ͘ϳ ϭϲ͘Ϯ ϯϯ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϯϮ͘ϲ ϭϲ͘ϲ ϯϮ ϭϱ͘ϴ
&Ğď ϯϱ͘ϭ ϭϱ͘ϱ ϯϰ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϯϱ͘Ϯ ϭϵ͘ϰ ϯϰ͘ϭ ϭϴ͘ϰ ϯϰ͘ϱ ϭϳ͘ϯ
DĂƌ ϯϱ͘Ϯ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϯϲ͘ϰ ϮϬ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϯϰ͘ϵ ϮϬ͘ϯ ϯϰ͘ϱ ϭϵ͘ϯ
ƉƉ ϯϱ͘ϳ Ϯϭ͘ϰ ϯϱ͘ϭ ϮϬ͘ϭ ϯϳ ϮϮ͘ϯ ϯϳ͘ϭ Ϯϯ ϯϲ͘ϵ ϮϮ͘Ϯ
DĂLJ ϯϰ͘ϭ ϭϵ͘ϳ ϯϱ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϯϲ͘ϲ Ϯϯ͘Ϯ ϯϲ ϮϮ͘ϲ ϯϰ͘ϵ Ϯϭ͘ϲ
:ƵŶ ϯϮ͘Ϯ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϯϭ͘ϳ ϭϴ͘ϱ ϯϱ ϮϬ͘ϯ ϯϮ͘ϭ ϭϵ͘Ϯ ϯϮ͘ϭ ϮϬ
:Ƶů Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϱ Ϯϳ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϲ Ϯϲ͘ϴ ϮϬ͘ϴ Ϯϲ͘ϴ ϭϴ͘ϰ Ϯϴ͘ϳ ϭϴ͘ϱ
ƵŐ Ϯϲ͘ϵ ϭϳ͘ϱ Ϯϳ͘ϯ ϭϳ Ϯϳ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϵ Ϯϲ͘ϱ ϭϴ͘ϭ Ϯϲ͘ϱ ϭϴ
^ĞƉ Ϯϴ͘ϱ ϭϲ͘ϰ Ϯϴ͘ϲ ϭϲ͘ϲ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϭϳ͘ϳ Ϯϴ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘Ϯ Ϯϳ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘ϯ
KĐƚ ϯϭ͘ϱ ϭϳ͘Ϯ ϯϮ ϭϳ ϯϯ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘ϱ ϯϭ͘ϱ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϯϮ͘ϲ ϭϲ͘Ϯ
EŽǀ ΎΎΎ ΎΎΎ ϯϮ͘ϯ ϭϱ͘ϱ ϯϯ͘ϯ ϭϳ͘ϰ ϯϮ͘ϴ ϭϲ͘ϰ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϲ͘ϱ
ĞĐ ΎΎΎ ΎΎΎ ϯϮ͘ϱ ϭϱ͘ϱ ϯϮ͘Ϯ ϭϲ͘ϱ ϯϭ͘ϰ ϭϱ͘ϲ ϯϭ͘ϭ ϭϱ͘ϱ
Source: Tigray Regional Meteorological Agency, Mekelle; Note: Data are missing for 2007. ***=
Data not Available for these months

ϭϬϰ

 

C. SOIL PARAMETERS

Appendix Table 3: ANOVA for Soil pH

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 0.002150 0.001075 0.72
Manure 2 0.064850 0.032425 21.85 <.001
IF 3 0.055300 0.018433 12.42 <.001
Manure x IF 6 0.011750 0.001958 1.32 0.290
Residual 22 0.032650 0.001484
Total 35 0.166700
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square
Appendix Table 4: ANOVA for %OC
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 0.018717 0.009358 0.97
Manure 2 1.151450 0.575725 59.89 <.001
IF 3 0.056875 0.018958 1.97 0.148
Manure x IF 6 0.267350 0.044558 4.64 0.003
Residual 22 0.211483 0.009613
Total 35 1.705875
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 5: ANOVA for Available K (ppm)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

Rep stratum 2 41.297 20.648 2.81

Manure 2 18638.226 9319.113 1266.69 <.001
IF 3 7081.272 2360.424 320.84 <.001
Manure.IF 6 8537.513 1422.919 193.41 <.001
Residual 22 161.855 7.357
Total 35 34460.162
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 6: ANOVA for Available P(ppm)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

Rep stratum 2 0.13001 0.06500 0.81

Manure 2 7.77396 3.88698 48.54 <.001
IF 3 5.26427 1.75476 21.91 <.001
Manure.IF 6 7.52773 1.25462 15.67 <.001
Residual 22 1.76186 0.08008
Total 35 22.45782
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square

ϭϬϱ



Appendix Table 7: ANOVA for CEC

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 2.8572 1.4286 2.07
Manure 2 28.2839 14.1419 20.54 <.001
IF 3 2.5000 0.8333 1.21 0.329
Manure.IF 6 47.2850 7.8808 11.44 <.001
Residual 22 15.1494 0.6886
Total 35 96.0756
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 8: ANOVA for Total_N (%)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

Rep stratum 2 0.00136 0.000680 7.22

Manure 2 0.00301 0.001508 15.99 <.001
IF 3 0.00020 0.000068 0.73 0.547
Manure.IF 6 0.00041 0.000069 0.74 0.622
Residual 22 0.00207 0.000094
Total 35 0.00707
v.r=Variance ratio; df=degrees of freedom; s.s=sum of square; m.s=mean square

D. AGRONOMY PARAMETERS
Appendix Table 9: ANOVA for DE (Days to Emergence)
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 0.7222 0.3611 1.72
Manure 2 7.0556 3.5278 16.83 <.001
IF 3 2.7500 0.9167 4.37 0.015
Manure*IF 6 3.8333 0.6389 3.05 0.025
Residual 22 4.6111 0.2096
Total 35 18.9722
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s.=sum of square, m.s=mean square
Appendix Table 10: ANOVA for DF (Days to Flowering)
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 14.889 7.444 1.81
Manure 2 369.056 184.528 44.89 <.001
IF 3 58.528 19.509 4.75 0.011
Manure*IF 6 168.722 28.120 6.84 <.001
Residual 22 90.444 4.111
Total 35 701.639
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

ϭϬϲ



Appendix Table 11: ANOVA for DM (Days to Maturity)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 35.389 17.694 2.20
Manure 2 1384.056 692.028 86.20 <.001
IF 3 516.972 172.324 21.47 <.001
Manure*IF 6 140.611 23.435 2.92 0.030
Residual 22 176.611 8.028
Total 35 2253.639
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 12: ANOVA for PH

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 166.16 83.08 3.68
Manure 2 168.46 84.23 3.73 0.040
IF 3 686.09 228.70 10.12 <.001
Manure*IF 6 55.19 9.20 0.41 0.866
Residual 22 497.19 22.60
Total 35 1573.08
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 13: ANOVA for PL ±Panicle Length (cm)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 5.985 2.993 2.03
Manure 2 9.602 4.801 3.26 0.058
IF 3 19.564 6.521 4.42 0.014
Manure*IF 6 9.387 1.565 1.06 0.415
Residual 22 32.442 1.475
Total 35 76.980
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 14: ANOVA for NSpPP-Number of Spikes per panicle

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 1.145 0.573 0.52
Manure 2 3.132 1.566 1.43 0.261
IF 3 13.963 4.654 4.25 0.016
Manure*IF 6 3.199 0.533 0.49 0.811
Residual 22 24.088 1.095
Total 35 45.528
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

ϭϬϳ



Appendix Table 15: ANOVA for NT (Number of Tillers per plant)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 0.1422 0.0711 0.34
Manure 2 0.7622 0.3811 1.83 0.184
IF 3 9.8978 3.2993 15.86 <.001
Manure*IF 6 3.4156 0.5693 2.74 0.039
Residual 22 4.5778 0.2081
Total 35 18.7956
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 16: ANOVA for NSePP ( Number of seeds per Panicle)
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 252.77 126.39 2.93
Manure 2 290.04 145.02 3.37 0.050
IF 3 605.59 201.86 4.68 0.011
Manure*IF 6 482.66 80.44 1.87 0.132
Residual 22 948.08 43.09
Total 35 2579.13
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 17: ANOVA for AGBY (Above Ground Biomass Yield, Ql/ha)
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 7.55 3.78 0.13
Manure 2 1073.58 536.79 18.98 <.001
IF 3 2274.29 758.10 26.80 <.001
Manure*IF 6 266.03 44.34 1.57 0.204
Residual 22 622.25 28.28
Total 35 4243.71
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 18: ANOVA for GY (Grain Yield, Ql/ha)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 1.952 0.976 0.15
Manure 2 287.694 143.847 22.82 <.001
IF 3 453.996 151.332 24.01 <.001
Manure*IF 6 109.564 18.261 2.90 0.031
Residual 22 138.668 6.303
Total 35 991.874
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

ϭϬϴ



Appendix Table 19: ANOVA for STYld (Srtaw Yield, Ql/ha)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 17.19 8.59 0.61
Manure 2 253.35 126.67 8.97 0.001
IF 3 722.51 240.84 17.06 <.001
Manure*IF 6 83.93 13.99 0.99 0.455
Residual 22 310.55 14.12
Total 35 1387.52
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 20:-- ANOVA for HI (Harvest Index in %)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 17.376 8.688 1.65
Manure 2 13.450 6.725 1.28 0.299
IF 3 22.914 7.638 1.45 0.256
Manure*IF 6 71.156 11.859 2.25 0.076
Residual 22 116.009 5.273
Total 35 240.906
IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square, m.s=mean square

Appendix Table 21: ANOVA for TSW (1000 Seed Weight in g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
Rep stratum 2 0.0317 0.0158 0.07
Manure 2 5.7867 2.8933 11.96 <.001
IF 3 3.4956 1.1652 4.82 0.010
Manure*IF 6 3.9244 0.6541 2.70 0.040
Residual 22 5.3217 0.2419
Total 35 18.5600
TSW= Thousand Seed Weight; IF= Inorganic Fertilizer, df=degrees of freedom, s.s=sum of square,
m.s=mean square

ϭϬϵ



E. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS
Appendix Table 22: Total Variable Costs (TVC) of the Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on rice, 2011
TCV ( Total Costs that Vary)
FYM IF Manure (FYM) Inorganic Fertilizers SUM
(t/ha) (kg/ha)
Manure Transporting and DAP Urea (a+b+c)
Trt # Spreading (10MD*35 (100kg/ha) (100kg/ha)
=350birr/ha) =1280birr/ql =980birr/ql
(a) (b) (c)
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 75 0 960 735 1695
3 0 50 0 640 490 1130
4 0 25 0 320 245 565
5 9 0 262.5 0 0 262.5
6 9 75 262.5 960 735 1957.5
7 9 50 262.5 640 490 1392.5
8 9 25 262.5 320 245 827.5
9 6 0 175 0 0 175
10 6 75 175 960 735 1870
11 6 50 175 640 490 1305
12 6 25 175 320 245 740
MD= man-days; ql= quintal; M= Manure; IF= inorganic fertilizer

ϭϭϬ

 

Appendix Table: 23 Total revenue analysis as influenced by integrated use of chemical fertilizers
and organic materials on rice.

 'ƌĂŝŶ ^ƚƌĂǁ 
  'ƌŽƐƐ
 'ƌĂŝŶ Ěũ͘ WƌŝĐĞ ZĞǀĞŶƵĞ ^ƚƌĂǁ Ěũ͘ WƌŝĐĞ ZĞǀĞŶƵĞ ZĞƚƵƌŶ
 LJŝĞůĚ zŝĞůĚ ;ŝƌƌͬYůͿ ;ŝƌƌͬŚĂͿ LJŝĞůĚ zŝĞůĚ ;ŝƌƌͬYůͿ ;ŝƌƌͬŚĂͿ ^hD
dƌƚη ŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ ;YůͬŚĂͿ ;ϭϱй (1)  ;YůͬŚĂͿ ;ϭϱй (2) ;ϭнϮͿ
ůĞƐƐͿ ůĞƐƐͿ
ϭ EŽD͕EŽ/&  ϮϬ͘ϲϯ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϵϮϴϯ͘Ϯϴ  Ϯϲ͘Ϭϰϰ ϵϬ Ϯϯϰϯ͘ϵϲ ϭϭϲϮϳ͘Ϯϰ
Ϯ EŽD͕ϳϱй/&  ϯϮ͘ϯϵ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϱϳϳ͘Ϭϴ  ϯϳ͘ϯϰϵ ϵϬ ϯϯϲϭ͘ϰϭ ϭϳϵϯϴ͘ϰϵ
ϯ EŽD͕ϱϬй/&  Ϯϵ͘ϯϵ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϯϮϮϲ͘ϴϱ  ϯϭ͘Ϯϴ ϵϬ Ϯϴϭϱ͘ϮϬ ϭϲϬϰϮ͘Ϭϱ
ϰ EŽD͕Ϯϱй/&  Ϯϰ͘ϴϲ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϭϭϴϴ͘ϭϯ  Ϯϵ͘ϭϮϭ ϵϬ ϮϲϮϬ͘ϴϵ ϭϯϴϬϵ͘ϬϮ
ϱ ϳϱйD͕EŽ/&  ϯϭ͘ϭϲ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϬϮϮ͘ϰϱ  ϯϬ͘ϵϵϵϱ ϵϬ Ϯϳϴϵ͘ϵϲ ϭϲϴϭϮ͘ϰϭ
ϲ ϳϱйD͕ϳϱй/&  ϯϳ͘ϳϰ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϲϵϴϯ͘ϬϬ  ϰϮ͘ϰϵϭϱ ϵϬ ϯϴϮϰ͘Ϯϰ ϮϬϴϬϳ͘Ϯϰ
ϳ ϳϱйD͕ϱϬй/&  ϯϭ͘ϰϲ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϭϱϲ͘ϯϯ  ϯϱ͘ϬϬϯ ϵϬ ϯϭϱϬ͘Ϯϳ ϭϳϯϬϲ͘ϲϬ
ϴ ϳϱйD͕Ϯϱй/&  ϯϬ͘ϰϯ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϯϲϵϯ͘ϱϬ  ϯϳ͘Ϯϯϴϱ ϵϬ ϯϯϱϭ͘ϰϳ ϭϳϬϰϰ͘ϵϳ
ϵ ϱϬйD͕EŽ/&  Ϯϴ͘ϰϮ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϮϳϴϲ͘ϵϴ  Ϯϴ͘Ϯϵϲϱ ϵϬ Ϯϱϰϲ͘ϲϵ ϭϱϯϯϯ͘ϲϲ
ϭϬ ϱϬйD͕ϳϱй/&  ϯϮ͘ϵϯ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϴϭϴ͘Ϭϱ  ϯϳ͘Ϯϲϰ ϵϬ ϯϯϱϯ͘ϳϲ ϭϴϭϳϭ͘ϴϭ
ϭϭ ϱϬйD͕ϱϬй/&  ϯϭ͘ϱϰ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϰϭϵϰ͘ϱϴ  ϯϲ͘ϯϯϳϱ ϵϬ ϯϮϳϬ͘ϯϴ ϭϳϰϲϰ͘ϵϱ
ϭϮ ϱϬйD͕Ϯϱй/&  Ϯϳ͘ϬϮ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϮϭϱϵ͘ϲϴ  ϯϬ͘ϲϲϴ ϵϬ ϮϳϲϬ͘ϭϮ ϭϰϵϭϵ͘ϴϬ
M=manure; IF= inorganic fertilizer;

Appendix Table 24: Net Economic Profit

Revenue Revenue Gross Total Cost Net
from Grain from Straw Return (Birr/ha) Benefit
Trt # Combinations (birr/ha) (birr/ha) (a+b) (c) (a+b)-(c)
(a) (b)

1 No M, No IF 9283.28 2343.96 11627.24 0 11627.24

2 No M, 75 %IF 14577.08 3361.41 17938.49 1695 16243.49
3 No M, 50 %IF 13226.85 2815.2 16042.05 1130 14912.05
4 No M, 25 %IF 11188.13 2620.89 13809.02 565 13244.02
5 75%M, No IF 14022.45 2789.96 16812.41 262.5 16549.91
6 75%M, 75% IF 16983 3824.24 20807.24 1957.5 18849.74
7 75%M, 50% IF 14156.33 3150.27 17306.6 1392.5 15914.1
8 75%M, 25% IF 13693.5 3351.47 17044.97 827.5 16217.47
9 50 %M, No IF 12786.98 2546.69 15333.66 175 15158.66
10 50 %M, 75%IF 14818.05 3353.76 18171.81 1870 16301.81
11 50 %M, 50% IF 14194.58 3270.38 17464.95 1305 16159.95
12 50 %M, 25% IF 12159.68 2760.12 14919.8 740 14179.8
M= Manure; IF= inorganic fertilizer

ϭϭϭ



F. SOCIAL PARAMETERS
Appendix Table 25: TLU holding of the Respondent farmers (N=75)
S.N TLU Type Min max mean Sta.
Dev
1 Cow 0 20 4.9 4.6
2 Calves 0 2.5 0.73 0.54
3 Bulls 0 3.75 0.86 0.95
4 Heifer 0 11.25 1.8 2.07
5 Oxen 0 8 2.6 1.4
6 Sheep 0 3.25 0.11 0.5
7 Goat 0 7.8 1.13 1.55
8 Donkey 0 2.8 0.63 0.68
9 Mule 0 1.1 0.04 0.22
10 Poultry 0 0.91 0.2 0.18
total TLU 2.3 43 13 9.9
TLU= Tropical Livestock Unit

Appendix Table 26: Conversion factors used to calculate Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)

Animal Type TLU Equivalent

Calf 0.25
Heifer and Bull 0.75
Cow and Oxen 1.00
Horse 1.10
Donkey 0.70
Sheep and Goat 0.13
Poultry / Chicken 0.013
Source: Strock et al. (1991) as cited by Kebede (2006).

ϭϭϮ



Appendix Table 27: Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (n=75)

Name of the kebelle Total % x2/t
Tsa'eda Mezekir Medhane-
kerni alem
N Mean N Mean N Mean
Sex of the Male 30 22 16 68 90.7
HHH Female 3 1 3 7 9.3
Total 33 23 19 75 100 1.61ns
Age of the 47 51 52
HHH
Age 18-30 4 1 1 6 8
catagory of 31-45 13 8 5 26 34.7
the hhh 46-60 11 9 11 31 41.3
61-75 5 5 1 11 14.7
>75 0 0 1 1 1.3
Total 33 23 19 75 100 8.5ns
Marital Single 4 1 0 5 6.7
Status of Married 28 20 16 64 85.3
the HHH Divorced 1 1 1 3 4
Widowed 0 1 2 3 4
Separated 0 0 0 0 0
Total 33 23 19 75 100 6.44ns
Educational Illiterate 14 11 12 37 49.3
Level of 1-6 yrs 14 11 5 30 40
the HHH schooling
7-12 yrs 4 0 1 5 6.7
schooling
Non-formal 1 1 1 3 4
edu.
Total 33 23 19 75 100 5.5ns
Family Size 6 7 6
Farming 1-5 years 3 0 0 3 4
Experience 6-10 years 0 0 0 0 0
of the HHH 11-15 Years 0 0 0 0 0
16-20 years 3 0 1 4 5.3
>20 years 27 23 18 68 90.7
Total 33 23 19 75 100 6.45ns
X2=chi-square; t= t-value; ns= not significant; HHH=Household Head

ϭϭϯ

 

G. ADDITIONAL APPENDIXES

Appendix Table 28: Values of OM, Total N and available P parameters

Soil Chemicals OM TN Av. P
Rating % % (ppm)
Very low <1 <0.1 <5
Low 1-2 0.1-0.2 5-10
Medium 2-5 0.2-0.3 10-25
High 5-10 0.3-0.4 25-50
Very High >10 >0.4 >50
Source: Barber (1994)

Appendix Table 29: Critical Values of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)

Nutrients Critical Value Description
>1.7% Good
SOC 0.9-1.7% Deficient
<1.7% Poor
Source: Defoer et al. (2000)

Appendix Table 30: Rating of Soil Organic Content

Organic Matter Level% Rating of Soil Organic Content
00-0.5 Extremely Low; soil is deprived of residues
0.5-1.0 Low; soils needs more organic residues
1.0-2.5 Moderately Low; soil has been cropped very heavily
2.5-6.0 Moderate; soil is being maintained in an optimal desired range
6 Soil is accumulating organic matter; high addition rate; rich
garden/organic soil
Source: Woods End Research Laboratory, 1996.

ϭϭϰ



Appendix Table 31: Soil pH values and their Descriptions

Critical values Description
<4.5 Extremely Acidic
4.5-5.0 Very strongly acidic
5.1-5.5 strongly acidic
5.6-6.0 Moderately Acidic
6.1-6.5 Slightly acid
6.6-7.3 Neutral
7.4-7.8 Slightly alkaline
7.9-8.4 Moderately alkaline
8.5-9.0 Strongly alkaline
>9.1 Very strong alkaline
Source: Foth and Ellis (1991).

Appendix Table 32: Critical Values of soil Nitrogen and Phosphorous

Nutrients Critical Values Description

>1% Very High
0.5-1 % High
Nitrogen 0.2-0.5% Medium
0.1-0.2% Low
<0.1 Very Low
<5ppm Low
Phosphorous 5-15ppm Medium
>15ppm High
Source: Landon (1991).

ϭϭϱ



ANNEX- Rice research status at the experimental site and visits held by Dr. Fetien Abay

ϭϭϲ

View publication stats