International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology (ISSN ) Volume 3 No 8 August 2013

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology (ISSN ) Volume 3 No 8 August 2013"

Gabriella Cameron
5 years ago
Views:

1 An Evaluation of the Effects of Yara Fertilizers on the Growth and Yield Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) and its Economic Implications to Farmers in Ghana. BERCHIE, J.N 1., ASUMADU, H 1., YEBOAH, S 1., AGYEMAN, K 1 and ACHEAMPONG, P.P 1 1 CSIR-Crops Research Institute, P. O. Box 3785, Kumasi-Ghana Corresponding Author: YEBOAH, S. proyeboah@yahoo.co.uk, stephenyeboah4@gmail.com Abstract- Low soil fertility is identified as a major factor militating against crop production in many tropical cropping systems where fertilizer use is low and agricultural residues are not returned to the soil for its rejuvenation. As a result of this, the performance of maize (Zea mays L.) in response to application of fertilizer was studied on a loamy sand soil in the forest and forest-savannah transition zones of Ghana in 2011 and The study was carried- out at Kwadaso and Akomadan in 2011 and Fumesua and Ejura in The objectives of the study were to determine the appropriate type and dosages for application of Yara fertilizer formulations on maize for optimum growth and yield and also assess the economic feasibility of these fertilizers. The experimental design was Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) of eight treatments with three replications. The maize variety used for the study was Obatanpa quality protein maize (QPM). Soil analyses were carried-out for all the different trial sites. Soil chemical analysis showed that the soils were moderately acidic with ph range of across the locations. Grain yield of the existing recommended chemical fertilizer rate on maize was significantly (p<0.05) lower than 3 split application of 500 kg/ha Actyva and 375 kg/hac Actyva plus 125 kg/ha Winner across locations. The results also showed that the application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting plus Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP plus Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP out-yielded the recommended fertilizer rate by 30 % and the control by 104 % in 2011 and also produced the highest grain yield across locations in both 2011 and Lower yields from no fertilizer application and the recommended fertilizer application were associated with delayed anthesis and silking and poor nutrient supply. Treatments which produced higher yields were also taller than those with lower yields but this had no significant effect on lodging. The economic analysis of the treatments also showed that application of Actyva alone or in combination with Winner was more profitable than the application of YaraMila Unik or NPK in combination with Ammonia, Urea and Sulfan. Keywords: maize, fertilizers, yield, partial budget and marginal rate of return I. INTRODUCTION Sustainable agricultural practices that lead to an increase in productivity are central to the acceleration of economic growth which will aid in poverty alleviation and consequently help to overcome the recurrent food 1 shortages that affect millions of households. Despite the improvements made over the last four decades in the agricultural sector, a combination of constraints such as declining soil fertility, population growth, low uptake of external inputs, and climate disruption has resulted in a dramatic fall in per capita food production (Pretty et al., 2011). The projected increases in food production must be achieved on the already cultivated land, because the potential for expanding the area of agricultural lands is very limited. However, recent trends indicate that productivity and fertility of soils are globally declining due to degradation and intensive use of soils without due consideration of the proper soil-management practices (Gruhn et al., 2000; Cakmak, 2002). Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important cereal crop which ranks third after wheat and rice in the world (David and Adams, 1985). It is one of the most important cereal crops in Ghana. In spite of the increase in land areas under maize production, yield is still low. Some of the major causes of low maize yield are declining soil fertility and insufficient use of fertilizers resulting in severe nutrient depletion of soils (Buresh et al., 1997). Maize requires adequate supply of nutrients particularly nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for good growth and high yield. Nitrogen fertilizer is an important component of protein and nucleic acids and when it is inadequate, growth is reduced (Adediran and Banjoko, 1995). Most of the maize cultivation systems found in Ghana are practised by smallholder farmers and the cultivation is based on sole applications of mineral fertilizers. The amount of fertilizer applied is however, inadequate to meet the crop nutritional requirements for optimum crop yields at the farm level. High fertilizer prices coupled with low produce prices of farm commodities are serious challenges to farmers in Ghana (Wiredu et al., 2010). However, Das et al. (2010) have observed that farmers primary interest is in cost of production and return since they show them the relationship between input and output of their enterprises and the unit cost between less and more efficient farming practices. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct cost-benefit

2 analysis of new technologies before any meaningful recommendation can be made to farmers. The objectives of the trials were to determine (1) the appropriate dosages for application of Yara fertilizer formulations on maize for optimum growth and yield performance and (2) assess the economic feasibility of the product. II. MATERIALS AND MATERIALS Study Site: Field trials were conducted at Kwadaso and Akomadan in the forest and forest-savannah transition agro-ecologies of Ghana in the major season of The experiment was repeated in Fumesua and Ejura in the forest and forest-savannah transition agro-ecologies of Ghana in the major season of Experimental Design: The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). There were eight treatments replicated three times. A Plot size of 6 rows, 5 m long was used with plant spacing of 80 x 40 cm. Fertilizer sources used for the experiment were Urea, Sulfan, Winner, Actyva, Sulphate of Ammonia and NPK in different combinations and time of application. Determination of Soil Nutrients: Soil samples were collected from the experimental sites at depth of 0-15cm and 16-30cm for physical and chemical analysis before sowing. The samples were transferred to the laboratory for analysis. The collected samples were air-dried and passed through 2mm sieve to remove large particles, debris and stones. The soil samples were analysed for ph, total nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, boron and cation exchange capacity. Tables 1a and b give results of soil physical and chemical analysis. Data Collection: After establishment of the experiment, data collection began. The measurement of maize plant height was from ground level to the point of attachment of the flag leaf. Final plant establishment was determined as emerged seedlings that have established at 21 days after sowing. Days to 50% anthesis and silking were determined as the number of days 50% of the plants on a plot tasselled and silked. Number of plants that lodged was determined as the number of plants that lodged on the harvested area of each plot. Recommended agronomic practices were employed throughout the experiment. The treatments for the two years were as follows: TREATMENT COMBINATIONS IN T 1 : No fertilizer application. 2. T 2 : (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 3. T 3 : (250 kg/ha) at planting and Sulfan (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 4. T 4 : (250 kg/ha) at planting and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 5. T 5 : Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 6. T 6 : Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (125 kg/ha) T 7 : Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 8. T 8 : Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. TREATMENT COMBINATIONS IN T 1 : No fertilizer application. 2. T 2 : YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and SULFAN (125 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting (WAP). 3. T 3 : YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 4. T 4 : Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 5. T 5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and at 4 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 5 WAP (125 kg/ha). 6. T 6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 7. T 7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 8. T 8: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP Statistical and economic analysis: Data analysis was conducted using the Genstat statistical package. Grain yield was calculated at 15% moisture content. If the analysis of variance showed significant differences (p<0.05) of variables between treatments, the standard error of difference of means (SED) were used to compare between treatments. Partial budgeting was used to calculate the total costs that vary and the net benefits of the different fertilizer treatments. Grain yields from the researcher managed trials were adjusted down by 10% to conform to farmer management (CIMMYT, 1988). The marginal rate of return (MRR) was calculated as the marginal net benefit, expressed as a percentage. Recommendation was made based on the agronomic results and the comparisons of the rates of return between treatments to the minimum rate of return acceptable to farmers. III. RESULTS Soil analysis The physical and chemical properties of the soil prior to planting are shown in Table 1a and b. Soil chemical analyses at the study areas (Table 1a&b) indicated that the soils were moderately acidic with ph range of in both locations. The levels of Nitrogen and organic matter were moderately low ( %) and ( %) at Kwadaso and low ( %) and ( %) at Akomadan, respectively. Phosphorus level was moderate at Kwadaso ( ppm) and low at Akomadan ( ppm). The percentage organic matter and organic carbon were moderate. The potassium levels at both locations were very low to high of ppm in both years of the study (Royal Tropical Institute, 1984). These soil nutrient levels indicated that maize could response to

3 fertilizer treatments. Table 2 below also shows the chemical composition of Yara fertilizer products. Yara Mila Urea and Yara Bela Sulfan have Nitrogen content of 46 and 24 % respectively. Table 1a. Chemical properties of soils at horizons 0-15 and cm at Kwadaso and Akomadan sites Table 2: Chemical Composition of Yara Fertilizer Products Name of Product Composition Yara Mila Winner Mgo+3 S+TE Location Kwadaso Soil horizon ph (H 2 O) Total N % Org. matter % P (ppm) K (ppm) Akomadan Yara Bela Sulfan 24% N-6% S Yara Mila Unik 15 NPK Yara Mila Actyva MgO+ 3 S Zn Yara Mila Urea 46 % N Source: Yara Ghana Limited Table 1b. Chemical properties of soils at horizons 0-15 and cm at Fumesua and Ejura sites Location Soil horizon ph P (ppm) K (H 2 O) (ppm) Fumesua Ejura Mean number of days to 50% anthesis (DFA) and silking (DFS): At Kwadaso and Ejura, the control tasseled at 52 and 59 days respectively in 2011 which were 5 to 6 days later than the other treatments. There were significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments in the number of days to 50 % tasseling at Kwadaso with treatments 3, 4 and 8 producing the least number of days to 50 % anthesis. Plants which did not receive any fertilizer took a longer time to silk (66 and 62 day) at Kwadaso and Akomadan respectively in Across locations days to 50% tasselling and silking ranged between days and days respectively (Table 3)

4 Table 3: Mean days to 50% anthesis (DFA) and silking (DFS) of maize planted under different chemical fertilizer regimes at Kwadaso and Fumesua in T1: No fertilizer application. Treatment Kwadaso Akomadan Across 2. T2: (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 3. T3: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Sulfan (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 4. T4: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 5. T5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 6. T6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (125 kg/ha). 7. T7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 8. T8: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. DFA DFS DFA DFS DFA DFS Mean SED Plant height: Significant (p<0.05) differences were observed among treatments with respect to plant height at Kwadaso and Akomadan in 2011 and Fumesua and Ejura in 2012 (Table 4a and b). Plants which received the application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting, Actyva 2 weeks after planting (125 kg/ha) and Actyva ( 250 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting recorded the highest plant height of 242 cm and 236 cm at Kwadaso and Akomadan respectively in Plants which did not receive any fertilizer application were significantly shorter than plants which received the recommended fertilizer application. The shortest plant height was recorded in the control treatment at 204 and 159 cm at Kwadaso and Akomadan respectively in Lodging: The analysis of variance showed that the plants that received the current recommended fertilizer rate (NPK-250 kg/ha at planting and Sulphate of Ammonia-250 kg/ha at 4 WAP) recorded the lowest lodging at Kwadaso although it recorded the highest lodging at Akomadan (Table 4a). The result also showed significant difference between numbers of plants that lodged at both Kwadaso and Akomadan (Table 4a) in At Fumesua in 2012, the treatment with the highest number of lodged plant was recorded by the application of Yara Milla Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP with (13.0) (Table 4b). The application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting, Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP recorded the lowest number of lodged plants of 6.3 at Fumesua in At Ejura, the highest number of lodged plants was obtained by the application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting, Winner (125 kg/ha) 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP, and this was significantly higher than all the treatment in 2012 except Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP (Table 4b). 4

5 Table 4a: Mean Plant height and number of plants lodged of maize planted under different chemical fertilizer regimes at Kwadaso and Akomadan in 2011 Treatment Kwadaso Akomadan Across 1. T1: No fertilizer application. Plants height Lodging Plants height Lodging Plants height Lodging T2: (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 3. T3: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Sulfan (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 4. T4: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 5. T5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 6. T6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (125 kg/ha). 7. T7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 8. T8: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP Mean SED

6 Table 4b: Mean Plant height and number of plants lodged of maize planted under different chemical fertilizer regimes at Fumesua and Ejura in TI: No fertilizer application Treatment Fumesua Ejura Across 2. T2: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and SULFAN (125 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting (WAP). 3. T3: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 4. T4: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 5. T5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and at 4 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 5 WAP (125 kg/ha). 6. T6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 7. T7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 8. T8: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4WAP Plants height Lodging Plants height Lodging Plants height Lodging Mean SED Plant stand at emergence and harvest: The analysis of variance show significance differences (p<0.05) among treatments in plant stand in both years of the study (Table 5a and b). Plants which received the recommended fertilizer rate, Sulfan and Urea achieved plant density closer to optimum plant density of 6.25 plants/m 2. The application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting produced the highest plant stand of 5.31 plants/m 2 in across locations in Kwadaso and Akomadan with the control producing the lowest plant stand of In 2012, the results showed that plots which received the recommended fertilizer application recorded the lowest plant stand across locations (4.89) even though this was not significantly different from the control and Actyva 125 Kg/ha at planting and 250 Kg/ha at 4 WAP. Grain yield: The application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting, Yara Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP significantly (P <0.05) enhanced grain yield in both 2011 and 2012 (Table 5a & 5b). The result also showed that plots which did not receive any fertilizer recorded significantly (p<0.05) lowest grain yield at Akomadan and Kwadaso in However, no significant difference was observed among the various treatments for grain yield in

7 Table 5a: Plant density and grain yield of maize planted under different chemical fertilizer regimes at Kwadaso and Akomadan in 2011 Treatment Kwadaso Akomadan Across 1. No fertilizer application 2. T2: (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 3. T3: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Sulfan (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 4. T4: (250 kg/ha) at planting and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 5. T5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 6. T6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (125 kg/ha). 7. T7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 8. T8: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) Mean SED

8 Table 5b: Plant density and grain yield of maize planted under different chemical fertilizer regimes at Fumesua and Ejura in 2012 Treatment Fumesua Ejura Across 1. T1: No fertilizer application. Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) Plants m -2 Yield (kg/ha) T2: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and SULFAN (125 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting (WAP). 3. T3: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Urea (125 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 4. T4: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP. 5. T5: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and at 4 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 5 WAP (125 kg/ha). 6. T6: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and at 2 WAP (125 kg/ha) and 4 WAP (250 kg/ha). 7. T7: Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP and Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP 8. T8: YaraMila Unik 15 (250 kg/ha) at planting and sulphate of ammonia (250 kg/ha) at 4WAP Mean SED The partial budget for the various treatments (Table 6a and 6b) showed that the net benefit for no fertilizer application (GH ) was lower than all the treatments in Application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP plus Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP recorded the highest net benefit for both studies. Any treatment that has net benefit less than or equal to those of a treatment with lower costs that vary, was dominated and are marked with D. 8

9 Table 6a: Partial budget for eight fertilizer treatments on maize in 2011 Treatment Treatment for 2011 Across locations Mean yield of maize (kg ha -1 ) Adjusted yield (kg/ha -1 ) Gross field benefits (GH /ha) Cost of NPK ( ) Cost of sulphate of ammonia Cost of Sulfan fertilizer Cost of Urea fertilizer Cost of Actyva fertilizer Cost of Winner fertilizer Cost of fertilizer application Total Cost that vary (GH /ha) Net benefits (GH /ha)

10 Table 6b: Partial budget for eight fertilizer treatments on maize in 2012 Treatment Treatment for 2012-Across locations Mean yield of maize (kg ha -1 ) Adjusted yield (kg/ha -1 ) Gross field benefits (GH /ha) Cost of NPK ( ) Cost of sulphate of ammonia Cost of Sulfan fertilizer Cost of Urea fertilizer Cost of Actyva fertilizer Cost of Winner fertilizer Cost of fertilizer Total Cost that vary (GH /ha) Net benefits (GH /ha)

11 IV. DISCUSSION The results of the soil chemical analyses (Tables 1a&b) indicated that the soils were moderately acidic with ph ranging between in both locations. The soil organic matter recorded in both Akomadan and Kwadaso ranged from which is considered as being low (Ranamukhaarachchi et al., 2005). According to Metson (1961), a productive soil should have an organic matter content of at least 4 %. Application of amendments during the period of the experimentation was expected to cause maize response. The results also showed that the total nitrogen content ( ) levels were very low at both locations and therefore response of maize to N fertilizer application was expected. Nitrogen (N) is typically the nutrient of most concern because it has a strong influence on cereal crop yields (Havlin et al., 2005). The quantity of these nutrients required depends on the initial chemical properties of the soil. This explains the low yield obtained from the control plots in Plant height is among the most important biomass yield components of maize crop. Besides being a genetic trait, it is also a reflection of nutrient availability, management and favorable prevailing weather. The results obtained from this study showed that the different application rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers significantly improved maize growth and yield. This was evident in the plant height produced. Plant height was significantly different among the treatments in 2011 and 2012 across the two locations. The effect of treatment on plant height was greatly observed in However, plots which did not receive any fertilizer recorded the shortest plant height across locations. This might be due to the low nutrient level recorded as shown by the soil chemical analysis. The highest plant height recorded by the application of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting, 2 weeks after planting (125 kg/ha) and ( 250 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting was probably due to high supply of nutrients as compared to other treatments. Growth was mostly supported with application rates of this treatment. These results are in agreement with the findings of (Akain et al., 1993), who reported that precise application of mineral fertilizer to maize can be as effective for maize growth response. This can be attributed to the fact that nitrogen promoted vegetative growth in maize (Paradkar and Sharma, 1993). Generally, treatments which produced higher yields were also taller than those with lower yields but this had no significant effect on lodging. It can be observed that mean plant height tended to increase with the application of the Actyva based fertilizers compared with the NPK fertilizers. This result is in agreement with the previous findings that reported that higher rate of nitrogen promote plant height during vegetative development (Cox et al., 1993). Grain yield is the end result of morphological and physiological processes occurring during growth and development of a crop. Grain yield of the current recommended chemical fertilizer rate was significantly (p<0.05) lower than 3 split application of 500 kg/ha Actyva and 375 kg/ha Actyva plus 125 kg/ha Winner across locations. The results showed that treatment that received 375 kg/ha Actyva and 125 kg/ha Winner also recorded a high grain yield at both years of the study. The results showed that 3 split application of 500 kg/ha Actyva and 375 kg/ha Actyva plus 125 kg/ha out-yielded the recommended fertilizer rate and the control by 30 % and 104 % respectively in The highest grain yield of 3689 kg/ha and 6098 kg/ha at Kwadaso and Akomadan was obtained from the plots to which 3 split application of Actyva 500 kg/ha was applied at planting, 2 weeks after planting and 4 weeks after planting while the lowest yield of 2284 kg/ha and 2011 kg/ha was obtained from plots to which no fertilizer (control) was applied in both locations in At Fumesua, the highest grain yield of 5271 kg/ha was obtained from the plots to which 3 split application of Actyva 400 kg/ha was applied at planting and 4 WAP and Winner 125 kg/ha at 2 WAP (Treatment 7). This was significantly higher than treatment 2, 4 and 8. Application rate of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP plus Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 weeks after planting recorded the highest grain yield in both years of the study. This study further confirmed the role of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer in increasing growth and yield in maize production. This could be explained by the fact that the earliness in tasselling following the application of 3 split application of Actyva 500 kg/ha at planting, 2 WAP and 4 WAP, promoted vigorous foliage growth, increased meristematic and more intense physiological activities in the plants which favoured the synthesis of more photo assimilates and early flowering resulting in increased yield. These results are consistent with those of (Singh et al., 1991.) who observed a reduction in number of days to 50% tasselling in maize with increase in rates of fertilizers used. The increase in grain yield due to the application of the Actyva fertilizer relative to the control could be due to delayed anthesis and silking on the control plots. Detailed information on cost and return is a prerequisite for adoption of technical innovation by farmers (Das et al., 2010). Economic analysis helps develop recommendation from the agronomic data to enhance selection of right combination of resources by farmers. In 2011, the partial budget analysis showed that all the treatments yielded higher benefits than the control (no fertilizer). The fertilizer treatments therefore had effects on maize yields and increased farmers benefits. The fertilizer treatments can therefore be recommended to farmers. On the contrary, in 2012 only treatments 4, 5, 6 and 8 had better net benefits than the control. The implication is that farmers would be better off adopting those fertilizer treatments as they increase maize yields and thus improve incomes. V. CONCLUSION From the result of this experiment, application rate of Actyva (125 kg/ha) at planting and Winner (125 kg/ha) at 2 WAP plus Actyva (250 kg/ha) at 4 WAP is very effective for higher grain yield (4894 and 4769 Kg/ha in 2011 and 11

12 2012) of maize as compared to the current fertilizer recommendation (3772 and 3978 kg/ha in 2011 and 2012) and may be recommended for increasing maize yield particularly in the study area. However, 3 split application of 125 kg/ha Actyva at planting and 125 kg/ha at 2 WAP plus 250 kg/ha at 4 WAP is also equally effective for higher maize grain yields. The economic assessment of the treatments have also showed that application of Actyva alone or in combination with Winner was more profitable than the application of YaraMila Unik or NPK in combination with Ammonia, Urea and Sulfan. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Yara Ghana Limited, for providing funds for this research work. Our deepest appreciation also goes to the technical staff of Resources and Crop Management Division of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research-Crops Research Institute for data collection. REFERENCES 1. Adediran, J.A. and V.A. Banjoko, (1995). Response of maize to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers in the savanna zone of Nigeria. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 26: Akain, A., B. Sade, A. Tamkoe and A. Topat, (1993). Effect of different plant densities and nitrogen fertilizer rates on grain yield and some morphological characters of maize. Doga Turk Tarim Ve Ormoncilik Dergisi, 17: Buresh, R.J., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun, (1997). Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA Spec. Publ. 51. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI 4. Cakmak, I. (2002). Plant nutrition research: Priorities to meet human needs for food in sustainable ways. Plant Soil 247, Chaudhry, G.A., C. Habib, M. Sadiq and M.A. Khan, (1991). Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and plant population on grain yield of dry land maize. Res., 27: CIMMYT, (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Completely Revised Edn., CIMMYT Economics Program, Mexico, DF., ISBN-10: , PAGES: Cox, W.J., S. Kalonoge, D.J.R. Cherney and W.S. Raid, (1993). Growth yield and quality of forage under different nitrogen management practices. 8. David and Adams, (1985). Crops of drier regions of the tropics. pp: Das, A., M. Biswas and N. Mandal, (2010). An economic analysis of stevia (Stevia rebaudiana Bert.) cultivation through stem cutting and tissue culture propagule in India Trends Agric. Econ., 3: Gruhn, P., Goletti, F., and Yudelman, M. (2000). Integrated nutrient management, soil fertility, and sustainable agriculture: current issues and future challenges. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 32, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 11. Havlin, J.L, Tisdale S.L, Nelson W.L and Beaton J.D, (2005). Soil fertility and Fertilizers: An introduction to Nutrient Management. Pearson Education Incoporation upper saddle River, New Jersey. 12. Metson, A.J., (1961). Methods of Chemical analysis for Soil Survey samples. Soils Bulletin, 12 GVT printer Wellington, DSIR, New Zealand. 13. Paradkar, V.K. and R.K. Sharma, (1993). Effect of nitrogen fertilization on maize (Zea mays) varieties under rainfed condition. Indian J. Agron., 38(2): Pretty, J., Toulmin C. and Williams S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 9: Ranamukhaarachchi S.L., Rahman M.M. (2005). Soil Fertility and land productivity under different cropping systems in highlands and medium highlands of Chandiar sub district, Bangladesh, Asia pacific journal of Rural Development, XV (1). Pp Royal Tropical Institute, (1984). Analytical Methods of the Service Laboratory for Soil, Plant and Water Analysis. Part I: Methods for Soil Analysis. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 17. Singh, V.K. and O.P. Dukey, (1991). Response of maize to the application of nitrogen and phosphorus. Current Res. University Agric Sci., 20: Wiredu, N.A., K.O. Gyasi, T. Abdoulaye, D. Sanogo and A. Langyintuo, (2010). Characterization of maize producing households in the Northern Region of Ghana. Country Report Ghana CSIR/SARI-IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. 12

INFLUENCED OF INORGANIC FERTILIZER PRODUCTS ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF TOMATOES (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill)

Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Science, January - 2014; Volume 1 (7 - Special Issue on soil and water management in agriculture) ISSN No. 2320 8694 INFLUENCED OF INORGANIC FERTILIZER