Sustainable Soil Management Component (SSMC) of OCP Foundation s Agricultural Development Project in Bangladesh Stage 1

Transcription

1 Sustainable Soil Management Component (SSMC) of OCP Foundation s Agricultural Development Project in Bangladesh Stage 1 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT YEAR 2 JANUARY-JUNE 2018 This report by IFDC was made possible through funding support from the OCP Foundation. INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER PO BOX 2040 MUSCLE SHOALS, AL USA

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Project Goal and Objectives... 2 Project Location... 3 Deliverables... 4 Results... 4 Number of Farmers Directly Reached by the Project... 6 Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices... 7 Number of Farmers Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices... 8 Results of Trials... 9 Results of Demonstrations Total Incremental Production Incremental Production per Hectare Total Value of Incremental Production Value of Incremental Production per Hectare Activities Baseline Survey on Agronomic Practices Baseline Survey on Fertilizers Subsidies System Formulate ISFM, Farm Trials Protocol, and Farmer Training Modules Field Trials Field Demonstrations Upazila Agriculture Officers and Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officers of DAE Orientation Program Demonstration Crop Cut and Field Days Farmer Training Third Steering Committee Meeting of SSMC Project Media Coverage Estimated Budget and Actual Expenditure SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 i

3 Tables Table 1. List of Deliverables Through June Table 2. Results Achieved Against Targets for the Period Through June Table 3. Number of Farmers Directly Reached by the Project Through June Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Direct Beneficiaries Through June Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Total Beneficiaries Through June Number of Direct Beneficiaries Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices Through June Number of Total Beneficiaries Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices Through June Table 8. Increased Yield of Paddy from On-Farm Trials T. Aman Table 9. Weighted Average Gross Margin for T. Aman Table 10. Increased Yield of Paddy from On-Farm Trials Boro Table 11. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Wheat Table 12. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Potato Table 13. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Maize Table 14. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Lentil Table 15. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Lentil Table 16. Increased Yield of Paddy from Demonstrations T. Aman Table 17. Weighted Average Gross Margin for T. Aman Table 18. Increased Yield of Paddy from Demonstrations Boro Table 19. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Boro Table 20. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Wheat Table 21. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Wheat Table 22. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Potato Table 23. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Potato Table 24. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Maize Table 25. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Maize Table 26. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Lentil Table 27. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Lentil Table 28. Incremental Production from Demonstration Plots Table 29. Incremental Production per Hectare SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 ii

4 Table 30. Total Value of Incremental Production Table 31. Value of Incremental Production per Hectare Table 32. Activity Accomplished Against Targets Through June Table 33. Status of Established On-Farm Field Trials on Rice Table 34. Yield of BRRIdhan 49 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Pirganj, Rangpur in Aman Table 35. Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of T. Aman Rice (BRRIdhan 52), Farmer s Field at Kurigram in Aman Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Pirganj, Rangpur in Boro Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of Boro Rice (BRRIdhan 58), Farmer s Field at Kurigram Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of Boro Rice (BRRIdhan 58), at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi Table 40. Status of On-Farm and On-Station Field Trials on Non-Rice Crops Table 41. Table 42. Table 43. Table 44. Table 45. Table 46. Table 47. Table 48. Table 49. Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj 38 Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Bogra Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Bogra in Potato Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Tuber Yield of Potato at Domar, Nilphamari Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Rangpur in Maize Effect of Fertilizer Packages for Macronutrient Omission on the Performance of Maize at Rajbari, Dinajpur during Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Ulipur, Kurigram in Lentil Effect of Fertilizer Packages on the Performance of Lentil Agriculture Research Station, OFRD, Rangpur Effect on Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram Table 50. Status of Rice Demonstrations Through June Table 51. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in T. Aman Demonstration Plots SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 iii

5 Table 52. Table 53. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on T. Aman Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Table 54. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Boro Demonstration Plots Table 55. Table 56. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Boro Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Table 57. Status of Non-Rice Demonstrations Through June Table 58. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Wheat Demonstration Plots in Calcareous and Non-Calcareous Zones in Table 59. Effect of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Wheat Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Non-Calcareous Zone Table 60. Table 61. Table 62. Table 63. Table 64. Table 65. Table 66. Table 67. Table 68. Table 69. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Wheat Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Calcareous Zone Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Potato Demonstration Plots in Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Potato Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Maize Demonstration Plots in Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Maize Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Lentil Demonstration Plots in Calcareous and Non-Calcareous Zones in Table 70. Effect of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Lentil Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Non-Calcareous Zone Table 71. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 iv

6 Table 72. Table 73. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Lentil Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Calcareous Zone Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Table 74. Participation of Demonstration Field Days Through June Table 75. Farmers Training Conducted Through June Table 76. Financial Achievement Against Estimated Budget in the U.S. $ Through June Figures Figure 1. SSMC Project Locations in Bangladesh... 3 Figure 2. Location of Established On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Rice Figure 3. Yield of BRRIdhan 49 Under Different Treatments at Pirganj, Rangpur Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Sadar, Kurigram Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Treatments at Pirganj, Rangpur in Boro Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Treatments at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Kurigram in Boro Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro Figure 9. Location of Established On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Non-Rice Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj 38 Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Bogra Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Bogra in Potato Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Tuber Yield of Potato at Domar, Nilphamari Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Rangpur in Maize Effect of Fertilizer Packages for Macronutrient Omission on the Performance of Maize at Rajbari, Dinajpur during Figure 16. Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram in Lentil SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 v

7 Figure 17. Figure 18. Yield Under Different Treatments at Agriculture Research Station, Rangpur in Lentil Effect on Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram Figure 19. Location of Established Rice Demonstrations Plots Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Boro in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer Figure 24. Location of Established Non-Rice Demonstrations Plots Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 vi

8 Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Figure 41. Location of Farmers Training Venue SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 vii

9 List of Appendices Appendix 1. Progress Report Submitted by BRRI on Rice Appendix 2. Progress Report Submitted by BARI on Non-Rice Appendix 3. Demonstration Established for Rice and Non-Rice Through June Appendix 4. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in T. Aman Appendix 5. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in Boro Appendix 6. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in Wheat Appendix 7. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in Potato Appendix 8. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in Maize Appendix 9. Detailed Data by Upazila for SSMC Demonstrations in Lentil Appendix 10. Number of Participants by Gender in the Orientation Program Appendix 11. Field Days Organized Through June Appendix 12. Farmers Trained Through June Appendix 13. Minutes of Third Steering Committee Meeting Appendix 14. Media Coverage of SSMC Activities from January-June SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 viii

10 Acronyms and Abbreviations AEZ B BARC BARI BBS BRRI DAE FC GAP GOB GPS ha ICARDA IFDC IPM IPNS ISFM K kg Mg mt N OFRD P PSO RARS S SAAO SRDI SSMC STB Tk TSP UAO Zn Agro-Ecological Zone Boron Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Department of Agricultural Extension Field Coordinator Good Agricultural Practice Government of Bangladesh Global Positioning System hectare International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas International Fertilizer Development Center Integrated Pest Management Integrated Plant Nutrition System Integrated Soil Fertility Management Potassium kilogram Magnesium metric ton Nitrogen On-Farm Research Division Phosphorus Principal Scientific Officer Regional Agricultural Research Station Sulfur Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer Soil Resource Development Institute Sustainable Soil Management Component Soil Test Basis Bangladeshi Taka Triple Superphosphate Upazila Agriculture Officer Zinc SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June 2018 ix

11 Sustainable Soil Management Component (SSMC) of OCP Foundation s Agricultural Development Project in Bangladesh Stage 1 Semi-Annual Report Year 2 January June 2018 Introduction OCP Foundation signed an agreement with the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) for implementation of the Sustainable Soil Management Component (SSMC) of OCP Foundation s Agricultural Development Project in Bangladesh Stage1 for a period of three years from January 2017 through December The project commenced as scheduled in January SSMC is expected to address many of the increasing, serious soil fertility concerns of the northern districts of Bangladesh while also helping farmers enhance crop productivity and profitability through the implementation of improved soil management methods in the overall context of market-sensitive good agricultural practices (GAPs). 1 The OCP Foundation s overall project also includes inputs from OCP Foundation and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). The objective of this overall Agricultural Development Project is sustainable management of soil to enhance yields and farmers incomes under resilient production systems in Bangladesh, resulting in food and nutrition security, improved health and livelihoods. The project includes the SSMC in addition to monitoring and capacity-building inputs from OCP Foundation and work related to the promotion of GAPs, entrepreneurship, and farmer organizations by ICARDA. The project targets six crops rice (T. Aman and Boro), maize, potato, lentil, and to a lesser extent, wheat. Approximately 7 million hectares (ha) of farmland in Bangladesh is estimated to be degraded in some form. In terms of soil resources, Bangladesh faces a series of interrelated threats, such as increasingly saline soils in southern coastal areas, increasingly acidic soils in northern areas, and several belts of problematic soils damaged by industrial waste, where delineation and customized soil management practices are required. Balanced fertilizer use particularly for primary macronutrients has been promoted widely and encouraged by subsidy adjustments and is increasingly being adopted by farmers in some areas of the country. However, low availability and use of some secondary nutrient and micronutrient fertilizers and compounds in input markets have meant that secondary and micronutrient availability are becoming limiting factors in crop production, even where sufficient major macronutrient fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium [NPK]) are used. 1 GAPs include using good quality seeds, using balanced doses of fertilizers, including secondary and micronutrients, maintaining spacing requirements from line to line and plant to plant, raising beds, efficiently using water for cultivation, integrated pest management (IPM), weeding, and regular monitoring of the field in terms of insect management, etc. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

12 A lack of awareness of GAPs continues to limit productivity. While knowledge of improved seed varieties is on the rise, hybrid seed usage is still relatively low and the public and private sectors produce new high-yielding varieties (HYV) at a slow pace. Plant spacing, input application, and other practices continue to constrain yields. Pesticides are overused, primarily in a preventive fashion, and low mechanization penetration means that seed and fertilizer are often used inefficiently while harvest losses are unnecessarily high. At the same time, post-harvest losses in crops are unacceptably high ranging up to 19% in rice and 40% in vegetables. SSMC is being implemented together with Government of Bangladesh (GOB) counterparts Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC), and Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI). Additionally, agro-input retailers are involved to promote balanced plant nutrient and GAP solutions for improving crop productivity, crop profitability, and soil fertility. The primary approach of the project for IFDC is to conduct trials with BRRI and BARI and field extension activities with DAE. The activities of SSMC are directly built on the issues mentioned above. This is the semi-annual report and provides an overview of the third six months of SSMC s progress from January 1 to June 30, This report also contains information from January 1, 2017 to June 30, The report has been prepared as a stand-alone report to provide the specific information required by the OCP Foundation. The information presented comes primarily from IFDC internal weekly reports and the monthly reports submitted by IFDC to OCP Foundation from January to June 2018, crop cuts of demonstration plots, and village monitoring surveys of villages where SSMC staff worked during the second year of the project. Project Goal and Objectives The goal of SSMC Stage1 is sustainable management of soil to enhance yields and farmers incomes under resilient production systems, which contributes to the overall goal of OCP Foundation s Agricultural Development Project in Bangladesh. The objectives of the project are to: 1. Evaluate the role of secondary and micronutrients, including the application of different compound fertilizers, on crop productivity as affected by soil acidity. 2. Promote balanced plant nutrient and GAP solutions for improving crop productivity, crop profitability, and soil fertility through extension workers and agro-input retailers. In order to facilitate the analysis of the third six months of progress toward the entire collection of SSMC goals and objectives, these goals and objectives have been arranged in an impact pathway that shows how activities link to objectives, which in turn contribute to the major and strategic goals of the project. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

13 Project Location SSMC is being implemented in 12 upazilas (sub-districts) of the targeted districts of Kurigram, Nilphamari, and Dinajpur in the Rangpur Division and the districts of Bogra, Chapai Noawabganj, and Natore in the Rajshahi Division (Figure 1). 2 Figure 1. SSMC Project Locations in Bangladesh 2 The upazilas were selected based on certain criteria: (1) a higher percentage of cultivable land; (2) at least two of the six major targeted crops grown; (3) a relatively low soil ph level; (4) more progressive farmers; and (5) ease of access to the upazilas for project activity implementation. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

14 Deliverables As indicated in Table 1, all deliverables were submitted as planned. In addition, although not a contracted deliverable, the project prepared 26 weekly reports on project performance during the first half of the second year and, in total, 68 weekly reports were produced in Year 1 and Year 2 of the first half of the project in order to facilitate project oversight. In addition, the project organized three steering committee meetings as planned jointly by IFDC and OCP Foundation. Table 1. List of Deliverables Through June 2018 First Half Year of Year 2 Total First Half of Year 2 Total Year 1 and 2 Deliverable Year 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Work Plan Monthly Progress Reports Semi-Annual Report Semi-Annual Financial Reports Baseline Survey on (1) Agronomic Practices and Soil Fertility Management (2) Fertilizer Subsidy System in Bangladesh and Ways to Increase Rational Use of Fertilizers Steering Committee Meetings Source: SSMC Database. Results The results are reported against indicators and their targets specified in the contract between IFDC and OCP Foundation with interpretations via the annual work plan. To align with reporting requirements, the results against indicators are presented in Table 2, covering the period from January 2017 through June The project s field activities started with the baseline survey during the first half of Year 1 and croprelated activities started during the T. Aman season of The T. Aman 2017 crop was harvested in the second half of Year 1. Harvesting of non-rice and Boro crops took place during the first half of Year 2 of the project. Therefore, in this report, all results including T. Aman crops have been reported in Table 2. All the 17 result indicators are active and no target was fixed for result indicators from serial number 14 to 17. The gross margin targets are shown in the benchmark survey conducted at the beginning of the project. All the results are impressive; the trial and demonstration results of six crops in terms of incremental yield or positive change in yield and gross margin have achieved or exceeded the target. The number of farmers reached and hectares (ha) under improved technologies achieved 100% of the target when compared with the Year 2 target. 3 3 Here, achievements are shown against the end-of-project target. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

15 Table 2. Results Achieved Against Targets for the Period Through June 2018 Achievement through June 2018 Balanced Quantity to be Completed by December 2019 Total Sl. # Activities Unit Project Target Achieved % Achieved 1. Number of farmers directly reached by the project No. 4,000 1,795 44% 2, Area under improved technologies or management practices (ha) T. Aman ha 508 Boro ha 304 Wheat ha 52 Potato ha 114 Maize ha 54 Lentil ha 23 Total area ha 2,430 1,055 43% 1, Number of farmers who have adopted improved technologies or practices T. Aman No. 810 Boro No. 656 Wheat No. 213 Potato No. 396 Maize No. 253 Lentil No. 111 Total unique number of farmers No. 4,000 1,350 34% 2,650 A. Results of Trials 4 a. Increased paddy yield of T. Aman mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 61, , % U.S. $/ha 768 1, % 4 b. Increased paddy yield of Boro mt/ha % % and gross margin change * BDT/ha U.S. $/ha 5. Increased yield of Wheat mt/ha % % and gross margin change * BDT/ha U.S. $/ha 6. Increased yield of Potato mt/ha % % and gross margin change * BDT/ha U.S. $/ha 7. Increased yield of Maize mt/ha % % and gross margin change * BDT/ha U.S. $/ha 8. Increased yield of Lentil mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 48,284 64, % U.S. $/ha % SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

16 Total Project Target Achievement through June 2018 % Achieved Sl. # Activities Unit Achieved B. Results of Demonstrations 9 a. Increased paddy yield of T. Aman mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 61,467 80, % U.S. $/ha 768 1, % 9 b. Increased paddy yield of Boro mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 49,756 84, % U.S. $/ha 622 1, % 10. Increased yield of Wheat mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 27,422 33, % U.S. $/ha % 11. Increased yield of Potato mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 73, , % U.S. $/ha 920 1, % 12. Increased yield of Maize mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 60, , % U.S. $/ha 760 2, % 13. Increased yield of Lentil mt/ha % % and gross margin change BDT/ha 48,284 46,938 97% U.S. $/ha % Balanced Quantity to be Completed by December Total incremental production ** mt 1, Incremental production per ha ** mt Total value of incremental production ** U.S. $ 371, Value of incremental production per ha ** U.S. $ 352 Source: SSMC database and Village Monitoring Survey Notes: *The gross margin from trial plots for Boro rice, wheat, potato, and maize are yet to be done by BRRI and BARI. **Total incremental production, incremental production per ha, total value of incremental production and value of incremental production by crop are shown in Table 28, Table 29, Table 30, and Table 31, respectively. Number of Farmers Directly Reached by the Project The number of farmers directly reached by the project has been calculated from the number of farmers and retailers participating in farmers training. 4 In the reporting period (January-June 2018), SSMC conducted 27 batches of farmers training on GAPs and balanced use of fertilizers. Table 3 provides information on the number of farmers directly reached by the project through June 2018; 1,795 participants attended the training programs, of which 240 (13%) were women farmers. In addition, 266 were fertilizer retailers who also own farmland. 4 The retailers also own farmland and are therefore treated as farmers. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

17 Table 3. Number of Farmers Directly Reached by the Project Through June 2018 Farmers Reporting Year Batches Male Female Total Farmers Fertilizer Retailers Total Participants First Half (Jan-June 2017) Second Half (Jul-Dec 2017) Year First Half (Jan-June 2018) Year Year 1 and , , ,795 Source: SSMC database. Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices Direct Beneficiaries Table 4 provides information on the area under improved technologies or management practices through June About 1,055 ha of area came under improved technologies or management practices by direct beneficiaries and achieved 43% against the end-of-project target. However, the achievement is more than 100% when compared with the target (850) up to June Table 4. Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Direct Beneficiaries Through June 2018 GAP Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total In Hectare Modern Variety ,055 Line Planting Balanced Fertilizer Organic Fertilizer Liming Micronutrient IPM Better Water Management Source: Village Monitoring Survey Note: The highest area under one item has been taken into consideration for Table 2. Total Beneficiaries Information about the area brought under improved technologies or management practices was collected through a village monitoring survey of total direct and indirect beneficiaries. Table 5 shows that the total beneficiaries have brought 9,824 ha under improved technologies or management practices. No target is fixed for hectares under total beneficiaries. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

18 Table 5. Area Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Total Beneficiaries Through June 2018 GAP Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total In Hectare Modern Variety 4,823 2, ,824 Line Planting 1,086 1, ,868 Balanced Fertilizer 1,410 1, ,454 Organic Fertilizer 1,376 2, ,134 Liming Micronutrient 1,324 1, ,543 IPM 1,486 1, ,646 Better Water 1,890 2, ,697 Management Source: Village Monitoring Survey. Note: The highest area under one item has been taken into consideration. Number of Farmers Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices Direct Beneficiaries This information was collected from the 2018 village survey conducted by SSMC field staff. Table 6 shows that the 2,439 farmers have used improved nutrient management technologies and GAPs in SSMC, and the unique number of farmers is 1,350, calculated using the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) national cropping intensity of 181%. Table 6. Number of Direct Beneficiaries Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices Through June 2018 GAP Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total Unique Number of Farmers Modern Variety ,439 1,350 Line Planting , Balanced Fertilizer , Organic Fertilizer , Liming Micronutrient , IPM Better Water Management ,823 1,007 Source: Village Monitoring Survey Note: The unique number of farmers for these crops has been calculated using the BBS cropping intensity. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

19 Total Beneficiaries SSMC village monitoring survey results further show that a total of 29,102 farmers have used improved nutrient management technologies and GAPs, and the unique number of farmers is 16,078, calculated using the BBS cropping intensity (Table 7). Table 7. Number of Total Beneficiaries Who Have Adopted Improved Technologies or Practices Through June 2018 GAP Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total Unique Number of Farmers Modern Variety 10,776 8,262 2,201 4,284 2, ,102 16,078 Line Planting 3,065 3, ,262 2, ,949 7,707 Balanced Fertilizer 3,425 3, , ,964 6,057 Organic Fertilizer 3,173 6,740 1,466 4,138 2, ,589 9,718 Liming ,087 1,153 Micronutrient 3,314 4,921 1,765 4,033 1, ,099 8,894 IPM 3,420 3, ,079 3,911 Better Water Management 4,451 8,262 2,201 4,284 2, ,038 12,176 Source: Village Monitoring Survey Note: The unique number of farmers for these crops has been calculated using the BBS cropping intensity. Results of Trials T. Aman 2017 The incremental yield for transplanted (T) Aman (wet) rice was calculated from the on-farm trial plot crop cut. There were eight treatments: 1. T1 = Agro-ecological zone (AEZ)-based NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) 2. T2 = NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) + vermicomposting 0.5 metric tons (mt)/ha 3. T3 = NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) + cowdung 0.5 mt/ha 4. T4 = OCP 1 (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 5. T5 = OCP 2 (NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 6. T6 = T4 + vermicomposting 0.5 mt/ha 7. T7 = T5 + cowdung 0.5 mt/ha 8. T8 = farmers fertilizer dose Paddy was threshed, cleaned, and weighed with grain moisture measured in the field. Yield was calculated as a metric ton of paddy per hectare, which is adjusted to a moisture content of 14%. The incremental yield is shown in Table 8. The target of incremental paddy yield was set at 0.50 mt/ha. The incremental paddy yield data for the trial, reported in seven treatments (except T8), ranged between 0.11 and 0.39 mt/ha. As expected, yields were higher in the T5 treated plot. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 8 shows a 2% to 8% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practices. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

20 Table 8. Increased Yield of Paddy from On-Farm Trials T. Aman 2017 T1 = AEZ-Based NPKSZn T2 = NPKSZn + Vermicompost 0.5 mt/ha T3 = NPKSZn + Cowdung 0.5 mt/ha T4 = OCP 1 + Straight Fertilizer T5 = OCP 2 + Straight Fertilizer T6 = T4 + Vermicompost 0.5 mt/ha Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 3% 4% 0% 7% 8% 6% 2% T7 = T5 + Cowdung 0.5 mt/ha T8 = Farmers Fertilizer Dose Percent and Gross Margin Change from Trials SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from trial plots following the T. Aman harvest. The results of T. Aman 2017 are presented in Table 9. The calculation includes the price of straw taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 9. Weighted Average Gross Margin for T. Aman 2017 TSPZn NPSZn Item Farmers Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Total Revenue 149, , ,300 Total Cost 6,611 6,951 6,864 Gross Margin 143, , ,436 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) 1,790 1,877 1,893 Gross Margin (%) 2,166% 2,160% 2,206% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: BRRI trial plots, Aman Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. (d) Price of OCP fertilizer has been estimated at Tk 22/kg for TSPZn and Tk 28/kg for NPSZn. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $1,877 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, and U.S. $1,893 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The cost here is shown only against purchased fertilizer. No other cash input costs have been included in this estimate. Boro The incremental yield for Boro (winter) rice from the trial plot crop cut was calculated from the on-farm trial plot. There were eight treatments: 1. T1 = Agro-Ecological Zone (AEZ)-based NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) 2. T2 = NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) + vermicomposting 1.0 mt/ha 3. T3 = NPKSZn (all straight fertilizers) + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 4. T4 = OCP 1 (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

21 5. T5 = OCP 2 (NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 6. T6 = T4 + vermicomposting 1.0 mt/ha 7. T7 = T5 + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 8. T8 = Farmers fertilizer dose Paddy was threshed, cleaned, and weighed with grain moisture measured in the field. The incremental yield is shown in Table 10. The target of incremental paddy yield was set at 0.50 mt/ha. The incremental paddy yield data for the trial, reported in seven treatments (except T8), ranged between 0.32 and 0.74 mt/ha. As expected, yields were higher in the T6 treated plot. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 10 shows a 5% to 12% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practice. Table 10. Increased Yield of Paddy from On-Farm Trials Boro T1 = AEZ-Based NPKSZn T2 = NPKSZn + Vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha T3 = NPKSZn + Cowdung 2.0 mt/ha T4 = OCP 1 (TSPZn) + Straight Fertilizer T5 = OCP 2 (NPSZn) + Straight Fertilizer T6 = T4 + Vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) (0.28) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 11% 11% 7% 5% -5% 12% 10% T7 = T5 + Cowdung 2.0 mt/ha T8 = Farmers Fertilizer Dose Wheat In the reporting period, for the wheat harvest, there was one crop cut from the trial. There were eight treatments: 1. T1 = Recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSBZn) [+Cowdung] 2. T2 = Recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSBZn) [-Cowdung] 3. T3 = Soil Test Basis (STB)-based recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSZnB) [+Cowdung] 4. T4 = STB-based recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSZnB) [-Cowdung] 5. T5 = Farmers practice 6. T6 = OCP compound fertilizer (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 7. T7 = OCP compound fertilizer (NPSB) [ ]) + straight fertilizer 8. T 8= OCP compound fertilizer (NPSZn) [ ]) + straight fertilizer The incremental yield is shown in Table 11. The incremental yield target is set at 0.80 mt/ha, and data from trial plots reported in seven treatments (except farmers fertilizer dose T5) show that incremental yield is between 0.25 and 0.60 mt/ha. Higher yields were from the T1 treatment. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

22 Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 11 shows a 6% to 18% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practice. Table 11. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Wheat T1= NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt/ha Cowdung T2= NPKSZnB/ha T3= NPKSZn/ha + 5 mt/ ha Cowdung T4= NPKSZn/ha T5= NPKSZnB/ha (Farmers Practice) T6= Compound Fertilizer 69 kg (split)- NPKSZnB/ha T7= Compound Fertilizer 113 kg + NPKSZn/ha T8= Compound Fertilizer 95 kg (split)- NPKSB/ha Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 18% 15% 7% 6% 9% 9% 15% Potato In the reporting period, for the potato harvest, there was one crop cut from the trial. There were eight treatments: 1. T1 = Recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSBZn) [+Cowdung] 2. T2 = Recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSBZn) [-Cowdung] 3. T3 = STB-based recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSZnB) [+Cowdung] 4. T4 = STB-based recommended straight fertilizers (NPKSZnB) [-Cowdung] 5. T5 = Farmers practice 6. T6 = OCP compound fertilizer (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 7. T7 = OCP compound fertilizer (NPSB) [ ]) + straight fertilizer 8. T8 = OCP compound fertilizer (NPSZn) [ ]) + straight fertilizer The incremental yield is shown in Table 12. The incremental yield target is set at 5.00 mt/ha, and data from trial plots reported in seven treatments (except farmers fertilizer dose T5) show incremental yield is between 0.09 and 3.50 mt/ha. Yields were higher from the T6 treatment. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 12 shows a 6% to 13% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practice. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

23 Table 12. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Potato T1= NPKSZnBMg/ha + 10 mt Cowdung T2= kg N-P-K-S-Zn-B-Mg/ha T3 = NPKSZnBMg/ha + 10 mt Cowdung T4 = NPKSZnBMg/ha T5= Farmers Practice : NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung T6= Compound Fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- NPKSZnBMg/ha (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung T7= Compound Fertilizer (NPSB)- 166 kg (split) NPKSZnMg/ha (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung T8= Compound Fertilizer (NPSZn)- 140 kg (split) NPKSZnBMg/ha (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) 0.09 (0.92) (1.57) (0.60) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 0% -4% -6% -2% 13% 10% 6% Maize In the reporting period, for the maize harvest, there was one crop cut from the trial. There were eight treatments: 1. T1 = NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung 2. T2 = NPKSZnBMg/ha 3. T3 = NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung 4. T4 =NPKSZnBMg/ha 5. T5= Farmers practice 6. T 6 = Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- 173 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha 7. T 7 = Compound fertilizer (APS)- 285 kg (Split) NPKSZnBMg/ha 8. T 8 = Compound fertilizer (NPS)- 236 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha The incremental yield is shown in Table 13. The incremental yield target is set at 1.00 mt/ha and data for trials reported in seven treatments (except farmers fertilizer dose T5) show incremental yield is between 0.24 and 2.63 mt/ha. The highest yield is observed in treatment T8. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 13 shows a 3% to 30% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practice. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

24 Table 13. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Maize T1: NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung T2: NPKSZnBMg/ha T3: NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung T4: NPKSZnBMg/ha T5: Farmers Practice T6: Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- 173 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha T7: Compound fertilizer (APS)- 285 kg (Split) NPKSZnBMg/ha T8: Compound fertilizer (NPS)- 236 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) (0.32) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 27% 3% 11% -4% 24% 31% 30% Lentil In the reporting period, for the lentil harvest, there was one crop cut from the trial. There were eight treatments: 1. T1: Recommended fertilizer doses (NPSZnB) + 5 mt cowdung 2. T2: Recommended fertilizer doses (NPSZnB) 3. T3: Recommended fertilizer doses (NPSZnB) + 5 mt cowdung 4. T4: Recommended fertilizer doses (NPSZnB) 5. T5: Farmers practice 6. T6: OCP compound fertilizer (TSPZn) + straight fertilizers 7. T7: OCP compound fertilizer (NPSB+ straight fertilizers 8. T8: OCP compound fertilizer (NPSZn)+ straight fertilizers The incremental yield is shown in Table 14. The incremental yield target is set at 0.40 mt/ha and data for trials reported in seven treatments (except farmers fertilizer dose T5) show incremental yield is between 0.05 and 0.29 mt/ha. Yields were higher from the T1 treatment. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 14 shows a 5% to 28% yield increment achieved under different treatments over farmers practice. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

25 Table 14. Increased Yield from On-Farm Trials Lentil T1 : NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung T2: NPKSZnB/ha T3: NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung T4: NPKSZnB/ha T5: Farmers Practice T6: Compound Fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- 50 kg + NPKSZnB/ha T7: Compound fertilizer (NPSB)- 82 kg + NPKSZn/ha T8: Compound Fertilizer (NPSZn)- 70 kg + NPKSZnB/ha Treatments Yield (mt/ha) Increase Yield (mt/ha) (0.03) % Yield Increase (mt/ha) 28% 9% 5% -3% 17% 12% 19% Percent and Gross Margin Change from Trials SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from trial plots following the lentil harvest. The results of lentil are presented in Table 15. The calculation includes the price taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 15. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Lentil TSPZn NPSB NPSZn OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Item Practice Total Revenue 72,100 84,700 80,500 86,100 Total Cost 27,140 22,338 21,190 21,522 Gross Margin 44,960 62,362 59,310 64,578 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) Gross Margin (%) 166% 279% 280% 300% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: BARI trial plots, Lentil Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. (d) Price of OCP fertilizer has been estimated at Tk 30/kg. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $780 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, U.S. $741 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSB, and U.S. $807 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The cost here is shown only against purchased fertilizer. No other cash input costs have been included in this estimate. Results of Demonstrations T. Aman 2017 The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the Year 1, there were 10 crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. There were four treatments (T1) farmers practice, (T2) recommended dose without lime, (T3) recommended dose with lime, and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

26 fertilizer. Paddy was threshed, cleaned, and weighed with grain moisture measured in the field. Yield is calculated as kg of paddy per ha, which is adjusted to a moisture content of 14%. The incremental yield is shown in Table 16. The target of paddy yield was set at 0.50 mt/ha for all rice seasons. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 0.74 mt/ha and in NPSZn, which was 0.83 mt/ha, respectively. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 16 shows a 17% to 18% yield increment achieved. Table 16. Increased Yield of Paddy from Demonstrations T. Aman 2017 OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) Yield Increase Percentage Farmers OCP Products Practice TSPZn % NPSZn % Source: SSMC database. Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the T. Aman harvest. The results of T. Aman 2017 are presented in Table 17. The calculation includes the price of straw taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 17. Weighted Average Gross Margin for T. Aman 2017 TSPZn (5) NPSZn (5) OCP Compound + Straight Farmer Fertilizer Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Item Practice Total Revenue 92, , , ,480 Total Cost 42,937 47,353 41,807 48,017 Gross Margin 49,243 61,107 68,413 80,463 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) ,006 Gross Margin (%) 115% 129% 164% 168% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Aman Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $764 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, and U.S. $1,006 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

27 Boro The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the reporting period, there were 10 crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. There were four treatments (T1) farmers practice, (T2) recommended dose without lime, (T3) recommended dose with lime and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer. Paddy was threshed, cleaned, and weighed with grain moisture measured in the field. Yield is calculated as kg of paddy per ha, which is adjusted to a moisture content of 14%. The incremental yield is shown in Table 18. The target of paddy yield was set at 0.50 mt/ha for all rice seasons. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 0.82 mt/ha and in NPSZn, which was 1.31 mt/ha, respectively. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 18 shows a 14-21% yield increment achieved. Table 18. Increased Yield of Paddy from Demonstrations Boro OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) Yield Increase Percentage Farmers OCP Products Practice TSPZn % NPSZn % Source: SSMC database. Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the Boro harvest. The results of Boro are presented in Table 19. The calculation includes the price of straw taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 19. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Boro TSPZn (4) NPSZn (6) OCP Compound + Straight Farmers Fertilizer Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Item Practice Total Revenue 130, , , ,780 Total Cost 78,678 83,363 73,359 78,249 Gross Margin 52,072 65,377 60,682 84,531 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) ,057 Gross Margin (%) 66% 78% 83% 108% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Boro Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $817 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, and U.S. $1,057 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

28 Wheat The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the reporting period, there were nine crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. One demonstration in the non-calcareous zone was damaged due to a natural disaster. There were four treatments (T1) farmers practice, (T2) recommended dose without lime (T3) recommended dose with lime, and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer. The incremental yield is shown in Table 20. The target of wheat yield was set at 0.80 mt/ha. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 1.10 mt/ha and in NPSB, which was 1.12 mt/ha, respectively, in non-calcareous zone. In calcareous zone, the incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 0.76 mt/ha and in NPSB, which was 0.73 mt/ha, respectively, in calcareous zone. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 20 shows a 27% to 29% yield increment achieved under non-calcareous zone and 27% to 28% yield increment achieved under calcareous zone. Table 20. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Wheat Farmers Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) Yield Increase Percentage OCP Products Non- Calcareous TSPZn % NPSB % Calcareous TSPZn % NPSB % Source: SSMC database. Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the wheat harvest. The results of wheat are presented in Table 21. The calculation was taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

29 Table 21. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Wheat Non-Calcareous Zone Calcareous Zone TSPZn (3) NPSB (3) NPSZn and NPSB (3) OCP Compound OCP Compound OCP Compound Item Farmers Practice + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Practice + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Practice + Straight Fertilizer Total Return per ha in 75,521 96,958 85, ,823 57,851 73,884 BDT Total Cost per ha 62,340 68,378 71,957 74,863 56,665 53,314 Gross Margin (BDT/ha) 13,181 28,580 13,999 33,960 1,186 20,570 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) Gross Margin (%) 21% 42% 19% 45% 2% 39% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Lentil Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. (d) One demo plot was affected by the stem psyllium fungal disease and therefore the yield was very low. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $357 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, U.S. $425 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSB in non-calcareous zone, and U.S. $257 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn and NPSB in calcareous zone. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. Potato The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the first half of Year 2, there were 10 crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. There were four treatments (T1) farmers practices, (T2) recommended dose without lime, (T3) recommended dose with lime, and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer. The incremental yield is shown in Table 22. The target of potato yield was set at 5.00 mt/ha. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 7.84 mt/ha, and NPSZn which was 5.03 mt/ha, and NPSB, which was 5.54 mt/ha. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 22 shows an 18% to 35% yield increment achieved under potato demonstration. Table 22. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Potato OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) OCP Products Farmers Practice TSPZn % NPSZn % NPSB % Source: SSMC database. Yield Increase Percentage SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

30 Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the potato harvest. The results of Potato are presented in Table 23. The calculation was taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 23. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Potato TSPZn (2) NPSZn (3) NPSB (5) OCP OCP Compound Compound + Straight Farmers + Straight Farmers Fertilizer Practice Fertilizer Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Item Practice Total Revenue 232, , , , , ,409 Total Cost 171, , , , , ,903 Gross Margin 60, ,905 72, ,899 89, ,506 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) 762 1, ,536 1,117 1,731 Gross Margin (%) 35% 82% 39% 68% 48% 74% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Lentil Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $1,761 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, U.S. $1,536 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn, and U.S. $1,731 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSB. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. Maize The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the reporting period, there were 10 crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. There were four treatments: (T1) farmers practice, (T2) recommended dose without lime, (T3) recommended dose with lime, and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer. The incremental yield is shown in Table 24. The target of maize yield was set at 1.00 mt/ha. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 2.33 mt/ha, and NPSZn which was 3.35 mt/ha, and NPSB, which was 3.58 mt/ha. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices. Table 24 shows an 18% to 32% yield increment achieved under maize demonstration. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

31 Table 24. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Maize OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) OCP Products Farmers Practice TSPZn % NPSZn % NPSB % Source: SSMC database. Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations Yield Increase Percentage SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the maize harvest. The results of maize are presented in Table 25. The calculation was taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. Table 25. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Maize TSPZn (4) NPSZn (3) NPSB (3) OCP OCP Compound Compound + Straight Farmers + Straight Farmers Fertilizer Practice Fertilizer Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer Farmers Item Practice Total Revenue 216, , , , , ,609 Total Cost 101, ,078 93,858 97, , ,665 Gross Margin 115, , , ,623 94, ,944 Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) 1,446 1,932 1,368 2,083 1,179 1,887 Gross Margin (%) 114% 151% 117% 171% 93% 140% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Maize Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $1,932 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn, U.S. $2,083 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn, and U.S. $1,887 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSB. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. Lentil The incremental yield is calculated from the demonstration plot crop cut. In the reporting period, there were 10 crop cuts from 10 demonstrations. There were four treatments (T1) farmers practice, (T2) recommended dose without lime, (T3) recommended dose with lime and, (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer. The incremental yield is shown in Table 26. The target of lentil yield was set at 0.40 mt/ha. The incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 0.20 mt/ha and in NPSZn, which was 0.19 mt/ha, and in NPSB, which was 0.29 mt/ha, respectively, in non-calcareous zone. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

32 In calcareous zone, the incremental yield data from demonstrations have been reported from TSPZn, which was 0.01 mt/ha and in NPSZn, which was 0.19 mt/ha, and in NPSB, which was 0.24 mt/ha, respectively, in calcareous zone. Yield increments are a reflection of many factors, including fertilizer, seed, water, and other farm management practices particularly weather conditions. Table 26 shows a 12% to 16% yield increment achieved under non-calcareous zone and 1% to 20% yield increment achieved under calcareous zone. Table 26. Increased Yield from Demonstrations Lentil Farmers Practice OCP Compound + Straight Fertilizer with Lime Yield Increase (mt/ha) Yield Increase Percentage OCP Products Non- Calcareous TSPZn % NPSZn % NPSB % Calcareous TSPZn % NPSZn % NPSB % Source: SSMC database. Percent and Gross Margin Change from Demonstrations SSMC has calculated gross margins from data collected from demonstration plots following the lentil harvest. The results of lentil are presented in Table 27. The calculation was taken from the sales value of the same reported by the farmers. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

33 Table 27. Weighted Average Gross Margin for Lentil Non-Calcareous Zone Calcareous Zone NPSZn (2) NPSB (2) NPSZn and NPSB (3) TSPZn and NPSB (2) OCP OCP OCP OCP Compound Compound Compound Compound + Straight Farmers + Straight Farmers + Straight + Straight Fertilizer Practice Fertilizer Practice Fertilizer Fertilizer Farmers Farmers Item Practice Practice Total Return per ha in BDT 76,759 85,903 95, ,931 64,688 80,980 47,025 51,300 Total Cost per ha 52,086 59,775 58,393 62,993 61,018 62,405 63,213 65,427 Gross Margin (BDT/ha) 24,673 26,128 36,676 46,938 3,670 18,575-16,188 d -14,127 d Gross Margin (U.S. $/ha) (202) (177) Gross Margin (%) 47% 44% 63% 75% 6% 30% -26% -22% Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Source: 10 SSMC demonstration plots, Lentil Notes: (a) U.S. $1 = Tk 80. (b) The gross margin is the difference between total return and total cost. (c) The benefit-cost ratio is total return divided by total cost. (d) One demo plot was affected by the stemphyllium fungal disease and therefore the yield was very low. The financial realized gross margin per hectare is estimated at U.S. $327 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn, U.S. $587 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSB, U.S. $232 from OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn in non-calcareous zone and NPSB, and U.S. $177 from OCP compound fertilizer TSPZn and NPSB in calcareous zone. This result shows the substantial financial benefit obtained from OCP fertilizer. The gross margin is mainly due to the fact that all costs are shown against purchased inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, labor, and irrigation. Non-cash inputs have not been included in the calculation. Total Incremental Production The incremental production has been calculated on the area multiplied by incremental yield observed from demo plots. Details by crop are provided in Table 28. Table 28. Incremental Production from Demonstration Plots Crop Area (ha) Incremental Yield (mt) Total Incremental Production (mt) T. Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total 1,055 1,972 SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

34 Incremental Production per Hectare The incremental production per hectare is estimated by dividing the total incremental production by total area. Details by crop are provided in Table 29. Table 29. Incremental Production per Hectare Total Incremental Production (mt) Incremental Production per Hectare Crop Area (ha) T. Aman Boro Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total 1,055 1, Total Value of Incremental Production The increased value of crop production by SSMC farmers is calculated from the incremental crop production multiplied by the price at which the crop was sold. All the crop prices are converted to U.S. dollar at an exchange rate of U.S. $1 to Tk 80. Details by crop are provided in Table 30. Table 30. Total Value of Incremental Production Total Incremental Production (mt) Total Value of Incremental Production (U.S. $) Crop Price (U.S.$) T. Aman ,410 Boro ,560 Wheat ,985 Potato ,503 Maize ,846 Lentil ,060 Total 1, ,364 Value of Incremental Production per Hectare The value of incremental production per hectare is estimated by dividing the total incremental value by the total area. Details by crop are provided in Table 31. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

35 Table 31. Value of Incremental Production per Hectare Total Value of Incremental Production (U.S.$) Value of Incremental Production per Hectare Crop Area (ha) T. Aman , Boro , Wheat 52 14, Potato , Maize 54 40, Lentil 23 4, Total 1, , Activities The SSMC program focused on: (i) evaluating the role of secondary and micronutrients, including the application of different compound fertilizers, on crop productivity as affected by soil acidity, and (ii) working through extension workers to promote balanced plant nutrient management solutions for improving crop productivity, crop profitability, and soil fertility. The number of activities and the intensity of engagement is set as total project target. Table 32 highlights the progress of project technical activities. Of the 17 activities, four activities met or exceeded the target, and the remaining 13 could not as the achievement against target is shown against end of the project target. In fact, all activities are achieved or exceeded target when compared through June 2018 target. Table 32. Activity Accomplished Against Targets Through June 2018 Achievement through June 2018 Sl. # Activities Unit Total Project Target Achieved % Achieved Baseline survey carried out to understand and obtain data on current situation of Rice, Maize, Potato, Lentil, 1. and Wheat production and technologies, No % and consumers and farmers preferences Baseline survey on fertilizer subsidy systems in Bangladesh and explore ways to increase rational use of fertilizers. Formulate ISFM, farm trial protocols, and farmer training modules. Conduct on-farm and on-station trials of six crops. Demonstration protocols formulated; farmer training materials completed. No % No % Balanced Quantity to be Completed by December 2019 No % 13 No % SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

36 Achievement through June 2018 Balanced Quantity to be Completed by December 2019 Sl. # Activities Unit Total Project Target Achieved % Achieved Conduct on-farm demonstrations of 6. improved nutrient management and No % 60 good agricultural practices Hold farmer field days highlighting the yield and profitability results of improved nutrient management and good agricultural practice application. Hold farmer training on improved nutrient management and good agricultural practices. Follow-up with trained and non-trained farmers, encouraging a 2:1 diffusion rate of improved practices to neighboring farmers. Monitoring and evaluation by Project Steering Committee involving OCPF/IFDC/ICARDA representatives, Bangladesh partners, farmer s representatives at field level No % 30 Batches % 60 This is a continuous process and field staff are continuing this activity regularly. No % Crop cut No % Sample Household Survey No % Village Monitoring Survey No % Monthly Report No % Semi-annual Report No % 4 Conduct project mid-term assessment 16. (External) No Final impact assessment (External) No. 1 1 Source: SSMC database. Note: The mid-term and final assessment will be conducted by OCP Foundation. Baseline Survey on Agronomic Practices The baseline survey was conducted in the first half of Year 1 and submitted to OCP Foundation. Baseline Survey on Fertilizers Subsidies System The baseline survey on the fertilizer subsidy system was conducted in the first half of Year 1 and submitted to OCP Foundation. Formulate ISFM, Farm Trials Protocol, and Farmer Training Modules The ISFM, farm trials protocol, and farmer training modules were formulated and submitted to OCP Foundation. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

37 Field Trials Establishment of Rice and Non-Rice Trial Plots SSMC/IFDC prepared research protocols on macronutrient and micronutrient omission trials and the establishment of balanced fertilization trial plots for rice (T. Aman and Boro) and other non-rice selected crops (maize, potato, lentil, and wheat). The project consulted with BARI and BRRI scientists and maintained continuous liaisons with them. Both research institutes provided thoughts and ideas for better understanding and outcomes. Some modifications on balanced fertilization using ISFM-related trial programs were made based on suggestions from BARI s On-Farm Research Division (OFRD) and BRRI s Soil Science Division. Different grades of OCP compound fertilizers have been considered during selection of fertilizer treatments. After a series of discussions and review, trial protocols for all crops have been finalized and handed over to BRRI as well as to BARI. Final trial protocols were also sent to OCP Foundation. On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Rice Crops Before establishing the trial plots, the Regional Director for IFDC-Asia attended a meeting with the principal scientific officer and head of the Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), OFRD Rangpur of BARI. During the discussion, she emphasized the importance of on-station and on-farm SSMC non-rice trial activities in different locations. The scientists shared their experiences and views with her. They were also advised to maintain liaison with the focal point of BARI. Senior staff of SSMC and other scientists also attended the meeting. The trial sites are under AEZ-3 (Tista Flood Plain), AEZ 11 (Ganges Flood Plain). and AEZ-25 (Level Barind Tract). The selected T. Aman varieties were BRRIdhan 49 and BRRIdhan 52 and the Boro variety was BRRIdhan 58. The seedling age varied between 31 and 33 days. Total treatments were eight respectively with three replications. Total plots were 21 and 24, respectively. Layout, land leveling, fertilization, and transplantation were done properly. Table 33 provides the status of on-farm and on-station field trials. Figure 2 shows the location of on-farm field trials on rice. The detailed progress report from BRRI is in Appendix 1. Table 33. Status of Established On-Farm Field Trials on Rice Crop District Upazila Established Harvested Remarks T. Aman Kurigram Sadar 1 1 Rangpur Pirganj 1 1 Rangpur Pirganj 1 1 Boro Rajshahi Sadar 2 2 Kurigram Sadar 1 1 Total 6 6 On-Farm Field Trial Plot on Boro SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

38 Figure 2. Location of Established On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Rice SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

39 (Mt/Ha) Harvest Report on On-Farm Trials on Rice Crops T. Aman 2017 The T. Aman crop from two on-farm field trial plots was already harvested by BRRI scientists with the help of trial farmers on November 14 and 27, 2017, respectively. Table 34 provides the yield of BRRIdhan 49 under different fertilizer management, and Table 35 shows the effect of different fertilizers. Figure 3 shows the yield of BRRIdhan 49 under different treatments under liming, macro, and micronutrient omission environment on BRRIdhan 52, and Figure 4 shows the effect of liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield of BRRIdhan 52 under different treatments. Table 34. Yield of BRRIdhan 49 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Pirganj, Rangpur in Aman 2017 Treatment Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 = a AEZ-based NPKSZn 5.02 T2 = NPKSZn + vermicompost 0.5 mt/ha 5.06 T3 = NPKSZn + cowdung 0.5 mt/ha 4.86 T4 = b OCP 1 + straight fertilizer 5.20 T5 = c OCP 2 + straight fertilizer 5.25 T6 = T4 + vermicompost 0.5 mt/ha 5.13 T7 = T5 + cowdung 0.5 mt/ha 4.97 T8 = d Farmers fertilizer dose 4.86 CV (%) 3.30 a. NPKSZn at kg/ha; b. OCP compound fertilizer (P 2O 5 = 45%, Zn =1%); c. OCP compound fertilizer (N = 12%, P 2O 5 = 45%, S = 5%, Zn = 1%); d. NPK at kg/ha. Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 3. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Yield of BRRIdhan 49 Under Different Treatments at Pirganj, Rangpur SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

40 mt/ha Table 35. Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of T. Aman Rice (BRRIdhan 52), Farmer s Field at Kurigram in Aman 2017 Grain Yield Treatments (mt/ha) T1= NPKSZn (-lime) 4.89ab T2 = NPKSZn (+lime) 5.18a T3 = OCP compound fertilizer (N-P2O5-S-Zn [ ]) + straight fertilizer 4.26bc T4 = PKSZn (-N) 4.21c T5 = NKSZn (-P) 4.16c T6 = NPSZn (-K) 4.47bc T7 = NPKZn (-S) 4.35bc T8 = NPKS (-Zn) 4.79abc CV (%) 4.97 Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Figure 4. Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Sadar, Kurigram Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Pirganj Grain yields of BRRIdhan49 under different fertilizer packages were almost similar. Comparatively, some higher grains were produced when OCP compound fertilizers were used with straight fertilizer. The use of OCP compound fertilizer replaced the use of triple superphosphate (TSP) and reduced the use of urea by 12 kg/ha, gypsum by 5 kg/ha, and zinc sulfate by 1 kg/ha in T. Aman season. However, OCP compound fertilizer formulation is not farmer-friendly until there is need to apply straight fertilizer. Potash (K) should be included in OCP compound fertilizer. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

41 Some plots of the trial at the Pirganj site were lodged due to a storm that occurred at the ripening stage. Cowdung and vermicompost application rate should be increased. Macronutrient and Micronutrient Omission Trial at Kurigram The omission of N (T4) and P (T5) from the recommended fertilizer dose without liming significantly reduced the grain yield while the omission of K (T6), S (T7), and Zn (T8) had no significant effects on grain yield. Grain yields of the recommended dose with and without lime (T1 and T2) are statistically identical. OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer (T3) produced 4.26 mt/ha grain, and it was statistically identical to grain yield of 4.89 mt/ha, which was recorded in the recommended dose when no lime was added (T1). Recommended fertilizer dose with liming produced the highest grain yield of 5.18 mt/ha, and it was significantly higher than the yield of OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer treatment. It is notable that omission of all nutrients except Zn from the recommended dose with lime significantly reduced the grain yield of BRRIdhan 52. The trial at the Kurigram site was submerged with floodwater for about two weeks starting on August 12, Rice plants recovered after submergence, but after some days this trial was affected by bacterial leaf blight disease. Necessary measures were taken, but again at the ripening stage, grain spot disease was observed. It can be concluded that liming might have some effect on nutrient availability for wetland rice. However, it will be cleared after a trial in the dry season. Boro The Boro crop from two on-farm field trial plots was already harvested by BRRI scientists with the help of trial farmers. Table 36 and Table 37 provides the yield of BRRIdhan 58 in on-station and on-farm, and Table 38 and Table 39 shows the effect of different fertilizers. Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows the yield of BRRIdhan 58 under different treatments and Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the effect of liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield under different treatments. Table 36. Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Pirganj, Rangpur in Boro Treatment Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 = AEZ-based NPKSZn 6.66 T2 = NPKSZn + vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha 6.67 T3 = NPKSZn + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 6.38 T4 = a OCP 1(TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 6.31 T5 = b OCP 2(NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 5.71 T6 = T4 + vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha 6.73 T7 = T5 + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 6.57 T8 = Farmers fertilizer dose 5.99 a. OCP compound fertilizer (P 2O 5 = 45%, Zn =1%). b. OCP compound fertilizer (N = 12%, P2O5 = 45%, S = 5%, Zn = 1%). SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

42 mt/ha Figure Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment 5.99 Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Treatments at Pirganj, Rangpur in Boro Table 37. Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro Treatments Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 = AEZ-based NPKSZn 5.44 ab T2 = NPKSZn + vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha 5.35 ab T3 = NPKSZn + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 6.15 a T4 = a OCP 1(TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 5.34 ab T5 = b OCP 2(NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 5.44 ab T6 = T4 + vermicompost 1.0 mt/ha 5.88 ab T7 = T5 + cowdung 2.0 mt/ha 5.48 ab T8 = Farmers fertilizer dose 4.64 b CV (%) 8.37 a. OCP compound fertilizer (P2O5 = 45%, Zn =1%) b. OCP compound fertilizer (N = 12%, P2O5 = 45%, S = 5%, Zn = 1%) SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

43 mt/ha Figure Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment 4.64 Yield of BRRIdhan 58 Under Different Treatments at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro Table 38. Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of Boro Rice (BRRIdhan 58), Farmer s Field at Kurigram Treatment Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 = NPKSZn (-lime) 6.81ab T2 = NPKSZn (+lime) 7.18a T3 = a OCP 2 + straight fertilizer 6.85ab T4 = PKSZn (-N) 3.79e T5 = NKSZn (-P) 5.45d T6 = NPSZn (-K) 6.23c T7 = NPKZn (-S) 6.61bc T8 = NPKS (-Zn) 6.75ab CV (%) 2.72 a. OCP 2 compound fertilizer (N = 12%, P2O5 = 45%, S = 5%, Zn = 1%). SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

44 mt/ha Figure Grain Yield (mt/ha) Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Kurigram in Boro T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Table 39. Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield of Boro Rice (BRRIdhan 58), at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi Treatment Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 = NPKSZn 5.77ab T2 = a OCP 2 + straight fertilizer 5.88a T3 = PKSZn (-N) 4.60d T4 = NKSZn (-P) 5.29bc T5 = NPSZn (-K) 5.18c T6 = NPKZn (-S) 5.71ab T7 = NPKS (-Zn) 5.29bc CV (%) 9.37 a. OCP 2 compound fertilizer (N = 12%, P 2O 5 = 45%, S = 5%, Zn = 1%). SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

45 mt/ha Figure Grain Yield (mt/ha) Effect of Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at BRRI Farm, Rajshahi in Boro T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Treatment 5.29 Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Pirganj and Rajshahi OCP compound fertilizer with vermicompost or cowdung produced statistically identical yield with recommended fertilizer with or without liming in both the trial sites. Application of organic fertilizer increased crop yield in both the sites. Different fertilizer management packages had a significant effect on yield and yield contributing characteristics of BRRIdhan 58. Macronutrient and Micronutrient Omission Trial at Kurigram and Rajshahi The omission of different macro and micronutrients from complete fertilizer treatments had significant effects on the yield and on yield contributing characteristics. N, P, and K were found as limiting nutrients for Boro rice production in the on-farm trial site at Kurigram. However, N, P, K and Zn were also found as limiting nutrients for rice production in the on-station field trial site at Rajshahi. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

46 On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Non-Rice Crops IFDC signed a grant agreement with BARI s OFRD on August 3, 2017, to collaborate on the activity for sustainable management of soil to enhance yields and farmers incomes under resilient production systems, which contributes to the overall goal of OCP s Agricultural Development Project for Bangladesh. OFRD, BARI has established 11 on-station and on-farm non-rice crop (potato, maize, lentil, and wheat) field trial sites by November All are harvested and reported in this semi-annual report. Table 40 provides the on-farm and onstation trials of non-rice crops. Figure 9 also shows the location of non-rice field trials. The detailed progress report from BARI is in Appendix 2. On-Station Trials OFRD Rangpur Station, BARI (2) Maize, Lentil. OFRD Bogra Station, BARI (2) Wheat, Potato. On-Farm Trials Domar, Nilphamari (2) Potato, Maize. Ulipur, Kurigram (2) Lentil. Dinajpur Sadar, Dinajpur (2) Potato, Maize. Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj (1) Wheat. On-Farm Field Trial Plot on Wheat at Amnura of Chapai Noawabganj Table 40. Status of On-Farm and On-Station Field Trials on Non-Rice Crops Sl. # Location Name of the Crop Category of Trial Number of Established Trials Date of Sowing 1. OFRD, BARI Research Station, Bogra Potato On-station 1 November 19, OFRD, BARI Research Station, Bogra Wheat On-station 1 November 20, OFRD, BARI Research Station, Rangpur Lentil On-station 1 November 16, OFRD, BARI Research Station, Rangpur Maize On-station 1 November 20, Ulipur, Kurigram Lentil On-farm 2 November 16, Domar, Nilphamari Maize On-farm 1 November 30, Domar, Nilphamari Potato On-farm 1 November 30, Sadar, Dinajpur Potato On-farm 1 November 22, Sadar, Dinajpur Maize On-farm 1 November 23, Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj Wheat On-farm 1 November 23, 2017 Total 11 SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

47 Figure 9. Location of Established On-Farm and On-Station Trials on Non-Rice SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

48 mt/ha Harvest Report on On-Farm Trials on Non-Rice Crops Wheat The wheat crop from one on-farm and one on-station field trial plots were already harvested by BARI scientists with the help of trial farmers. Table 41 and Table 42 provides the yield of wheat on the effect of different IPNS concept. Figure 10 and Figure 11 shows the yield under different treatments. Table 41. Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj Grain Yield Treatment (mt/ha) T1= NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt/ha cowdung 4.00a T2= NPKSZnB/ha 3.90ab T3= NPKSZn/ha + 5 mt/ha cowdung 3.65abc T4= NPKSZn/ha 3.60bc T5= Farmers practice 3.40c T6= Compound fertilizer (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 3.70abc T7= Compound fertilizer (NPSB) + straight fertilizer 3.70abc T8= Compound fertilizer (NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 3.92ab CV (%) 5.54 Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 10. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Amnura, Chapai Nawabganj SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

49 mt/ha Table 42. Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Bogra Treatments Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1= NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt/ha cowdung 5.00a T2= NPKSZnBMg/ha 4.70ab T3= NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt/ha cowdung 4.40cd T4= NPKSZnBMg/ha 4.20de T5= NPKSZnBMg/ha 3.80e T6= Compound fertilizer (TSPZn) + straight fertilizer 4.70ab T7= Compound fertilizer (NPSB) + straight fertilizer 4.80a T8= Compound fertilizer (NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 4.90a CV (%) Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Figure 11. Yield and Yield Contributing Parameters Influenced by Balanced Fertilization Trial Using IPNS Concept of Wheat in in Bogra Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Amnura and OFRD, Bogra The maximum grain yield was found in T1 where balanced fertilizer and 5 mt/ha cowdung was used, which was identical with T8 (OCP compound fertilizer- NPSZn) in both sites. In acidic soil, liming has a positive effect on crop production. Recommended chemical fertilizers along with organic manures provided better yield. However, the OCP compound fertilizer treated plots also made almost the same yield. OCP compound fertilizers are composed of some macro and micronutrients, but K is missing. The micronutrients are positive for soil productivity enrichment. If K is added to these compound fertilizers, they might contribute to increasing crop productivity, reducing production cost, as well as ensuring the use of balanced fertilizers by the farmers. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

50 mt/ha Potato The potato crop from one on-farm and one on-station field trial plots were already harvested by BARI scientists with the help of trial farmers. Table 43 provides the yield of potato, and Table 44 shows the omission effect of different fertilizers. Figure 12 shows the yield under different treatments, and Figure 13 shows the effect of liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield under different treatments. Table 43. Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Bogra in Potato Tuber Yield Treatment (mt/ha) T1= N-P-K-S-Zn-B-Mg/ha + 10 mt cowdung 26.30ab T2= N-P-K-S-Zn-B-Mg/ha 25.29ab T3 = N-P-K-S-Zn-B-Mg/ha + 10 mt cowdung 24.64b T4 = N-P-K-S-Zn-B-Mg/ha 25.61ab T5= Farmers practice + 5 mt cowdung 26.21ab T6= Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn )+ (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung 29.71a T7= Compound fertilizer (NPSB )+ (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung 28.70ab T8= Compound fertilizer (NPSZn) + (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt cowdung 27.90ab CV (%) Tuber Yield (mt/ha) Figure 12. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Bogra in Potato SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

51 mt/ha Table 44. Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Tuber Yield of Potato at Domar, Nilphamari Tuber Yield Treatments (mt/ha) T1= Recommended fertilizer (-Zn,-B,-lime) + 10 mt/ha cowdung 28.99cd T2 = N-P-K-S-Mg/ha (-Zn,-B,+lime) 1 mt/ha dolomite + 10 mt/ha cowdung 30.50abcd T3 = Recommended fertilizer (-lime) + 10 mt/ha cowdung 30.98abc T4= Recommended fertilizer (+lime) 1 mt/ha dolomite + 10 mt/ha cowdung 32.16a T5= Recommended fertilizer (-Zn,+lime) 1 mt/ha dolomite + 10 mt/ha cowdung 29.79bcd T6= Recommended fertilizer (-B+lime) 1 mt/ha dolomite + 10 mt/ha cowdung 28.38d T7: OCP Compound fertilizer (NPSB) + (additional straight fertilizer) + 10 mt/ha cowdung 31.51ab T8= Control (No fertilizer) 20.10e CV (%) 4.44 Tuber Yield (mt/ha) Figure 13. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Effect of Liming, and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Tuber Yield of Potato at Domar, Nilphamari Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Bogra and Dinajpur Higher tuber yield was obtained from treatments of all the three OCP compound fertilizers (TSPZn, NPSZn, and NPSB) in both locations. However, the recommended chemical fertilizers along with organic manures also made almost the same yield. There is no significant variation among the treatments designed in tuber yield. However, it can be concluded that the OCP compound fertilizer package performed better and may be considered as the best treatment for Potato at Bogra and Dinajpur. The experiment should be conducted for the next year to confirm the result. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

52 mt/ha Macronutrient and Micronutrient Omission Trial at Domar It was revealed that the OCP compound fertilizer had a positive effect on yield, yield-contributing characteristics, and influenced the economic return. A significant effect of lime on the yield of potato observed in different treatments. The effect of Zn and B omission observed on the yield of potato The trial should be conducted for the next year for confirmation of the result. Maize The maize crop from one on-farm and one on-station field trial plots were already harvested by BARI scientists with the help of trial farmers. Table 45 provides the yield of maize, and Table 46 shows the omission effect of different fertilizers. Figure 14 shows the yield under different treatments, and Figure 15 shows the effect of liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield under different treatments. Table 45. Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Rangpur in Maize Grain Yield Treatment (mt/ha) T1: NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung 11.25ab T2: NPKSZnBMg/ha 9.10d T3: NPKSZnBMg/ha + 5 mt cowdung 9.85c T4: NPKSZnBMg/ha 8.54e T5: Farmers practice 8.86de T6: Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- 173 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha 10.98b T7: Compound fertilizer (APS)- 285 kg (Split) NPKSZnBMg/ha 11.63a T8: Compound fertilizer (NPS)- 236 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha 11.49a CV (%) 6.73 Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 14. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages at the OFRD, BARI, Rangpur in Maize SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

53 mt/ha Table 46. Effect of Fertilizer Packages for Macronutrient Omission on the Performance of Maize at Rajbari, Dinajpur during Grain Yield Treatments (mt/ha) T1: NPKSZnBMg/ha [-lime] 9.61 T2: NPKSZnBMg/ha [+lime] 1 mt/ha dolomite T3: NPKSZnBMg/ha [-N,+lime] 1 mt/ha dolomite 8.58 T4 : NPKSZnBMg/ha [-P,+lime] 1 mt/ha dolomite 9.63 T5 : NPKSZnBMg/ha [-K,+lime] 1 mt/ha dolomite 9.83 T6: NPKSZnBMg/ha [-S,+lime] 1 mt/ha dolomite T7: Compound fertilizer (APS)-285 kg + NPKSZnBMg/ha T8: Control (No fertilizer) 5.38 CV (%) 4.89 Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 15. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Effect of Fertilizer Packages for Macronutrient Omission on the Performance of Maize at Rajbari, Dinajpur during Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Rangpur Higher yields were obtained from treatments of all the three OCP compound fertilizers (TSPZn, NPSZn, and NPSB) in MLT site. However, recommended fertilizer package also gave the same yield. There is significant variation among the treatments designed in yield. However, it can be concluded that the OCP compound fertilizer package performed better and may be considered as the best treatment for maize at Dinajpur. The experiment should be conducted for the next year for confirmation of the result. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

54 mt/ha Macronutrient and Micronutrient Omission Trial at Rajbari, Dinajpur It was revealed that the OCP compound fertilizer had a positive effect on yield, yield-contributing characteristics, and influencing the economic return. Effect of lime on the yield of maize observed in different treatments. No significant omission effect of P, K, and S observed on the yield of maize. The trial should be conducted for the next year for confirmation of the result. Lentil The lentil crop from two on-farm field trial plots and one on-station were already harvested by BARI scientists with the help of trial farmers. Table 47 and Table 48 provides the yield at on-farm trails at Ulipur, Kurigram, and on-station trials at Rangpur under different treatments. Table 49 provides liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield. Figure 16 and Figure 17 shows the yield under different treatments, and Figure 18 shows the effect of liming and omission of macronutrients and micronutrients on grain yield under different treatments. Table 47. Yield Under Different Fertilizer Management Packages Under Ulipur, Kurigram in Lentil Treatment Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1=NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung 1.32 T2: NPKSZnB/ha 1.12 T3=NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung 1.08 T4= NPKSZnB/ha 1 T5: Farmers practice 1.03 T6: Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn)- 50 kg + NPKSZnB/ha 1.21 T7: Compound fertilizer (NPSB)- 82 kg + NPKSZn/ha 1.15 T8: Compound fertilizer (NPSZn)- 70 kg + NPKSZnB/ha 1.23 CV 9.73 Grain Yield (mt/ha) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Figure 16. Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram in Lentil SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

55 mt/ha Table 48. Effect of Fertilizer Packages on the Performance of Lentil Agriculture Research Station, OFRD, Rangpur Seed Yield Treatments (mt/ha) T1= NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung 1.57a T2:= NPKSZnB/ha 1.33bc T3= NPKSZnB/ha + 5 mt cowdung 1.29bc T4: NPKSZnB/ha 1.19c T5: Farmers practice 1.23c T6: Compound fertilizer (TSP : Zn) + straight fertilizers 1.44ab T7: Compound fertilizer (NPSB) + straight fertilizers 1.37abc T8: Compound fertilizer (NPSZn) + straight fertilizers 1.46ab CV (%) Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 17. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Yield Under Different Treatments at Agriculture Research Station, Rangpur in Lentil SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

56 mt/ha Table 49. Effect on Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram Seed Yield Treatments (mt/ha) T1= NPKS/ha 1.01de T2=NPKS-lime 1.04de T3= NPKSZnB/ha 1.10cd T4= NPKSZnB-lime 1.32a T5: NPKSB-lime 1.20abc T6: NPKSZn-lime 1.13bcd T7: Compound fertilizer (NPSZn) + straight fertilizer 1.25ab T8: Control (No fertilizer) 0.97e CV (%) Grain Yield (mt/ha) Figure 18. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Treatment Effect on Liming and Omission of Macro and Micronutrients on Grain Yield Under Different Treatments at Ulipur, Kurigram Remarks and Observations Balanced Fertilizer Trial at Pirganj Recommended fertilizer package NPKSZnB along with 5 mt cowdung found better yield and profit from lentil, but OCP compound fertilizer NPSZn and TSPZn with straight fertilizer reduced production cost and achieved identical grain yield. Addition of organic matter ensures better yield without organic matter treated plots. Further field trials are needed to confirm results. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

57 Macronutrient and Micronutrient Omission Trial at Kurigram Balanced fertilizer with lime gave higher yield of lentil, but OCP compound fertilizer (NPSB) was observed as an economical fertilizer package for BARI Moshur-6. It can be concluded that liming might have some effect on yield as well as nutrient availability for lentil. Field Demonstrations The project will support a series of on-farm demonstrations that display the highest yield and/or most cost conserving practices as compared to current farmer practices. In particular, demonstrations will focus on improved soil management and GAPs. Technology/methods and results demonstration is an important activity of the SSMC program. The demonstration plots consist of four subplots, each measuring 200 square meters. Treatments Boro Crop at Gabtoli of Bogra include: (T1) farmers practice; (T2) recommended fertilizer dose without lime; (T3) recommended fertilizer dose with lime; and (T4) OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer with lime, keeping other management practices constant. Through June 2018, 60 demonstrations were established out of the targeted 60, among which 20 were in rice and 40 were in non-rice. Appendix 3 provides the details of demonstrations by crop. Status of Rice Demonstrations There were 20 rice field demonstrations planned and all demonstrations were established. The status of demonstrations is presented in Table 50. Figure 19 shows the locations of established 20 rice demonstration plots using a global positioning system (GPS) device. Table 50. Status of Rice Demonstrations Through June 2018 Demonstration Crop Target Established Harvest Completed T. Aman Boro Total SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

58 Figure 19. Location of Established Rice Demonstrations Plots SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

59 Results of T. Aman Demonstrations SSMC has harvested all 10 established T. Aman demonstration plots. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on T. Aman yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. The total nutrient content used in the T. Aman demonstrations is presented in Table 51. Table 51. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in T. Aman Demonstration Plots 2017 T1. Farmer Practiced T2. Recommended Doses of Fertilizer without Lime T3. Recommended Doses of Fertilizer with Lime T4. OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer Nutrient TSPZn NPSZn (kg/ha) N ( ) P2O (34.2) 34.2 (34.2) K S ( ) Zn ( ) 1.0 ( ) Dolomite 1,000 1,000 1,000 Note: The first figure in parentheses is the quantity of OCP mixed fertilizer, and the second figure is the additional quantity of straight fertilizer added as per the Fertilizer Recommendation Guide 2012 of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost on T. Aman 2017 In T. Aman 2017, SSMC-IFDC established 10 demonstrations in 10 upazilas. In these demonstrations, the project used only two modern high-yielding varieties, BRRIdhan 49 and BRRIdhan 51. Due to excessive rain and a devastating flood, almost all the demonstrations were affected and incurred serious damage. Table 52 compares the grain yield increase with TSPZn compound fertilizer (0.74 mt/ha) and with NPSZn compound fertilizer (0.83 mt/ha) over farmers practice; the results are statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incur a higher cost than farmers practice plots, but this is not significant. T. Aman farmers in this zone do not use lime and micronutrients to address soil acidity and are not interested in using a balanced dose of nutrients, including micronutrients. Details on the complete results of the 10 demonstrations are provided in Appendix 4. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

60 Table 52. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on T. Aman Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots 2017 Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items TSPZn (N=5) T1-Farmers Practice 8,752 b 4.19 b T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 8,659 b 4.71 a T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 12,573 a 4.82 a T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 13,168 a 4.93 a Mean 10, CV LSD (0.05) 3, Difference (T4-T1) 4, Difference (T3-T1) 3, Difference (T2-T1) (93) 0.52 NPSZn (N=5) T1-Farmers Practice 7,622 c 5.01 c T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 8,421 b 5.36 b T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 13,921 a 5.64 a T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 13,832 a 5.84 a Mean 10, CV LSD (0.05) Difference (T4-T1) 6, Difference (T3-T1) 6, Difference (T2-T1) Source: SSMC 10 demonstration plots, T. Aman Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of two types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer with lime separately over farmers practice zones, which is presented in Table 53. Figure 20 and Figure 21 depicts yield increased with two types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (i.e., 0.83 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the NPSZn treatment, followed by TSPZn (0.74 mt/ha) compound and straight fertilizer plots. Table 53. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSZn Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

61 Yield (mt/ha) Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer T1 Farmer Practiced T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 20. Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer 8.00 Average Incremental Yield Increase in Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer T1 Farmer Practiced T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 21. Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

62 Results of Boro Demonstrations SSMC has harvested all 10 established Boro demonstration plots. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on Boro yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. The total nutrient content used in the potato demonstrations is presented in Table 54. Table 54. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Boro Demonstration Plots T1 Farmers Practice T2 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer without Lime T3 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer with Lime T4 OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer Nutrient TSPZn NPSZn (kg/ha) N ( ) P2O (47.3) 51.8 (51.8) K S ( ) Zn (1.1) 1.5 ( ) Dolomite 1,000 1,000 1,000 Note: The first figure in parentheses is the quantity of OCP mixed fertilizer and the second figure is the additional quantity of straight fertilizer added as per the Fertilizer Recommendation Guide 2012 of the BARC. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost in Boro In Boro , SSMC-IFDC established 10 demonstrations in 10 upazilas. In these demonstrations, the project used only two modern high-yielding varieties, BRRIdhan 28 and BRRIdhan 29. Table 55 compares the grain yield increase with TSPZn compound fertilizer (0.82 mt/ha), and with NPSZn compound fertilizer (1.31 mt/ha) over farmers practice; the results are statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incur a higher cost than farmers practice plots, but this is not significant. Boro farmers in this zone do not use lime and micronutrients to address soil acidity and are not interested in using a balanced dose of nutrients, including micronutrients. Details on the complete results of the 10 demonstrations are provided in Appendix 5. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

63 Table 55. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Boro Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (kg/ha) Items TSPZn (N=4) T1-Farmers Practice 12,039 b 5.96 c T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 11,599 b 6.42 b T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 16,599 a 6.52 ab T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 16,599 a 6.78 a Mean 14, CV LSD (0.05) 2, Difference (T4-T1) 4, Difference (T3-T1) 4, Difference (T2-T1) (440) 0.47 NPSZn (N=6) T1-Farmers Practice 14,717 b 6.11 c T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 12,969 c 6.53 b T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 17,169 a 7.02 a T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 16,940 a 7.42 a Mean 15, CV LSD (0.05) 1, Difference (T4-T1) 2, Difference (T3-T1) 2, Difference (T2-T1) (1,748) 0.42 Source: SSMC 10 demonstration plots, Boro Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of two types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer with lime separately over farmers practice, which is presented in Table 56 and Figure 22 and Figure 23. Yield increased with two types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (1.31 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the NPSZn treatment, followed by TSPZn (0.82 mt/ha) compound and straight fertilizer plots. Table 56. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSZn Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

64 Yield (mt/ha) Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in Boro in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer T1 Farmer Practiced T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 22. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Boro in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer 8.00 Average Incremental Yield Increase in Boro in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer T1 Farmer Practiced T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 23. Average Incremental Yield Increase in T. Aman 2017 in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

65 Status of Non-Rice Demonstrations There were 40 non-rice field demonstrations planned. Out of 40 demonstrations, all demonstrations were established on time. The status of demonstration is presented in Table 57 Figure 24 shows locations of 40 non-rice demonstration plots using a GPS device. Maize Demonstration plot at Dinajpur Sadar Table 57. Status of Non-Rice Demonstrations Through June 2018 Demonstration Crop Target Established Harvest Completed Wheat Potato Maize Lentil Total Remarks One demonstration plot was damaged due to natural calamity SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

66 Figure 24. Location of Established Non-Rice Demonstrations Plots SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

67 Results of Wheat Demonstration SSMC has harvested nine wheat demonstration plots of the 10 demonstrations established. One demonstration in the non-calcareous zone was damaged due to a natural disaster. Details on the complete results of the nine demonstrations are provided in Appendix 6. The total nutrient content used in the wheat demonstrations is presented in Table 58. All of the 10 demonstrations used OCP compound fertilizer three demonstrations in the calcareous zone and seven in the non-calcareous zone. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on wheat yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. Table 58. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Wheat Demonstration Plots in Calcareous and Non-Calcareous Zones in Nutrient T 1 Farmers Practice T 2 Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime T 3 Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime (kg/ha) T 4* OCP Fertilizers TSPZn NPSZn NPSB N ( ) 125 ( ) P 2O (67.5) 67.5 (67.5) 67.5 (67.5) K S ( ) 15.6 (10.6+5) Zn ( ) 2.4 ( ) 2.0 B (1.8+1) Mg Dolomite - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Note: The first figure in parentheses is the quantity of OCP mixed fertilizer and the second figure is the additional quantity of straight fertilizer added as per the Fertilizer Recommendation Guide 2012 of BARC. * In the calcareous zone, OCP compound fertilizers with TSPZn and NPSZn were used in T 3 and NPSB in T 4. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost in Wheat Non-Calcareous Zone Using the data calculated from six demonstration plots in the non-calcareous zone, Table 59 compares the grain yield increase with TSPZn compound fertilizer (1.10 mt/ha) and with NPSB compound fertilizer (1.12 mt/ha) over farmers practice; the results are statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incurred a higher cost than the farmers practice plots. Wheat farmers in this zone do not use lime to address soil acidity and micronutrients. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

68 Table 59. Effect of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Wheat Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Non-Calcareous Zone Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items NPSB (N=3) T 1-Farmers Practice 17,705 b 4.21 b T 2-Recommended Dose without Lime 16,338 b 5.04 a T 3-Recommended Dose with Lime 19,913 a 4.94 a T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 21,028 a 5.33 a Mean 18, CV LSD (0.05) 2, Difference (T 4-T 1) 3, Difference (T 3-T 1) 2, Difference (T 2-T 1) (1,367) 0.83 TSPZn (N=3) T 1-Farmers Practice 15,423 b 3.84 c T 2-Recommended Dose without Lime 17,352 ab 4.18 cb T 3-Recommended Dose with Lime 20,023 a 4.39 b T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 20,003 a 4.93 a Mean 18, CV LSD (0.05) 4, Difference (T 4-T 1) 4, Difference (T 3-T 1) 4, Difference (T 2-T 1) 1, Source: SSMC Wheat Demonstration Plots, Winter Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of the two types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizers separately over farmers practice in the non-calcareous zone, which is presented in Table 60, Figure 25, and Figure 26. Yield increased with the two types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (1.12 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the NPSB treatment, followed by TSPZn (1.10 mt/ha) compound and straight fertilizer plots. Table 60. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSB Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice Plot; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

69 Yield mt/ha Yield mt/ha Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 25. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 26. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

70 Calcareous Zone Table 61 presents average incremental yields and cost of OCP compound fertilizers over farmers practice and other treatments. Yield and cost differences are statistically significant. However, OCP fertilizer plots had higher yields compared to farmers practice incremental yield for NPSZn was 0.76 mt/ha and 0.73 mt/ha for NPSB. Across the demonstrations, OCP compound fertilizers produced higher yield over farmers practice and other treatments. In a fertilizer cost analysis, farmers paid the lower cost, since they do not use micronutrients and a balanced fertilizer. To maintain soil fertility at a sustainable level, balanced fertilizer application is essential in the calcareous zone. The overall yield of wheat was low in the calcareous zone due to (i) late sowing, (ii) cold injury just after seeding, and (iii) rat infestation at the maturity stage. Table 61. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Wheat Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Calcareous Zone Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items NPSZn and NPSB (N=3) T1-Farmers Practice 22,673 a 2.67 b T2-Recommended Dose 16,755 b 3.18 ab T3-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn + Straight Fertilizer 17,367 b 3.43 a T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB + Straight Fertilizer 19,322 ab 3.41 a Mean 19, CV LSD (0.05) 4, Difference (T4-T1) (3,351) 0.73 Difference (T3-T1) (5,306) 0.76 Source: SSMC Wheat Demonstration Plots, Winter Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of two types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer separately over farmers practice in the calcareous zone, which is presented in Table 62 and Figure 27 and Figure 28. Yield increased with the two types of OCP fertilizers, as mentioned above. In all of the demonstration plots, yield increased in OCP compound fertilizer treatments over farmers practice and even the recommended fertilizer dose treatments. Reasons for the increased yield in OCP compound fertilizer over farmers practice and others could be enhanced nutrient uptake by the plants, good quality micronutrients, uniform distribution of micronutrients over the entire plots, and good interaction among the nutrients in soils. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

71 Yield mt/ha Yield mt/ha Table 62. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 NPSZn NPSB Note: T 1= Farmers Practice Plot without Lime; T 2= Recommended Fertilizer Dose; T 3 = OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn + Straight Fertilizer; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB + Straight Fertilizer. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T3-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn+Straight Fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 27. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB+Straight Fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 28. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Wheat Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

72 Results of Potato Demonstrations SSMC has harvested all 10 established potato demonstration plots. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on potato yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. The total nutrient content used in the potato demonstrations is presented in Table 63. Table 63. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Potato Demonstration Plots in Nutrient T 1 Farmers Practiced T 2 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer without Lime T 3 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer with Lime (kg/ha) T 4 OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer TSPZn NPSZn NPSB N ( ) ( ) P 2O (99) 99 (99) 98.8 (98.8) K S ( ) 20.6 (15.6+5) Zn (2.2+1) 3.2 (2.2+1) 3.3 B (2.6) Dolomite 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Mg Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost in Potato SSMC-IFDC established 10 demonstrations in 10 upazilas with potato in Table 64 compares the grain yield increase with TSPZn compound fertilizer (7.84 mt/ha) and NPSB compound fertilizer (5.54 mt/ha) over farmers practices; the results are statistically significant. With NPSZn compound fertilizer (5.03 mt/ha), the result is not statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incur a lower cost than farmers practice plots. Potato farmers do not use lime to address soil acidity and are not interested in using a balanced dose of nutrients, including micronutrients. Details on the complete results of the 10 demonstrations are provided in Appendix 7. Table 64. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Potato Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (kg/ha) Items TSPZn (N=2) T 1-Farmers Practice 49,458 a b T 2-Recommended Dose without Lime 46,083 a ab T 3-Recommended Dose with Lime 46,583 a ab T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 46,483 a a Mean 47, CV LSD (0.05) 12, Difference (T 4-T 1) (2,975) 7.84 SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

73 Items Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (kg/ha) Difference (T 3-T 1) (2,875) 4.90 Difference (T 2-T 1) (3,375) 2.65 NPSZn (N=3) T 1-Farmers Practice 43,832 a a T 2-Recommended Dose without Lime 37,518 b a T 3-Recommended Dose with Lime 38,784 b a T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 38,694 b a Mean 39, CV LSD (0.05) 4, Difference (T 4-T 1) (5,138) 5.03 Difference (T 3-T 1) (5,048) 0.88 Difference (T 2-T 1) (6,314) 0.23 NPSB (N=5) T 1-Farmers Practice 45,808 a b T 2-Recommended Dose without Lime 41,521 a b T 3-Recommended Dose with Lime 42,761 a 1.16 b T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 44,378 a a Mean 43, CV LSD (0.05) 4, Difference (T 4-T 1) (1,430) 5.54 Difference (T 3-T 1) (3,047) 1.79 Difference (T 2-T 1) (4,287) 2.36 Source: SSMC 10 demonstration plots, Potato Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of three types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer with lime separately over farmers practice zone, which is presented in Table 65 and Figure 29, 30, and 31. Yield increased with all three types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (i.e., 7.84 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the TSPZn treatment, followed by NPSB (5.54 mt/ha) and TSPZn (5.03 mt/ha) compound and straight fertilizer plots. Reasons for the increasing yield in OCP compound fertilizer over farmers practice and others could be enhanced nutrient uptake by the plants, good quality micronutrients, uniform distribution of micronutrients over the entire plots, and good interaction among the nutrients in soils. Table 65. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSZn NPSB Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

74 Yield (mt/ha) Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 29. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 30. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

75 Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 31. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Potato in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer Results of Maize Demonstrations SSMC has harvested all 10 established maize demonstration plots. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on maize yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. The total nutrient content used in the maize demonstrations is presented in Table 66. Table 66. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Maize Demonstration Plots in Nutrient T 1 Farmers Practice T 2 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer without Lime T 3 Recommended Doses of Fertilizer with Lime T 4 OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer TSPZn NPSZn NPSB (kg/ha) N ( ) ( ) P 2O (168.8) (168.8) (168.2) K S ( ) 52.2 ( ) Zn (3.8) 3.8 (3.8) 3.2 B (4.4) Dolomite 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Mg SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

76 Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost in Maize SSMC-IFDC established 10 demonstrations in 10 upazilas with maize in Table 67 compares the grain yield increase with TSPZn compound fertilizer (2.33 mt/ha), with NPSZn compound fertilizer (3.35 mt/ha), and with NPSB compound fertilizer (3.58 mt/ha) over farmers practice; the yield results are statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incur a higher cost than farmers practice plots. Maize farmers do not use lime to address soil acidity and are not interested in using a balanced dose of nutrients including micronutrients. Details on the complete results of the 10 demonstrations are provided in Appendix 8. Table 67. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Maize Yield and Fertilizer Cost, SSMC Demonstration Plots Items Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) TSPZn (N=4) T1-Farmers Practice 33,205 b c T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 35,418 a b T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 34,999 a a T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 35,514 a a Mean 34, CV LSD (0.05) 1, Difference (T4-T1) 2, Difference (T3-T1) 1, Difference (T2-T1) 2, NPSZn (N=3) T1-Farmers Practice 32,208 b b T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 37,502 a ab T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 35,419 ab ab T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 35,928 ab a Mean 35, CV LSD (0.05) 4, Difference (T4-T1) 3, Difference (T3-T1) 3, Difference (T2-T1) 5, SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

77 Items Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) NPSB (N=3) T1-Farmers Practice 31,813 b c T2-Recommended Dose without Lime 35,862 ab b T3-Recommended Dose with Lime 35,028 ab ab T4-OCP Compound Fertilizer+Straight Fertilizer with Lime 39,040 a a Mean 35, CV LSD (0.05) 5,437 1,.43 Difference (T4-T1) 7, Difference (T3-T1) 3, Difference (T2-T1) 4, Source: SSMC 10 demonstration plots, Maize Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of three types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer with lime separately over farmers practice, which is presented in Table 68 and Figure 32, 33, and 34. Yield increased with all three types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (3.58 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the NPSB treatment, followed by NPSZn (3.35 mt/ha) and TSPZn (2.33 mt/ha) compound and straight fertilizer plots. Table 68. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSZn NPSB Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

78 Yield (mt/ha) Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 32. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 33. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

79 Yield (mt/ha) Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 34. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Maize in OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer Results of Lentil Demonstration SSMC has harvested all 10 established lentil demonstration plots. Ten demonstrations used OCP compound fertilizer five demonstrations in the calcareous zone and five in the non-calcareous zone. These demonstrations were established and harvested to determine the influence of OCP compound fertilizer and GAPs on lentil yield and the cost of balanced fertilization. However, one demonstration result could not be analyzed due to insufficient replications. Details on the complete results of the 10 demonstrations are provided in Appendix 9. The total nutrient content used in the lentil demonstrations is presented in Table 69. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

80 Table 69. Nutrients Used under Various Treatments in Lentil Demonstration Plots in Calcareous and Non-Calcareous Zones in T 1 Farmers Practice T 2 Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime T 3 Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime T 4* OCP Fertilizers TSPZn NPSZn NPSB (kg/ha) Nutrient N ( ) 27.1 (27.1) P 2O (54) 54 (54) 54.2 (54.2) K S (6+12.2) 18 ( ) Zn ( ) 1.8 ( ) 1.9 B (1.4) Dolomite 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Note: The first figure in parentheses is the quantity of OCP mixed fertilizer and the second figure is the additional quantity of straight fertilizer added as per the Fertilizer Recommendation Guide 2012 of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). * In the calcareous zone, OCP compound fertilizers with TSPZn and NPSZn were used in T3 and NPSB in T4. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizers on Yield and Fertilizer Cost in Lentil Non-Calcareous Zone Using the data from five demonstration plots calculated in the non-calcareous zone, Table 70 compares the grain yield increase with NPSZn compound fertilizer (0.19 mt/ha) and with NPSB compound fertilizer (0.29 mt/ha) over farmers practice; the results are not statistically significant. However, from an economic point of view, OCP compound fertilizers with balanced doses of nutrients incur a higher cost than farmers practice plots, but this is not significant. Lentil farmers in this zone do not use lime and micronutrients to address soil acidity and are not interested in using a balanced dose of nutrients, including micronutrients. Table 70. Effect of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Lentil Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Non-Calcareous Zone Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items NPSZn (N=2) T 1-Farmers Practice 8,398 a 1.60 a T 2-Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime 11,119 a 1.73 a T 3-Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime 16,119 a 1.69 a T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 16,087 a 1.79 a Mean 12, CV LSD (0.05) 8, Difference (T 4-T 1) 7, Difference (T 3-T 1) 7, Difference (T 2-T 1) 2, SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

81 Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items NPSB (N=2) T 1-Farmers Practice 12,955 a 1.86 a T 2-Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime 11,134 a 1.83 a T 3-Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime 16,134 a 1.85 a T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime 17,555 a 2.15 a Mean 14, CV LSD (0.05) 6, Difference (T 4-T 1) 4, Difference (T 3-T 1) 3,179 (0.00) Difference (T 2-T 1) (1,821) (0.03) Source: SSMC Lentil Demonstration Plots, Winter Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of three types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer separately over farmers practice in the non-calcareous zone, which is presented in Table 71 and Figure 35, 36, and 37. Yield increased with all three types of OCP fertilizers. The highest incremental yield increase (0.29 mt/ha) over farmers practice was obtained from the NPSB treatment, followed by TSPZn was 0.20 mt/ha and NPSZn 0.19 mt/ha compound and straight fertilizer plots. Table 71. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn NPSZn NPSB Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime; T 3 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose with Lime; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer + Straight Fertilizer with Lime. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

82 Yield mt/ha Yield mt/ha Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 35. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 36. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

83 Yield mt/ha Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 37. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Plots in Calcareous Zone Table 72 also indicates average incremental yields and cost of OCP compound fertilizers over farmers practice and other treatments. Yield and cost differences are not statistically significant. However, OCP fertilizer plots had higher yields compared to farmers practice NPSB had an incremental yield of 0.24 mt/ha, NPSZn 0.19 mt/ha, and TSPZn 0.01 mt/ha. Across the demonstrations, OCP compound fertilizers produced higher yield over farmers practice and other treatments. In a fertilizer cost analysis, farmers had to pay the lower cost, since they do not use micronutrients and a balanced fertilizer. To maintain soil fertility at a sustainable level, balanced fertilizer application is also essential in the calcareous zone. Table 72. Influence of OCP Compound Fertilizer on Lentil Yield and Fertilizer Cost in SSMC Demonstration Plots in the Calcareous Zone Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items NPSZn and NPSB (N=3) T 1-Farmers Practice 10,060 a 1.35 a T 2-Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime 10,054 a 1.61 a T 3-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn + Straight Fertilizer 10,123 a 1.54 a T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB + Straight Fertilizer 11,447 a 1.69 a Mean 10, CV LSD (0.05) 2, Difference (T 4-T 1) 1, Difference (T 3-T 1) Difference (T 2-T 1) (6) 0.26 SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

84 Average Cost of Fertilizer (Tk/ha) Average Yield (mt/ha) Items TSPZn and NPSB (N=2) T 1-Farmers Practice 10,963 a 0.99 ab T 2-Recommended Fertilizer Dose without Lime 12,204 a 0.89 b T 3-OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn + Straight Fertilizer 12,162 a 1.00 ab T 4-OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB + Straight Fertilizer 13,177 a 1.08 a Mean 12, CV LSD (0.05) 2, Difference (T 4-T 1) 2, Difference (T 3-T 1) 1, Difference (T 2-T 1) 1,242 (0.10) Source: SSMC Lentil Demonstration Plots, Winter Note: Within a column, mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different. SSMC further estimated the yield difference of three types of OCP compound fertilizer and straight fertilizer separately over farmers practice in the calcareous zone, which is presented in Table 73 and Figure 38, 39, and 40. Yield increased with all three types of OCP fertilizers, as mentioned above. In almost all of the demonstration plots, yield increased in OCP compound fertilizer treatments over farmers practice and even recommended fertilizer dose treatments. Reasons for the increased yield in OCP compound fertilizer over farmers practice and recommended fertilizer dose treatments could be enhanced nutrient uptake by the plants, good quality micronutrients, uniform distribution of micronutrients over the entire plots, and good interaction among the nutrients in soils. Table 73. Yield Performance of OCP Compound Fertilizer and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice Average Yield (mt/ha) Incremental Yield (mt/ha) OCP Fertilizer T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TSPZn (0.10) NPSZn NPSB Note: T 1 = Farmers Practice; T 2 = Recommended Fertilizer Dose; T 3 = OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn, NPSZn + Straight Fertilizer; and T 4 = OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB + Straight Fertilizer. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

85 Yield mt/ha Yield mt/ha Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer 0.01 Incremental yield Figure 38. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer TSPZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 39. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSZn and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

86 Yield mt/ha 1.50 Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Demo in OCP Compound Fetilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers' Practice T1 Farmer practiced plot without lime T4 OCP compound fertilizer + straight fertilizer Incremental yield Figure 40. Average Incremental Yield Increase in Lentil Using OCP Compound Fertilizer NPSB and Straight Fertilizer over Farmers Practice in Upazila Agriculture Officers and Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officers of DAE Orientation Program The main objective of holding only this program was to acquaint the participants, including farmers, about the different activities of SSMC and introduce them to the SSMC work plan. The focal point, concerned deputy directors, Upazila agriculture officers (UAOs), horticulturists, and relevant subassistant agriculture officers (SAAOs) attended the orientation program. Participants were briefed about the guidelines regarding farmers training and the establishment of demonstration plots, field days, and crop cuts, etc. Modules followed during training programs were PowerPoint and oral presentations, group discussions in a participatory approach, and practical demonstrations on identification techniques of adulterated fertilizers. In the first half of 2018, no orientation program was conducted with UAOs and SAAOs of DAE on SSMC activities. The number of participants in the orientation program is presented in Appendix 10. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

87 Demonstration Crop Cut and Field Days Field days were mainly organized on the day of crop cut of demonstration plots so that participating farmers can observe the method and results of the application on OCP Compound fertilizers and GAP technology in the particular demonstration. In addition, the yield and profitability results of improved nutrient management and GAPs applied in the field were highlighted. They also shared their experiences through question-and-answer sessions with demonstration farmers as well as SSMC senior staffs and DAE field officials. In the reporting period, 30 field days were held. A total of 3,036 participants attended the 30 field days, of which Crop Harvest from a Boro Demonstration Plot at Sadar, Kurigram, in May were women farmers (24%); 128 were fertilizer retailers, and 2,171 were other participants included male farmers, DAE field officials, media personnel, local leaders, and other project staff. The status of field days is presented in Table 74. Appendix 11 indicates the total number of field days organized by Upazila. Table 74. Participation of Demonstration Field Days Through June 2018 Reporting Period Batches Male Female Total Farmers Fertilizer Retailers Total Participants Year 1 (Jan-Dec 2017) Year 2 (Jan-June 2018) 25 1, , ,527 Total Year 30 2, , ,036 Farmer Training Farmers Selection The farmer training 5 programs are designed to improve farmers knowledge on improved nutrient management with emphasis on increasing awareness and knowledge about GAPs, the importance of liming in acidic soils, and the role of micronutrients and compound fertilizers. Training takes place in batches of 30 farmers; each batch consisted of 25 progressive farmers, including demonstration farmers and five fertilizer retailers. Farmers were trained by Deputy Directors, UAOs, SAAOs of DAE, and Farmers Training on Increasing Awareness and Knowledge About GAPs 5 In Year 1, SSMC planned to conduct 60 farmers trainings 30 farmers trainings conducted before planting for six crops, and the remaining 30 farmers trainings at harvest time and combined with field days. In Year 2, 60 farmers trainings will be conducted. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

88 senior staffs and the field coordinator (FC) of SSMC. A total of 60 batches of farmer training were conducted. The division of training is as follows: five per crop before planting (5 x 6 crops in Year 1 = 30 trainings) and five at harvest, combined with field days (5 x 6 crops in Year 2 = 30 trainings). The remaining 60 will be conducted from mid-year 2 to mid-year 3 in the same format. Training Program In the first half of Year 2, 27 batches of training were conducted with 808 participants (men, women, and fertilizer retailers). Of the 808 trained participants, 689 were progressive farmers, including 27 demonstration farmers, 109 (13%) were women and 119 were fertilizer retailers. Through June 2018, 60 batches of farmers training were conducted with 1,795 participants. Of which, 1,529 were progressive farmers, 266 were fertilizer retailers, and 240 (16%) were female farmers. Modules followed during training programs included PowerPoint and oral presentations, group discussions in a participatory approach, and practical demonstrations on identification techniques of adulterated micronutrient fertilizers. The number of farmers attending the training is provided in Table 75. The number of participants in the training program is presented in Appendix 12. Figure 41 shows the location of farmers training venues. Table 75. Farmers Training Conducted Through June 2018 Farmers Reporting Year Batches Male Female Total Farmers Fertilizer Retailers Total Participants First Half (Jan-June 2017) Second Half (Jul-Dec 2017) Year First Half (Jan-June 2018) Year Total 60 1, , ,795 The Deputy Director/District Training Officer/Additional Deputy Director, the respective UAOs and SAAOs of DAE, and SSMC staffs were present during the training programs as resource persons or facilitators. For SSMC farmer training programs, six flyers (English and Bangla versions) were developed for rice (T. Aman and Boro) and non-rice (potato, maize, lentil, and wheat) crops. SSMC printed 1,900 copies of color leaflets (Bangla version) for rice crops (T. Aman and Boro) and non-rice crops (maize, potato, lentil, and wheat) were printed for farmers training programs. To create awareness on GAPs among the farmers, flyers (Bangla version) were distributed to the trainee farmers, SAAOs, and UAOs. SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June

89 Figure 41. Location of Farmers Training Venue SSMC Semi Annual Report Year 2 January-June