Advances in Crop Science and Technology
Open Access

Blended-fertilizer; Grain-yield; Wheat

Introduction

Ethiopia is likely to rely on the agricultural sector as a source of income and employment for the foreseeable future requiring optimal and up to date fertilizer recommendation packages for all crops given the fact that increasing small holder farmers’ productivity entails the integration of improved technology and adoption. Nutrient mining due to sub optimal fertilizer use coupled with imbalanced fertilizer uses have favored the emergence of multi nutrient deficiency in Ethiopian soils [1,2,3,4,5] which in part explain fertilizer factor productivity decline and stagnant crop productivity conditions encountered despite continued use the blanket recommendation. The research result from eastern Uganda also showed that the use of low levels of N and P fertilizers on maize and beans was the leading factor for nutrient depletion [6,7]. Balanced fertilizers containing N, P, K, S, B and Zn in blend form have been recommended to ameliorate site specific nutrient deficiencies and thereby increase land, water and labor productivity. The work of [8] in southern Ethiopia provides a striking example of how fertilizer use efficiency of potato can be raised when NP fertilizers are combined with K on a location-specific basis. In this study supplementation of K increased potato tuber yields by 197% over the standard N-P recommendation alone. The recent national soil inventory data also revealed S, B and Zn deficiencies are widespread in Ethiopian soils, while some soils are also deficient in K, Cu, Mn and Fe [9], which all potentially hold back crop productivity. However, fertilizer trials involving multi-nutrient blends that include micronutrients are rare. Very recently, a soil test based fertilizer recommendation and calibration efforts have been made by EIAR and RARIs but only limited to certain location and crop types.

According to EthioSIS fertilizer type recommendation map/atlas, eight types of fertilizer blends are identified for SNNPRS. Similarly three types of fertilizers for Esra woreda, Dauro zone were identified. But this needs validation for the fertilizer types and determination of rates for the identified fertilizer types for specific crops. Therefore, this study was initiated with the objectives of (1) Evaluate the relative influences of NPSB, NPSBCu and NPSZn on wheat production and (2) Determine optimum rate of the selected fertilizer type for production of wheat in Esra woreda.

Materials and Method

Experimental details and treatment set-ups for Esera

On farm experiment was carried out for two years (2017 & 2018) in Esera woreda, dawuro zone to evaluate the yield response of wheat to application of different soil fertility map based blended fertilizer types and rates. The treatments were laid out in RCBD replicated three times. Ten treatments: control (no fertilizer), three rates of NPSB (69N,54 P2O5,10 S, 1.07B; 92N,72 P2O5,13 S, 1.4B and 115N,90 P2O5,17 S, 1.7B ) and three rates of NPSBCu (69N,54 P2O5,10 S, 1.07B + Cu; 92N,72 P2O5,13 S, 1.4B + Cu and 115N,90 P2O5,17 S, 1.7B + Cu ) NPSZn (69N,54 P2O5,10 S + Zn; 92N,72 P2O5,13 S + Zn and 115N,90 P2O5,17 S +Zn). The plot size 4*4 =16m2 and the spacing between rows were 20 cm. NPS and NPSB blends, and CuSO4 were used as fertilizer sources and in addition urea was used as N source. NPS, NPSB and ZnSO4 fertilizers were applied at planting whereas urea fertilizer is top dressed after 45 days of planting the test crop. 600 gm CuSO4 ha -1 was mixed in 400 liter water and foliar application was made at appropriate stage of the crop. All field managements were carried as per the recommendation of the area and all field observations were recorded.

Soil Sampling and Analysis

Composite surface (0-20 cm depth) soil samples were collected from each experimental site before planting and from each treatment at harvesting using auger for selected Physico-chemical analysis. The collected samples were properly labelled, packed and transported to the Soil laboratory and were prepared and analyzed according to the standard procedures.

Agronomic data collection

Data were collected from the experiment on growth, yield and yield component related parameters on plot and plant basis. Data such as Plant height (cm), spike length (cm), tiller number biomass and grain yield were recorded and subjected to analysis of variance.

Data analysis

The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using SAS version 9.2 statistical software programs (SAS, 2009). Significant difference between and among treatment means were assessed using the least significant difference (LSD) at 0.05 level of probability [10].

Results and discussion

Esera Woreda

The mean yield and yield component of wheat results are depicted in (Table 1). Results of ANOV indicated that statistically significant differences among treatments were observed in biomass and grain yield. The effects of application of different types and rates of blended fertilizers on plant height, spike length and tiller number of wheat at Esara were no significant. From the biomass and grain yield data it can be suggested that including Cu on higher rates of NPSB negatively affected the wheat production at study area; which is not justified but there could be given many reasons, so should be critically evaluated in the future to justify. Highest wheat grain yield was recorded by application of 237 kg/ha NPS + 8.125 kg/ha ZnSO4 but not statistically different from that of other types and rates. In total, yield components of wheat were not impacted applied fertilizer types and rates.

Discussions and Conclusion

From our current study result lower rate of NPSB (150 kg) with 41 (50) kg urea top dressing gave comparable yield with other rates of NPSB and other blends. Thus application of NPSB (150 kg) with 41 (50) kg urea top dressing could be recommended for study area and other similar areas for wheat production. Partial budget analysis has shown that all applied fertilizers were not economically feasible. Therefore, further study is needed on management of identified fertilizers (rate, time or method) or on removing other yield limiting soil factors such as acidity, other limiting element, or toxic element.

1. Wassie H, Shiferaw B (2011) On-Farm verification of lime and NPK fertilizers effects on the tuber yield of Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum) on some acidic soils of Southern Ethiopia.J Dry Land 4(1): 283-288.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

2. Wassie A, Bekele T, Sterck F, Teketay D, Bongers F (2010) Postdispersal seed predation and seed viability in forest soils: implications for the regeneration of tree species in Ethiopian church forests.Afr J Ecol 48(2): 461-471.

Indexed at, Google Scholar , Crossref

3. Asgelil D, Taye B, Yesuf A (2007) The status of micro-nutrients in Nitisols, Vertisols, Cambisols and Fluvisols in major maize, wheat, teff and citrus growing areas of Ethiopia. Pro Agric Res fund 15(4): 77-96.

Google Scholar

4. Girma T, Peden D, Abyie A, Wagnew A (2003) Effect of manure on grazing lands in Ethiopia.East African Highlands. Mt Res Dev23(4): 156-160.

Google Scholar

5. Abiye AA, Aune JB (2001) Technical Options for Agricultural Development in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Model of Crop-Livestock Interactions. Eco Pol Sus Land Use 49-57.

Indexed at, Google Scholar , Crossref

6. Wortmann CS (1998)Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in Africa(No. 297). CIAT.

Google Scholar

7. Wortmann CS, Kaizzi CK (1998) Nutrient balances and expected effects of alternative practices in farming systems of Uganda.Agric Ecosyst Environ71(1-3):115-129.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Haile W (2011) Response of Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum) to the application of potassium at acidic soils of Chencha, Southern Ethiopia.Int J Agric Biol13:4.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

9. EthioSIS (2016). Ethiopia Soil Information System. Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

10. Gomez KA Gomez AA (1984)Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John wiley & sons.

Google Scholar