Bridging yield gaps in Ethiopia: Field visit and observations

Bridging yield gaps in Ethiopia

Field visit and observation

Tilahun Amede, ICRISAT

Africa RISING Ethiopia Monthly Update Meeting, Addis Ababa, 30 October 2014

Bridging Yield Gaps in Ethiopia through Soil Test-based Nutrient Amendments To assess nutrient deficiencies of Africarising districts through test

crops particularly with reference to micro and secondary nutrients in Ethiopia

Supporting the National Initiative (ATA) in developing country-wide soil maps and fertilizer recommendations;

Develop a scaling-up model in different agroecologies to achieve the impact in terms of increased agricultural production and improved livelihoods with sustainable intensification.

Confluence points for soil sampling

ATA recommendation of blended fertilizers, Tigray

Fertilizer recommendation for Southern Tigray

Enda-mehoni

ATA’s Recommendation for Mehoni

N/P/K/S/Zn/B for larger part, and N/P/K/S/Zn for smaller part

Based on soil analysis and on-farm trials

The recommended rate is 100 kg ‘Blended’ fertilizer along with 100 kg Urea for Wheat

6:3:4:4:1 which is 35:17:23:23:6 kg per 100 kg blend

With the recommended 75:17:23:23:6 per 200 kg application :12:3:4:4:1

The document is now officially submitted to the Local Government and they agreed to follow the recommendations

Sites and methods

Mohoni; Debre Birhan; Lemu; Sinana, (Ziwai, Awassa)

(21-30 onfarm trials with wheat)

Onfarm participatory evaluation of macro and micronutrients on crop performance

Wheat (variety Hidasse)

Planted following local planting dates

Case studies from Mehoni and Sinana

Our treatments in Mehoni (Optimal applications) NP (90/45)

NPK (90/45/61)

NPKS (90/45/61/63)

NPKSZn (90/45/61/63/

Minimum application (30% recommended NP)

Farmer’s fields (control)

Our field trials show three types of responses to application of various micro

and macronutrients

Group 1. Good Crop, No effect, Varietal difference

Group 1 farms: Crop is doing well but there is no visible difference among our treatments in terms of growth, height and vigourosity;

Our treatments are not even better than farmers plots

This is where agronomic management played more than nutrient application

Major effect from NP, and in some case K or S

Group 2 farms. Distinct difference among farms (responsive soils)

Groups 3. Bad crop, no difference, lost investment (Non-responsive soils)

No visible yield margin for the investment

Summary

Responsive and Non-responsive soils; what else?

The new variety to the regions’ Hidasse’ became more attractive than our intended fertilizer types;

The effect of micronutrients was minimum,

Major response to N and P, and a bit to K/S

The yield margin beyond NP is possibly low

Minimum application (30%) would produce about 70% of the highest expected yield

200 kg per ha is probably unaffordable/ unprofitable

Next steps

Identifying what else factors?

Wait for grain and fodder yield; possible + benefits

Consider effects on the succeeding crop; next season

More benefit expected in crop quality than quantity

Validate the soil tests and check with ATA

Compare to other sites and landscapes

We acknowledge the site

coordinators and their local

partners

Dr. Kindu, Dr. Thorne and the

whole Africa RISING team

Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation

africa-rising.net

The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.