Upload
africa-rising
View
71
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Tilathun Amede, ICRISAT, at Africa RISING Ethiopia Monthly Update Meeting, Addis Ababa, 30 October 2014
Citation preview
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.