Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in ... - cimmyt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

few studies characterized the household assets of the host farmers. Consequently it is difficult to assess the reasons why some farmers may favour one technology and others another. • Few papers presented actually showed clear hypotheses for the experiments. • It is evident from the papers presented that host farmers are beginning to develop their own local taxonomies. These need to be catalogued to enable wider dissemination. Suggestions arising: • There is a need to collate information from different trials in the region into GIS databases to look at soil, climate and social interactions. • Ex ante market studies on legumes are required. This will meet a growing need to assess market demands for legumes before they are promoted in an area. • Need a synthesis study on results ~e have to date concerning the relative merits and benefits of intercropping and rotations. • Combinations of inorganics and organics need further attention. More and detailed studies are required on the synergistic effects of organiC and inorganic fertility amendments. At the same time, work is required to develop simple and transferable messages. • Detailed economic analyses of many of the interventions bring into question their appropriateness for smallholder farming systems. If research intends that the smallholder farmer is to benefit from their work, it is essential that research take on a greater participatory emphasis in problem identification, development and evaluation of interventions. legume residues and concluded t fertilizer N applications were necessary for sustained production (based on one abnormal year). 2. N availability/dynamics in soil: • Mineral-N in soil does not correlate well with N recovery by maize from preceding legumes nor with maize yield response. • Mineral-N dynamics suggest that mineralized N is flushed through the soil profile before maize roots are present to extract it, leading to poor synchrony of N availability and N uptake by maize. 3. N recovery from legumes (and fertilizer) by subsequent maize crops: • Measured using 15N techniques by Chikowo et al. • Net N inputs from legumes were < 10 kg/ha for soybean, pigeonpea and erotolaria but> 80 kg/ ha for mucuna. • N recovery was always < 36%; being least for mucuna (12%) and greater for legumes with small N inputs. Their high percent recovery possibly being due to their low total N input. • N recovery from fertilizer was 2x N recovery . from mucuna, which had similar inputs (95 and 84 kg-N fha, respectively). Issues from the questions and discussion: • Economics of green manures: What marginal increment/ yield gain is necessary for farmers to take up the technology? • The multiple uses of green manures need 'to be considered in maize/green manure-grain legume systems; e.g., animals that graze residues. Legume Benefits on Maize Productivity and Soil Properties Main issues from the three presentations in this session were: 1. Maize response to legumes in rotations and intercrops. 2. N availability / dyna.mics in soil as affected by green manures and grain legumes in rotations and intercrops. 3. N recovery from legumes (and fertilizer) by subsequent maize crops. 1. Maize response to legumes in rotations and intercrops: • In two studies, legumes gave very large maize yield increases; by 2-3x the yields without fertilizer. • BUT one study found only weak responses to Improving the Productivity of Grain Legumes and Green Manures Highlight points from the papers: 1. Agronomic effectiveness of phosphate rock products, mono-ammonium phosphate and lime on grain legume productivity in some Zambian soils (abed I. Lungu and Kalaluka Munyinda) • Partially acidulated phosphate rock (PAPR) maintained a high level of soil P than mono ammonium phosphate (MAP) • Lime increased P effectiveness and legume biomass productivity • Optimal P application rate for legumes was 80 kg P20S per ha • Simply processed PAPR (acidulated with sulphuric acid) was agronomically as effective as 242 Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
MAP and even more effective than MAP on acid soils • Was greater soil residual P with PAPR than with MAP. 2. The effect of P and S on biomass productivity of grain legume crops and subsequent maize grain yields in Malawi (AB Mwalwanda, Spider Mughogho and Webster Sakala) • Dry matter yields ranged from 2 t per ha with no P and S to >6 t per ha with 20-40 kg P per ha and 4-8 kg per ha S • Yields were Pigeonpea
Page 2 and 3:
Grain Legumes and Green Manures for
Page 4 and 5:
Acknowledgments • The Leopard Roc
Page 6 and 7:
Evall!ating mucuna green manure tec
Page 9:
INTRODUCTION AND CONFERENCE OBJECTI
Page 12 and 13:
Table 1. Paradigm shifts underlying
Page 14 and 15:
100 90 80 - - 0 - - Uptake by ihe m
Page 16 and 17:
- 6 ~ 9 8 7 0- 5 CḎ ns 4 0::: 3
Page 18 and 19:
Table 3. Millet grain and total dry
Page 20 and 21:
Dvorak KA 1996. Adoption potential
Page 23 and 24:
LEGUMES FOR SOIL FERTILITY IN SOUTH
Page 25 and 26:
to the system in such a way that th
Page 27:
Muetzelfeldt, R.1. 1995. A framewor
Page 30 and 31:
ing capacity. Legumes offer other b
Page 32 and 33:
people/km2), land holdings are smal
Page 34 and 35:
ments. It would help researchers to
Page 36 and 37:
Own livestock Gununo farmers for th
Page 39:
Questions and Answers ~ey Papers To
Page 42 and 43:
Historical Perspective on Soyabean
Page 44 and 45:
ganic amendment for resource-poor f
Page 46 and 47:
MPhil. Thesis. University of Zimbab
Page 48 and 49:
deal of research work has been bias
Page 50 and 51:
1600 '7 ns 1400 ~ 1200 Cl ~ 1000 "C
Page 52 and 53:
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)
Page 54 and 55:
Boswell EP, Koide RT, Shumway DL, A
Page 56 and 57:
Materials and Methods The trial was
Page 58 and 59:
0.9 0.8 ~ 0.7 Rec '-' 0.6 Vl ::9 0.
Page 60 and 61:
Series no 5. Soil Science SOciety o
Page 62 and 63:
Materials and Methods Persistence o
Page 64 and 65:
content resulted in increased rhizo
Page 66 and 67:
(Mugwiia and Murwira, 1997). Howeve
Page 68 and 69:
Table 2. Average maize yield estima
Page 70 and 71:
implied that most fanners prefer to
Page 73 and 74:
] Questions and Answers Rhizobium,
Page 75 and 76:
ADDING A NEW DIMENSION TO THE IMPRO
Page 77 and 78:
Materials and Methods The study use
Page 79 and 80:
a) Chikwaka b) Chinyika !21 C. absu
Page 81 and 82:
Table 3. N, P and Kconcentrations (
Page 83 and 84:
Abstract SCREENING OF SHORT DURATIO
Page 85 and 86:
Table 2. Characteristics of short d
Page 87 and 88:
RISK DIVERSIFICATION OPPORTUNITIES
Page 89 and 90:
management technologies with differ
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3. Expected annual returns (Z
Page 93:
Table 6. Risk diversification indic
Page 96 and 97:
een renewed interest in green manur
Page 98 and 99:
unfertilised maize crop of over 200
Page 101 and 102:
Questions and Answers Screening of
Page 103 and 104:
GREEN MANURE AND FOOD LEGUMES RESEA
Page 105 and 106:
7000 6000 ';' €.. 5000 .~MzSole :
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5. Maize grain yield (kg ha")
Page 109:
Phiri, A.D.K. 1999. Effects of Sesb
Page 112 and 113:
amount of roots with sl:nnhemp. It
Page 114 and 115:
It was proved that a mixed farming
Page 116 and 117:
Table 3. Above·ground biomass (t/h
Page 118 and 119:
and horticulture in Zimbabwe: Case
Page 121 and 122:
GRAIN LEGUMES AND GREEN MANURES IN
Page 123 and 124:
Results Table 1. Adaptation of gree
Page 125 and 126:
Four rates of fertilizer N were app
Page 127 and 128:
THE ROLE OF COWPEA (VIGNA UNGUICULA
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1. Non-legume cropping patter
Page 131 and 132:
Table 9. Common pests on cowpeas as
Page 133 and 134:
few of the farmers interviewed acqu
Page 135:
Murwira, H.K., M.J. Swift and P.G.H
Page 138 and 139:
Materials and Methods On farm exper
Page 140 and 141:
18000 1600) 14000 a) Zambia 12000 m
Page 143 and 144:
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT GREEN MANURE LE
Page 145 and 146:
.. ~ Table 2. The effect of time o
Page 147:
Chivinge, O.A., E. Kasembe, and I.K
Page 150 and 151:
times with regionally specific adap
Page 152 and 153:
ter content at 180 cm was still wel
Page 154 and 155:
to amount of biomass, quality of bi
Page 156 and 157:
with the natural fallow, which did
Page 158 and 159:
and K to maize as an equivalent amo
Page 160 and 161:
forts to understand the mechanisms
Page 162 and 163:
gen recovery rates in relation to p
Page 164 and 165:
The first steps to improve soil fer
Page 167 and 168:
Questions and Answers .Identificat
Page 169 and 170:
MUCUNA - MAIZE ROTATIONS AND SHORT
Page 171:
Table 3. Percent nitrogen (% N) con
Page 174 and 175:
~e decomposition of legume residues
Page 176 and 177:
Table 3. Effect of forage legumes o
Page 178 and 179:
available nutrients and vice versa,
Page 180 and 181:
Conclusion and Recommendation Mucun
Page 182 and 183:
Specific objectives were to: • Te
Page 184 and 185:
'"~ v '" ~ ~ 1400000 1200000 100000
Page 187 and 188:
EFFECT OF SURFACE APPLICATION AND I
Page 189:
it 4 a···· · ... - :.!! e.....
Page 193 and 194:
PERFORMANCE OF GREEN MANURES AND GR
Page 195:
Mungwi soil, cowpea and soyabean pr
Page 198 and 199:
Among BNF systems, symbiotic system
Page 200 and 201: 3500 .f"'3000 ca ,c2500 CI "" - 200
Page 202 and 203: above-ground biomass was not transl
Page 204 and 205: 3000 "0 ]i >. ,5 ~ C> 800 600 400 2
Page 206 and 207: Most interventions involving green
Page 208 and 209: ~ ~~----.-~r-~-------------r~~ Aoo
Page 210 and 211: stover N, followed by after pigeon
Page 212 and 213: tems in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Procee
Page 214 and 215: 1965). The tailings and AgLi were a
Page 216 and 217: The significant soybean yield could
Page 218 and 219: twice the yield is necessary. We ha
Page 220 and 221: Table 1. Maize and Grain Legumes Pr
Page 222 and 223: Recommendations and Conclusion In v
Page 224 and 225: performance of private sector compa
Page 226 and 227: the investment costs incurred. The
Page 228 and 229: Results and Planning Workshop. Soil
Page 231 and 232: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LEGUME
Page 233 and 234: Table 1. Gross margins from the dif
Page 235 and 236: Abstract LINKING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP
Page 237 and 238: 3. If households are linked to prod
Page 239 and 240: Table 9. Average Table 8. Pigeonpea
Page 241 and 242: ance of sorghum-pigeonpea intercrop
Page 243: Mligo, J.K., 1995. Pigeonpea breedi
Page 246 and 247: To Charles Nhemachena, et al. Q: 1)
Page 248 and 249: • Assessment of the potential ben
Page 252 and 253: • Conduct more research to measur
Page 254: Socio-Economics, Policy and Technol
show all

Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in ... - cimmyt

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?