last final thesis of umer

Recommendations

Info

The data for LER (1.302) in Table 14 showed that intercropping gave 30% advantage in efficientlyutilizing land than planting the crops sole. The sole cropping of either maize or cowpea wouldrequire 0.30 more unit of land to get the same yield obtained from the intercropping system. Thisresult agreed with the report of Chemeda (2003) who found up to 28% higher total productivityincrease of maize-bean intercropping compared with pure stand. Likewise, Getachew et al. (2013)also reported that intercropping gave a 45%, 29%, and 21% yield advantages than planting solecrops on maize-forage legumes (vetch and lablab) intercropping system. These values wereachieved when vetch was row-sown at 50% seed rate of its sole followed by vetch broadcast at thesame rate and lablab broadcast at 75% seed rate of its sole.4.5. Economic AnalysisIn economic analysis the 13 treatments were tested, 10 treatments were dominated and excludedfrom the marginal analysis (Table 16).Table 16.Dominance analysis of the treatment combinationsTreatmentTVC Net benefit Dominance analysiscombinationsSOLE-kenketi 2300 44226.7 DominatedSOLE-Black 2300 34325.2 DominatedSOLE-Bole 2300 38761.9 DominatedSLOE-M 4500 64425.16 DominatedM+Kenketi-50% 5500 45296.67 DominatedM+Bole-50% 5500 28693.32 DominatedM+Black-50% 5500 35986.97 DominatedM+Kenketi-75% 5800 67779.31 Non-dominatedM+Bole 75% 5800 39153.69 DominatedM+Black-75% 5800 49550.47 DominatedM+Kenketi-100% 6100 69264.81 Non-dominatedM+Bole-100% 6100 31172.7 DominatedM+Black-100% 6100 69264.81 Non-dominated61
The highest net benefit (69,264.81 Birr/ha) were obtained from combination of maize with 100%population density of cowpea, variety Kenketi followed by maize intercropped with 75%population density of the same variety (67779.31 Birr/ha) and combination of maize with 100% ofcowpea black eye bean variety (66823.49 Birr/ha)(Table 17).The highest net benefit (69264.81) was obtained from combination of maize with 100% populationdensity of cowpea, kenketi variety and suggests that for each ETB invested in maize productionby intercropping with cowpea, Kenketi variety at 100% plant density, the producer will get ETB4.95 after recovering the investment.Table 17.The marginal rate of return of maize, cowpea varieties and plant density combinations.Non dominatedTreatments Incremental cost (Birr/ha) incremental benefits (Birr/ha) (MRR %)Maize+ Kenketi100% 6100 69264.81 4.95Maize + Kenketi 75% 5800 67779.31 3.18Maize + Black 100% 6100 66823.4962
Page 1 and 2:
MEKELLE UNIVERSITYCoDANRYield and E
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACTA field experiment was cond
Page 5 and 6:
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHThe author, Omar
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTSDECLARATION.......
Page 9 and 10:
4.1.2 Soil analysis after Harvestin
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.Ethio-maize
Page 13 and 14:
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSA
Page 15 and 16:
Cowpea is tolerant to a wide range
Page 17 and 18:
1.3.2 Specific objectives1. To eval
Page 19 and 20:
around the world are planted under
Page 21 and 22:
2.3. Maize Production in EthiopiaEt
Page 23 and 24: Food products, like corn meal, corn
Page 25 and 26: 2.6. Origin, Distribution and World
Page 27 and 28: 2.8. Importance of IntercroppingCer
Page 29 and 30: (Rusinamhodzi et al., 2012). Simila
Page 31 and 32: Photo synthetically active radiatio
Page 33 and 34: usually reduces weed occurrence (Zu
Page 35 and 36: Ayisi, 2005). Higher plant densitie
Page 37 and 38: The Somali Regional State has a bim
Page 39 and 40: maize. The treatments combinations
Page 41 and 42: using a spectrophotometer (Olsen et
Page 43 and 44: For cowpeaNumber of pods per plant:
Page 45 and 46: Net benefit (NB): was calculated by
Page 47 and 48: Moreover, the pH value was 7.71, wh
Page 49 and 50: 2002). In addition to that, the dif
Page 51 and 52: allows sole crops to extend its veg
Page 53 and 54: cowpea increased, the height of the
Page 55 and 56: of ears per plant in intercropped m
Page 57 and 58: variety. This result was in conform
Page 59 and 60: The highest HI (47.86%) was recorde
Page 61 and 62: Table 10.Effects of densities and v
Page 63 and 64: Table 11.Interaction effect of the
Page 65 and 66: Table 12.Effects of component densi
Page 67 and 68: Significantly higher number of pods
Page 69 and 70: density of cowpea to 50%. This decr
Page 71 and 72: Harvest Index (%)Harvest index of c
Page 73: Tauro et al. (2013) showed that whe
Page 77 and 78: varieties and planting density of c
Page 79 and 80: Altieri, M.A., Glaser, D.L. & Schmi
Page 81 and 82: Chemeda F, 1996, Effect of bean and
Page 83 and 84: Demessew Mengesha,2002. Effect of p
Page 85 and 86: Florentine, S.K. & Fox, J.E.D., 200
Page 87 and 88: IPS (Industrial Project Service), 2
Page 89 and 90: Li L, Sun JH, Zhang FS, Li XL, Yang
Page 91 and 92: Africa and Australia. Eds: Whitebre
Page 93 and 94: Raji, J.A. (2007). Intercropping so
Page 95 and 96: Sisay, T., (2004).Effect of plantin
Page 97 and 98: USDA, 2016. United States Departmen
Page 99 and 100: APPENDIXESAppendix Table 1.Mean squ
Page 101 and 102: Appendix Table 5.Mean square values
Page 103 and 104: Experimental Photos90
Page 105: 92
show all

last final thesis of umer

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?