Agronomic and economic benefits of integrated nutrient management options for cowpea production
No Thumbnail Available
Cambridge University Press
The limitation of soil amendments and insufficient and irregular rainfall are the main factors accounting for the decline in crop yields in the Sahelian low-input cropping systems. This study explored the agro nomic and economic responses of integrated use of millet glume-derived compost with synthetic fertilizer in cowpea-based cropping system. A two-year field experiment was laid out as factorial design arranged in randomized complete blocks with three rates of compost (0, 4000, and 8000 kg ha−1) and three rates of recommended synthetic fertilizer (0, 50, and 100%). Cowpea grain yield increased markedly with com bined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer. The combined use of compost applied at 8000 kg ha−1 and 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer increased cowpea grain yield by 51% compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer. The rainwater use efficiency (RaUE) increased by 52 and 49% with the combined application of compost at 8000 kg ha−1 along with 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer when compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer in 2013 and 2014, respectively. All treatments induced a positive net income, and the highest value/cost ratio was achieved with combined application of compost and syn thetic fertilizer. This study highlights the possibility of improving cowpea productivity through combined use of composted locally available organic input with half of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer. This combination would reduce the investment in mineral fertilizer currently made by smallholder farmers in the Sahelian low-input cowpea cropping system and reduce environmental pollution resulting from the current practice of burning the millet glume.
This article is Published by Cambridge University Press 2020, and is also available at doi:10.1017/S0014479720000071
Experimental Agriculture (2020), 56, 440–452