Maize response to macronutrients and potential for profitability in sub-Saharan Africa

Kihara, Job; Huising, Jeroen; Nziguheba, Generose; Waswa, Boaz S.; Njoroge, Samuel; Kabambe, V. H.; Iwuafor, E. N. O.; Kibunja, C.N.; Esilaba, Anthony O.; Coulibaly, Adama

doi:10.1007/s10705-015-9717-2

Cited by 67 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, delineating the type of maize responses clearly separates sites where NPK amendments can be recommended from those that still require further attention. In agreement with Kihara, et al [70] substantiating the highly variable profitability of fertilizer use helps farmers to make well-informed decisions on fertilizer use.…”

Section: Economic Benefit From Npk Amendments For Maize Grain Productionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Maize (Zea mays L.) Response to Secondary and Micronutrients for Profitable N, P and K Fertilizer Use in Poorly Responsive Soils

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deficiencies of secondary and micronutrients (SMNs) are major causes of low maize yields in poorly responsive soils. This phenomenon minimizes the agronomic efficiency of N, P and K fertilizers and consequently result in a dwindling economic benefit associated with their use. Therefore, 18 on-farm trials were conducted in western Kenya during two cropping seasons to assess maize response to three NPK amendments; (i) N, P, K, Ca, Zn and Cu (inorganic and organic); (ii) N, P, K, Ca, Zn and Cu (inorganic) and (iii) N, P K, Zn and Cu (inorganic) and evaluate the profitability of their use compared to additions of only N, P and K fertilizers. In this set of experiments, maize response to any amendment refers to a yield increase of ≥2 t ha −1 above control and could be categorized in three clusters. Cluster 1, comprising of nine sites, maize responded to all amendments. Cluster 2, holding six sites, maize responded only to one amendment, N, P, K, Ca, Zn and Cu (inorganic). In this cluster, (2), emerging S, Mg and Cu deficiencies may still limit maize production. Cluster 3; consisting of three sites, maize responded poorly to all amendments due to relatively high soil fertility (≥17 mg P kg −1). Profitability of using NPK amendments is limited to Cluster 1 and 2 and the largest Value Cost Ratio (VCR) of 3.1 is attainable only when soil available P is below 4.72 mg kg −1. These variable responses indicate the need for developing site-specific fertilizer recommendations for improved maize production and profitability of fertilizer use in poorly responsive soils.

show abstract

Section: Economic Benefit From Npk Amendments For Maize Grain Productionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Maize (Zea mays L.) Response to Secondary and Micronutrients for Profitable N, P and K Fertilizer Use in Poorly Responsive Soils

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The observed response of maize yield to nitrogen application in farmers' fields in SSA is often less than expected based on data from on-farm trials (e.g. Kihara et al 2016;Vanlauwe et al 2011). Our alternative specifications were designed to shed light on possible interactions underlying such unexpected effects.…”

Section: Productivity and Efficiency Yield Gap Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the variability and causes of smallholder maize yield gaps in Ethiopia

Assefa¹,

Chamberlin

Reidsma³

et al. 2019

Food Sec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethiopia has achieved the second highest maize yield in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, farmers' maize yields are still much lower than onfarm and on-station trial yields, and only ca. 20% of the estimated water-limited potential yield. This article provides a comprehensive national level analysis of the drivers of maize yields in Ethiopia, by decomposing yield gaps into efficiency, resource and technology components, and accounting for a broad set of detailed input and crop management choices. Stochastic frontier analysis was combined with concepts of production ecology to estimate and explain technically efficient yields, the efficiency yield gap and the resource yield gap. The technology yield gap was estimated based on water-limited potential yields from the Global Yield Gap Atlas. The relative magnitudes of the efficiency, resource and technology yield gaps differed across farming systems; they ranged from 15% (1.6 t/ha) to 21% (1.9 t/ha), 12% (1.3 t/ha) to 25% (2.3 t/ha) and 54% (4.8 t/ha) to 73% (7.8 t/ha), respectively. Factors that reduce the efficiency yield gap include: income from non-farm sources, value of productive assets, education and plot distance from home. The resource yield gap can be explained by sub-optimal input use, from a yield perspective. The technology yield gap comprised the largest share of the total yield gap, partly due to limited use of fertilizer and improved seeds. We conclude that targeted but integrated policy design and implementation is required to narrow the overall maize yield gap and improve food security.

show abstract

“…The high cost of fertilizers and low value cost ratios (VCR; the economic value of increased crop yield divided by the cost of the fertilizer) for the use of fertilizers on cereal crops are a deterrent to their widespread use in sub-Saharan Africa (Kihara et al 2015). Part of the reason for the low VCR is that inappropriate fertilizer blends are recommended, resulting in lower yields and returns or higher costs if nutrients are applied that are not needed for the particular crop-soil.…”

Section: Making Nutrient Supply and Management Affordable In The Devementioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrients in the nexus

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer has enabled modern agriculture to greatly improve human nutrition during the twentieth century, but it has also created unintended human health and environmental pollution challenges for the twentyfirst century. Averaged globally, about half of the fertilizer-N applied to farms is removed with the crops, while the other half remains in the soil or is lost from farmers' fields, resulting in water and air pollution. As human population continues to grow and food security improves in the developing world, the dual development goals of producing more nutritious food with low pollution will require both technological and socioeconomic innovations in agriculture. Two case studies presented here, one in sub-Saharan Africa and the other in Midwestern United States, demonstrate how management of nutrients, water, and energy is inextricably linked in both small-scale and large-scale food production, and that science-based solutions to improve the efficiency of nutrient use can optimize food production while minimizing pollution. To achieve the needed large increases in nutrient use efficiency, however, technological developments must be accompanied by policies that recognize the complex economic and social factors affecting farmer decision-making and national policy priorities. Farmers need access to affordable nutrient supplies and support information, and the costs of improving efficiencies and avoiding pollution may need to be shared by society through innovative policies. Success will require interdisciplinary partnerships across public and private sectors, including farmers, private sector crop advisors, commodity supply chains, government agencies, university research and extension, and consumers.

show abstract

Maize response to macronutrients and potential for profitability in sub-Saharan Africa

Cited by 67 publications

References 21 publications

Maize (Zea mays L.) Response to Secondary and Micronutrients for Profitable N, P and K Fertilizer Use in Poorly Responsive Soils

Maize (Zea mays L.) Response to Secondary and Micronutrients for Profitable N, P and K Fertilizer Use in Poorly Responsive Soils

Unravelling the variability and causes of smallholder maize yield gaps in Ethiopia

Nutrients in the nexus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About