Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:18:26.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF USING MULCH FROM MULTI-PURPOSE TREES IN MAIZE-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN SOUTH-WESTERN NIGERIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1999

P. M. Kormawa ,
A. Y. Kamara ,
S. C. Jutzi  and
N. Sanginga
P. M. Kormawa
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences in the Tropics, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
A. Y. Kamara
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science, Witzenhausen, University of Kassel, Germany
S. C. Jutzi
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science, Witzenhausen, University of Kassel, Germany
N. Sanginga
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cutting and carrying of mulch from established tree plots is an alternative to in situ mulch in agroforestry systems. Through the cut-and-carry method, the undesirable effects of tree-crop competition characterized by in situ mulching can be avoided. An economic evaluation of the cut-and-carry method of providing nutrients for maize production was carried out based on investigations in south-western Nigeria. The results showed that the use of mulch from multi-purpose trees (MPTs) through the cut-and-carry method contributed to higher maize grain yields than those obtained with fertilizer or in the untreated controls. However, because of high labour requirements and scarcity of land in the study area, providing nutrients for crop production by this method is unprofitable both in the short and the long term. This may serve as a constraint for the adoption of this technology by farmers. Alternative options requiring less labour and land requirements should be investigated in the quest to replace shifting cultivation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
© 1999 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)