oyewole, c.i. okra-maize intercrop

1. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, Management and Development (IJAEMD). Vol 1: 136 - 145

1

ECONOMIC RETURNS ON MAIZE (Zea mays L.) - OKRA (Abelmoschus

esculentus (L.) Moench ) ENTERPRISE AS AFFECTED BY COMPONENT CROP ARRANGEMENT IN MIXTURE

OYEWOLE, C.I1 , AMHAKHIAN S.O2 and OTITOLAIYE, J.O3

1Department of Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kogi State, University,

P.M.B. 1008 Anyigba, Kogi State. Email: [email protected]: +2348069199992

2 Department of Soil and Environmental Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Kogi State, University, P.M.B. 1008 Anyigba, Kogi State. Email: [email protected]

+23408064469673 3 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture,

Kogi State, University, P.M.B. 1008 Anyigba, Kogi State. Email:[email protected]

+2348035989125

ABSTRACT In recent years, where hundreds of thousands of hectares of arable land have been lost to construction of modern highways, residential quarters and other infrastructure facilities in Nigeria, it appears that intercropping practices will continue to be intensified. Thus, trials conducted at the Kogi State University Teaching and Research Farm (Longitude 70 061N, 60 431E) Anyigba, Nigeria, in the Southern Guinea Savanna ecological zone (2005 and 2006 cropping seasons) investigated monetary returns that accrued to maize-okra intercrop at varying mixtures. The experiment, a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications had a variety of maize intercropped with a variety of okra at one stand of maize alternated with one stand of okra; one stand of maize alternated with two stands of okra; one row of maize alternated one row of okra; one row of maize alternated with two rows of okra in addition to sole crops. Results of statistical analysis revealed significant (P< 0.05) influence of crop combination on total number of okra pods harvested ha-1, total pod weight ha-1 and maize yield. The various crop combinations led to significant reduction in monetary returns that accrued to okra as sole crop. Generally, while intercropping favoured maize in respect of monetary returns obtained on this enterprise, okra was disadvantaged by intercropping. In all the systems investigated Land Equivalent Ratios (LERs) were less than unity except for 1:2 alternate rows. Thus, cropping maize and okra at 1:2 alternate rows is recommended for farmers engaged in this practice. This treatment also gave the least lost in combined monetary returns compared to sole okra. Keywords: intercrop, crop arrangement, monetary returns, enterprise, maize and okra


2

INTRODUCTION Edwards (1993) observed that researchers have previously assumed that sole cropping is

the ideal towards which African farmers should be moving. However, doubts have been

raised on whether it would be possible to introduce subsistence farmers to even rotational

system of agriculture based on sole crop stands so long as the hoe is the main agricultural

implement (Evans, 1960). Resources of most subsistence farmers cannot accommodate

the use of equipment and other inputs required to practice the kind of farming found on

research plots (Edwards, 1993). Yet, multiple cropping systems seem to be sustainable

even in the absence of such inputs. Thus, almost all crop production on small farms in the

tropics involved more than one crop specie (Giller, 1992). Multiple cropping offers

farmers the opportunity to engage nature’s principles of diversity on farms. However,

spatial arrangements of crops, sowing rates and crop maturity date are important

considerations when planning multiple cropping systems (Sulivan, 2010).

Planting patterns followed by subsistence farmers involved in multiple cropping

systems are complex and divers; varying from simple replacement mixtures to complex

superimposed mixtures. Olufajo (1995) observed that possible means for reduction in

competition for growth resources which occur in multiple cropping systems is through

manipulating the arrangement of the component crops. These components crops may be

planted either in alternate or intra row (Kumar, 1993; Odion, et al., 2000). Subsistence

farmers have come up with multiple crop combination patterns based on farming family

needs, or farming traditions. By combining crops of different growing periods, farmers

have developed highly diversified cropping patterns involving as many as five to six crop

combinations. However, two to three crop combinations are commonly observed on


3

farmers’ plots (Okigbo and Greenland, 1976; Steiner, 1982). When component crops in a

mixture compete equally with each other, the mixture can be assessed as being

compatible but when one crop dominates others in the mixture, such mixture may be

assessed as not compatible (Onakade, 1993). Norman (1974), observed that competition

for nutrients, space and light with other crops in the mixture and lower plant population

density of the crop when grown in mixture are possible explanations as to why yields of

most crops tend to be depressed when grown in mixture rather than sole stands. In crops

with different maturity dates, yield advantages accrued through a low intercrop

competition in space and time for the more rapidly growing early maturing component

and through a lower intercrop competition in space and time for the slow growing late

maturing components (Kassam, 1972). The component crops may use different parts of

the environment at different times and therefore affording one the advantage of the

environmental resources for growth and yield. The staggering of cropping sequence,

where farmers sow a cereal crop at the onset of rains at wide spacing and later a grain

legume is interplant between stands of the cereal crop gives rise to differential

competitive stress (Remison, 1982).

Generally, the interactions between crop and crop species in an intercrop has been

divided into competitive interactions in which the crops compete for the same resources;

and facilitative interactions in which one of the crop alters the environment of the other

in a positive way so as to benefit the growth of the other species (Van dermeer, 1989).

Most of the benefits of growing crops in intercrops come from the way they complement

each other in their exploitation of the environment. For instance, by rooting to different

depths or having leaf canopy at different heights (Giller and Wilson, 1991). In recent


4

years, where hundreds of thousands of hectares of arable land have been lost to

construction of modern highways, residential quarters and other infrastructure facilities in

Nigeria, it appears that intercropping practices will continue to be intensified (Udoh and

Ndaeyo, 2000).

Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L) Moench) is an important vegetable crop which

is grown and consumed throughout Nigeria (Chriso and Onuh, 2005; Katung and

Kashina, 2005). Both pods and leaves are edible. Pods are rich in vitamins and minerals

such as calcium and potassium. Seeds are rich in oil and contain about 20 per cent edible

oil. Okra has advantages over other vegetables because of its ability to produce fruits for

relatively long period and to grow all the year round with or without irrigation in the late

season. Maize is the third most important crop in the world after wheat and rice, covering

an area of 147 million ha and 692 million Mt (Elemo and Chobe 1995; Udoh and Ndaeyo

2000). Maize – okra intercrop is a common occurrence among farmers’ plots in the

Guinea savannah of Nigeria. Incorporating okra among maize stand offer farmers the

opportunity to improve not only their dietary intake but also their farm income. However,

the level of crop combination may influence the monetary returns that will accrue to

farmers - this research attempts a justification of this prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Trials were conducted at the Kogi State University Research Farm (Longitude 70 061N,

60 431E) Anyigba, Nigeria, in the Southern Guinea Savanna ecological zone, during 2005

and 2006 cropping seasons. The location of the site lies within the warm humid climate

of the North central zone of Nigeria with a clear distinctive dry and wet season


5

dichotomy, an average annual temperature of 27 0C with high level of uniformity through

out the year. Annual temperature does not usually exceed 38 0C, while annual rainfall of

approximately 1260 mm is common with peaks in the month of July and September. A

short dry spell in August marks the start of the second half of the rainy season.

The experimental site was ploughed and harrowed, without ridging, as seeds were

sown on the flat, spaced 25 x 75 cm for both maize and okra. Two seeds of both maize

and okra were sown per stand, which were latter thinned to one plant per stand two

weeks after sowing (2 WAS). Weed control was by the use of hoes and cutlasses at 2, 5

and 7 WAS. N.P.K (20:10:10) fertilizer was applied to maize stands 2 WAS at the rate of

70kg Nha-1, 35kg Pha-1 and 35kg Kha-1 using the ring method of fertilizer application.

Second application of urea 70kg Nha-1 was done just before maize heading. Fertilizer

was not applied directly to Okra crop, but in stand replacement treatment, incorporated

okra stands may have benefited from fertilizer applied to maize stands. The experiment, a

Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications had a variety of

maize (Obatanpa yellow) intercropped with a variety of okra (V.35) at one stand of

maize alternated with one stand of okra (1:1 alternate stands); one stand of maize

alternated with two stands of okra (1:2 alternate stands); one row of maize alternated one

row of okra (1:1 alternate rows); one row of maize alternated with two row of okra (1:2

alternate rows) in addition to sole maize and okra.

Data collected on okra include height of plant; a measure of the plant from soil

surface to the tip of the tallest branch; secondly, number of leaves; a measure of number

leaves in five sampled plants and yield related parameters, such as weight of harvested

okra pods ha-1, pod length and diameter. While data collected on maize crop include


6

plant height, number of leaves and fresh cob yield. Collected data were subjected to

analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Microcomputer Statistical Programme (MSTAT)

MSU (Michigan State University) (1985). Treatment means found to be statistically

significant were compared using the Least Significant Difference described by Gomez

and Gomez (1984). Presented in this article are yield related parameters with the

economic implications, such as returns on each enterprise as affected by component crop

arrangement.

Economic implication of intercropping maize with okra, as in this trial was

reached based on the assumption that intercropping allows farmers to grow various crops

on a piece of land without necessarily preparing another land (Steiner, 1982) or incurring

additional cost. Where stand substitution method is employed in intercropping as in this

trial, no additional cost is incurred on land preparation and field maintenance, as a result

of intercropping, compared to sole cropping. The only possible additional cost would

have been from the sowing of secondary crop, in this case okra, in the mixture. However,

as the mixtures investigated employed replacement method; that is substituting maize

stands or rows for okra stands or rows, this did not attract additional cost. Based on the

assumption that all mixtures received the same inputs as in sole plots, the economic

implication of this treatment took cognizance of only monetary returns to each enterprise,

while being silent on input cost. Returns on okra enterprise was calculated based on an

average of $4.31 of okra pods kg-1 (ADC Commercialization Bulletin #7), while maize

enterprise was based on an average of $171.43 of maize grains ton-1 (Weekly Maize Price

Bulletin 18th Jan. 2008). Thus, economic returns to the enterprise was derived as in the

formulae:


7

Rm = Ym x Cm

RO = YO x CO

Where Rm = Revenue that accrued to maize ($) Ym = Yield of maize per ha (Kg) Cm of maize per kg Ro = Revenue that accrued to okra ($) Yo = Yield of okra per ha (Kg) Co = Cost of okra per kg ($)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Effect of component crop arrangement on component yield:

Records of 6 harvests reveal that total number of okra pods harvested ha-1 (Table 1) and

total pod weight ha-1 (Table 2), were significantly (P<0.05) influenced by the

arrangement of the components in the mixture, however, pod length (Table 3) and

diameter (Table 4) did not respond significantly (P>0.05) to crop arrangement among the

mixtures. The highest number of okra pods harvested ha-1 (approximately 129,333 and

92,857 in 2005 and 2006, respectively) and the total pod yield ha-1 (4,356.83 and

4,198.35 kg, respectively in 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons) were obtained in sole plot,

which was significantly reduced when intercropped with maize. The lowest total okra

yield ha-1 was observed in 1:1 alternate stands. Reduction in pod number and harvest ha-1

resulting from intercropping was basically due to reduced okra population in the

mixtures. However, the goal is ensure that whatever is lost to intercropping is

complimented for the combined yields of the components of mixtures.

In respect of the maize component, analysis data revealed that fresh cob and grain

yield (Table 5) were significantly (P<0.05) influenced by the crop combination, while

shelling percentage did not respond significantly (P>0.05) to the treatment investigated.


8

The highest fresh cob yield (122,266.59 kg ha-1) and grain yield (5,660.86 kg ha-1) were

observed in sole plot, which was significantly reduced when intercropped with okra.

Reduction in fresh maize yield and grain yield as a result of intercropping was basically

due to reduction in maize population in the intercrops rather than any other factor. LER

values were less than unity (LER<1) in all the treatments, except in 1:2 alternate rows

(Table 6). There was a drastic reduction in okra yields as a result of intercropping with

maize compared to the sole crop. This reduction could not be compensated for by the

combined intercrop yields in most of the treatments investigated. Therefore, for all the

treatments, except 1:2 alternate rows, the combinations were not advantageous, thus not

recommended. LER value was greater than unity (LER>1) at 1:2 alternate rows, thus the

system was advantageous (Table 6). The greater than unity (LER>1) LER value obtained

in this treatment is an indication of higher biological efficiency of the mixture, due to

better utilization of environmental factors (Willey, 1979) compared to other treatments.

Economic implication of maize-okra enterprise as affected by crop combination:

Generally, intercropping allows farmers to grow various crops on a piece of land without

necessarily preparing another land (Steiner, 1982) or incurring additional costs. Where

substitution method is employed in intercropping as in this trial, no additional cost is

incurred on land preparation and field maintenance, as a result of intercropping,

compared to sole cropping. The only possible additional cost would have been from the

sowing of secondary crop, in this case okra, in the mixture. However, as the mixtures

investigated employed replacement method; that is substituting maize stands or rows for

okra stands or rows, this did not attract additional cost. Based on the assumption that all


9

mixtures received the same inputs as in sole plots, the economic implications of this

treatment took cognizance of only monetary returns to each enterprise, while being silent

on input cost.

Based on an average of $4.31 of okra pods kg-1 (ADC Commercialization

Bulletin #7), the highest amount that accrued to okra enterprise was obtained in sole

cropped okra ($ 18,436.41), while the least amount was in 1: 1 alternate stand ($507.50).

This observed reduction in monetary returns to okra in mixture resulted from reduction in

okra population compared to sole plots. Norman (1974), had observed that among other

factors, lowered plant population density of the crop when grown in mixture are possible

explanations as to why yields of most crops tend to be depressed when grown in mixture

rather than sole stands. This depression in yield will often give the farmer less outputs for

sale, thus lowering monetary returns on such an enterprise. However, such lowering of

monetary returns when compensated for by combined mixture earnings make the

enterprise advantageous. For all the mixtures investigated, intercropping led to

significant reduction in monetary returns on okra compared to sole okra (Table 7).

Relative to monetary returns obtained on sole okra, intercropping okra with maize was

disadvantageous, yielding negative effects for all the mixtures, with the worst observed

intercrop effect in 1:1 alternate stand (-$17,310.34). The implication of this is that,

farmers focused on improving their earnings, incorporating maize into the enterprise will

depress income.

Considering the maize enterprise, based on an average of $171.43 of maize grains

ton-1 (Weekly Maize Price Bulletin 18th Jan. 2008), the highest returns to maize was also

obtained in sole maize enterprise ($970.44), with the least monetary returns to maize in


10

mixtures observed in 1: 1 alternate row. However, relative to sole maize enterprise,

intercropping was advantageous in all the mixtures, with the best result observed in 1:2

alternate row ($10,290.43). The implication of this observation is that, incorporating okra

into maize enterprise will boost income that will have accrued to farmers involve in

maize growing, contrary to what happened in okra enterprise.

CONCLUSION Trials were conducted at the Kogi State University Research Farm (Longitude 70 061N,

60 431E) Anyigba, Nigeria, in the Southern Guinea Savanna ecological zone during 2005

and 2006 cropping seasons. The experiment, a Randomized Complete Block Design with

three replications had a variety of maize intercropped with a variety of okra at one stand

of maize alternated with one stand of okra; one stand of maize alternated with two stands

of okra; one row of maize alternated one row of okra; one row of maize alternated with

two rows of okra in addition to sole crops. Results of statistical analysis reveal significant

(P< 0.05) influence of crop combination on total number of okra pods harvested ha-1,

total pod weight ha-1 and maize yield. It was observed that intercropping involving

maize: okra should avoid treatments that impose greater shading on the okra component

as observed in alternate stand arrangements. Where maize – okra system is practised, the

option should be on alternate rows rather than alternate stands, preferably 1:2 alternate

rows, which gave marginal advantage (1 per cent) in this study. While intercropping

favours maize in respect of monetary returns obtained on this enterprise, it is a

disadvantage to okra.


11

REFERENCES ADC Commercialization Bulletin #7. www.foodnet cgaiar.org./../okra PDF/14:07:20:10 Christo, E.I. and M.O. Onuh (2005). Influence of plant spacing on the growth and yield

of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L) Moench). Proceeding of the 39th

Conference

of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria, Benin 2005 pp51 -53 Edwards, R. (1993). Traditional systems and farming systems research In: Dry Land

Farming in Africa (Rowland, J. ed). Macmillan Education Ltd., London, and Basing stoke, 336 pp

Elemo, K. A. and S. M. Chobe (1995). Maize / sorghum mixture as affected by crop

proportion, stand arrangement and maize variety. Samaru Journal of Agricultural

Research 12:67-76 Evans, A. C. (1960). Studies of inter cropping I. Maize or sorghum with groundnuts. East

African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 26:1-10 Giller K. E. (1992). Measuring inputs from nitrogen fixation in multiple cropping

systems. In: Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Sustainability of Tropical

Agriculture (Mulongoy K. M.; Gueye, M. and spencer, D. S. C. eds). Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the African Association for Biological Nitrogen Fixation (AABNF), held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria, 24-28 Sept. 1990. John Wiley and Son, United Kingdom, p 297-308

Giller, K. E. and K. J. Wilson (1991). Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems.

CAB International. Oxon, U.K, 313pp Hay, R. K. M. and J. A. Walker (1989). An Introduction to the Physiology of Crop Yield.

Long man Group UK. Ltd., 292 pp. Kassam, A. H. (1972). Crops of West African Semi-Arid Tropics. In: Aliyu, U. (2001).

Varietal response to spacing and effects of applied phosphorus and manure on the growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), M. Sc dissertation presented to Crop Science Dept. Faculty of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodiyu University, Sokoto, 106 pp

Katung, M.D. and B. D. Kashina (2005). Time of partial defoliation and GA3 effects on

growth indices and yield of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L) Moench) Proceeding of the 39

th Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria, Benin

2005 pp210-213


12

Kumar, V. (1993). Crop production in West African dry lands. In: Dry Land Farming in

Africa (Rowland, J. R. J. ed). Macmillan Education Ltd, London and Basing stoke, 336pp

Norman, D. W. (1974). Rationalizing mixed cropping under indigenous conditions. The

example of northern Nigeria. Journal of Development Studies 11(1): 3-21 Odion, E. C.; Y. Yusuf and D. A. Labe (2000). Performance of millet and cowpea in

mixed stands in the Sudan savanna of Nigeria. Samaru Journal of Agriculture

Research 16:53-62

Okigbo, B. N. and D. J. Greenland (1976). Inter cropping systems. In: Multiple Cropping

Special Publication (Papendrid, R. J.; P. A. Sanchez and G. B. Triplet ed) 27: 63-101

Olufajo, O. O. (1995). Sorghum / Soya bean intercropping as affected by cultivars and

plant arrangement in sub humid tropical environment. Samaru Journal of

Agricultural Research 12: 3-11 Onakade, A. D. (1993). Inter crops comparative ratio for the evaluation of crop

compatibility in crop mixtures Samaru Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 13-14

Michigan State University (1985). Microcomputer statistical programme Pierce, F. J. and R. Lal (1994). Monitoring impact of soil erosion on crop productivity.

Soil Erosion Research Methods (Lal, R. ed). Soil Water and Conservation Society. USA, p235 -263

Remison, S. U. (1982). Interaction between maize and cowpea sown simultaneously and

at intervals in a forest zone of Nigeria. India Journal of Agricultural Science 52(8): 500-505

Steiner, K. G. (1982) Intercropping in the Tropical Small -holder Agriculture with

Special Reference to West Africa. German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Postfash 5180, D-Eschborn / TS. 1. 303 pp

Sulivan, P. (2010). Intercropping principles and production practices.

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/intercrop.htm1 14pp Udoh, A. J. and N. U. Ndaeyo (2000). Crop productivity and land use efficiency in

cassava-maize system as influenced by cowpea and melon populations. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 77 (6); 141-150


13

Van dermeer, H. G. (1989). Effective use of nitrogen on grassland farms. Occasional symposia of the British Grass land society. 14; 61-8

Weekly Maize Price Bulletin 18th Jan. 2008 www.google.com /14:07:2010 Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping - its importance and research needs part 1.

Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstr 32 (1): 1-10.


14

Table 1: Effect of crop combination on number of harvested okra pods in 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons

Treatment Number of pods harvested ha-1

2005 2006 Mean

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 45,083.32c 50,718.74c 47,901.03c 1:2 alternate stand 37,999.98d 47,749.98d 40,374.98d 1:1 alternate row

49,195.75b 51,889.23b 50,542.49b

1:2 alternate row 24,201.01e 26,301.33e 25,251.17e Sole Okra 129,333.31a 92,857.10a 111,095.21a SE± 122.568 126.984 119.886

Treatment means within the same column followed by unlike letter are statistically significant at 5% Table 2: Effect of crop combination on pod yield of okra in 2005 and 2006 cropping

seasons

Treatment (kg ha-1)

2005 2006 Mean

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 101.49d 133.66d 117.75d 1:2 alternate stand 132.13d 167.69d 149.91d 1:1 alternate row 2,472.18b 2,562.36b 2,517.27b 1:2 alternate row 1,286.52c 1,333.23c 1,309.88c Sole Okra 4,356.83a 4,198.35a 4,277.59a SE± 44.668 68.992 55.664

Treatment means within the same column followed by unlike letter are statistically significant at 5% Table 3: Effect of crop combination on pod length in 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons

Treatment Mean pod length (cm)

2005 2006 Mean

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 3.84 3.42 3.63 1:2 alternate stand 3.41 3.76 3.59 1:1 alternate row 3.36 4.55 3.96 1:2 alternate row 3.39 4.75 4.07 Sole Okra 3.52 4.16 3.84 SE± 0.881 ns 0.556 ns 0.661 ns

ns. not significant at 5% probability


15

Table 4 Effect of crop combination on mean pod diameter in 2005 and 2006 cropping seasons

Treatment Mean pod diameter (cm)

2005 2006 Mean

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 4.10 3.92 4.01 1:2 alternate stand 4.65 4.04 4.35 1:1 alternate row 5.12 4.53 4.83 1:2 alternate row 4.36 3.90 3.41 Sole Okra 4.00 5.06 4.53 SE± 0.556 ns 0.886 ns 0.772 ns

ns. not significant at 5% probability Table 5: Effect of crop combination on mean yield of maize in two cropping seasons

Treatment Fresh cob yield (kg ha-1)

Shelling percentage

Grain yield (kg ha-1)

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 10,088.75c 66.33 3,608.31c 1:2 alternate stand 9,370.03b 64.11 4,722.67b 1:1 alternate row 5,333.40d 65.11 2,400.03d 1:2 alternate row 3,674.14e 67.32 1,579.87e Sole maize 12,266.59a 62.23 5,660.86a SE± 23.568 4.691 ns 115.363

Treatment means within the same column followed by unlike letter are statistically significant at 5%


16

Table 6: Effect of crop combination on mean yield and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) in

two cropping seasons

Treatment (kg ha-1) LER

Okra Maize

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 117.75d 3,608.31c 0.67 1:2 alternate stand 149.91d 4,722.67b 0.87 1:1 alternate row 1,309.88c 1,579.87e 0.59 1:2 alternate row 2,517.27b 2,400.03d 1.01 Sole crop 4,277.59a 5,660.86a SE± 55.664 115.363

Treatment means within the same column followed by unlike letter are statistically significant at 5% Table 7: Economic Returns on maize-okra the enterprise as affected by crop combination

in Anyigba, Kogi State

Treatment Monetary Returns (S) Okra @

$4.31/kg Maize @ $171.43/ton

Combined Earning

Relative to sole Okra

Relative to sole Maize

Cropping pattern (Maize: Okra) 1:1 alternate stand 507.50 618.57 1126.07 -17,310.34 (+)155.63 1:2 alternate stand 646.11 809.61 1455.72 -16,980.69 (+)485.28 1:1 alternate row 5645.58 270.84 5916.42 -12,519.99 (+)4945.98 1:2 alternate row 10,849.43 411.44 11,260.87 -7175.74 (+)10,290.43 Sole crop 18,436.41 970.44 19,406.90

Computed from the data collected.

oyewole, c.i. okra-maize intercrop

Documents