University of Nigeria Virtual Library

Serial No

Author 1

MBAH B. N.

Author 2

Author 3

Title

Introducing A New Crop: The Effect of Land Preparation and Cropping System on Yield of

Soybean, (Glycine Max (L.) MERR.) Keywords

Description

Introducing A New Crop: The Effect of Land Preparation and Cropping System on Yield of

Soybean, (Glycine Max (L.) MERR.)

Category

Agriculture

Publisher

Publication Date

1994

Signature

INTRODUCING A NEW'CROP: THE EFFECT OF LAND PREPARATION AND .CROWING SYSTEM ON YlELD

OF SOYBEAN, (GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERR.) ,

B.N. MBAH Department of Crop Science University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 1994

PREFACE

IEetwwn 1091 m d 1994, !he University a l Nigeria participated in a national

coord i1 i~ l t r~1 r iwarch project o n soy bean utilization. The projecl lillud IDRCAITA

Soybean utiliration project phase II involved a mirltidisciplinary team consisting of'a

socio-rnmnrnr~t, an agronomist, a nutritionist, and 3 food technolog~st. The focus of the

project was oxp,lrlsion of procfuclion and utilization of soybean. As the dgronornist in the

tcam I worked with t t i ~ farmcr~ tu teach them how to grow soybean from planting to Y

harvc.\ring.

In th is n~onograf~h, is h e report of the effcct of land preparation and cropping

5 y t i 1 r n on y ~ ~ l r l uf suybean. It i l h u p d that this initiai work will be of v,ilue t t l farmers,

students, wac-hrrs md all who m,ly wish to grow scq4can and help improve the protein

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The autho r wishes to aclinowledge IURC/IITA,for the SI Jppart in doin$ this work

and my colleagurs in the team Mrs, N.6. Onah, Mrs. N.], Enwere ,and Dr (Mrs.) A.C.

Uwaegbu re. .

Thp ~rlitoriat comments of Dr. KiE. Dashiell of IlTA lbadan is also appreciated.

ABSTRACT

Soybean was grown as a sole crop or intercropped with maize or cassava, on flats

or riders, in a randomized complcte block design with three replications. Land

preparation and cropping system did not affect number of nodes per plant, and seeds per

pod but land prqnration alfwtrr! number of pods per plant. Soybean seed i ie ld was

not significantly affected by land preparation but by:c.ropping system. Sole cropped

soybean significantly (P = 0.5) outyielded intercropped soybean in terms of seed yield

per hcc~arc. Total gross return from all- harvcstcd crops was highest for soybean +

cassava followed by sole soybcan and lastly soyl~rari + maize. Land Equivalent Ratio

. (LER) for yiold (grain and tuber) soybean + cassava, soybean + maize and cassava +

maim were 1.93, 1.02 and 1.59 respectively. Soybean can be produced on flats or

ridges without any rrduction .in yield. $bean + late maize is not advisable without

adcquntr [ m t control on maize. ?

, INTRODUCTION

I

Soybean has hPcn grown only sporadically in Enugu State although there is

indication that some towns that border with Benue State have grown it more consistently.

The promotion of utilization of soybean in rural communities will be enhanced i f the

crop is grown by them. During our baseline survey the people at the project site insisted

that thry \)P givrn soybean seed and taught how to grow the crop since they were

farmers. This study was designed to investigate the effect of two land preparations -

ridge and flat, and six cropping systems on the yield of soybean and income from them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A plot o l I;ml measuring 29.5 x 3'4.5m was cleared and the thrash removed and

t~urnctl. Individi~al plots 5 x 4m were tbcn markctl out. The cxpcrimcnt consisted of \

v

two land pwparatinns viz. ridgc and flat, and six cropping systems namely; sole soybean,

sole m;1i7r, solr cassava, soyhean + maize, soybcan + cassava and maize + cassava. '

The 2 x G factorial experiment was replicated three times in a randorhized complete . I

block design. 1 he detail of the spacingrand plant populations are shown in Table'l.

Table 1.

Cropping Syster

Sole Soybem

Sole Maize

Between Row and within Row Spacings and Plant Populations among the Cropping Systems

n Row Spacing Within Rows No of No. of Plants/l- Planls/Plor

nnn ~ n n nnn

Sole Casswd

Soybean + Maize

Soybean + Cassava

Maizc + Cassava

1 rn apart, 4 raws/plot

Maize 1 n1 apart, soybcw between rows

r~~,rize, ~i rows of ~ n a i z e 3 rows o l soybean

Cassava 1 ni apart soyhean between rows o i soybean

Maize W.4rn, 12 stanch'row 1 f)lnn~/stand. ~Soyt,c'lll 0.051ll 1 OO stands/row

Cassava I rn 5 standslrow soybean 0.0511) 100 standslrow -

Maize 48 + Maize 24,000 + Soybean 300 Soybean 150,000

Cassava 20 + 10,000 + 400,000 Soybean 800

Cassava 1 rn apqrt Maize Cassava l rn, 5 stands, 20 + 32 10,000 + 16,000 1 m apdrt row Maize I rn, at 2

plantslstand . .

2

The soybean, maize and cassava were all planted at the same time on 16th July, 1992.

Plo~s were fertilized about three weeks after plant-ing at the rate of 20Ukdha of 15-1 5-1 5

fertilizer applied in rows alongside the.crops rows. Furadan was applied only to maize,

to r d u c e corn borer problem. The plots were weeded as necessary. The maize cobs r

> v

and goybeans were harvested at-the same time. Soybean harvest was threshed and

winnowed. Samples were taken from the middle rows for total dry weight determination

at 14°/,, moisture content. Maize was dehusked and yield of dry cob was determined

after drying in an oven at 70°C. Cassava tuber was harvested after 12 months and fresh -

weight determined. For the soybeans, number of nodules/plant, number of seed/pod and

The Land Equivalent Ratios '(LER) were calculated for the various crop

combinations using the formula . .

~ l l p r p Y,' - yield of crop i in the intercrqr

Y," = yield of Crop i in the monncrop

n = total number of crops in the association

Gross return was calculated .according to Baten et a1 (1992) where gross return

( W ) = physical yield x product price.

RESClI T AN13 IIISCUSSION

Grain yield of soybean was not significantly affected by the land preparation but

there were significant differences among the cropping systems at (P - 0.5) (Table 2).

Table 2: Effect of Land Preparation and crop~ping System on Yield of Soybean

Land Preparation ' Tonnedhn Tonnedha

1. Flat 1.31~1 -

2. Ridge' 1.34a -

Cropping System

1. Sole Soybean - 1.86a

2. lntercropped with maize

3. Intercropped with - 1.23b Cassava

Figr~rcs followcd by same'letter on same cohmn not significant (P = 0.05) using DNMKT. r

Wrur:hca and ~ r n o l d (1985) reported that t i l l a ~ ~ l systems did not affect the yield of

soyhran after a swen year rotation studies. however Webber et a1 (1 987) concluded that

tillage affected soybean yields when rainfall was below averagd. They found out that - 0

s - und(1r limited moisture condition, soybean grown under no-tillage treatment had less

plant water srrrJss than those grown ~ n d e r conventional tillage, resulting in higher yields

undcir nn tillage. The rainfall Lyas normal in our growing situation hence there was no

diffcrcnce in our land preparation treatments. Sole cropped soybean produced the

highest soybean grain yield. Yield of soybean were similar when intercropped with .

maim or cassava. The higher yield of sole soybean could not be accounted for entirely

by soybean plant population because soybean intercropped with cassava had same r

soybcw-I pol)ulation as sole cropped'.soybean yet at yielded significantly lower. The

lower yictld in the intercrops could therefore b c l attributed to some form of dompetition

wilh t h ~ companion crop. The interaction of land preparation and cropping sistem was

not qignificant.

Gross wturn from seybean (Table 3) followed similar pattern as yield, with sole

\

crop earning ihe highest return. t

Table 3: Effect of Land Preparation and Cropping System on the Cross Return (N) per ha from Sole Soybean and lntercrops

1. Flat

2. Ridge

Cropping Systc-lrn

1. Sole Soybean

Land Preparation Soybean Maize . * Cassava Total

18,566.67a

2. Intercr-opped with Maize 8,850.00b

Intercropped ~v i th Cassava . 1 i,950.00b

NS = Nor s ig~~ i f i can t (P = 0.05) Figuros followed by'same letter not significant (P = 0.05) using DNMRT.

Howevrr, the total gross return from the intercrop when all the harvested crops were

considered was highest with cassava infercrop. The maize + soybean intercrop was less

than the sole cropped soybean. The second crop of maize has been reported to yield

lower than thc llrst planting, due to high disease incidence, (Obi, 1981). It is therefore

not strange for soybean + maize to have done poorly. in this study the incidence of the

stem borer on r-naizc was.high and yield was low. The LER of the three intorcropping

systems involving soybean were as follows:

soybean + maize 1.02, soybean + cassava 1.93 and maize + cassava 1.59. Land

preparation and intercropping system'did not significantly affect nodules per plant, and

seed per pod. 13ul land preparation affected podlplant significantly at P = 0.05, soybean

on flat5 produced more podlplant th;ln those on ridges. Intercropping system did not

affect pods produced per plant.

From this study we can conclude that planting on ridges had no advantage over

planting on flats. Fclrmers can therefore plant on any land preparation method without

5

reduction in yield. Intercropping soybean with cassava is very good economically.

Soybean can also be intercropped with corn but requires that ample pest control . .

measures he mountcd and since this i s not at the easy reach of most of the farmers, other

. systems may be tried. This is the subject of the next season's experimentation of +

sequential cropping involving early maize and soybean in the late season. Intercropping

with maizc will also require adequate fertilization since it affects the yield of both when

(intercropped) as suggested by the stildy of Senaratae et a1 1993.

REFERENCES

Baten, M.A., Agboola and .H.J.W. Mustsaers, 1992. An exploratory survey of soybean production in Adq~e, Nigeria. In: Mulongoy, K, M. Gueye and D.S.C. Spene ( ( ~ 1 s . ) Biology Nitrogcn fixation and Sustainhility of Tropical Agricc~Ituw pp. 333- j4%. J o l l ~ l Willcly. Wosl Susscx U.K.

Mead, R. and R.W. Willey 1980. he concept of Land Equivalent Ratio and advantages in yields from intercropping. Expt. Agric. 16: 2'1 7-228.

Obi, I.U., 1987. Diseases and Pests problem of late season maize (Zea mays I.) in relation to time of planting at the Nsukka plains of south eastern Nigeria. E. Afr.

. Agric. For J. 53: 1-1 1. ,

Senaratne, R., N.D.L. Liyanage and D.S. Rathnasinghe 1993. Effect of K on nitrogen C~xi~r~on of Intorcrop groundnut and the compcltition between int~rcrop groundnut Maize fertilizer Research 34: 9-14.

Wehl~cr, C.I.. Ill, M.R. Grbhardt and 1-i.D. Kcrr., 1987. Effect of tillage on soybean growth and seed production. Agronomy Journal 79: 952-956.

Wruckcb, MA. L\~\d W.1:. Arnold, 1985. tho olfecl of three t~lldge systems on soil rjrolwrtics L~n t l corn and wybcm grow~h. Proceeding of thc South Dakotd Academv of Science. 64: 197-207.