1 YIELDS AND ECONOMIC RETURNS ON SORGHUM ENTERPRISE AS 2 AFFECTED BY VARYING LEVEL OF RICE INCLUSION IN THE SOUTHERN 3 GUINEA SAVANNAH

OF NIGERIA 4 5 OYEWOLE, C.I. 6 Department of Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kogi State University, P.M.B. 7 1008, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria 8 E-mail: oyewolecharles@yahoo.com 9 10ABSTRACT 11Multiple cropping offers farmers the opportunity to engage nature’s principles of 12diversity on farms. A field trial was conducted in Nigeria, investigated the yield and 13economic returns that accrued to sorghum and rice in sorghum – rice intercrop as 14affected by rice inclusion in the proportions: 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4, respectively for 15sorghum and rice. Analysis of yield data for both cropping seasons revealed 16significant influence of sorghum – rice intercrop on grain yields of sorghum and rice 17in mixtures. Observed average sorghum yield in sole plot was 1712.39 kg ha-1, which 18was progressively significantly decreased with progressive inclusion of rice rows 19from 1050.58 kg ha-1 (38.65 % yield reduction) in 1:1 sorghum – rice mixture to 20300.35 kg ha-1 (82.46% yield reduction) in 1:4 sorghum – rice mixture; while grain 21yields of sorghum decreased with progressive rice inclusion, grain yields of rice 22increased per hectare with progressive increase in rice rows from 1:1 to 1:4. 23Considering the economic implication of intercropping sorghum with rice, income that 24accrued to sole crops was significantly reduced with intercropping. While all the crop 25combinations investigated performed better than sole cropped sorghum (in terms of 26revenue generation), sole rice performed better than all the intercrops. The 27implication of this observation is that while sorghum is better intercropped with rice to 28improve revenue generation, rice is best as sole crop. In conclusion, in sorghum – 29rice intercrop, intercropping at 1:4 is recommended as this mixture gave best 30intercrop result in respect to monetary return relative to other mixtures. 31Key words: Intercropping, monetary returns, multiple cropping. Rice, sorghum, yield 32 33INTRODUCTION 34 35The deepening need for increasing productivity on farmers’ plots in the African 36continent will be met through better understanding of crop environment, particularly 37as it regard to multiple cropping systems, which offer farmers the opportunity to 38engage nature’s principles of diversity on farms. By combining crops of different 39growing periods, varying heights and varying uses, African farmers have evolved 40highly diversified cropping systems (Okigbo and Greenland, 1976; Steiner, 1982). 41However, spatial arrangements of crops, sowing rates and crop maturity date are 42important considerations when planning these multiple cropping systems (Sulivan, 432010). Generally, the rationale of intercropping lies in its beneficial effects. Besides 44allowing the farmer to grow various crops on a piece of land without necessarily 45preparing another land, an insurance against total crop failure, helping in the control 46of erosion, pests and diseases, it provides the farmer a variety of crops, thus 47improving his dietary intake (Kassam, 1972; Steiner, 1982; Langdale et al., 1992) 48and securing farmers income. Besides combined yield advantage that may come 49with multiple cropping, farmers should also be interested in the economic implication

1

1

percentage. Sorghum crop received fertilizer application: 64 kg N. Thus. 59Sorghum is no less important. rice is a common dietary staple in Nigeria and 55individuals now consumes 21 kg of rice annually. 13. Nigeria. two. 88 Data was collected on crop yield.what is the cost implication of such a system and the 51likely economic returns to the system. using row substitution method as 80reported by Yahaya et al. The fact that over 75 per cent of cultivated land in Nigeria is. made possible by the diversity of agro-ecological production systems 54(Rowland. 1:2. Tudu Uku. a common staple among the poor (noting that more 60than 70 per cent of the populace fall below the poverty line of one dollar a day) and 61drier part of the country. with an estimated 2. 1:3 79and 1:4 rows. 2004). Especially.50of the system they engaged in . yield implication of intercropping relative to 89sole cropping (kg ha-1). This research 66thus investigated the income that accrued to sorghum-rice enterprise in response to 67varying mixture combinations with the aim of finding the most profitable mixture 68combination for adoption by farmers. yield implication of intercropping relative to sole 90cropping.4 million tonnes of rice enters the country annually (Ukwungwu et al. (2005). (2005). Sorghum: SAMSORG 14 (KSV8). Longitude 70 501 390E) investigated the 74response of sorghum and rice to varying levels of intercropping. Three and six seeds of sorghum and rice respectively.2 85kg P and 26. rice variety: ITA 257 was dibbled 78between sorghum rows at 30 by 30 cm inter and intra row spacing at 1:1. derived as in the 95formulae: 96 R s = Ys x C s 97 Rr = Yr x Cr 98 Where Rs = Revenue that accrued to sorghum (N) 99 Ys = Yield of sorghum per ha (Kg) 2 2 .. An estimated 580. 1:2. sourced from the 76Institute for Agricultural research (IAR). 1:3 and 1:4. Field was plough. 69 70MATERIALS AND METHODS 71On farm trials conducted in 2006 and 2007 wet seasons in Loko. monetary implication of the cropping systems and monetary implication of 91intercropping relative to sole cropping. 52 The food sub-sector of Nigerian’s semi-arid agriculture parades a large array 53of cereal crops. 83were sown and thinned to one plant/stand of sorghum and four plant/stand of rice 84two weeks after sowing. respectively for sorghum and rice. 62 The importance of sorghum and rice in the diet of most Nigerians justify a 63study on these crops. 1993). representing 9% of total caloric 56intake and 23% of the total cereal consumption. justifies a study on multiple cropping system. Returns on sorghum enterprise was 92calculated based on an average of N50 kg-1 of grain sorghum as at October 2010 93while rice enterprise was based on an average of N140 kg-1 of rice grains kg-1 within 94the same period. Zaria was sown 25 by 90 cm intra and inter 77row for sole crop plots. Local 72Government Area of Nasarawa State. respectively in line 82with Yahaya et al. sown to 65more than one crop type. economic returns to the enterprise were. Southern guinea savanna agro73ecological Zone (Latitude 80 001 190N. 2004). One.1 million tonnes 57of rice consumed annually by the populace (Ukwungwu et al. while rice 86received 80 kg N as against the fertilizer rate given to sorghum with other nutrients 87maintained as in sorghum crop. For intercropped plots. three and four rows of sorghum stands 81were replaced with rice in the proportions of 1:1.4 kg K in two split doses at planting and 6 WAS to sorghum. Presently. 75harrowed without ridging. considering that rice have risen to a position of pre64eminence..

351.100 Cs of sorghum per kg 101 Rr = Revenue that accrued to rice (N) 102 Yr = Yield of rice per ha (Kg) 103 Cr = Cost of rice per kg (N) 104 105RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 106Analysis of yield data for both cropping seasons revealed significant influence of 107sorghum – rice intercrop on grain yields of sorghum and rice in various mixtures. 754.65% yield reduction) in 1:1 sorghum – rice mixture to 300. grain yield reduction was 38. Thus.39 kg ha-1. This fact is glaring when one observes the percentage yield reduction 123that accompanied progressive rice inclusion in the intercrop shown on Table 1. 2010). 137 Considering the economic implication of intercropping sorghum with rice.50).61% yield reduction). by N120.65%.35 kg 111ha-1 (82.374.80 less the 143return on sole cropped rice.529. 108Observed average sorghum yield in sole plot was 1712. N70. 619. 138income that accrued to sole crops was N85.047. Usually. With 1241:1 row mixture.812.80 in 1:3 crop combination while 1:4 cropping 146ratios recorded N111.46% yield reduction) in 1:4 sorghum – rice mixture (Table 1).00 less the return in sole plots. but rather the effect of reduced 118individual component crop population with intercropping (Oyewole. while the least revenue reduction was in 1:4 crop 149combination. the highest grain yields for both sorghum and rice were. 2004).50 and N196.260. While grain 112yields of sorghum decreased with progressive rice inclusion. 140The least monetary return on sorghum enterprise was in 1:4 cropping ratios (N15. However.58 kg ha-1 (38. observed reduction in individual crop is often over132matched. either as a result of profuse tiller formation or heavier seed 129weight. N 90. An 127indication that reduction in sorghum population must have prompted a boost in stand 128yields in the intercrops. the profitability of multiple cropping rests on the ability of the 130component crops to compensate for yield reduction through attainment of better 131combine yield. of profuse tiller formation with lowered population (Oyewole 122et al.80).80 145in 1:2 cropping ratios. Thus 1:1 cropping ratios recorded the highest revenue reduction in 148comparison with sole crops. It should 119be noted that in crops that tiller.60. which accompanies intercropping. which was 109progressively significantly decreased with progressive inclusion of rice rows from 1101050.60 reduction in income in comparison with sole crops 147(Table 3). Table 2 attempts an interpretation of what is contained on 135Table 1 in monetary terms. 114However. by the combined yields of component crops in the mixture.30 in 1:1 cropping ratios. 116 The observed yield reduction in the intercrops were not necessarily the result 117of reduction in yield capacity of individual stands. respectively 139for sorghum and rice. the differences in grain yields 126between 1:2 and 1:3 and between 1:3 and 1:4 row mixtures were less than 10%.10 which decreased by N123. which almost doubled with 1:2 125row mixtures (66. While all the crop combinations investigated performed better than sole 3 3 . Combined monetary return on sole crops was 144N282. by 123. 493. reduction in plant 120population. such as sorghum and rice. observed in sole 115plots. may actually boost yields of individual 121crop stands as a result. while the least monetary return on 142rice enterprise was in 1:1 crop combination (N106. Where this occurs. which significantly decreased with intercropping.. grain yields of rice 113increased per hectare with progressive increase in rice rows from 1:1 through to 1:4. 141017. which were significantly reduced with intercropping (Table 2). This is to give a common scale of measurement to this 136different enterprise upon which to assess enterprise profitability. 602. The combined 133effect of individual crop yield is difficult to quantify except where expressed in 134monetary terms.

Macmillan London Press Ltd pp68 – 198 94 199 4 4 . intercropping at 1:4 is recommended as this mixture gave 170best intercrop result in respect of monetary return relative to other mixtures. 154 155CONCLUSION 156Trial conducted in Nasarawa State. in 169sorghum – rice intercrop. Nigeria. 163 Considering the economic implication of intercropping sorghum with rice.. D. Usmanu Danfodiyo 192 University. In: Multiple 187 Cropping Special Publication (Papendrid. M. A. John Wiley and Son. rice is best as sole 153crop. 2001. held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). W. B. 181 and spencer. P. 164income that accrued to sole crops was significantly reduced with intercropping. In conclusion. Inter cropping systems. Principles of dry land farming.. Faculty of Agriculture. J.O 2010. S. J. Bruce 1992. d Thesis presented to Post-graduate school. 1990. J.I. Clark and R. B. Analysis of yield data for both cropping seasons revealed significant influence of 160sorghum – rice intercrop on grain yields of sorghum and rice. 195 Nigeria. While 165all the crop combinations investigated performed better than sole cropped sorghum 166(in terms of revenue generation). sole rice performed better than 151all the intercrops (Table 3). Proceedings of the Fourth International 182 Conference of the African Association for Biological Nitrogen Fixation 183 (AABNF). L. 2004 Effect of cropping pattern. P. 188 Triplet ed) 27: 63-101 189Oyewole. R. Gueye. Sc 176 dissertation presented to Crop Science Dept. respectively for sorghum and 159rice. while grain yield of rice increased per 162hectare with progressive increase in rice rows. P & K fertilizers on the growth and 190 yield of millet and groundnut in millet/groundnut mixture in the Sudan 191 savanna. U. R. Sanchez and G. and Whiteman. N. H. 184 Ibadan. Ajayi. 106 pp 178Langdale. investigated yield and economic returns 157that accrued to sorghum and rice in sorghum – rice intercrop as affected by rice 158inclusion in the proportions of: 1:1.R. AJAR Vol. M.R. 5(16): 2089-2096 196Rowland. The implication of this observation is that while sorghum 152is better intercropped with rice to improve revenue generation. R. Greenland 1976.J. and D. Crops of West African Semi-Arid Tropics. In: Biological Nitrogen 180 Fixation and Sustainability of Tropical Agriculture (Mulongoy K. The role of legumes in 179 sustaining soil productivity and controlling soil erosion. United Kingdom pp 185 361-365 186Okigbo. Sokoto.. A. 171 172REFERENCES 173Kassam. R. sole rice performed better than all the intercrops.J ed ). 24-28 Sept. rice is best as sole crop.). 167The implication of this observation is that while sorghum is better intercropped with 168rice to improve revenue generation. Ph. O. Evaluation of seven upland rice 194 (Oryzae sativa) cultivars by three sowing methods in Anyigba. C. Nigeria. M. Kogi State. G. C. 1993. In: Aliyu. In: Dry Land 197 Farming in Africa (Rowland. Sokoto 117pp 193Oyewole.150cropped sorghum (in terms of revenue generation). eds). C. 1:3 and 1:4. Usmanu 177 Danfodiyu University. Grain yield of sorghum 161decreased with progressive rice row inclusion. 1:2. 174 Varietal response to spacing and effects of applied phosphorus and manure 175 on the growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.I. J. 1972. and Ojuekaiye.

U. In: Cereal 208 Crops of Nigeria: Principles of Production and Utilization. J.58b .O.72 29. G... Aliyu. G. xxii 337 (Idem.. Yield and 211 yield components of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and rice (Oryza sativa L) 212 intercrop as influenced by proportion and rice thinning of in Samaru. . S. and Babaji.644. M.661. Odion.24 73. Olaniyan. Bioscience 5(2): 42-45 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225Table 1: Average yield implication of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and rice 226(Oryza sativa L) intercrop as influenced by varying mixture proportion 227 Treatment Intercrop Effect on Crop Yield Sorghum Rice Sorghum: Average Intercrop Percentag Average Intercrop Percentage Rice grain implicatio e yield grain implicatio yield yield (kg n reduction yield (kg n relative reduction ha-1) relative to relative to ha-1) to sole relative to sole crop sole crop crop sole crop (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) Sole 1712.83c .T. E.A.E.35e . 1982. Maji.410.200Steiner. Intercropping principles and production practices 204 http://attra..87 1:2 571.C.471. E.82d . P.E..55 1:3 446.80 Se± 28.T. eds) pp115-188 210Yahaya.22 1:4 300. A.O.65% 760. L. Singh.1412.292.57 33. M. 303 pp 203Sulivan.A.D. B.A. D-Eschborn / TS. R.72 45.org/attra-pub/intercrop.15d . 1. 2010.. Kehinde.61% 933.. Ojehomon. E.K.T.39a 1405.A 2005.. 206 Bright.. 207 Agboire. A.1140.. Abo. Gana.050 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 5 5 . Imolehin. Lagoke. Rice.67c .05b . 2004.81 38.95% 994.1266.A.N.. K. Maji. J of 213 Trop.htm1 14pp 205Ukwungwu. 209 N. and Showemimo.46% 1113. Intercropping in the Tropical Small -holder Agriculture with 201 Special Reference to West Africa.. B. Elemo K.56 66..A. Adagba.O.O.623 22.ncat. M.. Fademi. V. German Agency for Technical Cooperation 202 (GTZ) Postfash 5180.34 20.04 82.N. L.67e .A. F. E.39a 1:1 1050.

602.58b 52.019.8 159.50 -57.047.80 161.39a 85.312.050 240+ Exchange rate: N150.15d 22.00 -40.67e 106.734.50 155.017.619.35e 15.rice (Oryza sativa 250L) enterprise (N ha-1) as influenced by varying mixture proportion 251 Treatment Monetary Implication of the Intercrop (N) Sorghum Rice Total Intercrop implication relative to sole crop Sorghum: Rice Sole 85.50 139.80 1:4 15.500.30 1:2 28.80 1:3 446.83c 28.80 159326.493.30 -123.00 170.50 196.60 282.00 933.82d 130.734.80 1:2 571.623 22.10 1:1 52.00 1113.00 .6024 to $1 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249Table 3: Monetary returns on sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) .529.619.00 106.374.80 -123.253.812.235 236 237Table 2: Monetary returns on sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) .591.754.60 252+ Exchange rate: N150.561.60 1:1 1050.351.33.67c 139.754.022.090.50 -63.017.80 -90.50 70.60 Se± 28.493.827.307.50 130.50 -111.50 760.05b 155.844.rice (Oryza sativa 238L) enterprise ($ ha-1) as influenced by varying mixture proportion 239 Treatment Intercrop Effect Sorghum Rice Sorghum: Average Monetary Intercrop Average Monetary Intercrop Rice grain yield implication implication grain implication implication (kg ha-1) (N) relative to yield (kg (N) relative to -1 sole crop ha ) sole crop (N) (N) Sole 1712.827.307.80 1:4 300.50 1405.260.529.80 1:3 22.30 -120.80 -57.6024 to $1 253 6 6 .529.39a 196.927.253.80 -66.00 994.028.591.