Abstract
Maize and dry bean are the most important food crops that feed over 85% of Kenyan households. However, the productivity of these crops is low due to the high costs of land preparation and weed control, soil infertility and limited soil moisture under the current conventional tillage system of production. A study was carried in Embu County and Kirinyaga County to determine the economic returns of a maize-bean rotation system under different tillage systems and fertilizer regimes. Maize was produced during the long rains under no-till with crop residue retention (NT+CR) and conventional tillage with no crop residue retention (CT-CR) and inorganic fertilizer regimes (NK, NP, PK, NPK, and NPK+CaMgZnBS). Dry bean was planted in the short rains in the same plots where maize under different nutrient management regimes and tillage systems had been grown and harvested. The trial was laid out in a split-plot design with the tillage method as the main plot and fertilizer as sub-plot. Economic performance was assessed using partial budget analysis based on labor data and prices of all inputs used during the production period. Grain yields were reduced by 10% to reflect farmers‘ yield levels. Maize and dry bean grains were sold at the prevailing farm gate prices. Results showed that maize-bean rotation was KE 22,718 cheaper under no-till with crop residue retention (NT+CR) than under conventional tillage with no crop residue retention (CT-CR). On average, NT+CR recorded KE 29,569 higher net benefit than CT-CR. The NT+CR tillage recorded a benefit to cost ratio of 3.7 compared to 2.7 recorded under CT-CR tillage system. The NT+CR with NK combined was the most profitable treatment with a benefit to cost ratio of 4.92 for maize and 4.33 for maize-bean rotation system. Based on this research, combination of no-till with crop residue retention has the potential to improve economic status and alleviate poverty among resource-constrained farmers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
The maize-bean rotation cost KE 22,718 less under no-till with residue retention than under conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“maize-bean rotation was KE 22,718 cheaper under no-till with crop residue retention (NT+CR) than under conventional tillage with no crop residue retention (CT-CR)”
Claim · model-written summary
NT+CR recorded KE 29,569 higher net benefit than CT-CR.
Verbatim
e0“NT+CR recorded KE 29,569 higher net benefit than CT-CR”
t0“Maize and Bean Production”
Claim · model-written summary
The NT+CR tillage had a benefit to cost ratio of 3.7 versus 2.7 under CT-CR.
Verbatim
e0“The NT+CR tillage recorded a benefit to cost ratio of 3.7 compared to 2.7 recorded under CT-CR tillage system”
t0“Maize and Bean Production”
Claim · model-written summary
NT+CR with NK combined was the most profitable treatment, with benefit to cost ratios of 4.92 for maize and 4.33 for the maize-bean rotation.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The NT+CR with NK combined was the most profitable treatment with a benefit to cost ratio of 4.92 for maize and 4.33 for maize-bean rotation system”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend no-till with crop residue retention to improve economic status of resource-constrained farmers.
Verbatim
e0“combination of no-till with crop residue retention has the potential to improve economic status and alleviate poverty among resource-constrained farmers”
t0“Maize and Bean Production”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
60 papers more in this group
See all 64 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.