Abstract
The study examined the effect of Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) technologies on the productivity and income of smallholder maize farmers in Benue State, Nigeria.The specific objectives were to identify the components of ISFM technologies, determine the costs and returns of the technologies, and assess their effect on productivity and income.A sample of 356 maize farmers was selected from a population of 3,230 registered maize farmers in the state.Data were collected using structured questionnaires and analyzed with one-way ANOVA and gross margin analysis.The profitability test revealed that farmers using cover cropping achieved the highest profit of 88,743.51/100kg,while those using zero/minimum tillage realized the lowest profit of 73,166.14/100kg.The profitability analysis further showed that ISFM users attained higher returns compared to non-users.Among the technologies, the use of manure yielded the highest mean return (90,393.77/100kg),whereas zero/minimum tillage had the lowest mean return (73,500/100kg).Farmers applying inorganic fertilizer incurred the highest expenses (6,083.49/100kg),while those practicing zero/minimum tillage had the lowest expenses (33.86/100kg).Results on the effect of ISFM technology revealed a significant difference in productivity between users and non-users, particularly for inorganic fertilizer, legume intercropping, zero tillage, and agroforestry, all significant at the 1% level.The study recommended reducing implementation costs, improving access to resources, and providing tailored support aligned with farmers' economic priorities.These goals can be achieved through stronger government support, NGO involvement, and the participation of agricultural institutions.Additionally, robust collaborations among government, NGOs, and the private sector are essential for scaling up ISFM adoption in local communities.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Cover cropping gave maize farmers the highest profit, 88,743.51/100kg.
- Treatment
- cover croppinge1
- Outcome
- profite1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 88,743.51/100kge1
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e1“farmers using cover cropping achieved the highest profit of 88,743.51/100kg”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero or minimum tillage gave maize farmers the lowest profit, 73,166.14/100kg.
- Treatment
- zero/minimum tillagee2
- Outcome
- profite2
- Direction
- loweste2
- Value
- 73,166.14/100kge2
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e2“those using zero/minimum tillage realized the lowest profit of 73,166.14/100kg”
Claim · model-written summary
ISFM users attained higher returns than non-users.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e3“The profitability analysis further showed that ISFM users attained higher returns compared to non-users”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure gave the highest mean return, 90,393.77/100kg.
- Treatment
- manuree4
- Outcome
- mean returne4
- Direction
- higheste4
- Value
- 90,393.77/100kge4
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e4“the use of manure yielded the highest mean return (90,393.77/100kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero or minimum tillage gave the lowest mean return, 73,500/100kg.
- Treatment
- zero/minimum tillagee5
- Outcome
- mean returne5
- Direction
- loweste5
- Value
- 73,500/100kge5
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e5“whereas zero/minimum tillage had the lowest mean return (73,500/100kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inorganic fertilizer incurred the highest expenses, 6,083.49/100kg.
- Treatment
- inorganic fertilizere6
- Outcome
- expensese6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Value
- 6,083.49/100kge6
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e6“Farmers applying inorganic fertilizer incurred the highest expenses (6,083.49/100kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero or minimum tillage incurred the lowest expenses, 33.86/100kg.
- Treatment
- zero/minimum tillagee7
- Outcome
- expensese7
- Direction
- loweste7
- Value
- 33.86/100kge7
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e7“those practicing zero/minimum tillage had the lowest expenses (33.86/100kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
ISFM users and non-users differed significantly in productivity for inorganic fertilizer, legume intercropping and zero tillage, at the 1% level.
- Treatment
- inorganic fertilizer, legume intercropping, zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- productivitye0
- Qualifier
- at the 1% levele0
- Comparator
- non-userse0
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e0“Results on the effect of ISFM technology revealed a significant difference in productivity between users and non-users, particularly for inorganic fertilizer, legume intercropping, zero tillage, and agroforestry, all significant at the 1% level”
Claim · model-written summary
ISFM users and non-users differed significantly in productivity for agroforestry, at the 1% level.
- Treatment
- agroforestrye0
- Outcome
- productivitye0
- Qualifier
- at the 1% levele0
- Comparator
- non-userse0
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e0“Results on the effect of ISFM technology revealed a significant difference in productivity between users and non-users, particularly for inorganic fertilizer, legume intercropping, zero tillage, and agroforestry, all significant at the 1% level”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend reducing implementation costs, improving resource access and providing tailored support for maize farmers.
- Outcome
- reducing implementation costs, improving access to resources, and providing tailored supporte1
- Setting
- Benue State, Nigeriat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smallholder Maize Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria”
e1“The study recommended reducing implementation costs, improving access to resources, and providing tailored support aligned with farmers' economic priorities”
The same questions in other papers
soil · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.