Advertisement

Do Commercial Biological and Chemical Products Increase Crop Yields and Economic Returns Under Smallholder Farmer Conditions?

Conference paper

Abstract

During recent decennia, new commercial products have appeared on the market as alternatives to common fertilizers. While some of these products are based on well-established technologies, such as rhizobium inoculation, others have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny. During 3 years, we evaluated over 80 of these new products, including microbial inoculants and chemical products on major legume, cereal and banana crops across diverse agro-ecological conditions in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Kenya in the laboratory, greenhouse and field conditions. Amongst the rhizobial inoculants, several products from different companies were found very effective in increasing nodule biomass on soybean and increasing grain yield by up to 30 %, and benefit-cost ratio of up to 5.0 realized. Except for tissue cultured bananas, the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) inoculants was less evident with optimal yield of legumes realized with co-inoculation with P solubilizing bacteria and when supplemented with inorganic fertilizer such as DAP. Other products containing Trichoderma or Bacillus spp. improved growth under field conditions, soil-dependent growth improvements of over 40 % in tissue culture bananas. The potential of products to reduce soil pathogenic rhizosphere organisms, particularly Fusarium, was also observed. Chemical products evaluated, special attention was given to alternative P fertilizers such as leaf sprays, seed coatings and conditioners with humic acids. The effect on cereals depended on the crop, the soil and accompanying agronomic measures. Benefit-cost ratios were favorable for seed P coating Teprosyn, because this is a fairly inexpensive treatment (US $ 3 ha−1). Results demonstrate economic returns of US$ 4 for every dollar invested for soybean production and US $ 4.6 for every dollar invested in maize production. The Net benefit of US $ of 5,265 for Rhizatech matches benefits of US $ 5,115 derived from Conventional practice with half investment of US $ 62 compared to US $ 135. The potential for biological and chemical commercial products is evident and the need for continued evaluation. Smallholders may benefit from good quality products that are correctly applied to the appropriate crop under appropriate soil and crop management.

Keywords

Agro-inputs Commercial products Soil management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for supporting the study, the former CIAT-TSBF Director and Current Director IITA, Dr. Nterenya Sanginga, Former CIAT-TSBF Soil Fertility Program Leader, Prof. Bernard Vanlauwe, Current Chemical and Biological Commercial Product (OMPRO II) Leader Dr. Cargele Masso and COMPRO I Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) members for providing advice and guidance to implement the study, Laban Nyabenga, Elias Mwangi, Phillip Malala and Paul for support provided in the laboratory, greenhouse and field and Annah Oruta and Jackie Odongo for administrative support.

References

  1. Aliyu A (2012) Evaluation of commercial and laboratory rhizobia inoculants for improving growth and nutrition of some food grain legumes. M.sc. thesis, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil ScienceGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul SF, Warren G, Webb M, Eugene WM, David JL (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atieno MA (2012) Molecular characterization and screening of micro-organisms contained in commercial agricultural products. M.Sc. thesis submitted to Chepkoilel university college of Moi University, Eldoret, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  4. Atieno M, Herrmann L, Okalebo R, Lesueur D (2012) Efficiency of different formulations of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and effect of co-inoculation of Bacillus subtilis with two different strains of Bradyrhizobium japonicum. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 28(7):2541–2550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bashan Y (1998) Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture. Biotechnology Advances 16(4):729–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockwell J (1963) Accuracy of a plant-infection technique for counting populations of Rhizobium trifolii. Appl. Microbiol. 11:377–383Google Scholar
  7. Catroux G, Hartmann A, Revellin C (2001) Trends in rhizobial inoculant production and use. Plant and Soil 230:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claus GW (1989) Understanding microbes. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, pp 175–185Google Scholar
  9. Faye A (2013) Use of commercial biofertilizers based on Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agriculture and performance on P uptake. Faculty of Science Technique, Cheikh Anta Diop University (UCAD), Dakar, SenegalGoogle Scholar
  10. Giller KE (2001) Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems, 2nd edn. CABI, Wallingford, pp 423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamel C, Plenchette C (2007) Mycorrhiza in crop production. Haworth Food and Agricultural Products PressTM. The Haworth Press, Inc. United States and CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Herridge D, Gemell G, Hartley E (2002) Legume inoculants and quality control. In: Inoculants and nitrogen fixation of legumes in Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings 109eGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkins WR (1964) A rapid centrifugal floatation technique for separating nematodes from soil. Plant Dis Rep 48:692Google Scholar
  14. Johnson LF, Curl EA, Bond JH, Fribourg HA (1959) Methods of studying soil microflora-plant disease relationship. Burgess, Minneapolis, 15 Minn. USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Kavoo MA (2013) Efficacy of selected microbiological products on growth, root health and nutrient uptake of tissue cultured banana in Kenya. Ph.D. thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Department of HorticultureGoogle Scholar
  16. Kavoo- Mwangi AM, Kahangi EM, Ateka E, Onguso J, Mukhongo RW, Mwangi EK, Jefwa JM (2013) Growth effects of microorganisms based commercial products inoculated to tissue cultured banana cultivated in three different soils in Kenya. Applied Soil Ecology 64(2013):152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koske RE, Gemma JM (1989) A modified procedure for staining roots to detect VA mycorrhiza. Mycol Res 92:486–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kung’u JN, Rutherford MA, Jeffries P (1998) Distribution of Fusarium wilt of banana in Kenya and its impact on smallholder farmers. InfoMusa 10:28–32Google Scholar
  19. Moreira FS, Huising JE, Bignell DE (2008) A handbook of tropical soil biology: sampling and characterization of below ground biodiversity. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Munyahali W (2012) Effects of commercial chemical products on maize yield in different agro-ecological zones in Kenya. M.sc. thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ncho OC (2013) Role of the interaction of combined commercial microbial symbiotic organisms and inorganic chemical inputs on soybean and maize across several agro-ecologies zones of West Africa. Ph.D. thesis, in progress at the University of Abobo-Adjame, Abidjan, Cote d’IvoireGoogle Scholar
  22. Ndung’u-Magiroi KW (2012) Efficacy of commercial phosphate solubilizing biofertilizers for improving growth and yield of soybean and maize in Kenyan soils. Ph.D. thesis submitted to Chepkoilel University College of Moi University, Eldoret, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  23. Olsen PE, Rice WA, Collins MM (1994) Biological contaminants in North American legume inoculants. Soil Biol Biochem 27:699–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reasoner DJ, Geldreich EE (1985) A new medium for the enumeration and subculture of bacteria from potable water. Appl and Environ Microbiol 49:1–7Google Scholar
  25. Sakr N, Ducher M, Tourvieille J, Walser P, Vear F, Tourvieille de Labrouhe D (2009) A method to measure aggressiveness of Plasmopara halstedii (sunflower downy mildew). J Phytopathol 157:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanginga N, Woomer PL (eds) (2009) Integrated soil fertility management in Africa principles, practices and development Process. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi, 263 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanginga N, Dashiell K, Diels J, Vanlauwe B, Lyasse O, Carsky RJ, Tarawali S, Asafo-Adjei B, Menkir A, Schulz S, Sing BB, Chikoye D, Keatinge JDH, Ortiz R (2003) Sustainable resource management coupled to resilient germplasm to provide new intensive cereal–grain legume–livestock systems in the dry savannah. Agric Ecosyst Environ 100:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schenck NC, Perez Y (1990) Manual for the identification of VA Mycorrhizal Fungi. Synergistic Publications, Gainsville, p 286Google Scholar
  29. Sieverding E (1991) Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza management. Technical Cooperation-Federal Republik of Germany, EschbornGoogle Scholar
  30. Thuita M, Pypers P, Herrmann L, Okalebo R, Othieno C, Muema E, Lesueur D (2012) Commercial rhizobial inoculants significantly enhance growth and nitrogen fixation of a promiscuous soybean variety in Kenyan soils. Biol and Fertil Soils 48:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner S, Pryer KM, Miao VPW, Palmer JD (1999) Investigating deep phylogenetic relationships among cyanobacteria and plastids by small subunit rRNA sequence analysis. J of Eukaryot Microbiol 46:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vanlauwe B, Tittonell P, Mukalama J (2006) Within farm soil fertility gradients affect response of maize to fertilizer application in Western Kenya. Nutrient Cycling in Agroforestry 76:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson KJ (1987) Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria. In: Ausubel FM et al (eds) Current protocols in molecular biology. Green Publishing/Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 241–245Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Soil Tech LtdNairobiKenya
  2. 2.CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture)Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Research AreaNairobiKenya
  3. 3.IITA C/O ICIPENairobiKenya
  4. 4.Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), Centre détude Régional pour l’Amélioration de l’Adaptation á la Sécheresse (CERAAS)ThèsSenegal
  5. 5.Karatina UniversityKaratinaKenya
  6. 6.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  7. 7.Plant Ecology LaboratoryDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.BiotechnologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  9. 9.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of EldoretEldoretKenya
  10. 10.Moi UniversityEldoretKenya
  11. 11.Ahmadou Bello University of ZariaZariaNigeria
  12. 12.University of IbadanIbadanNigeria
  13. 13.Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi Kenya (Kitale Centre)KitaleKenya
  14. 14.Ethiopian Institute of Agricultureal Research (EIAR)Addis AbabaEthiopia
  15. 15.Environmental and Geosciences LaboratoryNangui Abrogoua UniversityAbidjanCote d’Ivoire
  16. 16.CIRADBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations