Maize Grain Yield Using Diluted Cattle Urine Technology

M.A. Ewenetu¹ , N.M. Ayalew²

1. Department of Animal Production and Extension, College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Gondar,P O Box, 196, Gondar, Ethiopia.
2. University of Rochester, NY, USA.

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal-Paper
Vol.6 , Issue.3 , pp.65-74, Mar-2020

Online published on Mar 30, 2020

Copyright © M.A. Ewenetu , N.M. Ayalew . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

160 Views    211 Downloads    70 Downloads

Abstract :
The study was conducted at the distance between rows 50 cm and distance between plants 25cm. local maize grain seed were purchased and socked in water for 24 hrs before sown. Germination was started six days after sowing. Treatments (T) were 10:1, 8:1, 6:1, 4:1, 2:1, and 1:1 (water: urine) ratio as well as Urea to DAP (Positive control) and the last; with no urine, DAP & Urea fertilizer (negative control).Treatments (Ts); all having each with three replications respectively were examined. The cattle urine was diluted with water and watered the maize plant morning and evening three times per week up to the end of the harvesting. Average (Ts) plant height was 239.83, 269.5, 279.42, 271.25, 265.67, 260.08, 211.58 and 175.58 cm respectively. Both ear and Plant height; was higher in treatment (T) three which was 6:1 (water to urine ratio) 155.58 and 279.42 cm respectively. Average no of grain/cob was also higher in (Ts) two and three which was 495.67 and 483.92 respectively. In (T2) grain yield no19826.67 was superior from water to urine diluted (Ts). Estimated (Ts) grain yield/ha in quintal was 67.575, 103.49, 104.94, 82.68, 81.22, 101.63, 83.45, and 33.51 respectively. The over all average moisture content of maize grain was 3.66 percent. What has been observed from the trail was that; more diluted water to urine ratio in T 3 and 2 has much privileged maize grain yield than the rest of the treatments. Therefore; the trail has revealed that; water to urine (8 - 6:1) mix has a great blow to maximize productivity of maize grain yield up to 104.94q/ha. In conclusion; cattle urine as nitrogen (N) sources pooled with Ash supplementation of the maize plant has impact to maximize productivity and surrogate Urea and DAP fertilizers.

Key-Words / Index Term :
Ash; Cattle Urine Technology; Maize grain yield; Water Diluted

References :
[1] Luque S. F., A. G. Cirilo and M. E. Otegui (2006). Genetic gains in grain yield and related physiological attributes in Argentine maize hybrids. Field Crop Res. 95: 383-397.
[2] Liu W., M. Tollenaar and G. Smith (2004). Within row plant spacing variability does not affect corn yield. Agron. J. 96: 275-280.
[3] Munamava M. R., A. S. Goggi and L. Pollak (2006). Seed quality of maize inbred lines with different composition and genetic backgrounds. Crop Sci. 44: 542-548.
[4] Sangakkara U. R., P. S. R. D. Bandaranayake, J. N. Gajanayake and P. Stamp (2004). Plant populations and yield of rainfed maize grown in wet and dry seasons of the tropics. Maydica. 49: 83-88.
[5] Ali R., S. K. Khalil, S. M. Raza and H. Khan (2003). Effect of herbicides and row spacing on maize.Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 9(3-4): 171-178.
[6] Adugna Tolera, Trygve Berg and Sundstol, F. 1999. Theeffect of variety on maize grain and cropresidue yield and nutritive value of the stover. Animal feed Science and Technology,79: 165-177.
[7] Tahir M., M. R. Javed, A. Tanveer, M. A. Nadeem and A. Wasaya, S.A.H. Bukhari and J. U. Rehman (2009). Effect of different herbicides on weeds, growth and yield of spring planted maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 7(2): 168-174.
[8] Vega C. R. C., F. H. Andrade and V. O. Sadras (2001).Reproductive partioning and seed set efficiency in soybean, sunflower and maize. Field Crop Res. 72: 165-173.
[9] Kirchgessner, M., W. Windisch, and F. X. Roth. 1994. The efficiency of nitrogen conversion in animal nutrition. Nova Acta Leopold.70:393–412.
[10] Smith, K. A., and J. P. Frost. 2000. Nitrogen excretion by farm live-stock with respect to land spreading requirements and control-ling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters. Part 1: cattle and sheep. Bioresour. Technol. 71:173–181.
[11] Lockyer, D. R., and D. C. Whitehead. 1990. Volatilization of ammonia from cattle urine applied to grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem.22:1137–1142.
[12] Kume, S., Numata, K. Takeya, Y. Miyagawa, Y. Ikeda, S. Kitagawa M. Nonaka1, K. Oshita2 T. and T. Kozakai 2008 Evaluation of Urinary Nitrogen Excretion from Plasma Urea Nitrogen in Dry and Lactating Cows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 21(8) : 1159 – 1163. Zsófia Ganro 2005 Urine processing for efficient nutrient recovery and reuse in agriculture. Ph.D thesis. Göteborg University, Sweden 2005.
[13] IRIN (2010). The city of Durban has collected urine from dry toilets and used it as fertilizer, according to an article published on website: http://www.irinnews.org /Report. aspx? Report; ID 91057
[14] Peyraud, J. L., R. Ve´rite´, and L. Delaby. 1995. Rejets azote ´s chez lavache laitie´re: effets du type d’alimentation et du niveau deproduction des animaux. Fourrages (Frankfort on the Main) 142:131–144.
[15] Olmos Colmenero, J. J., and G. A. Broderick. 2003. Effect of dietary crude protein level on milk yield and ruminal metabolism of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86(Suppl. 1):273 (Abstract).
[16] Rattunde, HFW. 1998. Early maturing dual-purpose sorghums: Agronomic trait variation and co variation among landraces. Plant Breeding.117: 33-36.
[17] Zamir M. S. I., A. H. Ahmad, H. M. R. Javeed and T. Latif (2011). Growth and yield behaviour of two maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) towards different plant spacing. Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova. 14(2): 33-40.
[18] Hamidia A., N. Khodabandehb and A. D. Mohammadynasabc(2010). Plant density and nitrogen effects on some traits of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Ecophysiol. 2: 47-52.
[19] ARC., 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, Suppl. No.1, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.
[20] Karamanos A.J, Giménez C.1991. Physiological factors limiting growth and yield of faba beans. In: Cubero JI_Saxena MC (eds). Present status and future prospects of faba bean production and improvement in the Mediterranean countries. CIHEAM-IAMZ, Zaragoza. pp: 79–90.
[21] Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TL.1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[22] Yang W, Peng S, Dionisio-Sese ML, Laza RC, Visperas RM.2008. Grain filling duration, a crucial determinant of genotypic variation of grain yield in field-grown tropical irrigated rice. Field Crops Res. 105: 221–227.
[23] Egli DB.2004. Seed-fill duration and yield of grain crops. Adv. Agro. 83: 243–279.
[24] Bunderson, W.T.,F.Bodnar, W.A. Bromley, and S.J. Nanthambwe.1995. A field manual for agro forestry extension. Publication No.6.Lilongwe, Malawi.
[25] Minae, S., R.J. Mwakalagho. S.J. Nanthambwe. W.T. Buderson. M. Banda. A.G. Allison. V.H. Manchichi. M.B.B. Kasowanjete. R.M. Chira. S. Snapp and A.R. Saka.1998. promotion of organic matter technologies to improve and sustain soil fertility and and crop yields. FarmNews.2:3-5.
[26] Saka. A.R. and. A.D.C. Chilimba. 2001. Participatory diagnosis of constraints and opportunities (PDCO) and soil fertility: Malawi results and experience. In: R.N. Roy and H.Nabban (eds). Soil and nutrient management in sub-Saharan Africa in support of the soil fertility initiative. Proceedings of the expert consultation meeting held in Lusaka. Zambia. 6-9. December 1999. FAO. Rome. Italy.
[27] Luphwayi. N.Z.I. Haque, A.R.Saka, and D.E.K.A.Siaw.1999. Leucaena hedgerow intercropping and caatle manure application in the Ethiopian highlands II: Maize yields and nutrient uptake. Biol. Fert. Soils. 28:196-203.
[28] Phiri.A.D.K., 1999. Effect of Sesbania sesban and Tephrosia vogelii on maize yields at three landscape positions in Southern Malawi. M.Sc., Thesis. University of Malawi. Bunda College of Agriculture. 64pp.
[29] 30. Tadesse Kuma. 2002. Trends in agricultural production, technology dissemination and price movements of outputs and inputs. Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
[30] CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2001. Ethiopia: Demographic and Health Survey Ethiopia 2000. CSA, Addis Ababa.
[31] BoRD (Bureau of Rural Development). 2003. Rural household’s socioeconomic baseline survey of 56 woredas in the Amhara region, Vol., VII- Crop production and protection. Bahir Dar.