Tropentag 2005

Stuttgart-Hohenheim, October 11-13, 2005

Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development

Effects of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizers on Grain Yield of Maize-Climbing Bean

Intercropping and Soil Fertility in Western Oromiya, Ethiopia

Tolera Abera, Daba Feyissa and Hasan Yusuf

Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute (OARI), Bako Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 26,
Email: akthirpha@yahoo.com Bako, Oromiya, Ethiopia

Abstracts
In intercropping systems soil fertility amendments for are essential to obtain the potential yield of
component crops. A field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of inorganic and
organic fertilisers on grain yield of maize (Zea mays)- climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
intercropping system. Nitrogen and FYM did not affect grain yield of maize and climbing bean.
Nor did phosphorous affect mean grain yield of climbing bean. The combination of inorganic and
organic fertilisers significantly increased grain yield component crops. Integration of fertilisers
improved the yield of component crops. Higher grain yield of maize and climbing bean was
obtained from sole cropping compared to intercropping. LER values were significantly increased
with N application. The LER values ranged from 1.15 to 1.42 indicting more productivity and land
use efficiency of intercropping in terms of food production per unit area than separate planting.
Yield of the intercropping were up to 443 kg ha-1 and 5132 kg ha-1 higher for climbing bean and
maize than yield achieved by growing component crops separately. A significant change in soil pH
occurred with integrated fertiliser (N-P and FYM) amendments of the soil in intercropping system.
The chemical composition of the soil varied across treatments. Integrated use of fertiliser sources
helps to maintain the fertility status of the soil. Intercropping maize-climbing bean with optimum
fertiliser combination boosted the yield of component crops and enhance the fertility status of the
soil. Therefore integrated use of inorganic and organic fertilisers offer sustainable production of
maize-climbing bean intercropping system.

Keywords: Integrated nutrient management, intercropping, land use efficiency, LER, Phaseolus
vulgaris, Zea mays

Introduction
Legumes contribute to increased productivity of other crops when incorporated into cropping
systems as intercrops (Giller and Wilson, 1991). Currently there is no additional land available for
agricultural production; the intensity of cropping through multiple cropping systems has to be
increased (Sahota et al., 1988). Woomer and Muchena (1995) consequently there a need to
intensify land uses aiming at achieving high yield per unit area of land. Determination of the

1
fertility requirement of intercropping systems is needed (Barker and Francis, 1986). Wortmann et
al (1996) it is difficult to establish the fertility response for intercropping systems is that systems
management varies over time and space as farmers objectives differ, and the relative competitive
ability of the component crops. Crop species in intercropping differ in their ability to take available
nutrients and in the use efficiency of nutrients; these characteristics are much affected by
environment (Lynch and White, 1992).
Nevertheless, in cereal-legume intercropping system recommended amount of chemical fertilizer
for main crop being applied; the assumption is that the legume component can fulfill its own
requirement (Sharama and Gupta, 2001). Roy and Barun (1983) supplying the recommended dose
of fertilizer to both component crops could increase the yield of an intercropping system. In
addition the fertilizer needs of a component crops in cereal-legume intercropping systems are
likely to be very different from the requirement of respective sole crop, which is logical as two
crops grown in association may or may not exploit the growth resource fully (Roy and Barun,
1983).
Use of chemical fertilizer is limited in many areas of the tropics due to high cost and lack of
availability. In order to reduce dependence on commercial fertilizer, there much interest to use
local available farmyard manure as alternative sources. Palm et al (1998) the organic fertilizer
cannot meet crop nutrient demand over large areas because of limited availability, low nutrient
composition, and high labour requirement. Integrated soil fertility management is the most feasible
options to resource poor farmers to sustain the productivity of maize/bean in intercropping system.
Supplementation of farmyard manure with chemical fertilizers is the most potentially options for
agronomic effectiveness of component crops in the system. Integrated nutrient management
methods, combining mineral and organic nutrient sources, offer better results than reliance on one
source alone (Bekunda, 1999). To date, very little attention has been focused on the integrated use
farmyard manure and NP fertilizers to fertilize maize-climbing bean intercropping system. The
principal objectives of this study were to determine the effects of nitrogen phosphorous and FYM
rates on intercropping system of maize-climbing bean at Bako.

Materials and methods

Intercropping maize-climbing bean experiment was conducted from 2000 to 2003 cropping
seasons for three years at Bako Agricultural research Center (BARC). The altitude of the area is
1650 m. a. s. l. The long-term (1961- 2003) mean annual rainfall at BARC is 1239 mm with
unimodal distribution. It has a warm humid climate with the mean minimum, mean maximum, and
average air temperatures of 13.2oC, 28oC, and 21oC, respectively. Sixty percent of the soil (1400
ha), of Bako Research Center, is reddish brown in colour clay and loam in texture (Wakene, 2001).
Factorial combinations of two levels of N (46 and 69 kg N ha-1), two levels of P (10 and 20 kg P
ha-1), two levels of farmyard manure (4 and 8 t ha-1) in the maize/climbing bean mixture were
tested against the recommended fertilizer rate of sole maize 110/20 kg N/ P ha-1 and 16 t ha-1 and
18/20 kg N/ P ha-1 for sole climbing bean, respectively.
The treatment combinations are:
T1. 46/10 kg N/ P/ha +4 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T2. 46/10 kg N/ P/ha +8 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T3. 46/20 kg N/ P/ha + 4 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean

2
T4. 46/20 kg N/ P/ha +8 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T5. 69/10 kg N/ P/ha +4 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T6. 69/10 kg N/ P/ha +8 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T7. 69/20 kg N/ P/ha +4 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T8. 69/20 kg N/ P/ha +8 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T9. 110/20 kg N/ P/ha + 0 t/ha FYM sole maize
T10. 110/20 kg N/ P/ha + 0 t/ha FYM maize + climbing bean
T11. 16 t FYM /ha + sole maize
T12. 16 t FYM /ha + maize + climbing bean
T13.18/20 kg N/ P/ha sole climbing bean.
The design of the experiment was randomized complete block design with 2 x 2 x 2 factorial
arrangement plus three control treatments in three replications. The total gross plot size was 4.5 m
x 5.1 m and 3 m x 5.1m= 15.3 m2 harvestable plot. The spacing was 75 cm x 30 cm for sole maize
and 75 cm x 10 cm for sole climbing bean. For the intercropping the spacing was 75 cm x 30 cm
for maize and 75 cm x 20 cm for climbing bean. The maize variety used was "BH-540" and "813-
BCB-28" cultivar for climbing bean. The seed rate used was 25 kg ha-1 for maize and 75 kg ha-1
for climbing bean. Sowing dates followed recommended date of planting ranged May 1 - 30. The
planting of maize and climbing bean were simultaneously in the same row. Full dose of
phosphorus (as DAP) was applied once at planting, while nitrogen (as Urea) was applied in spilt
doses, half at planting and the remaining half applied 30 to 40 days after planting. The maize and
climbing bean yield was adjusted at 12.5 % and 10 % moisture level and converted from yield per
plot to yield per hectare. The data were analyzed using MSTATC (Freed, 1989) statistical
packages. Mean separation was done using least significance difference (LSD) at 5 % probability
level.

Result and discussion

GRAIN YIELD
Across years, grain yields of maize and climbing bean averaged 5762 and 1337 kg ha-1. Nitrogen
and phosphorous non-significantly (p>0.05) affected mean grain yield of maize (Table 1). Even
though the effect was non-significant grain yield was increased as rate of nitrogen increases that is
similar with the report of Rafey (1992) but reverse for phosphorous application. Application of
farmyard manure resulted in a significant increase 2.21 % on grain yield (Table 1). Mean grain
yield of maize non-significantly (p>0.05) affected by N by P, N by FYM and P by FYM
interaction in intercropping system. Three-way interaction of N by P by FYM compared to sole
and intercropped with recommended rate significantly (P<0.05) affected mean grain yield of maiz
(Table 2). Sole planted maize with recommended N/P (110/20 kg N-P ha-1 and FYM (16 t ha-1)
gave similar higher yield compared to other treatment combinations. Higher mean grain yield
(6116, 6102 and 5950 kg ha-1) for intercropping was obtained from 69/10/4, 69/20/4 and 46/10/8
kg t N- P- FYM ha-1 combinations.

3
Application of nitrogen and farmyard manure non-significantly affected grain yield (Table 1).
Even though application of nitrogen non-significant effects on grain yield highest was obtained at
higher rate 69 kg N ha-1 with 74 kg ha-1 or 5.69 % advantage (Table 1) which is in agreement with
(Bains, 1967; Uriyo, et al., 1982). Phosphorous application did not significantly affected mean
grain yield (Table 1) that is similar with report of (Bains, 1967). Two way interaction of N by P
and N by FYM non-significantly (p>0.05) affected grain yield. P x FYM interaction significantly
affected grain yield.. Interaction of N by P by FYM had significantly affected grain yield climbing
bean as compared control treatments (Table 2).
Higher grain yield (2276 kg ha-1) and plant height (236 cm) realized from sole cropped climbing
bean with 100 kg ha-1 Diammonium phosphate. Sole cropped grain yields was higher by 102 and
52.65 % as compare to the lowest and higher yield in other treatments. From intercropping system
higher mean grain yield of climbing bean 1491, 1463 and 1398 kg ha-1 was obtained from 69/20/8,
0/0/16, kg t N/P/FYM ha-1 and 69/10/8 kg t N/P/FYM ha-1, respectively.

PRODUCTIVITY OF INTERCROPPING SYSTEM

Yield of the intercropping were negative to 443 kg ha-1 and up to 5132 kg ha-1 higher than yield
achieved by growing maize and climbing bean separately (Table 2 ), this finding agrees with the
report of Willey and Osiru (1972) 38 % higher combined yield than monocrops. This justifies
intercropping gave significantly higher combined yield than from the monocultures. This might be
probably because of the marked morphological difference of the two crops, which facilitates better
utilization of more light and other environmental resources that agree with argument of (Willey
and Osiru, 1972). The relative yield reduction of maize was very low than climbing bean as
compared to combined intercrop yield (Table 2) that is similar with the report of Davis and Garcia
(1983); Flesch (1991) and Chemeda (1997). This justifies maize had a higher relative competitive
ability as compared to climbing bean, which may be probably due to the shading effect of maize
on beans. Further more, intercropping of maize- climbing bean indicated better compatibility
because it maintains almost the sole yield of maize which agrees with the report of Habtamu et al
(1996) maize-climbing bean intercropping showed good compatibility since maintaining almost
80-100 % sole maize yields. In general intercropping give higher grain yield advantage than
monocropping that agrees with the report of Chemeda (1997). The largest yield increases were
achieved at higher combination of both fertilizers that implies that intercropping of maize-climbing
bean requires higher fertilizers to produce maximum yield (Table 2). This result further justifies
there is a fertilizer response of intercropping to get better yield. Therefore application of fertilizer
for intercropping produce sustainable yield of maize-climbing bean.
N significantly (p<0.05) affected LER of maize-climbing bean in intercropping system (Table 1).
Higher (8.53 and 4.54 %) LER of intercropping achieved from higher rate of N and FYM (Table
1). The partial LER for maize ranged from 0.53 to 0.81 and for climbing bean from 0.52 to 0.68
indicting that intercropping maize with climbing bean is complementary to climbing bean
production (Table 2). In addition, the partial land equivalent ratio of intercrops indicated the
dominance of maize in association with climbing bean with different fertilizer combinations. This
further stated a great yield advantage of maize and a moderate disadvantage for climbing bean.
Intercropping exhibited higher over all systems productivity than sole cropping of component
crops. The LER for intercropping was greater than one for all treatments (Table 2). The over all
land equivalent ratio was the highest (1.42) followed by 1.41 and 1.40 achieved from 69/20/8,
69/10/8 and 69/10/4 kg t N-P-FYM ha-1 application (Table 2). The LER indicated that greater

4
relative yield advantages of 28 to 42 % (Table 2). Higher land use efficiency realized from
intercropping as compared to monocropping component crops. Maize-climbing bean in
monoculture yielded more than intercrop yield of each crop. However, the combined yields
obtained from intercrops were more profitable than sole climbing bean and maize that is in
agreement with the report of (Lepizi, 1974). Benefits of intercropping were quite high as compared
monocropping that may be due to improved biological productivity per unit area of land. Higher
income can be achieved from intercropping systems with suitable combinations of organic and
inorganic fertilizer levels. The production of maize-climbing bean was better than a solid cropping
of component crops both in terms of total production and net returns. Integrated soil fertility
management encompassing a strategy for nutrient management based inorganic and organic
fertilizer rate helps to enhance maize production.
Overall the integrated application of N-P and FYM fertilizers had significant yield increase of
maize -climbing bean in intercropping system. It was found that combined yield and economic
return from the intercropping were significantly higher than the monocultures.

SOIL CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Significant change in soil pH was observed in all treatment receiving different N-P and FYM as
compared to before planting soil analysis result for three cropping season (Table 3). The pH
change was ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 as compared the preplanting soil analysis result (Table 3).
Significant increase of pH was observed from treatments receiving higher dose of FYM. Similarly
Whalen et al. (2000) the pH of manure amended soils was significantly higher than unamended
soils. Tolera et al. (2005) soil treated with biogas slurry showed significant change in pH contents.
Soil pH in H2O ranged from 5.2 to 5.8. This implies that the soil of the area is acidic to moderately
acidic (FAO, 1990; Landon, 1991). Significant increase of pH might be attributed due to higher
quality of cattle manure used. Similarly Whalen et. al. (2000) and Gitari and Friesen (2001) the
effects of manure on soil pH would depend on manure quality and soil characteristics. Total N and
organic C were ranged 0.11 to 0.25 % and 1.1954 to 2.113 % and both in low range for maize
production (FAO, 1990). Post harvest total nitrogen was less than preplanting soil analysis result
except treatment receiving 0/0/16, 110/20/0, and 46/20/8 kg t N/P/FY ha-1 combinations (Table 3).
This indicates higher N requirement of maize-climbing bean intercropping system. All plots
showed less organic matter content compared preplant soil analysis (Table 3). The low organic
carbon and N of the soil could be attributed to the continuous monocropping and intensive
mechanized tillage practices with heavy application of N-P fertilizers that is in agreement with
Wakene et al. (2001). Available P ranged 3.16 to 8.92 ppm and deficient to medium (FAO, 1990).
Available P was higher with higher farmyard application which was in consistence with Whalen et
al. (2000) available P was higher in manure amended soils than unamended soil. This indicates
that application FYM enhanced the P contents of the soil. The level of phosphorous in before
planting was higher than the level after harvest. This situation can be attributed due to the high
phosphorous fixing capacity of acid soil. Available K was improved in all treatment combinations
compared to preplant analysis. Texture of the soil was almost similar to preplant soil analysis
result. This indicates that the soil structure is already affected since the land is used for the past
three decades. Thus, the area need better amendments for sustainable crop production.

5
Conclusion
The intercrop was more productive in terms yield production per unit area and combined yields
than monocrops. The soil analysis result implies improvement of the soil chemical properties after
three years treatment application. Soil texture need management for builds up of the structure and
better grain yield. Intercropping system maize-climbing bean with higher fertilizer combinations
applications produce higher grain yield of both crops. Intercropping of maize (BH-540) with
climbing bean (812-BCB-28 (Tibe)) within the same row at 10 cm distance between maize and
climbing bean with 150/50 kg ha-1 Urea /DAP and 4 t FYM ha-1 fertilizer combinations is
recommended for sustainable production of component crops.

Acknowledgment
First of all, I would like to thank the Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute who made the study
successfully through the fund grants. Especially thanks goes to the management of BARC, for
their support during execution of the experiment. Acknowledgement goes to Obbo Tesfaye
G/girogis, Obbo Amsalu Fekadu, Obbo Hirko Sukari, Obbo Tesfa Borena and Obbo Bekele
Wakijira for their assistance in planting and recording of data during my the research work.

References
Bains, K.S. 1967. Effects of applied nutrients on soil fertility, chemical composition, and yield of field
beans. Indian Journal of Agronomy 12: 200 -206.
Barker, T.C. and Francis, C.A. 1986. Agronomy of multiple cropping systems. Pp 161 - 182. In: Francis,
C.A. (ed.). Multiple Cropping Systems. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York and London
Bekunda, M.1999. Farmers' responses to soil fertility decline in banana-based cropping systems of Uganda.
Dry lands Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development; London; UK.
Managing-Africa's-Soils. No. 4, iv + 19 pp.
Chemeda Fininsa. 1997. Effects of planting pattern, relative planting date, intra-raw spacing on haricot
bean/maize intercrop. African Crop Science Journal. 5: 15 - 22.
Davis, J.H.C. and Garcia, S. 1983. Competitive ability and growth of indeterminate beans and maize for
intercropping. Field Crops Research. 6: 59 - 75.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1990. Guideline for Soil Description. Rome 193 pp.
Flesch, R.D. 1991. Intercropping of bean (Phaseolus) and maize in Santa Catarina,Brazil Agropecuaria
Catarinense 41(1): 42 - 46.
Giller, K.E. and Wilson, K.F. 1991. Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems. CAB International. UK.
313 pp.
Gitari, J.N. and Friesen, D.K. 2001. The use of organic/inorganic soil amendaments for enhancing maize
production in centeral highlands of Kenya. In Friesen DK, Palmer AFE, Integrated Approaches to
Higher Maize Productivity in new Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Southern
Regional Maize Conference, CIMMYT and KARI, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 367 371.
Habtamu Ademassu, Reddy, M.S., Teshale Alemu and Jibril Mohammed. 1996. Maize based cropping
systems for sustainable Agriculture in Semi-arid areas of Ethiopia. pp. 74 - 82. In: Increasing Food
Production Through Improved Crop Management: Proceedings of the First and Inaugural
Conference of Agronomy and Crop Physiology Society of Ethiopia. Woldeyesus Sinebo, Zerihun
Tadele and Nugussie Alemayehu (Eds.). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ACPSE, Addis Ababa.
Landon, J R. (ed.). 1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land
Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, New York 474 p

6
Lepizi, R. 1974. Asociacion de maize-frijol. (Maize and beans in association). Mexico Secretaria de
Agriculturia. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agricolas, Folleto Tecnico No. 58 46 p. Span.
Lynch, J. and White, I W. 1992. Shoot nitrogen dynamics in tropical common bean. Crop Sciences 32: 392
- 397.
Palm, C.A., Murwira, H.K. and Carter, S.E. 1998. Organic matter management: From Science to practice.
In: Sharma, O.P. and A.K. Gupta. 2001. Comparing the feasibilities of pear millet. Based
intercropping systems supplied with varying levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of
Agronomy and Crop Science 186: 73 - 144.
Rafey, A. 1992. Response of maize (Zea mays) + pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) intercropping system to
nitrogen in rainfed upland. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 62: 215 - 217.
Roy, R. N. and Barun, H. 1983. Fertilizer use under multiple cropping systems: An overview. FAO
fertilizer. Plant Nutrition. Bull. 6: 9 10.
Sahota, T.S., Grewal, G.S. and Sidhu, M.S. 1988. Increasing productivity through multiple cropping
system. Progress farming 24: 3 - 5
Sharma, O.P. and Gupta, A.K. 2001. Comparing the feasibilities of pear millet based intercropping systems
supplied with varying levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science
186: 73 - 144.
Tolera, A, Daba, F., Hasan, Y., Olani, N. and Al-Tawaha, A.R.. 2005. Grain yield of maize as affected by
biogas slurry and N-P fertilizer rate at Bako, Western Oromiya, Ethiopia. Bioscience Research
2(1):31-37.
Uriyo, A.P., Singh, B.R. and Msaky, J.J. 1982. Evaluation of phosphorous placement methods and nitrogen
carriers under conditions of maize-bean intercropping. pp. 65 - 66. IDRC, Canada.
Wakene, N. 2001. Assessment of important physicochemical properties of dystric udalf (dystric Nitosols)
under different management system in Bako area, Western Ethiopia. A thesis presented to School
of graduate studies, Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 156 pp.
Wakene, N., Tolera, A, Friesen, D.K., Abdenna, D. and Berhanu, D. 2001. Evaluation of compost for maize
production under farmers conditions. In Friesen DK, Palmer AFE, Integrated Approaches to
Higher Maize Productivity in new Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Southern
Regional Maize Conference, CIMMYT and KARI, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 382 386.
Whalen, J.K., Chang, C., Claton, G.W. and Carefoot, J.P. 2000. Cattle manure amendments can increase the
pH of acid soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64: 962-966.
Woomer, P. L. and Muchena, F. N. 1995. Overcoming soil constraints in crop production in tropical Africa.
pp 45 - 56. In: Ahenkarah, Y., E Owusu-Bennoah and G.N.N. Dowuona (eds.). Sustaining soil
productivity in intensive African Agriculture. Seminar proceedings, 15 - 19 November 1993, Accra,
Ghana.
Wortmann, C.S., Schnier, H.F. and Muriuki, A.W. 1996. Estimation of the fertilizer response of maize and
bean intercropping using sole crop response equations. African Crop science Journal 4: 51 - 55.
Willey, J. and Osiru, D.S. 1972. Studies on mixtures of maize and bean with particular reference to plant
population. Journal of Agricultural science 79: 519 - 529.

7
 Table 1. Effects of N-P and FYM on plant height, 1000 seed weight and grain yield of maize in
intercropping system.
Treatment Grain yield (kg ha-1) LER
-1
N (kg ha ) Climbing bean Maize
46 1300 5581 1.29
69 1374 5943 1.40
LSD (5%) Ns Ns 0.0958
P (kg ha-1)
10 1307 5918 1.36
20 1367 5606 1.34
LSD (5%) Ns Ns Ns
-1
FYM (t ha )
4 1300 5699 1.32
8 1374 5825 1.38
LSD (5%) Ns Ns Ns
Mean 1337 5762 1.35
CV % 12.38 19.89 14.95
Ns= Non-significant at 5 % probability level

8
Table 2. Interaction of N/P and FYM on grain yield, partial LER and LER of maize-climbing
bean intercropping system.

Treatment Grain yield (kg/ha) Partial LER LER

Maize Climbing bean Maize Climbing bean
T1 5700 1309 0.76 0.58 1.34
T2 5950 1220 0.74 0.60 1.32
T3 4878 1274 0.53 0.62 1.15
T4 5797 1398 0.78 0.60 1.38
T5 6116 1310 0.73 0.67 1.40
T6 5906 1389 0.74 0.68 1.41
T7 6102 1306 0.75 0.64 1.39
T8 5607 1491 0.77 0.65 1.42
T9 6983 - 1.00 - 1.00
T10 5658 1124 0.81 0.52 1.33
T11 6966 - 0.76 - 0.76
T12 4754 1463 0.62 0.66 1.28
T13 - 2276 - 1.00 1.00
CV % 16.72 14.66 17.44 18.30 12.01
LSD (5%) 914.3 194.5 Ns Ns 0.19
Ns= Non-significant at 5 % probability level

9
Table 3. Some soil chemical and physical analysis as affected by N, P and FYM in maize-climbing bean intercropping system
Treatments Chemical nutrients Texture
PH:H2O TN (%) OC (%) C/N Av. P (ppm) Av. K (ppm) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Class
T1 5.6 0.12 1.995 17 4.40 108 42 14 44 C
T2 5.7 0.11 1.195 11 6.46 108 44 16 40 C
T3 5.6 0.12 2.055 17 4.36 127 44 16 40 C
T4 5.6 0.169 2.035 12 5.64 83 44 16 40 C
T5 5.5 0.113 1.915 17 6.00 82 44 16 40 C
T6 5.8 0.165 2.035 12 8.18 165 46 16 38 Sc
T7 5.6 0.143 2.113 15 7.18 175 48 16 36 SC
T8 5.6 0.155 1.895 12 4.30 41 42 16 42 C
T9 5.4 0.18 1.835 10 3.98 105 42 14 44 C
T10 5.5 0.15 1.815 12 3.16 110 42 12 46 C
T11 5.8 0.163 1.953 12 8.92 76 48 14 38 SC
T12 5.7 0.253 1.915 8 7.26 124 48 14 38 SC
T13 5.5 0.15 1.855 12 4.76 110 44 14 42 C
Before sowing 5.2 0.168 2.454 15 21.0 41 44 14 42 C