ORGANIC MATTER TO SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

CONTRIBUTON OF ORGANIC MATTER TO SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Introduction

High cost of chemical (inorganic) fertilizers has shifted the interest of resource – poor farmers more to the use of organic materials for crop production. This is because, organic materials are cheap, environmentally safe and are capable of improving soil productivity. Organic resources have been identified as reliable alternatives to continued large scale use of inorganic fertilizer due to easy access and easy procurement. Large quantities of organic wastes such as poultry manure, cow dung, goat dung etc are available especially in farms.

The major sources of organic matter in agricultural soils are:

2.1.1 Plant tissue/crop residues- the original source of soil organic matter (SOM) is plant tissue. Under natural conditions the tops and roots of trees, shrubs, grasses and other native plants annually supply large quantities of organic matter (Brady and weil 2002). For most cultivated soils, roots and above-ground plant growth are the most important sources of organic matter (Lewandowski, 2013). Here, it should be understood that a good portion of crop plant is commonly removed in harvest, but some of the tops and all of the roots are left in the soil (Brady and weil, 2002). Therefore, if you plan for high residue cropping, Lewandowski, (2013) recommended you- grow healthy and productive crops that leaves a lot of roots e.g small grains and forage, - or crops that leave a lot of surface residues e.g grain maize, or green manures that supply both. Green maturing, the practice of turning into the soil undecomposed plant tissue and its related practice of cover cropping can have several beneficial effects. Chief among which are organic matter addition and ground cover during erosion-prone periods of the season (Brady and weil, 2002; Kombiok et al., 2012).

2.2 Animal or farmyard manure- Since the beginning of animal husbandary, livestock excrement has played an important role, especially as valuable manure for soil improvement and crop production (Bot and Benites, 2005). Tanimu et al, (2013) defined animal manure as an organic fertilizer consisting of a partially decomposed mixture of dung and urine. Similarly, Webster and Wilson (1980) added that farmyard or pen manure consists of a rotted mixture of the excreta of animals and the straw provided for their bedding. Solid manure contains 50 to 80% water, thus an application of 7.5t/ha would supply 1.5 to 3.75 tons of organic matter, which would help to improve soil properties (Webster and Willson, 1980).

Webster and Wilson (1980) recommend manure application rate in the tropics in the order of 2.5 tons/ha per year, or 7.5 t/ha every 3 years, or 12.5 t/ha every 5 years as likely necessary to maintain yields in the absence of fertilizers.

2.2.3 Compost

Compost is the term usually applied to the rotting down of plant and animal remains in heaps before the residue is applied to the soil (Kombiok et al., 2012). In practice, composting is creating humus like organic materials outside of the soil by mixing, pilling, or otherwise storing organic materials under conditions conducive to aerobic decomposition and nutrient conservation (Brady and Weil, 1999). The decomposition process and organisms involved are similar to those involved in the formation of humus in soils (Brady and Weil, 1999).

The advantages of composting as opposed to burying raw crop residues and weeds, are that it enables partially decomposed organic matter to be applied to the land at the best time for improved soil conditions (Webster and Wilson, 1980). Compost is popular as a mulch and soil conditioner on gardens/ smallholder farms, and as an ingredient for potting mixes, and generally is an effective means of building soil productivity (Brady and Weil, 1999).

3.0 EFFECTS OF ORGANIC MATTER ON SOIL PROPERTIES

Most of productive agricultural soils have percentages of organic matter, which contributes to soil productivity in many ways (Fenten et al 2008). Lewandowski (2013) described the nature of productive farmlands and concluded that productive soils are soils with high organic matter. Bot and Benites (2005) stated that organic matter within the soil serves several functions and Fenton et al. (2008) summarizes these benefits and grouped them into three categories:

I. PHYSICAL BENEFITS

· Enhances aggregate stability, improving water infiltration and soil aeration, reducing runoff.

· Improves water holding capacity.

· Reduces stickness of clay soils, making them easier to till.

· Reduces surface crusting, facilitating seedbed preparation.

II. CHEMICAL BENEFITS

· Increase soil CEC or its ability to hold and supply over time essential plant nutrients.

· Improves the ability of a soil to resist pH change, or buffering capacity.

· Decompose to supply plant nutrients.

III. BIOLOGICAL BENEFITS

· Provides food for the living organism in the soil

EFFECT OF ORGANIC MATTER ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Several researchers reported the effects of application of organic matter on soil physical properties in the tropics. Study conducted by Nwite et al. (2012) in south – eastern Nigeria on the effect of organic amendments on physical properties of soil. The result in table one (1) shows that the soil texture was not affected by the treatment. Obi (2000) noted that texture was a permanent property of soil and did not change with cultivation. The high content of sand could be attributed to parent material. Texture has good relationship with nutrient storage, water retention and porosity (Forth and Turk, 1972). Bulk density in animal wastes treated plots wars significantly lower than that of control. The total porosity, hydraulic conductivity, mean weight diameter and state of aggregation except grametric moisture content of control were significantly (p<0.05) lower compared with different animal wastes. Valpossors et al (2001) had observed that animal wastes treatment led to reduction in bulk density. The values of gravimetric moisture content were higher in animal wastes treated plots relative to control, but the different was not significant. Poultry droppings treatment appeared to be superior (Adesodun and Ojeniyi 2005: 2007) have attributed improved physical properties of soil to amendment of animal wastes which supplied organic carbon to the soil.

Treatment	Sand site clay Mgkg^-1			Texture	BD (Mgm^-3)	TP (%)	Gmc (%)	HC (cmbr^-1)	Mwd (%)	SA (%)
Control (c)	750	150	100	SL	1.62	39	11.4	19.03	1.84	2,47
PD	730	170	100	SL	1.45	45	14.1	39.10	2.50	3.98
CD	760	140	100	SL	1.47	44	14.0	30.94	2.36	3.46
SW	700	170	130	SL	1.51	43	13.1	34.08	2.39	3.61
GD	730	170	100	SL	152	43	12.4	27.26	2.26	3.29
FLSD(0.05)					0.08	3.2	ns	5.75	0.16	0.33

TABLE 1: Effects of Soil Amendment on Physical Properties

C=control; PD= poultry droppings; CD=cow dung; SW=swine waste; GD=goat dung; BD=bulk density; TP=total porbisity; GMC=grav imetric moisture content; HC= hydraulic conductivity; MWD=mean weight diameter; SA=state of aggregation. (Nwite et al., 2012)

Asema and Asadu (2011) studied the effect of soil amendments namely, soybean trash, rice husk and cowpea husk on physical properties of soil in guinea savanna. The results (table 2) show that bulk density was reduced by 5.8% and 4.0% in the plots amended with organic materials with highest occurring in soybean trash plots and least in cowpea husk plots. These results is in line with the findings of MacRac and Mehuy (1985) that addition of organic materials to a soil would decrease its bulk density because the added material is of lower density than the soil matrix. The results also showed that the treatments significantly influenced the saturated hydraulic conductivity values during both seasons. The increases probably resulted from the decreased bulk density values as a result of organic matter addition. Hati (2007) obtained increased Ksat levels and attributed it to better aggregation and lower bulk density owing to organic matter addition. Amendments did not significantly influence total porosity values. In contrast, Ojeniyi et al (2012) reported significant increase in total porosity due to application of poultry manure to the soil, macro porosity value were significantly higher in cowpea husk and soybean trash amended plots relative to control. Obi and Ebo (1995) found increases in total and macro-porosity with organic matter application while Hati (2007) reported significant increases in macro-and micro-porosity with application of organic materials.

TABLE 2: Effects of Organic Waste on Some Soil Physical Properties

Treatment	BD (9Cm^-3)	Ksat (Cmhr^-1)	TP (%)	Macroporosity (%)	Microporosity (%)
2004
SB	1.70	24.00	47.47	15.31	32.18
RC	1.71	18.96	50.24	14.12	36.13
CP	1.71	19.95	50.64	18.58	32.06
FT	1.72	16.89	40.64	11.16	29.48
CO	1.73	16.41	36.37	10.16	26.21
LCD(5%)	Ns	3.16	Ns	5.13	6.22
VAR(V)
FA	1.73	19.01	50.16	19.77	30.39
WA	1.71	17.42	47.54	17.70	29.82
WB LCD(5%)	1.71 Ns	17.69 Ns	49.38 Ns	15.99 3.03	33.41 Ns
2005
SB	1.62	24.47	51.07	18.60	32.47
RC	1.65	19.01	51.17	17.80	33.37
CP	1.71	17.65	49.32	17.57	31.75
FT	1.71	17.77	51.76	15.52	36.24
CO	1.72	14.49	52.75	14.81	37.89
LSD(5%)	0.019	3.44	Ns	Ns	Ns
VAR(V)
FA	1.68	19.77	50.97	16.37	34.59
WA	1.67	19.90	51.56	16.32	34.74
WB	1.67	16.37	51.11	17.38	33.70
LSD(5%)	Ns	Ns	ns	ns	Ns

In the same vain, the study showed that poultry manure reduced soil bulk density, increased porosity and moisture content (Table 4). The parameters changed progressively with level of manure. Thus poultry manure improved soil physical conditions significantly. These results were in agreement with Mbah and Mbagwu (2003) who worked on ultisols in southeast Nigeria and found that animal wastes including poultry droppings applied at 5, 10 and 20t/ha increased aggregate stability, water retention capacity and available and concluded that organic waste is beneficial to structural stability.

TABLE 3: Effect of Poultry Manure (PM) on Particle Size (Distribution)

Treatment	Sand (%) Site I Site II		Silt (%) Site I Site II		Clay (%) Site I Site II
Contract	69.3 a	67.7 a	15.9 c	13.9 b	14.8 c	18.8 e
2.5 tha^-1pm	69.2 a	67.5 a	16.0 c	13.6 c	18.8 c	18.9 d
5.0 tha^-1 pm	69.0 a	66.9 ab	16.1 c	13.8 b	14.9 c	19.3 c
7.5 tha^-1 pm	68.5 b	66.6 b	16.3 b	13.9 b	15.2 b	19.5 b
10.0 tha^-1pm	67.9 c	66.3 b	16.5 a	14.1 a	15.6 a	19.6c

Source: Ojeniyi ey al., 2012.

EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS ON SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Study conducted by Bashir (2009) on influence of green manure on chemical properties of soil in savanna region of Nigeria revealed that treatment had no significant effect on soil pH and electrical conductivity (Table 5). These results were in line with Lana (2004) who observed no significant of effect of green manure on pH and EC of soil under maize. In contrary, Onwu et al (2006)observed significant (p<0.05) increased in soil pH and electrical conductivity as a result of incorporation or green manure. The results also showed a significant build up of organic matter in the soil. Incorporation of manure at 8WAP resulted in increase of soil organic matter by 77% over the control. This finding was in agreement with Preton (2003) and Onwu et al (2006) who reported accumulation of organic matter in the form humns when decomposed.

In the same vain, incorporation of the manure at 8 weeks after planting increased the soil total N; available P, exchangeable K, Ca and Mg and ECEC by 13, 60, 67, 31, 224 and 42%, respectively over the control. These results concurred with Onwu et al; (2006) who measured significant increases in N, P, Ca and Mg content of soil treated with manure. Conversely, Mosari et al, (2008) recorded decreases in soil organic carbon, N, P, Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn by 11, 20, 12, 3, 613 and 5% respectively, when compared to the control due to incorporation of rye manure.

TABLE 4: Effect of Poultry Manure (PM) on Soil Physical Properties

Treatment	BD (bcm^-3) Site I Site II		TP (%) Site I Site II		MC (%) Site I Site II
Contract	1.59 a	1.60 a	40.0 e	39.6 e	11.60de	12.70de
2.5 tha^-1pm	1.53 b	1.54 b	42.3 d	41.9 d	12.10 d	13.40 d
5.0 tha^-1 pm	1.37 c	1.39 c	48.3 c	47.6 c	14.20 c	15.60 c
7.5 tha^-1 pm	1.24 d	1.22 d	53.2 b	53.9 b	16.30 b	17.60 b
10.0 tha^-1pm	1.10 e	1.11 e	58.5 a	58.1 a	18.20 a	18.40 a

Source: Ojeniyi et al., 2012.

TABLE 5: Effects of Spacing and Time of Green Manure on some Soil Chemical Properties

Treatments

(Spacing and time of

GM incorporation)

pH_w

E.C

Ms/cm

O.C O.M

g/kg g/kg

Total

g/kg

Avail

ppm

Exch.

-------

---------

Na⁺

(Cmolkg^-1)

Exch.

Bases

--------

Al⁺⁺⁺

-----

ECEC

-------

10 x 50cm at 6WAP

6.0^a

0.04^a

2.00^b3.60^b

0.60^ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.10^bc

0.77^abcd

0.09^a

3.24^bc

0.87^a

4.17^bc

10 x 100cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.04^a

1.90^b 3.40^b

0.60^abc

3.50^bcd

0.29^b

2.07^cd

0.73^bcd

0.09^a

3.15^c

0.80^a

3.95^c

10 x 150cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.0^a

1.90^b 3.30^bc

0.50^bc

3.27^cde

0.28^b

1.97^cd

0.63^cde

0.09^a

2.95^cd

0.73^ab

3.95^c

10 x 50cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.60^a4.60^a

0.70^a

4.20^a

0.40^a

2.40^a

1.07^a

0.10^a

3.96^a

1.00^a

4.70^ab

10 x 100cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b 3.70^b

0.70^a

3.97^ab

0.29^b

2.40^a

1.00^ab

0.10^a

3.78^a

0.93^a

4.78^a

10 x 150cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b 3.50^b

0.60^ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.33^ab

0.93^abc

0.09^a

3.65^ab

0.38^bc

3.98^c

N₆₀P₃₀K₃₀kgha^-1

6.2^a

0.04^a

1.90^b 2.90^bc

0.40^cd

3.03^de

0.26^b

1.93^cd

0.47^de

0.10^a

2.75^cd

1.00^a

3.62^cd

Control

5.8^a

0.03^a

1.50^c 2.60^c

0.30^a

2.63^e

0.24^b

1.83^d

0.33^e

0.08^a

2.49^d

0.33^c

3.36^d

Mean

6.0

0.04

2.00 3.40

0.50

3.54

0.29

2.13

0.74

0.09

3.25

0.76

4.06

SE ±

0.18

3.80

0.02 0.04

0.01

0.31

0.03

0.12

0.16

0.01

0.23

0.19

0.26

Values followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different from each other at (P<0.05) of DMRT: Source: Bashir, (2009)

The effect of organic materials on soil chemical properties was also investigated by Nwite et al (2012) using different animal wastes. The results in Table 6 show that the pH of plots treated with the animal wastes was significantly (p<0.05) higher than that of the control. Poultry droppings recorded better pH, percent organic carbon, total nitrogen and available phosphorus which is in hine with Adesodun et al (2003) report that these parameters were increased by the treatments.

The exchangeable Ca, Mg and K, Effective Cation Exchange Capacity (ECEC) and percent base saturation were significantly in the animal wastes treated plots, with poultry dropping being superior. However, significantly (p<0.05) higher exchangeable acidity was obtained in control (1.20 molkg^-1), and goat dung (1.01 conolkg^-1) amended plots relative to amendments of other animal wastes.

Animal manure contain substantial amounts of Ca, Mg and K (Moyin and Atoyosoye, 2002). Adeniyi and Ojeniyi (2005) stated that poultry dropping increased potassium content of soil compared to inorganic fertilizers. Adeniran, (2003) noted that animal wastes decreased exchangeable acidity by removal of Al³⁺ from soil exchange site. Nonga (2001) reported that application of poultry droppings significantly (p<0.05) increased effective cation exchange capacity and percent base saturation.

TABLE 6: Chemical Properties of Soil Following Amendment with Different Animals Wastes

Treatment	pH (H2O)	OC (%)	TN (%)	P (Mgkg-1	Ca	Mg	K	Na Cmolkg	ECEC	EA	%BS
C	5.1	1.05	0.10	25.60	4.2	2.5	0.31	0.29	8.51	1.20	85
PD	6.0	1.76	0.14	29.65	6.1	3.5	0.40	0.35	11.13	0.90	92
CD	5.7	1.40	0.12	28.24	5.1	2.9	0.31	0.30	9.78	0.90	90
SW	5.6	1.62	0.11	28.30	4.7	2.9	0.36	0.32	9.45	0.88	91
GD	5.5	1.52	0.11	27.79	5.1	3.0	0.34	0.31	10.06	1.01	90
FLSD	0.1	NS	0.02	NS	0.8	0.3	0.04	NS	0.91	0.11	2.0
(0.05)

C – Control, PD – Poultry droppings, CD-Cow dung, SW – Swine Waste, GD – Goat droppings.

Source: Nwite et al., (2012).

Effects of organic amendment on chemical properties of soil were also evaluated by Asema and Asadu (2012). Most of the parameters tested were significantly influenced by the amendments particularly in 2005 (TABLE 7). Organic Carbon (OC) values increased between 3.3 and 49% in 2004 and between 30 and 65% in 2005. The order of this increase was Sb = Rc>Cp>Ft = Co in 2004 and Sb = Rc = Cp>Ft>Co in 2005.

Total N, available P and exchangeable K values were significantly increased. N increased between 18 and 50% over the control in 2004 and between 83 and 110% in 2005 while P increased by as much as 138% in the Sb plots in 2005. Organic materials were found to improve N,P and K levels in soil by Bashir (2009). The amendments significantly increased pH values in 2005. The order of increase was Sb>Cp>Rc. In contrary, Hati (2007) did not observe significant effect on pH with the application of organic materials.

TABLE 7: Effect of Amendments on Some Soil Chemical Properties

2004 Session						2005 Session
Treatments (A)	OC (%)	N (%)	P Cmol	K Cmol/kg	pH (H₂O)	OC (%)	N (%)	P ppm	K Cmol/kg	pH ( H₂O)
Sb	0.57	0.03	3.89	0.07	4.81	0.66	7.44	0.10	0.10	5.50
Rc	0.55	0.04	3.87	0.08	5.04	0.64	0.05	7.86	0.11	5.37
Cp	0.51	0.04	3.85	0.08	4.93	0.62	0.06	7.30	0.09	5.42
Ft	0.40	0.03	3.59	0.08	4.90	0.52	0.04	3.49	0.08	4.74
Co	0.38	0.03	3.44	0.07	5.0	0.40	0.03	3.30	0.08	4.96
LSD (5%)	0.03	0.002	ns	ns	ns	0.062	0.001	0.74	0.013	0.24
Var (v)
FA	0.462	0.034	3.70	0.077	4.97	0.53	0.048	5.93	0.093	5.33
WA	0.496	0.037	3.80	0.084	4.94	0.58	0.049	5.61	0.094	5.12
WB	0.497	0.031	3.66	0.071	4.95	0.58	0.045	6.09	0.093	5.14
LSD (5%)	0.021	0.002	Ns	0.005	ns	Ns	0.001	ns	ns	Ns

Sb- soya bean trash; Rc-rice husk; Cp= cowpea husk; Ft=mineral fertilizer; Co=control.

Source: Asema and Asadu (2011).

Study carried out in south-western Nigeria by Adekiya et al. (2012) showed that application of poultry manure significantly increased soil organic matter, N, P, K, Ca and Mg compared with the control, increasing levels of poultry manure increased soil pH significantly (p<0.05) at both sites .

Table 8: Effect of Poultry Manure Levels on Soil Chemical Properties in 2010 Cropping Season.

Poultry

Manure

(t ha-1)

pH(water)

SITE

SUM (%)

SITE

N(%)

SITE

P(mgkg^-1)

SITE

K(cmolkg^-1)

SITE

Ca(cmolkg^-1)

SITE SIDE

B B

Mg(cmolkg^-1)

SITE

5.29c

5.41c

2.41e

2.31e

0.11e

0.12e

3.0e

3.7e

0.09e

0.8e

1.30d

1.68d

0.87d

2.5

5.40c

5.49bc

2.87cd

2.80d

0.13d

0.14d

3.5d

4.0de

0.10d

0.09d

1.46c

1.91c

0.77c

1.05c

5.0

5.60b

5.61ab

3.14c

3.19c

0.15c

0.16c

4.0c

4.5c

0.12c

1.72b

2.24b

0.99b

1.30b

7.5

5.85a

6.06a

3.51b

3.68b

0.17b

0.21b

4.7b

5.0b

0.15a

1.96a

2.61a

1.17a

1.60a

10.0

5.97a

6.15a

3.96a

4.12a

0.20a

0.25a

5.2a

5.9a

0.14ab

1.98a

2.64a

1.19a

1.63a

TABLE 8: Effect of amendments on some soil chemical properties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Values followed by similar letters under same column are not significantly different at p=0.05

According to Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) Adekiya et al (2012).

Increasing levels of the manure increased SOM, N and P values up to 10tha^-1. K, Ca and Mg were only increased up to 7.5tha^-1 of the manure level. There was not significant differences between 7.5tha^-1 and 10tha^-1 poultry manure level for K, Ca and Mg at both sites. This finding agreed with previous studies that an amendment of soil using poultry manure was found to improve SOM, N, P, Ca and Mg (Smith and Ayenigbara, 2001). The significant increase in soil pH due to the manure can be adduced to Ca ions released into the soil solution during the microbial decomposition of the manure (Natschner and Schwertman, 1991).

EFFECT OF ORGANIC MATTER ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF CROPS

Table 9 shows the results of the effect of four years successive application of different manures performance of millet in semi-arid region of northeastern Nigeria by Kwari (2004). Application of the manures singly or in combination increased the growth and yields of the crop when compared with the control. The tallest plants were recorded in plots treated with CM+MR+GM application of CM+GM produced the highest panicle and grain yields, followed by CM+MR+GM. This indicates that successive use of CM alone or in combination with any one or two of the materials is superior to application of recommended rate NPK (N₆₀ P₃₀ K₃₀) por millet production in the region. Many researchers reported beneficial effects of agro-waste materials on crop production. Okpara and Mbagwu (2004) reported that sole application of swine waste are 40tha^-1 gave the highest maize dry matter yield, while combination of swine waste + cattle dung produced the highest grain yield of maize in southeastern Nigeria. Ugwauku and Nnaji (2012) observed that application of 30g/potsian weed + 30g/pot rice husk gave the highest (p<0.05) dry mater yield of maize. Similarly, Jibrin, (2012) application of 20tha^-1 of poultry manure – based compost produced the highest yield of pepper in Dadin-kowa.

TABLE 9: Effects of combines and separated application of manure, millet residue and green manure on some growth and yield parameters of millet.

Treatment	Number Of tillers (8 WAS)	Plant height (m)	Straw (t/ha	Panicles (kg/ha)	Grain Yield (kg/ha)	%grain Yield increase	Harvest Index	Threshing Percentage (%)	Grain Chaff ratio
Control ©	6	1.44	1.35	610.0	391.1		0.517	66.0	2.0
Manure (M) Millet	9	1.90	2.36	1114.5	723.7	85.0	0.511	66.4	2.8
Residue (MR) Green	7	1.69	1.85	933.8	567.8	45.2	0.564	61.0	1.8
Manure (GM)	7	1.76	1.68	816.7	482.3	23.3	0.578	59.1	1.5
M + MR	8	1.80	2.30	1037.3	660.0	68.8	0.499	64.5	1.8
M + GM	9	1.81	2.57	1303.0	884.3	126.1	0.559	68.8	2.6
Mr+GM	6	1.43	1.63	716.5	436.3	11.6	0.509	61.5	1.9
M+MR+GM	10	1.92	2.66	1198.3	817.4	109.0	0.492	66.3	2.9
N₆₀ P₃₀ K₃₀	9	1.78	2.80	1290.7	797.7	104.0	0.499	61.7	1.8
LSD	(0.05)	2.6	0.104	0.537	188.06	102.99	NS	NS	NS

Source: Kwari, (2007).

LSD (0.05) 2.6 0.104 0.537 188.06 102.99 NS NS NS

Source: Kwari (2007).

The result in table 10 shows that green manure grown at spacing of 10 x 150cm and incorporated at tWAP increased sorghum height from 83cm to 145cm, representing 174%, and grain yield from 727.3kgha^{-1 in control to 1,668.7kgha-1}, representing 129% increase over the control Bashir (2009). Onim et al (1990) showed in savanna region of Kenya that incorporation of sesbania green manure increased maize yield by 77%. Similarly, Olaniyan et al (2000) reported that sesbania incorporation significantly increased rice yield in savanna region of Nigeria. All these results showed the effectiveness of green manure in improving soil productivity.

Table 10: Effect of spacing and time incorporation of green manure on the yield and yield parameters of sorghum.

Treatments (spacing and time of GM Incorporation)	Panicle Weight (kg/ha)	1000 seed Weight (gram)	Straw Weight (kg/ha)	Grain Weight (kg/ha)
10 x 50cm at 6 WAP	1.700^ab	27.39^abc	3,922.3a	1 ,396.3^bcd
10 x l00cm at 6 WAP	1.933.33^a	2833^ab	4.379.0^a	1.606.7^ab
10x 150cm at 6 WAP	2.033.33^a	29.59^a	4,379.0^a	1.668.7^a
10x50cm at 8 WAP	l.270^bc	25.97^cd	2,759.0^bc	1.116.7^e
10 x 100cm at 8 WAP	1.520^bc	26.96^bcd	3,785.3^a	1 ,350.0^cde
10x 150cm at 8 WAP	1,480^bc	26.94 ^bcd	3,675.3^ab	1,219.0^de
N₆₀ -P₃₀- K₃₀ kgha^-1	1,700^ab	27.42^abc	4,172.3^a	1,561. 0^abc
Control	910^c	24.70^d	2,695.3^c	727.3^f
Mean	1,480	27.16	3,721.0	1,330.9
SE±	0.90	1.09	429.84	117.15

* Values followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different from each other at (P<0.05) of DMRT.

Source; Bashir (2009).

A study conducted by Olatunji et al (2006) in guinea savanna of Nigeria (TABLE 11) showed that application of pig dung and poultry droppings at the rates of 4 and 8tha^-1 significantly increased the weight of okra plant with pod at 27 WAT over control. The highest weight was recorded with 80^th-1 pig dung. However, there was no significant differences in treatment effects on all other yield parameters measured. This might be due to the rates applied which were less than that recommended by Tsai, (1989), who recommended 10 – 20tha^-1 from his study. In contrary, Adekiya et al (2012) obtained with the highest of cormel yield of cocoyam application of 7.5tha^-1 of poultry manure in alfisol of humid region of south western Nigeria. Any further increase in poultry manure was not useful for growth and yield of the crop. Adekiya and Agbede (2009) found that fruit yield of tomato was reduced at higher poultry manure application rate. Ayuba et al (2005) earlier reported a significant increase in yield of ginger with increasing rate of poultry manure up to 20tha^-1 at Makurdi in the sub-humid guinea savanna zone of Nigeria.

Table 12 shows the results of effect of form yard manure on maize yield in Nigerian savanna Odunde et al. (2007). The treatments increased all the parameters measured except the cob length which lowest value was obtained in peat treated with the highest dose (6tha^-1) of the manure and there was significant (p<0.05) difference among other treatments. Application of 5tha^-1produced the lowest value (0.56tha^-1) was recorded in the control plants. The highest values of 1000 grains weight (172.9g) , cob diameter (4.14cm) and Stover weight (4.57tha^-1) were 6tha^-1 in manure and the lowest were obtained from the control.

Table 11: Effects of Pig Dung and Poultry Droppings on the Growth and Yield Parameters of Okra at 27 WAT

Treatment

(t/ha)

Mean Weight

of Plant

with Pod (g)

Mean Weight

of Pod

(g)

Mean Pod

Circumference

(cm)

Mean

Weight of

Seeds per Pod (cm)

Mean

Number of

Seeds per Pod

Mean Height of Pod

(cm)

Mean thy Weight of Plant (g)

0.0 Control

22.70

2.29

6.25

1.18

30.00

6.95

5.27

4.0 PG

34.97

2.29

7.30

0.58

21.50

6.40

7.42

8.0 PG

44.53

3.50

7.70

0.85

27.00

6.90

11.31

4.0 PD

21.85

2.40

7.15

0.70

29.50

7.00

4.05

8.0 PD

26.48

2.20

6.35

0.85

32.00

7.10

5.78

Mean

30.11

2.54

6.95

0.83

28.00

6.87

6.77

F-LSD (0.05)

13.50

PG=Pig Dung, PD=Poultry Droppings, NS=Non Significant.

Source: Olatunji et al. (2006).

Table 12: Effect of farmyard manure (FYM) application on maize yield

FYM

(tha^-1)

Grain

(th^-1)

1000-grain wt

(g)

Cob Length

(Cm)

Cob Diameter (Cm)

Stover wt (tha^-1)

0.63e

33.30e

23.20a

l.19e

1.55e

l.02d

124.40d

23.13a

l.92d

2.74d

1.40e

137.50c

23.07a

2.98c

3.00c

1.66a

170.l0b

21.07a

3.62b

4.15b

1.63b

172.90a

14.93b

4.14a

4.57a

Means with same letter are not significantly different

Source; Odunze et al. (2007)

Effects of organic materials on nutrients uptake by crops

The effects of sesbanire green manure on nutrient uptake by sorghum in Maiduguri was evaluated by Bashir (2009). The treatment significant by influenced N,P,K uptake by the crop (Table 13). Green manure incorporated at 6 WAP exerted greater influence than at 8 WAP. The grain nutrient uptake was highest (13.97,5.07 and 22.95kgha^-1 N,P and K respectively) in plants under green manure grown at spacing of 10 x150cm and incorporated at 6WAP. However, the effects was statistically the same with that of 10 x 100cm. The lowest uptake of N, P. and K. (1.5,0.33 and 4.36kgh^-1respectively) was recorded in control plants.

The panicle N.P and K uptake was also highest (18.4,6.15 and 29.81 kgha^-1respectively) in the 1 x150cm spacing though the difference was not significant from that of 10 x 100cm at 6WAP. The control plants had lowest value (1.84,0.39 and 5.42kgha^-1 respectively).

The N,P and K uptake in the straw was highest (7.13,1.92 and 80.40kgha^-1 in sesbania grown at spacing of 10 x 150cm, but the values were statistically at par with that of 10 x100cm spacing. The lowest uptake (1.77,0.31 and 27.66kgha^-1 N,P and K respectively) was obtained in the control plants.

These result with Tejada et al (2009) that application of green manure Trifolium and Brassica to maize plant at high doses increased the grain protein content by 46.6 and 39% respectively, over the control. Similarly, Latt et al, (2009) observed a significant increase in N uptake by wetland rice due to application of sesbania green manure. Similarly, Masori et al, (2008) found that application of rye green manure to wheat plant increase Fe, Mn and Zn uptake by 48, 31 and 16% respectively, but decreased P and Cu uptake by 8 and 3% respectively over the control. The increases in nutrients uptake might be due to the microbial release of the nutrients from the manures and also due to the action of organic acids produced the decomposing manure. Which helped in the release of native minerals bound in insoluble forms.

TABLE 13: Effects of different spacing and time incorporation of green manure on nutrient uptake by sorghum

Treatments

(spacing and time of

GM incorporation)

pH_w

E.C

Ms/cm

O.C

g/kg

O.M

g/kg

Total

g/kg

Avail

ppm

Exch.

--------

Na+

(Cmolkg^-1)

Exch.

Bases

--------

Al+++

---------

ECEC

--------

10 x 50cm at 6 WAP

6.0^a

0.04^a

2.00^b

3.60^b

0.60ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.10^bc

0.77^abcd

0.09^a

3.24^bc

0.87^a

4.17^bc

10 x 100cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.04^a

1.90^b

3.40^b

0.60^abc

3.50^bcd

0.29^b

2.07^cd

0.73^bcd

0.09^a

3.15^c

0.80^a

3.95^c

10 x150cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.03^a

1.90^b

3.30^bc

0.50^bc

3.27^cde

0.28^b

1.97^cd

0.63^cde

0.09^a

2.95^cd

0.73^ab

3.95^c

10 x 50cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.60^a

4.60^a

0.70^a

4.20^a

0.40^a

2.40^a

1.07^a

0.10^a

3.96^a

1.00^a

4.70^ab

10x 100cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b

3.70^b

0.70^a

3.97^ab

0.29^b

2.40^a

1.00^ab

0.10^a

3.78^a

0.93^a

4.78^a

10x150cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b

3.50^b

0.60^ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.33^ab

0.93^abc

0.09^a

3.65^ab

0.38^bc

N₆₀P₃₀K₃₀ kgh^-1

6.2^a

0.04^a

1.90^c

2.90^bc

0.40^cd

3.03^de

0.26^b

1.93^cd

0.47^de

0.10^a

2.75^cd

1.00^a

3.62^cd

Control

5.8^a

0.03^a

1.50^c

2.60^c

0.30^d

2.63^e

0.24^b

1.83^d

0.33^e

0.08^a

2.49^d

0.33^c

3.36^d

Mean

6.0

0.04

2.00

3.40

0.50

3.54

0.29

2.13

0.74

0.09

3.25

0.76

4.06

SE±

0.18

3.80

0.02

0.04

0.01

0.31

0.03

0.12

0.16

0.01

0.23

0.19

0.26

Values followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different from each other at (P<0.05) of DMRT.

Source: Bashir, (2009).

Conclusion

The findings of the above studies show the application of organic materials improved the physical and chemical properties of soils and enhanced the performance of crop. It is therefore, concluded that organic materials contributed positively to soil productivity.

REFERENCES

Adekiya A. O., Ojeniyi, S. O. and Agbede, T. M. (2012). Poultry manure effects on soil properties, leaf nutrient uptake status, growth and yield of cocoyam in a tropical alfisol. Nig. T. Soil Sci. 22(2): 30 – 39.

Adekiya S. O. and Agbede, T. M. (2009). Growth and yield of tomato as influenced by poultry manures and NPK fertilizer. Amer. J. Food Agric 21(1); 10 – 20.

Adeniran J. A. and Boswell, C. (2003). Soil organic matter dynamics. Sustainability of tropical agriculture. 22: 95-109.

Adesodum J. J., Mbagwu, J. S. C. and Oti, N. (2003). Distribution of carbon-nitrogen and phosphorus in water stable aggregate of an organic wastes amended ultisol in south eastern Nigeria. Biresoruce Technol 95: 509-516.

Adesodum J. J. and Ojeniyi, S. O. (2005). Effects of poultry manure, NPK and combination of their reduced levels on maize growth and soil properties. Nig. Journal. Soil Sci. 15:34-41.

Alexander M. (1977). Introduction to soil microbiology 2^nd edition, John Wiley and sons, New York.

Asema U. S. and Asadu, C. L. A. (2012). Effects of three organic wastes used for upland rice production on soil physico-chemical properties at Yauder, Benue State, Nigeria. In proceedings of the 35^th annual conference of SSSN 7 – 11^th march, 2011. Minna 109 – 118.

Ayuba S. A., John, C. and Obasi, M. D. (2005). Effects of organic manures on soil chemical properties and yield of ginger. Nig. J. Soil Sci 15: 136 – 138.

Babalola A. A., Zagal, Z. and Ogunsola, O. (2000). Physical conditions and degradation of Nigeria Soils. In: proceedings of the 26^th annual conference of the soil science of Nigeria 30^th October -3^rd November 2000, University of Ibadan.

Bashir A. A., (2009). The effects of spacing and time of application of S. rostrata as green manure on soil chemical properties and yield of sorghum in Borno State. Unpublished M. Sc. Dissertation, University of Maiduguri.

Bot A. and Benites, J. (2005). The importance of soil organic matter, FAO soil bulletin 80, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Brady N. C. and Weil, R. R. (1999). The nature and properties of soils 12^th edition, prentice hall publishers, New York.

Brady N. C. and Weil, R. R. (2002). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 13^th ed, prentice hall, New York.

Chude V. O., (2012). Links Between Soil Management and Food Security in West Africa. Paper Presented at the Global Soil Partnership Workshop “Managing Living Soils” FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. 5^th – 7^th December. 2012.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs- (DEFRA) (2011). The nutrients values of manures, University of Hertfordshire.

Fenton M. Albers C. and Ketterings Q. (2008). Soil Organic Matter, Agronomy Fact Sheet 41, Cornell University, Ithica USA.

Foth H. D. and Turk C. (1972). Fundamentals of Soil Science. New York, John Wiley publ, pp 25.

Gadzama N. M. (ed) Arid Zone Hydrology. University of Maiduguri press.

Hati M. K. (2007). Soil properties and crop yield on a vertisol in India with application of distillery effluent. Soil and Tillage Res. 92: 60 – 68.

Henao J. and Baanate, C. (2006). Agricultural Production and Soil Nutrients Mining in Africa Implications for Resources Conservation and Policy Development. International center Fertilizer Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama USA.

Jibrin A. D. (2012). Effects of variety and rates of poultry manure-based compost on the growth and yield of pepper in Dadin-kowa Nigeria. In: proceedings of the 35^th annual conference of the SSSN 7-11^th March, 2011 Minna pp. 91-100.

Kombiok J.M.,Buah S.S.J and Sogbedji J.M. 2012. Enhancing Soil Fertility for Cereal Crop Production through Biological Practices and Organic Fertilizer in Norther Savanna Zone of Ghana.INTECH. http://dx.doi.org.

Kwari J. D. (2004). Growth and yield of millet after four years of application of cattle manure, millet residues, and green manures in a sandy loam soil of Maiduguri, Nigeria. In: proceedings of the 28^th annual conference of SSSN. 4-7^th December (2003) Umudike pp. 45-50.

Lana E. (2004). Soil fertility changes and response of maize to green manures of Acacia and Sesbania. Unpublished B.Sc. project report. University of Maiduguri. Pp 26.

Latt Y. K., Myint, A. K., Yamakawa, T. and Ogata, K, (2009). The effects of green manures (sesbania rostrata) on the growth and yield of rice. J. faculty of agric, Kyushu University 54(2): 313 – 319.

Lewandowski A. (2013). Organic matter management. University of Minesota Extension, Minnesota. www.extension.umn.edu

MacRae R. J. and Mehuy, G. R. (1985). Effects of green manure on the physical properties of temperate area soils. Adv. Soil Sci 3: 71-94.

Masori S. B., Jaferzadeh, A. A., Nishabouri, M. R., Ostom, S. H. and Feizaisi, V. (2008). Effects of Rye green manures on soil properties in Maragheli dry land condition zone. In: proceedings of international meeting on soil fertility, land management and agro climatology, Turkey. Pp 599-608.

Mbah C. N. and Mbagwu, J. S. C. (2003). Changes in structural stability and water retention of a sandy clay loam amended with organic waste. J. Sci. Agric Food Tech. an Envt. 3: 16-21.

Moyin J. E. I. and Atoyosoye, B. (2002). Utilize of agriculture wastes for the growth of leaf and soil chemical composition of acacia seedlings in the nursery. Parkmark Jounal Trop. Agric Sci. 25: 53-62.

Naetschner L. and Schwertmann, U. (1991). Proton buffering in organic horizons of acid forest soils. Geoderma 48: 93-106.

Nonga D. L. M. (2001). Comparative effectiveness of animal manures on soil chemical properties, yield and growth of amaranthus. Agric J. Soil Techn 1: 14-21.

Nwite J. N., Okolo, C. C. and Ezeaku, P. I. (2013). Evaluation of the productivity of soil amended with different animal wastes in an acid ultisol at Abakiliki, southeast Nigeria. In proceedings of the 36^th annual conference of SSSN, 7-11^th March, 2012. Pg 184-194.

Obalum S. E., Buri, M. M., Nwite, J. C., Hermansah, Y. H. and Igwe, A. C. (2012). Soil Degradation-Induced Decline in Productivity of Sub Saharan African Soils. Applied and environmental Soil Science. http:dx.doi.org/10.

Obi M. E. (2000). Soil physics. A compendium of lectures. Atlanta publishers, Nsukka pp. 28-40.

Obi M. E. and Ebo, P. O. (1995). Effects of organic and inorganic amendments on soil physical properties and maize production in a severely degraded sandy soil in southern Nigeria. Biores Techn. 51: 117-123.

Ogunwole J. O. and Ogunleye, P. O. (2004). Surface soil aggregation, trace and heavy metal enrichment under long term application of farmyard manure. Communications in soil sciences and plant analysis 35: 1505-1516.

Ojeniyi S. O., Adekiya, A. O. and Amusan, O. A. (2012). Three years influence of tillage and poultry manure on soil physical properties and yield of cocoyam. Nig. J. Soil Sci 22(2): 119-127.

Olaniyan S. O., Okonkwo, S. G. and Oyegoke, S. G. (2000). Effects of yield binding and fertilizer management on yield of lowland rice in: proceedings of the 24^th annual conference of SSSN 30^th October – 3^rd November 2000. U. I. Ibadan. Pp. 345-347.

Olatunji O., Ayuba, S. A. and Oboh, V. U. (2006). Growth and yield of okra and tomato as affected by pig dung and other organic manures: issues for economic consideration in Benue. In: proceedings of the 30^th annual conference of the SSSN 5-9^th December, 2006 Makurdi pp. 91-98.

Omeje M. U. (1991). The fertility status and constraints of Chad Basin soils in M. N. Gadzama et al. arid zone hydrology. University of Maiduguri press.

Onim J.F.M., Mathura, M., Otieno, K. and Fitzhugh, H. A. (1990). Soil fertility change and responses of maize and beans to green manures of leucaena, sesbania, and pigeon pea, Agroforestry systems, 12: 197-215.

Onwu A. C., Ayuba, S. A. and Ali, A. (2006). Contribution of leguminous weed green manure to soil fertility. In: proceedings of the 30^th annual conference of SSSN 5-9^th December 2005 Makurdi. Pp 284-289.

Parigiani J. and Spooner, S. (2015). Is the ‘year of soils.’ Here are the 6 chilling facts every African must be aware of, FAO, Rome.

Pieters A. J. (1972). Green manuring, principles and practice. John Wiley and sons New York.

Preston S. (2003). Overview of cover crop manures: fundamental of sustainable agriculture. RHB press.

Rayar A. J. (1988). Decline in fertility of a semi-arid soil of northeastern Nigeria under continuous cropping. Journal of arid agriculture vol. 1(2): 227-241 University of Maiduguri Press.

Rayar A. J. (1991). Assay of Nigeria supplying capacity of the semi-arid savanna soils of north eastern Nigeria. In: Gadzama N.M (ed) Arid Zone Hydrology. University of Maiduguri Press.

Scholl L. V. and Nieuwenhuis, R. (2004). Soil fertility management, Agernship rodox 2 Netherlands.

Shehu B. M., Jibrin, J. M. and Samndi, A. M. (2015). Fertility status of selected soils in the Sudan Savanna Biome of Northern Nigeria. International Journal of Soil Science, 10:74-83.

Smith M. A. K and Ayenigbara, E. A. (2001). Comparative Growth and Nutrient Composition of Indian Spinach in an Enriched Humid Tropical Environment. In: proceedings of African crop science society conference, Uganda 5: 1007-1013.

Tanimu J.S.W., Lyocks, C. L., Onwu and Imadojemu, P. E. (2013). Effect of manure management and nitrogen levels on soil organic carbon in the northern guinea savanna agricultural science vol. 1(3) 13-33.

Tejada M., Gonzalez, J. L., Garira – Martinez A. M. and Parrado, J. (2008). Effects of different green manures on soil biological properties and maize yield. Bioresource technology 99(6): 253 – 260.

Tsai T.C. (1989). Regional agriculture and livestock complex farming. Lumpei cattle faeces treatment centre. An analysis of its input and management. Taiwan provincial government. 90 pp.

Ugwuaku C. A. O and Nnaji, G. U. (2012). Decomposition of cassava peels, rive shavings and siam weed in soil and their effects on maize dry matter yield. In: proceedings of the 35^th annual conference of the SSSN 7-11^th March, 2011, Minna pp 255-262.

Valpassos M. A., Cante, R., Cassioloto, E. G. S. and Alves, A. M. J. (2001). Effects of soil management systems on soil microbial activity, bulk density and chemical properties. Agro pec36: 153-155.

Wagner S., Cattle, S. R. and Scholten, T. (2007). Soil aggregate formation as influenced by clay content and organic matter amendment J. plant Nutri Soil Sci: 170: 173-180.

Webster C. C. and Wilson, P. N. (1980). Agriculture in the tropics. Longman limited London.

Wright D. and Kelly, V. (1998). Restoring soil fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa: policy synthesis No: 37 Michigan State University, East Lansing USA.

Yayock J. Y., Lombin, G. and Owonubi, J. J. (1988). Crop science and production in warm climates. Macmillan publishers Ltd. London.

Yusuf A. A. and Yusuf, H. A. (2008). Evaluation of strategies for soil fertility improvement in Northern Nigeria and the way forward. Journal of Agronomy, 7:15-24.

CONTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC MATTER TO SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Introduction

The major sources of organic matter in agricultural soils are:

2.2.3 Compost

3.0 EFFECTS OF ORGANIC MATTER ON SOIL PROPERTIES

I. PHYSICAL BENEFITS

· Enhances aggregate stability, improving water infiltration and soil aeration, reducing runoff.

· Improves water holding capacity.

· Reduces stickness of clay soils, making them easier to till.

· Reduces surface crusting, facilitating seedbed preparation.

II. CHEMICAL BENEFITS

· Increase soil CEC or its ability to hold and supply over time essential plant nutrients.

· Improves the ability of a soil to resist pH change, or buffering capacity.

· Decompose to supply plant nutrients.

III. BIOLOGICAL BENEFITS

· Provides food for the living organism in the soil

EFFECT OF ORGANIC MATTER ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Treatment	Sand site clay Mgkg^-1			Texture	BD (Mgm^-3)	TP (%)	Gmc (%)	HC (cmbr^-1)	Mwd (%)	SA (%)
Control (c)	750	150	100	SL	1.62	39	11.4	19.03	1.84	2,47
PD	730	170	100	SL	1.45	45	14.1	39.10	2.50	3.98
CD	760	140	100	SL	1.47	44	14.0	30.94	2.36	3.46
SW	700	170	130	SL	1.51	43	13.1	34.08	2.39	3.61
GD	730	170	100	SL	152	43	12.4	27.26	2.26	3.29
FLSD(0.05)					0.08	3.2	ns	5.75	0.16	0.33

TABLE 1: Effects of Soil Amendment on Physical Properties

TABLE 2: Effects of Organic Waste on Some Soil Physical Properties

Treatment	BD (9Cm^-3)	Ksat (Cmhr^-1)	TP (%)	Macroporosity (%)	Microporosity (%)
2004
SB	1.70	24.00	47.47	15.31	32.18
RC	1.71	18.96	50.24	14.12	36.13
CP	1.71	19.95	50.64	18.58	32.06
FT	1.72	16.89	40.64	11.16	29.48
CO	1.73	16.41	36.37	10.16	26.21
LCD(5%)	Ns	3.16	Ns	5.13	6.22
VAR(V)
FA	1.73	19.01	50.16	19.77	30.39
WA	1.71	17.42	47.54	17.70	29.82
WB LCD(5%)	1.71 Ns	17.69 Ns	49.38 Ns	15.99 3.03	33.41 Ns
2005
SB	1.62	24.47	51.07	18.60	32.47
RC	1.65	19.01	51.17	17.80	33.37
CP	1.71	17.65	49.32	17.57	31.75
FT	1.71	17.77	51.76	15.52	36.24
CO	1.72	14.49	52.75	14.81	37.89
LSD(5%)	0.019	3.44	Ns	Ns	Ns
VAR(V)
FA	1.68	19.77	50.97	16.37	34.59
WA	1.67	19.90	51.56	16.32	34.74
WB	1.67	16.37	51.11	17.38	33.70
LSD(5%)	Ns	Ns	ns	ns	Ns

TABLE 3: Effect of Poultry Manure (PM) on Particle Size (Distribution)

Treatment	Sand (%) Site I Site II		Silt (%) Site I Site II		Clay (%) Site I Site II
Contract	69.3 a	67.7 a	15.9 c	13.9 b	14.8 c	18.8 e
2.5 tha^-1pm	69.2 a	67.5 a	16.0 c	13.6 c	18.8 c	18.9 d
5.0 tha^-1 pm	69.0 a	66.9 ab	16.1 c	13.8 b	14.9 c	19.3 c
7.5 tha^-1 pm	68.5 b	66.6 b	16.3 b	13.9 b	15.2 b	19.5 b
10.0 tha^-1pm	67.9 c	66.3 b	16.5 a	14.1 a	15.6 a	19.6c

Source: Ojeniyi ey al., 2012.

EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS ON SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

TABLE 4: Effect of Poultry Manure (PM) on Soil Physical Properties

Treatment	BD (bcm^-3) Site I Site II		TP (%) Site I Site II		MC (%) Site I Site II
Contract	1.59 a	1.60 a	40.0 e	39.6 e	11.60de	12.70de
2.5 tha^-1pm	1.53 b	1.54 b	42.3 d	41.9 d	12.10 d	13.40 d
5.0 tha^-1 pm	1.37 c	1.39 c	48.3 c	47.6 c	14.20 c	15.60 c
7.5 tha^-1 pm	1.24 d	1.22 d	53.2 b	53.9 b	16.30 b	17.60 b
10.0 tha^-1pm	1.10 e	1.11 e	58.5 a	58.1 a	18.20 a	18.40 a

Source: Ojeniyi et al., 2012.

TABLE 5: Effects of Spacing and Time of Green Manure on some Soil Chemical Properties

Treatments

(Spacing and time of

GM incorporation)

pH_w

E.C

Ms/cm

O.C O.M

g/kg g/kg

Total

g/kg

Avail

ppm

Exch.

-------

---------

Na⁺

(Cmolkg^-1)

Exch.

Bases

--------

Al⁺⁺⁺

-----

ECEC

-------

10 x 50cm at 6WAP

6.0^a

0.04^a

2.00^b3.60^b

0.60^ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.10^bc

0.77^abcd

0.09^a

3.24^bc

0.87^a

4.17^bc

10 x 100cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.04^a

1.90^b 3.40^b

0.60^abc

3.50^bcd

0.29^b

2.07^cd

0.73^bcd

0.09^a

3.15^c

0.80^a

3.95^c

10 x 150cm at 6WAP

5.9^a

0.0^a

1.90^b 3.30^bc

0.50^bc

3.27^cde

0.28^b

1.97^cd

0.63^cde

0.09^a

2.95^cd

0.73^ab

3.95^c

10 x 50cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.60^a4.60^a

0.70^a

4.20^a

0.40^a

2.40^a

1.07^a

0.10^a

3.96^a

1.00^a

4.70^ab

10 x 100cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b 3.70^b

0.70^a

3.97^ab

0.29^b

2.40^a

1.00^ab

0.10^a

3.78^a

0.93^a

4.78^a

10 x 150cm at 8WAP

6.1^a

0.04^a

2.10^b 3.50^b

0.60^ab

3.87^abc

0.28^b

2.33^ab

0.93^abc

0.09^a

3.65^ab

0.38^bc

3.98^c

N₆₀P₃₀K₃₀kgha^-1

6.2^a

0.04^a

1.90^b 2.90^bc

0.40^cd

3.03^de

0.26^b

1.93^cd

0.47^de

0.10^a

2.75^cd

1.00^a

3.62^cd

Control

5.8^a

0.03^a

1.50^c 2.60^c

0.30^a

2.63^e

0.24^b

1.83^d

0.33^e

0.08^a

2.49^d

0.33^c

3.36^d

Mean

6.0

0.04

2.00 3.40

0.50

3.54

0.29

2.13

0.74

0.09

3.25

0.76

4.06

SE ±

0.18

3.80

0.02 0.04

0.01

0.31

0.03

0.12

0.16

0.01

0.23

0.19

0.26

Values followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different from each other at (P<0.05) of DMRT: Source: Bashir, (2009)

TABLE 6: Chemical Properties of Soil Following Amendment with Different Animals Wastes

Treatment	pH (H2O)	OC (%)	TN (%)	P (Mgkg-1	Ca	Mg	K	Na Cmolkg	ECEC	EA	%BS
C	5.1	1.05	0.10	25.60	4.2	2.5	0.31	0.29	8.51	1.20	85
PD	6.0	1.76	0.14	29.65	6.1	3.5	0.40	0.35	11.13	0.90	92
CD	5.7	1.40	0.12	28.24	5.1	2.9	0.31	0.30	9.78	0.90	90
SW	5.6	1.62	0.11	28.30	4.7	2.9	0.36	0.32	9.45	0.88	91
GD	5.5	1.52	0.11	27.79	5.1	3.0	0.34	0.31	10.06	1.01	90
FLSD	0.1	NS	0.02	NS	0.8	0.3	0.04	NS	0.91	0.11	2.0
(0.05)

C – Control, PD – Poultry droppings, CD-Cow dung, SW – Swine Waste, GD – Goat droppings.

Source: Nwite et al., (2012).

TABLE 7: Effect of Amendments on Some Soil Chemical Properties

2004 Session						2005 Session
Treatments (A)	OC (%)	N (%)	P Cmol	K Cmol/kg	pH (H₂O)	OC (%)	N (%)	P ppm	K Cmol/kg	pH ( H₂O)
Sb	0.57	0.03	3.89	0.07	4.81	0.66	7.44	0.10	0.10	5.50
Rc	0.55	0.04	3.87	0.08	5.04	0.64	0.05	7.86	0.11	5.37
Cp	0.51	0.04	3.85	0.08	4.93	0.62	0.06	7.30	0.09	5.42
Ft	0.40	0.03	3.59	0.08	4.90	0.52	0.04	3.49	0.08	4.74
Co	0.38	0.03	3.44	0.07	5.0	0.40	0.03	3.30	0.08	4.96
LSD (5%)	0.03	0.002	ns	ns	ns	0.062	0.001	0.74	0.013	0.24
Var (v)
FA	0.462	0.034	3.70	0.077	4.97	0.53	0.048	5.93	0.093	5.33
WA	0.496	0.037	3.80	0.084	4.94	0.58	0.049	5.61	0.094	5.12
WB	0.497	0.031	3.66	0.071	4.95	0.58	0.045	6.09	0.093	5.14
LSD (5%)	0.021	0.002	Ns	0.005	ns	Ns	0.001	ns	ns	Ns

Sb- soya bean trash; Rc-rice husk; Cp= cowpea husk; Ft=mineral fertilizer; Co=control.

Source: Asema and Asadu (2011).

Table 8: Effect of Poultry Manure Levels on Soil Chemical Properties in 2010 Cropping Season.

Poultry

Manure

(t ha-1)

pH(water)

SITE

SUM (%)

SITE

N(%)

SITE

P(mgkg^-1)

SITE

K(cmolkg^-1)

SITE

Ca(cmolkg^-1)

SITE SIDE

B B

Mg(cmolkg^-1)

SITE

5.29c

5.41c

2.41e

2.31e

0.11e

0.12e

3.0e

3.7e

0.09e

0.8e

1.30d

1.68d

0.87d

2.5

5.40c

5.49bc

2.87cd

2.80d

0.13d

0.14d

3.5d

4.0de

0.10d

0.09d

1.46c

1.91c

0.77c

1.05c

5.0

5.60b

5.61ab

3.14c

3.19c

0.15c

0.16c

4.0c

4.5c

0.12c

1.72b

2.24b

0.99b

1.30b

7.5

5.85a

6.06a

3.51b

3.68b

0.17b

0.21b

4.7b

5.0b

0.15a

1.96a

2.61a

1.17a

1.60a

10.0

5.97a

6.15a

3.96a

4.12a

0.20a

0.25a

5.2a

5.9a

0.14ab

1.98a

2.64a

1.19a

1.63a

TABLE 8: Effect of amendments on some soil chemical properties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Values followed by similar letters under same column are not significantly different at p=0.05

According to Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) Adekiya et al (2012).

EFFECT OF ORGANIC MATTER ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF CROPS

TABLE 9: Effects of combines and separated application of manure, millet residue and green manure on some growth and yield parameters of millet.

Treatment	Number Of tillers (8 WAS)	Plant height (m)	Straw (t/ha	Panicles (kg/ha)	Grain Yield (kg/ha)	%grain Yield increase	Harvest Index	Threshing Percentage (%)	Grain Chaff ratio
Control ©	6	1.44	1.35	610.0	391.1		0.517	66.0	2.0
Manure (M) Millet	9	1.90	2.36	1114.5	723.7	85.0	0.511	66.4	2.8
Residue (MR) Green	7	1.69	1.85	933.8	567.8	45.2	0.564	61.0	1.8
Manure (GM)	7	1.76	1.68	816.7	482.3	23.3	0.578	59.1	1.5
M + MR	8	1.80	2.30	1037.3	660.0	68.8	0.499	64.5	1.8
M + GM	9	1.81	2.57	1303.0	884.3	126.1	0.559	68.8	2.6
Mr+GM	6	1.43	1.63	716.5	436.3	11.6	0.509	61.5	1.9
M+MR+GM	10	1.92	2.66	1198.3	817.4	109.0	0.492	66.3	2.9
N₆₀ P₃₀ K₃₀	9	1.78	2.80	1290.7	797.7	104.0	0.499	61.7	1.8
LSD	(0.05)	2.6	0.104	0.537	188.06	102.99	NS	NS	NS

Source: Kwari, (2007).

LSD (0.05) 2.6 0.104 0.537 188.06 102.99 NS NS NS

Source: Kwari (2007).

Table 10: Effect of spacing and time incorporation of green manure on the yield and yield parameters of sorghum.

Treatments (spacing and time of GM Incorporation)	Panicle Weight (kg/ha)	1000 seed Weight (gram)	Straw Weight (kg/ha)	Grain Weight (kg/ha)
10 x 50cm at 6 WAP	1.700^ab	27.39^abc	3,922.3a	1 ,396.3^bcd
10 x l00cm at 6 WAP	1.933.33^a	2833^ab	4.379.0^a	1.606.7^ab
10x 150cm at 6 WAP	2.033.33^a	29.59^a	4,379.0^a	1.668.7^a
10x50cm at 8 WAP	l.270^bc	25.97^cd	2,759.0^bc	1.116.7^e
10 x 100cm at 8 WAP	1.520^bc	26.96^bcd	3,785.3^a	1 ,350.0^cde
10x 150cm at 8 WAP	1,480^bc	26.94 ^bcd	3,675.3^ab	1,219.0^de
N₆₀ -P₃₀- K₃₀ kgha^-1	1,700^ab	27.42^abc	4,172.3^a	1,561. 0^abc
Control	910^c	24.70^d	2,695.3^c	727.3^f
Mean	1,480	27.16	3,721.0	1,330.9
SE±	0.90	1.09	429.84	117.15