Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, D: Agriculture and Veterinary, Volume 22 Issue 1

inorganic fertilizer and the 120N+50P+40K organic fertilizer when applied under solid mode on the field. The finding implies that the organic fertilizer applied at the rate of 120N+50P+40K competes very well with NPK 15-15-15 and may be used in place of the inorganic fertilizer and still get about the same quantity of output. f) Economic Performance of Maize Economic performance of maize using different Treatments under solid and spray on the Field Economic performance Indicators Yield (T/ha) Revenue/ maize treatment ₦ /ha Total Variable cost ( ₦ /ha) Total Fixed cost ( ₦ /ha) Total cost ( ₦ /ha) Net farm income ₦ /ha Rev/cost ratio Treatment under Solid on field A 4.5de 1,570,000 18,500 8,000 26,500 1,543,500 59:1 B 4.76bc 1,760,000 18,500 8,000 26,500 1,733,500 66:1 C 4.43def 1,502,000 18,500 8,000 26,500 1,475,500 56:1 D 4.77ab 1,870,000 200,000 8,000 208,000 1,662, 000 9:1 i. Economic performance of maize using different Treatments under solid and spray on the Field There were variations in the economic performance among the different treatments using solid or foliar fertilizer application on the field. Tables 8 & 9 show that treatments under solid fertilizer application performed better than those under foliar application. The following Net Farm Income were obtained for treatments under solid application; A = 100N+40P+30K = #1,543,500 ($3,087), B =120N+50P+40K = # 1,733, 500 ($3,467), C= 70N+30P+20K = # 1,475,500 ($2,951) and D=NPK 15-15-15= #1,662, 000 ($3,324). However, under foliar application on the field the Net Farm Incomes are; A = 100N+40P+30K = #641,000 ($1,282), B = 120N+50P+40K = # 676,000 ($1,352), This result shows that treatment B = 120N+50P+40K = # 1,733,500 which gave the highest net income has the highest economic value especially when incorporated as solid fertilizer one week before planting. The reason for poor economic performance of the different combinations of moringa technology under screen house may have been as deduced by Machado et al., (2011) that organic fertilizer releases nutrients slowly, its application as spray, might encourage washing off by rain even before the plants absorbed the nutrients. Table 9: Economic performance of maize under different treatments using spray on the Field Economic performance Indicators Yield (T/ha) Revenue/ maize treatment ₦ /ha Total Variable cost ( ₦ /ha) Total Fixed cost ( ₦ /ha) Total cost ( ₦ /ha) Net farm income ₦ /ha Rev/cost ratio Treatment A 2.67efg 667,500 18,500 8,000 26,500 641,000 25:1 B 2.81ef 702,500 18,500 8,000 26,500 676,000 26:1 C 2.72efg 680,000 18,500 8,000 26,500 653,500 25:1 D 3.33 832, 500 200,000 8,000 208,000 632,500 4:1 ii. Economic Performance of Maize Under Fertilizer Solid and Foliar in the Screen House Economic performance of maize under fertilizer application as solid or as spray in the screen house are significantly (p<0.05) lower than the performance on the field(Tables 8&9).This finding followed the same pattern as previously discussed under differences in the growth traits and yields between the plants on the field and those in the screen house. Reason for this could be explained by the fact that there was too much lodging of maize plants in the screen house. This led to maize cobs decay which reduced the total yield. Since yield determines sales, it implies that revenue will be low when yield is low and so will be net income. Potential of Bio-Organic Mix as an Alternative to Inorganic Fertilizer in Maize Production in Africa 1 Year 2022 17 © 2022 Global Journals Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXII Issue ersion I VI ( D ) Table 8: