Abstract
SUMMARY Integrated crop-livestock farming in the Guinea savanna of West Africa is often assumed to lead to synergies between crop and livestock production, thereby improving the overall productivity and resilience of agricultural production. Whether these synergies actually occur remains poorly studied. On-farm trials were conducted in northern Nigeria over a period of four years to assess the agronomic and economic performance of maize-legume systems with and without the integration of livestock (goats). Groundnut-maize rotations with livestock achieved the highest carry-over of nutrients as manure from one season to the next, covering approximately one-third of the expected N, P and K uptake by maize and reducing the demand for synthetic fertilizers. However, the advantage of lower fertilizer costs in rotations with livestock was offset by higher labour costs for manure application and slightly lower values of maize grain. Overall, no clear agronomic or economic benefits for crop production were observed from the combined application of manure and synthetic fertilizer over the application of synthetic fertilizer only, probably because the amounts of manure applied were relatively small. Legume-maize rotations achieved higher cereal yields, a better response to labour and fertilizer inputs, and a higher profitability than maize-based systems with no or only a small legume component, irrespective of the presence of livestock. Livestock at or near the farm could nevertheless make legume cultivation economically more attractive by increasing the value of legume haulms. The results suggested that factors other than crop benefits, e.g. livestock providing tangible and non-tangible benefits and opportunities for animal traction, could be important drivers for the ongoing integration of crop and livestock production in the savanna.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Groundnut-maize rotations with livestock had the highest nutrient carry-over as manure, around one third of expected maize uptake.
- Treatment
- Groundnut-maize rotations with livestocke0
- Outcome
- carry-over of nutrients as manuree0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- approximately one-thirde0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Groundnut-maize rotations with livestock achieved the highest carry-over of nutrients as manure from one season to the next, covering approximately one-third of the expected N, P and K uptake by maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Livestock rotations reduced synthetic fertilizer demand.
- Treatment
- Groundnut-maize rotations with livestocke0
- Outcome
- demand for synthetic fertilizerse0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Groundnut-maize rotations with livestock achieved the highest carry-over of nutrients as manure from one season to the next, covering approximately one-third of the expected N, P and K uptake by maize and reducing the demand for synthetic fertilizers.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower fertilizer costs were offset by higher manure application labour costs.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“rotations with livestock was offset by higher labour costs for manure application”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain values were slightly lower in livestock rotations.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grain”
e1“slightly lower values of maize grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure plus synthetic fertilizer showed no clear crop-production agronomic or economic benefit over synthetic fertilizer alone.
- Treatment
- combined application of manure and synthetic fertilizere1
- Outcome
- agronomic or economic benefits for crop productione1
- Direction
- no cleare1
- Comparator
- application of synthetic fertilizer onlye1
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“crop production”
e1“no clear agronomic or economic benefits for crop production were observed from the combined application of manure and synthetic fertilizer over the application of synthetic fertilizer only”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume-maize rotations had higher cereal yields than systems with little or no legume.
- Treatment
- Legume-maize rotationse0
- Outcome
- cereal yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- maize-based systems with no or only a small legume componente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legume-maize rotations achieved higher cereal yields, a better response to labour and fertilizer inputs, and a higher profitability than maize-based systems with no or only a small legume component”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume-maize rotations responded better to labour and fertilizer inputs.
- Treatment
- Legume-maize rotationse0
- Outcome
- response to labour and fertilizer inputse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- maize-based systems with no or only a small legume componente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legume-maize rotations achieved higher cereal yields, a better response to labour and fertilizer inputs, and a higher profitability than maize-based systems with no or only a small legume component”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume-maize rotations had higher profitability than systems with little or no legume.
- Treatment
- Legume-maize rotationse0
- Outcome
- profitabilitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- maize-based systems with no or only a small legume componente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legume-maize rotations achieved higher cereal yields, a better response to labour and fertilizer inputs, and a higher profitability than maize-based systems with no or only a small legume component”
Claim · model-written summary
Livestock could make legume cultivation economically more attractive through greater value of legume haulms.
Verbatim
e0“Livestock at or near the farm could nevertheless make legume cultivation economically more attractive by increasing the value of legume haulms.”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →rotation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
253 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.