I1IHISTRY OF                       MfflUWIYY StYtLEpW-Mr
ETHIOPIA
/AR* KJSLH RESEAHTH 5TAT2 OH ANALYTIC JS POSIT
3974In the course Of Che two first years the nain subject of ny mission at Arba Mi
lay in testing, in an experimental frame, and then in putting into effect, on
fare production level, the cultural practices which were likely to increase th
past low cotton yields*
In other respects, with the Care of looking to a cotton production in a crops
tion pattern, the recently established Research Station strove for diversifyin
the saleable crops. In this very fertile part of Ethiopia, those new crops hav
been proving to be numerous which in a matter of fact compelled to increase thi
Staff and the area of the station.
From the farm management reorg.ini Nation that has been effected in September 74. swerving  from the production which cook up half of my  time for two  years,  I ex< slvely  gave myself up to  the so-establi shed Research Station during  the last mt of fiy stay in Ethiopia.
The present report is not a synthesis of my Ar ba Hinch and Cemu Goffa experiem
and knowledge. In agronomic matters three years will not do* What is more, som<
problems of upn^vt importance for a farm and farming area - evasion central,
keeping of the soil fertility, etc... - are not tackled yet* This report is th<
fore not a synthesis hut would, like to be a guide for the sake of th® fam mens
menc and the staff of ths Research Station* I did not confine myself with the <
rimcncal results, with their analysis and the study of the production cost.
I    did    not    hesitate,    to    the    risk    of    a    tedious    reading,    to    bring    out    the    trial*    1 out    and    even    Ehe    dated    field    operations.    These    various    and    detailed    lnEormatlor should be later useful to the Research staff and the farm management aS well.
Most   of   the   trials   which   are   set   out   refer   to   the   experiment   programme   carried in    1974.    However    I    deeded    that    some    Eormer    years    results,    particularly    the    very significant ones, should be included in this report.
A   too   restricted   room   was   unfortunctly   made   to   the   food   crops   which   should   have priority  hereafter  *  IE  ^up  to  now  >  some  of  them  have  been  studying  on.  the  agronoed (planting     dates|     spacing,     fertiliser     trials)     and     on     the     variety     leveL     (with     the of    bringing    in    low    land    and    short    cycle    varieties)    these    food    crops    -    raaTte,    sc and even tritlcale - should likely be the subject of a cross-breeding program.- 1
In the course of the two first rears the p?ln object of my mission at Ar ba Mt lay in testing, in an experimental frame, and then in putting into effect, oo farm production level, the cultural practices which were likely to increase th
past low cotton yields* 
.
In other respects, with th* care o£ looking co a cotton production in a crops
tion pattern, the recently established Research Station strove for diversifyin
the suitable crops.. In this very fertile part of Ethiopia, these new crops hav
been proving to be numerous which in ■ matter of fact compelled to increase th
staff and the area of the station.
Fraa    the    fam    management    reorganisation    that    has    been    effected    in    September    74
swerving  from the production which took up half of my  time for two  years,  I ex sively  gave myself up to  the se-establishedl Research Station during  the last m of my stay in Ethiopia.
The present report is not a synthesis oE my Arba Minch and Gemu GofEa experien
and knowledge. In agronomic matters three years will not do. What is more, som
problems of upmost importance for a fam and fanning area - erosion control,
keeping of the soil fertility, etc... - are not tackled yet- This report is th
fore not a synthesis but would like to be a guide for the sake of the farm men
ment and the staff of the Research Station. I did not confine myself with the
rlmental results, with their analysis and the study of the production cost. In
I did not hesitate, co the risk of a tedious reading, to bring out the trials
out and even the dated field operations* These various and detailed informatio
should be later useful to the Research staff and the farm management as well.
Ho-st of the trials which are set ou.t refer to  the cxperi-rncnt programme carried in 1974.  However I deemed that some former years results,  particularly  the ver significant ones, should be included in thia report*
A   too   restricted   room   was   unfortunetly   made   to   the   feed   crops   which   should   hav priority    hereafter.If,up    to    now,some    of    them    have    been    studying    on    the    agro    non (planting     dates,     spacing,     fertilizer     trials)     and     an     the     variety     level     (with     tin of    bringing    in    low    land    and    short    cycle    varieties)    these    food    crops    -    maize,    s and even triticale - should likely be the subject of a cross-breeding program.- 2
The   recent   Land   Reform   should   give   a   new   pate   to   the   Arba   Minch   lam   and Station.  Few  tooths  ago,  on  the  request  of  K.E.  General  MABRAJiTU  FESSE11A,  Ccr>u GofEa    Enderesele,    I    have    been    thinking    out    a    provincial    development    autorlty    w< the   Farm   and   the   station   would   be   likely   to   play   a   prominent   part   that   should   t now    borne    by    the    new    goverfleniental    provisions-    In    actual    fact    the    Research    St.it Instead    &£    working    without    ©utside    connection    ai    it    has    been    the    cjsc,    should    t forth    open    out    to    the    different    problems    set    by    the    various    altitudes,    soils    at climates  of  the  Gemu  Oof  fa  province*  The  estab11  shraent  of  mu  Iti  -  lo-ea  tiona  1  Stat as   Lt   was   recommended   in   my   "Proposals   for   a   Gctt.-.s   Coffa   development   plan"   -   she be    the    soonest    possible    raised    up    by    the    Arba    Minch    Research    Station    cither    in frasse    of    the    institute    of    Agricultural    Research    which    the    Station    already    at    ten to cooperate with, ©r in the frame cf a provincial authority.
I   shall   not   Wind   up   without   thanking   Ate   GIRHA   ERCETE,   Djimma   graduate,   Ato   TES BESHIR,  Ambo  graduate  and  Ate  DE  BREST  CM  AMBE,  mainspring  of  the  station,  who  cl ly   worked   with   ma   in   th.   course   of   these   three   years   and   up   to   the   drawing   up     0
tM.   report.   Lastly   I   wish   good   luck   Ato   MAKONNEN   KEBEBE,   AUmaya     agronomist,   w is now going to manage the Re search in Arba Minch.Meteorology
Soils
Weeds
appendixes :        Mcteo data Soils analyst____ O'- v • •»., “ uvun uuu o p.m.
•  1 Piche Evaporimeter, read at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
•   1 thermograph, read every week
-   an anemometer, read at 8 a.m., 12 noon, 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
-   a wind vane
-   a sunshine recorder, read at 6 p.m.
-  a pluviograph, read at 8 a.m. and at 6 p.m.
-   a class A tank, read at 8 a.m. and at 6 p.m.
-   Soil thermometers with the mercury bulbs at depths of 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 50 cm,
and 100 cm. Read at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
-   an hygrometer, read every week
Remarks
1/ We must lay emphasis on the importance of reading at the right time : one hour
late can lead to considerable errors in calculating wind speed, evaporation,
temperature, relative humidity, ect...
2/ Nightly rain : the hydrograph enables to tell the amount of rain fallen before
midnight from what fallen after. Both amounts have to be separatly recorded on the
previous daily card and on the new one.
3/ Rainfall intensity graphs have to be cautiously kept : they will be of para
mount importance when a soil erosion study is worked out.
4/ A barometer, or even better a  barograph, should be set up in the meteorologi cal observation site : its marks pointing  out variations in atmospheric pressure enable to  ajust calculations of relative humidity, dew point and vapour pressure basedon hygrometric readings.
Furthermore, the PENMAN evapo-transpiration formula could be applied.5/   FUhcand   Cbsi   A   evaporation   tank   were   sometimes   found   co   bo   recorded   a   doj out leading to wrong evaporation values : negative or over - high figures-
6/   It   is   recommended   that   all   the   instruments   be   once   a   year   checked   by   the Civil Aviation pfetcorolepical Service*
Data
See in appendixes
-  Rainfall : 197* and- 1972/73/74 average data (armOuftE of rain In fflffi and nuntbci
of days par period oE 10 days and per aonch)* Total I point out amount of rain
from January to ipril ; Total II from may to dcccmbcr, cotton season months
{u’hcrcas cay rainfa ll goes to rnako up an knit Lal reserve for cotton that is “>o-
in jurw?)
-     Temperature   :   1974   and   1972/7   3/74   average   data,   enclosing   :   minimum   and   maxi mum  temperatures  per  period  of  10  days  and  per  won  th  j  monthly  average  and  abst lute minimum and maximum*
-    Humidity   ;   1974   and   73/74   average   data   per   period   of   10   days   and   monthly   avo? £«■
-   1974 sunshine per period of IQ days and per month-
-   1974 Flche Evaporation per period of 10 days and per month as also the 0-75
Piche Evaporation (PET = 0*7 5 EP) that underestimates the potential evapo-trans
pl rati on two stly in the rainy season
-   3974 potential evapo-transpiration (PET) according to different formulae :
1/ the sub-mendonned 0.75 Piche
2/ BLAKEY-CRIDDLE (PET =loa E                             giving low and almost constant values thre
ghovt the year (100 mm / month about) and is then unsatisfactory*
3/   TVRC   (PET   =   (50   +   Ig>   0.40   ~j*p   which   must   be   multiplied   by   (1+   5^~t[R}   if the   relative   humidity   is   below   50   7.   what   often   happens   in   Arba   Minch   during   the dry season.
As   It   is   at   present   impossible   co   use   the   PENMAN   formula   (no   data   about   variatl in   ataospherlc   pressure!*   the   TUKC   formula   seems   co   be   the   best.   To   obtain   the factor,   the   following   form   of   the   Angstrom   relation,   a   Justed   to   Kenya   by   GLOVE? and   Mac   CULLOfl,   is   here   adopted   :   Ig   =   Ig   A   (0.29   cosinus^t   0.52   -j~-)   whereas the latitude
- 1974 theoretical water balance : without any data on the water reserves In cl soil, no accurate hydric balance can be drawn up.ThOorltical one has however be attempted here for 1974 knowing the monthly values of the rainfall and the TUR.C potential evapo-transpiration.Soils
pedological study for the drawing of a Fam »ap,
i*r Board in September 7-2 , I—----------------------------
i j iup is extremely nccCFsary for a
----- . though it
decided by the
ition pjEEcm jnd keeping of
has not been worked out yet.
better     knowledge     of     the     soils,     for     J     crops
fertility-
volcanic decomposition and former rivers and lake deposit, the soils are dark fld dark and pulverulent but often called heavy and very clayey which is the
for most of the soils located in the upper part of the farra- Others are clay- Ki Idwn-sandy and even sandy and gravelly (deposits of gravels scclccai fated ae forcer beds of rivers)« An appendix map shews the sandy area which Is estlna* ;o cover 100 hectares about. Barring this last type of Soil, the water holding
Jity is excellent everywhere but on clay the surface level Is fastly saturated ihe natter of fact irrigation has to be slowly tarried)
swplaE from the mouth Of the tUrre river area (see in appendix the pedolo- analyses by 50GREAH) are not quite representative of the whole Fara, But
.oil. .» 
clch t„ 
aI)ll „,n prov(dad wIch Fto us
itrogen content vary from 0.1 % to 0.25 2.
*Weeds
CYPEkAC£A£
Canning in heavy soils, The main one is Gy perus rotundus : perennial grass, usua
10 to 3D cm high, even more in damp locations, with a three sugled , smooth stem
rising from the center of a basal cluster of narrow gr.iss like leaves - The tube]
often sprout to produce new plants while still attached to the parent one. The ii
florescence arises from the stem apex and is subted by a number of leaf like brae
Control : the perennial species of cypcrus arc very  persistent as weed ,  alchoug] tops are readily  killed by  cultivation or spraying,  the tubers are unaffected an< produce new shoots and the number of tubers in the soil increases rapidly.
Good control of cypervs was only obtained with 6 Kg/hectare of EPTAM (carbamate)
But this herbicide can damage the crops if it is not carefully sprayed and has a 1
strong residual effect { no germination of groundnut a year after application)
GRAM IN AF.
1/ Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) t also cornnun in heavy soil (banana plantuti
Perennial grass with long runners which root at the nudes and produce extensive
underground rhizomes. The flowering stems «y be from 15 to 2d cm, high. The loa.
also vary in lenght, being rather stiff in texture. The inflorescence consists 0
several slender, purpiah spikes, arising in a star like arrangement from the end
the Stem.
Control    :    it    can    not    be    adequately    controlled    by    cultivation    because    of    its    unde ground rhitomes and discing propages it by cutting.
An Herbieuk trial cociparfng ®SAPAX Ba wp (3 Kj/h*J -I-GEPIRON E.T (2l/ha) to GESAI Z 80 wp (6 Kg/ha) did nt>t give any effect upon cynodon (banana plantation)
It is knovn to be susceptible to OALAFCT (sodium 2,2 dichlora-propionatc) and
□nlno- triarole,
Wcedaiol special (DapaLon + aminotriaaole + thiocyanate of s*dlum) should he tri if available on the oarket and compared to Dalapon alone and an ami no- tri azo Le.
2/ Difiitaria Soalarum  not always readily distinguished with Cynodon when no fl
:
are present, but the leaves are softer, usually dark &reen. The in£loreaecnce c< of up to 10 slender, npwordly directed spike* which arise ften various points a the flowering stem.Control    ;    also    difficult    by    cultivation    and    relatively    susceptible    to    Dalapon    and Amtoo-telazoic.
3/ Setaria Vcrticillata (love firassl : A tufted annual grass, nose readily roeogh led by the bristly, cylindrical inflorescence which readily becomes detached and Sticks to rhe cotton fibre. It |rwwa to a height of up to 50 cm and the Shoots ar often spreading at the base* The leaves are up to 20 cm in length, dark green Ln
color, soft In texture+
i
*
Control : controlled by nuaber of chemicals, It is one of the »ost susceptible
grasses to pre- emergence spraying with 2-40 for cxemple end germinating seed
ling 5 can be killed in □ range of crops with simasine or atrazine.
4/   of   less   Importance^   we   find   also   ;   Elsusine   Indica.   Imps   rata   cylindrical,   Dacty Iocteniora aegyptium. Sorghum Sudanese ...
CHEMOFOQIACEAV
Chenopodium spp is very cormiun In Arba Minch on different types of sell, growing
up to 2 rap high. The leaves are alternate and stalked, the flowers snail and
greenish, usually crowded into dense rounded clusters variously arranged.
Control : Chenopodiva is susceptible to the whole range of growth regulator type
herbicides (2 > 4 Dj 2-4 DB) and to contact chemicals such as dlquat, paraquat.
While germinating seedlings are controlled by trlazlnc.
PQRTULAC ACE AE
Forty lac a_ da rac ca (Purslane) is one o£ the most coomun weeds in Arba Minch (mosth
on the heavy soils - north part of the farm}. It is a sprawling, fleshy scented,
annual grass with numerous, often reddLsh, branches up to 30 - 40 cm, long, spiro
arranged or opposite, shiny leaves which are simple and often crowded towards the
ends of the branches and yellow flowers, only opening in bright sun. Portulacca
is one of the worse weeds in the farm. The fleshy stem enables it to remain llvln
for several days after the root has been out and it very often becomes rcestablls
after hoeing. Resistant to herbicides acting through the leaves, it appears to be
sensitive to a wide range of soil applied and good control can be obtained by pre
emergence treatment with triarine and carbamate.
CAPPARIDACEAE
pynandroosi5     gynandra     (spider     flower!     15     also     very     comnun.     The     leaves     are     edible and often gathered aS a green vegetable.FOLYCONACEAE
Oxygontin s£ flu a turn
TMs first Inventory draws up the list of the identified weeds met in the Ar ba
Minch Farm- The main ones arc described here* founding upon '■ East Afrtcari weed
and their edntroE *\ G.V. IVE»5S
Such   an   inventory   must   be   completed   in   the   coming   years,   dwelling   upon   the   weed that limiting factors to the product;ion+L97 3 Trial Result;
Rank
Treatments
Yield Qs/ha
Qctwlc Z
1
H. 632
65-60
166
2
UCB
57-11
144
3
UCfl
36*06
142
Awass* Comp. II
46.40
117
5
KCC
45.55
115
6
». 511
44.82
113
7
ZCAXKCC
42.91
100
fi
H. 611 C
41.60
105
9
Ocholo (Cheek plot)
39.60
100
10
Ain Cdrop. 1
37.66
95
U
ZCA
36.M
93
12
SR. 52
36.60
92
13
KCB
36.5?
92
14
ICiwanda Comp. A
35.60
90
15
H. 613
32.80
03
16
KCE
30.26
76  113 •
Vdirljinc-e analysis
Origin of the variation
Calculated F
5 % F
1 X F
Replication
2*10 
2*92 
4-26
Trcjtacnr 5
JefLB
1*92 
2.52
Coefficient of variation
LSD $JX
LSD J 7,
22 Z
16.10 Qs/ha 21.50 Qs/Ka
This firat maize trial which was carried nut before =y arrival at Arba Minch does not Show much Interest* First the coefficient of variation Is too high (what partial ly could be accounted for by dtugti of birds er wild animals). Secundly the plan- ting date (may) was too early and the mafre suffered from rain when ripe. The above results concern the first grade only, Rust infestation is almost negligible If wOmparcs with Awassn maize : Coefficient from 0 up to 5 :
H. 611 C
K, 613 C
1
2
KCB
KCE
1
1
K. 632
2
UCB
1
H* 511
1
LTCB Fy
2
SR 52
3
»■
Kawanda
2
KCC
2
Al* Cl
3
ZGAXKCC
2
Aw* C. II
I
EGA
1
Ocholo
1Mafze Variety trlaL 1974 - 1975
Treatments
511
K» 632
HP 611
Composite II
H* 612 (Ecuador)
Experimental Flee size
design
Randomized blocks - 6 replications
Initial i 7 row* x O.BO b m 6 m ■ 33
*6 m2
Useful : 3 rows 11
“ = 14*4 m2
Spacing
U»£0 m between the rows
on the row : 0*25 m for H. 511
0*30 m for others
varieties
Fertilizing
1 quintal TSP before sowing j qnly
1 quintal urea at thinning )
Irrigation
Spraying
According to rhe hydric balance hut knowing that
matze requires a Baxidum of Hater from 15 days
before blooming up to 15 days after blooming,
1    application    of    DDT    25(51/ha)    at    thinning    against stem borers ( as preventive control )MaTze Variety trial 1974 - 1975
Treatments
Experimental design Plot size
Spacing
H. 511
H, 632
H» 611
QanipOsiti It
H» 612 (Ecuador)
Randomized blocks - 6 rcpiicatifltij Initial : 7 rows x 0*80 a x 6 n - 33*6 a2
Useful : 3 r*ws " 
0*150  m  between  the  rows on the row i 0*25 th. for K#fc 511
” ■ IM n!
Fertilising
Irrigation
Spraying
0»30 m for Others varieties
1 quintal TSP before sowing }
1 quintal urea at thinning }
According to the hydric balance but knowing that maize requires a majcimuo of water from 15 days before blooming up to 15 days after blooming.
74
1    application,    of    DDT    25(31/ha)    at    thinning    against stem borers ( as preventive control )Treatment?
Experimental design Plot size
Spacing
Haize Variety trial 1974 - 1975
H« 511
H. 632
H» 611
Ccctipc si tc II
H* 612 (Ecuador)
Randcxai^cd blocks - 6 replications
Initial : 7 rows x 0*&0 m x 6 m = 33.6 m2
Useful a 3 ’row* ” 
0*^0 m between the rows
on the row j 0*25 m for H* 511
11 fa 14*4 m2
Fertilizing
Irrigation
Spraying
0.30 m for others varieties
1 quintal TSP he£or< seeing | mLy £n
1 quintal yrea ar Lhinning ?
According to tha hydric balance byt knowing that
mafze require? a naxiamjn of water from 15 days
before blooming up to 15 days after blooming*
1    application    of    DDT    25(31/ha)    at    thinning    against stee borers ( as preventive control >1974/3975 Trial
Fields operations
1
2
3
4
5
a
PLcoighing
30.8
t
Discing
ft.9
Clod crushing
18.9
Ridging
21.9
Souring
2ft.9
Respiring
540
Thinning
ft. ID
Weeding/hoting
4.10
8.10
21.10
2.11
Irrigation
26.9
8.10
ft.Il
19.11
8.12
28
TSP Petci Li zing
-
Urea Fertilizing
Picking *
25.1
7.2
Spraying
1ft.ID
25.10
3.11
Daces of the 1 sc and the last picking according to the varieties1974/1975 Trial
Fields observations
Gerteination
<Uys
after souring
50 % Blooming
days
after souring
Ripening
days
after sowing
H. 511
4
62
120
H. 632
6
70
130
H, 612
6
72
132
H. 611
6
72
135
Composite II
■
6
70
1321974/1975 Trials
Lodging expressed in %
Rcpl iciti on s
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Varieties
H. 511
50
70
50
40
70
60
56
H. 632
40
50
30
50
40
30
40
R. 612
50
30
60
60
50
60
51
H* 611
60
50
40
70
50
40
51
Corp* 11
70
60
40
60
40
70
56I ■
1974/1975 Tri*l$
Undoing expressed, in X
Replica Lions
1
Varieties
2
3
4
5
6
Average
FU 511
50
70
50
40
70
SO
56
H* 632
40
50
30
50
40
30
40
H. 612
50
30
60
60
so
60
51
H. 611
60
50
40
70
50
40
51
Cwnp. II
70
60
*0
60
40
70
56EE
i i asi
Cltfsfc £1
:
X ! (1ST
z n
t
jo 
jac>3
[*?‘V
i8*E
t»’€T
SlUdwirjjx
or*
U*E
crs
suoy>8 3T[<J»M
J % 1
1%5
wj-prprA jq] jo ujSjiq
05
09
T19 bH
5
55
06'M
zw *b
<?
39
4
OS "09
Il -daiQQ
c
06
00*88
ZE9 ’H
z
001
00’86
(nstafl IK'H
t
.
% IK *H
'M/’b PIMA
j|UT3
PT31 U6I/W61
f.i -20 -
Katie - Estimated direct production cost
iterials
i
rtleides
Haar : 1 quintal TSP and 1 quintal urea
with subvention without subvention
iterials total without fertiliser
Lterials total with subventionned fertilizer iterials total with not subventionned fertilizer ,cld mechanized operations
'actor hours f 1 hectare
Eth. ^/hectare 10
£iC
1OO
260
50
150
310
derations
Attacheraent
Tractor type
Average
0.5.
H.F.
0.5.             H.F.
;cing after
cotton
uprooting
iughlng
icing,
iging
iching
insportaci.cn
Rome Plow
Teeth cultivator Mold Board Plow
Else Harrow
Ridgcr
Ditcher
Trailor
1.3
0.0
2.6
1.0
1.3
1
1
1.3
2.6
0.4 0.5
1.3
1
1
* total/ 1 ha
•a
-
•
1.7          6.4b/ hourly sot of tractors
D.5    /    Eth.    $    4o    *
M,F. / Eth, J 11 *
c/ tractor cast / 1 hectare
(See In Appendixes U and
D.5 
:
Eth. $ 40 x 1.7 - Eth. $ 68.0
K.F. 
:
Eth, J 11 x 6.4 « Eth. J 70.4
Tractor   coat   total
=   Eth.   $136.4   /   140
d/ attachement coat / 1 hectare
Having    no    estimated    hourly    cost    and    no    po&s.ibi    li    Cy    of    est    liTia.    Ci    ng    tha    hourly    CC of attachemcnt (The accurate purchase prices are unknown for most of them)
Ve consider here this cost to be roughly 15 *4 o£ the tractor cost : Eth. 1 140 x 15 U Eth. $ 20
(Treshing machine including)
3/ Unskilled labour
Sowing and resowing
Hoeing  / Weeding  (3  times)
Irrigation (5 times)
Eth. | / hectare
IO
60
25 „„
*  Eth f 40  and 11  respectively  lor 0.  5  and and 9.54  calculated in appendixes.  Indeed i
te these figures.
Massey-Ferguson 178 instead of 35.
t seems to be careful co above-cstiCanal cleaning
Spraying
Fertiliaer application (tuice)
Cojie pushers
Guards
Harrtatlng
Trcahlng (fending to combine)
Erh. J /hectare
IO
IO
5
10
- 30
5
10
Field     cleaning     -     collecting     -     burning                                                       15
HixcelLaneou5
10
Unskilled labour total
1^0
200
M Total direct productiofi coat
- a/ Without fertilizer
Eth  f
fl
b/       With       subvMitlonncd       fertilizer       Eth.       $ e/ With no subvflnclofinee fertilizer Eth. |
'<00
510
670e
ble. Nevertheless two important criteria imply to select K.5U (for the fam
and the saalt holders as well) as f*r as there is no suitable Low land variety.
1/     H.511      is     henceforth     stabilized     and     on     actual     fact     enables     to        carry     out     sowing without special seed preduecionB
0
programme be performed when the station has at its disposal the necessary equi pment (and particularly a laboratory) and when a specialist 1* assigned to carry sucha work. It shnutd be moreover normal that Arba Minch pre-eminently becomes the Ethiopian Research Station for low I.nd maHc (and Sorghum as well)
To co if back to Hie trials whose results are above-nentionned, they point out the interest of both varieties H.5L1 and H.632 that, as for as there was no significant difference between then either in 73/74 or 74/75, could be both  drt.
M.r« is beyond doubt will bdspLed « the Atba Hind, ar^ whc« it Is mor^c-r c VJtcd an , large <=<le in L-nte, Chanu. Si He and indeed in Konsu where h—r sorghup comes first. Nevertheless the so-called OchoHo local variety -5 aodcrac
Melding and is not resistant to rust, helminthosporiun. not lo ths-streak" virvs This local variety has either to be replaced or to he improved.
The three above-me nt tanned variety trials results point out that if cost of the konygnj hydrids (and particularly K.511 and H.632) adapted to Ethopian hijjh 01 wediurt lands are susceptible to yield rather sood results in Ar ba Minch, others better adapted varieties are likely to be superior. Above all no one shewed flfE lo be resistant to the above-men tiorifted diseases (although 1-nfestation5 were nev
sever*)
Taking Into account the inportancc of maTze as food crop in southern Echopia, it improvement should becartn th* Eirst object pE the Arba Minch Research Station fo the coming years. The selection of varieties adapted to low land (a compact Iv*
trial has just been carrying out In march 75) must be faced according to several
t*sts ;
-   the yield
-   the relative resistance to draught (’-Aat implies to carry out rain fed trials)
-   the resistance to diseases
-   the height and the lodging
-   the cycle* knowing that short cycle varieties (3 months) are susceptible to b* grown as second crop (fron march to june)
Beyond comparative variety trials, it ±s ttcottaanded chat a cross-br edin£J/ II. Ml eye l» (3 atmth* and h* I r to 4 month*) [a ihortcr then H«6J2 cycle (•' t« 4 month* and h«H). Oi the Bitter of (net H.5I1 could grow ■* attCTr:J crop
■arch to June without Inpvdlnit cotton ^roving. Thur t* Jill the =moit important
■a Tie It the one (If not the only on*) crop wich l> likely to be Rro^n *t thj ttbc of the year ([UM' light rein* iri.ll not Injure It when ripe where*? they dafij.,e other* crop* if pull**).
W» do not mention in thl* report sorghum from which we Infortunctly do not hi any result yet. A *LmLl<r prograrci of ero*s-brcoding *nd selection should be ned Cn connection with the program carried out. In several athop!an stations ufiaged from Aluaya.Rlee Variety Trial 1473/1974
Chlnel
Tainan V
1632 - Chianan 6
342 j           Indies - High straw -
IR   423
IR    «
IR   20 (74 only)
IR   22
IR    24
Japonic* Short     straw roynd seed
1/2 lang seed.
Dwarf Indic*
Shore straw
1/2 long seed
Experiment design Sub-treatments Seed bed
Plot Jfri Z-C Spacing
Fisher Blocks - 4 replications - Split plot* 1/ transplanting - 2/ direct sowing
Rate : 6 to 12 Kg / are
4 e x 2*25 » *= 9 m2 (Initial and useful) 1/ transplanted plants :
9 or 15 raws cE 4 tn / 1 plot
-   Chine! : D,15 x 0,15 n - IS raws
-   Others : 0,25 x 0 2Q m -
a
All varieties : transplantIng at 4 shoots
2/ direct sowing : 9 raws of 4 m/ 1 plot
-   Chine! : 120 Kg/ha (110 gr./lplot) * Others : 70 Kg/ha ( 65 gr*/lploc) All varieties : 0.25 q between the raws
9 raws
Ferti Using
1/ P2O5 ; RO Kg/ha > Application at ploughing tisic
150 Kg TSP
2/M
s
 a/ 342             : 60 Kg/ha 150 Kg ur«
b/ others t 200 Kg/ha f 400 Kg urea
NitrpEcn application
1/       Tr+napl.nicd       plants      :       3       Application      urea a/ 1/3 in seed bed
-342             : 50 Kg/ha (20fir./plPt)
-        Others        t            13OKft/ha        (so           gr./
l)
p ot
b / 1/3 at tillering
e/ 1/3 40 days at ter transplantingWatering
■
2/ direct sowing :                       2 applications urea
a/ 1/2 at tillering
-    342             : 75 Kg/ha (30 gr./plot)
-   Other® ; 200 Kg/ha (80 gr./plot)
b/ 1/2 at 40 days after transplanting
Poring       the       first       weeks       after       sowing       or       transplanting water      depth      will      be      determined      chiefly      by      the      growth the      young      rice      plants      and      will      be      kepi      relatively      lo« After       this      initial      period      the       water       level      should      be upon      primarily      from      the      angle      of      effective      weed      cent In      general      weeds      are      adequately      controlled      by      a      watc
□    f    15    to    20    cm*    The    water    layer    should    never    be    deepi necessary      for      weed      control,      because      a      thick      water      la< only       exerts       an       unfavourable       influence       on       the       tillerii the     plant     but     has     also     a     tendency     to     reduce     yields,     p greatest       sensitivity       to       lack       of       water       is       directly       afi sowing      or      transplanting,      du      ring      panicle      ini      elation,      c
primordia  growth and froca  three weeks before flowerii
about re
one harrest
week
could
after cause
it.
Too 
premature
early      discharge
ripening, 
a 
of lower
watei gi
yield.
Water has to be changed every day or every two days,
For     a     rice     direct     sowing     a     perfect     Levelling     is     required     what     we     do     not     mamg< achieve     in     73/74     and     74/75     as     well*     The     results     which     we     bring     up     here     therr     f< only      concern      the      transplanted      rice      74/75      results      arc      lower      than      the      Cornier      ye< ones.      Low      temperatures      at      blooming      tine      account      for      that      (full      blooming      in      no^ her     and     december)     but     aLso     the     fact     that     the     shoots     remained     too     long     time     in sced’bcd      (      as      the      landleveller      was      not      available      at      the      right      time      ).      The      belt results     of     a     trial     carried     out     in     another     country     show     up     the     paramount     lrpori ce of transplanting rice the soonest possible : *Age St the
plant
at trafiplanting
TransptafttLnft at a fix datQ (15 th of May)
Sawing IL a fix date (23 th of
April)
Planting iate
Kg/hectare
Transplanting da Lt
Kg/hectarc
20 days
30
40
50
643
TO
80
april 25
15
5
Karth 25
15
5
February
25
15
7,648
7.343
5,555
3,960
3.491
3,421
2,554
1.890
Hay 15
25
June 5
15
IS
July 3
15
25
6,174
5,808
4,906
3.4B1
1,259
390
560
400
r1974/1975 TdaL
Fields operations
l 1
2
3
4
5
Ploughing
25.e
10,4
■
Discing
3O,B
14.9
Clod Crushing
15.4
30*9
Levelling
5*10
Sowing in seed bed
30.0
Transplanting
16.10
Phosphorus application
9.10
Nitrogen application
15,4
8.11
19.12
Wilding
-
12-1?
Picking *
22.2
10,3
dates of 1st and Last picking, according to the vsrietlej1974/1975 Trial.
n e I'd g. olj                 11jn j
Varieti ea
50 % Hlcflcins
D.ya afttr cranspi.
Flpening
Dtys <fcer transpl.
Chin cl
65
130
Tainan V
140
1632 Chlanan a
75
140
342
ea
130
IR 423
72
142
IR a
aa
145
IR JO
as
142
ir 22
74
145
IR 24
80
145Trial
Fields observations
Varieties
50 Z Blotraing
Days after transpl#
Ripening
Days *ft»r transpl*
Chin ei
65
130
Tainan V
68
140
1612 Cht^nan 8
73
140
342
68
130
IR 423
72
142
IR S
88
145
IR 20
as
142
IR 22
74
145
IB 24 '
80
14530
COM 0? HEIGHT IN 015 *
Replications
icletics
1
2
3
4
Avcraga
M
Chin ei
90
BO
as
75
82
Talnnn V
100
110
95
80
96
Ib92 - €3ii»nan a
95
90
loci
85
92
342
115
110
110
105
110
IK 423
55
55
65
50
36
iii a
60
50
55
45
52
Id 20
60
55
85
75
69
IR 22
45
45
45
40
44
IR 24
30
■1L
Ll
50
45
48
1  ^tKS ’EfOfiE FIQGnc1973 RESULTS
R*rk
Treatments
n*l4
Q^/ha
1
I
342
ist, ao
100
2
ir a
141.60
93
3
IR 24
141.10
92
4
IR 423
135-00
S0
5
IR 22
136.90
S3
6
1632
124.60
st
7
Tasnan V
116-40
76
fl
Chin el
66.40
43
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
ORIGIN OF THE VARIATION
Calculated F
5 Z F
1 X F
REPLICATIONS
treatments
6.22
6.90
3.07
2.49
4.67
3-65
Coefficient Of Variation Lsd 5 X
Lad I X
14 I
26 Qs/ha 35.40 q /|
s  ta1974 RESULTS
Yield
flank
Treatments
X
Qa/ha
1
IB 2D
125-00
100
2
IR 8
106,30
85
3
IR 24
99.90
80
4
342
99.70
79
5
1632
91+70
73
6
IR 421
91.10
72
7
Chlfl el
75,10
60
8
IR 22
56.to
45
9
Tainart V
48-00
33
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
ORIGIN OF THE VARIATION
Calculated F
5 X F
1 X F
replications
0,1
3.01
4.72
treatments
8.24
2.36
3+36
Coefficient Of Var.itlon
------ ■---- ------ ------—---------- ’ Lsd 5 %
Lad 1 I
+
___
20 X
22+2Q Qs/ha 1                               30+20 Qi/hath. two y«r» running rlw
yields
r “ulli a"d thte" OM
sll ^4 up how suitable tor rice -« the Arba Hinch *oil -nd Ui-.t-        ^‘
ALcho
CM* 
«r«l U -
l-®« 
ln  «*•**
■• 
11 h
“ al“jyS b
" n thC m0’L
1,, *<>r“nt
griin
crop
in
U, 
world, 
even
nor. 
so 
than
wheat. 
Knowing 
th. 
low
yl.Wn* 
« ?a-
city of C.IG the traditionnal cthopian grain erep. 
chief n*“”iL>' E°f
S
v«cer conditions are tequireda
it has also to bo stated that Che Arba Minch Farm has been leLting part of its
land irrproductive, how the north swanp area should be highly suitable for rice growing (chiefly owing to the fact that the same irrigation water could be at the
5gn.r tirte used for both cotton and rice)
I should like to thank Mr- C. tHJUANIT, Caneroun I RAT Manager, who advised ne for carrying out this trial and sent 9 high-yielding variaties : 3 Japonic* and □ Indi-
ti.
The nain objectives in rice breeding are now :
-   a high yielding-capacity
-   short duration varieties giving not only high yield per unit of arca  but also
a
per unit of tiwe
-   short stature varieties with stiff straw m order to climate the possible loss due to Lodging at high level of fertilizer application,
-   short, upright and dark green tcaves which exploit the solar radiation efficien tly and possess better photosynthetic activity
-  pests and diseases resistance
-   good quality with regard to grain type, nutritive value and cooking
-   grain shedding resistance
-   low photo-sensitivity
-   and a wide range of adaptability.
Ethiopia    of    Increasing    the    food    crop    production,    it    appear*    that    the    now    high yield iu  rice varieties should be experimented and grown where soil, cliMte -nd
The
rm
 ot th. 
(tm tmp„atd„ 
shou of
tte            rtW.-.,„tW.n.4            .h.r.ct.rt.ttc,,            .Ithoujh            th.,            shM,            ,h„t.cl-i„w >■ f In nr.ln dorm.n.y. Xn g.n.r.l th,.. J.pome. v.tl.tt., 
in
„„„ £„
S(M
«... 
and ten^icraturc, 
Th.t. t. 
-"•-»*«.4 
u
th., U„. , „lt, Mnsttlv, ulth
m  _ 
h &
ho..,„, , 
of  ht^.,t.ldl„8 rl„ 
...tUhl. t.t „„dltions ,£ „„
uuh the
®cowIng in ttopical areas.Thts
of
includes Lhc 9 
colored in 7 3/74 i
1/ Chin el, Tainan V and 1632 (Chianen 6) are P’nlai japonic from Toxwan.
These moderately ciUcring ponlai Japonicas (iwialy chin s- which required
5pfl
cin > show
E
photo-.ensitivity and a« adapted to high temperature eendit
B
Institute) varieties IR B and IR 3 (IR B only in the 73/74 trials). Although cl
henceforth well known IR S is an extreal y high yielder under heavy fertilizer
cations and a very short straw variety 1c will undoubtedly be followed by beet,
lines, having more disease resistance and improved grain quality.
New IRRI varieties as IR 20,  IR 22  and IR 24,  arc high yielding*  more resist am to  rzost cMnon rice disease^ (Piricvlaria  Orytae,  hcLminthosporium C.,  Xanthom*
nftsOM        ...)     and     of     quality     more     suited     to     the     taste     chan     IR     ft,     although     IR     20
more susceptible to lodging.
They  ramble the true Jepunleaa  in some features,  while in certain other pl«i characteristics they  are similar to  the indica  type*  Host cf the ponlai japonii *re moderately tall whereas these three varieties have short straw.
2/ I do not ptrsonnally know where 342 is originated from. This indie,?,. high s variety yielded except ionrial result in 1^73 and still rather good in 74. Union netly 342 showed up a heavy lodging, and as a matter of fact should be elininati (another variety 'rial including 342 is likely to precise this lodging problem 3/ The recently developcd  very high-yieding IRRI (International Rice Research
The imc varUty trlaL shouLd bc t„tUd on in
reftaEd      t«      the      dL±.„ca
and partIcularly stydicd w
s s  4   C0         (HeLmlnthosporiu®      perhaps      on
«ltn
IR      B
ancL      the      Ja,
nlcss in 74) and blrdl „sistirt£e (heavy daftages On IR an(J 
y
*
Suable
lranspljlrtt£n(f dact ,kDuld bfi eltber (ebnjafy 
ju
^
yield, in- 74 could be ^counted fcr by Ute tr^pl^ ing (september)COTTON
Sowing dates trials Spacing trials Fertilizer trials Irrigation trials Herbicides trials Variety trials PerasltisEL
Direct production cost
1972-73-74
1972-73
1972-   7 3-74
1973-   74
1973-74
1973-74SW1HC DATES TRIALS
All the 5  following  sowing  dates trials (whatever the were rain fed or under irrigation) were cassled out according  '■ Same lay-out.
Treatments- i
Five dates with 15 days interval from Jo/ (or 12) up to august ID (or 12)
Experiments1 Design             : Rendomi^ed blacks, 6 replications
Plot size :
Variety j
Initial :
Ae*la 15.17 D
67.5 m2 - Useful :
13
Location :                                    P. 2fc0, Heavy clay soil
Fertilizer t
1 quintal urea - 1 quintal Tsp
Preceding crap :                          Cotton (1 - 2 and 3 years)
Irrigation :
For irrigated trials only :
3 times in 1972COTTOf' SOIfl-NC DATES TRIAL 1972
TrrigjiLcd Cotton
Rank
Treatments
Yield Q&/ha
1
2
3
4
5
June 10
Junt 23
July 10
July 25
August -IO
42.45
40,60
34,60
26.95
20. JO
V* rj an cc An a Ly s i s
VarljiLi&n
Calculated F
5 X F
Replications
Treatments
0.92
40.9
2,71
2.07
Confficient -of variation Lad 5 %
Lad 1 X
■
9.a x
:
4 b2B qs/ha
:
5b S3 qs/haCOTTOS SOWING D.\TF-S TRIAL - 1973
Trt:Ig.3ccd. Cotton
Bank
Treatments
Yield Qs/ha
1
2
3
4
5
June 12
June 27
July 12
July 27
August 12
40.60
39.55
35, «
26. 30
23.00
Vatijnc*! Analysis
-------------- - -------------r Variation.
Calculated F
5 X - F
-
Replications
Trentmencs
2.87
49.00
2.71
2-87
Coefficient Of variation :
Lsd 5 X
t
LjJ 1 X
|
fl 1
3.32 qs/ha 4.53 qs/ha
* • a / .
_____COTTOM SOWiMG DATES TRIAL - 1973
Rain Fed Cotton
Rank
Treatments
Yield - Qs/ha
1
2
3
4
5
Jun* 27
June 12
July 11
July 27
August I?
36* 4tO
34.70
31*20
20. 70
ie.2o
Variation
Calculated F
5 1 - F
Replications
5.2*
2.71
Treatments
75,00
2.07
Coefficient of variation ■
6 X
Ltd 5 X I
2.90 Qt/ha
Led 1 X :
X&5 Qs/haT-1
3973 SOWirrC OATES TMALS -RAINFALL
1973
197
1st date                (June 12} 2d date                 (June 27) 3d date                (July 12) 4th date               (July 27) 5th date               (August 12}
600 run
550
507
476
462
330 in
271
230
212
202COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 197^
Rajn Fed Cotton
1 ■
Rank
Treatmenta
Yield Qs/ha
1
2
3
4
5
June 27
June 12
July 12
July 27
August 12
ii. ao
9.95
7.15
7.0S
6.43
Variation
Calculated F
5 I - F
Replications
1.28
2.71
Treatments
5. 34
2. 07
Coefficient of variation :
Ltd 5 % : Ud 1 X ;
2fi X
2rB0 qs/ha
4,00 qs/baCOTTOS' SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1974
COEt.On
Rank
Treatments
Yield - Qs/hfl
1
2
3
4
5
June 12
Juth* 27
July 12
July 27
August 12
SO. 60
47.20
35.70
35,30
Vari atloft
Calculated F
51 - F
Replications
0.71
2.71
Treatments
11.96
2.B7
Coefriclcnt of variation. :
Ltd 5 % i
LsrfJX ;
10 %
5.93 qs/ha
7 90 qs/ha
+The      result*      of      these      trials      speak      enough      for      Lhemscl to     call     for     long     conment5t        However     it     must     be     pointed     out     th*’, right     planting     date     is     of     upmost     importance     and     is     one     of     rht factors      which      enabled      the      fann      to      Inprove      its      cottori      yield      th< last      three      years      (the      recotmended      sowing      date      was      previous.y      a say      Wahassc}.      Now      is      for      every      trials      under      irrigation      the      fit date      C10      of      Junet         say      the      very      outset      of      Sene)      is      signlficaCit best. Four aain factors account for that :
1)   An early sowing enable! cotton to get th<? maxllWUH ruin for that the irrigation deca not always made up (particul
when it is badly convoyed a! it is the case in the Arba Minch How er er a too early sowing date should not be suitable owing t tact that bolls dehiscence is likely to tone about before the
the rainy season.
2)
Whe
n     it
is
perf
ormed
in
June, 
co
tton
sowing 
cnabl
blooming 
to 
come, 
about
from
august
up
to     Octo
ber. 
Later
sowing
qucntly 
leads
co 
later
blooming 
up
to 
novmbcr
and/
or
de
ccenber
temperatures are falling (minimum <j£ S or 6’ C) during the nig
3)        Early      sowing      cotton      better      holds,      out      against      the of      parasites      that      are      Likely      to      he      particularly      nmerous      and      v
in     ocLober     and     novraber.     Late     wwed     cotton     (July     and     with
gr<_3
season august) that are then physiologically  less developed »u wore fro.  the parasite,  than early  sowed one which furthermore
to nuke up for its losses.
4)       Rain,     arc     likely     to     come     about     in     fsarch     or     at     the february     and     as     a     matter     of     fact     to     injury     a     too     Ute        ww,d        „ when picking Is then nnt completed yet*
■* * /■ 4IE must be stated that in regard to  the rain fed tris the second sowing  date (Jun*  27} two  years sunning  yielded bc$t re That Is only  owing  to  the fact that a  rain InrtcdLatLy  some after h whereas the first date did not got any  for fiEthecn days and chert germinated.  However the small holders have to  be advised to  sow ra cotton at the very  outset of June whether it rains or not.  Well dr seeds can stay in the soil and await the rain for a certain time.
These
trials
results
are
s
ignifica
nt
enoug
h
to
let
us
eliminate      the
late
dates
(July 
an
d
aug
ust}. 
A
nother
trial
should
n
year     compare
earlier
dates
with
10 
da
ys
interva
l
s     may 
20 
-     June
1
June 10 - June 20 - June 30,
Last but not least it is worthy to note that cotton a carried out in a minimum of time (loss than a month for 1.000 hcct eciahlfls co get fields of homogenous age and in actual fact to keep the overlap of insects generations that is brought about by crops successive stages.COTTOK 5? AC INC TRIiMLji
1972 Treatments
90 era X 15 era       - 1 plant/hole I 74 FCO0
plants/hcctare
90 x 30           -2 w
11  t 74,000
ii
ri
90 x 50
-2 «
"
■ 45,000
H
41
- 1 ”
'■
: 37,000
lb
11
90 x 30
197 3 Ttf Lu.encs
90 cn x |5 era          - 2 ptant«/hole:148aOO0
plants/hectarc
90 x 10           - 1
90 x 15           - 1
90 x 30            - 2 "
90 x 50           - 2 "
90 x 30            - 1
” :110,0m
'■ : 74,000
II
■1
11
|i
•» : 74,000                     11                 ■■
" : 45,000
” t 37,000
II
II
li
H
Experimental desifip                  R^ndOmlicd blocks          - 6 replications
Flot site
Variety
Location
Fertiliser
ItrlaaLiGn
Initial ; 40.5 7l2
Ada 15.17 0
Useful t 13.5 
m
2
P.2,<1, citpcr iment fir Id. Heavy clay soil 1 nulntil urea - 1 quintal TSP
3 times in 1972 - 2 Ln 1973
S-ouing, dace
30 th of June in 71    d 73
fln- <1
COTTON1 SPACING TRIAL - 1972
Rank
Trea tuxniL i
YleLd Qs?hi
1
2
2
4
»xl5 (1)
« x » (I)
90 x 50 (2)
90 x 30
43.20
39.W
39.60
39.50
7.
100
92
91
90
Variance Analysis
Variation
Calculated F
5 % - F
Replleaticns
1.67
2.96
Treatments
1.35
3.29
Coefficient of variation : Ho significative differencernTTDN SPACING TRIAL - <9? 3
Rank
Treatments
1
2
3
4
5
6
90 x 15 (2)
90 x 10 Cl)
90 x 15 (1)
90 x 30 (2)
W x 50 (2)
90 x 3a <l>
Yield Qs/ha
42, 60
42,30
41.70
40,30
38,00
37. 60
Variance Analysis.
Variation
Calculated F
Replications
1*52
Treatments
2,65
Coefficient gf varl-atijjn ■
Lad 5 %
« X
i
3.90 qs/haIt     is     generally     agreed     that     later     Is     sowing     and     r erhcustcd     the     soil,     closer     niu&i     be     the     spacing*     However     the     E1 bent     is     anyway     now     co     increase     the     plants     population     (up     tE?     # plants/heetare       on       certain       types       of       soil       and       with       certain       van the USA)*
Both crisis carried out in 1974 and 7 3 compared plants populations while bringing in different spacings and t
of plants/holc retained after thinning what Is likely to take
in carrying Out the manual operaEinns and particularly the ma
sprayings.
The 1972 trial does not show up any significant between the different treatments say between populations from up to 74,000 plants /hectare. On the otherhand the 1973 trial
a significant difference (at 95 X probability) between popula above lOOyOOO and populations below 50,000, Expressed in ylel difference arose 4 quintals/hectare what is not negligible.
In
the
Arba 
Hinch
Far
m
sowing 
was
previously 
car
*ut       without
any 
par
ticular
dlr.c
tUn
and
in
actual,
fact
spaci
tw      wide      Md      not      unitorm.      Ar      r«riMt*d      for      three      years      closer ha* been tChdlnft tg the yield improvement.I
imicatio:: iiTruyAis trial
73/74
TREATMENTS ;
- 1 irrigation -
- i irrigations -
- 3 irrigations -
- 4 irrigations -
- 5 irrigations -
- e irrigations -
at sowing only
at sowing  and at blooking
(60 days aEtet)
at sowing, 30 days after aiu
60.days after
i,e 4- 1 irrigation 90 days a
a     sowing -
*
i-e      +      1      Irrigation      I20      days
sowing
every IS days up to 120 dayj
■    sowing
_EXPE_RIME?JTCAL DESIGN :
- Eatidoiolred t Lucks - 6 replications
SPACING :                          - 0.90 m x 0.20 ™
PLOT SIZE :                        - Initial i 67*5 m2 - Useful i 13.5 a2
s
variety t
LOCATION :
FERTILIZER ;
SPKAYINCS :
- Acala 13,17 D
- P»2«0. heavy elay soli
- loo kj urea _ (oq kg T S P
- 10 timet (Dimutheate - D0T _ Thiudtn - AzodrI
RAINFALL :
- 550 m- JV
Helds opcr.itJons
■?
1
2
3
4
5
Ploughing
isa
3.6
7.6
Discing
4.6
fi.6
*
Clod Crushing
21.6
Ridging
22.6
Sowing.
26.6
Resawing
11.7
Thinning
25.7
11*8
Weeding/Hating
*
16.7
24.7
5.8
6.9
FerCilixingtTSP)
23.6
rertiUzingCurfea:
25.7
29.8
-
Picking
28.11
a.12
IB. 12
28.12
10,1
21.1
5.;
* 4 weedings fee the treatments with 1, 2, J and 4 Irrigations
6 weedings for the treatments with 5 and B Irrigations’1
*» Ravik
Treatment s
yield - Qd/ha
X
1
•r
5 irrigations
42* 60
" 100
2
1 irrigation
.      42.40
99*
3
8 irrigations
41.40
97
4
3 irrigations
41.20
96..*
■
5
4 irrigations
41,10
■
96^
2 Irrigations
40.00
93
No significative difference*
Coefficient gf variation :                                      7*5 X
Conclusion*     *     with     regard     co     the     yield,     there     is
no         signiflcativ
difference       between       the       different       treatments       (Pleas that the amount of rainfall wag $50 m) .
Also  note »  2  weeding  more with 5  and B irrigation; a  vegetative development which delayed maturity for the sane two treatments.Irrigation Intervals trial 74/75
Treatments.
-   Check plot
- 1 irrigation.
- 2 Irrigations
- 3 irrigations
- 4 irrigations
- 5 irrigations
- 0 irrigations
? no irrigation
i
at
sowing only
:
at
sowing and
60 
days aEtcr
:
at
sowing and
30 
and 60 days after
:
at
sowing and. 
30, 
60 and 90 days after
:
at
sowing and
30, 
60, *70, and J 20 days
: every 15 days up to 120 days after sowi
Experimental Design Plot Site
Variety Loeat ton Forcer crop Fertilizing Rainfall Spraying
Randomized       bloks -        4 replications Initial : 4 rows x 15 m x O.fiO in. = 4B &2 Useful | 2 rovs X 15 m x 0,00 m = 24 m2 Acala 15.17 D
P*2*0. heavy clay soil
2 years cotton
I quintal TSP - 1 quintal urea
243 TTVTi
10 timesFields apeEat ion£
-1
1
2
3
4
5
Ploughing
20.4
freeing
24.5
9,6
Clad Crushing,
29.6
Bld&lnfc
31.6
Sowing
5.7
Eesowing
19.7
Phinning
io.a
19,3
Koning/Weading
26.7
27.S
26.S
14.10
TSF t’ertillsifts
5.7
Urefl F«t lilting
27.8
13.S
Picking
25.11
,l22
L
16. li
*•*Rank
TrVflLmcntS
Yield Qs/ha
1
1
5 Irrigations
38.35
292
2
8 Irrigations
38.05
290
3
•+ Irrigations
2a. 50
21S
*
3 Irrigations
25*70
196
5
2 Irrigations.
19,65
ISO
6
1 Irrigation
19*10
145
7
No Irrigation
13.10
100
Variance analysis
Variation
Calculated F
F at 5 % table
F at i X table
Rep1leations treatments
2*78
2+51
4*22
3*67
Coefficient of variation
LSD 5 X
LSD 1 %
:
7*5 %
:
2.9 quintali/heetart
:
3,9 quintals/hccE.are
hO *-
■«COTTON         HERBICIDE TFJAL             197 3
i
AIN :
Control       of       several       weeds,       and       particularly       C fctundus - with EPTAH 6 EC (CAtbanato)
TREATHEZrrs £                    -   Check-plot without herbicide
-    EPTAM application : 4 weeks pre-planting
-    EPTAH application : 2 weeks pre-planting
-    EPT AM application : at planting
RAT£ OF APPLICATION ;
6.25 Litres CP/hectare frETEOD Or APPLICATION :
r
Spraying  with knapsack should not be applied
than 10  ems to  the seed row.  The chemical ha
incorporated into  the soil by  cultivation £tr
after
spraying. 
Calibration
of
the
sprayer
b;
person
actually 
spraying 
the
trial
is
vital.
First practise getting  a  steady  constant wall speed of about one meter/second by  spraying  i to  calibratef spray  a  plot and measure the Wj used*  This should be repeated 3  or 4  times ui there is Little variation and then avera ed.
B
' EXPEltDliCXTAL DESIGN t Randomised blocks* 3 replications
PLOT SIS :
LOCATION ;
Initial ; 7 rows - Useful : 36 m2 P»2.0 heavy clay SOil
IRRIGATION :                      Twice
4
RAINFALL :
460 nmFIELDS Ot'ERATlttlS
J*
1
or
2
■ 3
4
II
5
Ploughing
15,3
3.6
7.6
■'
1
■
■
Discing
4.6
a*6
■
Clod crushing
15*6
12*8
-
r
Ridging
36.6
13.5
Swing
i4.a
■
»
Resowing
25*B
■’
1
Thinning
13.9
■1
■
U;eding/Hoeing
4.10
9.10
23,10
•
Irrigation
is.a
21.11
’i
J
EPTWt appllc.
Treat* B
9.7
— — .---------------------------- -
r
EPT AH applit.
Treat- C
24.7
■t
EPTMt applic-
Treat* D
12-B
*
-
-- 57
■
CYTERUS INFESTATION : COEFFICIENT F1£M 0 TO .
1
2
3
Check plot
5
5
4.5
4 weeks
pre-pl.
4.5
5
4.5
none
very slight slight mediun
(■pottant very inpori
2 weeks
pre-pl.
4-5
4
4
1 day
pre-pl.
3
2.5
3
Weight of vc<?fls              tut 30 days afLfcr sowing (in kg)
1
2
3
Total
Check plot
173
204
144
521
4.weeks,
pre-pl.
176      .
183
240
599
2 week*
pre-pl*
160
JOO
217
S77
1 day
prt-pl.
90
106
4e
244
* Cyperus - Seneelo - Mugs - Callingsoga - Amranthm -
riTreatments
Get-Lim - Shell Planuvln 4 Herbicide Trial 1974
• Check Plot without herbicide
- Planavin 4 - Rate : 2,fl Iiters/hectare (rate oE 1.4 1/ha for light soil)
Directions, fyr u;c Plana^n (Pre-emergence herbicide)
-  The area should be ready before application (in gfod tilth and free oE clods)
-  Calibrate the application equipment
-   Shake PLanavin be Eerie using
-  The field stould be free of any established weeds since Planaviin does not control chea
-  When applying the chemical not io close to the ground
-  Thorough shallow incorporation is needled after application Experimental design                  Randcolzed blocks - 4 replications
Floc size
Local ion
Time of application. Obscrvat ions
BO o2
P.2.0, experiment field                     Heavy clay soil 1 day before sowing
50 Jays afttt sowing c might at >tv*r*L wtodi/plotWEIGHT OF WEEDS                 I,N KG/HECTARE           50 DAYS AFTER SWING
Weeds
| TrtatMrcits
Cyperus *
Cr.-iainae *
Amaranthus *
Oxygonura *
Miscellaneous *
Total
Check Plot
82
2,190
860
230
1,900
5,262
Planavyl.2.8 1/ha
200
30
130
30
530
920
* Total of 4 replications expressed In Kg/hectareT ft jCPMsntB
Cotton - Gib 3 llurblc Ide trial 1974
-   Cheek Plot without heebieide
-   Cotar an + Ccplron (Post-energenta application)
-   Gcsagard + Gcpiran (Po*t-«*r®«icO jpp 1 ieetion)
Rotc s o£ applicaticn                  Medium soils :
Cotcrao BO WP 0.5 K&/h  + Cepiron ST 3 L/ha
Directions For use
Exptrireecical dealari Plot sire
L&c at Loti
3
Ges as j rd BO UP 0,5 Kg/hi + Oeptron F-T 3 1/ha
]!c«Lvy soils :
Coco ran go Wp 1*0 Kg/ha + G<=p Lirofi ET 3 1/ha
Gesagard SO WP 1-0 Kg./ha + CepIron £T 3 1/ha
Directed  spray  application  on  the emerged  weeds no! Ehan  5  - 10  csi and  when  the cotton  plants have ECw height o£ at least 15 an.
D* not spray over top gf the cott cm
Use     aboMit     300     -     AUO     1,     g£     water/h&ctarc     as     th&rciugl Wetting oE the weeds is essential™
Sand™ 1 zed tloeka - 4 uepLication5 3& »2
P.2 C, experiment EUld heivy «L
+
ay  ,olrlWEIGHT OF WEEDS - IN KG/HECTARE - 50 DAYS AFTER SOWING
Weeds
Treatments
X
Cyperus
Grandnae
*
X
X
Amaranthua
Qxygonum
X
Total
Check Plot
90
2,040
450
1,040
3,620
Cotoran + Cepiron
too
1,7W
260
l 25O
t
3,350
Ccsagard 1 Geplron
1,290
80
690
2,150
”1
x Total weight of 4 replfeations expressed in kfc/ltectsreconoti - PEE-EMERGENCE HERBICIDE TRIAL 19?4
P.5.2
P. 1.1
Heavy soil
Medium Soil
TSEATflEKTS
- Check Plot
• COLGTifl
- CtMgard
- Flamvin 4
" Ef-tarr
— 2,5 Kg/Ha 2,5        - 2,6 I.
M 1,
2 Kf/Ha 2 -
2 1. 4,4 1.
SaLcucKS fob use s t0 lht lUve
-'flfltlOnned herbicide trials
lay-out,.
BgMHEWALWflai t Baited b|ect( fLOT st St              W r>2
* replleatipni
- LWtltWS
P.5.2.       heavy       clay       soil P.l.l* *xperin*nt field
med Lua soilP.5.2
WEEDS INTESTATION 50 DAYS AFTER SCMING - COEFFICIENT FROM 0 TO 5
^--Replications
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Check Plot
5
4
4
4
4
5
4.3
Cotoran
2
1
3
4
3
3
2.6
Gesagard
3
1
3
2
2
2
2.1
Planavin 4
2
1
3
3
3
4
2.6
Eptatt
3
3
3
5
4
5
3.B
Coefficient : 0 to 5
0 ■= none
1     ■     very slight 2     =     slight
J ■ medium
4     =s moderate
5  = very importantp.1.1. WEIGHT OF WEEDS - IN KC/HECTARE - 60 DAVS AFTER SCWING
Weeds
Treatacnt>s^
X
Cyperui
X
Araaranthus
X
Senecio
X
! Gynardropsis
X
Conn gIi na
X
Oxygonum
X
Euphorbia
(ttypenclEolia)
X
HcliOtroplum
X
Tota
Cheek Plot
83
84
134
163
180
844
85
458
2,03
Cotoran
90
30
74
124
206
252
132
93
1,02:
Cwagard
64
4
49
49
10
286
54
114
631
Planavin 4
93
38
69
22
64
390
82
183
941
Epram
i.
38        |
56
160
27
214
817
166
399                 |
1,877
L
x Total weight of 6 replications expressed in kg/hecrareThe results of thett trials paint Out the fallowing remarks. :
|fc     i     ulLhs     ending     its     cypergce^e     control     Ep     cam     6     EC     (Carbom.it     q)     has     to     be c jLTTiln,i(cd. on account of residual effect risks on following crops.
2/ Nitr^lin  (Shell Planavin  at 2.fl 1/ha on  heavy  soil) in  a pre-emergency  ap iff ord*  a good  control of most of the wc<!^ that infest the P.2.0*  expcrrmc.n 
(^ramlnac,            Maranthaccac,            portulaeaeeqc,            oxyg^nateae,            ete...>
barring            cypera
This      new      weedkiller      coming      from      the      UK      Is      attatlied      co      the      group      of      toluidins triEularin+           In       practice       almost       insoluble       In       water       [0.6       ppm)       it       is       stable       in jnd       is       acting       by       inhibiting       the       ccllulor       division,       it       is       specially       active       ag the       annual       dicoLylcdqnes       and       the       graminae.       Its       toxicity       is       low       (LU.       JO200 by ingestion for the rate)
3/ Pro*ecryne (Ciba,  Ce&agard) chat was compared  in  74  to  different wccdkill pre*emergency  application  yielded  but results both  on  heavy  sail and  ligth  o (at respective raLe of 2.5  Kg/hectare)*  Prometryn  is attached  co  the ienporta group  of triazins as atracin  and  simazin.  it inhibits the photo-synthesis of hydrates and.  accordingly  the setting  and  the accumulating  of starch.  Its sol lity  in  water is only  ^iBppm,  It is absorbed  both  by  roots and  leaves and  the be utilized  in  pre and  post-emergency  application*  Very  low toxicity  (3750  m It has also  to  be stacted  that it did  not prove to  be stronger when  mixed  up Gepiron.
I did  not unlortunetly  get any  information.  about the cost price of these dl£ 
chemicals. 7 
- -
In actual fact the tost of a herbicide application U likely t  b _
o
table      with      the      cost      of      at      Least      two      hoctngs/weedine
Ji       and       accordingly       cannot       I
economic interest far the time being ;
- i especially as weedkiller residual c£f,
does     not     generally     &o       beyond     <<0     or     50     days, 
present time demand . ‘
However such r '*cds when 4
ft?t
it remains of upmosc importance to
At      last      it      is      worthy      to provide for the i&madiato l .1
e      tha
a
an  experimentation  must be carried 
lack  of nanpower is Likely  to  tone
QE ael-tl«*cnts and the
setting up q[ ch  Lend Reform.
c
™ ltl OEder to meet the fucui about with the suitable cxtoi
»CCTTOT tf.P.K. SUJST^CTIVE TSIAL 1972
Rank
Treatments
Yield
Chctlc Plot *
1
N.P. (40 - 40)
40.30
125
2
NX. (40 - 20)
36.20
119
3
N.P.K. (W-4Q-2O)
37.00
115
4
K (40)
36.30
113
5
P.K. ( 40 - 20)
32.»
101
6
Check Plot
32.10
100
7
P. (40)
3! .90
99
B
K. (20)
31.10
97
Variance Analysis
_ _ __ _-- --- ——————
Origin of rhe variation
Calculated F
5 Z
1 z
RfipLititlOrts
Treatments
- Nitrogen
- Phosphorus
* NF IntWACtiop
1
8.9
8,4
51.0
1.4
5.B
2,44
2.8#
4.13
4.13
4,13
3.31
4.41
7.44
7,44
3.44
Coefficient of variation ;
6,j %1
Conclusion* of the liF'K
-  ntfibiy 
trial
difXe«,.„ bctwcfin repUcjtloM
-  Ilishly UghlfUotivc differ. b<^gcn trcatlBWIts
-  main effect Nitrogen l  highly significative
s
- main effect phosphorus not
. 
- nepk.™, ilu;Ki£U„, u sls„1£UjIiv(t a[ 5 %
-   No potassium effect
- L5» 5 X : 3.40 qS/ha
- LSD 1 X : 4,55 Qa/h* 
,      w> w> ch<fk 
p*
:          WP>
?Kj ch<;fk 
p
* 
, there ifr no significative dlffcrener between HT, J-X and ?'PK
B  the difference between all the plot$ with "a and all the plots without £«•*■'■
to t 5^60 Qs/lia
- the difference between  all the plet e with  N and  P and  a I II the pletu- without
N comes up to t 9>50 Qs/hjCollon FcrtilUer Trij1 - 1W4
Factorial trial to test the aain effects - Nitrogen and Phosphorus and their interactions - at different levels :
1      3      25         aE  N ipr P2 05 / hectare
2
3      40 Kg
n
n
ii
J
t     60 Kr
■i
ii
■*
Hl Pl
N1 P2
N2 Pl
N2 P2
W3 Pl
H3 P2
Nl  P3
N2 P3
N3  P3
and 1
cluck plcI
- w: Lthqut
fort l|  liter,.
Experimental
Delfin
EandanLied Ufocks -
6 replication®
Plot size
Initial i 3b m2 - Useful
t 24 m2
Spiting
D.&C fl x Or20 m
Variety
Aeil? 15.17. D
Location
P H2-0, Heavy clay soil
Preceding crop
2 years cotton
Spavins
10 tines (3 min-jal - 7 atrial
spraying)
lErifcatjLon
5 times (* 500 m)
264 nniFields Operations
——
1
2
3
4
5
Flowing
20.4
6.6
Discing
24.4
10.6
Clod Crushing
iki
30.6
gidg^B
1-7
Sowing
2.7 
1
+
Scsowing
17.7
Thinning
I.fi
15.8
Wetding/Hcuaing
20.7
31.7
4.9
0.10
Irrigation
3.7
16.8
23.9
22J0
0d
TSP Fort 11Lzing
2.7
pCM Fertilizing
16.8
14.9
19.12
30.12
17,1
L.Rank
TtuaLmcfiL S
Yield
Chock Plot %
1
N3 Pl
46.60
109
2
N3 P3
43.30
102
3
Check Plot
42.60
LOO
4
KI Pl
42.30
99
5
Ml Pl
41.BO
98
6
N2 P3
41.00
96
7
H3 P2
40.60
95
8
N2 P2
40. 35
94. 5
9
H2 Pl
40.3D
94
10
N1 P2
39.00
92
VQriftLloti
Calculated F
5 1 F
1 X F
Ref>llcat igris
3.19
2,43
3.46
Tteatacntt
1.50
2.10
2.B4
^ Cfticient of variation :                                        10 X
l_vt. d£ffCT(mco taC 5 %) between the replications onlyMain effects.
N 20
N 40
N 60
p 20
P 40
(  P 60
P 20
P 40
P 6Q
P 20
P 4.0
P 60
30 460
28 100
30 110
29 030
29 060
29 500
33 520
29 210
3| 150
20 Total
M 670
p  20 Total
93 010
40 Total
87 590
p  40 Total
86 370
60 Total
93 880
p  60 Total
90 760
No significative differences end no significative interact inns between the nain effects*
■jThe     sub     st     rat     11     vc     fertiliser     trial     carried     out     in     1972 accounted       for       highly       significative       results       as       to       tho       main       cffa< Nitrogen        and        the        interaction        Nitrogen        -        Phosphorus^        A        factorial
trial       was       therefore       three       years       running       carried       out       in       order       tc define      no      re      accuratly      the      response      to      different      levels      of      N      oftt and       their       interactions       as       ucl'l..       These       72-73-7^       trials,       not       witt standing     a     rather     good     accuracy     (C,V.     respectively     of     ]O     <     7     arse Wl),         never         resulted         in         significative         differences         between         the treatments and through in significative Interactions*
One      will      wonder      at      seeing      the      discrepancy      between      t'h< both       trials       whereas       the       results       of       the       second       would       explicit      is detail      the      first      one.      Such      a      discrepancy      is      likely      to      be      relati to      the      respective      preceding      crops.      From,      what      L      heardthe      72      si tractive      trial      was      carried      out      in      a      part      of      the      P*2+O,      axperim- field      that      was      several      years      running      under      crops      whereas      the      N. factorial case after fallow.
It
therefore
seems
chat
the
heav
y 
and
rich 
soil
of
th 
part      of
the
farm
(even      aft
er
thr
ee
years
cotto
n 
growing)
is
no 
likely       to 
significantly
respond
t
o 
Nit
ro 
g
en. 
Ph
osphorus
and 
th 
interaction.  But it is to  be expected  that a response will com after sereral years under cotton.  It «?uld  be therefore suitab carry  on  this trial on  the same P.2,0,  experiment field*  Tn  .h way  it is recofnnended  co  enter upon  a long  term cotton  exhaust trial Including 'the following treatments * Nil* N ■ NF ■« NX a
xt a is& reccxpmcndcd co carry oul such a fertilixe grannie in a KulE* section field where cotton has been growing year? running.
* + * iAccording  ec these three years experiment results,  fcri applications scan  to  be net ncccss ry  to  an  yield  imp  rev  cine n-t«  ■ have co  call attention  to  the keeping  of soil fertility  ; a 16  < hectare cotton crop experts ?
H
F2 05
Definitively exported
Seeds
Fibres
Total
Returned EO the field
15.5O
0.56
15.06
Roots
Stems
Leaves
Valves
Grand total
■
33. 19
1.90
40.09
<L2fi
17.93
%,35
8.13
104,7a
-
bl
2.27
7,24
12.76
3.61
41.94
1
I'
1*
11
7<
In 
A
rba
Minch, 
a
25 
quintal
s/hcctar
e
cocmr
crop 
w[ll
■
Lively 
export
t
56 
kg     oE
Nitrogen 
and 
25 
kg 
of     Phosphorus.
A
o 
soil
fertility 
conse
rvation 
programme
will
be
therefore
secu
red 
applications of :
Products
Rato/ 11a
N/H*
P2O5/Ha
Ap
1) DAP
2) Urea
50 kg
100 kg
9 kg'
47 kg
24 k£
=
P LOU; After
Total
ISO kg
56 kg
24 kg
With     its     high,     potash     content,     w     do     not     think     that     Arb soil requires sny K20 e pli«tion £<>* the thee being.
PCotton Variety Collection 1972/73/74 27 varieties Ara compared to Atala 33,17*9 { a cheek every t«o row* )
t / the American cbouf
2 f THE AFRICAN GROUP
3/ THE I ACT * GROW
4/ THE OUGAUDESF- GROUP
5/ THE PAK.T5TA.HeSE GjlDUP
■ InttitUtde racherchas pour lc
Several Ac.ila, Hairy AcsLa and AHS
2 Delrapine
1 Stoneville
1 Coker
1 Carolina Queen
1 Paymaster
p.tba* B. SO
Allen 333.57
Albar 637
MAE 444.2.69            ( Mirsutuni a Arboroum j< Ro? BJA 593
L. 231.24
L, 299.10
L. 229
Satu 65
Asa (65) 39
199. F
Ac. 134
ton et les textiles exotlqiies (Paris)fJ
Thii variety tolloctl^n 
3 years running.
Very wide spacing : 2 m x j □. Check Acai a 15-17.9 every 2 reus.
ijr^ied *mr £n 
( 20 plants f variety K
experiment field
Were recorded a average heignt t 2  cycle ( in man ths Erem serin, 
S
up to first picking ) Disease* infest At ion ( Blight only as wereleiI never damaged ths col lection varieties ) 4  1 plant average uwlght 5
P
?
average weight.
The following data ( tea rext page ) arc compiled Ercra 3 years averaverse
HEIGHT
(meter)
CYCLE
faftnths)
bLlGLO 1 nf Citation
ruiMT avl- i iAGE k7.IC.lLT J. 
<£T3n^)
~OV\ ’ -
■ -
(wt. ; .• *  i
1.25
Lj
s
1
344
5.6
1*45
6
0
300
4.5
1,45
5
0
ws
6.6
I' —.—■—■ “ - |i,M
1.46
6
0
281
4.9
19. IP
1.48
6
0
267
6,0
1,25
6
0
292
4.4
I.W
1.08
5 1/2
0
284
5.0
i 333.^7
1.35
5
0
267
4.5
r «7
1.20
5
0
295
4-6
nrillc 2H
1.10
5
0
215
4.7
ijlte 5.L
1*10
5 1/2
0
237
3.6
ipifle 16
1,10
5 1/2
0
220
5.B
llu Qutcn
1.19
5 1/2
0
245
4,9
IJttr 101 A.
1.13
5
1
248
5.5
f 201
1.26
5
0
226
4.2
115.17.C
1.35
5
0
241
5.4
> 15.L7.3P.
1,20
5
0
233
4.5
”■17/70
1.15
5
0
247
4.9
_
1.10
5 1/2
0
228
5.8
______
1.27
5 1/2
0
222
6.1
1.16
5 1/2
1
191
5.6
I
Mr — - -
1.19
5
0
281
4.8
. 
1.30
5
0
115
6.0
kX —
5j"J-__________ __■ ■'
1
1,09
5 1/2
0
298
6.0
1.45
5
1
293
4.4
1.45
5
0 ■
290
4.0
1,25
5
0
300
4.2
1.24
5
0
247
6.7NATIONAL variety Tai al 1973
TREATMENTS
YIELD
X*
RANK (1)
CITING
ourruKi
FIBRE YIELt
RANK G
jitti b^5d
40.20
104
1
35.fi Z
14.40
6
ANS 1/34
39.30
101*2
2
41.& X
16.39
1
1C £34
39.10
101
3
34.6 %
13.60
a
Jtoh 15,17,0
38.70
100
4
3B.6 Z
14.93
4
Altar 6J7
36.50
99.5
5
35 %
13.47
9
SPA ,68
37.SO
97.5
6
34 Z
12.83
11
fc *i> Isa?.Ba
37.70
97
7
42 Z
15*83
2
lla  (65} 38
37,50
96* a
8
35.4 Z
13.27
10
L5.t7.7o
36. SO
95
9
41.2 Z
15.16
3
Ulei1 111.57
36.50
94
10
39.2 Z
14-30
7
(^)44
36.30
93.5
11
35 Z
12.70
12
’«««
35.90
92.5
12
32.4
11.63
14
35.80
92.3
13
41.6
14.90
5
31.10
60
14
38
11.31
13COTTON KAlTOH/il. VARIETY TRIAL E 974
treatments
Acal,a 15*17/70 AHS. 1. (70) AH5. 1. (74) AMS- 1. 3ft AMS. 1. 39
AHS 1.49 H.A 10
ir.A it
Allen 353.57 Reba B.5O
EXPERIMENTAL DESIOi          ELandtrmlzed blocks -              6 replications
plot size EOGATION
rreceding crops
Initial ; 40 m2 - Utaful t 24 m2
P-2bO. experiment field Heavy clay soil 2 years cotton
fERTJLIZER
1 quintal T S $ 
-     1 quintal urea
SPSAVTHG irrigation rainfall
10 times (3 manual - 7 actLaLspraying) 5 times (7.500 mm)
272 runFIEL&5 OPERftTICCJS
1
2
3
4
5
Ploughirt£
20.4
6.6
■
Discing
24.4
9.6
Clod Crushing,
13+6
Hidgins
18.6
Sowing
26.6
Renewing
fl.7
Thinning
6.6
Wcedfng/fjDeing
17.7
31.7
25-6
8.10
Irrigation
27.6
31-7
14.9
20.10
5.11
T&p Fertiltatns
6.7
Ur « fertilizin*
8.8
12.9
PicktnE
14.12
1.1
17.1- OU
——— b------------—
1— ------------—
LfH^5
YIELD
A.15.I7/7C
Z
1 Rafik
CJ>
cwn«
ourruiiN
Fl URL
YIELD
ram; (2)
47.70
100
r*-n'70
5
41.4 s
19.75
4
. (w)
Lr
ao.OQ
86
10
40.4 %
16,50
10
; 1.
45.00
94
8
39.6 X
17.80
7
II h
55. oti
115
1
40.4 %
22.30
1
11-
48.50
102
4
42.4 Z
20-50
2
J,. 48
49.70
104
2
41.2 Z
20.45
3
ID
49.40
103
3
39.0 Z
19*25
5
u
43.50
91
9
40.4 Z
17*60
8
i 333,57
46*90
98
6
40.4 %
18.93
6
!. 50
46.80
98
7
36.4 Z
16-05
9
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
OHIO IN of TTLE
VARIATION
CALCULATED F
5ir
1 X F
REPLICATIONS TREATMENTS
4.22
9.70
i-43
2.10
3.46
2.84
— - ,
--£icit!n[, of variation
:     3.80 Qs/ha 3.13 Qs/haYftKICIY Ti’JAL 1973
.
YIELD
X
MHC (i)
ClMiriTC ourrurcr
1
FIE IE HS13
■*i r
J - •
39-10
100
1
39 Z
15-25
^,2.6’
38.70
99
2
42 X
16.25
tif ine 16
37.60
%
3
42 X
15*80
JI.J4
36.70
94
4
41.6 X
15,27
pr
36*20
93
5
42.4 X
15.35
[jflM- q>  SL
35.00
90
6
41.6 X
14-55
iwille 213
34.50
88
7
41.6 X
14.35
!5
34.30
87.5
8
43 X
14.75
34.20
87
9
41,8 X
14.30
w
34.10
86.5
10
42.4 X
14.45
-
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
Origin 
of the variation
Calculated F
F at 5 X table
■
F it 1 I table 1
Replications
Treatments
5.9
5.8
2.43
2.10
3.46
2.84
I
Coefficient of variation *• L.d <5 Z)
■
. 
Lsd (1 X)
. li» ^Utdls/kwtare
3 02  niLrttat»/
*               5x2£<
hectlIfC
CSce appendix the results of the variety 
72/J3)“™" akm
VABIeTr tRML
imnt£f<TS
Acala 15.17. [) Coker 201 Stonffvflle 2i3 DslrapiftE 16 Deltapinc g,]„ RajidaraiEed block
E-J.Ar 597
L. 23E,I4
L. 299.K)
L. Z29-Z9.71
HAR. 444.2 7O
f
experimental DESIGN
plot size LOCATION PRECEDING CHOPS FERTILIZER
SPJl-lI'INC irrigation
5-6 Etpli^tfAnt
Initial a fa} m2                    Useful t 24  2
a
P + 2D. exp eriment         tl«ld tfaiiy  ] y 
Z a    aClll
2 Years cottoo
1 quintal TSp Ifl tine* 0 Mnu?i _ ) 5 tines ( Joo nra) 287 CTTTl
i quintal wrea
spraying)
RAINFALLVARIANCE ANALYSIS
ORICiTN OF TltE
VARIATION
calculated f
5 I F
1 X F
REPLICATIONS
1.B2
2.43
3.46
4.14
2-10
2.B4
of Vari at, I oft
Utj J x84 .
yIELDS OPERATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
Ploughing
20.4
6.6
Discing
24.4
9.6
Clod Crushing
12.6
Ringing
16,6
Sowing
26.6
Resowing
12.7
Thinning
5,8
Ceding/Hoc Log
-
16.7
30.7
24*8
7.10
Ir riEJt£on
27.6
30.7
13-9
19.10
4*11
Tsp  PertiUzing
6.7
Utea
8.8
12.9
Icking
15.12
2.1
17.1SffVfnl vUictio. were tJirms yc*t* tu lining tested both i
coiUccion drtd a^ntitiw,  „
L  al5. atcordinB w difEcrcm crtLcrli
-   seed-cotton yield
-        S£ntiing     outturn     and     consequently     fibre     yitld     ch.t     will     bt     of     up importance when ths fam acliieves Us cotton ginning
-   vegetative cycle
-        plants      size      and      vegetative:      development      that      bear      on      cotton      sisal holdings       t       manual       operations       (hoeing,       spraying,       etc.)       are       indec hardly worked out when cotton plants are very high or veglC-Btiv
-   diseases resistance : mostly blight and uorticIllium.
Three years txpcriment results arc not chough tn firmly recommend one variety. However some conclusions can be now drawn
-     Sant     varieties     have     to     be     tested     again     next     year     in     a     Saae     cell tion     device     where     should     a     selection     pro     gram     e     be     started     in     un the supervision of Hr J. SXlUNDERS I AR Cotton treader.
But 6 now varieties should be added to the 2d other ones t
AMS 1 (74) j, AMS 1.39 ; AMS LW ; HA IQ ; HA It (froci the 1^7£i
National Variety trial) and the now Acala 15 17 V (kiwawTi as tor
ciIlium resistant).
-   Twa IftCT Varieties - 1*299 and L.229 - chat yielded t«o years
ru.nn.log      disappointing      results      should      be      struck      off      the      Arbj      Mln Variety trial and U replaced by Albar 637 and the pakisbanese
Ac.     134.     It     is     also     rectnwended     for     the     Same     trial     to     provide     t% check plots s Acels ISdtl 9 and AIS 1.39.
-   This Sllj&t resistant and mil sited AS l.» t« years yie^e
P «tlrhrl«W attractive remits
M  ‘nd 55 
74> -
Increase of this variety has t™ -» —rd ro be carried out.
I ficOltqn parasitism
Although  insecticides trials did  iwc yield  significativ results (owing  to  the l„fc of infestation  io  the experiment fid where these trials were carried  out) it it important in  the fram
of      this      report      to      insist      upon      the
aa
in      limiting      factor      of      cotton 
growing,      I      draw      up      below      a      mor?      or      less      chronological      inventory 
the     main     cotton     pests     that     have     been     found     in     Arba     Minch     these     1 
three years.
Cutworms I Agratis ypsilon
Damages ot very early stage j never heavy ones in Art* Minch. Agrotis is known to be sensible to most of in ate tie! des
if sprayed at night when coning out from underground. Cotton Leaf thrips t Caliothrips spp. (p.m.)
Leaf miner ; Cotton Aphid ;
Acrocesujps bifaiciata (p*m. mostly 1a ) Aphis gossypli
Cotton     aphid     has     to     be     counted     among     the     major     cotton     pests     in     Ai Minch.
Growth is retarded and young seedlings may even die. Thu insect feeds on the plants sap and the excess sugars it takes up 
are excreted as honeydew. This is a sticky substance that covers leaves and provides a substrate (or the growth of a black sooty tt and at ball opening time car contanimte the lint and lowers its quality, What is likely to cone about in Arba Minch where popular
can increase throughout the c^paign *>  ”
c
eLl  controlled.or
j asslds :
EmpojiSca Lybica
not of economic incidence in Arba Minch
Cccton whitefly :                       Bcaista tabaei (p.m.)
The leaf curl disease which la transnlssed by Lcmlsia was never (\
Leal'wo rms t
Cosmophyla Fl avia (ntinor pest in A.M+)
Spodoptera littoralls (or Prudenta litura)
Almost unkrtown  in  the past,  the egyntjan  leaE wore,  is now of upm; importance in  Arba Minch  and  in  others parts of Ethiopia where $i attacks have been recorded* It appeared for the first time in 19'
A sudden infestation was noticed in the very outset of august     72     (Plot     5.     3     -     north     part     of     the     farm)     and     two     hectares    o early      stage      cotton      was      <rbum      down".      Another      generation      came      out late     September     bringing     up     a     build     up     of     worm®     capable     to     injury whole      plant      ;      Leaves,      bracts,      flowers,      buds      and,      to      a      lesser      ext- young      bolls.      In      actual     fact     the      egyptian      leafworm     was     the     main     p of      the      1972      campaign      and      populations      arising      to      50,000      worms/hoc were       still       scouted       in       73*       Spodnptcra       littoralis       has       proved       capab of       developing       resistance       to       insecticides       induding       DDTt           endrin,       t« phen     and,     to     a     lessor     extent*     Carbaryl,     On     the     m-itter     of     Eact     eg picking        is       practiced        in        Egypt,       Trichloroion       (Dipterex)       cane       out be      rather      satisfying      in      72,      but      Monoerotophos      (Azodrin      or      Huvacr- and above all Pho s rd enable to achieve an excellent control.
Xanthodes graellsii (p.m J
teaf caters
Podagrica puncticoIl_i5 (p.m.)
Kcraf (Hibiscus Cannanlbus) trial.gQllyms t
Earjjs- insulang
NO severe attacks by Spiny bollwGrm have been, reported II
K
A flight in station C»C out U Wl>' 72 idlHuj ft" JtOung ptwi Easily controlled by DfaeCbMte and others LnsKtitides t* Mltt got ton stainers :                           Pysdcrgus Spp.
Arba Minch where it mostly skiou- up Bt early lease «$ st4sn borer
(populations of 3,000 vorras/hcctace were scouted In 72 in sone pit
Heliothis armlgera
Aj     everywhere     in     Ethiopia     the     amerfcan     bollworm     is     the     w< Cotton     p^St     in     Arba     Ninth     where     generally     it     produces     One     new     gem ration     per     month     third     and     fourth     stage     larvae     requited     3     1     of     en; fan/hectare     or     5     I     of     DDT     (or     evm     a     mixture     of     both     chemicals)     t< controlled.      The      importance      of      a      closed      sea      ion      for      controlling.      cod bo    11    worms    sets    up    a    difficult    problem    as    for    as    Hello    this    is    conci The      host      range      is      indeed      very      wide.      Crops      (solanace-ac,      pulses,      ot
crops...)      appear      to      be      ware      important      than      wild      hosts.      In      actual      :
haricot-beans      or      second      crop      vert      heavily      infested      in      73      and      thei: cost     of     production     burden     with     He     Lie     th     is     control.     The     question     is to      know      whether      some      crops      (pulses      and      solanaccae      particularly)      h; to    be?    grown    on    as    second    crop    or    net    in    order    to    abide    by    a    neces closed season for controlling the arocrica-n bollwortn+
Scales :                                        Ferrisiana Virgata
Often rwti«*d aUn  (CM5 And branch.* Sfc taco jtag' can 
H..V, 
coTTiplLznertt^ry spray with Cjrifjryl,
" «*» 
*" ” COr,,',U‘"E '
* - ■ / ■ ■ -Platyedra eos^pidl, (plcik [toll wars), DLpAroptU waters!
(red Sudrin Bo IL wo rm) and Tctranichus (red SpLde finite) was never observed in Arba Minch,
Cotton Diseases
Bacterium Blight wag observed but has so far not beef* serlo Only vertiei 11 ium^albo-atrwi might bectac of econotaic importance if crops rotations are not carried out.
A thorough clean up after picking by burning uprooted plan:® and other plant, trash is essential for a healthy crop and should be
a necessary measure to restrict the vertic!Ilium extent.Htin 
p e5tB H Arta iliadi wj tbcty^nir^l
Insecticide
COBetclal N^mc
uiitcfiy
...........
phosphamiOon Dimcthoite Malathion
DOT
Dinecrnn
Rogpr - Pcrfckthion. Malachld-n
DDT 25
DDT Endosulfan
DDT 25 Thiodan 35
 .
Phosvcl Monocrotophos Tri chlo rapbon Carbaryl
__ ______
Phosvel
Aiodrin - Wuvacron Dipterex - Dylox Sevin * ScViinM
a*i. rate/hcctarc
250 g...            500 &
300 g...           400 g
1,000 g
500 a
750 g...             1500 g
600 g... 1OOO g
_________ ._________________
900 g...            1200 a
boo g
1,000 g
2,000 g... 2,500 g
Monocrotophos
Phosvel
Endrin
Carbaryl
Atodrin - Nuvaefc&n
Phosvel
Endrin
Sevin - Sevl-nol
800 g,., 
1,000 g
900 g*.* 
1,200 g
500 g... 
750 g
2,000 g... 
2,500 g
Monocrotophos Carbaryl Phosphamidon
Aiodrifi - UuvatMn Sevin - Sflvimol [Jitaecrdn
500 g... 
1,500 g... 7,000 g 500 £
6-00 glUlnrt Moffitt.5 in frba Htjich ,nJ their enntret
I nsec tic ide
Comercidl N^rac
■3,1, rate/hect.ara
Pho&pharai don
HslalhiOri
DDT
MT
Endosulfan
Dimecron
Ragpr - Pcrfckthion
Malachinn
DDT 25
25a                   Seo 6 XC g„. tOO g
t.WK g LH
 - «! T-— —i. —-
DDT 25
Thindan 35
 — — — —  -vwn  — -
SCO £
750 «... IM B
6OD «...           10CJ0 £
Pho-svcl
Moitoerotopho s
Tri ch lota phon
Carbaryl
Phosvel
Azodrin * NuVafirOn Dipterex - DyLox
Sevin - ScviiDol
Wi> K-.. 1ZO0 £
SCO g
i P000 E
2,000 g.., 2(SO0 g
Mo not ra lc pho s
Phosvel
Endrin
Carbaryl
NonocroEophas
Carbaryl
Phosphami don
Azodrin - Huvacton
Phosvel
Endrin
Sevin ’ Sevimol
8M g...  J,000 g
900 G,..  1,200 a
500 g,,.  750 R
2.DOD 8„.  2.500 g
ModtLn - Huvnpron
Sevin - Sevimol
rdmeerur*
5OT 5...                  600 £ l (5O0 g... %D00 £ 
500 fCOTTON' - ESTIMATED DlRr.CT
PfiOpfCTLON COST
1 o) Materials
-   Seeds : Eth /■ O.5O x 20 kg -
-   Insecticides : see in appendix 14
expensc/ha = 165 Eth J» in 1973
Should be now 50 7. under estimated ; eg 
-   Aerial spraying : Eth | 6 x 12 sprayings
-   Fertilizer : 1 quintal TSP and 1 quintal urea with subvention without subvention 
Materials           total without fertiliser /
£th- 3 /ha
10
250
72
100
2fO
330
Materials total with subventionned fertilizer t ^30 
Materials ‘otal with no sub vent i&nnsd fertilizer /
2’) Fj eld mechanized operations a} Tractor hours/ 1 hectare _
Operations
Attachcment
Tractor type
Average
D.5
IFF
0.5
M?
Discing or
roottne
Discing
Ploughing
Discing
R idging
Ditching
tra Ti sport it Lon
Rcme Plow
Teeth cultivator Disc Harrow
Mold Board Plow Disc Harrow
RLJ&er
Ditcher
Trailer
1.3
0.8
0.8
1.0
2.*
1.0
1,5
1
1
1.3
0.4
0,4
0.5
2.6
0.5
13
1
I
—
H °Urs total / 1 hectare
* 
"
2,1b)
Ito-rly «,... or »„
»„
!t „ in 
i; >|||8
D.5 / Eth. / 40 * 
MF t Eth. / 11 *
c)
Tractor coat j 1 hectare
B,5    :    Eth    3    ifl    m
2,1 
w    Eth  I
KF : Eth ( 11 u 6,9 = Eth
s
Bt.O
75.9
Tractor cost total
Eth
159.9       + 160
d) At t, a ch c^icn t cost / 1 hectare
Ila Ing no estimated hourly cOit and ao possibility of esti mating the hourly cost of attachment {the accusate purchase prlt. arc unknown Eor most of then) htr* we consider this cost to be roughly 15 X oE the tractor cost 1
Eth 6               X 15 % = Eth ?
24
3*) Unskilled labour
Field cleaning
Sowing + resowing Hoeing / weeding (4 times) Irrigation (6 tiracs)
Canal cleaning Fertilizer application (twice) Thinning
Eth J / hectare
15
10 BO 30 10
5
10
Eth      S      40      and      il      rapddttval?      Wr      0.J      -><»■*•      ”9
inticad af 3-t
to be cjircl --
i
•fid 0,S4 calculated iti apj>e'id ’*cs* to nbuve-estimate these Ell»rt5
It* VJ -
Manual spraying 
Coolie puihcri
Guards
ElarvesUftg i Eth | 5 k 25 qi : UJ
Eth no x 5 qx :                         50 195 Bagging and loading 20
30
jq
M1 sc -e L L an-aneous
Unskilled labour ttical Eth. $ JOO nr 310
25
4* J Total jdiwftt prod^^tod;4pjtt a)    without, fertilizer
Eth J
to   with      subventloaned            fertilizer Eth $ <0  with      na iubventionned fertiliser Eth $
hectare
Eth $ /
820
925
1 005
B “■ ■            ■ ■PULSES
Haricot-bean variety trials
Haricot-bean direct production cose
Beans Harvesting stage trial
Chick pea variety trials
Chick pea direct production cost
Pulses sawing dates trial
including : Adzukibcan NUng bean Lima Bean Soy bean
. 
1973-74
1974
L 1973-74
1974
Haricot bean CowpeaPULSES
Haricot-bean variety trials
Haricot-bean direct, product ion cost
Be a ns Harvesting stage tr iail
Chickpea variety trials
Chick pea direct production tost
Pulses sowing dates trial
including :                     Adzuklbean Mung bean Llmj Bean Soy bean Haricot bean Cowpea
1^73-7*
1974
1973-14
1974HARICOT- |JLVtS VARIETY TRIAL 197 J
Mexican. 142 Ethiopia 10 Ethiopia 11 Richmond Wonder Canadian Wonder
Pea Bean C (W. 95) Satin P.1J.C
Satin P.13.L Satin P.12 Tengaru 16
Brovn Speckled                           Arroz 3
■
T
Paa Bean A*L(6[l 395) Red Wollano Soddo
h
Pea Bean B
Black Pesslc
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN i
Randomized blocks (5 replications) SFACIWQ :                                 0.40 a X 0*10 a - 2 seeds per hole
PLOT SIZE !
LOCATION ;
Initial : 9.6 m2 - Useful : 9*6 m2 (no bordCraws) P.2.0* heavy clay soil
FERTILIZER : 100 kg TSP/ha - SO kg urca/ha
IRRIGATION :                            1 only (/ 100 ma)
jUTNFALL .
300 mm
■r—------------------ X
!?■
1
2
’3
4
5
ploughing
27/7
14. &
■
Dicing
21.6
29.8
■
-
Clod Crushing
6*9
4         — •
judging
8.9
Snowing
11.9
Ec sawing
• —------ ------ —.
_
Thinning
27.9
m
a
^feeding/Hee lag
30.9
a. io
1
-
1.  ^ri&ation 
12.9
■■
’J
J
ret tiliiing TSP
10.9
1 ■»
d'
1.10
ng
26.11
3.12
4
*V" ——Obsc r vat ion s
Ccminjcit
days after
towing
Variety
jZ Bloodinr
days after
sowing
Haturity days after
sowing
Mexican 142
5
45
95
Ethiopia 10
6
47
90
Ethiopia it
6
47
90
gichrt^nd Vander
6
35
78
Ginadian Wonder
6
32
76
Bro™ Speckled
7
43
82
Pea Bean Al (6R.395)
5
40
75
Pea Bean B
5
40
78
Pea Bean C (W.95)
5
45
82
Satin p.n.c
6
40
62
Satin P.13.L
6
33
78
Sa tin p,12
6
42
78
J 5r,£aru 16
5
4*
95
4rto  3
s
5
43
* 78
Kcd ^Uarao Soddo
6
44
82
^Black nc
aatQ
6
43
82Host of U.e plants seemed ,oitc
(.sod stead, good grow), and sood beM, 
obtained in diseases scores made o„ thc ' (mostly coranin Blight) and virU5 * '!t th'« Hotks far 31;-/... Halo Blight and very little Utstssro ab"^
these. The scoring fDr virus Vgg
"’°‘t °r «’e plots
“ f’llK'1"S (W.a •*„
s «h dises.j '- no scores
* — 
■* L
_
varieties which are late ma
turing>
° a€c for
■■
VARIETY
■i
BLOGS
bacterium blight
VIR©
1
2
3
1
2
31
Canadian Wonder
Satin P 13 L
fed Wo 11 attic Soddct Pea Bean A (6R.395)
Richmond Wonder
Satin P 13 c
Ethiopia ll
Bre^n Speckled
Black Dcsaic
Pea Bean B
Satin P.lz
Arroz 3
Pea bcan C (W.95)
M »Xican 142
Ethiopia 10
Tcnsoru 16
3
3
3 4
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
■
1
I
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
1-2
2
-Bi-
-
-
-
«
■=!
2
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
1
2
1
4 1
-
2
2
1
-
1
0
2
^efficient of infestation. : f™» 0 t0 5*TREAT! I LITTS
Pea. Benn C
Fta Btan A.l
A rto1 3
Fta Benn B Canadian bfonder Satin P.12
Black Bessie.
Ethiopia 11___________ Ric'rniond L'n n Sc r BrownSoeck Led Satin P.13*L
Red Wollamp Soddo EthiofjialO Mexican 142 Teygcru 16 Satin P.13.G
L'. i Tr. Mt ;c
3-.W
2n,°0
26,80
 25.SO 2.60                   24,'X)
6 JO
6.20
24.20
24.10
4.40 24.10 7.40 22. eo B.3O 21,20
10.40
!9.£0
17. CO
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
-
Origin
of the variation
Calculated F
F at
5 Z table
F at
1 1 Cable
Replications
1,02
2.35
3.29
Treatments
6.01
1.84
2-35
6.23 qs/haFtA RJ C JT_ BEAi
£
3 . J yr J9 J
:                         [? T -'I AL l o; \
Mexican 14 2 Nazareth Small
Nazareth Selection H. 203
6R. 395 Tara
Black Dcssic Emerson Pinto Bean
Hsireth Selection Jtiler
Brown Sprcckled W- 95
Satin Pea 12
6R. 320
Arroz 3 Canadian Wonder
ejcperihental design
Randomized blocks    - 6 replications
FL07 SIZE
Initial
9,6 a2 Useful t 498 m2
SPACING
0-40 m x 0.10 m
PC^ATIQW                      P.2.0* Experiaent field Heavy clay soil
££griiizi?ic
No fertilizer
4 times (/ 300 ma) 175 ironjT         11
1
2
3
4
5
J
3.6
7.8
flDUE1,inS
piping
9-8
1
ctD d crvshfn&
27.8
Ridging
28.8
haring
30.a
r/wwing
9.9
Thinning
23.9
^ding/kdoing
21.9
9.10
21.10
ligation
4.9
20.9
12.10
24.10
FeitiHllnK
-
^ytne
-
9.11
*
ia.12
*
32 £       * Star*ed Txivttnbcr 9 for the earliest varieties and closed dec- acr ^r th. ,Botes- on dis<j^sc4
Coefficient o£ Infestation : from 0 to J
Variety
Baeteriizi Blight
Rube.
Vims
H«KU>n 142
2
2
2
Nazareth Sind 11
2
2.5
1
C4jzareth Small                203
2
2
3
6 R - 395
1
4
1
Tara
2
4
3
Blatk Bessie
0.5
2
1
Eiwrson
1
3
2
Pinto Bean
I
4
4
Ka£jTctb Small N B4
1
3
3
•filler
1
3
3
^ro«h Speckled
0.5
I
2
95
_■
0
2
l
S
__ ^Ut^PL 12
2
1
1
3
2
2
.  ''l r t3 3
2
3
3
3
2
1
”& r.
,
-- -----
' citl‘um lindcinuthianum observed (Seed anthwenfl5t)■" JC
CoefficicflL of variation LSD 5 X
: 20 Z
; Qt/ha 7.BO- rut
Beam Harvesting stage trial - 1974 -
Treatments :                                          Harvest   wiieii s
A. 50 T,      of pods        are ripe
■B- 75 X
if
ii
ii
C. 100 %
11
il
■ii
Experimental design Plot slee
Variety Spacing Locatinn
D.   All seeds ate hardened
E.   10 days later
Randmired blocks - 6 replications Initial :                  9.6 m2 - Useful : 4.0 m2
Ethiopia 10
0.40 tn X 0,10 m
P-2.,0. experiment field Heavy clay stfil| Origin of the variation
Calculated F
5 % F
1 3. F
J?epl iese ions
1 Treatments
1.47
1.23
2.71
2*07
4,10
4,4J
i>r Illi lent of vtriitLt>n i I 6 % significant resultsflqricoL-Bean - Estimated direct cost ot production
l/ jjaehinc opefarlons coat
It     would     be     dlffillar     co     the     machine     operations     cost     for     noire,     i-c.     1&0     5/hteca- rc CO which 20 $ wd J ho arfde-d for machine pljntifigr
ToLaj n-achirae opcratLOTls cost 2/ MjflUdl operations CPSt
Collecting and burning Hoping (2) Hjtndtaeedlflg Cl) Irrigations (4j
Carta t cleaning
Spraying
Coolio pushers
Guards
J JhO + 20 = IjO s/hceorc
y/hectare 10
40 10 25 10
5 5
10
Harvesting     -     Treshlng     -     Cleaning     -     B-agRing                                          50
Hiacellancouis
Total manual operations cost
3/ Materials
Seed 70 Kgs/ha at $ 100 Kg (dressed seed) Fest Control j 2 St Tlodad and 4 t DDT 
5
170 J/hettare
Sacks
: 15 bags at 60*tent5/biS
Total materials
Ijl estimated direct coSC of grqduccion
IMltW fertilizer)
r "]l ditL-ct CCIC of production with fertiliser application (iquintal urea Jf.t1. 'M««| TSP/hcctaro) should be Eth $ 550 with subventionned fertilizer find 
^ith not subventionned fertilizer
1 ‘,'k <» 1 years
70
20
$
99 / 100
100 j/hectare A50 $/hectarepnspftc of good avcra-p yields two years JiarltOE-ifldfl Variety cxperiincni In
Arifl Ninth d? □□£ quite satisfying 42 coefficients fl I variatlwi respectiv*ly 
jroac J 5 E in 73 mi 2Q K in 74P
gfliJiflr b.irf Accuracy of thes® both trials prevent from final ctKiclusiunSr
It will be iKpflriant co carry out again variety trials with a maximum of rare-
as It Is rccomaraiferf efl pick haricot-beans at the rdghi tint 10 avoid chatte
ring (Sec harvesting singe Clift]). Shattering: was estiraattil tn 73 but not iri 74
and that could be likely to be the reason why erratic results appear in the 74
trial : for cxoiple disappointing average yield (2d.00 Qs/hi only) tree? N, 95
(Pea Bean C) instead of J 3 last year.
Det it should also be stated that seven! varieties suffered more fraa different
di-sejsea Ehls year tJiitn last one and thaE In spite of the 74 dryer climatic, condi
tion^
However if it Is premature to select one variety, it Is already possible to draw
few conclusions :
- Varieties as Mexican 142, Satin Paa, Candian. Wonder and perhaps Etbopia 10 as 
wall, more suitable to others parts of the country, have to be el irairtiiced after*
two years disappointing results.
- american Pea Seans - 6R - 395, 4ft - 320 and W,95 - Se« tg be wall adapted io
Arts Minch ecological conditions and arc likely to be suitable to an export earku .
-     bearing     out     a     two     years     old     local     variety     trial     result.     Black     Dessic     shows     off     fi- important potential yield and its hardiness as well*
Opening up no channels for export market this variety could b® of highest intqrebL
for local consumption. Cti the same hand It is recenrfianded to test again the al-O
well adapted and well appreciated Ped Wollamo Soddo.
- as others pulses fsoya-beans, chide pcas> ctc * ) haricot-beans have to be harves
+B
ted in dry weather that calls for a sowing in august or septt-aber, such dat-* of planting sceras the best permitting to harvest in december/January - Maths of dry Mason - and co a certain extent CO take advantage of the October and sennetir.os r^venber rains Co decrease the irrigations. Haricot-beans growing as second rref. that is picked in June is in Arba flinch very risky* Last year experience of 7 5ccr.a E fs (carried out albeit Ecsearch forewarning) showed a heavy loss.
’ Dn a large scale- irrigated! haricot-beans have to be sprayed once or twice tn be Protected from anerican bollworm or spodoptora Littoratls, Under existing circuts-
,4nc
*  pest control will burden with $ 20 or 30 the direct cost of production 
5
' 3- comes to $ 450/hectare about. Such a cost implies a minimuni yield of 15 Qs ,hiL iupposes field levelling) in order that haricot-bean nay be attractive for
Chs  Kinch Fam.CHICKPEAS .VATJQC^L VARIETY TRIAL -
TREATMENTS ;
Awassa white       D.Z. iO.2
Gulu 54
D.Z. 10.It
Dubie
D.Z. 10,1
0-57
H. 26.12
e.iAiA
24 + B
H. 54.tO
H. 60.10
H. 9637
H. 61.9
EXPERIMENTAL. DESIGN :
Random!serf blocks - 4 replicati
on
SPACING t
0,40 n k 0-10 m
PLOT SIZE :
Initial and useful i 8 m2
LOCATION :
P-2+0- - hc^vy clay soil
FERTILIZER :
100 kg TSP - 100 kg. urea
IRRIGATION :
Twice (jt JOG CL-tO
rainfall
:
300 TWlFIEJLDS ffltfEW/iTlOttS
PLOUGMOT
-
14
T
PISCESC
I zi.fl
1     29-B
1■
CLOP CRUSHING
12.9
1i*
RIDGING
14.9
I
SOWING
17.9
RE5OWIXG
3*10
THINNING
-
-
WEEDISG/HOEING
6.10
3D. 10
23.2
is •■
IRRIGATION
20.9
24*2
■« ’■
■.
■
4
fwilizkc tsp
15.9
i-
1
*
FERTILIZING J PE A
12-10
s
PICKING
20.12
11.1
■.FIELDS OBSEflVATIO.VS
OBJE RVATICCi'J
I GEWNATICW
50 Z BLOOMING
HATWTf
ftaim
days after J sowing
days after
sowinc
days ,iCter
sowing
AwaSsa white
10
47
M1
Cwhi 5 4
10
47
56
Dubic
10
W
96
J C.57
11
60
116
c.i4«io
10
60
ua
24.B
10
46
K
M.^637
11
M
112
tl.Z. 10,2
11
47
96
o +a. 10+11
10
47
96
fl.J. It).t
11
• w ■
112
B.26.12
It)
44
ft
H.54.10
11
47
ft
b
K.60,10
12
47
96
H.61.0
11
47
96STAND I A-VD VtCmTIK GMOTH
r.
vabietv
. KUKXS
I
T»
1 «.
IV
1
| 5TAKD
^ECETATBT
GROWTH
%
%
1 1
1
! Awasss white
90
+++++
90
85
22
---------- —----------- -—- ------
Cadu 54
90
5 +
90
90
2?-------------------
□ubic
90
5 +
90
90
90
Cr57
85
J +
85
90
q0
.0*1410
70
3. +
90
90
2s
D.Z,lO<2
90
5 +
90
90
90
0,2*10.11
90
4 +
90
90
-90
H.26-12
90
5 +
90
85
85
fl,54.10
90
5 +
90
90
„1
1.60,10
80
1 +
90
75
85
1 Ml,?
85
4 +
90
90
1 24.B
SO
4 +
65
90
■
90
J*9&37
90
5 +
65
90
?0
'2'MOU
90
5 +
85
90
90
4f ii«!
FiOTES DISEASE A5D VEGETATIVE GBDWTFt
It appeared chat the chickpeas seewd to do well in Arba Minch chart they arc at Kultimsa (Cadu) which were destroyed by root-rot (Sclerotium rolfsiil ar at those very few plots at Koka in the Incc-jJiti
trial which did not cover che ground. Host of the plots were havii:’ aliWEt a perfect stand with plants cowering the whole plot except on 
a few plats where replanting have been dona- There was never a crate ... disease (very few plants with roots damaged, apparently larvae of so-i beetles in the Eoil) or pe*td).
The folloud ng figures were obtained on percent stand score and vegetative growth store in the 1st block indicated by plus (-r)
signs with one plus being less vegetative growth and + 5 indicating the highest vegetative growth.
s1
j                  RiVJK                J
TRf/. THEFTS
%
•C •       FIELD
I 1 QS/ltl           [ U'JJU
1                /             Cadu 54
4.1         J        32.70
1 ,
-j             Dwble                                         1          3 ■         1         31.50
1—
J
3 f2>
24.B
J P.Z.10,11
1 ■ 1-7
0.8
31.50 .----------- !
29,90
1 6
!5
Awassa white
1-1
28..ID
E
1
D,8-10,2                            .
1.2                   2B-75
0
r^i
K.26,12
2.25
27. AD ‘
a
,
I8
9                               8-61.9
H-W 10
0.8
26 - 50
R
2
26, CO
7
to
H,60.10
1.5
23.50
7
10                            C.ftlO
1
23.50
7
12                             C.57
4.4
15.50
4
13                             D.Z.lO.l
« 11-9
7.5
13,ao
4
14                             H*9637
10.30
3
I
VARtAXCE ANALYSIS
Origin of the variation
CalculatedF
F at
5 *4 table
F al
1 7. C
Replicattons
-Treatments
9.a
9,3
2.84
2.00
---- r------------
4.
2.
Coefficient of variation : 17 Z
Lad 5 7, :        6-56
Lsd 1 7, S.77 auint il /!’Chick Fl-j NjL iflfi.ii IforigCy Trial - Jfl74
Treatment 5
.
B'xpcrLmcnL.iI Design PJ ofc sIjl*
rtwjsjjj vJilce
Cadtf 54
Dubl c
Defer? Zeit 10 . 1 Defer? Zeit 10 r 2
Kandoraizfd        block3 -
Initial s 9,6 n2
Useful ;                 4.S ®2 0.40 tn x 0-10 n
P.2.0. field - Hcpvy clay t&il 1 quintal of urea - No TSP
[l Ct.rc Zfilt 10 , II If. 26 . 12 
II, 54 . JO 24 . 6
4i . >
4 replications
Sp jcIiik Lo-epE Ian
Fcrtilizing [rrieatiOrt
2 irrigations 194 TTP
200 rnm)
R.i l n f a 11PEoLigJiliag
J
I Discing
1 1
1 -
1 Clod Crashing
15.3 1
1 Airiging
19,£
1 Sowing
24. e
Afl swing
30.B
Weed irtg./JC0 eing
5.9
22.9
Hand weed
6ao
Ircigatiim
24.8
26.9
TSF Application
-
I
Uteo Application
10.9
Spraying
26.9
FfefS^j
25.11
10.12Fields Ob-scrv jt i ons
Observations
Variety
| Germination 1         day*
I after sowing
| 50 £ Btoeminp l          days
| after sowing
| Maturity
days
i after sewlsip
AwaSJi Mi'niCc
£9
J 6
n~
1 Cadu 54
4
41
| ihihic
6
41
69                     1
-------------------------------- ---------- i (heft re Zflit IO . 3
fr
47
105
Debre Zeit Id . 2
6
41
98
Dcbre Zeit 10 .|1
6
41
96
H, 26 ,12
6
J?
89
H, 54 .£0
6
47
105
24 . B
6
41
105
41 - B
6
41
90SignJ Z and Vegel-iLivu Growth
Variety
8 lock
11
j ■■
m
IV
1 Stand
1 Vegetative
1  growth
i Stand
X
Stand
£
Stand
1
| Awjssj white
1 ,0
|       +-H-M-
1 95
90
90
1 C«fci 54
80
85
90
85
h
pubic
95
4 +
90
70
90
Debra Zetc 10.1
80
J +
90
90
80
Dcbre Xalt 1G.2
70
4 +
70
80
85
pebre Zfilt 10+11
95
5 +
05
90
90
I
H. 26.12
85
4 +
80
80
90
11, 54.10
90
5 +
90
95
90
U . B
80
5 +
ao
90
80
90
S +
90
90
ss 1
* *E the
lE( but
1 lt **U
J
jlots were having almost a perfect stand. There was never a trace qi
■  ■ ■ -ist year few plants with roots damaged by larvae of beetle- nml + by spodepcera Littoralis comp*Idling to 1 spaying (DDf -1" 1 '2..
1 SJrjttcrin
11
g j          Yield 1        Qa/ha
• Djdu 54          | 1         X
1          | Dfibre Zeit 10.11
|             25,5
106
/ i
2         1    !i. B
28.0
104
r
3          1 H, S4 . 10
27.1
1 101
4          I Cadd 54
12.5
26.8
100
5
41, B
0
26.7
99
6
Debre Zeil 10+2
7-1
24.6
94
7
H. 26 . 12
0
24.3
91
8
Cubic
14,4
20.4
76
9
AwatSa White
11.7
18.2
70
ID
Debra Zeit 10 ■ 1
0
15.B
60
I
Viriatfcc analysts
OrLfctn of the variation
L
Calculated
F
F
at 5 % table
F1 at 1 % table
basest ions
,rE itaCfitS
-—  _
3.01
&.07
2.95
2.24
4.57
3.11
Pl variation
<3
<1
:     12 X
; 4.qs/tnici.irc
fr,l2 Qs/hectareRank
TrcjLmcnli
Slut Coring
I
Yield
tt/bi
J Cadu K
1
1
ttalrE left 10.11
L3
I
a J
106
J
2
» . B
0 28,0
1—
104
3
H, W . 10
Jh?
2M
101
4
Cadu 54
12.5
26.4
ioo
5
*1, 0
0
26.7
0
6
Libre Zelt 10 . 2
7,1
24*6
94
7
K. 26 . 12
0
24.5
91
6
[table
14,4
20.4
76
9         1 Xviassa VhLto-
11.7
16,2
70
10         1 bebre Zele 10 . 1
0
15. &
W
ViriBjnta analysis
iCrtL of
ipTi            i LUChick Pea - Estimated direct cost of product ion
B
]/ Machine operation^ cost
IL would be similar to eke cathine operations cost for tulze, l«e« 160 $/ha, to Which it is advisable to add 20 J for cathine planting (close spacing unices sary for pulses is hardly utU performed by hand)
Total machine operations cost
2/ Hann al operations tost
Collecting, and burning
Hoeing (2)
Handweeding (1)
Irrigation* (?)
Canal Cleaning,
CflalLe Pushers
Guards
WairvBBtins
Treshing and cleaning
HLsi.tYlafitU'jS
:
 IW + 20 = 180 S/he
Vhectare
10
40
10
12
10
5
10
50
5*
Total n-anu.il opeiat.ions cusTt
3/ MBteEL&kB
Seed 50 ftgs/ha at $ l.OO/Kg
Sacks - 15 bass at 60 cent*/bag
IS! I/hetLace
Total materials c«t
LglaLealimtcd. direct c.d&c_ q[ product iem £ Mthfflflt Eertilizcr appHeat Lon)
*
50
9
59
to j/hctLatC J9Q S/hecLatCThe rcwlL$ arc slightly Io-jct than the 1973 ones. This dil(trcn< oi
yield mainly seems to be related to :
-   a smaller anount of rain in 74 (194 m froa sowing to picking) than in 7J
(300 ran) ; both trials uere twice irrigated*
-   a too late picking and then an important shattering in 74 for several varie-
ties and mostly : C.idu 54 (12,5 X of shattering) and Dubie (14.4 X ), respecti
vely first and second varieties last year, fourth and eight ones in 74.
-   unlike this year trial, last year results included the seeds shattered on the
ground. Now including the percentage of shattering to the 74 final results, vc
have :
D.Z. 10 . 11 = 28.5 4- (28.5 x 2,3) = 29.15 Qs/ha
IGO
Cadu 54             ■ 26.8 + (26.8 x 12.5) = 30.20 qs/ha
100
As   last   year,   Cadu   54   shows   in   74   a   potential   yield   superior   co   the   others   varie ties*
At 5 X and at 1 X probability as well, there is no significant difference betwecr-
D.Z.lO.lb 24.B., H.54.10., Cadu 54., 41.B., D.Z.10.2. and H.26.12. in the 74
trial results.
Dubie <nd Awassa  white are significantly  Lower owing  to  their important shattering (r.bp.eti.rty  14.4  x  *n<j 12,7  *),  These results bc.r out the 73  ones.  Consequently these 9  varieties have to  be compared once nore next year.  ELZ.  10.1  which gave lo-- results to years running should be eliminated.
However that nay be, chickpeas do very well Ln Arba Winch. This low water requixe- i*ent and short cycle crop should be interesting for the fam and the snail holders
as well. Planting dates trials have to be carried out next season. Al first
two periods would be suitable i
• 1/ end of febrvary • beginning of march with picking in june, generally month oi low rainfall ,
- 2/ end of august * beginning of septeabcr with picking in deccubcr, first -c. I
dry season.
planting dates trials hawe to be carried out with a split-plot design i irri Miivd plots and rain fed ones.
’’•‘L'dcd chickpea will indeed be of uprost interest for snail holders.Sowing dates trial with different pulses species - 1974
Treataents
Pulses specie*
4 sowing dates with 15 days interval :
]5 th of august - 9 tJi of September * 4 th of October
29 ch of October.
spacing (er)
Experimental design Plot size
Location
Adzuki bean
Cow Pea
Hung Bean Code
Hung Sean M 109
Haricot bean W.95
Haricot dean 6R.395
Soy bean coker 240
Lima bean early Lima bean cal ice bush
Randanized blocks
40 Ji 5
40 X 10
40 x 10
40 x 10
40 x 10
40 x 10
40 x 5
40 x 30
40 x 20
3 replications only
Initial
9.6 m2 • Useful i 4.8 m2
P.2.0, experiment field Heavy clay soilPULSES SMflDK PATES TftLtL WINFALL
SQVWG DATES
RhINftllL-Wl
I st date - 15th of august
2 d date - 9th of September
3 d date - 4th of October
4 th date - 29th. of October
|9?
116
44
20
5
IxrlMtiqp : For each treatment : 5 tide* fr  403 nzn)fields observations (1            St sowing
SPECIES
GEMINATION
ddJfS
After Sowliin
50 ftBlopwing
days
'Jeer Sowln?
RIPQNIW
days Aftrr Sojirt -
.
Adzuki bean
10
45
7B
Cow pea
9
53
SO
Hung bean gutfc
10
53
98
Hung bean H 109
9
SO
9a
Haricot btjn w 95
a
45
90
, Soy been C 2tO
9
60
BO
Lima been ewly
9
50
SO
Lima bean tush
e
»
102
^Haricot bean 6R 395
ao
1 8 .
I
Light virus attack observed on ( coefficient 0 ti 5 ) i
Adl'jki. bean
Mutfg bean gode
>.       2
: 0,1
Haricot bean bK 3$1 : 0,5
Haricot bean W 95          :        2
Lima bean early i LFIELPS OBSEWATIMS (1st sowing daCc)
SPECIES
gemination
days
After Souin"
50 X Sloowin^ dav5
lfter Sdwine
Kirawt
days AfCrr S-r’ Jflp
.
Adzuki bean
10
45
76
Cow ?ea
9
53
BO
Mu-ftg bean gode
10
53
98
Kung bean M 109
9
50
98
ICaticot bean. W 95
8
45
90
Soy bean C 240
i
9
60
80
Lima bean airly
9
50
BO
Lima bean by sb
1
8
55
102
Hit ktat Titan bk 395
J'
80
Light virus attack observed on, ( coeHicient 0 ta 5 ) :
M'suki be.an
Hurfg bean gode
:2
i oh$
fUriwt bean bfc 39l : o.5 Hiritftt hear. W 95  - 2 Lina bean, early i iRESULTS EXPRESSED IM QUIKTAU / HECTARE
Sawing, dates
15. S
9.9
4.10
1--------------------- 29.10
pulse*
Afeuki bean
13.0
13.8
1.9
■rr
Cfcw pea
21.8
18.9
8.1
2.3
Kung bean godc
17.7
IS.5
8.9
6.2
Kung bean H 104
17.3
13.7
104
4.6
Haricot bean W 45
10.1
21.7
10.1
94
|                     bean &S 395
30.5
18>B
10.7
1.0
Soy bean C 2m 0
1
15*3
114
6.8
5
2-9
1
linn bean early
25.6
|      14.4
7.5
1
I Ltna bean bush
39 .t
1-
-
|             7.6
Hq staliilLtal analyst* &n ac.ctJu.nL -&£ the nuftber &L repllcatlAn.1 (3 only).OIL CROPS
bean, variety trials -
1971 - 1974
Spy bean direct production cost
Groundnut variety trial
-
1971
Sesame variety trial
-
J97J
Sunt lever variety trial -
1*973
Casterbean variety trial
197 3SOYA 3DJ5 VArJEtt TRIAL 1973
I
IK-MSIS I
kuay
Runny 63
Clark 63 A                 mu
Clark « K
Callaod
Coker 240
' Kent
Scott
CoSHt
Coker Anpton 266
pc Iman
Adelphia
■
EXPE RENTAL DESIES  t
fandoaized blocks
- 6 replications
SPACING :
O.AO n x 0*10 ■n -
2 tcedj per hole
4
pun size i
Initial : 12 o2 •
Useful : 6»6 b2
ukjlTIck t
TEKTlllZ^ ’ IfcRlOA^roS 1
Pi2«0« Heavy elay soil
IftJ k& Itr/U - 50 kg urta/ha 3 tines
hmrxLL i
330 wt
1 t MIT -
a&clnst Spodoptcra Litrorali--
FIELDS CPraiTICJS
■*
I
=
■>
1FIELDS 03 SER VATINS
Observations
Gemination
days after
soiling
50 7- Blooains 1               Maturity
1 Variety
days after
sawing
days aft;r
sowing
■
Ams&y
10                                    32
90
Clark 63 A                                           10
35                                  92
Clark 63 K                                      11
40                           . aa
Coker 240                                       11
40                                  95
I              Scott
j
12 ’
CB
Coker Ampton 266
10
31
35
9A
|               Harbfioy 63                   l                11
33
-------
*
Hill
95
Calland
96
1 11
1 ”'
I
Kent
100
L 11
Conant
1
I*
’■
-1 ”■
Dolman
1 »
1 10
1“
A-dclphia
1 
LO
1 
9ft
LLNOTES ON DISEASES
The plants in this trial appeared quite healthy and bearing of pods was quite spread except that sone plots looked better than other
due perhaps to uneven levelling and therefore catering,
In this Hmc trial, soae larvae of Spcdoptcrac littornlis jo observed which feed on the leaves, (H. LAKS OHLANDER - Fulaes - CoOrdl .a
.FAO)
■
■]]
■
i 1         YIELD                                   1
JUnk
TSEAWKTS
15
SKATTEMtfC           r QUIOTALS/HA           OF COKIlil
J
Clark 63 a
1.10
27.90                              104
u
2
Coker. 240
|      . 1-50
|             26.90
1!22.
3
AttiMy
4
[ 0- 0
26.30 .           |'                99
4
Calland
0.70              1 26.20
97
5
Adelphi*
1-75
24.20
-      90
6
Kent
1.50
23.40
87
7
COfflOnt
1.70
23 >30
. 86
6
Mill
1.00
23.00
85
9
Harosoy 63
2-10
22.60
84
0
Coker Amp ten 266
4.00
22.30
&3
1
balun
0.40
22.00
82
2
Clark 63 K
1.70
21.60
61
L3
Scott
2.00
17.40
65
1ANCE analysis
| Origin of the variation 1                    Calculated f 1
F at 5 7, table
F at lUta
Replications
> Trestinoncs
1.41
2.01
2.37
| 1.92
3*3’
Lr
I
Coefficient of variation > 20 Tt Lsd 5 Z : 5.53 Quintal3/beetare
T

JavaScript