MINISTRY OF NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 ANALYTIC REPORT
 1974
 Damien de Matharel
 Compagnie franqaise pour le Developpemenc
 des Fibres Textiles
1
 In the course of the two first years the main subject of my mission at Arba Minch 
lay in testing, in an experimental frame, and then in putting into effect, on a 
farm production level, the cultural practices which were likely to increase the 
past low cotton yields.
 In other respects, with the care of looking to a cotton production in a crops rota
 tion pattern, the recently established Research Station strove for diversifying 
the suitable crops. In this very fertile part of Ethiopia, these new crops have 
been proving to be numerous which in a matter of fact compelled to increase the 
staff and the area of the station.
 From the farm management reorganisation that has been effected in September 74, 
swerving from the production which took up half of my time for two years, I exclu
 sively gave myself up to the so-established Research Station during the last months 
of my stay in Ethiopia.
 The present report is not a synthesis of my Arba Minch and Gemu Goffa experience 
and knowledge. In agronomie matters three years will not do. What is more, some 
problems of upmost importance for a farm and farming area - erosion control, 
keeping of the soil fertility, etc... - are not tackled yet. This report is there
 fore not a synthesis but would like to be a guide for the sake of the farm menage- 
ment and the staff of the Research Station. I did not confine myself with the expe
 rimental results, with their analysis and the study of the production cost. Indeed 
I did not hesitate, to the risk of a tedious reading, to bring out the trials lay
 out and even the dated field operations. These various and detailed informations 
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 out 
in 1974. However I deemed that some former years results, particularly the very 
significant ones, should be included in this report.
 A too restricted room was unfortunetly made to the food crops which should have 
priority hereafter. If,up to now, some of them have been studying on the agronomic lev 
(planting dates, spacing, fertilizer trials) and on the variety level (with the care 
of bringing in low land and short cycle varieties) these food crops - maize, sorghum 
and even triticale - should likely be the subject of a cross-breeding program.
- 1 
In the course of the two first years the main subject of my mission at Arba Minch 
lay in testing, in an experimental frame, and then in putting into effect, on a 
farm production level, the cultural practices which were likely to increase the 
past low cotton yields.
 In other respects, with the care of looking to a cotton production in a crops rota
 tion pattern, the recently established Research Station strove for diversifying 
the suitable crops. In this very fertile part of Ethiopia, these new crops have 
been proving to be numerous which in a matter of fact compelled to increase the 
staff and the area of the station.
 From the farm management reorganisation that has been effected in September 74, 
swerving from the production which took up half of my time for two years, I exclu
 sively gave myself up to the so-established Research Station during the last months 
of my stay in Ethiopia.
 The present report is not a synthesis of my Arba Minch and Gemu Goffa experience 
and knowledge. In agronomie matters three years will not do. What is more, some 
problems of upmost importance for a farm and farming area - erosion control, 
keeping of the soil fertility, etc... - are not tackled yet. This report is there
 fore not a synthesis but would like to be a guide for the sake of the farm menage- 
ment and the staff of the Research Station. I did not confine myself with the expe
 rimental results, with their analysis and the study of the production cost. Indeed 
I did not hesitate, to the risk of a tedious reading, to bring out the trials lay
 out and even the dated field operations. These various and detailed informations 
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 out 
in 1974. However I deemed that some former years results, particularly the very 
significant ones, should be included in this report.
 A too restricted room was unfortunetly made to the food crops which should have 
priority hereafter.If,up to now,some of them have been studying on the agronomic lev 
(planting dates, spacing, fertilizer trials) and on the variety level (with the care 
of bringing in low land and short cycle varieties) these food crops - maize, sorghum 
and even triticale - should likely be the subject of a cross-breeding program.
2
 The recent Land Reform should give a new part to the Arba Minch farm and Research 
Station. Few months ago, on the request of H.E. General MABRAHTU FESSEHA, Gemu 
Goffa Enderessie, I have been thinking out a provincial development autority where 
the Farm and the Station would be likely to play a prominent part that should be 
now borne by the new governemental provisions. In actual fact the Research Station 
instead of working without outside connection as it has been the case, should hence 
forth open out to the different problems set by the various altitudes, soils and 
climates of the Gemu Goffa province- The establishment of mu 1 ti-locationa 1 Stations 
as it was recommended in my ’’Proposals for a Gemu Goffa development plan” - should 
be the soonest possible raised up by the Arba Minch Research Station either in the 
frame of the Institute of Agricultural Research which the Station already attempted 
to cooperate with, or in the frame of a provincial authority.
 I shall not wind up without thanking Ato GIRMA ERGETE, Djimma graduate, Ato TESFAYE 
BESHIR, Ambo graduate and Ato DEBRESICM AMBE, mainspring of the Station, who close
 ly worked with me in the course of these three years and up to the drawing up of 
this report. Lastly I wish good luck Ato MAKONNEN KEBEBE, Alamaya agronomist', who 
is now going to manage the Research in Arba Minch.
3
 Meteorology
 Soils
 Weeds
 See in appendixes : Meteo data
 Soils analysis
 »
- 4 
Agro- climatic observations and data
 The 
meteorological 
observation 
pement :- A louvered screen containing :
 site, 
• 1 maximum thermometer, read at 6 p.m.
 which 
is 
fairly 
• 1 minimum thermometer, read at 8 a.m.
 . 1 dry-bulb and 1 wet-bulb thermometer, read at 8 a.m., 12 noon and 6 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.- 
open, 
has 
the 
following 
equi- 
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/ 
cal 
A barometer, or even better a barograph, should be set up in‘the meteorologi
 observation 
enable 
to 
ajust 
site 
: 
its 
calculations 
basedon hygrometric readings.
 marks 
of 
pointing 
relative 
out 
humidity, 
variations 
dew 
Furthermore, the PENMAN evapo-transpiration formula could be applied.
 point 
in 
atmospheric 
and 
vapour 
pressure 
pressure 
- 5 
5/ Piche and Class A evaporation tank were sometimes found to be recorded a day 
out Leading to wrong evaporation values : negative or over - high figures.
 6/ It is recommanded that all the instruments be once a year checked by the 
Civil Aviation Meteorological Service.
 Data
 See in appendixes- Rainfall : 1974 and 1972/73/74 average data (amount of rain in mm and number 
of days per period of 10 days and per month). Total I point out amount of rain 
from January to april ; Total II from may to december, cotton season months 
(whereas may rainfall goes to make up an initial reserve for cotton that is sowed 
in june)- Temperature : 1974 and 1972/73/74 average data, enclosing : minimum and maxi
 mum temperatures per period of 10 days and per month ; monthly average and abso
 lute minimum and maximum.- 
ge.- 1974 sunshine per period of 10 days and per month.- 1974 Piche Evaporation per period of 10 days and per month as also the 0.75 
Piche Evaporation (PET = 0.75 EP) that underestimates the potential evapo-trans- 
piration mostly in the rainy season- 1974 potential evapo-transpiration (PET) according to different formulae :
 Humidity : 1974 and 73/74 average data per period of 10 days and monthly avera
 1/ the sub-mentionned 0.75 Piche
 2/ BLANEY-CRIDDLE (PET =|qq X t X p) giving low and almost constant values throu
 ghout the year (100 mm / month about) and is then unsatisfactory. 
3/ TURC (PET = (50 + Ig) 0.40 
which must be multiplied by (1+ 
the relative humidity is below 50 % what often happens in Arba Minch during the 
dry season.
 As it is at present impossible to use the PENMAN formula (no data about variations 
in atmospheric pressure), the TURC formula seems to be the best. To obtain the Ig 
factor, the following form of the Angstrom relation, ajusted to Kenya by GLOVER 
and Mac CULLOR, is here adopted : Ig = Ig A (0.29 cosinus\- 0.52 
the latitude
 1974 theoretical water balance : without any data on the water reserves in the 
soil, no accurate hydric balance can be drawn up.Theoritical one has however been 
attempted here for 1974 knowing the monthly values of the rainfall and the TURC 
potential evapo-transpiration.
 if
 where^is
though it was decided by the
 The pedological study for the drawing of a Farm map, 
, has not been worked out yet.
 better 
former Board in September 72
 Such a map is extremely necessary for a 
rotation pattern and keeping of
 knowledge 
fertility.
 of 
From volcanic decomposition and former rivers and lake deposit, the soils are dark 
or red dark and pulverulent but often called heavy and very clayey which is the 
fact for most of the soils located in the upper part of the farm. Others are clay - 
loamy, loam-sandy and even sandy and gravelly (deposits of gravels accumulated 
in the former beds of rivers). An appendix map shows the sandy area which is estim 
ted to cover 100 hectares about. Barring this last type of Soil, the water holding 
capacity is excellent everywhere but on clay the surface level is fastly saturated 
(on the matter of fact irrigation has to be slowly carried)
 Soil samples from the mouth of the Harre river area (see in appendix f 
gieal 
the 
soils, 
for 
a 
the pedolo
'
 analyses 
by 
SOGREAH) are not quite representative of the whole Farm. But 
volcanic soils are naturally rich in Potassium and
 The nitrogen content vary from 0.1 % to 0.25 %.
 well provided with Phosphorus
 crop 
7
 Weeds
 CYFERACEAE
 Commun in heavy soils. The main one is Cyperus rotundus : perennial grass, usually
 10 to 30 cm high, even more in damp locations, with a three sugled , smooth stem 
rising from the conter of a basal cluster of narrow grass like leaves - The tubers 
often sprout to produce new plants while still attached to the parent one. The in
 florescence arises from the stem apex and is subted by a number of leaf like bracts.
 Control : the perennial species of cyperus are very persistent as weed , although the 
tops are readily killed by cultivation or spraying, the tubers are unaffected and soon 
produce new shoots and the number of tubers in the soil increases rapidly*
 Good control of cyperus was only obtained with 6 Kg/hectare of EPTAM (carbamate)* 
But this herbicide candamage the crops if it is not carefully sprayed and has a very 
strong residual effect ( no germination of groundnut a year after application)
 GRAMINAE
 1/ Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) : also commun in heavy soil (banana plantation) - 
Perennial grass with long runners which root at the nodes and produce extensive 
underground rhizomes. The flowering stems may be from 15 to 20 cm, high. The leaves 
also vary in lenght, being rather stiff in texture. The inflorescence consists of 
several slender, purpish spikes, arising in a star like arrangement from the end of 
the stem.
 Control : it can not be adequately controlled by cultivation because of its under
 ground rhizomes and discing propages it by cutting.
 An herbicide trial, comparing GESAPAX 80 wp (3 Kg/ha) +GEPIRON ET (21/ha) to GESATOP 
Z 80 wp (.6 Kg/ha) did not give any effect upon cynodon (banana plantation)
 It is known to be susceptible to DALAPON (sodium 2,2 dichloro-propionate) and 
amino- triazole.
 Weedazol special (Dapalon + aminotriazole + thiocyanate of sodium) should be tried 
if available on the market and compared to Dalapon alone and an amino-triazole.
 _2/_ Digitaria Scalarum : not always readily distinguished with Cynodon when no flowers 
are present, but the leaves are softer, usually dark green. The inflorescence consist 
of up to 10 slender, upwordly directed spikes which arise from various points along 
the flowering stem.
Control : also difficult by cultivation and relatively susceptible to Dalapon and 
Amino-triazole.
 3/ Setaria Verticillata (love grass) : A tufted annual grass, most readily recogni
 zed by the bristly, cylindrical inflorescence which readily becomes detached and 
sticks to the cotton fibre. It grows to a height of up to 50 cm and the shoots are 
often spreading at the base. The leaves are up to 20 cm in length, dark green in
 color, soft in texture.
 *
 Control : controlled by number of chemicals. It is one of the most susceptible 
grasses to pre- emergence spraying with 2 - 4 D for exemple and germinating seed
 lings can be killed in a range of crops with simazine or atrazine.
 4/ of less importance, we find also : Eleusine indica, Imperata cylindrica, Dacty- 
loctenium aegyptium, Sorghum Sudanese ...
 CHENOPOPIACEAE
 Chenopodium spp is very commun in Arba Minch on different types of soil, growing 
up to 2 m. high. The leaves are alternate and stalked, the flowers small and 
greenish, usually crowded into dense rounded clusters variously arranged.
 Control : Chenopodium is susceptible to the whole range of growth regulator type 
herbicides (2 - 4 D, 2-4 DB) and to contact chemicals such as diquat, paraquat. 
While germinating seedlings are controlled by triazine.
 PORTULACACEAE
 Portulaca daracea (Purslane) is one of the most commun weeds in Arba Minch (mostly 
on the heavy soils - north part of the farm). It is a sprawling, fleshy stemmed, 
annual grass with numerous, often reddish, branches up to 30 - 40 cm. long, spirally 
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 living 
for several days after the root has been out and it very often becomes reestablished 
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 triazine and carbamate.
 CAPPARIDACEAE
 Pynandropsis gynandra (spider flower) is also very commun. The leaves are edible 
and often gathered as a green vegetable.
10 
POLYGONACEAE
 Oxygonum sinuatum
 This first inventory draws up the list of the identified weeds met in the Arba 
Minch Farm. The main ones are described here, founding upon ” East African weeds 
and their control G.W. IVENS.
 Such an inventory must be completed in the coming years, dwelling upon the v/eeds 
that limiting factors to the production.
 *
 i
12
 1973 Trial Results
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 Treatments
 H. 632
 UCB Fy
 UCB
 Awassa Comp. II
 KCC
 H. 511
 ZCAXKCC
 H. 611 C
 Ocholo (Check plot)
 Al • Comp• I
 ZCA
 Yield Qs/ha
 65.68
 57.11
 56.06
 46.40
 45.55
 44.82
 Ocholo 7.
 166
 144
 142
 117
 115
 113
 42.91
 41.60
 39.60
 37.66
 36.88
 SR. 52
 KCB
 Kawanda Comp. A
 H. 613
 16
 KCE
 36.60
 36.57
 35.80
 32.80
 30.26
 108
 105
 100
 95
 93
 92
 92
 90
 83
 76
13
 Variance analysis
 Origin of the variation
 Calculated F
 5 7. F
 1 7. F
 Replication
 Treatments
 2.10
 3.88
 2.82
 1.92
 4.26
 2.52
 •
 Coefficient of variation
 LSD 5 %
 LSD 1 %
 •
 •
 22 7.
 16.10 Qs/ha
 21.50 Qs/ha
 This first maize trial which was carried out before my 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 damages of birds or wild animals). Secundly the plan
 ting date (may) was too early and the maize suffered from rain when ripe. The above 
results concern the first grade only. Rust infestation is almost negligible if 
compares with Awassa maize : Coefficient from 0 up to 5 :
 H. 611 C
 H. 613 C
 H. 632
 H. 511
 SR 52
 KCC
 1
 2
 2
 1
 3
 2
 ZCAXKCC 2
 ZCA
 1
 KCB
 KCE
 UCB
 UCB Fy
 Kawanda
 Al. CI
 Aw. C. II
 Ocholo
 1
 1
 2
 2
 2
 3
 1
 1
15 
Maize Variety trial 1974 - 1975
 Treatments
 Experimental design
 Plot size
 Spacing
 He 511
 He 632
 H. 611
 Composite II
 H. 612 (Ecuador)
 Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 Initial : 7 rows x 0.80 m x 6 m = 33.6 m2 
Useful : 3 rows ” 
0.80 m between the rows
 ” = 14.4 m2
 on the row : 0,25 m for H. 511
 0,30 m for others varieties
 Fertilizing
 Irrigation
 Spraying
 1 quintal TSP before sowing ) on
 Xy in
 74
 1 quintal urea at thinning )
 According to the hydric balance but knowing that 
maize requires a maximum of water from 15 days 
before blooming up to 15 days after blooming.
 1 
application 
of 
DDT 25(31/ha) at thinning against 
stem borers ( as preventive control )
- 15
 Maize Variety trial 1974 - 1975
 Treatments
 Experimental
 Plot size
 Spacing
 H. 511
 Ho 632
 Ho 611
 Composite II
 H. 612 (Ecuador)
 design 
Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 Initial : 7 rows x 0.80 m x 6 m = 33©6 m2 
Useful : 3 rows ” 
0.*80 m between the rows
 on the row : 0.25 m for H. 511
 ” = 14.4 m2
 0,30 m for others varieties
 Fertilizing
 Irrigation
 Spraying
 1 quintal TSP before sowing ) on
 ^y £n
 74
 1 quintal urea at thinning J
 According to the hydric balance but knowing that 
maize requires a maximum of water from 15 days 
before blooming up to 15 days after blooming.
 1 application of DDT 25(31/ha) at thinning against 
stem borers ( as preventive control )
 7
Mafze Variety trial 1974 - 1975
 Treatments
 Experimental
 Plot size
 Spacing
 H. 511
 Ho 632
 Ho 611
 Composite II
 Ho 612 (Ecuador)
 design 
Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 Initial : 7 rows x 0.80 m x 6 m = 33O
 6 m2 
Useful : 3 rows ” 
0.*80 m between the rows
 ” = 14.4 m2
 on the row ; 0,25 m for Ht
 ‘ 511
 0.30 m for others varieties
 Fertilizing
 Irrigation
 Spraying
 1 quintal TSP before sowing ) on
 ^y £n
 74
 1 quintal urea at thinning )
 According to the hydric balance but knowing that 
maize requires a maximum of water from 15 days 
before blooming up to 15 days after blooming.
 1 application of DDT 25(31/ha) at thinning against 
stem borers ( as preventive control )
16
 1974/1975 Trial
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/hoeing
 Irrigation
 TSP Fertilizing
 Urea Fertilizing
 Picking *
 Fields operations
 1
 30.8
 4.9
 18.9
 21.9
 24.9
 5.10
 4.10
 4.10
 26.9
 2
 3
 4
 •
 5
 1
 8.10
 8.10
 •»
 25.1
 Spraying
 14.10
 7.2
 25.10
 Dates of the 1 st and the last picking according to the varieties
 21.10
 4.11
 3.11
 2.11
 19.11
 6.12
 28.12
1974/1975 Trial
 H. 511
 H. 632
 H. 612
 H. 611
 »
 Fields observations
 Germination 
days 
after sowing
 4
 6
 6
 50 % Blooming 
days 
after sowing
 62
 Ripening
 days 
after sowing
 120
 70
 72
 6
 Composite II
 6
 72
 70
 130
 132
 135
 132
18
 1974/1975 Trials
 Replications
 Vari e t i e s
 H. 511
 H. 632
 H. 612
 H. 611
 Lodging expressed in %
 1
 50
 40
 2
 70
 50
 3
 50
 30
 4
 40
 5
 70
 6
 Average
 60
 50
 50
 60
 Comp. II
 70
 30
 50
 60
 60
 40
 40
 60
 70
 60
 40
 50
 50
 40
 30
 60
 40
 70
 56
 40
 51
 51
 56
18
 1974/1975 Trials
 Replications
 Varieties
 H. 511
 H. 632
 H. 612
 H. 611
 Lodging expressed in %
 1
 50
 40
 2
 70
 50
 3
 50
 30
 4
 40
 5
 70
 6
 Average
 60
 50
 50
 60
 Comp. II
 70
 30
 50
 60
 60
 40
 40
 60
 70
 60
 40
 50
 50
 40
 30
 60
 40
 70
 56
 40
 51
 51
 56
19
 1974/1975 Trial
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Treatments
 H•511 (Awa s sa)
 H. 632
 Comp. II
 H. 612
 H. 611
 Origin of the variation
 Replications
 Yield Qs/ha
 98.00
 88.00
 60.80
 59.90
 H. 511 7.
 100
 90
 62
 58
 48.60
 Calculated F
 2.35
 Treatments
 Coefficient of variation
 LSD 5 %
 LSD 1 %
 13.40
 17 %
 17 Qs/ha
 23 Qs/ha
 50
 5 7. F
 2.71
 «
 2.87
 1 7. F
 4.10
 4.43
Maize - Estimated direct production cost
 1. Materials
 Seeds
 Insecticides
 Fertilizer : 1 quintal TSP and 1 quintal urea 
with subvention
 without subvention
 1/ Materials
 total without fertilizer
 2/ Materials total with subventionned fertilizer
 3/ Materials total with not subventionned fertilizer
 2. Field mechanized operations
 a/ tractor hours / 1 hectare
 Operations
 Discing after 
cotton
 or uprooting
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Ridging
 Ditching
 Transportation
 Attachement
 Rome Plow
 Teeth cultivator
 Mold Board Plow
 Dise Harrow
 Ridger
 D.5.
 1.3
 Eth. $/hectare
 10
 40
 100
 260
 50
 150
 310
 Tractor type
 M.F.
 Average
 D.5.
 1.3
 2.6
 0.8
 Ditcher
 Trailor
 Hours total/ 1 ha--
 1.0
 1.3
 1
 1
0.4
 1.7
 M.F.
 2.6
 0.5
 1.3
 1
 1
 6.4
(See in Appendixes
 b/ hourly cost of tractors
 D.5 / Eth. $ 40 *
 M.F. / Eth. $ 11 *
 c/ tractor cost / 1 hectare
 D.5
 M.F
 Tractor cost total
 Eth.
 Eth
 $ 40 x 1.7 = Eth. $ 68.0
 $ 11 x 6.4 = Eth. $ 70.4
 12 and 13)
 = Eth. $138.4 / 140
 d/ attachement cost
 Having 
no 
estimated 
of attachement (The
 / 1 hectare
 hourly 
cost 
and 
no 
possibility 
of 
estimating 
accurate purchase prices are unknown for most of them)
 We consider here this cost to be roughly 15 % of the tractor cost :
 Eth. $ 140 x 15 7. Eth. $ 20
 (Treshing machine including)
 3/ Unskilled labour
 Sowing and resowing
 Hoeing / Weeding (3 times) 
Irrigation (5 times)
 Eth. $ / hectare
 10
 60
 the 
25 ....
 ★ Eth $ 40 and 11 respectively for 
and 
D. 
5 
and 
Massey-Ferguson 
178 
hourly 
instead 
9.54 
te these figures.
 calculated 
in 
appendixes, 
Indeed it seems to be careful to above-estima
 of 
cost 
35.49 
Eth. $ /hectare
 , Canal cleaning
 Spraying
 Fertilizer application (twice)
 Co|ie pushers
 Guards
 Harresting
 Treshing (feeding to combine)
 Field cleaning - collecting - burning 
Miscellaneous
 Unskilled labour total
 4/ Total direct production cost
 a/ 
b/ 
Without 
With 
fertilizer 
subventionned 
c/ With no subventionned fertilizer Eth. $
 10
 10
 5
 10
 . 30
 5
 15’
 10
 190
 Eth. 
fertilizer 
Eth. 
$ 
$ 
400
 510
 670
 10
 200
23 
Maize is beyond doubt well adapted to 
vated on a large scale in Lante, Chano 
sorghum comes first. Nevertheless the 
hielding and is not resistant to rust,
 This local variety has either to be replaced or to be improved.
 Che Arba Minch area where it is moreover culLx 
Sille and indeed in Konso where however 
so-called Ochollo local variety is moderate 
helminthosporium not to the"streak" virus.
 The three above-mentionned variety trials results point out that if most of the 
kenyans hydrids (and particularly H.511 and H.632) adapted to Ethopian high or 
medium lands are susceptible to yield rather good results in Arba Minch, others 
better adapted varieties are likely to be superior. Above all no one showed off 
to be resistant to the above-mentionned diseases (although infestations were never 
severe)
 Taking into account the importance of maize as food crop in southern Ethopia, its 
improvement should become the first object of che Arba Minch Research Station for 
the coming years. The selection of varieties adapted co low land (a comparative 
trial has just been carrying out in march 75) must be faced according to several 
tests :- the yield- the relative resistance to draught (what implies to carry- the resistance to diseases- the height and the lodging- the cycle, knowing that short cycle varieties (3 months) are susceptible to 
be grown as second crop (from march to june)
 Beyond comparative variety trials, it is recommanded that a cross-breeding 
programme be performed when the station has at its disposal the necessary equi- 
pment (and particularly a
 laboratory) and when a specialist is assigned to carry out 
sucha work. It should be moreover normal that Arba Minch pre-eminently becomes 
the Ethiopian Research Station for low land maize (and Sorghum as well)
 To comeback to the trials whose results are above-mentionned, they point out 
the interest of both varieties H.511 and H.632 that, as for as there was no 
significant difference between them either in 73/74 or 74/75, could be both advisa
 ble. Nevertheless two important criteria imply to select H.511 (for the farm
 and the small holders as well) as far as there is no suitable low land variety.
 1/ 
H.511 
is 
henceforth 
without special seed production.
 stabilized 
and 
on actual fact enables to
 out rain fed trials)
 carry out sowing
24
 2/ 11.511 cycle (3 months and half to 4 months) is shorter than H.632 cycle (4 renth 
to 4 months and half). On the matter of fact 11.511 could grow as second crop froo 
march to June without Impeding cotton growing. That Is all the most important as 
mafre is the one (if not the only one) crop wich is likely to be grown at that 
time of the year (June light rains will not injure it when ripe whereas they could 
damage others crops as pulses).
 We do not mention in this report sorghum from which we infortunctly do not have 
any result yet. A similar prograntn of cross-breeding and selection should be perfer 
med in connection with the programm carried out in several cthopian stations and 
managed from Alamaya.
Ri.ce Variety
 Trial 1973/1974
 Chinei
 Tainan V
 1632 - Chianan 8
 342 
: Indica - High straw - 1/2 long seed
 IR 423
 IR 8
 IR 20 (74 only)
 IR 22
 IR 24
 Experiment design
 Sub-treatments
 Fisher 
Blocks - 
4 
1/ transplanting - 2/ direct sowing
 Seed bed
 Plot size
 Spacing
 Rate : 6 to 12 Kg / are
 4 
Japonica
 Short straw 
round seed
 Dwarf Indica
 Short straw
 1/2 long seed
 replications - 
Split 
m x 2,25 m = 9 m2 (Initial and useful) 
1/ transplanted 
plants :
 Fertilizing
 9 or 15 - Chinei : - Others : 
raws of 4 m / 1 
0,15 x 0,15 m - 
0,25 x 0,20 m - 
All varieties : transplanting at 4 shoots
 2/ direct sowing : 9 raws of 4 m/ 1 plot- Chinei : 120 Kg/ha (110 gr./lplot)- Others : 70 Kg/ha ( 65 gr./lplot)
 All varieties : 0.25 m between the raws
 1/ P2O5 : 80 Kg/ha £ 
Application at ploughing time
 2/ N : a/ 342 
plot
 15 raws
 9 raws
 150 Kg TSP
 : 80 Kg/ha 150 Kg urea
 plots 
b/ Others : 200 Kg/ha / 400 Kg urea
 Nitrogen application
 1/ 
Transplanted 
a/ 1/3 in seed bed- 342 
plants 
: 
3 
Application 
: 50 Kg/ha (20 gr./plot)- Others : 130 Kg/ha (50 gr./plot) 
b/ 1/3 at tillering
 c/ 1/3 
40 days after transplanting
 urea 
26
 2/ direct sowing : 
a/ 1/2 at tillering- 342 
2 applications urea
 : 75 Kg/ha (30 gr./plot)- Others : 200 Kg/ha (80 gr./plot) 
b/ 1/2 at 40 days after transplanting
 Watering
 During the first weeks after sowing or transplanting the 
water depth will be determined chiefly by the growth of 
the young rice plants and will be kept relatively low. 
After this initial period the water level should be looked 
upon primarily from the angle of effective weed control • 
In general weeds are adequately controlled by a water level 
of 15 to 20 cm. The water layer should never be deeper than 
necessary for weed control, because a thick water layer not 
only exerts an unfavourable influence on the tillering of 
the plant but has also a tendancy to reduce yields. The 
greatest sensitivity to lack of water is directly after 
sowing or transplanting, during panicle initiation, during 
primordia growth and from three weeks before flowering till 
about one week after it. Too early discharge of water befo
 re harrest could cause premature ripening, a lower grain 
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 manage to 
achieve in 73/74 and 74/75 as well. The results which we bring up here then fore 
only concern the transplanted rice 74/75 results are lower than the former years 
ones. Low temperatures at blooming time account for that (full blooming in novem- 
ber and december) but also the fact that the shoots remained too long time in 
seed-bed ( as the landleveller was not available at the right time ). The below 
results of a trial carried out in another country show up the paramount importan
 ce of transplanting rice the soonest possible : 
*
27
 Age of Che 
plant 
at tranplanting
 Transplanting at a fix date 
(15 th of May)
 Planting date
 Sowing at a fix date (25th of 
]
 April) |
 Kg/hectare
 Transplanting date
 Kg/hec tare
 20 days
 30
 40
 50
 60
 70
 80
 90
 april 25
 15
 5
 March 25
 15
 5
 February
 25
 15
 7,648
 7,343
 5,555
 3,960
 3,491
 3,421
 2,554
 1,890
 May 15
 25
 June 5
 15
 25
 July 5
 15
 25
 6,174
 5,808
 4,906
 3,481
 1,259
 890
 560
 400
- 28
 1974/1975 Trial
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Levelling
 Sowing in seed bed
 Transplanting
 Phosphorus application
 Nitrogen application
 Weeding
 Fields operations
 1
 25.8
 30.8
 15.9
 5.10
 30.8
 2
 10.9
 14.9
 30.9
 3
 4
 5
 •
 16.10
 9.10
 15.9
 12.12
 Picking *
 22.2
 8.11
 10.3
 dates of 1st and last picking, according to the varieties
 19.12
1974/1975 Trial
 Varieties
 Chin ei
 Tainan V
 1632 Chianan 8
 342
 IR 423
 IR 8
 IR 20
 IR 22
 IR 24
 Fields observations
 50 % Blooming
 Days after transpl.
 65
 68
 75
 68
 Ripening
 Days after transpl.
 130
 140
 140
 130
 72
 88
 85
 74
 80
 142
 145
 142
 145
 145
1974/1975 Trial
 Varieties
 Chin ei
 Tainan V
 1632 Chianan 8
 342
 IR 423
 IR 8
 IR 20
 IR 22
 IR 24 ’
 Fields observations
 50 % Blooming
 Days after transpl.
 65
 68
 75
 68
 72
 Ripening
 Days after transpl.
 130
 140
 140
 130
 142
 88
 85
 74
 80
 145
 142
 145
 145
Average
31
 1973 RESULTS
 Rark
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 Yield
 Treatments
 342
 Qs/ha
 152.20
 IR 8
 IR 24
 IR 423
 IR 22
 141.60
 %
 100
 93
 141.10
 135.00
 126.90
 1632
 Tasnan V
 8
 Chin ei
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATION
 REPLICATIONS
 TREATMENTS
 124.60
 116.40
 66.40
 Calculated F
 92
 88
 83
 81
 76
 43
 5 7. F
 6.22
 8.90
 Coefficient Of Variation
 Lsd 5 %
 Lsd 1 %
 3.07
 2.49
 14 7,
 26 Qs/ha
 35.40 Qs/ha
 1 % F
 4.87
 3.65
32 
1974 RESULTS
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 Yield
 Treatments
 IR 20
 IR 8
 IR 24
 342
 1632
 IR 423
 Chin ei
 IR 22
 Tainan V
 7.
 Qs/ha
 125.00
 106.30
 99.90
 99.70
 91.70
 91.10
 75.10
 56.80
 100
 85
 80
 79
 73
 72
 60
 45
 48.00
 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATION Calculated F
 replications
 treatments
 0.1
 8.24 
38
 5 7. F
 3.01
 2.36
 1 7. F
 4.72
 3.36
 Coefficient Of Varaition 
Lsd 5 7.
 Lsd 1 7.
 ’ 
:
 ’ 
2Q %
 22.20 Qs/ha
 30.20 Qs/ha
- 33
 TM
 , t
 .o years tuning rice trial yielded oxceptlonnal resales and therefore 
sl
 „„d «p bo. suitable lor rie. are the *rb, Hlnoh soil and eltoato. Although 
this cereal is almost unknown in Ethiopia, it has always been the most impo 
grain crop in the world, even more so than wheat. Knowing the low yielding capa
 city of teff, the traditionnal ethopian grain crop, and the chief necessity for 
Ethiopia of increasing the food crop production, it appears that the new high 
yielding rice varieties should be experimented and grown where soil, climate and 
water conditions are required.
 It has also to be stated that the Arba Minch Farm has been letting part of its 
land improductive. Now the north swamp area should be highly suitable for rice 
growing (chiefly owing to the fact that the same irrigation water could be at the 
same time used for both cotton and rice)
 I should like to thank Mr. G. ROUANET, Cameroun IRAT Manager, who advised me for 
carrying out this trial and sent 9 high-yielding varieties : 3 Japonica and 6 Indi- 
ca.
 The main objectives in rice breeding are now :- a high yielding-capacity- short duration varieties giving not only high yield per unit of area, but also 
per unit of time- short stature varieties with stiff straw in order to climate the possible loss 
due to lodging at high level of fertilizer application.- short, upright and dark green leaves 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.
 The greater part el the japonica varieties from temperature areas show most of 
th. above-mentlonned characteristics, although they may show short-comings In some
 e- 
g- in grain dormancy. In general 
tropical 
areas 
and temperature.
 because 
they 
usually 
these japonica varieties cannot
 are quite sensitive with regard to day-length
 There is now, however, a wide range of high-yielding rice varietie 
above-mentionned characteristics available for conditions of more 
growing in tropical areas.
 be used in
 s with the 
intensive rice
This range of new varieties includes the 9 ones compared in 73/74 :
 1/ Chin el, Tainan V and 1632 (Chianan 8) are ponlai japonicas from Taiwan. 
These moderately tillering ponlai japonicas (mainly chin ei which required a 
spacing) show low photo-sensitivity and are adapted to high temperature conditions. 
They resemble the true japonicas in some features, while in certain other plant 
characteristics they are similar to the indica type. Most of the ponlai japonicas 
are moderately tall whereas these three varieties have short straw.
 2/ I do not personnally know where 342 is originated from. This indica, high straw 
variety yielded exceptionnal result in 1973 and still rather good in 74. Unfortu- 
The 
netly 342 showed up a heavy lodging and as a matter of fact should be eliminated 
(another variety trial including 342 is likely to precise this lodging problem).
 3/ 
recently 
Institute) 
henceforth 
varieties 
developed, 
very 
high-yied 
IR 8 and IR 5 (IR 8 • 
well known IR 8 is an extremly 
cations 
and 
a very short straw variety it 
lines, having more disease resistance and
 New IRRI varieties as IR 20, IR 22 and IR 
to 
most 
common 
rice 
diseases 
(Piricularia 
nas 0., ...) and of quality more suited t< 
more susceptible to lodging.
 The same variety trial 
regard 
ng IRRI (International Rice Research 
>nly in the 73/74 trials). Although the 
high yielder under heavy fertilizer appli 
will undoubtedly be followed by better 
improved grain quality.
 24, are high yielding, more resistant 
Oryzae, Helminthosporium 0., Xanthomo- 
• the taste than IR 8, although IR 20 is
 should be carried on in 1975 and particularly studied with 
to 
nicas 
Suitable 
in 
the 
diseases 
74) and birds 
transplanting 
yields in-74 could be
 resistance (Helminthosporium perhaps on IR 8 and the japo- 
resistance (heavy damages on IR 22 and Tainan V in 74 also), 
date should be either february (as in73) or july. Lower 
accounted for by late transplanting (september)
COTTON
 Sowing dates trials 
Spacing trials
 Fertilizer trials
 Irrigation trials
 Herbicides trials
 Variety trials
 Parasitism
 Direct production cost
 1972-73-74
 1972-73
 1972- 73-74
 1973- 74
 1973-74
 1973-74
SOWING DATES TRIALS
 All the 5 following sowing dates trials (whatever they 
were rain fed or under irrigation) were cassied out according to the 
same lay-out.
 Treatments :
 Five 
dates 
with 
15 
days 
(or 12) up to august 10 (or 12)
 Experimental Design :
 Plot size :
 Variety :
 Location :
 Fertilizer ;
 Preceding crop ;
 Irrigation :
 : Randomized blocks. 6 replications
 Initial : 
Acala 15.17 D
 67.5 m2 - Useful : 
P• 2.0. Heavy clay soil
 1 quintal urea - 1 quintal TSP
 Cotton (l - 2 and 3 years)
 For irrigated trials only :
 3 times in 1972 
2 times in 1973
 5 times in 1974
 interval 
from June 10 
13.5 m2
37
 COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1972
 Irrigated Cotton
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5------------------------------
 Treatments
 June 10
 June 25
 July 10
 Yield Qs/ha
 7.
 42.45
 100
 40.60
 34.60
 July 25
 August *10
 Variance Analysis
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Calculated F
 0.92
 26.95
 20.30
 5 7. F
 2.71
 40.9
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 % 
Lsd 1 % 
.
 .
 2.87
 9.8 7.
 4.28 qs/ha
 5.85 qs/ha
 95
 81
 63
 48
COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1973
 Irrigated Cotton
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Treatments
 June 12
 June 27
 July 12
 Yield Qs/ha
 7.
 40. 60
 100
 39.55
 35.40
 July 27
 August 12
 Variance Analysis
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Calculated F
 2.87
 26.30
 23.00
 5 7. - F
 2.71
 49.00
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 7O
 
Lsd 1 7o
 .
 2.87
 8 %
 3.32 qs/ha
 4.53 qs/ha
 97
 87
 65
 56
COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1973
 Rain Fed Cotton
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Treatments
 June 27
 June 12
 July 12
 July 27
 August 12
 Yield - Qs/ha
 %
 36.40
 34.70
 31.20
 20.70
 18.20
 Calculated F
 5.24
 75.00
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 %
 5 X - F
 2.71
 2.87
 2.80 Qs/ha
 100
 95
 86
 57
 50
1973 SOWING DATES TRIALS - RAINFALL
 1st date 
(June 12)
 1973
 600 mm
 2d date 
3d date 
4th date 
5th date 
(June 27)
 (July 12)
 (July 27)
 1974
 330 mm
 550
 507
 476
 (August 12)
 462
 271
 230
 212
 202
COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1974
 Rain Fed Cotton
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 1
 Treatments
 June 27
 June 12
 July 12
 July 27
 August 12
 Yield Qs/ha
 11.80
 9.95
 7.15
 7.05
 7.
 100
 85
 61
 60
 6.45
 Calculated F
 1.28
 5.34
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 7. :
 Lsd 1 7. :
 5 Z - F
 2.71
 2.87
 28 7.
 2.80 qs/h;
 4.00 qs/h
 54
COTTON SOWING DATES TRIAL - 1974
 Irrigated Cotton
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Treatments
 June 12
 June 27
 July 12
 July 27
 August 12
 Yield - Qs/ha
 50.60
 47.20
 44.40
 35.70--------------------------------------------------------■—
 7.
 100
 93
 87
 71
 35.50
 Calculated F
 0.21
 11.96
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 % :
 Lsd 1 %
 5 7. - F
 2.71
 2.87
 10 %
 5.80 qs/ha
 7.90 qs/ha
 70
 1 7. - F
 4. 10
 4.43
The results of these trials speak enough for themselves 
to call for long comments. However it must be pointed out that a 
right planting date is of upmost importance and is one of the 
factors which enabled the farm to improve its cotton yield these 
last three years (the recommended sowing date was previously august, 
say Nahasse). Now as for every trials under irrigation the first 
date (10 of june, say the very outset of Sene) is significatively the 
best. Four main factors account for that :
 1) An early sowing enables cotton to get the maximum of 
rain for that the irrigation does not always made up (particularly 
when it is badly convoyed as it is the case in the Arba Minch Farm). 
Howerer a too early sowing date should not be suitable owing to the 
fact that bolls dehiscence is likely to come about before the end of 
the rainy season.
 2) When it is performed in june, cotton sowing enables the 
blooming to come about from august up to October. Later sowing conse
 quently leads to later blooming up to november and/or december when 
temperatures are falling (minimum of 5 or 6° C) during the night.
 3) Early sowing cotton better holds out against the attacks 
of parasites that are likely to be particularly numerous and virulent 
in October and november. Late sowed cotton (July and with greater 
season august) that are then physiologically less developed suffer 
more from the parasites than early sowed one which furthermore enables 
to make up for its losses.
 »> Rains are likely to come about In inarch or at the end or 
february and as a matter of fact to Injury . too late sowed cotton 
when picking is then not completed yet.
It must be stated that in regard to the rain fed trials 
the second sowing date (june 27) two years sunning yielded best results. 
That is only owing to the fact that a rain immediatly some after sowing 
whereas the first date did not get any for fiftheen days and thereby les 
germinated. However the small holders have to be advised to sow rainfed 
cotton at the very outset of june whether it rains or not. Well dressed 
seeds can stay in the soil and await the rain for a certain time.
 These trials results are significant enough to let us 
eliminate the late dates (july and august). Another trial should next 
year compare earlier dates with 10 days interval : may 20 - June 1 - 
June 10 - June 20 - June 30.
 Last but not least it is worthy to note that cotton sowing 
carried out in a minimum of time (less than a month for 1,000 hectares) 
enables to get fields of homogenous age and in actual fact to keep out 
the overlap of insects generations that is brought about by crops of 
successive stages.
COTTON SPACING TRIALS
 1972 Treatments
 1973 Treatments
 90 cm x 15 cm - 1 plant/hole
 90 x 30
 90 x 50
 90 x 30
 90
 x
 15 cm- 2- 2- 1- 2
 ii
 h
 : 
it
 ii
 ii
 : 
: 
: 
plants/hole:148,000
 cm
 90 X 10- 1
 ii
 ii
 74,000 
74,000 
45,000 
37,000 
plants/hectare 
" 
” 
" 
"
 "
 "
 plants/hectarc
 :110,000
 90 X 15- 1
 ii
 ii
 : 74,000
 11
 11
 II
 11
 90 X 30
 90 X 50
 90 X 30
 Experimental design- 2- 2- 1
 ii
 ii
 n
 it
 ii
 ii
 : 74,000
 : 45,000
 : 37,000
 Randomiz ed blocks- 6 replications
 Plot size
 Variety
 Location
 Fertilizer
 Irrigation
 Sowing date
 Initial : 40.5 m2 - Useful : 13.5 m2
 Acala 15.17 D
 P.2.0. experiment field. Heavy clay soil
 1 quintal urea - 1 quintal TSP
 3 times in 1972 - 2 in 1973
 20 th of june in 72 and 73
 II
 II
 11
 11
 II
 11
46
 COTTON SPACING TRIAL - 1972
 Rank
 Treatments
 Yield Qs/ha
 1
 2
 3
 4
 90 x 15 (1)
 90 x 30 ( 2)
 90 x 50 ( 2)
 90 x 30 (1)
 43.20
 39.80
 39.60
 39.50
 100
 92
 91
 90
 Variance Analysis
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Calculated F
 5 % - F
 1.67
 1.35
 Coefficient of variation : 
— — 
No significative difference
 2.96
 3.29
 9 %
COTTON SPACING TRIAL - 197J3
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 Treatments
 90 x 15 (2)
 90 x 10 (1)
 90 x 15 (1)
 Yield Qs/ha
 %
 42.60
 100
 42.30
 41.70
 90 x 30 ( 2)
 90 x 50 ( 2)
 90 x 30 (1)
 Variance Analysis
 Variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Calculated F
 1.52
 2.65
 40.80
 38.00
 37.60
 5 7. F
 99
 98
 96
 89
 88
 1 7. F
 2.60
 2.60
 Coefficient of variation :
 Lsd 5 7,
 8 7.
 3.90 qs/ha
 3.82
 3.82
 /.
It is generally agreed that later is sowing and more 
exhousted the soil, closer must be the spacing. However the general 
bent is anyway now to increase the plants population (up to 200,000 
plants/hectare on certain types of soil and with certain varieties in 
the USA).
 Both trials carried out in 1972 and 73 compared diffeienu 
plants populations while bringing in different spacings and the numbci 
of plants/hole retained after thinning what is likely to take port 
in carrying out the manual operations and particularly the manual 
spreyings.
 The 1972 trial does not show up any significant different 
between the different treatments say between populations from 32,000 
up to 74,000 plants/hectare. On the otherhand the 1973 trial let out 
a significant difference (at 95 % probability) between populations 
above 100,000 and populations below 50,000. Expressed in yield this 
difference arose 4 quintals/hectare what is not negligible. 
•*
 In the Arba Minch Farm sowing was previously carried 
out Without any particular direction and in actual fact spacing was 
too wide and not uniform. As requested for three years closer spacing I 
has been tending to the yield improvement.
IRRIGATION INTERVALS TRIAL 73/7 4
 TREATMENTS :
 •- 1 irrigation -- 2 irrigations -- 3 irrigations -- 4 irrigations -- 5 irrigations -- 8 irrigations 
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN :
 at sowing only
 at sowing and at blooming 
(60 days aftet)
 at sowing, 30 days after and 
60.days after
 i.e 
+ 1 irrigation 90 days after 
sowing - 
i.e 
+ 
sowing
 every 
sowing- Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 SPACING :
 PLOT SIZE :
 VARIETY :
 LOCATION :
 FERTILIZER :
 SPRAYINGS :- 0.90 m x 0.20 m- Initial : 67.5 m2 - Useful- Acala 15.17 D- P.2.0, heavy clay soil- 100 kg urea - 100 kg T S P
 * 
1 
15 
irrigation 
120 
.
 days 
after 
days up to 120 days afte: 
: 13.5 m2
 •
 10 times (Dimethoate - DDT - Thiodan - Azodrin)
 RAINFALL :- 550 mm
Fields operations
 1
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/Hoeing
 Fertilizing(TSP)
 Fertilizing(urea)
 I Picking
 15.3
 4.6
 21.6
 22.6
 26.6
 11.7
 25.7
 *
 16.7
 2
 3.6
 8.6
 11.8
 3
 7.6
 4
 •
 5
 24.7
 25.6
 25.7
 28.11
 29.8
 8.12
 5.8
 •
 18.12
 * 4 weedings for the treatments with 1, 2, 3 and 4 irrigations
 8.9
 28.12
 •
 10.1
 21.1 
5.2
 6 weedings for the treatments with 5 and 8 Irrigations
51
 •
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 Treatments
 5 irrigations
 •
 1 irrigation
 8 irrigations
 Yield - Qs/ha
 42.60
 . 
42.40
 %
 • •
 • 100
 99.5
 41.40
 3 irrigations
 4 irrigations
 6
 No significative difference.
 Coefficient of variation : 
Conclusions :
 2 irrigations
 '41.20" .
 41.10
 .40.00
 7.5 %
 With regard to the yield, there is.no significative 
difference between the different treatments (Please note 
that the amount of rainfall was 550 mm).
 Also note : 2 weeding more with 5 and 8 irrigations 
a vegetative development which delayed the 
maturity for
 the same two treatments.
 97
 96.5
 *
 96.4
 93
52
 Irrigation Intervals trial 74/75
 Treatments- Check plot- 1 irrigation- 2 irrigations- 3 irrigations- 4 irrigations- 5 irrigations- 8 irrigations
 : no irrigation
 : 
: 
: 
: 
: 
at 
at 
at 
at 
at 
sowing only
 sowing and 
sowing and 
sowing and 
sowing and 
60 days after
 30 and 60 days after
 30, 60 and 90 days after
 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after
 : every 15 days up to 120 days after sowing
 Experimental Design
 Plot Size
 Variety
 Location
 Former crop
 Fertilizing
 Rainfall
 Spraying
 Randomized bloks - 4 replications
 Initial : 4 rows x 15 m x 0.80 in = 48 m2
 Useful : 2 rows x 15 m x 0.80 m = 24 m2
 Acala 15.17 D
 P.2.0, heavy clay soil
 2 years cotton
 1 quintal TSP - 1 quintal urea
 248 mm
 10 times
Fields operations----------------
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Phinning
 Hoeing/Weeding
 TSP Fertilizing
 Urea Fertilizing
 1
 20.4
 24.5
 29.6
 31.6
 5.7
 19.7
 10.8
 2
 6.6
 9.6
 3
 4
 5
 19.8
 26.7
 5.7
 27.8
 Picking
 25.11
 27.8
 13.8
 5.12
 26.9
 16.12
 14.10
 6.1
54
 7.
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 Variance analysis
 Variation
 Replicat 
Treatments
 5 Irrigations
 8 Irrigations
 4 Irrigations
 3 Irrigations
 2 Irrigations
 1 Irrigation
 No Irrigation
 Yield Qs/ha
 38.35
 38.05
 28.50
 25.70
 19.65
 19.10
 13.10
 Calculated F
 ions 
treatments
 Coefficient of variation
 LSD 5 %
 LSD 1 %
 1.9
 9.3
 F at 5 7. table
 2.78
 2.51
 7.5 %
 2.9 
3.9 
quintals/hectare
 quintals/hectare
 292
 290
 218
 196
 150
 145
 100
 F at 1 % table
 4.22
 3.67
- 55
 COTTON HERBICIDE TRIAL 1973
 AIM :
 Control 
of 
several 
weeds, 
and 
Rotundus - with EPTAM 6 EC (Carbanate)
 TREATMENTS :
 RATE OF APPLICATION :- Check-plot without herbicide- EPTAM application : 4 weeks pre-planting- EPTAM application : 2 weeks pre-planting- EPTAM application : at planting
 6.25 litres CP/hectare
 METHOD OF APPLICATION :
 particularly 
Spraying with knapsack should not be applied closer 
than 10 cms to the seed row. The chemical has to be 
incorporated into the soil by cultivation irnmediatl 
after spraying. Calibration of the sprayer by the 
person actually spraying the trial is vital.
 First practise getting a steady constant walking 
speed of about one meter/second by spraying water 
to calibrate, spray a plot and measure the water
 used. This should be repeated 3 or 4 times until 
there is little variation and then averaged.
 ' Eg>ERIMENTAL DESIGN : Randomized blocks. 3 replications
 PLOT SIZE :
 LOCATION :
 IRRIGATION :
 RAINFALL :
 Initial : 7 rows - Useful : 36 m2
 P.2.0 
Twice
 460 mm
 heavy clay soil
 i
 Cypcrus 
. 
56
 fields operations
 i—" t-----r
 ✓
 | 
1 
1 
1 
• | 
Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 I 
1 
j 
j 
1 
| 
| 
Thinning
 Weeding/Hoeing
 Irrigation
 EPTAM applic.
 Treat. B
 1
 15.3
 4.6
 25.6
 26.6
 14.8
 25.8
 13.9
 2
 3.6
 8.6
 12.8
 13.8
 •
 5
 • 3
 7.6--
 4
*
•
 4.10
 15.8
 9.7
 9.10
 21.11
 23.10
 ‘ / /
 •
 •
 —r------
 EPTAM applic.
 Treat. C
 EPTAM applic.
 Treat. D '
 »
 24.7
 12.8
 X
 •
 *
 •
 I
- 57
 CYPERUS INFESTATION : COEFFICIENT FROM 0 TO .
 1
 Check plot
 4 weeks 
pre-pl.
 2 weeks 
pre-pl.
 1 day
 pre-pl.
 5
 4.5
 4.5
 3
 2
 5
 5
 4
 2.5
 Weight of weeds cut 50 days after sowing (in kg)
 1
 Check plot
 4.weeks 
pre-pl.
 2 weeks 
pre-pl.
 3
 4.5
 4.5
 4
 3
 2
 173
 176
 160
 1 day 
pre-pl.
 90
 204
 183
 200
 106
 * Cyperus - Senecio - Muga - Gallingsoga - Amaranthus 
3
 144
 240
 217
 98
 none 
very slight 
slight 
medium 
important 
very import
 Total
 521
 599
 577
 294
Cotton - Shell Planavin 4 Herbicide Trial 1974
 Treatments- Check Plot without herbicide- Planavin 4 - Rate : 2.8 liters/hectare 
(rate of 1.4 1/ha for light soil)
 Directions for use Planavin (Pre-emergence herbicide)- The area should be ready before application (in good tilth and free of clods)- Calibrate the application equipment- Shake Planavin before using- The field should be free of any established weeds since Planavin does not 
control them- When applying the chemical not so close to the ground- Thorough shallow incorporation is needed after application
 Experimental design
 Plot size
 Location
 Time of application
 Observations
 Randomized blocks - 4 replications
 80 m2
 P.2.0, experiment field Heavy clay soil
 1 day before sowing
 50 days after sowing : weight of several weeds/plot
WEIGHT OF WEEDS
 Weeds
 IN KG/HECTARE
 Cyperus *
 Treatments
 Check Plot
 Planavyl.2.8 1/ha
 82
 Graminae *
 2,190
 50 DAYS AFTER SOWING
 Amaranthus *
 Oxygonum *
 Miscellaneous *
 860
 200
 * Total of 4 replications expressed in Kg/hectare
 30
 130
 230
 30
 1,900
 530
 Total
 5,262
 920

Cotton - Ciba Herbicide trial 1974
 Treatments
 Rates of application
 Directions for use
 Experimental design
 Plot size
 Location- Check Plot without herbicide- Cotoran + Gepiron (Post-emergence application)- Gesagard + Gepiron (Post-emergence application)
 Medium soils :
 Cotoran 80 WP 0.5 Kg/ha 4- Gepiron ET 3 1/ha
 Gesagard 80 WP 0.5 Kg/ha + Gepiron ET 3 1/ha 
Heavy soils :
 Cotoran 80 WP 1.0 Kg/ha 4- Gepiron ET 3 1/ha
 Gesagard 80 WP 1.0 Kg/ha 4- Gepiron ET 3 1/ha
 Directed 
than 
spray 
5-10 
cm 
height of at least 15 cm.
 Do not spray over top of the cotton
 Use 
about 
300 
Wetting of the weeds is essential.
 Randomized blocks - 4 replications
 36 m2
 P.2.0. experiment field heavy clay soil
 *
 application 
and - 
when 
400 
on 
1. 
the 
the 
of 
emerged 
cotton 
plants 
water/hectare 
weeds 
have 
as 
not 
reached 
thorough 
high 
a 
I
WEIGHT OF WEEDS - IN KG/HECTARE - 50 DAYS AFTER SOWING
 Weeds
 Treatments
 Check Plot
 Cotoran + Gepiron
 Gesagard 4- Gepiron
 X
 Cyperus
 90
 100
 X
 Graminae
 2,040
 Amaranthus
 X
 450
 X
 Oxygonum
 1,040
 1,740
 90
 1,290
 x Total weight of 4 replications expressed in kg/hectare
 260
 80
 1,250
 690
 X
 Total
 3,620
 3,350
 2,150

- 62 
COTTON - PRE-EMERGENCE HERBICIDE TRIAL 1974
 P.5.2 
Heavy soil 
TREATMENTS- Check Plot- Cotoran- Gesagard- Planavin 4- Eptam
 ^SONS-FOIUJSE : Reper to the above 
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ; Randomized blocks
 plot SIZE : 56 m2
 . LOCATIONS • P.5.2.
 P.1.1.
 2,5 Kg/Ha
 2,5 
2,8 1.
 4,4 1.
mentionned herbicide trials
 lay-out.
 heavy 
experiment field
 6replication
 clay 
soil 
medium soil
 P. 1.1
 Medium Soil
 2 Kg/Ha
 2 
2 1.
 4,4 1.

P.5.2
 ^Replications
 Tr ea tmen t
 Check Plot
 Cotoran
 Gesagard
 Planavin 4
 Ept am
 WEEDS INFESTATION 50 DAYS AFTER SOWING - COEFFICIENT FROM 0 TO 5
 1
 5
 2
 3
 2
 2
 4
 1
 1
 3
 4
 3
 4
 4
 5
 4
 6
 Average
 5
 4
 3
 1
 3
 3
 Coefficient : 0 to 5
 3
 3
 0 = none
 1 
2 
2
 3
 5
 = very slight
 = slight
 3
 2
 3
 4
 3
 2
 4
 5
 3 
4 
5 
4.3
 2.6
 2.1
 2.6
 3.8
 = medium
 = moderate
 = very important
p.1.1.
 1 
Cotoran
 Gesagard
 Planavin 4
 Ept am
 L L
 Weeds
 Treatment^\
 Check Plot
 X
 Cyperus
 83
 90
 64
 93
 X
 Amaranthus
 84
 50
 4
 38
 WEIGHT OF WEEDS - IN KG/HECTARE - 60 DAYS AFTER SOWING
 X
 Senecio
 134
 74
 49
 X
 Gynardropsis
 163
 124
 X
 Connelina
 180
 206
 X
 Oxygonum
 844
 1
 X
 Heliotropium
 X
 Euphorbia 
(Hypenci folia)
 85
 252
 49
 69
 38 
|
 56
 160
 x Total weight of 6 replications expressed in kg/hectare
 22
 27
 18
 64
 214
 286
 390
 817
 132
 54
 82
 166
 458
 93
 114
 183
 399
 Total
 2,031
 1,021
 638
 941
 1,877
 1
T
 1 results of these trials point out the following remarks :
 Notwithstanding its cyperaceae control Eptam 6 EC (Carbamate) has to be 
eliminated on account of residual effect risks on following crops.
 2/ Nitralin (Shell Planavin at 2.8 1/ha on heavy soil) in a pre-emcrgency appl ica 
affords a good control of most of the weeds that infest the P.2.0, experiment ficl 
(graminae, amaranthaceae, portulacaceae, oxyganaceae, etc...) barring cyperaceae. 
This new weedkiller coming from the UK is attached to the group of toluidins as 
trifularin. In practice almost insoluble in water (0.6 ppm) it is stable in the ooil 
and is acting by inhibiting the cellulor division. It is specially active against 
the annual dicotyledones and the graminae. Its toxicity is low (LD. 50^ 2000 rag/Kg 
by ingestion for the rate)
 3/ Prometryne (Ciba. Gesagard) that was compared in 74 to different weedkillers in 
pre-emergency application yielded but results both on heavy soil and ligth one 
(at respective rate of 2.5 Kg/hectare). Prometryn is attached to the important 
group of triazins as atrazin and simazin. It inhibits the photo-synthesis of carbo
 hydrates and accordingly the setting and the accumulating of starch. Its solubi
 lity in water is only 48ppm. It is absorbed both by roots and leaves and then can 
be utilized in pre and post-emergency application. Very low toxicity (37 50 mg/Kg). 
It has also to be stacted that it did not prove to be stronger when mixed up with 
Gepiron.
 I did not unfortunetly get any information about the cost price of these different 
chemicals. In actual fact the cost of a herbicide application is likely to be compa
 rable with the cost of at least two hoeings/weedings and accordingly cannot be of
 economic interest for the time being ; 
does not generally go beyond 40 
present time
 demand . ’
 it remains of upmost importance to
 However 
needs 
such 
when 
an 
a 
lack 
experimentation 
of 
especially as weedkiller residual effect 
or 50 days. At last it is worthy to note tha_ at the 
must 
be 
provide for the immadiate labour
 carried 
on 
in 
order 
to 
manpower is likely to come about with the 
of seltlements and the setting up of the land Reform.
 meet the
 suitable
 future 
extension
COTTON N.P.K. SOUSTRACTIVE TRIAL 1972
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 Variance Analysis
 Treatments
 N.P. (40 - 40)
 N.K. (40 - 20)
 N.P.K. (40-40-20)
 N (40)
 P.K. ( 40 - 20)
 Check Plot
 P. (40)
 K. (20)
 Origin of the variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 Yield
 40.30
 38.20
 37.00
 36.30
 32.50
 Check Plot %
 125
 119
 115
 113
 101
 32.10
 31.90
 31.10
 Celculated F
 8.9
 8.4- Nitrogen- Phosphorus- NP Interaction
 Coefficient of variation
 51.0
 1.4
 5.8
 8.3 %
 100
 99
 97
 5 %
 2.49
 2.88
 4.13
 4.13
 4.13
 1 7.
 3.31
 4.41
 7.44
 7.44
 7.44
- 67 
Conclusions
 of the NPK soustraclive trial
 Highly significative difference between replications
 Highly significative difference between treatments- main effect Nitrogen is highly significative- main effect phosphorus is not- Nitrogen - Phosphorus interaction is significative at 5 7.- No potassium effect- LSD 5 %- LSD 1 7.
 : 3.40 Qs/ha
 : 4.55 Qs/ha
 s NP^N^ cheek Plot, P and K 
: NP> PK, cheek Plot, P and K- there is no significative difference between NP, NK and NPK- the difference between all the plots with tl and all the plots without comes up 
to : 5.60 Qs/ha- the difference between all the plots with N and P and all the plots without 
N comes up to : 9.50 Qs/ha
I
 t
 »
 ►
 I
Cotton Fertilizer Trial - 1974
 Factorial 
trial 
to 
test 
the 
main 
and their interactions - at different levels :
 1
 2
 3
 Treatments
 •
 • 20 Kg of N < or P2 05 / hi ectare
 •
 • 40 Kg ii
 ii
 • 60 Kg H ii
 N1 Pl
 N1 P2
 N1 P3
 N2 Pl
 N2 P2
 N2 P3
 and 1 check plot without
 Experimental
 Design
 Randomized blocks - 
N3 Pl
 N3 P2
 N3 P3
 fertilizer.
 6 replications
 Plot size
 Spacing
 Variety
 Location
 Preceding crop
 .Spraying
 Rainfall
 Initial : 
0.80 m x 0.20 m
 Acala 15.17. D
 36 m2 - Useful : 
P.2.0. Heavy clay soil
 2 years cotton
 10 times (3 manual - 7 aerial spraying)
 5 times (/ 500 mm)
 264 mm
 effects 
ii
 ii
 24 m2- 
Nitrogen 
and 
Phospho 
/•
 I.
 k
- 69
 Fields Operations
 —
 1
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/Hoeing
 Irrigation
 TSP Fertilizing
 Urea Fertilizing
 20.4
 24.4
 11.6
 1.7
 2.7
 17.7
 7.8
 2
 6.6
 10.6
 30.6
 3
 4
 5
 •
 15.8
 20.7
 3.7
 2.7
 16.8
 Picking
 19.12
 31.7
 18.8
 14.9
 30.12
 4.9
 23.9
 17.1
 8.10
 22.10
 8.1.
70
 Rank
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 Variation
 Treatments
 N3 Pl
 N3 P3
 Check Plot
 N1 Pl
 N1 P3
 N2 P3
 N3 P2
 N2 P2
 Yield
 46.60
 43.30
 42.60
 42.30
 41.80
 Check Plot %
 109
 102
 100
 99
 98
 41.00
 40.60
 40.35
 N2 Pl
 N1 P2
 Calculated F
 Replicat ions
 Treatments
 ^^ficient of variation : 
S '
 3.19
 1.50
 l§nificative difference (at 5 7.) between the replications only
 40.30
 39.00
 5 7. F
 2.43
 2.10
 10 7.
 96
 95
 94.5
 94
 92
 1 7. F
 3.46
 2.84
Main effects
 N 20
 P 20
 30 460
 P 40
 P 60
 P 20
 N 40
 P 40
 N 60
 P 60
 28 100
 N 20 Total
 N 40 Total 
N 60 Total 
88 670
 87 590
 93 880
 30 110
 29 030
 29 060
 29 500
 P 20 Total
 P 40 Total
 P 60 Total
 No significative differences and no significative interactions between the main
 P 20
 33 520
 93 010
 86 370
 90 760
 P 40
 29 210
 P 60
 31 150
72
 The substractive fertilizer trial carried out in 1972 
accounted for highly significative results as to the main effect 
Nitrogen and the interaction Nitrogen - Phosphorus, A factorial 
trial was therefore three years running carried out in order to 
define more accuratly the response to different levels of N and P 
and their interactions as well. Thes.e 72-73-74 trials, not with 
standing a rather good accuracy (C.V. respectively of 10, 7 and 
10 7.) , never resulted in significative differences between the 
treatments and through in significative interactions.
 One will wonder at seeing the discrepancy between these 
both trials whereas the results of the second would explicit into 
detail the first one. Such a discrepancy is likely to be related 
to the respective preceding crops. From what I heard, the 72 sub
 tractive trial was carried out in a part of the P.2.0, experiment 
field that was several years tunning under crops whereas the N.P. 
factorial came after fallow.
 It therefore seems that the heavy and rich soil of the upper 
part of the farm (even after three years cotton growing) is not 
likely to significantly respond to Nitrogen, Phosphorus and their 
interaction. But it is to be expected that a response will come out 
after sereral years under cotton. It would be therefore suitable to 
oil this trial on the same P.2.0, experiment field. In .he same 
way it is recommended to enter upon a long term cotton exhaustion 
trial including the following treatments : NIL - N - NP - NK and NPK 
lt is a
 iS
 o recommended to carry out such a fertilizer pro- 
gramme in a Kulfo section field where cotton has been growing ten 
years running.
73
 According to these three years experiment results, fertilizer 
applications seem to be not necess ry to an yield improvement. But we 
have to call attention to the keeping of soil fertility : a 16 quintal 
hectare cotton crop exports :
 Definitively exported
 Seeds
 Fibres
 Total
 Returned to the field
 Roots
 Stems
 Leaves
 Valves
 N
 33.19
 1.90
 40.09
 P2 05
 15.50
 K
 14.27
 0.56
 16.06
 4.28
 17.93
 34.35
 8. 13
 Grand total
 104.7 8
 In Arba Minch, a 25 quintals/hectare cotton crop will defini
 tively export : 56 kg of Nitrogen and 25 kg of Phosphorus. A correct 
soil fertility conservation programme will be therefore secured by 
applications of :
 Products
 1) 
2) 
DAP
 Urea
 Total
 Rate/lia
 50 kg
 100 kg
 N/Ha
 9 kg'
 2.27
 7.24
 12.76
 3.61
 41.94
 P2O5/Ha
 2.57
 16.84
 5.95
 17.29
 19. 32
 19.94
 79. 34
 1
 1
 i
 Applicati o
 Time
 24 kg
 47 kg
 150 kg
 56 kg
24 kg
 With its high potash content, we do not think that Arba Minch 
P lough LF;g
 After thir.ni"
soil requires any K20 application for the time being.
Cotton Variety Collection 1972/73/74
 27 Varieties are compared to Acala 15.17.9 ( a check every two rows )
 THE AMERICAN GROUP
 2/
 3/
 4/
 5/
 THE AFRICAN GROUP
 THE IRCT * GROUP
 THE OUGANDESE GROUP
 THE PAKISTANESE GROUP
 Institutde recherches pour
 Several Acala, Mairy Acala and AMS
 2 Deltapine
 1 Stoneville
 1 Coker
 1 Carolina Queen
 1 Paymaster
 Reba. B. 50
 Allen 333.57
 Albar 637
 HAR 444.2.69 
BJA 592
 L. 231.24
 L. 299.10
 L. 229
 Satu 65
 Asa (65) 38
 199. F
 Ac. 134
 ( Mirsutum x Arboroum
 ]e
 coton et les textiles exotigues (PARIS)
75
 This variety collection was carried out in P.2.0, experiment field 
3 years running.
 Very wide spacing : 2 m x 1 m (20 plants / variety ). 
Check Acala 15.17.9 every 2 rows.
 Were recorded : 1, average heignt : 2, cycle ( in months from sowing 
up to first picking ) 3, Diseases infestation ( Blight only as verticilliun 
never damaged the collection varieties ) 
average weight.
 4, 1 plant average weight 5a
 1 bol
 The follewing data ( see rext page ) are compiled from 3 years average.
- 76
 1
 variety
 AVERAGE
 HEIGHT 
(meter)
 CYCLE 
(months)
 BLIGHT
 Infestation
 FLAM AVL- 1 I 
IAGE WEIGHT R. 
(grams)
 HOLL •' - 
\GE V..r..;i2 (
 (grunt) i
 1.25 5 1 244 1 5.6 |
 444.2-69
 1.45 6 0 300 4.5
 592 1.45 6 0 295 6.6
 11.24 1.46 6 0 281 4.9
 19-10 1.48 6 0 267 6.0
 !9 1.26 6 0 292 4.4
 B.50 __________
 1.08 5 1/2 1 0 284 5.0 1
 n 333.57 1.35 5 0 267 4.5
 r 637 1.20 5 0 295 4.6
 wille 213 1.10 5 0 215 4.7
 apine 5.L 1.10 5 1/2 1 0 237 3.6
 ipine 16 1.10 5 1/2 o 220 5.8
 Lina Queen 1.19 5 1/2 0 245 4.9
 ister 101 A 1.13 5 1 248 | 5.5
 : 201 1.26 5 0 226 4.2
 i15.17.C 1.35 5 0 241 5.4
 ll5.17.BR 1.20 5 1 0 233 4.5
 (15.17/70 1.15 5 o 247 4.9
 ft
 1.10 5 1/2 o 228 5.8
 1.27 5 1/2 0
 222 6.1
 1.16 5 1/2 1 191 5.6
 1 "
 1.19 5 0 281 4.8
 /7o '
 1*34^ ’ “ 1.30 5 0 275 6.0
 65^"------------------ 1.09 5 1/2 0 298 6.8
 1.45 5 1 293 4.4
 > 38 ——
 1.45 5 0 • 290 4.0
 1.25 5 0 300 4.2
 1.24 5 0 247 6.7
NATIONAL VARIETY TRIAL
 \r
 TREATMENTS
 YIELD
 7. *
 1973
 RANK (1)
 Reba B.5O
 AMS 1/34
 AC 134
 Acala 15.17.C
 Albar 637
 BPA.68
 A«la 15.17.BR
 Asa (65) 38
 Acala15.17.70
 Ulen 333.57
 ^6)44^
 ^65
 ^/70
 ll. 
40.20
 39.20
 39.10
 38.70
 38.50
 37.80
 37.70
 37.50
 36.80
 36.50
 36.30
 104
 101.2
 101
 100
 99.5
 97.5
 97
 96.8
 95
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 ‘ 7-------------------- I
 GINNING
 OUTTURN
 35.8 7.
 41.8 7.
 34.8 7.
 ' 38.6 7.
 35 7.
 FIBRE YIELE
 14.40
 16.39
 13.60
 R.-x?a< (2)
6 ‘
 8
 14.93
 13.47
 34 7.
 42 7.
 8
 35.4 7.
 12.85
 15.83
 13.27
 4
 9
 11
 2
 10
 9
 94
 93.5
 10
 11
 41.2 7.
 39.2 7.
 35 7.
 15.16
 14.30
 12.70
 3
 7
 12
 11.63
 35.90
 35.80
 ""----
31.10
 92.5
 92.3
 12
 13
 14
 32.4
 41.6
 14.90
 14
 5
 —
 Ha8
 80
 38
 11.81
 13
78
 COTTON NATIONAL VARIETY TRIAL 1974
 treatments
 experimental design
 PLOT SIZE
 LOCATION
 PRECEDING CROPS
 FERTILIZER
 SPRAYING
 IRRIGATION
 RALNFALL
 Acala 15.17/70
 AMS. 1. (70) 
AMS. 1. (74)
 AMS. 1. 34
 AMS. 1. 39
 Randomized blocks
 Initial : 40 m2 •
 P.2.0, experiment
 2 years cotton
 1 quintal T S 8 
10 times (3 manual - 7 aerial spraying)
 5 times (7.500 mm)
 272 mm
 AMS 1.48
 h.a 10
 H.A 11
 Allen 
Reba B.50- 
6 replications
 Useful : 24 m2
 field Heavy clay soil- 
1 quintal urea
 333.57 
FIELDS OPERATIONS
 1
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/Hoeing
 irrigation
 TSP Fertilizing
 Urea Fertilizing
 20.4
 24.4
 13.6
 18.6
 26.6
 8.7
 6.8
 2
 6.6
 9.6
 a
 4
 ■
 5
 17.7
 27.6
 6.7
 8.8
 Picking
 14.12
 31.7
 31.7
 12.9
 1.1
 25.8
 14.9
 17.1
 8.10
 20.10
 5.11
80
 ~l------------
pB
 EATHeNTS
 .la l5
 .n/7O _
 1^----------
 I- <70)
 _________
 ;.l. (74) 
_____------------
 . 
1. 34 ___________
 ________
 ■!
 11
 1 333.57
 B. 50
 YIELD
47.70
 40.90
 45.00
 55.00
 48.50
 49.70
 49.40
 43.50
 46.90
 46.80
 A.15.17/70
 7.
 100
 86
 94
 115
 102
 104
 103
 91
 98
 98
 RANK
 (1)
 5
 10
 8
 1
 4
 2
 3
 CINNING
 OUTTURN
 41.4 7.
 40.4 7.
 39.6 7.,
 40.4 %
 42.4 7.
 FIBRE
 YIELD
 19.75
 16.50
 17.80
 RANK
 (2)
 4
 10
 7
 22.20
 20.50
 41.2 7.
 39.0 7.
 9
 6
 7
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 ORIGIN OF THE
 VARIATION
 REPLICATIONS
 treatments
 CALCULATED F
 4.22
 9.70
 •^H££fj.cient of variation : 6 %
 iSD__5_% 
. 
3.8Q Qs/ha
 5.15 Qs/ha
 40.4 7.
 40.4 7.
 36.4 7.
 5 7. F
 2.43
 2.10
 20.45
 19.25
 17.60
 18.95
 16.85
 1
 2
 3
 5
 8
 6
 9
 1 7. F
 3.46
 2.84
 1
 1
 K.
81
 A1U5A MINCH VARIETY TRIAL 1973
 YIELD
 39.10
 a
 15.17-D____________
 444.2.69
 rapine 16
 31.24
 er 201
 tap inc SL
 Sevi le 213
 19
 W
 597
 38.70
 37.60
 36.70
 36.20
 35.00
 34.50
 34.30
 34.20
 34.10
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 7.
 100
 99
 96
 94
 93
 90
 88
 87.5
 RAI IK (1)
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 1
 GINNING
 OUTTURN
 39 7.
 42 7.
 42 Z
 41.6 7.
 FIBRE YIELD 
L
 15.25
 16.25
 15.80
 15.27
 42.4 7.
 41.6 7.
 7
 8
 87
 86.5
 Origin 
of the variation
 9
 10
 Calculated F
 Replications
 Treatments
 Coefficient of variation :
 5.9
 5.8
 5,3 %
 41.6 7.
 43 %
 41,8 7.
 42.4 7.
 F at 5 7. table
 2.43
 2.10
 2,26 quintals/hectare
 3,02 quintals/hectare
 (sCe in appendix the results
 15.35
 14.55
 14.35
 14.75
 14.30
 14.45
 F at 1 % table
 3.46
 2.84
 5
 1
 2
 4
 3
 7
 9
 6
 10
 8
 of the variety trial 72/73)
82
 COTTON ARBA MINCH VARIETY TRIAL 1974
 treatments
 experimental design
 plot size
 location
 PRECEDING CROPS
 FERTILIZER
 SPRAYING
 IRRIGATION
 RAINFALL
 Acala 15.17. D
 Coker 201
 Stoneville 213
 Deltapine 16
 Deltapine S.L.
 Randomized blocks
 Initial : 40 m2
 P.20, experiment
 2 Years cotton
 1 quintal TSP 1
 B.J.A. 597
 L. 231.24 
L. 299.10 
L, 229.29.71
 MAR. 444.2.70- 
6 replications
 Useful : 24 m2
 field Heavy clay soil
 quintal urea
 10 times (3 manual - 7 aerial spraying)
 5 times ( / 500 mm)
 287 mm
- 83
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 ORIGIN OF THE
 VARIATION
 REPLICATIONS
 CALCULATED F
 1.82
 4.14
 5 7. F
 2.43
 1 7. F
 3.46
 2.10
 icienti of Varia
 70
 tion 
: 
LI
 3.62 Qs/ha
 2.84
84
 FIELDS operations
 ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Sowing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/Hoeing
 irrigation
 TSP Fertilizing
 Urea Fertilizing
 1 
20.4
 24.4
 12.6
 16.6
 24.6
 12.7
 5.8
 i
 2
 6.6
 9.6
 3
 4
 5
 1
 16.7
 27.6
 6.7
 8.8
 Icking
 15.12
 30.7
 30.7
 12.9
 2.1
 24.8
 13.9
 17.1
 7.10
 19.10
 J
 4,11
85
 Several varieties were three years running tested both in 
collection and comparative trials according to different criteria :- seed-cotton yield- ginning outturn and consequently fibre yield that will be of upmost 
importance when the farm achieves its cotton ginning- vegetative cycle- 
plants 
holdings 
size 
; 
and 
manual 
vegetative 
operations 
development 
(hoeing, 
that 
bear 
spraying, 
hardly worked out when cotton plants are very high or vegetative- diseases resistance : mostly blight and verticillium.
 Three years experiment results are not enough to firmly 
recommend one variety. However some conclusions can be now drawn :- 
on 
etc.) 
cotton 
are 
small 
indeed 
Same varieties have to be tested again next year in a same collec
 tion 
device 
where 
should 
a 
selection 
programme 
the supervision of Mr J. SOUNDERS IAR Cotton breader.
 But 6 new varieties should be added to the 28 other ones : 
AMS 1 (74) ; AMS 1.39 ; AMS 1.48 ; HA 10 ; HA 11 (from the 1974 
National Variety trial) and the now Acala 15 17 V (known as terti- 
cillium resistant).- Two IRCT Varieties - L. 299 and L.229 - that yielded two years 
running disappointing results should be struck off the Arbu Minch 
Variety trial and be replaced by Albar 637 and the pakistanese 
Ac 134. It is also recommended for the same trial to provide tuo 
check plots : Acala 15.17 9 and AMS 1.34.
 This 
Blight 
resistant 
and 
small 
sized 
be 
started 
in 
under 
AMS 1.34 two years yielded 
particularly 
attractive 
results 
(40 
qs/ha 
in 
73 
increase of this variety has from now onward to be carried out.
 and 
55 
in 
74). 
A. 
8b
 COTTON PARASITISM
 Although insecticides trials did not yield significative 
results (owing to the lack of infestation in the experiment field 
where these trials were carried out) it is important in the frame 
of this report to insist upon the main limiting factor of cotton 
growing. I draw up below a more or less chronological inventory of 
the main cotton pests that have been found in Arba Minch these last 
three years.
 Cutworms : 
Agrotis ypsilon
 Damages ot very early stage ; never heavy ones in Arba 
Minch. Agrotis is known to be sensible to most of insecticides 
if sprayed at night when coming out from underground.
 Cotton leaf thrips : 
Leaf miner :
 Cotton Aphid :
 Caliothrips spp. (p.m.)
 Acrocescops bifasciata (p.m. mostly in 73)
 Aphis gossypli
 Cotton aphid has to be counted among the major cotton pests in Arba 
Minch.
 Growth is retarded and young seedlings may even die. The 
insect feeds on the plants sap and the excess sugars it takes up 
are excreted as honeydow. This is a sticky substance that covers the 
leaves and provides a substrate for the growth of a black sooty mold 
and at ball opening time car contaminate the lint and lowers its 
quality. What is likely to come about in Arba Minch where populations 
can increase throughout the campaign if not well controlled.
 • • • / • • •
87
 jassids :
 Empoasca lybica
 not of economic incidence in Arba Minch
 Cotton whitefly : 
Bemisia tabaci (p.m.)
 The leafcurl disease which is transmissed by Bemisia was never found
 Leafworms :
 Cosmophyla Fl avia (minor pest in A.M.) 
Spodoptera littoralis (or Prodenia litura)
 Almost unknown in the past, the egyptian leaf worm is now of upmost 
importance in Arba Minch and in others parts of Ethiopia where scriou. 
attacks have been recorded. It appeared for the first time in 1972.
 A sudden infestation was noticed in the very outset of
 august 72 (Plot 5.3 - north part of the farm) and two hectares of 
early stage cotton was "bum down”. Another generation came out in 
late September bringing up a build up of worms capable to injury the 
whole plant : leaves, bracts, flowers, buds and, to a lesser extent, 
young bolls. In actual fact the egyptian leafworm was the main parasil 
of the 1972 campaign and populations arising to 50,000 worms/hectare 
were still scouted in 73. Spodoptera littoralis has proved capable 
of developing resistance to insecticides induding DDT, endrin, toxa- 
phen and, to a lesser extent, Carbaryl. On the matter of fact eggs 
picking is practiced in Egypt. Trichlorofon (Dipterex) came out to 
be rather satisfying in 72, but Monocrotophos (Azodrin or Nuvacron) 
and above all Phosrel enable to achieve an excellent control.
 Xanthodes graellsii (p.m.)
 Leaf eaters
 m - 
Not very serious on cotton, ene i
 Keraf (Hibiscus Cannanibus) trial
 Podagrica puncticollis (p.m.)
 the flea beetle infested two years age a
 •••/•••
88
 Bo 11 worms : 
Earias insulana
 No severe attacks by spiny bollworm have been reported in 
Arba Minch where it mostly show up at early stage as stem borer 
(populations of 3,000 worms/hectare were scouted in 72 in some plots).
 Helio this armigera
 As everywhere in Ethiopia the american bollworm is the worse 
cotton pest in Arba Minch where generally it produces one new gene
 ration per month third and fourth stage larvae required 3 1 of endosul 
fan/hectare or 5 1 of DDT (or even a mixture of both chemicals) to be 
controlled. The importance of a closed season for controlling cotton 
bollworms sets up a difficult problem as for as Heliothis is concerned 
The host range is indeed very wide. Crops (solanaceae, pulses, oil 
crops...) appear to be more important than wild hosts. In actual fact, 
haricot-beans or second crop were heavily infested in 73 and their 
cost of production burden with Heliothis control. The question is now 
to know whether some crops (pulses and solanaceae particularly) have 
to be grown on as second crop or not in order to abide by a necessary 
closed season for controlling the american bollworm.
 Scales ; 
Ferrisiana Virgata
 Often noticed along stems and branches on late stage cotton. 
A slight in estation came out in august 72 wilting few young plants. 
Easily controlled by Dimethoate and others insecticides as well.
 Cotton stainers :
 Dysdercusspp.
 , 
Heavy infestation on late .cage
 complementary spray with Carbaryl.
 late staRe cotton in 73 compelling to a
 • / • • •
Platyedra gossypiella (Pink Bollworm), Diparopsis watersi 
(red Sudan Bollworm) and Tetranichus (red Spidermite) was never 
observed in Arba Minch.
 Cotton Diseases
 Bacterium Blight was observed but has so far not been seriou 
Only verticillium albo-atrum might become of economic importance if 
crops rotations are not carried out.
 A thorough clean up after picking by burning uprooted plants 
and other plant trash is essential for a healthy crop and should be 
a necessary measure to restrict the verticillium extent.
- 90
 Main cotton pests in Arba Minch and their control
 Insecticide
 Pest
 ___
 sssid
 whitefly
 .a
 s
 Phosphamidon
 Dimethoate
 Malathion
 DDT
 DDT
 Endosulfan
 Phosvel
 Monocrotophos
 Trichlorophon
 Carbaryl
 Monocrotophos
 Phosvel
 Endrin
 Carbaryl
 Commercial Name
 Dimecron
 Rogor - Perfekthion
 Malathion
 DDT 25
 DDT 25
 Thiodan 35
 Phosvel
 •
 a.i. rate/hcctare
 250 g... 
300 g... 
500 g
 400 g
 1,000 g
 500 g
 750 g... 
600 g... 
900 g... 
Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Dipterex - Dylox
 Sevin - Sevimol
 800 g
 1,000 g
 1500 g
 1000 g
 1200 g
 2,000 g... 2,500 g
 Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Phosvel
 Endrin
 Sevin - Sevimol
 Monocrotophos
 Carbaryl
 Phosphamidon
 Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Sevin - Sevimol
 Dimecron
 800 g... 
900 g... 
500 g... 
2,000 g... 
500 g... 
1,500 g... 2,000 g
 500 g
 1,000 g
 1,200 g
 750 g
 2,500 g
 800 g
- 90
 Main cotton pests in Arba Minch and their control
 Insecticide
 t
 d
 whitefly
 Phosphamidon
 Dimethoate
 Malathion
 DDT
 DDT
 Endosulfan
 Phosvel
 Monocro tophos
 Trichlorophon
 Carbaryl
 Monocrotophos
 Phosvel
 Endrin
 Carbaryl
 Commercial Name
 Dimecron
 Rogor - Perfekthion
 Malathion
 DDT 25
 DDT 25
 Thiodan 35
 Phosvel
 a.i. rate/hectare
 250 g... 
300 g... 
500 g
 400 g
 1,000 g
 500 g
 750 g... 
600 g... 
900 g... 
Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Dipterex - Dylox 
Sevin - Sevimol
 800 g
 1,000 g
 1500 g
 1000 g
 1200 g
 2,000 g... 2,500 g
 Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Phosvel
 Endrin
 Sevin - Sevimol
 Monocrotophos
 Carbaryl
 Phosphamidon
 Azodrin - Nuvacron
 Sevin - Sevimol
 Dimecron
 800 g... 
900 g... 
500 g... 
2,000 g... 
500 g« * • 
1,500 g... '’.,000 g
 500 g
 1,000 g
 1,200 g
 750 g
 2,500 g
 800 g
- 91
 production cost
 1°) Materials- Seeds : Eth $ O.5O x 20 kg- Insecticides : see in appendix 14 
expense/ha = 165 Eth $ in 1973
 Should be now 50 % under estimated ; eg- Aerial spraying : Eth $ 6 x 12 sprayings- Fertilizer : 1 quintal TSP and 1 quintal urea 
with subvention
 without subvention
 Materials 
Materials 
total 
total 
with 
Materials ‘otal with no subventionned fertilizer / 590
 2°) Field mechanized operations
 a
 ) Tractor hours/ 1 hectare
 Operations
 Discing or
 uptoo ting
 Discing
 Ploughing
 Discing
 Ridging
 Ditching
 Transportation
 Eth. f, / ha
 without 
subventionned 
Attachement
 Rome Plow
 Teeth cultivator
 Disc Harrow
 Mold Board Plow
 Disc Harrow
 Ridger
 fertilizer 
fertilizer 
Tractor type
 D.5
 1.3
 0.8
 / 
MF
 100
 260
 330 
430 
Average
 D.5
 1.3
 1.0
 2.6
 0.8
 Ditcher
 Trailor
1.0
 1.3
 1
 1
 —
 0.4
 0.4
 2.1
 MF
 0.5
 2.6
 0.5
 1.3
 1
 1
 Hours total / 1 hectare
 • • • /
 6.9
-92
b) 
"Ourly cost °f 
D.5 + Eth. $ 40 *
 MF 4 Eth. / 11 *
 c) Tractor cost / 1 hectare
 (sec in aopcndlxos 12 a
 „d »)
 D.5 : Eth $ 40 x 2.1 = Eth $ 
MF : Eth $ 11 x 6.9 = Eth g
 Tractor cost total = Eth $
 d) 
Attachment cost / 1 hectare
 159.9 / 160
 84.0
 75.9
 Ha ing no estimated hourly cost and no possibility of esti
 mating the hourly cost of attachment (the accusate purchase prices 
are unknown for most of them) here we consider this cost to be 
roughly 15 % of the tractor cost :
 Eth $ 
3°) Unskilled labour 
160 x 15 % = Eth $ 
Field cleaning
 Sowing + resowing
 Hoeing / weeding (4 times)
 Irrigation (6 times)
 Canal cleaning
 Fertilizer application (twice)
 Thinning
 Eth $ 40 and 11 respectively for •
 24
 . 
Eth $ /-hectare
 15
 10
 80
 30
 10
 5
 n 5 and M.F. 178 instead
 and 9.54 calculated in appendixes.
 Indead it seems to be < 
to above-estimate these figures
Manual spraying (twice) 
Coolie pushers
 Guards 
Harvesting : Eth $ 
Misc ellananeous 
Eth $10 x 5 qx : 
Bagging and loading 20
 Unskilled labour total Eth. $ 
4°) Total direct production cost
 a)
 without fertilizer Eth $
 b) with subventionned fertilizer Eth $ 
c) with no subventionned fertilizer Eth $
 1Q
 10
 5 x 25 qx : 125
 50 
195
 25
 300 or 310
 Eth $ /
 * 820
 /
 925
 1 085
 hectare
(>4 
PULSES
 Haricot-bean variety trials 
Haricot-bean direct production cost
 Beans Harvesting stage trial 
Chick pea variety trials 
Chick pea direct production cost
 Pulses sowing dates trial 
including : 
Adzukibean
 Mung bean
 Lima Bean
 Soy bean
 Haricot bean
 Cowpea
 . 
1973-74
 1974
 1973-74
 1974
PULSES
 Haricot-bean variety trials
 Haricot-bean direct production cost
 Beans Harvesting stage trial
 Chick pea variety trials
 Chick pea direct production cost
 Pulses sowing dates trial
 including : 
Adzukibean
 Mung bean
 Lima Bean
 Soy bean
 Haricot bean
 1973-74
 1974
 1973-74
 1974
HARICOT-BEANS VARIETY TRIAL 1973
 Mexican 142
 Ethiopia 
Ethiopia 11
 Richmond Wonder
 Canadian 
Brown Speckled
 Pea Bean C (W. 95)
 10 
Wonder 
Satin P.13.C
 Satin P.13.L
 Satin P.12
 Tengaru 16
 Arroz 3
 Pea Bean A.1(6R.395) Red Wollamo Sodd’o 
Pea Bean B 
experimental DESIGN :
 Black Dessie
 Randomized blocks (6 replications)
 SPACING : 
PLOT SIZE :
 LOCATION :
 FERTILIZER :
 IRRIGATION :
 .RAINFALL :
 0.40 m x 0.10 m - 2 seeds per hole
 Initial : 9.6 m2 - Useful : 9.6 m2 (no borderaws)
 P.2.0, heavy clay soil
 100 kg TSP/ha - 50 kg urea/ha
 1 only 0# 100 mm)
 300 mm
- 96 
FIELDS OPERATIONS
 1
 i • 
| ploughing
 Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 i Sowing
 I Resowing
 ! Thinning
 y
 Weeding/Hoeing
 irrigation
 27/7
 21.8
 6.9
 8.9
 11.9
 27.9
 2
 14.8
 29.8
• 3
4
 •
 5
 •
 • 
•
 30.9
 12.9
 pertili2ing
 TSP
 ^liZ
 ingUrea
 1 kicking
 10.9
 1.10
 26.11
 8.10
 3.12
 ’z i
 •
 •
 4
 •
 •
FIELDS OBSERVATIONS
 Observations
 Variety
 | Mexican 142
 Ethiopia 10
 Ethiopia 11
 Richmond Wonder
 Canadian Wonder
 Brown Speckled
 Pea Bean Al .(6R.395)
 Pea Bean B
 Pea Bean C (W.95)
 Satin P.13.C
 Satin P.13.L
 [Satin P.12
 Tengaru 16
 1 AtTOz 3
 Germination 
days after 
sowing
 5
 6
 6
 6
 6
 7
 5
 5
 5
 6
 6
 6
 5
 5
 v«ollarao Soddo
 6
 6- 97
 57. Bloomin: 
days after
 sowing
 45
 47
 47
 35
 32
 43
 40
 40
 45
 40
 33
 42
 46
 43
 44
 43
 •
 Maturity 
days after 
sowing
 95
 90
 90
 78
 76
 82
 75
 78
 82
 82
 78
 78
 95
 ' 
78
 82
 82
 l^2^^_Dessie
Most of the 
good 
stand, 
obtained m
 (mostly comniun Blight) and Virus which
 
Halo Blight and very little Rust were obse^er^^^’ 
these. The scoring for virus was made lat^ 
varieties which are late maturing - 
• •
 VARIETY
 r
 Canadian Wonder
 Satin P 13 L
 Red Wollamo Soddo
 Pea Bean A (6R.395)
 Richmond Wonder
 Satin P 13 C
 Ethiopia 11
 Brown Speckled
 Black Dessie
 Pea Bean B
 Satin P.12
 Arro z 3
 Pea Bean C (w.95)
 Mexican 142
 Ethiopia 10
 Tcngaru 16
 »« «f the plots
 plants secmcd qui(
 .c hcai(
 ^
 good growth and Eood b
 
diseases scores C3i1b o
 „ ‘ 
figures were
 rce bl°cks fOr
 31i~>.
 disCa'cs 
SC°rCS for
 ’ ,e *as made for thj
 ^
 8
 ’ Ot °n 
BACTERIUM BLIGHT
 1
 3
 3
 4
 3
 2
 2
 2
 3
 3
 3
 3
 3
 4
 plants.
 BLOCKS
 1
 VIRUS
 2
 •
 •
 3
 3 • 2 3--
3
 3
 2
 2
 3
 3
 3
 3
 3
 2
 1
 1
 1
 2
 2
 3
 3
 3
 2
 1
 1
 2
 3
 2
 2
 3
 2
 3
 3
 3
 2
 2
 1-2
 2--
 2--
 1
 2
 1
 ‘ 1
 •--
 2
*
2
 2
 1
1--
1
 0
 2
 C°e£ficient of infestation : fro® o to 5
TREATMENTS
 Pea Bean C
 Pea Bean A.l
 Arroz 3
 Pea Bean B
 Canadian Wonder
 Satin P.12
 Black Dessie
 Ethiopia 11
 Richmond Wonder
 Brown Speckled
 Satin P.13.L
 Red Vollamo Soddo
 Ethiopia 10
 Mexican 142
 Tergeru 16
 Satin P.13.C
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 X
 Origin 
of the variation
 Replications
 Treatments
 S2££ficient of variation : 15 %
 Calculated F
 SHATTERING
 7.40
 8.30
 10.40
 F at
 5 % table
 1.02
 6.01
 YIELD
 QS/ilx
 31.101/'
 27.00
 26.80
 26.80
 25.80
 24.90
 24.20
 24.10 '
 24.10
 22.80
 21.20
 19.60
 17.00
 F at
 1 % table
 2.35
 1.84
 4.68 cis/ha
 6.23 qs/ha
 3.29
 2.35
il .
 I [A Itf- C21 - D - - - - - - -12LT Y T RI AL 197 \
 Mexican 142
 Nazareth Small
 Nazareth Selection
 N. 203
 6R. 395
 Tara
 Black Dessie
 Emerson
 Pinto Bean
 EXPERIMENTAL design
 PLOT SIZE
 Randomized blocks
 Initial
 Nazareth Selection N. 84
 Juler
 Brown Spreckled
 W. 95
 Satin Pea 12
 6R. 320
 Arroz 3
 Canadian Vfonder
 6 replications
 9,6 m2 Useful : 4,8 m2
 SPACING
 location
 BgILIzING
 iMGATlON
 M^fall
 0.40 m x 0.10 m
 P.2.0. Experiment field Heavy clay soil
 No fertilizer
 4 times 300 ram)
 175 mm
- 101 .
 operation
 1
 3.6
 ploughins
 pisci-nB
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 Powing
 Resowing
 Thinning
 Weeding/hoeing
 Irrigation
 Fertilizing
 9.8
 27.8
 28.8
 30.8
 9.9
 23.9
 21.9
 2
 7.8
 3
 4
 •
 5
 9.10
 4.9--
 9.11
 28.9
 21.10
 12.10
 24.10
 18.12 •
 started 
november 9 for the earliest varieties and closed decenbur 
he latest ones.
10 3 
Notes on diseases
 Coefficient of infestation : from 0 to 5
 Variety
 Mexican 142
 Nazareth Small
 Nazareth Small N 203
 6 R - 395
 Tara
 Black Dessie
 Emerson
 Pinto Bean
 Nazareth Small N 84
 Juler
 Br°wn Speckled
 W. 95
 . 6 R-32o
 Bacterium Blight
 2 
2
 2
 1
 2
 0.5
 1
 1
 1
 12
 Rust
 i
 Virus
 2
 2.5
 2
 4
 4
 2
 1
 3
 1
 3
 2
 3
 4
 3
 1
 0.5
 0
 2
 3
 2
 3
 l,0 p
 3
 1
 2
 1
 2
 4
 3
 3
 1
 2
 3
 2
 1
 1
 2
 3
 r^JLOtrichum Lindemuthianum observed (Seed anthracnose)
 2
 1
- 104 
103
 1 Origin of the variation
 ■
 I Replications 
I Treatments 
/ 
Calculated
 5 %
 F
 1 7.
 F
 I
 /
 Coefficient of variation
 LSD 5 %
 a
 : 20 %
 : Qs/ha 7.80
 2.35
 2.12
 1.75
 3.29
 2.28
1- 106 
Beans Harvesting stage trial - 1974 
Treatments :
 Experimental design
 Plot size
 Variety
 Spacing
 Location
 Harvest when :
 A. 50 % of pods are ripe
 B. 75 % 
" 
C. 100 % " 
”
 ” 
D. all seeds are hardened
 E. 10 days later
 ’’
 Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 Initial : 
Ethiopia 10
 0.40 m X 0.10 m
 9.6 m2 - Useful : 4.8 m2
 P.2.0, experiment field Heavy clay soil
/ 
b
 / 2
 / 3
 / 4
 Rank
 Origin of the variation
 Replications
 / Treatments
 / 
/ 
/ 
/ 
75 % ripe
 10 days later
 100 % ripe
 50 % ripe 
hardened seeds
 / Yield Qs/ha
 / 
/ 
1 
/
 26.40
 24.81
 24.60
 1 %
 1 
107
 1 101
 1 100
 22.70
 22.60
 Calculated F
 1.47
 1 Treatments
 1.23
 92
 91
 5 7. F
 2.71
 2.07
 1 % F
 4.10
 4.43
 Coefficient of variation : 14 %
 No significant results
 /
10?
 Hari cot-Bcan - Estimated direct cost of production
 ]/ Machine operations cost
 It 
would be similar to the machine operations cost for maize, i.e. 160 ^/hecta
 re to which 20 $ will be added for machine planting.
 Total machine operations cost : 160 + 20 — 180 ^/hectare
 2/ Manual operations cost
 Collecting and burning
 Hoeing (2)
 Handweeding (1)
 Irrigations (4)
 Canal cleaning
 Spraying
 Coolie pushers
 Guards
 Hairvesting - Treshing - Cleaning - Bagging 
Miscellaneous
 Total manual operations cost
 3/ Materials
 Seed 70 Kgs/ha at $ 100 Kg (dressed seed) 
Pest Control : 2 It Tiodan and 4 t DDT 
Sacks 
Total materials
 : 15 bags at 60*cents/bag
 lotal estimated direct cost of production
 Without fertilizer)
 direct cost of production with fertilizer application (lquintal urea and 
Quintal TSP/hectare) should be Eth $ 550 with subventionned fertilizer and 
with not subventionned fertilizer
 ^/hectare
 10
 40
 10
 25
 10
 5
 5
 10
 50
 5
 170 ^/hectare
 70
 20
 9
 99/100
 100 ^/hectare
 450 $/hectarc
 i
 3ck f°r 3 years
i 
/ 
Despite of good average yields two years haricot-bean variety experiment in 
Arba Ninel) is not quite satisfying as coefficients of variation respectively
 arose 15 % in 73 and 20 % in 7k.
 Rather bad accuracy of these both trials prevent from final conclusions. 
It will be important to carry out again variety trials with a maximum of rare 
as it is recommanded to pick haricot-beans at the right time to avoid shatte
 ring (See harvesting stage trial). Shattering was estimated in 73 but not in 74 
and that could be likely to be the reason why erratic results appear in the 74 
trial : for exemple disappointing average yield (28.00 Qs/ha only) from W. 95 
(Pea Bean C) instead of 33 last year.
 But it should also be stated that several varieties suffered more from different 
diseases this year than last one and that in spite of the 74 dryer climatic condi
 tions.
 However if it is premature to select one variety, it is already possible to draw 
few conclusions :- Varieties as Mexican 142, Satin Pea, Candian Wonder and perhaps Ethopia 10 as
 well, more suitable to others parts of the country, have to be eliminated after 
two years disappointing results.- american Pea Beans - 6R - 395, 6R - 320 and W.95 - Seem to be well adapted to 
Arba Minch ecological conditions and are likely to be suitable to an export market. - bearing out a two years old local variety trial result, Black Dessie shows off its 
important potential yield and its hardiness as well.
 Opening up no channels for export market this variety could be of highest interest 
for local consumption. On the same hand it is recommanded to test again the also 
well adapted and well appreciated Red Wollamo Soddo.- as others pulses (soya-beans, chick peas, etc...) haricot-beans have to be harves
 ted in dry weather that calls for a sowing in august or September, such date of 
planting seems the best permetting to hairvest in december/january - months of dry 
season - and to a certain extent to take advantage of the October and sometir.es 
november rains to decrease the irrigations. Haricot-beans growing as second crop 
that is picked in june is in Arba Minch very risky. Last year experience of 75hects 
fes (carried out albeit Research forewarning) showed a heavy loss.
 ‘ on a large scale irrigated haricot-beans have to be sprayed once or twice to be 
Protected from american bollworm or spodoptora Littoratis, Under existing circurs- 
tances pest control will burden with $ 20 or 30 the direct cost of production
 comes to $ 450/hectare about. Such a cost implies a minimum yield of 15 Qs 
supposes field levelling) in order that haricot-bean may be attractive for 
hc Arba Minch Farm.
- 1 JO
 CHICKPEAS NATIONAL VARIETY TRIAL - 1973
 TREATMENTS :
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN :
 SPACING :
 PLOT SIZE :
 LOCATION :
 FERTILIZER :
 IRRIGATION :
 RAINFALL :
 Awassa white 
Cadu 54 
Dubie 
C.57 
C.1414 
24.B 
M.9637 
D.Z. 10.2
 D.Z. 10.11
 D.Z. 10.1
 . 
H. 26.12
 H. 54.10
 H. 60.10
 H. 61.9
 Randomized blocks - 4 replications
 0.40 m x 0.10 m
 Initial and useful : 8 m2
 P.2.0. - heavy clay soil
 100 kg TSP - 100 kg urea
 Twice (/ 200 rcra)
 300 mm
 i
 *
J 11
 FIELDS OBSERVATIONS
 1 1 ■ 4 1 5
 1
 1 
PLOUGHING
 / 
DISCING
 1 CLOD CRUSHING
 RIDGING
 i 
! 
I 
SOWING
 RESOWING
 THINNING
 WEEDING/HOEING
 i IRRIGATION
 ! FERTILIZING TSP
 1 
27.7 / 
21.8 1 
12.9
 14.9
 17.9
 3.10
14.8
 29.8
 ■
 •
 •
 6.10
 20.9
 15.9
 FERTILIZING UREA
 PICKING
 12.10
 20.12
 30.10
 24.2
 11.1
 23.2
 •
 •
 • •
 1 *
 4
 .
112 
FIELDS OBSERVATIONS
 OBSERVATIONS j GERMINATION
 VARIETY
 Awassa white
 Cadu 5 4
 Dubie
 C.57
 C.14.10
 24.B
 M.9637
 D.Z. 10.2
 D.Z. 10.11
 D.Z. 10.1
 H.26.12
 H.54.10
 K.60.10
 s
 days after 
sowinq
 10
 10
 10
 11
 10
 10
 11
 50 Z BLOOMING j MATURITY
 days after 
sowinq
 47
 47
 49
 60
 1 days after 
sowinq
 96
 96
 96
 116
 60
 46
 60
 11 1
 10
 11
 10
 11
 12
 H.61.9
 11
 47
 47- 50 ’
 44
 47
 l 47
 118
 96
 112
 96
 96
 112
 96
 96
 i
 96
 96
113
NOTES ON DISEASE AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH
 It appeared that the chickpeas seemed to do well in Arba Minch than 
they are at Kulumsa (Cadu) which were destroyed by root-rot
 (Sclerotium rolfsii) or at those very few plots at Koka in the Inocul. 
trial which did not cover the ground. Most of the plots were having 
almost a perfect stand with plants covering the whole plot except on 
a few plots where replanting have been done. There was never a trace - 
disease (very few plants with roots damaged, apparently larvae of soxe 
beetles in the soil) or pests).
 The following figures were obtained on percent stand score and 
vegetative growth score in the 1st block indicated by plus (+) 
signs with one plus being less vegetative growth and 4- 5 indicating th 
highest vegetative growth.
- 115
 RANK
 / 
TREATMENTS
 / SHATTERING 1 YIELD
 1 
% 
1 QS/1L\
 C.'JJU 54 :.
 1
 / 
Cadu 54
 1
 / 
32.70
 100
 2
 •/ 
Dubie
 I 
31.50
 96 
I
 3 (2)
 I 
24.B
 | 
31.50
 96
 !
 4
 / 
D.Z.10.11
 | 0.8
 29.90
 91
 4
 5
 1 
Awassa white
 rtr
 28.80
 88
 6
 / 
D.Z.1O.2
 28.75
 87
 7
 1 
H.26.12
 2.25
 27.80 '
 85
 8
 1 
H.54.1O
 0.8
 26.50
 81
 H.61.9
 2
 26.CO
 79
 / 9
 1 10
 H.6O.1O
 1.5
 23.50
 72
 10
 C.410
 1
 23.50
 72
 12
 C.57
 4.4
 15.50
 47
 13
 D.2.10.1
 7.5
 13.80
 42
 14
 M.9637
 11.9
 10.30
 31
 1
 1
 VARIANCE ANALYSIS
 Origin of the variation 
(>alculatedF
 F at
 5 % table
 F at
 1 7. t ab 1 e
 Replications
 i
 j
 •Treatments
 9.8
 9.3
 2.84
 2.00
 4.34
 2.66
 Coefficient of variation : 17 % 
Lsd 5 7. : 
6.56 quintals/ha
 Lsd 1 % : 
i
 8.77 quintals/h.n
- lid
 Chick Pea National Variety Trial - 1974
 Treatment s
 Experimental Design
 Plot: size
 Spacing
 Location
 Fertilizing
 Irrigation
 Rainfal1
 Awassa white
 Cadu 54
 Dubie
 Debre Zeic 10 , 1 
Debre Zeit 10 . 2
 Randomized
 Initial
 Useful
 0.40 m x
 blocks
 : 
: 
9.6 m2
 4.8 m2
 0.10 m
 P.2.0, field - Heavy clay soil
 1 quintal of urea - No TSP
 2 irrigations (=# 200 mm)
 194 mm
 Debre Zeit 10 
H. 26 . 12 t
 
H. 54 . 10
 24 . B
 41 . B
 4 replications
 11

- 113
 Fields Observations
 Observations / Germination
 / 
days
 / after sowing
 Variety
 / 50 Z Blooming
 I 
days
 I after sowing
 Awassa white
 1 Cadu 54
 1 Dubie
 1 Debre Zeit 10 . 1
 Debre Zeit 10 . 2
 Debre Zeit 10 .11
 H. 26 .12
 H. 54 .10
 24 . B
 1 6
 1 6
 / 41
 6
 6
 6
 41
 41
 I Maturity 
/ 
days 
1 after sowing 1
 89
 89
 89
 47
 41
 6
 6
 6
 6
 41 . B
 6
 41
 37
 47
 42
 41
 105
 98
 98
 89
 105
 105
 98
 I
 1
- m
 SLand % and Vegetative Growth
 'il »f the 
■Jse but 
' 'eaves
 
‘M
 plots were having almost a perfect stand. There was never a trace of 
as last year few plants with roots damaged by larvae of beetles and 
damaged by spodoptera Littoralis complelling to 1 spaying (DDT 
- 12 0 
Rank 
.1 
2 
3 
1 
10
 iL
 4 
5 
6
 7
 8
 9
 Variance analysis
 1 Treatments 
: 1 
1 Debre Zeit 10.11 
24 . B 
H. 54 . 10 
1 Cadu 54
 1 
41. B
 Debre Zeit 10 . 2
 H. 26 . 12
 Dubie
 Awassa White
 Debre Zeit 10 . 1
 Origin of the variation
 r
 Replications
 I
 / Shattering / 
1 
/ 
1 
12.5
 7.1
 0
 % 
2.3 
0 
11.2 
0
 Yield
 1 
/ 
/ 
1 
Qs/ha
 28.5
 28.0
 27.1
 26.8
 / Cadu 54 I
 104
 106 1
 101
 100
 26.7
 24.6
 24.5
 14.4
 11.7
 0
 Calculated
 F
 20.4
 18.2
 15.8
 F 
at 5 7. table
 99
 94
 91
 76
 70
 60
 F 1 
at 1 7, table
 3.01
 ^reatments
 8.07
 : 12 %
 : 
4. 
54 
: 6,12 Qs/hectare
 2.95
 2.24
 Qs/hectare 
4.57
 3.11
Rank
 . 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 u
 1 10
 Treatments
 1
 Debre Zeit 10.11
 24 . B
 H. 54 . 10
 Cadu 54
 41. B
 Debre Zeit 10 . 2
 U. 26 . 12
 Dubie
 1 Awassa White
 Debre Zeit 10 . 1
 Variance analysis
 Shattering
 %
 2.3
 0
 11.2
 12.5
 0
 7.1
 0
 Yield
 Qs/lia
 28.5
 28.0
 27.1
 26.8
 1 Cadu 54
 Z
 106
 104
 101
 100
 26.7
 24.6
 24.5
 14.4
 11.7
 0
 1 Origin of the variation 
1 Replications
 1 Treatments
 1
 Calculated
 F
 3.01
 1 
8-07
 Coefficient of variation : 12 7.
 5 % 
: 
4,54 Qs/hectare
 6.12 Qs/hectare
 20.4
 18.2
 15.8
 F
 at 5 7. table
 1 
2.95
 2.24
 99
 94
 91
 76
 70
 60
 F
 at 1 7. table
 4.57
 3.11
- i2i 
Chick Pea - Estimated direct cost of production
 1/’ Machine operations cost
 It would be similar to the machine operations cost for maize, i.c. 160 $/ha, 
to which it is advisable to add 20 $ for machine planting (close spacing neces
 sary for pulses is hardly well performed by hand)
 Total machine operations cost
 2/ Manual operations cost
 Collecting and burning
 Hoeing (2)
 Handweeding (l)
 Irrigations (2)
 Canal Cleaning
 Coolie Pushers
 Guards
 Harvesting 
Treshing and cleaning )
 Miscellaneous
 Total manual operations cost 
: 160 + 20 = 180 $/ha
 )
 :
 $/hectare
 10
 40
 10
 12
 10
 5
 10
 50
 5
 152 $/hectare
 3/ Materials
 Seed 50 Kgs/ha at $ 1.00/Kg
 Sacks : 
15 bags at 60 cents/bag
 Total materials cost
 Total estimated direct cost of production
 Without fertilizer application)
 50
 9
 59
 *
 60 $/hectarc
 390 $/hcctare
The 1974 results arc slightly lower than the 1973 ones. This difference of 
yield mAinly seems to be related to :- a smaller amount of rain in 74 (194 mm from sowing to picking) than in 73 
(300 mm) ; both trials were twice irrigated.- a too late picking and then an important shattering in 74 for several varie
 ties and mostly : Cadu 54 (12.5 % of shattering) and Dubie (14.4 L ), 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, we 
have :
 D.Z. 10 . 11 = 28.5 + (28.5 x 2.3) = 29.15 Qs/ha
 100
 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 to the others varie 
ties.
 At 5 7. and at 1 7. probability as well, there is no significant difference between 
D.Z.10.11, 24.B., H.54.10., Cadu 54., 41.B., D.Z.10.2. and H.26.12. in the 74 
trial results.
 Dubie and Awassa white are significantly lower owing to their important shattering 
(respectively 14.4 7. and 12.7 7.). These results bear out the 73 ones. Consequently 
these 9 varieties have to be compared once more next year. D.Z. 10.1 which gave low 
results to years running should be eliminated.
 However that may be, chickpeas do very well in Arba Minch. This low water require
 ment and short cycle crop should be interesting for the farm and the small holders 
as well. Planting dates trials have to be carried out next season. At first sight 
two periods would be suitable :- 1/ end of february - beginning of march with picking in june, generally month of 
low rainfall ;- 
2/ end of august - beginning of September with picking in december, first mo.th 
of dry season.
 Such planting dates trials have to be carried out with a split-plot design : irri 
Sated plots and rain fed ones.
 ^infed chickpea will indeed be of upmost interest for small holders.
- 123 
Sowing dates trial with different pulses species - 1976
 Treatments
 Pulses species
 Experimental design
 Plot size
 Location
 4 sowing dates with 15 days interval :
 15 th of august - 9 th of September - 4 th of October
 29 th of October.
 Adzuki bean
 Cow Pea
 Mung Bean Gode
 Mung Bean M 109 
Haricot bean W.95 
Haricot Bean 6R.395 
Soy bean coker 240 
Lima bean early
 Lima bean calice bush
 Randomized blocks
 Initial : 
9.6 m2
 P.2.0, experiment field
 3 replications only
 Useful : 4.8 m2
 spacing (cm)
 40 x 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
 Heavy clay soil
PULSES SOWING DATES TRIAL RAINFALL
 SOWING DATES
 1 st date - 15th of august
 2 d date - 9th of September
 3 d date - 4th of October
 4 th date - 29th of October
 RAINFALL-mm
 199
 116
 44
 20
 Irrigation : For each treatment : 5 tines (== 400 mm)
- 125
 FIELDS OBSERVATIONS (1st sowing date)
 SPECIES
 Adzuki bean
 Cow Pea
 Mung bean gode
 Mung bean M 109
 Haricot bean W 95
 Soy bean C 240
 Lima bean early
 GERMINATION 
days
 After Sowing
 10
 9
 10
 9
 50 7. Bioowing 
days 
Lifter Sowin?
 RIPONING
 days
 After Sowin?
 45
 53
 53
 50
 8
 9
 9
 Lima bean bush
 Haricot bean 6R 395
 Light virus attack observed on ( coefficient 0 ta 5 ) :
 Adzuki bean 
Murtg bean gode 
Haricot bean 6R 391 : 
Haricot bean W 95 
Lima bean early : 
: 
: 
2
 0,5
 0,5
 : 
2
 1
 45
 60
 50
 55
 8
 45
 78
 80
 98
 98
 90
 80
 80
 102
 80
FIELDS OBSERVATIONS (1st sowing date)
 SPECIES
 Adzuki bean
 Cow Pea
 Mung bean gode
 Mung bean M 109
 Haricot bean W 95
 Soy bean C 240
 1 Lima bean early
 1 Lima bean bush
 GERMINATION
 days
 After Sowing
 10
 9
 10
 9
 50 % Bioowing 
days
 After Sowino
 RIPONING
 days
 After Sowing
 45
 53
 53
 50
 8
 9
 9
 8
 1 Haricot bean 6R 395
 1 8
 Light virus attack observed on ( coefficient 0 ta 5 ) :
 Adzuki bean 
Murtg bean gode 
Haricot bean 6R 391 : 
Haricot bean W 95 
: 
2
 : 
: 
o,5
 0,5
 2
 45
 60
 50
 55
 45
 78
 80
 98
 98
 90
 80
 80
 102
 80
RESULTS EXPRESSED IN QUINTALS / HECTARE
 Sowing dates
 Pulses
 Adzuki bean
 Cow pea
 Mung bean gode
 Mung bean M 109
 Haricot bean W 95
 Haricot bean 6R 395
 1 Soy bean C 240 
u
 1 Lima bean early
 15.8
 13.0
 21.8
 17.7
 17.3
 30.1
 13.8
 18.9
 16.5
 13.7
 —
 4.10
 1.9
 8.1
 l 29.10
2.3
 8.9
 10.1
 21.7
 30.5
 15.3
 24.3
 1 Lima bean bush
 39.6
 18.8
 17.1
 25.6
 1 •
 10.1
 10.7
 6.8
 14.4
6.2
 4.6
 9.1
 8.0
 9
 2.9
 7.5
 7.6
 No stalislical analysis on account of the number of replications (3 only)
- 12* 
OIL CROPS
 Soy bean variety trials - 
Soy bean direct production cost
 Groundnut variety trial 
Sesame variety trial 
Sunflower variety trial 
Castorbean variety trial - 
1973 - 1974- - 
1973
 1973- 
1973
 1973
SOYA BEANS VARIETY TRIAL 1973
 I
 TREATMENTS :
 Amsoy
 Clark 63 A
 Clark 63 K
 Coker 240
 Scott
 Coker Ampton 266
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN :
 Harosoy 63
 niu
 Calland
 ' Kent
 Coment
 Delman 
Randomized blocks - 6 replications
 SPACING : 
PLOT SIZE : 
LOCATION :
 FERTILIZING :
 IRRIGATION :
 RAINFALL :
 SPRAYING :
 O.4O m x 0.10 m - 2 seeds per hole
 Initial : 12 m2 - Useful : 6.4 m2
 P.2.0. Heavy clay soil
 100 kg TSP/Ha - 50 kg urea/ha
 3 times
 330 mm
 Adelphia
 2 : DDT - Azodrin against Spodoptera Littorali
- 129 
HELDS OPEMTIGa'S
 1
 • /
 Ploughing
 | Discing
 Clod Crushing
 Ridging
 I Sowing
 | Resowing
 1 Thinning
 1 Weeding/Roeing
 1 Irrigation
 I Fertilizer.
 1 Spraying
 *
 27.7
 21.8
 2.9
 2.9
 3.9
 24.9
 2
 14.8
 29.8
•
 3
 4
 5
 •
 •
 •
 15.9
 8.9
 2.9
 TS
 2. 10 
| Picking
 30 >11 
26.9
 16.9
 27.9
 >P 
\ 
Urea|
 17.1l1 1
 15. 12 1
 5.10
 14.11
 i
 i
 26.10
 •
 •
 *
- 130 
FIELDS OBSERVATIONS
 I 
x. Observations
 1 Variety
 Germination
 days after
 sowing
 50 % Blooming
 days after
 sowing
 Maturity
 days after
 sowing
 1 
Anisoy
 10
 32
 90
 Clark 63 A
 10
 35
 92
 Clark 63 K
 11
 40 
!
 . 88
 1 
Coker 240
 11
 40
 95
 Scott
 1 12 '
 31
 88
 1 
Coker Ampton 266
 10
 35
 9.4
 Harbsoy 63
 Calland
 Kent
 Coment
 Delman
 Adelphia
- 13]
 NOTES ON DISEASES
 The plants in this trial appeared quite healthy and bearing 
of pods was quite spread except that some plots looked better than others 
due perhaps to uneven levelling and therefore watering.
 In this same trial, some larvae of Spodopterae littoralis was 
observed which feed on the leaves. (M. LARS OHLANDER - Pulses - Coordinator 
.FAO)
 4
•
 Sank
 ■' J
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 0
 1
 2
 13
 JANCE ANALYSIS
 l
 Clark 63 A
 Coker. 240
 Amsoy
 Calland
 Adelphia
 Kent
 Coment
 Hill
 Harosoy 63
 Coker Ampton 266
 Delman
 Clark 63 K
 Scott
 7.
 TREATMENTS
 SHATTERING
 1.10
 1.50
 0.40
 0.70
 1.75
 1.50
 1.70
 1.00
 2.10
 YIELD
 QUINTALS/IIA
 27.90
 26.90
 26.80 .
 26.20
 24.20
 7.
 OF COKER 240
 104
 100
 99
 97
 90 
23.40
 23.30
 23.00
 22.60
 4.00
 0.40
 1.70
 2.00
 1 Origin of the variation!
 i Replications
 Treatments
 Coefficient of variation : 20 7>
 Lsd 5 7. : 5.53 quintals/hectare
 Calculated F
 1.41
 1 2.01
 22.30
 22.00
 21.80
 17.40
 F at 5 7. table 1
 2.37
 1.92
 87
 86
 85
 84
 83
 82
 81
 65
 F at I7a
 table
 3.34
 1 
2.50
 . '

JavaScript