An on-farm trial was conducted in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria, over a period of five years, with the objectives of quantifying the effects on maize of applying cattle manure in combination with synthetic fertilizer with regard to soil characteristics, yield, plant nutrition and profitability. Maize grain yield was significantly increased by the annual application of cattle manure, compared to maize receiving an equal amount of N through synthetic fertilizer, but only from the third year of the experiment. The application of manure resulted in higher soil Kjel N, Bray-I P and exchangeable K values, and an increased N utilization efficiency by maize, suggesting that yield-limiting factors other than N deficiencies were of lesser importance than in the treatment receiving sole inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients other than N applied via the manure, particularly P, K and/or B, may have contributed to the higher grain yields in treatments receiving manure. A partial budgeting analysis revealed that, over a 5-year period, investments in the application of manure, in combination with synthetic fertilizer, resulted in higher margins than the application of fertilizer alone. However, analyses of marginal rates of return of changes from low urea N to high urea N or additional manure applications suggested that it was more profitable to invest in additional urea than in organic manure in the first two years of the experiment. The results suggested that manure applications, even when applied at relatively high rates, did not serve as a quick fix to on-farm soil fertility problems, but over a longer period, manure applied in combination with synthetic fertilizers did provide a significant and profitable contribution to enhanced cereal production.
", "keywords": ["fertility", "northern nigeria", "2. Zero hunger", "livestock systems", "0401 agriculture", " forestry", " and fisheries", "west-africa", "continuous cultivation", "04 agricultural and veterinary sciences", "yield", "organic-matter", "management", "nitrogen", "soil"]}, "links": [{"href": "https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479708006443"}, {"rel": "related", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/Experimental%20Agriculture", "name": "related record", "description": "related record", "type": "application/json"}, {"rel": "self", "type": "application/geo+json", "title": "10.1017/s0014479708006443", "name": "item", "description": "10.1017/s0014479708006443", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/10.1017/s0014479708006443"}, {"rel": "collection", "type": "application/json", "title": "Collection", "name": "collection", "description": "Collection", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main"}], "time": {"date": "2008-07-01T00:00:00Z"}}, {"id": "10.1111/gcb.14878", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"updated": "2026-07-25T16:18:45Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2019-10-22", "title": "Which practices co\u2010deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?", "description": "AbstractThere is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.