Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R.
International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR) ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) Vol. 2, No. 12, p. 43-49, 2012 http://www.innspub.net RESEARCH PAPER
OPEN ACCESS
Evaluation of cotton based inter cropping for Northern Region of Bangladesh J. Shopan1, A.K. Azad2, H. Rahman3, M.S. Mondol4, M.K. Hasan5 1
Scientific officer, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh
2
Principle scientific Officer (In Charge) Cotton Research Station, Rangpur, Bangladesh
3
Plant breeding and gene engineering lab, Dept. of Botany, Rajshahi University, Bangladesh
4
Scientific officer, Cotton Research, Training and Seed Multiplication Farm Gazipur, Bangladesh
5
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet,
Bangladesh Received: 14 October 11, 2012 Revised: 02 December 2012 Accepted: 03 December 2012
Key words: Inter cropping, seed cotton, profitable, BCR. Abstract Intercropping is the simultaneous cultivation of more than one crop species on the same piece of land and is regarded as the practical application of basic ecological principles such as diversity, competition and facilitation. The experiment on the cost benefit analyses of some cotton based intercropping was taken at Cotton Research Centre, Rangpur which is suitable for northern region of Bangladesh. The experimental design was Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Among six treatments, statically significant and profitable result was found in seed cotton yield, also for potato and wheat yield. The treatment T5. (Cotton + Red amaranth + Potato + Maize + Sunhemp), has given more benefits (Cost benefit ration 2.38) than others. *Corresponding
Author: M.K. Hasan  kamrulsau@gmail.com
Shopan et al.
Page 43
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R. Introduction
is the suitable northern region of Bangladesh. Some
Intercropping is a well established practice and there
high value and popular crops are included in this
are 12 million hectares under double cropping
experiment which will give more benefit to the
system in South Asia only (Woodhead et al., 1994).
farmer and will increase the cropping intensity.
Yield advantages from intercropping are often attributed to mutual complementary effects of
Materials and methods
component crops, such as better use of available
The experiment, cotton based intercropping was
farm resources (Legard & Steel, 1992), Influence on
started from the year 2008-09. This is the 2nd year
population
insect-pests
(2009-10) of the experiment. This experiment is
(Mogahed, 2003) and control of weed (Iqbal et al.,
conducted only at the Cotton Research Center,
2007). Upland cotton is one of the most important
Rangpur.
commercial crop in the world. But in Bangladesh, it
+lalshak) + wheat + maize + sunhemp, T2 (cotton +
has fall on a critical situation for its long duration
radish) + wheat + miaze + sun hemp, T3 (cotton +
and less benefit. Scarcity of land, introduction of
mungbean) + wheat + Mungbean + sunheamp, T4
high value crops are also the limiting factor for
(cotton + mungbean) + wheat + maize+ sun hemp,
extensive cotton cultivation. To overcome the
T5 (cotton + Red amaranth) + potato + maize +
situation and for making it more benefited to the
sunhemp, and T6 sole cotton were included. Here
farmer, cotton based intercropping is emphasized
cotton variety was CB-10, Red amaranth variety was
instead of sole cotton cultivation. Intercropping
Altapetti, Radish variety was Bomby., mungbean
provides an opportunity to avoid crop competition
variety was BARI-5, wheat variety was Sotabdi,
and advantage of increased production and greater
Maize variety was Specific -555 and potato variety
profit or margin (Evans, 1960; Gribines, 1963).and
was Phelsina. In case of sun hemp domestic
The intercrop treatments gives higher resource use
indigenous variety was included.
dynamics
of
major
Six
treatments
encoded
T1
(cotton
efficiency (Hashem and Maniruzzaman, 1986) and higher economic returns compared to the monocrop
The soil of the experimental plot was sandy loam
(Macuacua et al., 2007).
under
agro
ecological
zone
1-old
Himalayan
piedmont plain in Bangladesh (BRAC-1977), having It also increased land equivalent ratio (LER) to
PH-5.5-6.5The seeds of Cotton, Red amaranth,
varying degrees (Mehta and De, 1980: Hashem et al.,
Mungbean,
1990). Islam et al. (2004) reported that maize and
of29/7/09.Thinning was performed after 11 days and
bush been exhibited similar competitiveness in
21 days of seed emergence. Finally one seedling in
simultaneous sowing and resulted in the highest
one stand. Green manure (sun hemp) was plough
intercrop
bean
down at the age of 45 days. Decomposed organic
widely
matter was applied at the rate of 1.5 ton/ha at the
practiced by the farmers of Bangladesh. Generally
time of final land preparation. The nutrient elements
legumes in association with non-legumes not only
such as Nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium
helps in utilization of the nitrogen being fixed in the
(K), sulpher (S), Boron (B), and Zinc sulphat (Zn)
current growing season, but also helps in residual
were applied in plot at the rate of 23-81-52-88 and 8
nutrients build up of the soil (Sharma et al., 1991).
kg/ha respectively as basal dose. No much more
Suitable cropping pattern helps the farmer to
additional fertilizers were added for intercropping.
become more benefited and also increase the
The fertilizer dose was as same as for sole cotton.
intensity of cropping (Aal, 1991 and Raghuwanshi et
The rest 69 kg nitrogen was applied in 3 equal splits
al. 1994).
The present studies were, therefore,
at 25, 42 and 55 days after seed sowing as top
carried out to introduce a suitable cotton based
dressing. In case of potato and maize additional urea
intercropping in the greater Rangpur district, which
was used as top dressing.
productivity
intercropping
system.
in
maize-bush
Intercropping
is
44
and
Radish
were
sown
at
the
In case of cotton +
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R. Lalshak, cotton + Radish and cotton mungbean
of choloropyriphose and pyrithroid was applied
intercropping, 5 rows of Lalshak, and radish and 4
against sucking and chewing pest. Attack of
rows of Mungbean were sown in between two cotton
spodoptera was Sevier but drastic control measures
rows. In case of cotton + wheat intercropping 4 rows
kept the insects under control. Hand picking, light
wheat was sown between two cotton rows. For cotton
trap and zollaghur (Molasses) trap were also used to
potato intercropping one (1) row potato was sown
kill moths and adults of the insects. Tilt, indofill and
between the two rows of cotton. In wheat + Maize,
bavestone were sprayed to protect the fungal
potato
Mungbean
diseases. Data were collected on different yield
intercropping one row maize one row mungbean was
contributing traits of cotton, wheat, potato, Red
sown in the cotton rows (after uprooting). Weeding
amaranth, Radish and Mungbean. Mean values are
was performed two times. Two times irrigation was
used for statistical analyses according to A Gomez
done at the third week of November and the last
and a Gomez and Zamal et al. (1982).
+
maize
and
wheat
+
week of December. After 25 days of sowing
1st
spray
Table 1. Mean performance of different yield attributes of cotton. Name of the Treatment
Monopodial Branches/ Plant 1.27 0.77 0.23 0.50 1.23 1.25 NS
Sympodial Branches/ Plant 16.67 16.33 16.27 16.87 16.07 16.50 NS
Plant Height (cm)
Boll per Plant
1. T1 103.13 25.07 2. T2 88.23 19.63 3. T3 96.40 20.37 4. T4 100.2 24.77 5. T5 95.67 23.03 6. T6 93.4 21.75 Level of * NS significant LSD (0.5) 0.103 2.65 5.62 12.57 % CV 6.85 8.57 12.39 29.57 *=Significant at 5% level, **= Significant at 1% level ns=Non-significance
Single Boll Weight
Yield kg/ha
5.67 5.59 5.72 5.65 5.72 5.50 NS
1474 1148 1358 1266 1402 1347 NS
0.21 1.94
2.23 21.98
Table 2. Mean performance of different yield attributes of wheat. Name of the Treatment
Number of Tillering per Plant 5.47 4.67 5.03 4.87 ns
Plant Height (cm)
Length of Panicle
Spike let per Penical
1. T1 101.97 10.31 47.47 2. T2 100.40 10.41 51.23 3. T3 100.80 10.58 51.83 4. T4 103.83 10.50 50.00 Level of ns ns ns significant LSD (0.5) 1.44 5.5 12.29 7.83 % CV 1.44 1.72 5.88 7.82 *=Significant at 5% level, **= Significant at 1% level ns=Non-significance
Weight of 1000 Grain(gm)
Yield kg/ha
48.33 46.67 46.67 48.33 ns
2759 2675 2922 3006 ns
4.41 4.04
3.11 13.54
Results and discussion
intercrops was shown in the Table- 3.Variable cost,
Effects of intercropping on the quality of cotton were
sowing time and cost benefit ratio were shown in the
minor and mostly below detection threshold (Zhang
Table no 4 and 5 respectively. The cost benefit ration
et al., 2007). Mean performance of the tested
of the different intercropping of the previous year
treatments for different yield attributes of cotton
was shown in the Table- 6. No significant effect was
were shown in the Table-1 and for wheat Table-2.
found in yield contributing traits of cotton from
The mean yield of three replications for different
different inter cropping (table-1). Only cotton plant
45
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R. height showed significant result. The highest plant
of seed cotton was harvested from the treatment T1
height was observed in T1 (cotton + Red amaranth +
also.
wheat) + maize + sun hemp, inter cropping, the lowest was in T6 (sole cotton). The highest amount Table 3. Mean yield and added crop residues in the soil from different intercropping. Name of the Yield of Yield of Yield of Seed Yield of Treatments Lalshak Radish Mung Cotton potato kg/ha kg/ha bean Yield kg/ha kg/ha kg/ha 1. T1-Co+Ra+W +Ma+S 2. T2 – Co+Mu+ W+Ma+S 3. T3-Co+Mu+W Ma+S 4. T4-Co+Mu+W + Mu+S 5. T5 –Co+Ra+Po + Ma+S 6. T6 – Sole cotton
Yield-7000 R-2000 -
-
-
1474 R-3045 5000 1148 R-1500 R-2469 900 1358 R-6000 R-2140 950 1266 R-6150 R-2346 6600 1402 20000 R-1475 R-3539 R-11000 1347 R-3360 R=Crop residue. a=Maize, Co=Cotton, Mu=Mungbean,W=Wheat, Ra= Red amaranth S=sunhemp
Yield of Wheat kg/ha 2759 R-5062 2675 R-5103 2922 R-5267 3006 R-5597 -
Table. 4. List of variable cost. Name of Crops
Cost for land preparation
Cost for seed
Fertilizer cost
Pesticide cost
(1)Cotton (2)Red amaranth (3)Radish (4)Mungbean (5)Wheat (6)Maize (7)Potato (8)sunhemp
20.33 70.00 30.06
2.50 15.00 15.00 10.00 30.00 30.00 315.00 21.25
175.82 30.00 30.00 100.00 -
90.35 40.00 97.50 -
Interculture operation and harvesting cost 112.50 75.00 75.00 75.00 345.00 200.00 167.50 30.06
Total cost/3 decimal
Total variable cost/ha
351.50 90.00 90.00 125.00 405.00 260.00 750.00 81.37
28940 7410 7410 10291 33345 21406 61750 6700
From the Table 2 it was observed that no significant
and cost benefit ratio of different included intercrops
effect was found for different yield attributes of
in the year 2008-09 were shown in table-6. It was
wheat but highest amount of wheat was harvested
seen that the highest BCR was obtained from T5 -2.37
from the treatment T4 –(cotton + mungbean + wheat
(cotton + Red amaranth +potato + maize +
+
(3006
sunhemp) which was followed by T1 (cotton +Red
kg/ha).From the table-3 it was seen that the highest
amaranth + wheat + maize + sunhemp) - 1.98 T2
amount of crop residues added in the soil from the T5
(cotton + radish) + wheat + maize + sunhemp-1.89
treatments
T3--(cotton + mungbean + wheat + mungbean + sun
maize
+
sun
hemp)
(Red
intercropping
amaranth
+cotton+potato)=1475+3539+11000=16014
kg
hemp)-1.82 and T4 (cotton + mungbean) + wheat +
which was followed by T4 (14093 kg/ha) and T3
maize+ sunhemp-1.81where as the lowest BCR was
(13407 kg/ha). Still the return from T5 is the highest
obtained from sole cotton.
in respect of crop yield (table-5) and added crop residues (table-3). In the Table-6, the results of the
It may be concluded that accommodation of five
same treatments of the previous year have been
crops in a cotton field in a year will be very
shown. The yield, gross return, cost and net return
courageous to the farmers. All the test of intercrops
46
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R. may bring good economical returns to the farmers, at
intercropping for the farmers of northern district
the same time; fertility of the soil will be increased
because wheat and potato is the popular crop in
due to addition of crop residues. Among the
northern region of Bangladesh.
combination of four crops with cotton T1 is more profitable but T4 and T5 will be the popular Table 5. Cost benefit ratio from different intercropping-2009-10. Treatments T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
Crops
Sowing Date
Harvesting Date
Yield kg/ha
Cotton Red amaranth Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Radish Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Mung bean Wheat Mung bean Sunhemp Total Cotton Mung bean Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Red amaranth Potato Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton
29/7/09 29/7/09 18/11/09 14/2/10 1/6/10
13/2/10 6/9/09 23/3/10 30/5/10 15/7/10
1482 2058 2882 3251 30000
29/7/09 29/7/09 18/11/09 14/2/10 1/6/10
13/2/10 11/9/09 23/3/10 30/5/10 15/7/10
1153 2058 2635 2889 30000
29/7/09 29/7/09 18/11/09 14/2/10 1/6/10
13/2/10 11/10/09 23/3/10 30/5/10 15/7/10
1357 535 2923 470 30000
29/7/09 29/7/09 18/11/09 14/2/10 1/6/10
13/2/10 11/10/09 23/3/10 30/5/10 15/7/10
1276 494 3005 2510 30000
29/7/09 29/7/09 7/6/10 23/2/10 7/6/10
13/2/10 6/9/09 20/7/10 6/6/10 20/7/10
1400 2141 17455 8206 30000
29/7/09
13/2/10
1523
Grosse Return/ha (taka) 59280 14408 48330 42263 30000 122018 46107 10292 46107 37537 30000 102506 54360 21407 51150 18800 30000 126917 51046 19760 52590 32630 30000 123096 56000 14984 122183 106678 30000 193167 60927
Variable Cost/ha (taka) 28940 7410 33342 21406 6700 82042 28940 7410 33342 21406 670 82042 28940 10292 33342 10219 6700 84992 28940 10292 33342 21406 6700 84924 28940 7410 61750 22406 6700 110450 41290
Net Income/ ha(taka) 30340 6998 14985 20857 2330039973 17167 2882 12765 16151 23300 20464 25400 11115 17808 8581 23300 41973 22107 9468 19284 11224 23300 38509 27060 7575 60433 84272 23300 82718 31986
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.76
1.54
1.55
1.64
2.38
1.47
Cotton=40Taka/kg,Wheat=17.5taka/kg,Lalshak=7 Taka/kg,Radish=5Taka/kg,Mung bean=40Taka/kg, Potato=7Taka/kg,Landleige=12350Taka/ha/year Netincome=Grossreturn-Variablecost-Landleigedrent
Benefit
Cost Ratio=Gross return/Total variable cost. Table 6. Yield and cost- benefit ratio from different intercropping during the year 2008-2009. Treatments
Crops
Sowing Date
Harvesting Date
Yield kg/ha
Grosse Return/ha
Variable Cost/ha
Net Income/ha
T1
Cotton Red amaranth Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Radish Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Mung bean
20/7/ 08 20/ 7/ 08 20/11/08 20/2/09 20/5/09
20/2/09 20/8/08 25/4/09 18/5/09 10/7/09
1500 4500 2960 5500 25700
20/7/ 08 20/ 7/ 08 20/11/08 20/2/09 20/5/09
20/2/09 25/8/08 25/4/09 18/5/09 10/7/09
1458 4245 2800 5356 24347
20/7/ 08 20/ 7/ 08
20/2/09 20/10/08
1347 747
60000 31500 47360 55000 25700 217560 58320 25470 44800 53560 24347 206497 53880 29880
28091 7800 33342 21406 6700 97339+12350 28091 7410 33342 21406 6700 96949+12350 28091 10291
31909 23700 14018 33393 19000 122220 30229 18060 11458 32154 17647 109548 25789 19589
T2
T3
47
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.98
1.89
1.82
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R.
T4
T5
T6
Wheat Mung bean Sunhemp Total Cotton Mung bean Wheat Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton Red amaranth Potato Maize Sunhemp Total Cotton
20/11/08 20/2/09 20/5/09
25/4/09 18/5/09 10/7/09
3000 700 24047
20/7/ 08 20/ 7/ 08 20/11/08 20/2/09 20/5/09
20/2/09 20/10/08 25/4/09 18/5/09 10/7/09
1420 750 2690 4847 24980
20/7/ 08 20/ 7/ 08 27/11/08 20/2/09 20/5/09
20/2/09 20/8/08 27/2/09 18/5/09 10/7/09
1498 5000 16000 5600 2500
20/7/08
20/2/09
1550
48000 28000 24047 183807 56800 30000 43040 48470 24980 203290 59920 35000 152520 56000 25000 328240 62000
33342 10291 6700 88715+12350 28091 10291 33342 21406 6700 99830+12350 28091 7800 62000 21406 6700 125997+12350 28091+12350
14685 17709 17347 95092 28709 19709 9698 27064 18280 103460 31829 27200 90320 34594 8300 202243 33909
Cotton=40Taka/kg,Wheat=16taka/kg,Lalshak=7 Taka/kg,Radish=6Taka/kg,Mung bean=40Taka/kg, Potato=9.25Taka/kg,Landleige=12350Taka/ha/year.Netincome=Grossreturn-Variablecost-landleigedrent BenefitCostRatio=Gross return/Total variable cost.
Fig. 1. Crop calendar of intercropping.
References
Grihines BC. 1963. Intercropping and alternate roe
Aal SM. 1991. Studies on the response of some
cropping cotton and maize. East Africa Agricultural
soybean varieties to intercropping with cotton.
Journal 28(3), 161-163.
Annual Agricultural Science Moshtohor 29, 37–50. Hashem A, Maniruzzaman AFM. 1986. Effect of Evans AC. 1960. Studies of intercropping maize or
intercropping maize with cowpea at varying plant
sorghum with groundnuts. East Africa Agricultural
population levels. Bangladesh Agrononomy Journal
Journal 26(1), 1-10.
2(1), 15-25.
48
1.81
2.37
1.53
Int. J. Agr. & Agri. R. Hashem
A,
Akhtaruzzaman
Maniruzzaman MA.
1990.
Study
AFM, on
(Solanum tuberosum) in North Sinai Governorate,
the
Egypt.
productivity, profitability of potato intercropped
Indian
journal
of
agricultural
Umat R,
Gupta AK,
science 73(10), 546-549
with vegetables and relayed with onion. Bangladesh Agronomy Journal 3, 39-43. Raghuwanshi RKS, Iqbal J, Cheema ZA, An M. 2007. Intercropping
Gurjar NS. 1994. Performance of soybean-based
of field crops in cotton for the management of purple
intercropping systems in black cotton soils under
nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus L.) Plant and Soil 300,
different fertility levels. Crop Research Hisar 8,
163–171
233–8.
Islam MN, Haque MM, Hamid A. 2004.
Mehta NK, Dey R. 1980. Intercropping maize and
Productivity and competitive interference in maize +
sorghum with soybean. Journal of Agricultural
bushbean intercropping system in different sowing
Science Cambridge 95, 117-122
dates. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 29(2), 200.
Woodhead T, Huke R, Huke E. 1994. Areas, locations and on-going collaborative research for the
Macuácua RCF, Santos L. 2007. Evaluation of a
rice-wheat system in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand. FAO
cotton-pigeon pea strip-intercropping system in
Bulletin 68–97.
Morrumbala District (Mozambique). 8th African Crop Science Society Conference, El-Minia, Egypt,
Zhang L,
van der Werf W, Zhang S, Li B,
231-232
Spiertz JHJ. 2007. Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping
Mogahed MI. 2003. Influence of intercropping on
systems. Journal of Field Crops Research 103( 3),
population dynamics of major insect-pests of potato
178–188.
49