




































 

 

 
29 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

EFFECT OF BLENDED FERTILIZER AND LIME APPLICATION ON YIELD OF FINGER 
MILLET, AND SOIL PROPERTIES OF ACIDIC SOILS IN WESTERN ETHIOPIA   

 

 

Fekadu Mosissa1+ 
Geremew Taye2 

 

1,2Holeta Agricultural Research Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 16 January 2019 
Revised: 21 February 2019 
Accepted: 27 March 2019 
Published: 9 May 2019  
 
 

Keywords 
Acid soils 
Blended fertilizer 
Exchangeable acidity 
Finger millet 
Highlands 
Lime requirement 
pH 
Poor soil fertility. 
. 

 
Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is a small seeded cereal grown in low rainfall areas 
of Ethiopia. It is tolerant of drought. Nutritionally, the grains are a good source of 
quality protein and various minerals. However, production of finger millet is 
constrained by poor soil fertility and low input production systems. An experiment was 
carried out to evaluate the effect of different fertility management on yield of finger 
millet and soil physicochemical properties under limed and unlimed conditions of acidic 
soils in western Ethiopia. The treatments comprised of NP and different formula 
blended fertilizers under limed and unlimed conditions were laid in a randomized 
complete block design with three replicates. The result revealed that amelioration of 
soil acidity and application of N and P nutrients are a key intervention that should be 
sought in the study area. K, S, Zn and B are not limiting nutrients for the production of 
finger millet in the study area.  
 

Contribution/Originality: This paper serves as the most recent study on the use of blend fertilizer in acid 

prone highlands of Ethiopia in giving sight whether it has a comparative advantage or not than the recommended 

N and P fertilizer.    

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) also known as African millet is a cereal crop widely grown in low rainfall 

areas of Africa and Asia. In Ethiopia it is produced in almost all regions on about 1.6 million ha of land annually [1]  

with average yield of 2000 kg per ha. Being a hard and low input crop, it is often produced on marginal soils on 

which other crops fail to give reasonable yield [2]. Finger millet can be considered as a poor man’s crop due to its 

wide range of adaptability, high nutritional value of the grain and excellent storage quality [3, 4]. Moreover; it is a 

source of income for rural households living in marginal areas in Ethiopia. Despite its importance as a low input 

crop, its productivity is highly variable and ranges between 400 and 2000kgha-1. This is attributed to biophysical 

factors and management practices. Finger millet performs well in areas receiving an annual rainfall of 500-1000m, 

and soils with characteristics of fertile, well drained sandy to loams and slightly acidic to neutral pH levels [5]. 

Low soil fertility is one of the most limiting constraints to finger millet production in most areas of Ethiopia. 

Despite its significant role in dietary needs and income of smallholder farmers, this crop has been given less 

research attention and its agronomic requirement is not well studied in Ethiopia.  

In addition to previously diagnosed ones (N and P), a recent study on Ethiopian soils revealed a depletion of 

many soil nutrients to a level limiting crop performance in most areas of Ethiopia [6]. Soil nutrients such as K, S, 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 29-36 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.61.29.36 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2019.61.29.36


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
30 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Zn, B are reported to affect food production in the country. Human induced perturbation of nutrient cycling 

through wide spread use of biomass for fuel, feed and construction materials, soil erosion and lack of amelioration in 

the form of fertilizer are blamed to cause their depletion [6-8]. This grabs research attention and few activities have 

been initiated to validate and/or calibrate macro-and micro-nutrients requirement on different test crops in the 

different parts of the country. Few studies indeed confirm the importance of including K in nutrient amendment for 

potato production [9-11]. This piece of work also presents the response of finger millet to different soil fertility 

management practices in western part of Ethiopia.  

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

2.1. Description of the Study Site 

The experiment was conducted for three years (2015-2017) at Nedjo district of Welitate Gida Kebele/Peasant 

association (smallest unit of governmental administration) in western Ethiopia. The study site is located at 90 33’ 

07” N and 350 25’50” E, with an altitude of 1933 meters above sea level Figure 1. The area has a mean annual 

rainfall of about 1400 mm and experiences a weakly bimodal rainfall pattern extending from March to May and 

with the effective rain being from June to September. Mean annual temperature varies from a minimum of 18oC and 

a maximum of 28 oC. The soil type is Nitisols with characteristics deep and good drainage conditions. Acidity and 

low fertility of soils, and termite infestation are critical constraints of crop production in western corridor of the 

Ethiopian highlands [12].The farming system is mixed-crop livestock production where teff, finger millet, triticale, 

maize, tuber crops are dominant crops produced while cattle, sheep, goat, donkey, mule and chicken are major 

animal species supporting the livelihood of the smallholder farmers.  

 

 
Figure-1. Map of the study area – Welitate Gida Kebele   as done using Arc GIS version 10.3. 

                             

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments  

The experiment was laid-out in randomised complete block design (RCBD) with three replicates. A total of 

eleven treatments (fertility management practices) were included and each tested on a plot size of 12 m2. Land 

preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting were undertaken according to the crop agronomic practices.  

For liming treatments, the lime requirement was determined on the basis of the exchangeable acidity, bulk 

density and 15 cm depth of the soil using the equation below. One mole of exchangeable acidity would be 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
31 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

neutralized by an equivalent mole of CaCO3 Kamprath [13]. The required amount of lime was uniformly applied a 

month before planting. 

2000

1000*)/(..*10*15.0*/
)/(,

324

3

mMgDBmmsoilofkgcmolEA
hakgCaCOLR 

 

Where:  

LR= Lime requirement; EA= Exchangeable acidity; BD= Bulk density 

 

2.3. Treatments    

1. Control  

2. Recommended NP: 64.4 N and 69 P2O5     

3. Formula 2 without lime: 64.4 N + 54 P2O5+ 10.1 S + 1.06 B  

4. Formula 4 without lime: 69N + 51 P2O5 + 11 S + 3.34 Zn + 1.01 B  

5. Formula 4 modified without lime: 57.5N + 70  P2O5 +15.2 S + 4.4 Zn  + 0.5 B 

6. Formula 5 modified without lime: 66.7 N +  52 P2O5  + 30 K2O + 11.2 S + 3.44 Zn + 0.5 B  

7. Recommended NP with lime:  64.4 N and 69 P2O5  + lime    

8. Formula 2 with lime: 64.4 N + 54 P2O5 + 10.1 S + 1.06 B + lime)  

9. Formula 4 with lime: 69N + 51 P2O5 + 11 S + 3.34 Zn + 1.01 B + lime   

10. Formula 4 modified with lime: 57.5N + 70  P2O5 +15.2 S + 4.4 Zn  + 0.5 B + lime     

11. Formula 5 modified with lime: 66.7 N +  52 P2O5  + 30 K2O + 11.2 S + 3.44 Zn + 0.5 B + lime   

 

2.4. Soil Sampling and Analysis  

Soil samples of the experimental site were collected before planting and after harvesting from a plough depth of 

0-20 cm. Before planting representative soil samples collected from an experimental field were thoroughly mixed 

and form a composite sample which was used for chemical and texture analysis. Exchangeable acidity, pH, available 

P, TN, exchangeable bases (K, Ca, Mg, Na), and micro nutrients (Mn, Cu, Fe, Zn) were soil parameters considered 

in this study. For physiochemical analysis soils samples were ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve. The pH of the 

soil was determined following the potentiometer method (1:2.5 soils: water) as described by Chopra and Kanwar 

[14]. Available phosphorus was measured using Bray–II procedure [15]. Total nitrogen was measured following 

Kjeldhal method [16]. Titration method with 1N KCL leaching was used to measure exchangeable acidity [17]. 

Exchangeable Ca, Mg, K and Na were determined from 1N NH4OAC extract using Atomic Absorption 

Spectrometry [18]. Available Mn, Cu, Fe and Zn were determined with DTPA as described by Lindsay and 

Norvell [19].  

 

2.5. Data Collection and Analysis 

Morphological parameters such as plant height and number of fingers per plant were measured from five plants 

randomly selected from middle rows of each plot at harvesting. Biomass and grain yields were measured from 

harvest of interior rows. Data on prices of inputs and products were collected for partial budget analysis that would 

augment the decision for recommendation of fertility management inputs for finger millet production in the study 

areas and other places with similar agro-ecologies. 

All measured data were analyzed using general linear model (GLM) of Statistical Analysis System [20]. Least 

Significance Difference Test at 5% probability level was used for mean separation.  

Model: i =  + Fi + i 

Where i is the response of the crop to different fertility management, = Overall mean, Fi = Effects of fertility 

management and i is the residual error. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
32 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.6. Partial Budget Analysis 

Economic data was collected to assess the costs and benefits associated with different treatments, partial 

budget, dominance and marginal analysis following technique described by CIMMYT (International Maize and 

Wheat Research Centre) [21]. The three years (2015 – 2017) pooled grain yield data was used and this three years 

average price of finger millet was used to convert the  grain yields into gross yield benefits.  

 

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION  

3.1. Soil Physico Chemical Properties 

3.1.1. Soil Texture 

The soil is clay in texture with mean fractions 66.3%, 13% and 20.7% clay, sand and silt respectively Table 1. 

This implies that it needs huge amount of lime to reclaim the soil acidity, because soil higher in clay will have a 

higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) and will require more lime  to raise the  pH as supported by different 

literatures.  

 
Table-1. Textural class of soil in the study site, Nedjo, western Ethiopia as done at Holeta soil Lab. 

Fraction  % 

Clay 66.3 
Silt 13 
Sand 20.7 
USDA Textural class Clay 

                                    
                                        

3.2. Soil Chemical Properties 

From the analysis result, soil pH before planting and after harvest fall in the same range. Both showed very 

strongly acidic level [22] but figuratively it has showed an increment from initial 4.53 to 4.96 with Formula 5 

modified and lime Table 2.  Treatments that had lime in addition (treatment no 7 up to 11) showed a slight pH 

increase. But these pH increments never correspond to the ideal pH range for most crops which is between 6.5 and 

7.5 [23]. The soil exchangeable acidity has showed a sharp decline in soils treated with lime Table 2. Even though 

the experiment has showed the importance of liming the amount of lime determined by exchangeable acidity 

method for a hectare of land was not adequate to raise the pH to an ideal range for crop production. 

Soil total nitrogen never showed a substantial difference due to applied fertility managements. This might be 

due to readily uptake by the crop. Available phosphorous of soil before planting and after harvest fall in the same 

category, and both showed very low range [24] but there was an increase from 4.79 to 6.34 ppm with the 

application of recommended NP + lime (treatment 7) Table 2.  Fertility management that had lime additionally 

showed slight P and Ca increment Table 2. Ligeyo and Gudu [25] has also described the same phenomenon that 

lime increases P, Mg, Ca and Mo availability in acidic soils. Therefore, in P fixing acid soils, combined lime and P 

application is necessary to increase the availability of P for plant uptake.  

The magnesium content of the soil has showed above critical level [24] with recommended NP + lime 

(treatment no 7), where as potassium and sodium content of the soil never showed a difference before planting and 

after harvest. Copper and Iron content of the experimental soil never showed a significant change among 

treatments whereas zinc content of the experimental soil showed inconsistence among treatments Table 2. 

 

3.3. Yield and Yield Components 

Combined analysis of variance of 3 years (2015-2017) indicated that most of the studied parameters showed 

significant difference at (p < 0.05) among treatments Table 3. The highest biomass (4475 kg ha-1) and grain yield 

(872 kg ha-1) were obtained from soils treated with lime and fertilized with formula 5 modified. This result clearly 

showed that around Nedjo area in addition to macronutrients (NPK) S, Zn, B nutrients were also limiting factors 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
33 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

for finger millet production. Similar result was obtained by Weldegebriel, et al. [26] sorghum treated by fertilizer 

contained NPKSZnB (macronutrients in combination with micronutrient) gave higher yield.  

 
Table-2. Soil physic chemical properties as affected by blended fertilizer under limed & unlimed condition at Nedjo, West Wollega as done at 
Holeta soil Lab. 

Treatment 
pH (1:2 

H2O) 

TN AC Ca Mg K Na AP Mn Cu Fe Zn 

(%) ---------- cmol(+)/ kg soil--------- -------------ppm---------------- 

Before planting 
(composite sample) 4.53 0.2 5.3 1.77 0.6 0.08 0 4.8 7 1 30.6 0.02 
After harvest: 

            1.Control  4.59 0.2 5.6 1.77 0.6 0.08 0 4.8 7 1 30.6 0.02 
2. RNP  4.59 0.3 5.7 0.92 0.5 0.09 0.1 4.3 6.5 1.1 38 0.05 
3. Formula 2 4.59 0.2 5.6 1.46 0.7 0.08 0 4.4 7 1.1 37.3 0.03 
4. Formulae 4  4.67 0.2 5.2 1.54 0.9 0.07 0 4.8 5.5 1.1 32.7 0.14 
5. Formula 4 
modified  4.49 0.2 6.4 1.45 0.9 0.09 0 4.5 6.4 1.1 35.1 0.20 
6. Formula5 
modified  4.55 0.2 6.6 1.84 0.6 0.08 0 4.8 6 1 34.8 0.03 
7. RNP + lime 4.70 0.2 3.7 2.32 1.3 0.09 0 6.3 6.7 1.2 36.9 0.03 

8. Formula 2 + lime 4.84 0.2 4 2.3 0.7 0.08 0 5.2 5.8 1.1 36.8 0.01 

9. Formula 4 + lime 4.72 0.2 4 2.1 0.6 0.08 0 5.2 6.7 1.2 36.8 0.10 
10. Formula 4 
modified + lime 4.80 0.2 3.2 2.13 0.4 0.08 0 5.6 7.1 1.1 31.5 0.23 
11. Formula 5 
modified + lime 4.96 0.2 1.9 2.81 0.6 0.11 0 5.2 7.4 1.2 29.5 0.05 

  AC = Exchangeable acidity. 

 

The lowest plant height (31 cm) and harvest index (10) were recorded by control treatment. The second best 

biomass yields (3892 kg ha-1) and grain yield (705 kg ha-1) results of finger millet were recorded by recommended 

NP + lime. From this result, it is possible to conclude that recommended rate of NP with lime can gave a 

comparative biomass and grain yield with that of formula 5 modified + lime.  

      
Table-3. Effects of different soil fertility management practices on morphological and yield performance of 
finger millet - over years analysis (2015-2017) – Nedjo, West Wellega  

Treatment PH (cm) NF BMY 
(kg ha-1) 

GY 
(kg ha-1) 

 
HI 

1 31 2 234f 25f 10 e 
2 49 4 2291e 373e 18 abc 
3 50 4 2031 e 444de 18 abc 
4 49 4 2279 e 391e 16 cd 
5 49 4 2224 e 370e 18 abc 
6 53 5 3145 c 538c 17 bcd 
7 52 5 3892b 705b 19 ab 
8 50 5 2900 cd 475cd 16 cd 

9 51 4 2694 d 485cd 17 bcd 
10 49 4 2909 cd 499cd 16 cd 
11 57 5 4475 a 872a 20 a 

Mean 49 4.26 2643 471 17 
CV (%) 13.4 13.6 12.1 18.5 13.5 
LSD 6 0.54 300 82 2 

                               PLHT = plant height, BM = biomass, GY= grain yield, HI=harvest index  
1= Control, 2=Recommended NP, 3=Formula 2, 4= Formula 4, 5=Formula 4 modified,   6= Formula 5 modified,            
7= Recommended NP +Lime, 8= Formula 2 + lime, 9= Formula 4 +  lime, 10= Formula 4 modified + lime,  11= Formula 5 
modified + lime. 

 

3.4. Partial Budget Analysis 

In view of economic benefits, a shift in practice from RNP to other better option needs partial budget analysis 

was done to identify the rewarding treatments. Three years (2015-2017) average market prices of finger millet 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
34 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

grain, farm gate price of N and P fertilizers were 7.5, 9.8 and 10.55 birr per kg respectively. The prices of different 

nutrients in blended fertilizers were 14.73 birr per kg. The price of CaCO3 was 1.87 birr per kg, and labor demand 

was valued at 38 birr per person for 8 working hour. For a hectare of land seven personnel (labor force) were 

estimated to undertake fertilizer and lime application Table 4. 

The economic analysis further revealed that the application of Formula 5 Modified + lime (i.e., 

NPKSZnB + lime provided the highest marginal rate of return (MRR)  739 % Table 4 suggesting for one birr 

invested in finger millet production, the producer would get  birr 7.39 after recovering his investment. Since the 

MRR assumed in this study was 100%, the treatment Formula 5 Modified under limed condition gave an acceptable 

MRR. Similarly, the application of  Recommended NP (RNP) with lime provided the second best  marginal rate of 

return (MRR) of 733 % Table 4 suggesting for one birr invested in finger millet production, the producer would 

collect birr 7.33 after recovering his investment. Both treatments Formula 5 Modified with lime and RNP with lime 

gave nearly equal MRR, hence unless advantages of quality aspects of grain obtained from balanced fertilization 

(i.e., Formula 5 Modified + lime) was considered lime treatment and use of Recommended NP is feasible option for 

finger millet production by smallholder farmers of the study site,  Nedjo, western Ethiopia. 

 
Table-4. Partial budget and dominance analysis of blended fertilizers and lime application effect on yield of finger millet. 

No 

Treatment 

Average 
Yield 

(kg/ha) 

Gross 
benefits 
(birr/ha) 

Variable costs  ( birr/ha) 

Net 
Benefit 

MRR 
(%) 

Fertilizer  
&  Lime  

cost Seed Labor 
Total 
cost 

1 Control 24.5 183.5 0 7.5 0.0 7.5 176.0 
 2 Recommended NP 373.4 2800.2 2954.9 7.5 155.0 3117.5 -317.3 D 
 3 Formula 2 444.2 3331.4 3617.6 7.5 155.0 3780.2 -448.7 D 
 4 Formula 4 390.6 2929.3 3692.6 7.5 155.0 3855.2 -925.9 D 
 5 Formula 4 modified  370.4 2778.2 4119.8 7.5 155.0 4282.4 -1504.1 D 
 6 Formula 5 modified  537.8 4033.7 4307.5 7.5 155.0 4470.0 -436.3 13.3 

7 
Recommended NP  
+ lime 704.9 5286.4 3142.4 7.5 266.0 3415.9 1870.5 733.0 

8 Formula 2 + lime 475.4 3565.7 3805.1 7.5 266.0 4078.6 -512.9 D 
 9 Formula 4 + lime 485.5 3641.2 3850.1 7.5 266.0 4123.6 -482.4 D 
 

10 
Formula 4 modified  
+ lime 499.5 3746.0 4307.3 7.5 266.0 4580.8 -834.8 D 

 
11 

Formula 5 modified 
+ lime 871.7 6538.0 4494.9 7.5 266.0 4768.5 1769.5 739.1 

 

 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION  

In the study area, the use of fertilizer has focused mainly on the use of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers in 

the form of urea and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) for almost all cultivated crops. The result of this experiment 

gave a clue on the importance of amending micronutrients in the study area if the soil is limed. However, from an 

economic point of view, marginal rate return (MRR) from fertility management with formula 5 and RNP under 

limed condition is nearly equal. Hence, unless advantages of quality aspects of grain obtained from balanced 

fertilization were considered it is not advisable to choice plant nutrients K, S, and micronutrients for finger millet 

production around Nedjo area. This would lead to the need of N and P nutrient use with lime on acid nitisol of the 

study area. From all treatment/fertility management the application of recommended NP + lime has improved the 

available phosphorous of the soil (6.3 ppm).  

From yield response and economic analysis recommended NP with lime can be suggested as best option for 

finger millet production in the study area, however the amount of lime determined by exchangeable acidity method 

for a hectare of land was chosen at a relatively low level  hence, not adequate to raise the pH to an ideal range for 

crop production. Therefore, further studies on different lime rate determination methods should be carried out to 

evaluate their applicability under extremely acidified field conditions.   



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
35 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Funding: The field research reported in this paper was financed by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural 
Research (EIAR). 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: The authors appreciate the acid soil research team of Holeta Research 
Centre for implementation of the experiment. We would also like to thank the staff of Soil Laboratory of 
Holeta Research Center for their assistance in managing soil analysis. 

 

REFERENCES  

[1] CSA (Centeral Statistic Authority), Agricultural sample survey statistical bulletin report on area and production of major crops. 

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA (Centeral Statistic Authority), 2016. 

[2] T. Mulualem and A. Melak, "A survey on the status and constraints of finger millet (Eleusine Coracana L.) production 

in metekel zone, North Western Ethiopia," Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, vol. 1, pp. 67-72, 

2013. 

[3] S. Ketema, "ASARECA survey of NARS priorities: Crops, animal agriculture, natural resource management, 

socioeconomics and policy and postharvest," 2008. 

[4] M. M. Dida, S. Ramakrishnan, J. L. Bennetzen, M. D. Gale, and K. M. Devos, "The genetic map of finger millet, 

Eleusine coracana," Theoretical and Applied Genetics, vol. 114, pp. 321-332, 2007.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0435-7. 

[5] O. O. Amos, "Finger millet: Food security crop in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) of Kenya," World Environment, 

vol. 6, pp. 62-70, 2016.Available at: 10.5923/j.env.20160602.03. 

[6] EthioSIS (Ethiopian Soil Information System), "Soil fertility status and fertilizer recommendation Atlas for Tigray 

regional state, Ethiopia. July 2014. Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Transformation Agency: 92. Available: 

http:// www.ata.gov.et/download/soil-fertility-status-fertilizerrecommendation-atlas-tigray-regional-

state_jul2014/," 2014. 

[7] A. Astatke, T. Mamo, D. Peden, and M. Diedhiou, "Participatory on-farm conservation tillage trial in the Ethiopian 

Highland vertisols: The impact of potassium application on crop yields," Experimental Agriculture, vol. 40, pp. 369-379, 

2004.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479704002029. 

[8] W. Haile and T. Mamo, "The effect of potassium on the yields of potato and wheat grown on the acidic soils of 

Chencha and Hagere Selam in Southern Ethiopia," International Potash Institute Research Findings, vol. 35, pp. 3-8, 2013. 

[9] N. A. Misgina, F. Kebede, E. Abereha, and A. Abeba, "Effect of potassium on tuber yield and yield component of potato 

(Solanium tubersum) on loamy soils of Atsbi-Wenberta," Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, vol. 6, pp. 49-56, 

2016. 

[10] G. Taye, A. Adela, and G. Alemu, "Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to potassium fertilizer on acid soils of 

Wolmera and Gumer Weredas in the High Lands of Ethiopia," Ethiopia Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 

vol. 5, pp. 156-160, 2015. 

[11] H. Wassie and B. Shiferaw, "Response of Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum) to the application of potassium at acidic 

soils of Chencha, Southern Ethiopia," International Journal of Agricultural Biology, vol. 13, pp. 595–598, 2011. 

[12] M. Fekadu, "Prospect and use of acid tolerant crops as an option for soil acidity management in Ethiopia," A Review: 

Nessa J Agricultural Science and Research, vol. 1, pp. 1-13, 2018. 

[13] E. J. Kamprath, Crop response to lime on soils in the tropics. In: Adams F. Soil acidity and liming. Madison, Wisconsin: 

American Statistical Association (ASA), 1984. 

[14] S. H. Chopra and J. S. Kanwar, Analytical agricultural chemistry. New Delhi: Kalyani Publisher Ludhiana, 1976. 

[15] R. H. Bray and L. Kurtz, "Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils," Soil Science, vol. 

59, pp. 39-46, 1945.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006. 

[16] V. E. Ranist, M. Verloo, A. Demeyerand, and J. M. Pauwels, "Manual for soil chemistry and fertility laboratory," pp. 

50-100, 1999. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 29-36 

 

 
36 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[17] L. P. VanReeuwijk, "Procedures for soil analysis. Technical Paper 9. International Soil Reference and Information 

Centre (ISRIC), the Netherlands," 2002. 

[18] J. R. Okalebo, K. W. Gathuaand, and P. L. Woomer, Laboratory methods of soil and plant analysis: A working manual, 2nd 

ed. Nairobi: Sacred African Publishers, 2002. 

[19] W. L. Lindsay and W. A. Norvell, "Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper 1," Soil 

Science Society of America Journal, vol. 42, pp. 421-428, 1978.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x. 

[20] SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT user's guide: Version 9, 1th ed. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc, 2004. 

[21] CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Research Centre), "From agronomic data to farmers’ recommendation: 

Economic analysis training manual. Completely revised edition. D.F. Mexico.Dida, M.M., Srinivasachary, 

Ramakrishnan, S., Bennetzen, J.L., Gale, M.D., Devos, K.M (2007). The genetic map of finger millet, Eleusine 

coracana.)," Theoretical and Applied Genetics, vol. 114, pp. 321-332, 1988. 

[22] J. B. Jones, Agronomic handbook: Management of crops, soils, and their fertility. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC, 

2003. 

[23] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), Plant nutrition for food security. A guide for integrated nutrient management. 

Rome, Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2008. 

[24] J. R. Landon, Booker tropical soil manual: A hand book for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and 

subtropics. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1991. 

[25] D. Ligeyo and S. Gudu, "Further laboratory screening of More Kenya Maize Inbred lines for Tolerance to Aluminum 

In: Third year Progress Report, (March 2004 to 28 February 2005)," Mcknight Foundation USA Project, 

EMBBRAPA, Purdue and Cornell University (USA) and Moi University (Kenya) Phase1, 2003-20052005. 

[26] R. Weldegebriel, T. Araya, and Y. G. Egziabher, "Effect of NPK and blended fertilizer application on nutrient uptake 

and use efficiency of selected sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) varieties under rain-fed condition in Sheraro 

District, Northern Ethiopia," Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science, vol. 10, pp. 140-156, 2018.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.4314/mejs.v10i1.10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


