Towards increasing the productivity and profitability of maize farming in SE Asia

A manual for the development and

participatory evaluation of
Site-Specific Nutrient Management for Maize
in tropical, favorable environments

Introduction
Maize is the second most important cereal crop after rice in Asia. It is the substitute staple for
people in the rural areas and mountainous regions and an important source of income for
many Asian farmers. In 2004, the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) and its
partners in Southeast Asia launched a regional initiative to increase the productivity and
profitability of maize farming through improved crop and nutrient management (Witt and
Pasuquin 2007). In 2004-2007, a series of researcher-managed on-farm and on-station
experiments were conducted at 19 sites in Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines covering a
wide range of bio-physical and socio-economic conditions. Results showed that with good
crop management, site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) significantly increased yield
by on average 2 t/ha compared with the farmers‘ fertilizer practice (FFP). The SSNM
concept has been simplified and is now ready for wider-scale, participatory evaluation in
partnership with farmers.

This manual was written with the goal of providing technical guidance to agricultural
practitioners who would like to:
 Communicate SSNM and its principles.
 Develop fertilizer recommendations based on the principles of SSNM.
 Evaluate recommendations with farmers in a participatory fashion.

As such, the manual is arranged into three major sections for easy reference:
 Section 1 gives an overview of the principles of SSNM including yield gap analysis,
definition of terminology used in SSNM, and generic guidelines for the development of
nutrient recommendations.
 Section 2 provides the practitioner with the opportunity to adapt the generic SSNM
guidelines and integrate expert knowledge of local best management practices into a
regional protocol for developing site-specific recommendations.
 Section 3 guides the practitioner in the participatory evaluation and wider-scale delivery
of SSNM.

Technical details on the following are provided in the Appendix:

Appendix A: Basic SSNM guidelines in developing a fertilizer recommendation
Appendix B: Best Management Practices for Maize
Appendix C: Guidelines for participatory evaluation of SSNM in maize
Appendix D: Example for a one-page summary of guidelines for implementing SSNM for
rice in Indonesia

1
Suggested citation:
C. Witt, J.M. Pasuquin, M.F. Pampolino, R.J. Buresh, and A. Dobermann. 2009. A manual
for the development and participatory evaluation of site-specific nutrient management for
maize in tropical, favorable environments. International Plant Nutrition Institute, Penang,
Malaysia.

Contact:
International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI)
Southeast Asia Program
PO Box 500 GPO, Penang 10670, Malaysia
Office phone: +60 4 6202 284
Office fax: + 60 4 6264 380
www.ipni.net/seasia
seasia@ipni.net

Acknowledgements
Funding for the project on Site-Specific Nutrient Management for Maize in Southeast Asia is
provided by the International Plant Nutrition Institute, the International Potash Institute, the
International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), and Canpotex International Pte. Ltd.
Additional direct and indirect support provided by the collaborating national agricultural
research and extension systems is gratefully acknowledged. On behalf of all stakeholders
involved in the project, we wish to thank all donors for supporting our work since 2004.
IPNI wishes to thank the following scientists and their institutions for their invaluable
contributions to this project. Indonesia: Mrs. Sari S. Girsang (AIAT North Sumatera), Mr.
Andarias M. Murni (AIAT Lampung), Mr. Supadmo (AIAT Central Java), Mr. Suwono
(AIAT East Java), Mr. P. Tandisau (AIAT South Sulawesi), Dr. S. Saenong (ICRI), Dr.
Subandi (ICRI), Dr. D. Setyorini and Dr. F. Agus (ISRI), and Dr. S. Kartaatmadja (IPNI-IPI).
Philippines: Dr. R. Labios (UPLB), Dr. A. Ocampo (IPB), Mrs. J. Labios (UPLB), Dr. C.
Medina (UPLB), Mr. H.C. Gines (PhilRice), Mr. C. Lapoot (NOMIARC); Mr. S. Tumamang
(CVIARC). Vietnam: Dr. P.S. Tan (CLRRI), Dr. T. T. Son (NISF), Dr. D.T. Binh (IAS), Dr.
Nguyen My Hoa and Dr. Ngo Ngoc Hung (Cantho University); Dr. Ton Nu Tuan Nam
(WASI).

2
1. An overview of site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)

This section will provide you with

 An understanding of the principles of SSNM
 An understanding of yield gaps
 A common terminology to communicate SSNM
 A strategy to develop fertilizer recommendation based on the principles of SSNM

1.1. The principles of SSNM

The principles of site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) are generic and applicable to
other crops. In the presentation below we apply the most recently published principles of
SSNM developed for rice (Buresh and Witt 2007; IRRI 2007) to maize in Asia.

SSNM provides an approach for ―feeding‖ crops with nutrients as and when needed. This
approach advocates:
 optimal use of existing indigenous nutrient sources, including crop residues and
manures, and
 timely application of fertilizers at optimal rates to meet the deficit between the
nutrient needs of a high-yielding crop and the indigenous nutrient supply

The SSNM approach is illustrated below in three basic steps:

Step 1: Establish an attainable yield level

3
Maize yields are location and season specific — depending upon climate, variety, and crop
management. The attainable yield for a given location and season is estimated from farmers‘
fields where good crop management was practiced and nutrients were not limiting yield. The
amount of nutrients taken up by a maize crop is directly related to yield. The attainable yield
level therefore indicates the total amount of nutrients that must be taken up by the crop.

Step 2: Effectively use existing nutrients

The SSNM approach promotes the optimal use of existing (indigenous) nutrients coming
from the soil, organic amendments, crop residue, manure, and irrigation water. The uptake of
a nutrient from indigenous sources can be estimated from the nutrient-limited yield, which is
the grain yield for a crop not fertilized with the nutrient of interest but fertilized with other
nutrients to ensure they do not limit yield.

Step 3: Apply fertilizer to fill the deficit between crop needs and indigenous supply
Fertilizer N, P, and K are applied to supplement the nutrients from indigenous sources and
achieve the yield target (= attainable yield). The quantity of required fertilizer is determined
by the deficit between the crop‘s total needs for nutrients — as determined by the attainable
yield level — and the supply of these nutrients from indigenous sources — as determined by
the nutrient-limited yield.

1.2. Yield gaps

Yield and profit of maize farmers could be increased in a sustainable and environmentally-
sound fashion if we have a better understanding of yield gaps. To isolate the most important
constraints to achieving optimal yield and profit, yield gaps are analyzed stepwise by
estimating the yield potential, the attainable yield, and the actual yield (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Example for the effect of nutrient and crop management on actual yield (Y), attainable yield
(Ya), and maximum attainable yield (maxYa) in relation to the yield potential (Yp).

The yield potential (Yp) is the theoretical maximum yield of a maize crop in any given
season determined solely by climate and germplasm. Water and nutrients are at optimal
levels and yield-reducing factors such as pests and diseases are absent. Yp is commonly

4
estimated using plant growth models and could fluctuate from year to year (±10%) because
of climate.
The attainable yield (Ya) is defined as the yield achieved in farmers‘ fields with best
management practices including water, pest, and general crop management where nutrients
are not limiting. The attainable yield varies – like the yield potential – from season to season
and year to year depending on climate. The optimal economic yield is often linked to the
attainable yield. The maximum attainable yield (maxYa) in any given season could be close
to the yield potential, if management is excellent and weather conditions are very favorable.
The actual yield (Y) in farmers‘ fields is often lower than the attainable yield due to
constraints like water availability, pests and diseases, and poor crop and nutrient management
practices.
Actual, attainable, and potential yield can be used to identify exploitable yield gaps (Fig. 1).
A management objective of farmers should be to minimize yield gap 3, the difference
between attainable and actual yield (Ya-Y). To narrow this yield gap, farmers need to
evaluate promising new technologies (e.g., planting density, nutrient management) that offer
improvements in yield and/or productivity against current practices. Larger yield increases
can be achieved when several constraints (e.g. pests and disease problems and inappropriate
nutrient management) are overcome simultaneously.
Yield gap 2 is largely determined by factors that are difficult or impossible to control
including the variation in climatic conditions. Best management practices such as the use of a
leaf color chart (LCC) for fine tuning N management increase the likelihood of keeping yield
gap 2 small.
Yield gap 1 provides important guidance in the identification of constraints. If yield gap 1 is
large despite following best management practices, attainable yield must be limited by an
unknown constraint. If yield gap 1 is small, there is no further room for yield improvement
and efforts might focus on enhancing productivity. It is usually not economical to aim at fully
reducing yield gap 1 because of the large amounts of inputs required and the high risk of crop
failure and profit losses. This yield gap is smaller in seasons with very favorable weather
conditions.
Farmers need to understand the effect of specific practices on productivity and profitability
and the synergy achievable when several constraints are overcome simultaneously, for
example when pest or disease problems are alleviated through more appropriate nutrient
management. Fertilizer recommendations can then be developed based on the attainable yield
(= yield target) to achieve high yield and profit while minimizing the risk of crop failure.
Recommendations should be sufficiently flexible (N) and robust (PK) to achieve maxYa in
exceptionally favorable seasons.

1.3. The SSNM terminology

Table 1. Definition of terminologies
Attainable yield The average grain yield of maize in farmers‘ fields with
good management practices and without nutrient limitation
to yield.
Nutrient-limited yield The grain yield for a crop not fertilized with the nutrient of
interest but with good management and ample supply of all
other nutrients from indigenous sources or fertilizer. The
nutrient limited yield is an indirect measurement of the soil
indigenous nutrient supply.

5
 Indigenous nutrient supply The amount of a particular nutrient from all sources except
mineral fertilizer (i.e., soil, crop residues, irrigation water,
manure) available to the crop during a cropping season.
Nutrient omission plot A plot not fertilized with the nutrient of interest while all
other nutrients are applied in sufficient amounts. Used to
measure grain yield and plant biomass as an indicator of the
effective indigenous nutrient supply.
Yield response (to Measured by the difference in grain yield from a fully-
fertilizer) fertilized plot and a nutrient omission plot. The yield
response largely determines the total requirement for
fertilizer N, P, and K to meet the crop‘s nutrient demand for
a high yield at maximum economic return.

1.4. The development of fertilizer recommendations with SSNM

Estimating attainable yield and yield responses in farmers’ fields

The fertilizer N, P, and K requirements of a maize crop are estimated from the difference
between the attainable yield, an indicator of the total amount of nutrients that must be taken
up by the crop, and the nutrient-limited yield, an indicator of the supply of nutrients from
indigenous sources. This difference, also called the yield response, can be measured with the
nutrient omission plot technique. In this technique, four 36m2 plots with the following
treatments are placed in a farmer‘s field (Fig. 2):
1. Full fertilization: ample fertilizer NPK applied
2. N omission (0-N): No fertilizer N but fertilizer P and K applied
3. P omission (0-P): No fertilizer P but fertilizer N and K applied
4. K omission (0-K): No fertilizer K but fertilizer N and P applied

Fig. 2. Field layout to estimate attainable and nutrient limited yield in farmers‘ fields.

The main objective of these field trails is to avoid nutrient limitation to plant growth, thus
special fertilizer recommendation rates and splitting patterns are suggested. In the fully-
fertilized plot (NPK), fertilizer N, P, and K are applied at sufficiently high rates to ensure that
yield is not limited by nutrient supply. Fertilizer rates typically range from 150 to 250 kg
N/ha, 70 to 150 kg P2O5/ha, and 60 to 180 kg K2O/ha. Grain yield in NPK plots with ample
nutrient supply and good crop management is used to estimate the attainable yield. Nutrient-
limited yields are determined from nutrient omission plots. For example, the N-limited yield

6
is determined in an N omission plot receiving no N fertilizer but sufficient P and K to ensure
that the latter nutrients do not limit yield. P and K limited yield are estimated from P and K
omission plots, respectively.
In NPK, 0-P, and 0-K treatments, fertilizer N is ideally applied in three splits with 30% N
given very early in the season and each 35% topdressed at growth stages V6-8 and V10-12.
This is especially for sites with good water control and where expected yield response to N is
high. In rainfed systems with erratic rainfall and expected yield response to N of < 3 t/ha,
fertilizer N can be applied in two splits with 40% given early in the season and the rest
applied as late as possible before tasselling stage (VT). All fertilizer P is applied at crop
establishment and fertilizer K is applied in two equal splits at crop establishment and V10-
12.

Developing SSNM guidelines based on experimental data from farmers’ fields

The difference in grain yield between a fully
Yield potential fertilized plot and an N omission plot
Attainable
yield
illustrates the deficit between the crop
10 t demand for N and indigenous supply of N,
which must be met by fertilizers (Fig. 3).
N from fertilizer Similarly, the difference in grain yields
between a fully fertilized plot and a K
Yield without omission plot illustrates the deficit between
N fertilizer the crop demand for K and indigenous supply
5t Indigenous N of K, which must be met by fertilizers.
supply
The total fertilizer requirement for N is
estimated from the yield response to fertilizer
N and the expected agronomic efficiency of
N. The agronomic efficiency is an indicator
Fig. 3. Estimating fertilizer N requirements used for both estimating total fertilizer N
with SSNM. needs and optimizing N management. AEN is
the yield increase per unit fertilizer N applied
(Fig. 4). It is calculated as the attainable yield
minus the nutrient limited yield divided by the amount of fertilizer N applied. The agronomic
efficiency of nitrogen should be estimated experimentally in a few, representative field trials.
Benchmark values for
AEN exist for many
rice, maize, and wheat
growing environments.
Low AEN compared to
these benchmark values
indicate either sub-
optimal N management
or yield-limiting
constraints other than N.
Higher than benchmark
AEN may indicate
insufficient N supply to
meet the crop‘s need for
nitrogen to achieve high Fig. 4. Estimating the agronomic efficiency of N.
yield at maximum
economic return.

7
The suggested total fertilizer requirements for N, P, and K are provided in Tables 2-4.
Fertilizer N rates are estimated depending on the expected grain yield response to fertilizer N
application and the expected agronomic N efficiency (Table 2). Note that the table is based
on the assumption that the agronomic efficiency of fertilizer N is linked to the yield response
to fertilizer N application that can be achieved depending on climate, bio-physical growing
conditions, and management.

Table 2. Estimated fertilizer N requirements for maize based on expected grain yield response and
expected agronomic N efficiency.

Fertilizer P and K requirements Table 3. Total fertilizer P2O5 requirements for maize in non-P
provided in Tables 3 and 4 are fixing soils depending on yield target and yield response to
estimated based on an fertilizer P application (updated 23/01/09).
attainable target yield and the
expected grain yield response
to fertilizer application. The
SSNM approach advocates
sufficient use of fertilizer P and
K to both overcome P and K
deficiencies and avoid the
mining of soil P and K. Thus,
fertilizer P and K are
recommended even when the
P-limited or the K-limited yield
is comparable to the yield
target (that is, no response to
fertilizer P or K) to replenish Table 4. Estimated fertilizer K2O requirements for maize based on
the P and the K removed with yield target and estimated yield response to fertilizer K (updated
grain. The determination of 23/01/09).
fertilizer P and K requirements
for maize follow in essence an
approach developed for rice
(Witt and Dobermann 2004),
which maintains the scientific
principles of the underlying
QUEFTS model (Janssen et al
1990); (Witt et al 1999).

In the absence of directly

determined P- and K-limited
yields by the nutrient omission

8
plot technique, P- and K-limited yields can be estimated based on soil testing, farmers‘ use of
organic amendments, soil properties, or previous measurements of P- and K-limited yield on
similar soils.

Meeting the crop demand for nutrients at critical growth stages

Yield responses to the application of fertilizer N, P, and K are highly variable among fields
and/or seasons. The SSNM strategy for nitrogen with total N rate, split N applications, and
dynamic N management using the leaf color chart (LCC) provide assurance that additional
yield can be attained in years more favorable than the average. Likewise, the SSNM strategy
for P and K aims at achieving at least 1-2 t/ha additional grain yield, if conditions for the year
are favorable for markedly higher than average yields.

The required fertilizer N is distributed in several applications during the crop growing
season. This is particularly so in the tropics, to meet the crop‘s need for supplemental N.
Fertilizer P and K are applied in sufficient amounts early in the season to overcome
deficiencies and maintain soil fertility. Fertilizer K is often applied in two split applications
early and near mid-season.

Fig. 5. Schematic overview

of the plant N demand
depending on growth stage.
The window for fertilizer N
application ranges from
seeding to tasseling (VT).

The demand of maize for N is strongly related to growth stage with a window for N
application between crop establishment and tasseling stage (Fig. 5). In order to achieve high
yield, maize plants require sufficient N in early growth to promote general shoot
development, during the formation of kernel rows per ear beginning with the 5-leaf stage
(V5). Likewise N is required at subsequent growth stages leading to the determination of
kernels per row before tasseling (VT), and during ripening stages to enhance grain filling.
The supply of N from soil and organic sources is seldom adequate for high yield, and
supplemental N is typically essential for higher profit from maize fields. The SSNM
approach enables farmers to apply fertilizer N in several, usually two to three doses to ensure
the supply of sufficient N is synchronized with the crop need for N. An additional late N
application before tasseling is recommended when high yields are expected or when N
deficiency is observed as determined using a leaf color chart.

9
Optimize nutrient use efficiencies

Site-specific nutrient management in maize calls for flexible N management strategies that
allow adjustments in N rates according to rainfall events and plant N demand using the leaf
color chart (LCC). The LCC was developed for rice (Balasubramanian et al 1999); (Witt et al
2005) and is also suitable for maize as indicated by spectral reflectance measurements
performed on rice and maize leaves (Witt et al 2004). Detailed experiments with several
maize varieties conducted at the Cereals Research Institute in Maros, South Sulawesi,
Indonesia, in 2005-2006 showed that yield losses of more than 20% can be expected when
LCC readings consistently fall below the color of panel four (S. Saenong, personal
comment). The LCC is now being evaluated together with farmers to fine-tune N
management in participatory trials with maize. The amount of fertilizer N at critical growth
stages is adjusted depending on leaf color which serves as an indicator of the plant N status.
Guidelines on LCC use in maize are provided in Table 5. The time for N fertilization is
preset at critical growth stages with adjustments in rain-fed environments to ensure sufficient
soil moisture. Farmers then adjust the dose of N upward or downward based on the leaf
color. The effective management of N requires adequate planting densities, good crop
management, and sufficient supply of P, K, and other macro- and micro-nutrients to achieve
high and profitable yield.

Table 5. Guidelines for the timing and splitting of fertilizer N application during the season with the
LCC. At yield responses of < 2 t/ha, fertilizer N is often applied in only two split applications.

Appendix A provides detailed guidelines and step-by-step instructions on how to develop a

fertilizer recommendation.

10
2. Adaptation of generic SSNM principles to regional protocols for
developing site-specific nutrient management recommendations

This section will provide you with

 Guidelines on the development of a regional protocol on SSNM

The practical guide to site-specific nutrient management for maize in tropical, favorable
environments is a generic document on SSNM principles and guidelines for developing
fertilizer recommendations. This generic manual needs to be adapted, particularly Appendix
A, B, and C, so that the resulting document meets regional requirements. Here are some
guidelines on how to adapt the generic SSNM Manual into becoming a Regional SSNM
Manual for Maize in a country or region within a country, which would become the technical
reference for people working on SSNM:
 Adjust tables on estimated fertilizer N, P2O5, and K2O requirements to show rates
only for yield levels and or responses that are attainable in the region.
 Decide on the necessity of applying micronutrients in the region and whether to
include this as part of the regional recommendation.
 Identify best management practices that are currently not practiced by farmers in your
region and that may have the greatest potential to increase yield and farmers‘ profit.
These practices will be evaluated with farmers through participatory evaluation.

An example of a one-page technical guideline for developing site-specific fertilizer

recommendation for rice in Indonesia can be found in Appendix 4.

3. Participatory evaluation and wider scale delivery

This section will provide you with

 A brief description of proposed steps towards wider scale delivery including the
development of a regional manual, team development and training, and
participatory evaluation.
 An outlook on future activities towards wider-scale delivery of SSNM for maize

Current activities on the adaptation and participatory evaluation of SSNM in key maize
growing areas in the Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam are part of a regional strategy
towards wider-scale delivery of SSNM to maize farmers in Southeast Asia (Fig. 6).

SSNM Manual
A manual to the development and participatory evaluation of site-specific nutrient
management for maize in tropical, favorable environments (IPNI 2008) is a generic
document on SSNM aimed at providing technical guidance to agricultural practitioners on
the principles of SSNM and adapting these principles in developing site-specific fertilizer
recommendations for evaluation with farmers.

Regional Manual
The Regional Manual is a document adapted from the generic A manual to the development
and participatory evaluation of site-specific nutrient management for maize in tropical,
favorable environments (IPNI 2008) and contains the protocol for developing site-specific

11
recommendations in a country or region (i.e. Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao in the
Philippines), including identified best management practices that can contribute significantly
to improving productivity and profitability of maize farming in the region and will be
evaluated with farmers through participatory evaluation.

Fig. 6. Example of anticipated milestones towards the wider-scale delivery of SSNM for maize in the
Philippines.

National Proposal
The National Proposal is a document containing the proposed workplan and budget for
regional activities on SSNM including on-farm trials and farmer participatory evaluation.
This document will be submitted to national organizations for funding approval.

Team development and training

Team development and training involves the identification and training of partners in the
country who will be involved in activities related to the development and participatory
evaluation of SSNM recommendations. Team development and training should be carried out
before the maize season when on-farm trials and farmer participatory evaluation will be
conducted.

Development and participatory evaluation

This involves on-farm trials and farmer participatory evaluation of SSNM. Activities may
continue for several seasons to further refine recommendations before being promoted at
wider-scale.

Materials for delivery

Some of the materials needed for wider-scale delivery of SSNM recommendations include
Training for Trainers Manual, powerpoint presentations, interactive CDs, 1-page
recommendations, handouts, protocols, etc. These are targeted to be available in 2009.

12
Evaluation of delivery strategies
Wider-scale delivery strategies such as field days, field laboratories, etc will be evaluated in
2009.

Wider-scale delivery
Wider-scale delivery of SSNM is planned for 2010. This involves establishing partnerships
with government and non-government units, extension, and the private sector working
together to promote SSNM recommendations at wider-scale. A technical team will provide
guidance and support on technical issues of SSNM.

13
Appendix A. Basic SSNM guidelines in developing a fertilizer
recommendation

In this section, you will go through a series of steps that outlines the basic SSNM guidelines
in developing a fertilizer recommendation. In each step, you will be required to provide
estimates of grain yield and make management decisions. Write down your answers on the
right hand portion of the table below for easy reference. At the end of this exercise, you will
need to copy these answers to a summary table for an overview of the fertilizer
recommendation you have developed. Each guideline is briefly discussed with some helpful
information to help you make your estimates or management decisions.

A1. Estimate an attainable yield level in farmers‘ field Attainable yield, GYa
(t/ha)
Estimate attainable yield from a crop grown in a regular season
in farmers‘ fields with good management practices and without Season 1 ___________
nutrient limitation to yield.
Season 2 ___________
Suggestion: Despite sufficient nutrient supply and good crop
management, yield in farmers’ fields can vary substantially
from i) field-to-field, e.g. because of small scale variation in
soil moisture, and ii) from season-to-season, e.g., because of
seasonal differences in climatic conditions. Estimate the
attainable yield level from the average attainable yield across
several seasons.
A2. Estimate nutrient related yield response Yield response, ∆GY
(t/ha)
Estimate yield response from the difference in grain yield in a
fully-fertilized plot with no nutrient limitations and a nutrient ∆GYN Season 1 _______
omission (-N, -P, -K) plot.
Season 2 _______
Suggestion: If there is no information available on grain yield
from omission plots, you may choose to estimate the status of ∆GYP Season 1 _______
soil indigenous nutrient supply (low, medium, high) basing on
the historical use of manure and other organic amendments,
residue management, or soil test results for P and K. Season 2 _______

∆GYK Season 1 _______

Season 2 _______
A3. Calculate fertilizer requirements based on yield
response and attainable yield level from the Fertilizer N requirement
following tables (kg/ha)

FN Season 1 _________

14
FN Season 2 _________

Fertilizer P2O5
requirement (kg/ha)

FP Season 1 _________

FP Season 2 _________

Fertilizer K2O
requirement (kg/ha)

FK Season 1 _________

FK Season 2 _________

15
A4. Adjust N, P2O5, and K2O rates depending on soil
properties (e.g. for P-fixing soils), cropping Adjusted FP (kg/ha)
system, etc.
FPa Season 1 _________

FPa Season 2 _________

Adjusted FK (kg/ha)

FKa Season 1 _________

FKa Season 2 _________

Decide on the amount of micronutrients that might Micronutrients (kg/ha)

be needed. 1. ____________
2. ____________
3. ____________

Fill in the table below with your answers from rows 1 to 4.

Parameter Row Unit Season 1 Season 2

Attainable yield level A1 GYa t/ha
Expected yield responses
to fertilizer N A2 ∆GYN t/ha
to fertilizer P A2 ∆GYP t/ha
to fertilizer K A2 ∆GYK t/ha
Fertilizer rates
Fertilizer N A3, A4 FN kg/ha
Fertilizer P A3, A4 FP kg/ha
Fertilizer K A3, A4 FK kg/ha

A5. Decide on the basal application of N, P2O5, and

K2O (and other nutrients), how much to apply and Basal fertilizer
when to apply (at sowing or several days after application schedule:
sowing, DAS). ___________ DAS

Recommendation:
FNbasal (kg/ha) ________
For N, apply in three splits (30:35:35) if
 N rate >120 kg N/ha, FPbasal (kg/ha) ________
 Area has no water problems, or

16
  Area has sandy soils with strong rains and high
risk of leaching. FKbasal (kg/ha) ________
Otherwise, apply N in two splits (50:50 or 40:60).
For P, apply all basal.
For K, apply all K early if rates <60 kg K2O/ha,
otherwise apply 50% at basal and 50% as topdressing.

A6. Decide on fertilizer N topdressing and LCC use

Fertilizer N topdressing
application
Recommendation:
Apply N whenever soil moisture is suitable. 1st topdressing:
For two topdressings, apply N at V6-V8 stage (20-25 ___________ DAS
DAP) and at V10 stage or later. Use the LCC each FNtop1 (kg/ha) _________
time to adjust N rates depending on leaf color and
plant stand.
For single topdressing, apply N at V8-V10 stage (25- 2nd topdressing:
35 DAP) and use LCC. ___________ DAS
Always do another LCC reading not later than 1 wk FNtop2 (kg/ha) _________
before tasseling to check on leaf color.

A7. Decide on fertilizer K topdressing

Fertilizer K topdressing
application
Recommendation:
___________ DAS
Use crop stand and weather conditions as basis for FKtop (kg/ha) ________
decision to apply K at mid-season. Apply together with
the last N topdressing.

17
A8. Translate nutrient recommendations into sources.
Recommendation:
Some adjustments to the fertilizer rates may be needed to match available
fertilizer sources.
Fill in the table below with your answers from rows 5 to 7 (See sample recommendation
table ).
Season Leaf color Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer
N P2O5 K2O
[ ] source source source
(bags/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Calculated fertilizer rates (FN, FP, FK)
Growth stage
DAS
Yellow green
V6-V8
Green/dark gr.
Yellow green
V10 or later Green
Dark green
V14-VT*
Total
(range based on LCC readings before V14)

Sample recommendation for a maize crop with 4-5 t/ha yield response to N, 0.5 t/ha yield
response to P and K at a yield level of 7-9 t/ha and an opportunity for 3 N-split applications.
Season Leaf color Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer
N P2O5 K2O
[Dry season] source source source
(bags/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Calculated fertilizer rates (FN, FP, FK) 160 30-40 40-50
Growth stage
0 DAS 14-14-14 5.5 275 39 39 39
Yellow green Urea 3.0 150 69 - -
V6-V8
Green/dark gr. Urea 2.5 125 58 - -
Yellow green Urea 3.0 150 69
V10 or later Green Urea 2.5 125 58
Dark green Urea 2.0 100 46 - -
V14-VT Green Urea 1.0 50 23 - -
Total 154
(143- 39 39
(range based on LCC readings before V14) 177)

18
Appendix B. Best Management Practices for Maize

In the table below, use your expert knowledge of local conditions to identify management
practices that may have a huge impact in improving the current production and profit of
maize farmers in your region and which will be evaluated with farmers through participatory
evaluation. For the tropics, most favorable planting densities for high yield is probably
around 65,000 to 75,000 plants/ha.

Crop management issues Best management practice

Plant spacing and planting Select planting densities of about 65,000 to 75,000 plants/ha
density with one seed per hole for a more uniform crop stand. A
population of less than 65,000 plants/ha is not advisable
because a 10% loss of plants is not uncommon under rain-fed
field conditions and the planting density at harvest should be
at least 60,000 plants/ha to achieve high yield. Planting more
than 75,000 seeds/ha will not increase yield unless growing
conditions are very favorable with a yield potential of >13
t/ha. In drought-prone environments, planting density should
not be more than 75,000 plants/ha.
The distance between rows should be narrow and just wide
enough to allow field operations while plant spacing within
the row should be wide to minimize plant competition for
light, water, and nutrients. The optimal combination of row
and within-row spacing should create a favorable
microclimate in the canopy reducing the risk for pests and
diseases. For optimal row spacing, plants should be spaced
60-70 cm apart. Optimal plant spacing within rows should be
about 20 to 30 cm.

Fig. 3. Row and within-row

spacing for different planting
densities. The green area
highlights the recommended
combinations of row spacing
and within-row spacing
resulting in optimal planting
densities for tropical maize.

Variety
(hybrid? GM-maize?)

Land preparation
(tillage? raised beds?)

19
Crop establishment
(use of farmalite?)

Fertilizer application
(covered with soil? Use of
farmalite?)

Weeds, pests, water mgt

(manual weeding?
irrigation?)

Residue management
(complete removal?)

Organic amendments
(manure?)

20
Appendix C. Guidelines for participatory evaluation of site-specific
nutrient management (SSNM) in maize

Objective of participatory evaluation

 To discuss current crop and nutrient management practices with farmers and identify
opportunities for higher productivity and profitability based on the principles of best
management practices and SSNM.
 To reach a consensus on the practices to be evaluated by farmers in the participatory
evaluation.
 To identify volunteering farmers who agree to join in the participatory evaluation.
 To agree with participating farmers on responsibilities by farmers and resource team
during the evaluation.

Role and responsibilities of the resource team in the participatory evaluation

 To share technologies and approaches with local partners in delivery (capacity building)
and define their role in the participatory evaluation.
 To provide technical guidance on issues related to crop and nutrient management to
farmers and local partners throughout the season.
 To assist farmers and local partners in record keeping and yield measurements.
 To analyze and discuss results of the participatory evaluation with farmers and local
partners in delivery.

Role and responsibilities of the local partners in the participatory evaluation

 To identify project sites, establish contact with farmers, arrange for meetings with
farmers, provide assistance in data collection and yield measurements, and develop a plan
for wider scale delivery of successful technologies.
 To assist farmers in record keeping and yield measurements.

Role and responsibilities of farmers in the participatory evaluation

 To implement all practices agreed upon with the resource team in a sufficiently large
portion of their fields using own funding. This should include a side-by-side comparison
of new and current practices.
 To keep records of variety selection, crop and nutrient management related activities by
growth stage, information related to decision making (e.g., rainfall events, etc).

WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE SEASON:

1. Meet with resource team and local partners in delivery including local government
unit officials, extension officers, farmer leaders, etc. to prepare for the participatory
evaluation.
 Discuss the objectives of farmer participatory evaluation, time frame and activities,
and the responsibilities of all involved including resource team, local partners, and
farmers.

21
  Discuss the program and expected output of the first meeting with farmers including
the role of the resource team and local partners in the meeting and in the conduct of
the on-farm participatory evaluation.
 It should be made clear to local stakeholders that only technical assistance will be
provided to the farmers who will join the participatory evaluation. Subsidies for
seeds, fertilizer, labor, etc (either from the project or from local stakeholders) are not
in the spirit of participatory evaluation as they would create incentives for farmers
that are not related to the technology. Farmers are encouraged to participate
voluntarily providing unbiased feedback.
 If local partners in delivery would like to contribute financially to the participatory
evaluation, they are welcome to pay for the farmers‘ meeting (transportation, lunch),
but they should NOT provide fertilizer or any other incentives or inputs that would
influence farmers‘ decision making on crop and/or nutrient management. This needs
to be clearly communicated to stakeholders (e.g., mayor…) who are not taking part in
the preparations but will be present at the first meeting with farmers.

2. Hold a farmers’ meeting at each location and invite the collaborator plus
neighboring farmers.

Expected output of first meeting with farmers

 Current practices described and discussed with farmers.
 Promising new practices identified and agreed upon with participating farmers.
 Responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in PE agreed upon and accepted.
 List of volunteering farmers to join the participatory evaluation including name and
contact details.

A. Before the meeting

 Prepare all the materials and data needed in the farmers‘ meetings (e.g. results of
past experiments, summary of agronomic survey if one was done in the area,
economic analysis of yield, etc).
 Prepare a one-page handout for discussion with farmers containing proposed
changes in practices (e.g. optimum plant spacing/planting density, fertilizer rates,
timing of fertilizer application, when to use the leaf color chart, etc). The message
should be simple, easy to understand and remember preferably written in the local
language/dialect.
 Simplify SSNM fertilizer recommendations in units that would be easily
understood and/or of practical implementation by farmers (e.g. # of spoons of
urea per bucket of water if fertilizer is mixed with irrigation water and applied by
hand as in the degraded soils of North Vietnam or in the heavy clay soils of
Central Java).
B. During the meeting
 Make the atmosphere of the meeting as informal as possible to encourage
interaction and farmer participation in discussions. Avoid ―lecture-type‖ speeches
or ―classroom-type‖ seating arrangements.

22
 Inform farmers of the objectives of the meeting and the farmer-participatory
evaluation of SSNM. This can be brief and would not need elaborate and lengthy
introductions to the project.
 Summarize survey results on current farmers‘ practice (if you have) and ask
farmers to confirm whether the portrayed practice is commonly followed. A
discussion on current practices will encourage farmers to participate in the
meeting right from the beginning.
 Start the dialogue on modifications of existing practices by explaining that we
have reason to believe that there are opportunities to improve productivity and
profitability of maize farming. Clearly inform the farmers that they are very
welcome to propose modifications to the recommendations suggested by the
researchers.
 Discuss proposed changes in management practices by growth stage not by
topic. Thus, topics could be discussed in the following order:
 Field preparation: Plowing, zero tillage, etc
 Crop establishment: Planting density, plant spacing, seeds per hole
 Early season application of N, P, K, other nutrients: rate, timing, sources
 Topdressing of fertilizer N: number of applications, rate, timing, sources
 Topdressing of fertilizer K: rate, timing, sources
 Use of leaf color chart in fine tuning N management
 For example, before the season starts, farmers need to decide on plant spacing
and planting density. Discuss the options for desirable plant spacing, planting
densities, and seeds per hole with farmers. Explain the reason for choosing
optimal planting densities of 65,000 to 75,000 plants per ha at sowing with
plant spacing of 50 to 70 cm between rows and 20 to 28 cm within rows. Use
the diagram on optimal planting densities to discuss the options. Discuss with
farmers whether proposed changes are feasible. Would they be willing to
evaluate a different plant spacing/planting density/seeds per hole? Only move
on to the next topic (e.g. basal fertilizer application) once the practices for
evaluation are agreed upon.
 Discuss only those practices where changes are suggested.
 Allow sufficient time for discussions and do not rush through the growth
stages. Take the opportunity to elicit from the farmers what they think of each
practice discussed, their comments, why it will or will not work, and their
suggestions for improvements to suit their needs or make it work.
 If farmers do not agree with our recommendations, ask what would be an
acceptable modification to the recommendation for evaluation and why.
Discuss farmers‘ proposed amendments whether they are acceptable and are
not based on the scientific principles developed for best management practices
and SSNM. Back up arguments with data from on-farm experiments, if
needed. Be flexible in making adjustments but remember that the
modifications should not violate the scientific principles. Also, the practice
you agree upon for evaluation should be sufficiently different from the current
practice so that we can see treatment differences! Farmers don‘t have to be

23
 convinced of a certain practices, but it is important that everybody agrees on
what practices to evaluate.
 Both farmers and researchers need to come to a general agreement on what to
evaluate before proceeding to the next issue.
 At the end, summarize the recommendations that you jointly agreed upon for
evaluation.
 Discuss about the proposed design of on-farm trials. For comparison, farmers are
encouraged to compare the new practice including SSNM in a portion of their
field (≥ 1000 m2, in the Philippines ≥ 0.25 ha) with the existing practice in the rest
of the field.
 Identify five farmer collaborators who will strictly follow the agreed practice
including SSNM. These could be the farmers we had collaborated with during
the development of SSNM. In these farms, it is recommended to install a 0N
plot receiving fertilizer P and K but no fertilizer N in a corner of the trial plots
to measure the yield response to N and its agronomic efficiency. Researchers
need to ensure that farmers do not apply fertilizer N to the 0N plot.
 All other farmers joining in the participatory evaluation do not need to install
a 0N plot.
 Ask for volunteers to join in the participatory evaluation. Inform them that this is
the farmer-participatory phase of the project and they are now the active partners.
Explain the responsibilities of farmers and resource team in the season-long
evaluation. Be explicit about the fact that we will only provide them with
technical advice on how to try the new practices in their farms and monitor the
crop performance with them during the season. We will work with them if they
feel that they need to modify the technology, and we will provide guidance based
on what we have learned from our experiments. If they join, they need to be
willing to evaluate the agreed practice in a portion of their field. The will
implement these practices by themselves.
 Clarify what you will provide or offer to farmers (recommendation agreed upon,
LCC, notebook, pen, backstopping during farm visits). Note down name of
farmers, mobile phone, and address.
 Discuss with farmers about record keeping of all their on-farm activities
(fertilization, crop management, dates for phonological stages, yield record, etc)
in both the evaluation plot and the rest of the field.
 Also ask the farmers to note down drought and rainfall events particularly
when related to N management (dates and severity of rainfall), LCC readings
(dates, reading, and decision made on fertilizer N application).
 We call this the farmer-managed field set up and we note that the role of site
coordinators will now largely entail advice, feedback, and monitoring during field
visits. The visits will have to be frequent however to allow for quick review and
recall of missed inputs to the monitoring/logbook. This monitoring form is very
important as it actually documents what modification the farmers did on the
SSNM technology

C. Resource team after the meeting

24
  Conduct an evaluation/review of what transpired during the farmers‘ meeting.
Discuss on things that need to be improved in subsequent meetings.
 Follow-up on farmers who agreed to join the on-farm participatory evaluation.
How large is the size of land they allot for the on-farm evaluation?
 Provide participating farmers with a tool kit for the participatory evaluation:
 Leaf color chart with sticker of recommendation at the back
 Laminated 1-page SSNM recommendation/guideline for the season as agreed
upon during the meeting with farmers
 Notebook (calendar-based) for farmers to keep good records of farm
activities, rainfall occurrence, yield history
 Good pen
 Discuss schedule of farm visits during the season with resource team in
cooperation with the local government unit and other partners in delivery.

WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE SEASON:

1. Meet with resource team and local partners in delivery (local government unit
officials, extension officers)
 Discuss schedule of on-farm visits and role of resource team and local partners in
delivery.
2. Conduct visits to the on-farm evaluation trials at regular intervals or at critical
growth stages
Checklist of things to bring during the on-farm visits
Researchers‘ kit:
 Pocket notebook (for researcher to take down notes of observations in each
farm)
 Pocket calculator
 Measuring tape/ruler
 Camera

 Establish rapport with the farmers.

 Collect and document feedback regarding the SSNM technology
 Discuss observations during the season and provide technical assistance to farmers
but leave the final decision to farmers. Keep record of the discussions.
 Do LCC readings with the farmers at least 3 times during the season (1st side-
dressing, 2nd side-dressing, just before tasselling) and discuss the difference in leaf
color with SSNM and FFP strategy
 Monitor crop growth stage at each visit and plan with farmers on a tentative schedule
of harvesting.

WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES AT THE END OF THE SEASON:

25
1. Meet with resource team and local partners in delivery (local government unit
officials, extension officers), and farmer-collaborator
 Plan and schedule farm visit at harvesting
 Create a ‗yield crew‘ composing of members from the resource team, local
government unit, and farmer-collaborator(s) who will do the harvesting in farmers‘
fields

2. Harvest at about 1-2 weeks after physiological maturity, when grain moisture has
dropped to about 20-25%
 Take yield measurements together with participating farmers and immediately
calculate the results in the presence of the farmer.
 2-3 crop cuts would be needed from the SSNM plot and FP portion of the field and 1
crop cut from the 0N plot.
 Checklist of things to bring at harvest:
 Pocket notebook to record yield at each site
 A simple kitchen scale or spring (hanging) scale for weighing things in the 0.3 to
3 kg range, mechanical or battery powered
 Grain moisture determination:
 Option 1: grain moisture meter used by the group (for extension workers, too
expensive for mass distribution)
 Option 2: on the calculation sheet, the farmers chooses empirically between 3
levels (dry, normal, wet) and we assign default moisture values to those
(standard factors for the calculation)
 3-m long string (e.g., color-coated wire, plastic string) to mark out the harvesting
rows (four rows at 3m length each = 12 meter rows)
 Calculator
 Measuring tape/ruler to measure the distance between rows.
 Cloth, net, or plastic bags

WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES AFTER THE SEASON:

Conduct a meeting with farmers after the season to discuss the results of the participatory on-
farm trials and develop modifications of practices, if necessary. Repeat the evaluation for a
second season and/or develop a campaign for wider scale delivery.

FEEDBACK ON PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION:

List issues that came up with farmers during participatory evaluation.

What was the feedback from farmers on the various components of best management practice and
SSNM including planting density, plant spacing, basal fertilizer rates, number of N split applications,
use of leaf color chart, etc. Did farmers change their practice in any way? If so, what did they change
and why? What did farmers not change even though you recommended changing it?


Questions to ask farmers during participatory evaluation.

List important questions to ask when meeting with farmers during the season:

26
Question and Answers
Q: Would a farmer qualify for participatory evaluation, if he/she did not have the financial
means to invest in the optimal fertilizer program?
A: Yes, but the resource team would need to modify the recommendation until it is
affordable to farmers. Decisions need to be made whether to save on cost for fertilizer N,
P, K or all and at what growth stages.

Q: Would this low-cost SSNM have to be followed by all farmers?

A: No, farmers can do as they please.

Q: Would the low-cost SSNM still qualify as a true SSNM? How do you do an impact
analysis of a sub-optimal, low cost SSNM?
A: Try to help farmers in getting loans to purchase inputs or develop guidelines that would
allow them to start with low NPK inputs at the beginning of the season and then increase
rates only, if the season turns out to be very good. This would help famers avoid
financial losses when facing heavy rainfall or drought after an initial investment in high
basal fertilizer NPK rates.

Q: What if the farmer does not want to apply the third N split because cost for fertilizer N
and labor is high?
A: If weather conditions turn out to be less favorable than expected so that the yield goal
will not be reached and if the LCC reading indicates a high plant N status, recommend
not to apply the third N split. If weather conditions are average or above, suggest to
observe the plant N status using the LCC and apply the proposed third N split only in a
portion of the field. Compare yield in the area with and without the third N split based
on yield of four 3-m harvesting rows.

Q: The SSNM guidelines suggest three applications for N rates of more than 120 kg N/ha.
However, our farmers don‘t like to apply fertilizer N three times, i.e. basal application
followed by two N topdressings, they prefer to apply N only two times to save on labor
cost. Is that acceptable?
A: You could develop a N management strategy with slightly higher N rates than originally
planned for each application in the 3-N split strategy and then make the last application
optional depending on the LCC reading. Or propose to the farmer to compare a 2-N split
strategy with a 3-N split strategy in a portion of his/her field.

Q: How should we do yield measurements after the season?

A: Take 4 rows of each 3m; 2 sampling plots if possible. Measure row distance. Measure
moisture content of grain with moisture meter or have a protocol on how to express MC
in the field using qualitative descriptors (e.g. low, medium, high) – JMP to develop
protocol.

Q: How shall we use SSNM + PE at sites without data?

27
A: Need to visit new sites to assess how different the soil/site characteristics are from our
sites. If new sites are not so different from existing ones, may use SSNM/PE; however,
if totally different, may have to do some omission plot trials there.

28
Appendix D. An example for a one-page summary of guidelines for implementing SSNM for
rice in Indonesia.

29
References:

Balasubramanian V, Morales AC, Cruz RT, Abdulrachman S. 1999. On-farm adaptation of

knowledge-intensive nitrogen management technologies for rice systems.
Nutr.Cycl.Agroecosyst. 53:59-69.

Buresh RJ, Witt C. 2007. Research Findings: III The principles of Site-Specific Nutrient
Management [online]. Available at http://www.ipipotash.org/e-ifc/2006-
10/research3.php (last update 2007

IPNI. 2008. A practical guide to site-specific nutrient management for maize in tropical,
favorable environments. Draft 01, 11 March 2008.

IRRI. 2007. Site-specific nutrient management [online]. Available at www.irri.org/irrc/ssnm

(last update 2007; accessed 05 Dec. 2007).

Janssen BH, Guiking FCT, van der Eijk D, Smaling EMA, Wolf J, van Reuler H. 1990. A
system for quantitative evaluation of the fertility of tropical soils (QUEFTS).
Geoderma. 46:299-318.

Witt C , Dobermann A. 2004. Towards a decision support system for site-specific nutrient
management. In: Dobermann A, Witt C, Dawe D, editors. Increasing productivity of
intensive rice systems through site-specific nutrient management. Enfield, NH (USA)
and Los Baños (Philippines): Science Publishers, Inc., and International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI).

Witt C, Dobermann A, Abdulrachman S, Gines HC, Wang GH, Nagarajan R,

Satawatananont S, Son TT, Tan PS, Le Van Tiem, Simbahan GC, Olk DC. 1999.
Internal nutrient efficiencies in irrigated lowland rice of tropical and subtropical Asia.
Field Crops Res. 63:113-138.

Witt C, Pasuquin JMCA. 2007. Research Findings V: Improving the productivity and
profitability of maize in Southeast Asia [online]. Available at
http://www.ipipotash.org/e-ifc/2007-14/research5.php (last update 2007; accessed 21
Jan. 2008).

Witt C, Pasuquin JMCA, Mutters R. 2004. Spectral reflectance of rice and maize leaves and
leaf color charts for N management [online]. In: New directions for a diverse planet:
Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress Brisbane, Australia, 26
Sep - 1 Oct 2004. Available at www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004 (last update 2004;
accessed 15 July 2005).

Witt C, Pasuquin JMCA, Mutters R, Buresh RJ. 2005. New leaf color chart for effective
nitrogen management in rice. Better Crops. 89(1):36-39.

30