Economic Assessment of Quality Protein Maize Using Different Plant Geometry and Split Nitrogen Management Strategies
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the rabi season (November-April) of 2021-22 and 2022-23 at the instructional farm of Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, aimed at evaluating the effects of plant geometry and split nitrogen management on the economic performance of Quality Protein Maize (Zea mays L.). The experimental setup employed a split-plot design with three main plot treatments for plant geometry and five sub-plot treatments for split nitrogen management, with each treatment replicated three times. The main plot treatments included three planting densities and sub-plot treatments contained five different split nitrogen management regimes. Results indicated that among the plant geometry treatments, the PG3 (40 x 20 cm spacing with 125,000 plants ha⁻¹) resulted in the highest cost of cultivation (78,081.49 and 80,865.09 Rs. ha⁻¹), but also achieved the highest gross returns (226,267.9 and 221,563.1 Rs. ha⁻¹), net returns (148,186.38 and 140,998.04 Rs. ha⁻¹), and benefit-cost ratios (2.90 and 2.75) over both years. In contrast, PG1 (60 x 30 cm spacing, 55,555 plants ha⁻¹) showed the lowest economic values, with a cost of cultivation of 73,681.49 and 76,165.09 Rs. ha⁻¹, gross returns of 145,736.7 and 143,451.8 Rs. ha⁻¹, net returns of 72,055.18 and 67,286.66 Rs. ha⁻¹, and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.98 and 1.88 during both years of experimentation. For nitrogen management, the SN5 treatment (10% at basal, 20% at V8, 40% at VT, and 30% at R1) led to significantly higher economic returns, recording gross returns of 193,258.8 and 187,730.6 Rs. ha⁻¹, net returns of 116,961.9 and 108,936.2 Rs. ha⁻¹, and benefit-cost ratios of 2.54 and 2.37. Conversely, the conventional nitrogen management (SN1) yielded the lowest economic outcomes, with gross returns of 173,216.5 and 169,693.3 Rs. ha⁻¹, net returns of 100,329.6 and 94,378.91 Rs. ha⁻¹, and benefit-cost ratios of 2.31 and 2.22 across both years. The study shows that cultivating Quality Protein Maize (QPM) with the VL QPM Hybrid 59, using a dense planting geometry of 40 x 20 cm (125,000 plants ha⁻¹), significantly enhances economic returns for farmers in North Bengal. This setup optimizes land use and productivity. Additionally, a strategic split nitrogen application (10% basal, 20% at V8, 40% at VT, and 30% at R1) aligns nitrogen availability with key growth stages, promoting optimal growth and yield. Together, these practices present an effective agronomic strategy to improve the profitability of maize farming in the region.
Keywords
Download Options
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is recognized as one of the most essential cereal crops worldwide, contributing significantly to food security, particularly in developing regions where it serves as a dietary staple. In India, maize holds a vital place as the third most important crop after rice and wheat, forming a core part of the national diet. However, conventional maize varieties are deficient in certain key amino acids, particularly lysine and tryptophan. These amino acids are fundamental for the synthesis of high-quality proteins in the human body. Due to this deficiency, the protein quality of traditional maize is relatively low, which can lead to malnutrition and a decrease in the biological value of the food, as the net protein utilization in the body is compromised. Consequently, this limitation impacts overall nutritional outcomes, particularly in populations that rely heavily on maize as a primary food source.
Conclusion
The results clearly indicate that implementing a high-density planting configuration (PG3) alongside a well-timed, staggered nitrogen management strategy (SN5) delivers the most substantial economic benefits. This approach optimizes nitrogen use efficiency by ensuring the nutrient is available during critical growth phases, thereby supporting robust vegetative growth and effective grain filling. As a result, both biomass and grain production are significantly enhanced, leading to superior gross and net returns compared to other treatment combinations. Therefore, the integration of the PG3 crop geometry and SN5 nitrogen management can serve as a highly effective agronomic strategy, offering considerable potential for maximizing profitability in comparable maize-based cropping systems.
References
- Ahmed, A. S., & Patra, P. S. (2025). Impact of plant population and split nitrogen management on nutrient partitioning of quality protein maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agricultural Physics, 25(2), 216–226.
- Amanullah, K. A., Jan, A., & Ali, A. (2017). Influence of plant density on yield and economic return. Agricultural Journal, 12(1), 11–18.
- Chaudhary, N. K., Pandey, B., & Yadav, L. (2015). Split application of nitrogen influence on leaf area index (LAI), crop growth rate (CGR), and grain yield of maize. International Journal of Research, 2(5), 2348–6848.
- Choudhary, R., & Gupta, A. (2019). Economic efficiency of nitrogen management strategies. Agricultural Economics Review, 30(2), 157–166.
- Dar, E. A., Harika, A. S., Tomar, S. K., Tyagi, A. K., & Datta, A. (2014). Effect of crop geometry and nitrogen levels on quality of baby corn (Zea mays L.) as fodder. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 31(1), 60–64.
- Directorate of Maize Research. (2007a). Studies on N scheduling in maize at Arbhavi. In Annual Report, All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize (pp. A39). IARI.
- Directorate of Maize Research. (2008i). Studies of nitrogen scheduling in maize at Pantnagar. In Annual Report, All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize (Vol. 65, No. 11, pp. 90–97). IARI.
- Dutta, D., Mudi, D. D., & Thentu, T. L. (2015). Effect of irrigation levels and planting geometry on growth, cob yield and water use efficiency of baby corn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 11(2), 105–110.
- Fageria, N. K., & Baligar, V. C. (2018). Nutrient use efficiency in crops. Field Crops Research, 213(6), 387–399.
- Gómez, K., & Gómez, A. (1983). Statistical procedures for agricultural research (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
- Indian Institute of Maize Research. (2015a). Effect of planting density and nutrient management practices on the performance of hybrids in kharif season at Bajaura. In Annual progress report, All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize (pp. A112). IARI.
- Indian Institute of Maize Research. (2015e). Effect of planting density and nutrient management practices on the performance of hybrids in kharif season in Udaipur. In Annual progress report, All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize (pp. A147). IARI.
- Islam, M., Rahman, M., Hossain, M., Alam, M., & Haque, M. (2020). Effect of plant spacing on yield and economics. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 206(5), 629–640.
- Jena, S. N., & [Additional authors if available]. (2013). Quality protein maize for nutritional security. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 83(6), 583–590.
- Kumar, S., & Patel, R. (2021). Advances in nitrogen management for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 184(2), 217–229.
- Mason, N., & Fischer, R. (2019). Optimizing crop nitrogen use efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 111(3), 1207–1218.
- Patra, P. S., Kanjilal, B., Ahmad, A. S., Saha, R., Hoque, A., Meena, H., Sarkar, A., & Choudhury, A. (2022). Performance of rabi maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by date of sowing under Terai zone of West Bengal. The Pharma Innovation, 11(7), 2191–2195.
- Prasad, R., & Power, J. F. (2020). Economic implications of nitrogen management. Field Crops Research, 246(21), Article 107692.
- Ramu, Y. R., & Reddy, D. S. (2007). Yield, nutrient uptake and economics of hybrid maize as influenced by plant stand, levels and time of nitrogen application. Crop Research, 33(12), 41–45.
- Revathi, K., Sree Rekha, M., Mukesh, K. S., & Sharma, G. (2017). Growth and yield of rabi maize (Zea mays L.) at different planting densities and N-levels. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(12), 655–664.
- Thapa, S., Mainali, P., Shrestha, J., & Acharya, S. (2019). Timing of nitrogen application for maximum yield. Journal of Crop Improvement, 33(4), 517–532.