INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1804

www.rsisinternational.org

Socio-Economic Characterisation of Maize Farmers, Profitability,and

Yield Performance of Maize under Integrated Nutrient Management

in Two Agro-Ecological Zones of Ghana

Emmanuel Baah

, Harrison Kwame Dapaah

, Margaret E. Essilfie

, Ebenezer Kwasi Ntiri

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Education, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training

& Entrepreneurial Development, Ghana

Department of Horticulture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10100000160

Received: 25 October 2025; Accepted: 01 November 2025; Published: 18 November 2025

ABSTRACT

The study combined a socio-economic survey with multi-season field trials to assess the socio-economic

characteristics, yield, and profitability performance of maize under Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) in

two Agro-ecological zones of Ghana. The research survey was conducted between December 10, 2022, and

March 20, 2023, at the Mampong Municipal and the Ejura Sekyere District Assemblies in Ghana's Ashanti

Region. A purposive multi-stage sampling approach was employed to interview 50 maize farmers, while the field

experiment utilised a Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) with twelve treatments and four replications

during the 2023 major and minor cropping seasons at Fumesua (Kumasi) and Asante Mampong. The treatments

included Agro Charger, Agro Clean (296 mL per 148 L of water/ha each), poultry manure (10 t/ha), and NPK

(250 kg/ha), applied individually and in various combinations. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics,

gross margin (cost–return) analysis, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in SAS. Socio-economic results showed

that 76% of the respondents were men and 24% were women, with a mean age of 49 years; 64% were married.

Education levels were generally low: 40% had no formal education, 34% had completed junior high school, 22%

had attained an O-level/SHS Education, and only 4% had reached tertiary education. Profitability analysis

indicated that maize production was economically viable across most treatments. Field trial results revealed

significant differences in yield between fertilized plots and the control plot. The combination of Poultry Manure

+ Agro Charger + Agro Clean (PM + A.CH + A.CL) achieved yields of 5.3-6.6 t/ha, compared to 1.6–3.0 t/ha in

the control, representing a potential yield increase of up to 120%. These findings suggest that integrating organic

and inorganic nutrient sources can substantially enhance maize productivity and should be recommended for

adoption by farmers in similar Agro-ecological zones.

INTRODUCTION

Maize (Zea mays L.) is a vital food crop worldwide, playing a key role in Ghana's food system as a source of

food, livestock feed, and feedstuff. Growing across all Agro-ecological zones, more than 80% of national

production occurs in the Forest-Savannah Transition zone (Neupane et al., 2022). Although Ghana has a national

food security and a consumption of 43.8 kg/head (Asante et al., 2017), the country has a national average yield

of 2.48 MT/ha, which is less than a third of the potential (7 to 8 MT/ha) (Poku et al., 2018). Jayne et al. (2016)

concluded that Agricultural economies with low levels of inorganic fertilizer use are characterized by low crop

yields, low rural incomes, and extreme poverty rates. Low yields and quality maize grains are associated with

inefficient utilization of nutrient (incomplete fertilizer absorption), coupled with high cost of inorganic fertilizers,

climate change i.e. unreliable rainfall, as well as leaching of nutrients from the soil has resulted in frequent crop

failures affecting farmers’ incomes, rendering them vulnerable to poverty, and worsen nationwide food insecurity

(Obour et al., 2020). Amanullah et al. (2016) stated that many researchers have concluded that nitrogen (N)

fertilizer application has significantly improved maize growth and yield. In Ghana, fertiliser application (22.6 kg

ha-1) is much lower than the 50 kg ha

-1

recommended by the Abuja Declaration (Bua et al., 2020). Additionally,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1805

www.rsisinternational.org

high prices and dependence on expensive synthetic inorganic fertilisers, particularly Nitrogen Phosphorus-

Potassium (NPK), are making production too expensive and the overall profitability of smallholder farmers too

low (Amankwah et al., 2024; Ricker-Gilbert et al., 2024). To address these limitations, the use of integrated

nutrient management (INM) such as organic manure (Poultry Manure), inorganic fertilizer (NPK) and new

organic crop growth enhancers (nanoparticles) applied singly or in combination as sustainable alternatives in

reducing costs, environmental impact, and enhancing the efficiency with which nutrients are utilized for the

enhancement of crop yield (Bilong et al., 2022). However, the effectiveness of such combined strategies is not

limited to increased yield; it must be evaluated in economic terms, particularly for the smallholder farmers, the

industry is dominated by, and who are significantly under-resourced. It is crucial to comprehend the

socioeconomic demographics of these farmers, including their age, education, and gender, in order to develop

effective agricultural extension programs that promote the adoption of profitable technologies (Wahab et al.,

2020). The demographics of farmers also affect the adoption of profitable practices, with factors such as

educational backgrounds and ages perhaps leading to a lag in adopting new, more complex INM systems, a

phenomenon termed the Innovation Deficit. The existing gap is the lack of location-specific data that links the

effectiveness of the developed INM methods to comprehensive analyses of costs, benefits, and profitability

across the main areas of maize cultivation in Ghana. In view of this, the study aimed to assess the socio-economic

characterisation of maize farmers, as well as the profitability and yield performance of maize, as influenced by

integrated nutrient management in two agro-ecological zones of Ghana.

METHODOLOGY

Description Of Study Location and Period

This study combined a socio‐economic survey with field trials to assess the cost of maize production under

integrated nutrient management. The survey component was conducted in the Asante Mampong Municipal and

Ejura-Sekyedumase Districts of the Ashanti Region, Ghana, between December 10, 2022, and March 20, 2023,

collecting data on farmers’ demographics. The Field experiment was conducted in the transition zone between

the Forest and the Savannah Ecological Zones in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The research took place at

Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED) in

Asante Mampong, as well as at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research - Crop Research Institute

(CSIR-CRI) located in Fumesua. The experimental field at the AAMUSTED Faculty of Crops and Soil Science,

located in the Mampong Municipal area, was used. At the same time, the CSIR Crop Research Institute, owned

and operated by the Ghanaian government, is situated in the Kodie Municipal Assembly. This multi-location

study was conducted from March to July 2023, during the major growing season, and from September to

December 2023, during the minor growing season. The university is situated in a transitional zone between the

forest and savannah, with geographic coordinates of 07°08′N and 01°02′W, at an elevation of 456 meters above

sea level. This area experiences two distinct rainy seasons: the major rainy season typically runs from March to

July, while the minor rainy season is usually from September to November. Average daily temperatures range

from 21 to 23 °C at night to 31 °C during the day. The location receives an average annual rainfall of

approximately 1,094.2 mm (FAO, 1988; Asiamah et al., 2008). The soil at the experimental site is derived from

Voltaian sandstone found in the Afram Plains. It consists of deep, sandy soil free of pebbles and is classified as

Savannah ochrosol. The soil contains moderate amounts of organic matter and exhibits adequate drainage, with

a suitable water-holding capacity. According to the FAO/UNESCO classification (FAO, 1988; Asiamah et al.,

2008), it is classified as a Chromic Luvisol and locally referred to as the Bediase series. This type of soil is

particularly beneficial for cultivating cereals, legumes, and tuber crops. The soil pH ranges from 5.5 to 6.5.

Various crops, including maize, groundnuts, black-eyed peas, and soybeans, have been cultivated at the site. The

area is also dominated by grasses such as big grass (Cynodon plectostachus), guinea grass (Panicum maximum),

and nut grass (Cyperus rotundus). The CSIR-Crops Research Institute is situated in the semi-deciduous forest

zone, specifically at latitude 6°45′ 00.58″ N and longitude 1°31′ 51.28″ W. According to the World Reference

Base for Soil Resources Legend (FAO, 2015), the soil in Fumesua consists of ferric acrisol and ferric lixisol. The

surface soils in Fumesua are characterized by dark brown to brown fine sandy loam and greyish-brown sandy

loam (Adjei-Gyapong & Asiamah, 2000). This research site exhibits low soil fertility and limited moisture

retention. The rainy season is characterised by two distinct wet periods: a primary wet period from April to July

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1806

www.rsisinternational.org

and a secondary wet period from September to November, collectively defining its tropical climate. The average

temperature range for both minimum and maximum temperatures is from 21 to 32 °C. Both sites experience a

bimodal rainfall distribution of 1000–1800 mm yr⁻¹ and average daily temperatures of 25.5–30 °C, providing

complementary Agro‐ecological conditions for robust evaluation of maize growth, yield, and economic

outcomes.

Figure 1. Map of Ghana showing the geographic position of the research area

Population And Sampling Technique

The study employed a sequential mixed‐sampling approach that combined random selection at higher

administrative levels with purposive selection of the target population. First, all Ministry of Food and Agriculture

(MOFA) operational zones in the Mampong and Ejura-Sekyedumase Municipalities, chosen for their significant

roles in maize production, processing, and export, were listed. Four zones (Mampong, Kyiremfaso, Nkwanta,

and Ejura) were selected at random by folding each zone name onto a slip of paper, placing the slips into a

container, and selecting four slips. Second, within each of these zones, three communities were randomly selected

using the same paper-in-a-box method, yielding twelve communities (Old Daaman, Nkwanta, Bobin,

Abrukutuaso, Brengo Timber-Nkwanta, Kyiremfaso, Abuontem, Adweeho, Frante, New Daaman, and Yonso).

Third, extension-agent rosters from these communities identified 258 maize farmers who had exclusively used

the growth enhancers Agro Charger and Agro Clean. From this list, fifty farmers who met the usage criterion

were purposively selected for face-to-face interviews using a structured, closed-ended questionnaire. The

interviews were conducted between December 10, 2022, and March 20, 2023. This design ensured that the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1807

www.rsisinternational.org

sample captured detailed experiences of actual product adopters, clarifying that the results speak to this specific

group rather than the entire farming population.

Methodology For Data Collection

A purposive sampling method was employed to select 50 farmers who exclusively used Agro Charger and Agro

Clean in their crop production. Before full rollout, the semi-structured questionnaire was pre-tested through

oneon-one interviews using an interview guide and checklist. When clarity issues arose or deeper insight was

required, small focus group discussions (comprising 5–7 farmers) were convened. Feedback focused on question

wording, response options, and cultural relevance. Revisions were made to ensure consistency and ease of

understanding. The survey instrument was structured into three modules, comprising 44 closed-ended items. The

first module comprises: Demographic Profile, which includes seven items on personal information and farm

location. The second module consists of Farm Data/Profile, which contains 14 items covering enterprise type,

farm size, crops grown, and management practices such as fertiliser, manure, and pest control. The final module

covers the use of Agro Charger and Agro Clean. This module included 23 items to evaluate farmers' awareness,

sourcing practices, application rates, yields obtained, and product effectiveness ratings. To assess the clarity and

cultural appropriateness of the questions, a pre-test was conducted with 10 local farmers in the Mampong

Municipal and Ejura-Sekyedumase Districts of the Ashanti Region, Ghana.

Data Analysis

Survey data from Study 1 were first cleaned and coded in Microsoft Excel, then exported to SPSS version 26 for

analysis. Internal consistency of the instrument was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.70.

All closed-ended questionnaire items were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, including frequencies,

percentages, means, and standard deviations, to profile farmers’ knowledge and usage of organic growth

enhancers. Open-ended survey responses and semi-structured interview transcripts were analysed exclusively

through thematic coding, in which participant narratives were systematically categorised to identify recurring

themes and barriers to adoption. Economic data on production costs, gross profit, and net profit were analysed

using partial budgeting to calculate benefit-cost ratios, and trends in key variables were visualised in Excel.

Validity and Reliability

Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha

Items

Cronbach’s Alpha

Number of Items

Usage Of Organic Crop Growth Enhancers (Agro Charger and

Agro Clean).

0.741

In this segment, the reliability and validity of the structures have been examined, along with their relevance.

Reliability and validity, as well as other issues that require special consideration from the researcher when

handling the data produced by the study (Baillie, 2015; Teusner, 2016). The internal validity of the measurement

used in the study was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, with a minimum acceptable level of 0.70. Findings from

that research indicate that Cronbach's Alpha for Usage of Organic Crop Growth Enhancers (Agro Charger and

Agro Clean) was 0.741 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; George, Darren, & Mallery, 2016). The analysis revealed

that the alpha value for the Cronbach exceeded the threshold of 0.70, indicating that the construct is suitable for

the ongoing work (Hair et al., 2014; Pallant, 2020).

Ethical Considerations

In research, ethics is a set of moral principles that emphasise doing good and avoiding harm to people. (Creswell,

2014). Once the researcher explained the study's purpose to the respondents, they ensured that the data provided

would remain private. Before the research began, permission was obtained from the relevant authorities.

Regarding the confidentiality and privacy of the data provided, all participants received full assurances of

protection.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1808

www.rsisinternational.org

Experimental Design and Treatment

The experimental design was organized as a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD), encompassing

twelve treatments (T1 – T12) with four (4) replications at each experimental site. The study was conducted

concurrently at Mampong and Fumesua during both the 2023 major and minor cropping seasons at each location.

The replication consisted of twelve treatments: T1 = Agro Charger, T2 = Agro Clean, T3 = Agro Charger +Agro

Clean, T4 = NPK, T5 = NPK + Agro Charger, T6 = NPK + Agro Clean, T7 = NPK + Agro Charger + Agro Clean,

T8 = Poultry Manure, T9 = Poultry Manure +Agro Charger, T10 = Poultry Manure + Agro Clean, T11 = Poultry

Manure + Agro Charger +Agro Clean, T12 = Control. Each plot contained six rows, each with twelve plants, for

a total of seventy-two plants per plot. The treatments were randomly distributed across the plots. A plot size of

4.8 m wide × 5 m long was used. Using simple random sampling and random number generators, five plants

were randomly chosen and tagged within the harvestable area for data collection. The two central rows of the

harvestable area in each plot (treatment) were used for yield component analysis. The amendments were applied

at the following rates: Agro Charger (ACH) = 296 ml per 148 litres of water per hectare, Agro Clean (ACL) =

296 ml per 148 litres of water per hectare, NPK = 250 kg per hectare, and Poultry Manure (PM) = 10 tons per

hectare. The combined treatments were applied as follows: ACH + NPK = 148 ml per 74 litres of water per

hectare + 125 kg per hectare, and ACH + PM = 148 ml per 74 litres of water per hectare + 5 tons per hectare.

Certified maize seeds, Opeaburo (Hybrid, white), were obtained from CSIR-CRI research station at Fumesua,

Ghana, for planting. Opeaburo maize, a 105- to 110-day medium variety released by CSIR-CRI, and a High-

quality protein maize (QPM) variety contribute significantly to improved nutrition and well-being for humans,

poultry, and livestock. Often compared to other popular varieties in Ghana, it is recognised for its highyielding

potential.

Table 2 Types and Volume of Treatment used

TREATMENT

AMENDMENT

APPLICATION RATE

Agro Charger (ACH)

296 ml per 148 L water/ha

Agro Clean (ACL)

296 ml per 148 L water/ha

ACH + ACL

296 ml per 148 L water/ha (of each)

NPK

250 kg/ha

NPK + ACH

125 kg/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

NPK + ACL

125 kg/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

NPK + ACH + ACL

125 kg/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

Poultry Manure (PM)

10 t/ha

PM + ACH

5 t/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

T10

PM + ACL

5 t/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

T11

PM + ACH + ACL

5 t/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

T12

Control

ACL= Agro clean, ACH= Agro charger and PM= Poultry manure

Crop Management and Cultural

Land preparation, poultry manure application and planting. The field experiment site was demarcated, ploughed,

harrowed, lined, and pegged on 9th March 2023, during the major cropping season, and on 14th August 2023,

during the minor cropping season, respectively. The experiment field had a total of forty-eight (48) plots. Each

experimental plot measured 4.8 m in width by 5 m in length (24 m²). The field measured 57.6 m x 26 m, for a

total area of 1497.6 m

. There was a 0.5 m path left between plots and a 1 m gap left between blocks. Poultry

manure was applied to the plots according to the treatments for 2 weeks to decompose further. Opeaburo hybrid

maize seeds were sown at 5 cm and at a planting spacing of 80 cm x 40 cm. There were six rows per plot, with

24 plants in each row, totalling 144 plants per plot.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1809

www.rsisinternational.org

Poultry manure preparation

Poultry manure was obtained from APOGEE Farms in Mampong and heaped under shade, covered with a

polythene sheet, for 30 days to facilitate further decomposition before incorporation into the soil.

Table 3: Chemical properties of poultry manure used for the study

TOTAL N (%)

P (%)

K (%)

Ca (%)

Mg (%)

Na (%)

OC (%)

C: N

RATIO

POULTRY

MANURE

2.92

1.35

2.29

1.43

0.37

0.026

40.96

6.92

14.03

Source: KNUST – Soil Lab.

Planting Material

Opeaburo is a hybrid maize variety capable of yielding up to 8 tons per hectare, with a maturity period of 110 to

115 days. It features long, slender grains with a pleasant aroma and performs well across all growing seasons.

The variety exhibits early tasseling and silking relative to some other types and attains good plant height. For

maximum productivity, it requires proper spacing, a seed rate of 10 kg per acre (25 kg per hectare), and balanced

fertilization with compound and nitrogen fertilizers; urea is best applied by incorporating it into the soil. Seeds

were sown two per hill and thinned to one plant after two weeks. Agro Charger and Agro Clean were applied at

a rate of 296 ml per 148 L of water per hectare. For NPK alone, Yara Activa 23-10-5 fertilizer was applied at a

rate of 250 kg/ha (equivalent to 5 bags/ha). In combined treatments, Agro Charger and Agro Clean were applied

at the same rate, while Yara Activa was applied at a reduced rate of 125 kg/ha (equivalent to 2.47 bags/ha).

Weeding commenced at the same two-week mark, using a hoe for general weed removal, while hand-pulling

was employed in areas where weeds were near the plants. Additional weed control measures were taken 6 weeks

after planting through continued hoeing and hand-pulling.

To address pest and disease management, Warrior Super Insecticide, containing Emamectin benzoate as the

active ingredient, was mixed at a rate of 30 ml per 15 L of water. This equates to approximately 296.4 ml/ha

when using a total of 148.2 L of water. This formulation was applied to effectively control infestations of fall

armyworms, leaf cutters, ants, and stem borers. Typically, a high level of farm hygiene was upheld to achieve

optimal productivity. Surrounding the trials, alternate host plants were routinely removed.

Table 4: Initial chemical and physical properties of the soils

SOIL

(µS/cm)

AVAIL

%TO

TAL N

Exch. Bases (cmol/kg)

Exch.

Acidity

Org.

mg/kg

Carbon

Matter

MAMPONG

Major season

5.8

5.44

0.138

0.37

2.63

1.28

0.0560

0.246

0.251

1.746

3.009

MAMPONG

Minor season

451

5.4

5.85

0.134

0.58

2.21

1.72

0.0635

0.251

0.257

1.362

2.348

FUMESUA

Major season

568

6.37

7.83

0.163

1.95

6.40

1.50

0.0533

0.267

0.270

1.401

2.416

FUMESUA

Minor season

369

5.42

5.17

0.123

1.82

2.80

1.76

0.0533

0.265

0.270

1.398

2.410

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1810

www.rsisinternational.org

Data collected

Before land preparation, soil samples were randomly collected from the upper 30 cm of the soil and analysed for

their physicochemical and biological properties across both cropping seasons. A minimum of 20 soil samples

were collected for analysis. After conventional tillage to a depth of 15 cm and harrowing, the field was

demarcated into the designated experimental plots. The poultry manure displayed a slightly alkaline pH, elevated

levels of total nitrogen and potassium, and a high organic carbon content. However, it showed low concentrations

of total phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. Table 4 illustrates the initial chemical and physical properties of

the soils at experimental locations during the major and minor seasons of 2023 at AAMUSTED AsantiMampong

and CSIR - CRI Fumesua, respectively. During the 2023 major season at AAMUSTED, the soil was moderately

acidic (pH 5.79), had moderate organic matter content (3.009), and low nitrogen levels (0.14) (London, 1991).

Similarly, during the main season at CSIR - CRI, the soil was slightly acidic (pH 6.37) with a moderate organic

matter content (2.42). For the 2023 minor season at AAMUSTED Asanti-Mampong, the soil was moderately

acidic (pH 5.35), had moderate organic matter content (2.35), and low total nitrogen levels (0.13). During the

minor season at CSIR, the soil pH was moderately acidic (5.42), with a moderate organic matter content (2.41%)

and low total nitrogen levels (0.12%). At experimental sites, for AAMUSTED AsantiMampong in both major

and minor seasons, the available phosphorus levels (5.44 and 5.85) were moderate, as were the levels of

exchangeable bases (calcium, magnesium, and sodium) and total potassium. At CSIR CRI Fumesua during both

the 2023 major and minor seasons, the exchangeable cations (calcium, magnesium, and sodium) showed similar

patterns, with moderate levels of calcium and magnesium for both seasons, and high potassium levels for both

seasons.

Tables 5, 6, and 7 present detailed information on the nanomaterial used in the research, including summaries of

crop growth enhancer data, ingredient composition, and the physical and chemical properties of Agro Charger

concentrates.

Agro Charger functions as a nutrient uptake enhancer rather than a fertilizer, as it contains plant-based ingredients

that improve the plant’s ability to absorb fertilizers and other essential nutrients more effectively. Agro Charger

concentrate is entirely biodegradable and unlikely to bioaccumulate. It is composed of naturally occurring

substances that are non-pathogenic, non-hazardous, and non-toxic, with no potential contribution to ozone

depletion, photochemical ozone formation, or global warming (Shukla, 2022).

Table 5: Summary information of crop growth enhancer

Product Name

Agro Charger Herbal Concentrate

Product Code

Agro Charger Herbal Concentrate

Family / Group

Crop Enhancer

Chemical Formula

Mixture

Other Designations

Liquid formulation containing a Nano blend made from organic extract

Source: Shukla (2022)

Table 4: Initial soil chemical and physical characteristics for Mampong and Fumesua in 2023

Components

Composition (%) W/W

Alkyl Polyglucoside extract of Sugar cane

20%

Alkyl Polyglucoside extract of Potato

Alkyl Polyglucoside extract of coconut

26%

Alkyl Polyglucoside extract of Palm

16%

Alkyl Polyglucoside extract of Maize

30%

Alkyl Polyglucoside, Herbal extracts and tree saps

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1811

www.rsisinternational.org

Non-Chlorinated Water

Q.s.

Source: Shukla (2022)

Table 6: Physical of Agro charger

Physical state

Liquid

Colour

Amber to brown

Odour

Mild, as per standards

Miscibility

Soluble in water

Stability

Stable at normal storage conditions

Corrosion

Noncorrosive

Flash Point

>220°C

% Volatile volume

Vapour pressure

Not determined

Boiling Point

>100°C

10.

Freezing Point

<0°C

Source: Shukla (2022)

Table 7: Chemical characteristics of the Agro charger used for the study.

% Total

% Org.

%Water-

Soluble

% Water

in soluble

% Urea

Ammonium

Nitrate

%Total

Org.

Carbon

%Total

Carbon

Agro

Charger

4.04

3.80

2.78

0.89

1.84

2.22

34.55

4.07

Source: Gujarat Lab (2018)

Table 8 presents detailed information on Agro Clean, outlining its ingredients and their respective proportions.

Agro Clean functions as an organic plant protector and stress regulator, specifically shielding plants from sucking

pests and fungal and bacterial infections that can cause harm. It is safe for beneficial organisms such as predators,

natural enemies, pollinators, and farmers, thereby protecting crops, people, and the environment.

Table 8: Summary information of Agro Clean used for the study

Ingredient

Botanical Name

Composition (100%)

Processed Coconut Extracts

Cocos nucifera

20%

Processed Corn Extracts

Zea mays

20%

Processed Extract of Sugarcane

Saccharum officinarum

26%

Water

19%

Citronella oil

Cynlcopogon

0.1%

Cinnamon oil

Cinnamomum verum

0.1%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1812

www.rsisinternational.org

Cedar oil

Cedrus deodara

0.1%

Mint oil

Mentha piperita

0.1%

Spear Mint oil

Mentha arvensis

0.1%

Geranium oil

Gerranium wallichianum

0.1%

Water Lily oil

Nymphaea alba

0.1%

Karanja oil

Pongamia -pinnata

0.1%

Neem oil

Azadirachta indica

0.1%

Excipient

Qs 4%

Source: Shukla (2022)

Yield and Yield Components

100 Grains Weight

The weight of 100 randomly selected grains was taken from cobs.

Total Grain Yield (t/h)

Grain yield (t ha

-1

) was calculated from the weight of grain obtained by a given area covered. An electronic

balance was used to measure grain yield per plot, which was then converted to hectares after adjusting for a

12.5% moisture content.

Economic Benefits Analysis

The economic viability and profitability of the cropping systems were assessed using production costs, gross

profit, and net profit for each of the twelve (12) treatments. To calculate the economic advantages at both

experimental locations.

Production Cost, Gross Profit, and Net Profit

To assess the profitability of maize production at the CSIR-Crops Research Institute station in Fumesua and the

AAMUSTED College of Agriculture Education campus in Mampong, Ashanti, financial metrics such as

production cost, gross profit, and net profit were evaluated. Production cost encompasses all expenses incurred

to bring a crop to harvest. It is subdivided into variable (operating) costs and fixed (ownership) costs. Gross

profit is the difference between total revenue from sales and total variable production costs. The metric is

calculated as:

Gross Profit = Total Revenue − Variable Costs

Net profit measures overall financial health by subtracting both variable and fixed costs from total revenue. A

positive net profit signals a sustainably profitable operation, while a negative net profit indicates a loss. The

formula is expressed as:

Net Profit = Total Revenue − Total Production Cost

2.4 Statistical analysis

The collected field data were analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in SAS Version 9. Statistically

significant mean differences were separated and compared using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)

test at a 5% probability level.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1813

www.rsisinternational.org

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Maize Farmers

The socio-economic characteristics assessed in this study included the sex, age, marital status, education level,

principal occupation, and farm location of maize farmers. A summary of respondents’ distribution by these

characteristics is presented below. Of the 50 farmers interviewed, 38 (76%) were male and 12 (24%) were female,

indicating that maize farming in the study area is predominantly a male-dominated activity. This observation is

consistent with Adeagbo et al. (2021), who also reported male dominance in maize production. The lower female

participation suggests that women are more engaged in other parts of the maize value chain, such as weeding

and post-harvest handling, as noted by Philip and Itodo (2012). In terms of age, 46% of farmers were aged 30–

41, followed by 42% aged 42–60. These age groups represent Ghana’s economically active labour force (World

Bank Open Data, 2025), combining physical strength and substantial farming experience. Farmers within this

range are generally more productive and manage resources efficiently. However, Masi et al. (2022) observed that

younger farmers tend to adopt modern, climate-smart agricultural technologies more rapidly, suggesting a

potential generational gap in the adoption of these technologies.

Regarding marital status, 64% of respondents were married, 22% were single, 8% were divorced, and 6% were

widowed. The predominance of married farmers suggests a family-oriented farming structure that relies heavily

on family labour. In matrilineal societies, marriage often facilitates access to family land and strengthens

community support networks, which are essential for mobilizing labour and financial assistance during critical

farming periods (Bigombe & Khadiagala, 2004; Barker et al., 2022).

In terms of education, 40% of farmers had no formal education, 34% had completed primary or junior high

school, 22% had secondary education (O Level/SHS), and only 4% had tertiary education. Economic constraints

such as school fees, uniforms, and the opportunity cost of losing farm labour often compel families to withdraw

children from formal education after basic school (Mwamadi & Seiffert, 2012). In such contexts, informal

apprenticeships or on-farm work become more common, and the lack of parental education perpetuates low

academic aspirations. Cultural factors, such as early marriage and caregiving responsibilities, particularly among

girls, further reduce school attendance (Larsen, 2014; Akurugu, 2022). Regarding occupation, 96% of

respondents identified farming as their primary occupation, while only 4% were engaged in trading. This

highlights a strong dependence on agriculture and limited occupational diversity. As Gatare et al. (2015) noted,

trading requires access to capital, transport, and storage infrastructure, which are often lacking in rural

communities, leading smallholder farmers to prioritise subsistence and market-oriented maize production.

Overall, the socio-economic profile suggests that maize farming in the study areas is predominantly driven by

males, with a majority of middle-aged, married farmers possessing limited formal education and few alternative

income sources, underscoring the need for targeted interventions in education, training, and technology adoption

(Table 9).

Table 9: Economic characteristics of respondents

Study Variable

Frequency

Percentage

Average Age of Respondent

Male

Female

Age

18-29

30-41

42-60

61 years and above

Marital Status

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1814

www.rsisinternational.org

Married

Single

Divorce

Widow/widower

Level of Education

Primary/JHS

O Level/SHS

Tertiary

Non-formal education

Main Occupation

Farmer

Trader

Source: field survey, 2023

Farmers’ Awareness, Use, and Perceived Effectiveness of Crop Enhancers and Organic Protectors

All respondents (100%) reported using crop enhancers, with Agrocharger being the most popular (32%),

followed by Dehigro (30%), Adepa (16%), and Apex 10 (4%). Most farmers (98%) used Agrocharger in

combination with Agro Clean, demonstrating strong acceptance of integrated applications. Usage varied

seasonally: 44% applied them year-round, 38% during the rainy season, and 18% in the dry season. Information

on Agrocharger mainly came from AEA/MoFA (58%), agrochemical dealers (18%), and radio or fellow farmers

(12%), emphasizing the key role of formal extension services. Agrocharger was mainly used on maize (46%)

and carrots (42%), with smaller use on cabbage (8%) and cowpea (4%). Application rates differed: 56% used 40

ml/15 L, 40% used 30 ml/15 L, and 4% used 15 ml/15 L, suggesting a preference for higher doses. Yield

outcomes were positive, with 52% achieving 3–4 t/ha, 32% achieving 2–3 t/ha, and 14% exceeding 4 t/ha, while

only 2% yielded below 2 t/ha. This suggests a strong correlation between the use of Agrocharger and increased

productivity. All respondents also used organic crop protectors, with Adepa (38%) and Neemazal (26%) being

the most common, followed by Agro Clean (14%), Agogo (12%), Bypel (8%), and Diapel (2%), reflecting a

preference for proven, accessible organic options (Table 10). The positive yield response, which is large in scale,

may be explained by the soil conditions, including P and K deficiencies and the low amount of soil organic matter

(SOM), which allows for inferences about the functional profile of Agrocharger. Agrocharger is a complex

system that has been demonstrated to enhance nutrient uptake efficiency and mitigate yield loss resulting from

common abiotic stress conditions in tropical agriculture (Li et al., 2022).

Table 10: Farmers' Knowledge, Usage, and Perceived Effectiveness of Crop Enhancers and Organic Crop

Protectors (n=50)

Study Variable

Frequency

Percentage

Have you ever used crop enhancer on your crops?

Yes

100.0

If yes, what type of crop enhancer did you use?

Adepa

16.0

Agrocharger

32.0

Agyenkwa

8.0

Apex 10

4.0

Dehigro

30.0

Supergro

10.0

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1815

www.rsisinternational.org

Have you used both Agro charger and Agro clean together?

Yes

98.0

2.0

If yes, when did you use it?

During the wet season

38.0

Dry season

18.0

Wet and dry

44.0

Where information on the Agro charger and Agro clean is received

Colleague farmer

12.0

AEAM/MoFA

58.0

Radio/Programme/Advert

12.0

Agrochemical seller/Stores

18.0

Stores

What type of crop was Agro Charger applied to

Carrot

42.0

Cabbage

8.0

Maize

46.0

Cowpea

4.0

Quantity of Agro charger used

15mls/15l

4.0

30mls/15l

40.0

40mls/15l

56.0

Average yield after application of Agro charger

1-2t/ha

2.0

2-3t/ha

32.0

3-4t/ha

52.0

> 4 t/ha

14.0

Have you ever used organic crop protector on your crop?

Yes

100.0

If yes, what type of crop protector was used?

Adepa

38.0

Agoo

12.0

Agro clean

14.0

Bypel

8.0

Diapel

2.0

Neemazal

26.0

Source: Field data 2023

Application Practices, Yield Benefits and Farmers’ Perceived Effectiveness

All respondents (100%) have used fertiliser, Agro Charger and Agro Clean. Seasonal use patterns showed that

46% applied them year-round, 38% only during the rainy season, and 16% only during the dry season, reflecting

adaptation to crop growth needs. Agro Clean was mainly used on maize (44%) and carrots (44%), with smaller

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1816

www.rsisinternational.org

use on cabbage (8%) and cowpea (4%). Application rates varied: 48% used 40 ml/15 L, 46% used 30 ml/15 L,

and 6% used 15 ml/15 L, suggesting a preference for higher doses. Yield results showed 50% achieved 3–4 t/ha,

32% had 2–3 t/ha, and 18% exceeded 4 t/ha. All farmers confirmed productivity gains from Agrocharger, mainly

through higher yields (90%), reduced organic fertiliser use (8%), and reduced inorganic fertiliser use (2%).

Similarly, 100% affirmed that Agro Clean improved output by reducing pest incidence (72%), enhancing crop

growth (10%), and lowering pesticide use (18%). Agrocharger and Agro Clean were rated as highly effective by

38% and 52% of users, respectively, and as effective by 54% and 48%, respectively. The combined use was

valued and deemed successful by 44% and 56% of farmers, underscoring its complementary benefits (Table 11).

The overall yield results show that regional yield disparities were effectively resolved. Just 18% of the

respondents produced yields greater than 4 t/ha, whereas half were able to obtain yields between 3 and 4 t/ha.

When compared to the average smallholder maize indicators in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which typically range

between 1.8 and 3.2 t/ha, the high-performance level of 68 per cent of farmers attaining 3 t/ha or higher is

excessive (Leroux et al., 2019). Because of the environmental damage caused by traditional reliance on

agrochemicals, sophisticated, low-impact inputs have become necessary. Biostimulants and biopesticides, which

can enhance plant physiology and provide targeted control over pests, are a critical solution that has been

discovered to enable this change (Shang et al., 2019). The products mitigate yield declines characteristic of

adverse environmental conditions and contribute to improved resource management (Koleska et al., 2017).

Table 11: Use, Yield Benefits and Effectiveness of Agro Charger and Agro Clean (n=50)

Yes

100

If yes, when did you use it?

During the wet season

38.0

Dry season

16.0

Wet and dry

46.0

What type of crop was Agro Clean applied to

Carrot

44.0

Cabbage

8.0

Maize

44.0

Cowpea

4.0

Quantity of Agro Clean used

15mls/15l

6.0

30mls/15l

46.0

40mls/15l

48.0

Average yield after application of Agro Clean (Crop protector)

Study Variable

Frequency

Percentage

Have you used fertilizer, Agro charger, and Agro clean together?

Study Variable

Frequency

Percentage

Have you used fertilizer, Agro charger, and Agro clean together?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1817

www.rsisinternational.org

2-3 t/ha

32.0

3-4 t/ha

50.0

> 4 t/ha

18.0

Did applying an Agro charger improve your production?

Yes

100.0

If yes, how did it improve your production?

Increased the number of economic parts (yield)

90.0

It reduced the amount of organic fertilizer/manure applied

8.0

It reduced the amount of inorganic fertilizer applied

2.0

Did the application of Agro Clean improve your production?

Yes

100.0

If yes, how did it improve your production?

Reduced the incidence of pests

72.0

Improved the crop performance in terms of growth

10.0

It reduced the number of inorganic pesticides used on the crops

18.0

Rating of the Agro charger as an effective crop enhancer

Highly effective

38.0

Effective

54.0

Moderately effective

8.0

Rating of Agro Clean as an effective crop enhancer

Highly effective

52.0

Effective

48.0

Source: Field data 2023

Grain Yield

At Fumesua, grain yield ranged from 1.6 t/ha in the control to 6.6 t/ha under the PM + A.CH + A.CL treatment

during the major season, while in the minor season, the highest yield recorded was 6.3 t/ha under the same

treatment. The results showed significant differences among treatments (P < 0.001), with the combination of

Have you ever used both Agro charger and Agro clean

Yes

100.0

What was the effectiveness level?

Highly effective

44.0

Effective

56.0

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1818

www.rsisinternational.org

Agro Charger, Agro Clean, and organic or inorganic fertilizers consistently producing higher yields. Poultry

manure and its combinations also significantly boosted grain yield, confirming the strong contribution of organic

inputs to maize productivity. At Mampong, yield performance followed a similar trend, with slightly lower

baseline values in the control and slightly lower peak yields than at Fumesua. Grain yield ranged from 1.5 t/ha

in the control to 6.4 t/ha in the PM + A.CH + A.CL treatment during the major season, and from 1.3 t/ha to 6.0

t/ha in the minor season under the same treatment. The inclusion of growth enhancers and organic fertilisers also

resulted in significant yield improvements, underscoring their role in boosting maize production. Both sites

showed positive responses to the integrated application of crop growth enhancers, inorganic, and organic

fertilisers, with Fumesua recording the highest yield (6.6 t/ha) compared with Mampong’s 6.4 t/ha. However,

Mampong’s lower control yield (1.3 t/ha vs. 1.8 t/ha) indicated a comparatively lower baseline soil fertility before

treatment (Table 12). The maximum grain yield was 100,000 plants/ha, and the minimum was 166,664 plants/ha;

the optimum was estimated at 9.74 plants/m² (97,400 plants/ha) (Ghaffari et al., 2011). The harvested amount of

plants in the present study was 24 (PM+CH+CL) between the major and minor seasons, with a range of 16

(NPK+CL) and 20 (CH). The results, which showed a high percentage of harvested plants using poultry manure

(PM), Agro Charger (CH), Agro Clean (CL), and NPK, were due to the synergistic effects of these inputs. The

poultry manure enhanced the water and soil structure, which are essential in the imbibition of seeds and their

uniform germination (Calamai et al., 2020; Ngosong et al., 2020), and the growth factors (CH and CL) probably

supplied the plant hormones (auxins, cytokinins) and microorganisms that promoted initial cell division, root

growth, and general seedling vigour, enhancing the faster establishment and survival (Shreenidhi et al., 2023;

Bhowmick et al., 2024).

Table 12: Influence of crop growth enhancers, inorganic, and organic fertilizers on maize grain yield in

the major and minor seasons of 2023.

Treatments

Fumesua

Mampong

Grain Yield(ton/Ha)

Major Minor

Grain Yield(ton/Ha)

Major Minor

Agro charger

3.6

2.7

4.0

3.5

Agro clean

2.8

2.2

3.0

A. CH. + A. CL

1.9

4.5

4.0

N.P. K

2.9

2.0

4.0

3.0

N.P. K +A.CH

5.7

5.4

6.0

5.3

N.P. K + A.CL

3.1

2.4

4.0

3.5

N.P. K + A.CH + A.CL

5.0

5.4

6.0

Poultry Manure

3.0

1.8

3.3

PM + A.CH

6.2

5.4

6.3

5.1

PM + A.CL

4.5

4.3

3.4

3.3

PM + A.CH + A. CL

6.6

6.3

6.4

6.0

Control

1.6

1.8

1.5

1.3

CV (%)

22.0

Season

HSD (0.05) =0.35 P=<0.0001

HSD (0.05) =1.46 P=<0.0001

HSD (0.05) =1.22 P=<0.0001

HSD (0.05) =0.31 P=<0.0001

HSD (0.05) =1.30 P=<0.0001

HSD (0.05) =1.09 P=0.0053

Treatment

S X T

Source: Analysed Field Data, 2023

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1819

www.rsisinternational.org

Production costs (ghc) associated with maize cultivation in fumesua and mampong during the major and

minor seasons

Table 13 presents the production costs of maize (Zea mays L.) under combined applications of organic growth

enhancers, inorganic fertilizers, and organic fertilizers at Fumesua and Mampong during both major and minor

seasons. The findings revealed a significant difference (P < 0.05) in production costs among treatments with

organic growth enhancers, inorganic fertilisers, and organic fertilisers. Costs ranged from GHC 1390.50 for the

control (lowest) to GHC 2117.50 for the NPK treatment (highest). The integrated Poultry Manure + Agro Charger

+ Agro Clean (PM + A.CH + A.CL) treatment resulted in a balanced cost of GHC 1,850.50 (Table 13). The high

cost of NPK fertilizer was attributed to its synthetic, nitrogen-based composition and energy-intensive production

process (Smith et al., 2020). Treatments combining PM, A.CH, and A.CL used a reduced NPK rate (125 kg/ha).

Although poultry manure and biostimulants added to total costs, the 50% reduction in NPK helped lower total

production costs.

Table 13: Costs and Returns of Maize Production

Treatments

Production Cost (GHC)

Agro charger

1697.50

Agro clean

1697.50

A. CH. + A. CL

1450.50

N.P. K

2117.50

N.P. K +A.CH

1922.50

N.P. K + A.CL

1922.50

N.P. K + A.CH + A.CL

1952.50

Poultry Manure

1790.50

PM + A.CH

1820.50

PM + A.CL

1820.50

PM + A.CH + A. CL

1850.50

Control

1390.50

Source: Analysed field data, 2023

Gross And Net Profit (Ghc) Of Maize Production in Fumesua and Mampong During the Major and Minor

Seasons

In Table 14, the gross and net profit of the combined use of organic crop growth enhancers, inorganic fertilizers,

and organic fertilizers on maize (Zea mays L.) production at Fumesua and Mampong during the major and minor

seasons was presented. The results revealed that gross profit and net profit varied significantly (p<0.05) among

the treatments applied in maize cultivation. The gross profit at Fumesua reached as high as GHC 33000 with the

PM + A.CH + A.CL treatment compared to a mere GHC 8000 for the control, while at Mampong, the highest

gross profit was GHC 32000 against GHC 15000 for the control in the major season. A similar pattern was

observed in the minor season, where Fumesua recorded GHC 33000, while the control recorded GHC 8000.

Additionally, during the minor season in Mampong, the gross profit ranged from GHC 15,000 to GHC 30,000,

as recorded by PM, A.CH, and A.CL, respectively. In addition, the net profit followed a similar pattern; the

PM + A.CH + A.CL treatment produced the highest net profit of GHC 31149.50 at Fumesua and GHC 30149.50

at Mampong, whereas the control yielded the lowest net profit at GHC 6609.50 and GHC 13609.50, respectively.

The dynamics lie in profit, which is a function of yield minus cost and is linked to the efficient use of nutrients.

NPK, despite its high cost and effectiveness, does little to improve soil health and can even contribute to soil

acidification and a decline in soil organic matter, reducing the soil's natural fertility and water-holding capacity.

Profit efficiency among Ghanaian maize farmers is low, with a mean efficiency of around 48.4%, indicating that

a significant portion of potential profit is lost to production inefficiencies (Wongnaa et al., 2019). In the current

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1820

www.rsisinternational.org

research, the efficient ways of cultivating maize were evaluated, with clear indications that PM + A.CH + A.CL

resulted in a 312.5% increase in gross profit at Fumesua during the major and minor seasons, while Mampong

resulted in a 113.33% increase, respectively. Additionally, both Fumesua and Mampong recorded percentage

increases of 371.3% and 121.53%, respectively, in net profit from maize cultivation during the major season. In

comparison, 371.3% and 106.8% were recorded by Fumesua and Mampong during the minor season.

Table 14: Gross and Net Profit (GHC) from Maize Production in Fumesua and Mampong During the

Major and Minor Seasons

Treatments

Gross Profit (GHC)

Net Profit (GHC)

Fumesua

Mampong

Fumesua

Mampong

Major

Minor

Major

Minor

Major

Minor

Major

Minor

Agro charger

18000

20000

17500

16302.5

18302.5

15802.5

Agro clean

14000

15000

12302.5

13302.5

A. CH. + A. CL

9500

22500

20000

8049.5

21049.5

18549.5

N.P. K

14500

20000

15000

12382.5

17882.5

12882.5

N.P. K +A.CH

28500

30000

26500

26577.5

28077.5

24577.5

N.P. K + A.CL

15500

20000

17500

13577.5

18077.5

15577.5

N.P. K + A.CH + A.CL

25000

30000

23047.5

28047.5

Poultry Manure

15000

16500

13209.5

14709.5

PM + A.CH

31000

31500

25500

29179.5

29679.5

23679.5

PM + A.CL

22500

17000

16500

20679.5

15179.5

14679.5

PM + A.CH + A. CL

33000

32000

30000

31149.5

30149.5

28149.5

Control

8000

15000

6609.5

13609.5

Source: Analysed Field Data, 2023

CONCLUSION

The integration of survey findings and field experiment results provides strong evidence of the effectiveness,

profitability, and practicality of combining Agrocharger and Agro Clean in maize cultivation.

Survey data showed unanimous farmer approval, with 100% of respondents confirming productivity gains from

Agrocharger and Agro Clean. Agrocharger was primarily credited with yield improvement (90%) and reduced

fertilizer dependency, both organic (8%) and inorganic (2%). Similarly, Agro Clean was recognized for lowering

pest incidence (72%), improving crop growth (10%), and reducing pesticide use (18%). Farmers rated

Agrocharger and Agro Clean as highly effective (38% and 52%, respectively) and effective (54% and 48%,

respectively). Their combined use was valued by most respondents (44% highly valuable, 56% successful),

indicating a strong belief in the complementary effects of their use.

These perceptions were validated by field experiment results, which demonstrated that the integrated Poultry

Manure + Agro Charger + Agro Clean (PM + A.CH + A.CL) treatment provided the most efficient and profitable

production system. Despite a moderate production cost (GHC 1850.50), this treatment achieved remarkable

gains, gross profit increases of 312.5% at Fumesua and 113.33% at Mampong, and net profit increases of 371.3%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1821

www.rsisinternational.org

and 121.53%, respectively, during the major season. Comparable improvements were observed in the minor

season, with 371.3% and 106.8% increases in net profit.

The PM + A.CH + A.CL treatment also produced the highest grain yields (5.3–6.6 t/ha) across both locations and

seasons. The integrated approach effectively reduced NPK application by 50% (125 kg/ha), offsetting the higher

cost of synthetic fertilisers while maintaining high productivity levels. This aligns with farmers’ perceptions that

Agrocharger and Agro Clean enhance yield and efficiency while minimizing reliance on costly inputs.

Overall, both the survey and experimental results confirm that integrating Agrocharger and Agro Clean with

organic manure optimises resource use, improves crop performance, and substantially increases profitability,

providing a sustainable, cost-effective alternative to sole inorganic fertilizer use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made.

It is therefore recommended that farmers prioritizing maize production adopt the integrated use of poultry

manure, Agro Charger, and Agro Clean at rates of 5 t/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha

(PM + A.CH + A.CL) respectively, to achieve maximum yield, and secure higher economic return.

Alternatively, farmers who prefer inorganic fertilisers are advised to apply half the recommended inorganic

fertiliser rate, alongside Agro Charger at 125 kg/ha + 148 ml per 74 L water/ha (NPK + A.CH), to optimise yields

and profitability.

Author Contributions

E.K.B. responsibly planned, set up, and ran all analyses and wrote the manuscript. H.K.D. provided supervision,

editing and reviewing of the manuscript. E.N. was involved in planning, supervision, reviewing, and editing,

making contributions to the write-up. M.E.E. was part of the supervision team and was involved in reviewing

and editing the manuscript.

Funding

Self-funding

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The lead author thanks the PhD supervisory team and Technicians at the Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research, Crop Research Institute, Fumesua. Thanks also go to all the staff and colleagues at the Department of

Crop and Soil Sciences Education, Faculty of Agriculture Education, Akenten Appiah Menka University of Skills

Training & Entrepreneurial Development, Asante Mampong.

For hosting the lead author during research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, the

collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish the results.

REFERENCES

1. Adeagbo, O. A., Ojo, T. O., & Adetoro, A. A. (2021). Understanding the Determinants of Climate Change

Adaptation Strategies among Smallholder Maize Farmers in South-Western Nigeria. Heliyon, 7(2).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1822

www.rsisinternational.org

2. Akurugu, J. A. (2022). Factors Influencing School Dropout Among Female Junior High School Pupils in the

Pusiga District. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review, 5(2), 31-49.

3. Amankwah, A., Ambel, A., Gourlay, S., Kilic, T., Markhof, Y., & Wollburg, P. (2024). Fertilizer Price Shocks

in Smallholder Agriculture. World Bank.

4. Amanullah, M. M., Somasundaran, E., Vaiyapuri, K., & Sathyamoorthi, K. (2007). Poultry manure to crop

s- A review. Agricultural reviews, 28(3), 216-222.

5. Asante, F., van Ittersum, M. K., Jongeneel, R. A., Adjei-Nsiah, S., & Akotsen, C. (2017). Improving food

security by reducing the maize yield gap in Ghana.

6. Baillie, L. (2015). Promoting and evaluating scientific rigour in qualitative research. Nursing Standard

(2014+), 29(46), 36.

7. Barker, N. (2022). The Effects of Female Land Inheritance on Economic Productivity in Ghana. University

of Chicago, Chicago.

8. Bigombe, B., & Khadiagala, G. M. (2004). Major trends affecting families in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Alternativas. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, N. 12 (diciembre 2004); pp. 155-193.

9. Bilong, E. G., Abossolo-Angue, M., Nanganoa, L. T., Anaba, B. D., Ajebesone, F. N., Madong, B. A., &

Bilong, P. (2022). Effects of Organic Manures and Inorganic Fertilisers on Soil Properties and Economic

Analysis under Cassava Cultivation in Southern Cameroon. Scientific reports, 12(1), 20598.

10. Bua, S., El Mejahed, K., MacCarthy, D., Adogoba, D. S., Kissiedu, I. N., Atakora, W. K., ... & Bindraban,

P. S. (2020). Yield responses of maize to fertilizers in Ghana (No. 2, p. 3). Accra: IFDC FERARI Research

Report.

11. Creswell, J. D., Pacilio, L. E., Lindsay, E. K., & Brown, K. W. (2014). Brief mindfulness meditation training

alters psychological and neuroendocrine responses to social evaluative stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology,

44, 1-12.

12. Gatare, E., Zenon, M., & Oduor, J. (2015). Factors Affecting Market Access for Agricultural-Based Projects

in Rwanda: A Case Study of the Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) Project in Nyaruguru District.

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Construction and Estate Management, 3(4), 20-30.

13. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). Frequencies. In IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step (pp. 115-125).

Routledge.

14. Jayne, T. S., Chamberlin, J., Traub, L., Sitko, N., Muyanga, M., Yeboah, F. K., ... & Kachule, R. (2016).

Africa's Changing Farm-Size Distribution Patterns: The Rise of Medium-Scale Farms. Agricultural

Economics, 47(S1), 197-214.

15. Larsen, S. (2014). An Appraisal of Quality Basic Education in Ashanti Farming Communities of Ghana.

16. Masi, M., De Rosa, M., Vecchio, Y., Bartoli, L., & Adinolfi, F. (2022). The Long Road to Innovation

Adoption: Insights from Precision Agriculture. Agricultural and Food Economics, 10(1), 27.

17. Mwamadi, N., & Seiffert, B. (2012, September). Reducing Child Labour in Agriculture through good

agricultural practices: FAO experiences. In the National Conference on Eliminating Child Labour in

Agriculture. Lilongwe, Malawi: FAO.

18. Neupane, D., Adhikari, P., Bhattarai, D., Rana, B., Ahmed, Z., Sharma, U., & Adhikari, D. (2022). Does

climate change affect the yield of the top three cereals and food security in the world? Earth, 3(1), 45 -71.

19. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS.

Routledge.

20. Philip, T. K., & Itodo, I. N. (2012). Demographic Characteristics and Agricultural and Technological Profiles

of Acha Farmers in Nigeria. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 14(1), 89-93.

21. Poku, A. G., Birner, R., & Gupta, S. (2018). Why do maize farmers in Ghana have a limited choice of

improved seed varieties? An assessment of the governance challenges in seed supply. Food security, 10(1),

27-46.

22. Ricker-Gilbert, J. (2024). Increasing agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa during times of volatile

prices and a changing climate. Agrekon, 63(4), 213-222.

23. Smith, C., Hill, A. K., & Torrente-Murciano, L. (2020). Current and future role of Haber–Bosch ammonia

in a carbon-free energy landscape. Energy & environmental science, 13(2), 331-344.

24. Teusner, A. (2016). Insider research, validity issues, and the OHS professional: One person’s journey.

International journal of social research methodology, 19(1), 85-96.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Page 1823

www.rsisinternational.org

25. Wahab, I., Jirström, M., & Hall, O. (2020). An integrated approach to unravelling smallholder yield levels:

The case of small family farms in the Eastern Region, Ghana. Agriculture, 10(6), 206.

26. Wongnaa, Camillus & Awunyo-Vitor, Dadson & Mensah, Amos & Adams, Faizal. (2019). Profit Efficiency

Among Maize Farmers and Implications for Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in Ghana. Scientific

African. 6. e00206. 10.1016/j.sciaf. 2019.e00206.

27. World Bank Open Data. (2025, January 7). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.NE.ZS?locations=gh

28. Li, J., Van Gerrewey, T., & Geelen, D. (2022). A meta-analysis of biostimulant yield effectiveness in field

trials—Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 836702.

29. Leroux, L., Castets, M., Baron, C., Escorihuela, M. J., Bégué, A., & Seen, D. L. (2019). Maize yield

estimation in West Africa from crop process-induced combinations of multi-domain remote sensing indices.

European Journal of Agronomy, 108, 11-26.

30. Shang, Y., Hasan, M. K., Ahammed, G. J., Li, M., Yin, H., & Zhou, J. (2019). Applications of

nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: a review. Molecules, 24(14), 2558.

31. Koleška, I., Hasanagić, D., Todorović, V., Murtić, S., Klokić, I., Parađiković, N., & Kukavica, B. (2017).

Biostimulants prevent yield loss and reduce oxidative damage in tomato plants grown on reduced NPK

nutrition. Journal of Plant Interactions, 12(1), 209-218.