Manuscript DRAFT 2 (GINA).doc

8/17/2019 Manuscript DRAFT 2 (GINA).doc

1/43

GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF SIGNAL GRASS (Brachiaria decumbens Staft)

APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT RATES OF NITROGEN FERTILIZER

________________________________________

A Thesis Manusci!t

Pesente" t# the Facu$t% #f the

De!at&ent #f A'#n#&%

(#$$e'e #f A'icu$tue an" F##" Science

ISAYAS STATE *NIERSITY

isca+ ,a%-a% (it%+ Le%te

________________________________________

In Patia$ Fu$fi$$&ent #f the

Re.uie&ents f# the De'ee #f

,A(HELOR OF S(IEN(E IN AGRI(*LT*RE

/A'#n#&%)

GINA AR(*INO AG*INOD

Ma% 0123


2/43

(HAPTER I

INTROD*(TION

Natue an" I&!#tance #f the Stu"%

Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf ) is one of the pasture grasses with good

agronomic potential (Aminah et al, 1992). It is an aggressive fast growing grass with upright-

sword shape leaves, strong stoloniferous root sstem and a long trailing stems. Although, it is

native of tropical Africa (!ganda), it has "een introduced and distri"uted to other tropical

countries (#u$umoto and %ee, 2&&') "eing high ielding and adapted to a wide range of soils in

the humid tropics (ong et al, 192).

Signal grass is important "ecause of its high productivit under intensive management

hence it is mainl planted for permanent pastures. It is often used for erosion control and

revegetation in roadsides and often mi*ed with a legume to maintain health and sustaina"le

cover. It can "e planted as gra+ed ground cover under open plantations and provides ground

cover on hillsides. Its dense cover ma$es it a valua"le grass for soil erosion control as it spreads

and covers the soil rapidl.

Improvements in forage production through improved soil fertilit practices have the

potential to increase income and reduce livestoc$ production costs. aintaining forage stands

and improving old stands with fertili+er is more effective than mechanical methods (aeration,

harrowing and light dis$ing) and less e*pensive than reseeding (ut+ and ones, 2&1/).

0f all the essential plant nutrients, is the most commonl deficient nutrient in soil and

generall has the greatest impact on forage production. itrogen is the most dnamic "ecause of

the amount needed " the plant and the one most often deficient. It is the nutrient most important

in cell division and growth, "ecause nitrogen is the "uilding "loc$ of proteins. It is critical for


3/43

the formation of chlorophll. he more nitrogen and water availa"le, the more growth potential

(Stichler, 2&&2). 3erennial grasses generall need large amount of and will respond ver well

to fertili+er . he effectiveness of fertili+er on forage grasses is strongl influenced " rates,

sources, times and methods of application (alhi et al, 2&&4). iming of fertili+ation

depends on the source and soil and climatic conditions which influence how 5uic$l

"ecomes availa"le from soil organic matter (ut+ and ones, 2&1/).

!rea is one of the most common sources of commercial fertili+er . In the ma6orit of

situations, granular fertili+ers are used for forage production. !rea is now the dominant granular

fertili+er, as it has higher content and is therefore less "ul$ and costs less per unit of than

other granular fertili+ers. !rea and ammonium nitrate were e5uall efficient at increasing dr

matter ield of hatpe grasses and urea appeared to "e a "etter source of for pasture-tpe

grasses (alhi et al, 2&&4).

he response of signal grass to nitrogen fertili+er application needs to "e investigated

since grass species respond differentl to nitrogen fertili+ation. Addition of nitrogen fertili+er

also influences the chemical composition of the plants as well as the soil fertilit status. he

concentration of signal grass increased with increasing rates of nitrogen fertili+er application.

7owever, information on its fertili+er response is limited (Aminah, 1992).

An understanding on the rates of application in a particular condition plas a vital role

in determining the potential ield of this forage crop. he different nitrogen rates of fertili+ation

on the growth and ield of signal grass under 8S! condition have not "een studied et. 7ence,

this stud will "e conducted.


4/43

O-4ecti5es

1. o evaluate the effect of different fertili+ation rates of nitrogen on the growth and ield of

signal grass under 8S! condition.2. o determine the appropriate fertili+ation rate of nitrogen for optimum production of

signal grass.'. o assess the economic "enefit of signal grass production under the different rates of

nitrogen fertili+ation.

Ti&e an" P$ace #f the Stu"%

his stud was conducted at the e*perimental field of the epartment of Agronom,

:ollege of Agriculture and #ood Science, 8isaas State !niversit, 8isca, ;a"a :it, %ete

from


5/43

REIEW OF LITERAT*RE

=rassland plas a ma6or role in the development of the 3hilippine livestoc$ industr. It

occupies 1. hectares of which onl '>1 thousand hectares are reported to "e under the #orest

%and =ra+ing %ease Agreement. According to oog, et al (199'), the countr?s growing

population would e*ert pressure to transform livestoc$ production in these areas from e*tensive

sstem to semi-intensive sstem.

%ac$ of nutrients, inade5uate management of pastures, and inappropriate cultural

practices are responsi"le for pasture degradation (onteiro, 2&1&). hese inappropriate

management practices ma result in reduced soil fertilit, water use efficienc, "iomass

production, soil cover, and soil "iological activit. his leads also to soil compaction and soil

erosion (Sers et al, 199>).

he demand for high 5ualit meat and dair products is increasing throughout the world.

he food value of "oth meat and mil$ is ver high for the contain most of the proteins,

vitamins, and minerals needed in the human diet. 7ence, these meat and dair animals must "e

feed appropriatel. ost of these feed nutrients must come from forage. hus, the main reason

for growing forage is to sustain the production of meat and mil$ products for human food. he

esta"lishment and production of large 5uantities of forage is relativel eas. 7owever, producing

high 5ualit forage and utili+ing it efficientl are much more difficult (:hessmore, 19@9).

#orages are generall grown on low fertilit soils and their production can "e increased

mar$edl with fertili+ation. he effectiveness of fertili+ers on forages in increasing dr matter

ield and economic returns is dependent upon the levels of nutrients in soil, climatic conditions,

soil tpe and forage tpe (alhi et al, 2&&4). :onsidera"le efforts have "een e*pended to


6/43

develop productive cultivars and determine fertili+ation strategies for optimi+ing forage ield

and 5ualit (ering et al, 2&11).

0ut of 1@ chemical elements that are essential for plant growth, is the nutrient that

most often limits grass growth. itrogen is ver mo"ile in the soil and can "ecome limiting in

areas with high rainfall or irrigation, in coarse or shallow soils, and in soils with low organic

matter. he $e to management for optimal forage ield and 5ualit is to select the right

fertili+er source, rate, placement, and timing for our operation (ut+ and ones, 2&1/).

=rass forages respond ver well to fertili+er and protein content in grass forage can "e

improved with application. itrogen application increased forage 3, g, and :a concentration

to levels within ranges considered optimal for gra+ing livestoc$ (: 199>). In

most grassland the two factors that most limit growth are moisture (rain) and . here is not

much we can do a"out the weatherB however, we can manage to improve productivit on

pastures. itrogen deficienc in pastures is common. hen considering fertili+ation on grass

pastures, decisions need to made in regard to if, when, where, the source, and how much to use

(httpCDDwww.uwe*.eduDcesDforageDwfcDproceedings2&&&Dcuomo.htm).

itrogen fertili+er utili+ation efficienc for instance, is lesser due to losses due

denitrification, volatili+ation, leaching and soil surface run-off. hus, appropriate nitrogen

fertili+ation rates are necessar and should "e done in attaining much higher ields. he most

valua"le effects of nitrogen fertili+ation are the increase in forage ield and the increases in

protein, vitamin A, net energ content, total digesti"le nutrients and protein digesti"ilit. An

application of nitrogen fertili+er is therefore highl recommended in improving "oth 5ualit and

ield of signal grass. Similar to the other tropical grasses, the nutritive value of signal grass


7/43

greatl depends on the fertilit status of the soil. Its feeding value is li$ewise dependent on soil

fertilit, age, and proportion of leaf and stem.

Signal grass responded mar$edl to nitrogen fertili+er application, with the highest ield

of 1@,/@& $gDha dr matter significantl increased with increasing rates of nitrogen application of

&& $g Dha per ear (Aminah, 1992). It ma$es ver efficient use of fertili+er nitrogen. r

matter production can var greatl, depending on rainfall and fertilit conditions. In particular,

the dr matter ield of signal grass can "e increased mar$edl " fertili+er nitrogen (7arding and

=rof, 19@@).

di$umana and %eeuw de (199>) indicated that forage from ;rachiaria are highl

palata"le to stoc$ leading to high inta$e when fed either fresh or gra+ed. Its aggressive growth

ha"its ma$es signal grass withstands heav stoc$ing and trampling (#u$umoto and %ee, 2&&').

he pasture of Brachiaria decumbens maintained high ground cover under prolonged and heav

gra+ing at a stoc$ing rate of ten (1&) headsDha compared to the pasture of Panicum maximum that

was graduall invaded " Paspalum conjugatum (#isher et al, 199>).

Signal grass ( Brachiaria decumbens) and humidicola ( B. humidicola) also grow well

under coconuts. ecent studies " ;AI (;ureau of Animal Industr), showed that cattle gra+ed

on signal grass and humidicola pastures in Al"a produced liveweight gains of '&& to 4&&

$gDhaDr at stoc$ing rates of 2 to ' animalsDha. his indicated the increased "enefits that can "e

o"tained from high ielding pasture species. Signal grass is "ecoming popular for integration

under coconuts "ecause it doesn?t ma$e harvesting and pic$ing of coconuts difficult compared to

apier and other erect tall growing species. Signal grass is aggressive and competes well against

weeds. (oog, 2&&>)

(HAPTER III


8/43

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lan" Pe!aati#n

An e*perimental area of 2&9 m2 was plowed and harrowed twice at one wee$ interval to

provide good soil tilth and reduce weed growth. After the last harrowing, ridges were

constructed /& cm apart.

S#i$ Sa&!$in' an" Ana$%sis

en soil samples were randoml collected in the e*perimental area at a depth of '& cm

using soil auger "efore planting. he composited sample was su"mitted to the :entral Analtical

Services %a"orator (:AS%) 3hilootcrops, 8isaas State !niversit, 8isca, ;a"a :it, %ete

for analsis of soil p7, E organic matter, e*tracta"le 3and total .

#inal soil sampling was done right after the final harvest " collecting five samples from

each treatment plot. he said samples were composited per treatment, mi*ed thoroughl,

processed, and then anal+ed for the same soil parameters mentioned a"ove.

E6!ei&enta$ Desi'n an" Fie$" La%#ut

he e*perimental area was laid-out in a andomi+ed :omplete ;loc$ esign (:;)

with five treatments replicated three times. Fach treatment plot had a dimension of ' m * ' m.

he replication and treatment plots were separated " 1.&m allewas to facilitate farm

operations and management as well as data gathering. he different treatments were as followsC

& G :ontrol (unfertili+ed)

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1


9/43

Feti$i7e A!!$icati#n

As indicated in a"le 1, half of the total amount of nitrogen for each treatment was

applied "asall together with solophos (&-2&-&) and muriate of potash (&-&->&) at the rate of '&

$g 20 ha-1. he remaining amounts of nitrogen were applied right after the first harvest at >&

das after planting.

Ta-$e28 Aunt #f in#'anic feti$i7e &ateia$s a!!$ie" !e !$#t

reatments

!rea(4>-&-&)

Solophos(&-2&-&)

03(&-&->&)

$gha-1

grams plot-1

$gha-1

grams plot-1

$gha-1

grams plot-1

;asal>&

A3 ;asal>&

A3;asal

>&A3

& G :ontrol

(unfertili+ed)

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

----- ----- -----

>/.2 29./ 29./

1'&.4 /.@ /.@

19/.@ .& .&

2>&.9 [email protected] [email protected]

99999 99999 99999

1/& 1'/ 99999

1/& 1'/ -----

1/& 1'/ -----

1/& 1'/ 99999

----- ----- -----

/& 4/ -----

/& 4/ -----

/& 4/ -----

/& 4/ -----

Pe!aati#n an" P$antin' #f (uttin's

hree to four ('-4) months? old cuttings with three (') visi"le nodes were prepared and

used as planting materials. hese were placed in a cool shad place a da prior to planting to


10/43

maintain their freshness. Said cuttings were planted /& cm * /& cm apart on the ridges with one

node "uried in the soil.

Pest (#nt#$

his was underta$en " spraing insecticide and pesticide when the need arises to

minimi+e insect pest infestation and diseases infection.

Wee" (#nt#$

7and weeding was done ten das after planting. emoval of regrowth and late emerging

weeds were performed manuall as soon as these are a"out ten (1&) cm high to minimi+e

competition for light, nutrients and water.

Ha5estin'

All the plants within the harvesta"le area were harvested at >& and 1&/ das after

planting " cutting the tillers at ten (1&) cm from the ground using a sharp sic$le.

DATA GATHERED

28 G#:th an" Yie$" Paa&etesa. P$ant Hei'ht /c&) - this was determined " measuring the height of ten (1&) sample

plants in each treatment plot from the ground level up to the tip of the tallest portion of

the plant prior to harvesting at >& and 1&/ das.


11/43

". Nu&-e #f Ti$$es !e Hi$$ - this was determined " counting and recording the num"er

of tillers that developed from ten sample hills per plot "efore harvesting at >& and 1&/

das.

c. Fesh He-a'e Yie$" /t ha92

) - this was o"tained " weighing all the harvested her"age

within the harvesta"le area in each treatment plot at >& and 1&/ das. It was converted to

tons per ha using the formulaC

3lot Hield ($g) 1&,&&& m2 ha-1

7er"age Hield (t ha-1) ------------------------------- * -------------------

7arvesta"le area (4.& m2) 1,&&& $g t-1

d. D% Matte Yie$" /t ha

92

) - this was determined " oven dring the her"age ta$en from

three (') sample hills per treatment at >& and 1&/ das for @2 hours at >/ o: and

calculated using the formulaC

r atter Hield (t ha-1) #resh her"age ield (t ha -1) * (1&& - E :)

hereC #resh weight (g) G 0ven dr weight (g)

E : -------------------------------------------------- * 1&&

#resh weight (g)

(#st an" Retun Ana$%sis

his was determined " recording and computing all the e*penses incurred throughout

the conduct of the stud from land preparation up to harvesting. hese include chemicals,

materials, and la"or used in the field. Income was computed " multipling the total ield

o"tained per hectare " the current price of signal grass set " the 3hilippine :ara"ao :enter


12/43

(3::). et profit was determined " su"tracting the total e*penses from the gross income for

ever treatment tested as indicated in the formula "elow.

Net etun ; G#ss Inc#&e < T#ta$ (#st

hereC

T#ta$ (#st ; Fi6e" (#st = aia-$es

Mete##$#'ica$ Data

ata on total wee$l rainfall (mm), relative humidit and temperature (minimum and

ma*imum, &:) throughout the conduct of the stud from


13/43

rainfall ranged from & mm to />@.4& mm and the average dail minimum and ma*imum

temperatures ranged from 21.&/o: G 24.92o: and 2@.@'o: G ''.&4o:, respectivel. 0n the other

hand, the relative humidit ranged from >@.@9E G './&E. hese values closel conformed to

the temperature re5uirements for optimal growth of signal grass which ranged from 2/ - '/o:.

0n the other hand, the total amount of rainfall of /1.4& mm was not ade5uate for the growth

and development of signal grass since it needs at least 1,/&& mm of rain.

he weed species o"served in the e*perimental area during the whole duration of the

stud were dominated " itch grass or JaguingaK ( Rottboelliacochinchinensis). hese were

controlled " hand weeding. o serious damage due to insect pest and diseases were o"served

during the conduct of the e*periment.

=enerall, differences on the morphological appearance of signal grass among treatments

were not distinct during the earl stage of growth. %ater on, however, the plants applied with

high amounts of nitrogen fertili+er showed vigorous growth as manifested " a"undant tillers

and dar$er leaves compared to those plants treated with lower amounts of nitrogen which had

lesser num"er of tillers with light green leaves. he unfertili+ed plants (&) were the shortest

while the tallest were those that received the highest amount of fertili+er at 12& $g ha -1 (4).

After the first harvest, the plants in all treatments were shorter "ut with numerous tillers.

S#i$ Ana$%sis

As presented in a"le 2, the initial soil analsis revealed that the e*perimental area had a

p7 of /.@&, &.9@ E organic matter, &.1/& E total nitrogen and .4&& mg $g-1 availa"le

phosphorous. hese results indicate that the soil was moderatel acidic with ver low organic

matter and low total nitrogen and availa"le phosphorus (%andon, 1991 Appendi* a"le 2).


14/43

esults of final analsis showed an increase in soil p7 and decrease in E total nitrogen.

0n the other hand, E organic matter increased onl in plots applied with '& $g ha -1 while

availa"le phosphorous increased in plots applied with 12& $g ha-1 and >& $g ha-1. According

to Surade6 3holsen (2&1&), for this signal grass e*periment the values of availa"le phosphorous

given were e*tremel low for high crop ields. he poor mean values of availa"le 3 must "e due

to the previous histor of crop cultivation and man other reasons such as the depletion of soil

nutrients and high leaching rate. 0n the other hand, Su$sri (1999) stated that for a high crop

ield, this 0*ic 3aleustults great soil group should possess a range of soil p7 values from > to

>./ in which this range of soil p7 values has "een recommended for high crop ields where some

certain amount of soil nutrients could "e ade5uatel released.

Ta-$e 0. :hemical properties of the e*perimental area "efore planting and after harvest

of signal grass applied with different rates of nitrogen fertili+er

Soil p7

(1C2C/)

0

(E)

otal

(E)

Availa"le 3

(mg $g-1)

Initial Analsis /.@& &.9@ &.1/& .4&&

http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=pjbs.2010.613.620&org=11#17965_bhttp://www.scialert.net/asci/result.php?searchin=Keywords&cat=&ascicat=ALL&Submit=Search&keyword=soil+pHhttp://www.scialert.net/asci/result.php?searchin=Keywords&cat=&ascicat=ALL&Submit=Search&keyword=soil+pHhttp://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=pjbs.2010.613.620&org=11#17965_bhttp://www.scialert.net/asci/result.php?searchin=Keywords&cat=&ascicat=ALL&Submit=Search&keyword=soil+pH


15/43

#inal Analsis

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

>.>>&

>.4&

>.'@&

>./2&

>.41&

&.19

&.9'>

&./

&./

&.9@

&.12@

&.121

&.11/

&.124

&.122

.12@

@.9/1

1&.22/

.''&

9.&11

ean >.4 &.@4 &.122 .@29

A'#n#&ic (haacteistics #f Si'na$ Gass /2st an" 0n" ha5ests)

a"le ' shows the agronomic characteristics of signal grass as affected " different levels

of nitrogen fertili+er at first and second harvests. he results indicated significant effects of

appling various rates of nitrogen fertili+er on plant height and the num"er of tillers per hill.

7owever, after first harvest, the results on plant height were not significantl increased " the

application of fertili+er "ut significantl resulted in an increased num"er of productive tillers

per hill.

3lants applied with 12& $g ha-1 (4) grew vigorousl at 112.1& cm and 91.@' cm during

the first and second harvests, respectivel "ut compara"le with those plants applied with 9& $g

ha-1 ('). he untreated plants (&) were the shortest during the first harvest "ut were

compara"le to those plants applied with '& to >& $g ha-1 during the second harvest.

Application of higher rates of nitrogen fertili+er significantl increased the overall growth

performance of the plants. hese results conformed with the stud of Aminah (1992) that signal

grass responded mar$edl to increasing rates of nitrogen application.


16/43

he num"ers of tillers per hill at first and second harvests were significantl increased

with application of nitrogen fertili+er. 7igher num"er of tillers were o"served to those plants

applied at a rate of 9& - 12& $g ha-1 and fewer to those unfertili+ed plants. he results seemed

to impl that as the rate of fertili+ation increases, the num"er of tillers will li$ewise increase.

hese corro"orated the results of Silva et al. (2&&), who reported that fertili+er increased the

num"er of vegetative tillers due to the positive effect of which affects leaf elongation and

tillering rate promoting greater capacit of formation of au*iliar "uds, which ma potentiall

originate new tillers.

Ta-$e >. Agronomic characteristics of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogenfertili+er (1st harvest and 2nd harvest)

reatment

3lantheight (cm) o. of tillers per hill

1st harvest 2nd harvest 1st harvest 2nd harvest

& G control 2.1c >/.2&c 19.>&c 4.4'c

1 G '& $g ha-1 9>.&/" @'.1&"c '@.>&" &.@'"

2 G >& $g ha-1 99.42" @'.1'"c 4&.2@" &./@"

' G 9& $g ha-1 1&/.@/a" /.2'a" 4/./&a" 99.9@a

4 G 12& $g ha-1 112.1&a 91.@'a 49.@'a 1&.1'a

ean 99.1& @@.> './4 './@

:.8. (E) >.>@ 12.&1 12.@/ 11.4&

reatment means within a column followed " a common letter are not significantl

different at / E level of significance "ased on u$e?s Studenti+ed ange (7S) test.

Fesh He-a'e Yie$" an" D% Matte Yie$" #f Si'na$ Gass /2 st an" 0n" ha5ests)

a"le 4 presents the effects of the different levels of nitrogen fertili+er on fresh her"age

and dr matter ields of signal grass at first and second harvests. Application of different rates of


17/43

nitrogen had significant influence on the fresh her"age and dr matter ields of the plants. hese

could "e due to the increased num"er of tillers as presented in the previous ta"le.

At first harvest, the plants applied with 12& $g ha -1 (4) had heavier total fresh her"age

ield compared to the unfertili+ed plants and those plants applied with '& $g ha -1 (1) "ut

compara"le to those plants applied with the rest of the treatments. Similar trends in ields were

o"served in the second harvest and total fresh her"age ields. 7eavier fresh her"age ield was

produced at 12& $g ha -1 (4) and the lightest was from the untreated plants ( &). According to

a* Shelton (httpCDDwww.fao.orgDagDagpDA=3:DdocDA"AuthorsDshelton.htm), fre5uent

applications of nitrogen, up to si* times per season, $eep the grass in a ver nutritious condition

and improve live weight gain.

In terms of dr matter ield at first harvest, plants applied with 12& $g ha -1 had the

heaviest dr matter ield than the rest of the plants applied with the other treatments. 7owever,

the plants applied with >& and 9& $g ha -1 were of compara"le ields to the former at second

harvest and in terms of total ield. he lightest dr matter ields were o"tained from the

unfertili+ed plants (&) and those applied with '& $g ha-1 . he results confirmed the stud of

7arding and =rof (19@@) that the dr matter ield of signal grass can "e increased mar$edl "

nitrogen fertili+ation.

Ta-$e ?. #resh her"age and dr matter ields of signal grass as affected " different rates

of nitrogen fertili+er

reatment

#resh her"age ield (t ha-1) r matter ield (t ha-1)

1st

harvest

2nd harvest otal 1st

harvest

2nd harvest otal


18/43

& G control 2.>>" >.'d 9.&4" &.@/c 1.1'c 1.c

1 G '& $g ha-1 4./&" .@/c 1'.2/" 1.11c 1.>"c 2.@9c

2 G >& $g ha-1 /.1@a" 9."c 1/.&/a" 1." 2.'2a" 4.2&a"

' G 9& $g ha

-1

@.a 11./4a" 19.42a" 1.@'" 2.>&a 4.''a"4 G 12& $g ha-1 .2'a 12./&a 2&.@'a 2.91a 2.>a /.@@a

ean /.>9 9.1 1/./& 1.> 2.12 '.&

:.8. (E) 29.4 9.99 19.92 19.>> [email protected] 1./4

reatment means within a column with the same letter designation are not significantl

different at /E level of significance "ased on u$e?s Studenti+ed ange (7S) test.

(#st an" Retun Ana$%sis

:ost and return analsis of signal grass production as affected " the application of

different rates of nitrogen fertili+er is presented in a"le / and Appendi* a"le 1/. :om"ining

the two harvests, a total fresh her"age ield of 2&.@' t ha-1 was attained " the application of 12&

$g ha-1 which was significantl greater than plants applied with '&, 9&, >& $g ha -1 and the

untreated one. 7owever, the net incomes were not significantl increased " the different rates of

fertili+er application. he total fresh her"age ield did not compensate the production cost

involved on the whole duration of the e*periment.

Application of 12& $g ha-1 resulted in the highest total fresh her"age ield "ut also the

highest amount of production cost due to the higher rates of fertili+ation applied and the

production re5uired. hese resulted to lower net income for those plants applied with 12& $g ha -1

than with those unfertili+ed plants. 0n the other hand, those plants applied with >& $g ha -1

o"tained the lowest net income at 3h3-11,1/.&& among the different rates of application and

the untreated ones evaluated.


19/43

Ta-$e @. :ost and return analsis of signal grass production as affected " different rates of

nitrogen application

reatmentsotal #resh

7er"age Hield

(t ha-1

)

=ross Incomea

(3hp ha-1

)

3roduction :ost

(3hp ha-1

)

et Income

(3hp ha-1

)& G control 9.&4" 11,'&&.&& 1,@/&.&& -@,4/&.&&

1 G '& $g ha-1 1'.2/" 1>,/>2./& 2>,/&4.&& -9,941./&

2 G >& $g ha-1 1/.&/a" 1,12./& 29,[email protected]& -11,1/.&&

' G 9& $g ha-1 19.42a" 24,2@/.&& '',1&./> -,9&/./>

4 G 12& $g ha-1 2&.@'a 2/,912./& '>,'@2.&& -1&,4/9./&

a:alculated " multipling the fresh her"age ield with the optimum pic$ up price set "

3:: of 3hp 1.2/ $g-1.

(HAPTER

S*MMARY+ (ON(L*SIONS AND RE(OMMENDATIONS

Su&&a%

his stud was conducted at the e*perimental field of the epartment of Agronom,

:ollege of Agriculture and #ood Science, 8S!, 8isca, ;a"a :it, %ete from anuar 4 to

April , 2&1> with the following o"6ectivesC 1) to evaluate the effect of different nitrogen

fertili+ation rates on the growth and ield of signal grass under 8S! conditionB 2) to determine

the appropriate fertili+ation rate of nitrogen for optimum production of signal grassB and ') to


20/43

assess the economic "enefit of signal grass production under the different rates of nitrogen

fertili+ation.

An e*perimental area of 2&9 m2 was laid-out in a randomi+ed complete "loc$ design

(:;) with five treatments replicated three times. Fach treatment plot had a dimension of ' m

* ' m. he replication and treatment plots were separated " 1.&m allewas to facilitate farm

operations and management as well as data gathering. he different treatments were as followsC

& G :ontrol (unfertili+ed), 1 G '& $g ha-1B 2 G >& $g ha

-1B ' G 9& $g ha-1B 4 G 12& $g

ha-1.

en soil samples were randoml collected in the e*perimental area at a depth of &-'& cm

using soil auger "efore planting. A composited sample was su"mitted to the :entral Analtical

Services %a"orator (:AS%),3hilootcrops, 8isaasState !niversit, 8isca, ;a"a :it, %ete

for analsis of soil p7, organic matter, e*tracta"le 3 and total .

#inal soil sampling was done right after the final harvest " collecting five samples from

each treatment plot. he said samples were composited per treatment, mi*ed thoroughl,

processed, and then anal+ed for the same soil parameters mentioned a"ove.

he initial soil analsis revealed that the e*perimental area had a soil p7 of /.@&, &.9@

E organic matter, &.1/& E total nitrogen and .4&& mg $g-1 availa"le phosphorous. esults of

final soil analsis showed an increase in soil p7 "ut a decrease in total . 0n the other hand, the

0.. content increased onl in plots applied with '& $g ha -1 while the 3 increased onl in plots

applied with >& and 12& $g ha-1.

7alf of the total amounts of nitrogen for each treatment were applied "asall at planting

together with the whole amounts of 3 and at the rate of '& $g 320/ and 20 ha-1. he


21/43

remaining amounts of nitrogen were applied right after the first harvest at >& das after planting.

!rea, solophos and muriate of potash were the fertili+er materials used.

hree to four ('-4) months? old cuttings with three (') visi"le nodes were prepared and

used as planting materials. hese were placed in a cool shad place a da prior to planting to

maintain their freshness. Said cuttings were planted /& cm * /& cm apart on the ridges with one

node "uried in the soil.

Among the evaluated agronomic characteristics of signal grass, plant height, num"er of

tillers, fresh her"age and dr matter ields were significantl affected " the different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er. 3lants applied with 12& $g ha-1 (4) produced higher num"er of tillers with

heavier fresh her"age and dr matter ields among the treatments. he unfertili+ed plants (&)

were the shortest and o"tained the lowest fresh her"age and dr matter ields.

(#nc$usi#ns

;ased on the results o"tained, the following conclusions can "e drawnC

1. Application of nitrogen fertili+er significantl increased the plant height, num"er of

tillers, fresh her"age ield and dr matter ield of signal grass.

2. he optimum rate of application for signal grass production was >& $g ha-1.

'. he net income was not significantl increased " the different rates of fertili+er

application.

Rec#&&en"ati#ns

1. he application of >& $g ha-1 is recommended for optimum signal grass production

under similar soil and climatic conditions of the e*periment.

2. he positive linear responses shown " the growth of tillers and overall ield of the grass

at rates up to 12& $g ha-1 suggest that further wor$, using rates a"ove 12& $g ha -1

, is recommended to ascertain the ield potential of this grass.


22/43

(HAPTER I

LITERAT*RE (ITED

AMINAH A8 N8+ M8 W8 OTHMAN an" Z8 SHAMS*DDIN8 208 3roductivit response of

Signal grass ( Brachiaria decumbens) to fertili+ation. AI es. . 2& (1) 1992C

4/-/1

(HESSMORE+ R8 A8 2B8 3rofita"le pasture management. (he Interstate 3rinters and

3u"lishers, Inc.C anville, Illinois).

FISHER M8 C8 an" P8 (8 ERRIDGE8 238 he Agronom and 3hsiolog of Brachiaria

Species. ;rachiariaC ;iolog, Agronom, and Improvement. (:IA LFm"rapa). 3.4'/2

F**MOTO G8 8 an" (8 N8 LEE8 011>8 Signal grass for forage, %ivestoc$ anagement.

epartment of 7uman utrition, #ood and Animal Sciences.%ivestoc$

anagement une 2&&2 (revised Apr. 2&&') %-' (rev.)

HARDING+ W8 A8 T8 an" ,8 GROF8 2BB8 Fffect of fertili+er nitrogen on ield, nitrogen

content and animal productivit of Brachiaria decumbens cv. ;asilis$ on the wet

tropical coast of north Mueensland. Mueensland ournal of Agricultural and AnimalSciences '4 (in press).

ERING M8 8+ C8 A8 G*RETZY+ E8 F*NDER,*RG an" C8 MOSALI8 01228 NFffect of itrogen #ertili+er ate and 7arvest Season on #orage Hield, Mualit, and


23/43

acronutrient :oncentrations in idland ;ermuda grassN. Agronom L

7orticulture -- #acult 3u"lications. 3aper ///.

LANDON+ C8 R8 228 ;oo$er ropical Soil anual. %ongman Scientific and echnical Fsse*

Fngland. 4@4 pp.

MALHI+ S8S8+ 8S8 GILL+ D8H8 M((ARTNEY an" R8 MALMGREN8 011?. #ertili+ermanagement of forage crops in the :anadian =reat 3lains. ecent esearch

evelopments in :rop Science. 1C2'@-2@1.

MONTEIRO F8 A8+ (8 P8 SILEIRA+ E8 M8 SILA an" D8 A8 OLIEIRA8 01218 itrogen

and sulfur fertili+ation for a Signal grass pastureC forage ield, nutritional status and

some soil fertilit attri"utes in a rain season. FSA%M, !niversit of SOo 3aulo,Avenida 3Pdua ias 11, 3.0. ;o* 9, 1'41-9&&, 3iracica"a-S3, ;ra+il.

MOOG F8 A8 0113. :ountr 3astureD#orage esource 3rofilesB 3hilippines. :hief, 3u"lishing

3olic and Support ;ranch, 0ffice of nowledge F*change, esearch and F*tension,

#A0, 8ialedelle erme di :aracalla, &&1/' ome, Ital.

MOOG+ F8A8+ A8 G8 DEO(AREZA an" H8 E8 DIESTA8 2>8 emonstration trials onimproved pastures under coconuts in ;icol egion. InC :hen :.3., Sat6ipanon :.,

(eds.)Strategies for Suita"le #orage-;ased %ivestoc$ 3roduction in Southeast Asia.

3roceedings of 'rd meeting of egional or$ing =roup on gra+ing and feedresources of Southeast Asia.4'-4.

NDI*MANA C8 an" P8 N8 LEE*W DE8 238egional F*pertise with ;rachiariaC Su"-

Saharan Africa. ;rachiariaC ;iolog, Agronom, and Improvement. (:IA LFm"rapa).3.24@-2/@.

NR(8 238 utrient re5uirement of "eef cattle, @th ed. ashington, .:.C ational Academ

3ress.

R*TZ 8 O8 an" (8 CONES8 012@. Soil nutrient management for foragesB nitrogen. epartmentof %and esources and Fnvironmental Sciences, ontana State !niversit G ;o+eman

F;&21>.

STI(HLER8 (8 0110. J=rass growth and developmentK. e*as :ooperative F*tension e*as

AL !niversit. S:S-2&&2-22

S*SRI8 A8 28 Some Agronomic and 3hsiological Aspects in =rowing :rops in ortheast

hailand. 1st Fdn., hon aen !niversit 3ress, hon aen, hailand.

S*RADEC8 P8 01218 Soil utrients and %iming on r eight Hields and #orage Mualit ofSignal =rass ( Brachiaria decumbens Stapf), =rown on orat Soil Series (0*ic

3aleustults) in ortheast hailand. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, !" #!$#%&.


24/43

SYERS C8 8+ C8 LINGARD+ (8 PIERI+ E8 EZ(*RRA+ G8 FA*RE8 238 Sustaina"le land

management for the semiarid and su"-humid tropics. 'mbio2/, 44-491.

httpCDDwww.uwe*.eduDcesDforageDwfcDproceedings2&&&Dcuomo.htm (%ast updatedC #e"uar1,

2&1>)

httpCDDwww.fao.orgDagDagpDA=3:DdocDA"AuthorsDshelton.htm (%ast updatedC a 11, 2&1>,)

APPENDI(ES

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc/proceedings2000/cuomo.htmhttp://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/AbAuthors/shelton.htmhttp://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc/proceedings2000/cuomo.htmhttp://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/AbAuthors/shelton.htm


25/43

Appendi* a"le 1. otal wee$l rainfall (mm), average dail minimum and ma*imum

temperatures (Q:) and average relative humidit (E) during the conduct of

the e*periment from anuar 4 G April , 2&1>

ee$sainfall

(mm)

emperature (R:) elative

7umidit

(E)inimum a*imum

an. 4 - 1& 14.2& 24.1> '1.' &.'>an.11 - 1@ 1.'& 24./2 '2.24 &.&&

an. 1 - 24 1.4& 24.2/ ''.&4 @9.4'

an. 2/ - '1 />@.4& 2'.'> '&.>& './&

#e". 1 - @ 2.4& 2'.94 '1.2 1.1/

#e". - 14 '@.& 2'.1& '1.29 &.4'

#e". 1/ - 21 4&.9& 2'.'4 '&./> '.'>

#e". 22 - 2 />.4& 24.&@ '1.49 1.1/

#e". 29 - arch > 1.4& 24.22 '1.9& @9.@1

arch @ - 12 1.2& 21.&/ 2@.@' >@.@9

arch 1' - 19 &.&& 24.@' '2./4 @@.>

arch 2& - 2> &.& 24.@4 '2.1> @@./@

arch 2@ - April 2 11.2& 24.@' '2.4 @@.29

April ' - 1.&& 24.92 '2.2/ @.>'

otal /1.4& ''/.1' 44&.94 11&.2'


26/43

ean >&.1 2'.94 '1./& @9.1>

Appendi* a"le 2. Summar of soil chemical data interpretation (%andon, 1991)

p7 itrogen E 0rganic atter (E

0)

Availa"le 3

( mg $g-1)

4./e*tremel acidic

&.1ver low

2.&ver low

/ver low

4./ - /.&

ver strongl acidic

&.1 - &.2

low

2 - 4

low

/ - 9

low

/.1 - /./strongl acidic

&.2 - &./medium

4 - 1&medium

1& - /&high

/.> - >.&

moderatel acidic

&./ - 1.&

high

1& - 2&

7igh

T/&

ver high

>.1 - >./slightl acidic

T 1.&ver high

T 2&ver high

>.> - @.'

neutral

@.4 - @.

mildl al$aline

@.9 - .4

moderate al$aline

./ - 9.&

strongl al$aline

9.&˃

ver strongl al$aline

oteC 8alues were o"tained " the following method of analsesC p7 G 1C2./ soilCwater ratio

0rganic atter (E) G al$le-;lac$ ethod

(E) G 6eldahl ethodAvaila"le 3 G ;ra 2 ethod

F*changea"le G 74 0Ac p7 @.& ethod


27/43

Appendi* a"le '. 3lant height (cm) of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogenfertili+er (1st harvest)

reatmenteplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

9&.@/

1&@.1&

1&4.>&

112.'&

1'1.&

/.4/

1&.1&

1&'.'&

11'.@&

112.'&

@&.'/

@2.9/

9&.'/

91.2/

92.2&

24>.//

2.1/

29.2/

'[email protected]/

''>.'&

2.1

9>.&/

99.42

1&/.@/

112.1&

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

/4>.// /22./ [email protected]&

14>./&

99.1&

Appendi* a"le 'a. Analsis of variance on plant height (cm) of signal grass as affected "

different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

Source of

8ariation

df SS S # value 3rT#

eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

19&&.14

1/2>.4&

'49./2

9/&.&@

'1.>&

4'.>9

21.@/

.@'

UU

&.&&&>

&.&&/1

otal 14 '@@>.&/

:8 >.>@ E UU highl significant


28/43

Appendi* a"le 4. 3lant height (cm) of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogen

fertili+er (2nd harvest)

reatment eplication otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

//.4&

@>.1&

>'./&

9>.>&

1&2.4&

@'.1&

@'.&

@.1&

/.4&

91.&

>@.1&

>9.4&

@@.&

@'.@&

1.&&

19/.>&

219.'&

219.4&

2//.@&

2@/.2&

>/.2&

@'.1&

@'.1'

/.2'

91.@'

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

'94.&& 4&2.2& '>9.&&

11>/.2&

@@.>

Appendi* a"le 4a. Analsis of variance on plant height of signal grass as affected " differentrates of nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

Source of

8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

119.>'

1'//.4

>9>.&9

/9.2

''.9>

@.&1

&.>9

'.9&U

&./'&'

&.&42

otal 14 21@1./>

:8 12.&1 E U significant


29/43

Appendi* a"le /. um"er of tillers of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogen

fertili+er (1st harvest)

reatmenteplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

2/.1&

'>.4&

42.2&

4'.&

//.&&

19.1&

49.2&

4.9&

/.>&

/@.1&

14.>&

[email protected]&

29.@&

'4.1&

'@.1&

/.&

112.&

12&.&

1'>./&

149.2&

19.>&

'@.>&

4&.2@

4/./&

49.@'

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

2&2./& 2'2.9& 142.@&

/@.1&

'./4

Appendi* a"le /a. Analsis of variance on the num"er of tillers of signal grass as affected "

different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

Source of

8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

42.42

1>&.9>

19'.24

421.21

4&2.24

24.1/

[email protected]

1>.>/UU

&.&&12

&.&&&>

otal 14 2>44.>2

:8 12.@/ E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le >. um"er of tillers of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogen

fertili+er (2nd harvest)


30/43

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

'/.9&

@./&

@'.4&

1&>.@&

112.2&

>'.'&

@.9&

.9&

11/.&

112.>&

4>.1&

>>.&

@9.4&

@@.4&

99.>&

14/.'&

242.2&

241.@&

299.9&

'24.4&

4.4'

&.@'

&./@

99.9@

1&.1'

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

41/.@& 4>./& '>9.'&

12/'./&

'./@

Appendi* a"le >a. Analsis of variance on the num"er of tillers of signal grass as affected "

different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

Source of 8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

9/.4'

>'@1./

@2>.1>

492.@1

1/92.9

9&.@@

/.4'

1@.//UU

&.&'24

&.&&&/

otal 14 &'.1@

:8 11.4& E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 9. #resh her"age ield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III


31/43

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

4.&&

/.'

@.'

9.'

1&.94

1.@>

/./>

/.&4

1&.@

9.9/

2.21

2./>

'.1&

'.49

'.@9

@.9@

1'./&

1/./2

2'.>/

24.>

2.>>

4./&

/.1@

@.

.2'

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

'@.& ''.&9 1/.1/

/.'2

/.>9

Appendi* a"le 9a. Analsis of variance on fresh her"age ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected

" different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

Source of 8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

/4./&

>>.'&

2'.&4

[email protected]/

1>./

2.

9.4>

/.@/U

&.&&@

&.&1@>

otal 14 14'./

:8 29.4 E U significant

Appendi* a"le 1&. #resh her"age ield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III

& G control >.>/ @./& /.&& 19.1/ >.'


32/43

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

9./&

9.>'

1&.@/

11.1'

1&.2/

1&./&

14.1'

14.'

>./&

9./&

9.@/

12.&&

2>.2/

29.>'

'4.>'

'@./1

.@/

9.

11./4

12./&

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

4@.>> />.@> 42.@/

[email protected]@

9.1

Appendi* a"le 1&a. Analsis of variance on fresh her"age ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as

affected " different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

Source of

8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

2&.19

>9.'1

@.>

1&.&9

1@.''

&.9>

1&./2

1.&/UU

&.&&/

&.&&&/

otal 14 [email protected]

:8 9.99 E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 11. otal fresh her"age ield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected " different rates

of nitrogen fertili+er

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

1&.>/

14.

9.2>

1/.1

@.21

9.&>

[email protected]

'9.@/

9.&4

1'.2/


33/43

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

1@.&&

2&.1'

22.&>

1/./4

24.9&

24.''

12.>&

1'.24

1/.@9

4/.14

/.2@

>2.1

1/.&/

19.42

2&.@'

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

4.@2 9.4 /@.9&

2'2.4>

1/./&

Appendi* a"le 11a. Analsis of variance on total fresh her"age ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as

affected " different rates of nitrogen fertili+er

Source of

8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

11@.>>

2>.99

'2.9@

/.'

>@.2/

4.12

14.2@

1>.'2UU

&.&&2'

&.&&&>

otal 14 419.>2

:8 >.>@ E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 12. r atter Hield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

1.1&

1.14

&.>

1.42

&.4>

&.@@

2.24

'.''

&.@/

1.11


34/43

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

2.41

2.'4

'.@4

1.92

1./@

'.11

1.'&

1.2

1.

/.>'

/.19

.@'

1.

1.@'

2.91

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

1&.@' .@& /.>9

2/.12

1.>

Appendi* a"le 12a. Analsis of variance on dr matter ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected

" different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (1st harvest)

Source of

8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

2./>

.24

&.@

1.2

2.&>

&.11

11./

19.&2UU

&.&&41

&.&&&4

otal 14 11.>@

:8 19.>> E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 1'. r matter ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

reatment

eplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

1.2&

1.

2.19

1.4&

1.92

2.&9

&.@

1.2'

2.@&

'.'

/.&'

>.9

1.1'

1.>

2.''


35/43

' G 9& $g ha-1

4 G 12& $g ha-1

2.4&

2.>1

2.4

2.@1

2.92

'.2@

@.&

./9

2.>&

2.>

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

1&.2 1&.>& 1&.9&

'1.@

2.12

Appendi* a"le 1'a. Analsis of variance on dr matter ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected

" different rates of nitrogen fertili+er (2nd harvest)

Source of 8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

&.&4

>.&2

1.&9

&.&2

1./1

&.14

&.14

11.&>UU

&.>9

&.&&24

otal 14 @.1/

:8 [email protected] E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 14. otal dr matter ield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er

reatmenteplication

otal eanI II III

& G control

1 G '& $g ha-1

2 G >& $g ha-1

' G 9& $g ha-1

2.29

'.&2

4.>&

4.@4

2.&

'.'4

4.&1

4.&/

1.24

1.2&

'.99

4.2&

/.>1

@./>

12.>&

12.99

1.@

2./2

4.2&

4.''


36/43

4 G 12& $g ha-1 >.'4 /.1 /.1/ 1@.'& /.@@

;loc$ otal

=rand otal

=rand ean

2&.99 19.29 1/.@

/>.&>

'.@4

Appendi* a"le 14a. Analsis of variance on total dr matter ield (t ha -1) of signal grass as

affected " different rates of nitrogen fertili+er

Source of 8ariation


eplication

reatment

Frror

2

4

1.9

[email protected]

&.4

&.99

>.&

&.1&

9.4>

>/.&1UU

&.&&@

&.&&&&

otal 14 '&.&&

:8 ./' E UU highl significant

Appendi* a"le 1/. 3roduction cost (3h3 ha-1) of signal grass as affected " different rates of

nitrogen fertili+er

Items Mt !nit !nit :ost

(3hp)

otal :ost

(3hp)

A8 T1 < c#nt#$ /unfeti$i7e")

1. %a"or

a. %and preparation 1st plowing

2nd plowing

7arrowing

". 3lantingc. eeding

d. 7arvesting

1&>

/

99

9

2

man-animal daman-animal da

man-animal da

man-daman-da

man-da

man-da

/&&.&&/&&.&&

/&&.&&

2/&.&&2/&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&&

/,&&&.&&',&&&.&&

2,/&&.&&

2,2/&.&&2,2/&.&&

2,2/&.&&

/&&.&&


37/43

e. 7auling

T#ta$ 2B+B@1811

2. aterials

a. :uttings 1&,&&& pc. &.1& 1,&&&.&&

T#ta$ 2+111811

Gan" T#ta$ 2+B@1811

,8 T2 < >1 ' ha92 N

1. %a"or a. %and preparation

1st plowing

2nd plowing

7arrowing

". 3lanting

c. #ertili+er application

d. eedinge. 7arvesting

f. 7auling

1&

>/

9

2

912

/

man-animal da


man-da

man-da

man-daman-da

man-da

/&&.&&

/&&.&& /&&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&&

/,&&&.&&

',&&&.&&2,/&&.&&

2,2/&.&&

/&&.&&

2,2/&.&&',&&&.&&

1,2/&.&&T#ta$ 2+B@1811

2. aterialsa. :uttings

". !rea (4>-&-&)

c. Solophos (&-2&-&)

d. uriate of potash (&-&->&)

1&,&&&

1.'

'

1

pc.

"ag

"ag

"ag

&.1&

1,12&.&&

1,&&&.&&

1,29.&&

1,&&&.&&

1,4/>.&&

',&&&.&&

1,29.&&

T#ta$ 3+B@?811

Gan" T#ta$ 03+@1?811

(8 T0 < 31 ' ha92N


38/43

1. %a"or

a.%and preparation 1st plowing

2nd plowing

7arrowing

". 3lantingc. #ertili+er application

d. eedinge. 7arvesting

f. 7auling

1&

>

/

9'

91>

man-animal da

man-animal da

man-animal da

man-daman-da

man-daman-da

man-da

/&&.&&

/&&.&&

/&&.&&

2/&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&&

/,&&&.&&

',&&&.&&

2,/&&.&&

2,2/&.&& @/&.&&

2,2/&.&& 4,&&&.&&

2,&&&.&&

T#ta$ 02+B@1811

2. aterialsa. :uttings

". !rea (4>-&-&)

c. Solophos (&-2&-&) d. uriate of potash (&-&->&)

1&,&&&

2.>

'1

pc.

"ag

"ag "ag

&.1&

1,12&.&&

1,&&&.&&1,29.&&

1,&&&.&&

2,92'.2&

',&&&.&&1,29.&&

T#ta$ +002801

Gan" T#ta$ 0+B2801

D8 T> < 1 ' ha92 N

1. %a"or

a.%and preparation 1st plowing

2nd plowing

7arrowing ". 3lantingc. #ertili+er application

d. eeding

e. 7arvestingf. 7auling

1&>

/94

9

19

11


man-animal daman-daman-da

man-da

man-da

man-da

/&&.&& /&&.&&

/&&.&& 2/&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&&

/,&&&.&& ',&&&.&&

2,/&&.&& 2,2/&.&&

1,&&&.&&

2,2/&.&&

4,@/&.&&

2,@/&.&&

T#ta$ 0>+@11811

2. aterials

a. :uttings ". !rea (4>-&-&)

c. Solophos (&-2&-&)


1&,&&&'.9

'

1

pc. "ag

"ag

"ag

&.1&1,12&.&&

1,&&&.&&

1,29.&&

1,&&&.&&4,'2./>

',&&&.&&

1,29.&&

T#ta$ +318@3

Gan" T#ta$ >>+218@3


39/43

E8 T? < 201 ' ha92 N

1. %a"or a.%and preparation 1st plowing

2nd plowing

7arrowing ". 3lantingc. #ertili+er application

d. eeding

e. 7arvesting

f. 7auling

1&

>

/9

/9

22

14

man-animal da

man-animal da

man-animal daman-da

man-daman-da

man-da

man-da

/&&.&&

/&&.&&

/&&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&& 2/&.&&

2/&.&&

2/&.&&

/,&&&.&&

',&&&.&&

2,/&&.&& 2,2/&.&&

1,2/&.&& 2,2/&.&&

/,/&&.&&

',/&&.&&

T#ta$ 0@+0@1811

2. aterials

a. :uttings

". !rea (4>-&-&) c. Solophos (&-2&-&)


1&,&&&

/.2'

1

pc.

"ag "ag

"ag

&.1&

1,12&.&&1,&&&.&&

1,29.&&

1,&&&.&&

/,24.&&',&&&.&&

1,29.&&

T#ta$ 22+200811

Gan" T#ta$ >3+>B0811


40/43

Fi'ue 28 E6!ei&enta$ Fie$" La%#ut

Area % *

11 m * 19 m

2&9 m2


41/43

Fi'ue 08 Dia'a& #f the Ha5esta-$e Aea

3lot Area % * 7arvesta"le area % *

'.& m * '.&m 2.& m * 2.&m

9 m2 4.& m2

3lanting istance /&cm * /&cm


42/43


43/43

Documents

Manuscript DRAFT 2 (GINA).doc