Research Article 2326-3997 Evaluation of Fertilizer ... · using Equation (1 and 2). Nitrogen content was determined by Kjeldahl digestion method and it content quantified by an auto

Evaluation of Fertilizer Management on Yield and Yield Components and Production Economics of “Pacific 999 Super” Maize Cultivar

WRJAS


*Agbesi Kwadzo Keteku1, Pumisak Intanon2, Suwat Terapongtanakorn3, Ruankwan Intanon4

1,2Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand 3Department of Agricultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand 4Faculty of Business, Economics and Communication, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand

This fertilizer management trial on maize was conducted to offer research evidence to the universal dispute on the economic viability and productivity of divergent fertility management strategies. We compared six treatments including a control or no fertilizer (T1), T2 NPK (15-15-15), T3 chemical and granular organic fertilizer with hormone mixed formula 1 (HO-1), T4 formula 2 (HO-2), T5 formula 3 (HO-3), T6 granular organic fertilizer (GOF). The trial was replicated thrice in a Randomized Complete Block Design with a plot size of 6 m x 5 m. The maize cultivar (Pacific 999 Super) and a fertilizer dose of 0.9 kg plot-1 were used. The results revealed that HO-3 produced the highest yield components and a significant (p < 0.05) yield (8,276.69 kg ha-1), representing an increase of (50 %) over the control. Also, HO-2 and NPK treatments recorded equal effects on maize yield (7,420.00- and 7,266.69 kg ha-1, respectively). The production cost, revenue and profit of HO-3 were highest (31,317.37-, 72,896.82- and 41,579.45-baht rai-1, respectively). A significant 17.4 % rise in profit was realized with HO-3 application over NPK treatment. The Benefit: Cost ratio of HO-3 fertilizer was the best (2.33) and suitable for farmers to maximize returns.

Keywords: maize; fertilizer; hormone, yield improvement; profit

INTRODUCTION

Efficient management of agricultural resources to meet

human demands while conserving ecology is sustainable

farming (Abera and Belachew, 2011). To attain global food

security, the world agriculture must achieve food

production volume that ensures adequate food supply to

meet the increased growth in population through intensive

cropping. This makes agriculture sustainability a major

social development and environmental issue, notably in

tropical regions (Omotayo and Chukwuka, 2009). To

aggravate the situation, household cultivable land has

decreased due to increased population and the nutrient

extractive nature of most agriculture systems in the tropics

leads to soil organic matter depletion, raising several

production systems concerns (Abera and Wolde-Meskel,

2013; Abera and Belachew, 2011; Khaliq et al., 2006).

Science and technology are therefore, challenged on how

to intensify and sustain agricultural productivity (Kwadwo

and Samson, 2012). There are numerous complains about

soil fertility depletion due to the replacement of organic

fertilizers with chemical fertilizers (Blanchet et al., 2016;

Wei et al., 2016; Khaliq et al. 2006), while others

conversely suggested that, balanced application of

inorganic fertilizers increases crop yields and maintains

soil productivity (Wang at al., 2015; Lindquist, 2007).

*Corresponding Author: Agbesi Kwadzo Keteku, Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +66-064-326-6752 Co-Author E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +66-0876391007; [email protected], +660812640734; [email protected], +660894437704;

World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol. 5(2), pp. 147-156, November, 2018. ©www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 3115-2864

Research Article

P0p3

Rectangle

P0p3

Typewriter

2326-3997


Keteku et al. 148

However, increasing cost and the inability of inorganic

fertilizers to condition the soil has redirected attention to

natural nutrient sources. According to (Hossain et al.,

2016; Wei et al., 2016), to intensify production, soil fertility

must be maintained through integrated nutrient

management. Hence technologies that integrate inorganic

fertilizers with organic nutrient sources can be regarded as

a better method to supply a more balanced plant nutrients

and increase fertilizer use efficiency (Schulz and Glaser,

2012; Zhang et al., 2012). Previous study (Saleth et al.,

2009) in Thailand, showed that clay-based amendments

and organic amendments provide useful ecological and

economic gains.

Considering that maize ranks 3rd and 1st among the world cereals production and productivity respectively, accounting for about 30% of worldwide cereal food and a major source of food for over 1/3 of the world populations (Shiferaw et al., 2011). Shiferaw et al. (2011) mention that maize contributes directly or indirectly to about 30% of the total energy needs in 94 developing countries of approximately 4.5 billion people. Therefore, technologies that enhance maize yield, will be of enormous benefit to the world. Improving maize productivity is still a dominant challenge in many developing countries of the world, as in Africa, South America and Asia (Tilman et al., 2011). Projections indicate that food and other non-food products demand may double universally from 2010 - 2050 (Shiferaw et al., 2011; Tilman et al., 2011). To ensure food security in the next four decades, maize productivity must grow by approximately 3.7% yearly (Shiferaw et al., 2011). Hence, an urgent demand arises to further intensify land and resource use efficiency to boost maize productivity as there is limited scope to extend cultivable land (Hochman et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2012). Global shortfalls in maize production and rising consumer demand have exacerbated market unpredictability and contributed to inflated maize prices. Lest vigorous and concerted efforts are made to resolve these problems and accelerate production, food insecurity and hunger will be the end result for millions of poor people. Accordingly, our study investigated the production impact of a new complete fertilizer and other commercial fertilizers on maize yield, production cost and farmer income. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Chemical and Granular Organic Fertilizer with Hormone Mixed Formula (HO).

The chemical and granular organic fertilizer with hormone

mixed formula (HO) is a new innovative compound

fertilizer, developed in the Faculty of Agriculture, Natural

Resources and Environment, Naresuan University,

Thailand, specifically for maize crop. It consists of six

major plant growth and yield promoting substances,

namely: chemical fertilizer, mixed effective compost (OM),

soil amendments substances, bio-liquid fertilizer, bio-liquid

hormone, and herbal plant extracts liquid (Table 1),

combine in a specific ratio into a single fertilizer granule.

The granules are coated to ensure slow nutrient release.

This fertilizer conditions the soil, supply balanced nutrients

and maintains soil quality required for proper maize growth

and yield (Intanon et al. 2017; Japkaew and Intanon,

2010).

Table 1: Material composition of the HO fertilizers

Material components for maize Kg

HO-1 HO-2 HO-3

Chemical fertilizer (macro elements 70%; secondary elements 20%; minor element 10%)

25 30 40

Mixed effective compost 25 25 20

Soil amendments 20 20 15

Bio-liquid fertilizer 15 11 10

Bio-liquid hormone 10 10 10

Herbal plant extracts 5 5 5

Total 100 kg 100 kg 100 kg

Fertilizer Analysis

Total NPK contents were analyzed by the Kjeldahl method, Bray’s no. II method and Neutral N ammonium method (Zasoski and Burau, 1977). Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn were analyzed following wet digestion (Nitric – perchloric digestion) method (Zasoski and Burau, 1977). Soil pH was measured at a fertilizer water ratio of 1:1.5 by electrode (H19017 Microprocessor) pH meter. Walker and Black (1934) method of potassium dichromate oxidation was adopted to determine organic matter (OM) while cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined by the method of Ammonium acetate (Lu, 1999). All laboratory works were conducted at the Agriculture Faculty, Naresuan University, Thailand.

Study Area

This on farm research was conducted at the Phitsanulok province of Thailand during June-October 2017. The field study area (16° 55′ 0′′ N / 100° 30′ 0′′ E), is one of the major maize growing areas in the province due to uniform distribution of rain and temperature during crop growing seasons. The annual mean temperature is 27.8 °C, while maximum and minimum average monthly temperatures are 37.2 °C in April and 18.6 °C in December, respectively. Annual average precipitation is 1339 mm, 2/3 of it falls within June - October. The soil of the research location falls under the Ultisols classification and was sandy loam in texture. From the (Figure 1) the average monthly rainfall during the trial was 73.12 mm, while maximum and minimum temperatures ranged from (34.1- to 24.6 °C). Also, relative humidity ranged from (84.33- to 79.70%). The climatic conditions of the study area were ideal for optimum maize yield.


World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 149

Figure 1: Rainfall conditions during crop growth period (June-October 2017) Experimental Plan The experiment was setup in RCBD with six treatments: T1 control (no fertilizer), T2 NPK (15-15-15), T3 chemical and granular organic fertilizer with hormone mixed formula 1 (HO-1), T4 formula 2 (HO-2), T5 formula 3 (HO-3), T6 granular organic fertilizer (GOF) and replicated in 3 blocks. Individual treatment plots measured 6 m x 5 m. Hybrid maize (Pacific 999 Super) was planted in mid-June at a row spacing of 75 cm and an intra-row spacing of 25 cm. Seed rate was at 18 kg ha-1. Two seeds were drilled per hill and thinned out after 5 days to one seedling per hill. The fertilizers rate of (0.9 kg plot-1) were side placed in two split; first 30% at 14 days after planting (DAP) and 70% at 45 DAP. A total of 300 kg fertilizer was used ha-1. Harvesting was done in early October 2017. Yield Measurement and Production Economics Cobs were harvested plot-wise at full maturity (120 days) and air dried for 2 weeks. Total cobs in each respective plot were individually measured for the following yield component indices: cob number plant-1, cob length plant-1, cob diameter plant-1, cob weight plant-1, grain number cob-

1, grain rows cob-1, husk weight cob-1, grain weight cob-1, 100 seeds weight, spindle weight cob-1 and withered seeds cob-1. The grains were hand shelled and weight measurements taken at 12% moisture content using moisture meter (FARMEX model, Delhi, India). Also gain, husk, spindle and stover yields were recorded on plot-wise basis and expressed in kg ha-1. One representative plant sample was uprooted plot-1 after flowering (54 DAP) for dry matter analysis in the various plant parts. Shelling %, and dry matter translocation % (from stover to cob and grain within flowering to harvesting period) were calculated using Equation (1 and 2). Nitrogen content was determined by Kjeldahl digestion method and it content quantified by an auto analyzer (Yahya, 1996). Ahmad (1993) method of hydrochloric and nitric acid treatment and spectrometry techniques were followed to determine P, K, Ca and Mg. Also, crude protein content was calculated by multiplying the percent nitrogen content in grain ith the convection factor 5.68 (Sriperm et al., 2011).

Production economic was analyzed based on (Byerlee, 1988) method, with emphasis on cost and revenue which varied among the various treatments. Individual treatment inputs and outputs were considered to calculate the cost of production and gross income of each treatment. Costs of cultivation under various treatments were estimated based on market prices at Phitsanulok. Benefit cost ratio of each treatment was worked out as total revenue divided by cost of production. Shelling percentage = grain weight plot-1 (kg) × 100

cob weight plot-1 (kg) (1) Dry matter translocation % = SW plant-1 at harvest - SW plant-1 at flowering × 100 Grain weight at harvest (2) SW = Stover Weight Data Analysis All data collected were analyzed statistically using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was performed and presented in tables, in alphabets with ‘a’ depicting the highest value. All procedures were performed at (p < 0.05). Correlation graphs were used to show relationships between some key parameters measured. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis of Fertilizers The results in (Table 2) showed that, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content were highest in T2 (NPK: 15-15-15) followed by HO-3 (10.96-, 9.303 AND 9.215 %, respectively). Also, the HO fertilizers and GOF contained (Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn), which are absent in T2. The highest secondary and supplement nutrients were observed in HO-3 (7.97-, 1.628-, 0.055-, 14.24-, 0.043-, 1.679 and 1,750 mg kg-1, respectively). Fertilizer pH was ideal in all fertilizer while OM and CEC were again highest in HO-3 (1.37 % and 21.97 cmol kg-1, respectively). Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield Components

The fertilizer treatments significantly (p <0.05) influenced dry matter production. In (Figures 2A and B) dry matter accumulation into various plant parts; flower (7.93 g), leaf blades (41.27 g), leaf sheath (24.73 g), stem (50.83 g) and roots (57.7 g) were highest in HO-3. Maize yield components via; cob length plant-1, cob diameter plant-1, cob weight plant-1, grain number cob-1, grain weight cob-1, husk weight cob-1, spindle weight cob-1, 100 seeds weight and withered seeds cob-1 were all significantly (p < 0.05) influenced by treatments (Table 3). Cob number plant-1 and grain rows cob-1 did not vary significantly between treatments, despite some important numerical variations.


Keteku et al. 150 Table 2: Analysis of experimental fertilizers

Fertilizer treatments

Soil properties T2 (NPK:15-15-15)

T3 (HO-1)

T4 (HO-2)

T5 (HO-3)

T6 (GOF)

CV (5%)

Primary nutrients N % 15a 7.021d 8.714c 10.92b 4.880e 4.68

P % 15a 6.517d 7.802c 9.272b 4.650e 5.00

K % 15a 6.411d 7.755c 9.175b 4.800e 0.94

Secondary nutrients Ca mg kg-1 0 6.560b 6.630b 7.990a 2.370c 2.47

Mg mg kg-1 0 1.549c 1.610b 1.651a 0.983d 0.97

S mg kg-1 0 0.052a 0.052a 0.057a 0.023b 1.03

Supplementary nutrients Zn mg kg-1 0 1.503a 1.592a 1.659a 0.497b 3.87

Cu mg kg-1 0 0.048a 0.049a 0.057a 0.025b 0.92

Fe mg kg-1 0 9.62c 11.24b 14.12a 2.43d 3.03

Mn mg kg-1 0 1.321c 1.518b 1.746a 0.757d 0.91

(pH) = 1:1.5 6.2d 7.2b 7.5a 7.6a 6.9c 1.32

Organic matter (OM) % 0 1.06c 1.14c 1.256b 1.38a 1.70

CEC (cmol kg-1) 10.54d 18.66b 21.88a 22.01a 10.82c 2.37

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups (n = 3). CV = coefficient of variation

Table 3: Impact of fertilizers on maize yield components

Treatments Cobs no. plant-1

Cob length plant-1

(cm)

Cob diameter plant-1

(mm)

Cob weight plant-1 (g)

Grain rows cob-1

Grains no. cob-1

Grain weight cob-

1 (g)

Husk weight cob-1 (g)

Spindle weight cob-1 (g)

100 seeds weight (g)

Withered seeds cob-1

T1 (control) 1.00 11.37b 34.71e 118.7d 12.27 423.50d 92.47d 12.30b 14.03b 27.67c 19.50c

T2 (NPK: 15-15-15)

1.11 17.60a 44.50bc 192.43b 13.33 513.33abc 150.37b 19.90a 21.97a 32.31b 5.43a

T3 (HO-1) 1.10 16.27a 44.07c 190.40b 12.97 501.13bc 149.56b 19.47a 21.36a 32.10b 6.23a

T4 (HO-2) 1.11 18.17a 46.63ab 196.43b 13.5 542.57ab 153.53ab 20.33a 22.63a 33.23ab 5.44a

T5 (HO-3) 1.11 18.36a 46.90a 214.96a 13.5 567.77a 169.20a 21.53a 23.67a 34.57a 5.37a

T6 (GOF) 1.00 15.81a 39.37d 148.87c 12.77 463.90cd 119.90c 13.57b 15.43b 29.07c 8.57b

CV (5%) 4.49 10.25 2.96 6.21 4.5 6.41 7.37 9.91 8.51 5.5 12.59

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups (n = 15). CV = coefficient of variation

Cob length plant-1 (18.36 cm) and cob diameter plant-1 (46.90 mm) were highest in (HO-3). The results also reveal that maximum cob weight plant-1, grain weight cob-1, grain number cob-1, husk weight cob-1, spindle weight cob-1 and 100 seeds weight of (214 g, 169.20 g, 567.77, 21.53 g, 23.67 g and 34.57 g, respectively) were recorded in (HO-3). In contrast, a significantly higher number of withered seeds cob-1 (19.50) were observed in the control. Specifically, cob diameter plant-1, cob weight plant-1, 100 seeds weight and grain weight cob-1 were significantly influenced by HO-3 (46.90 mm, 214.96 g, 34.57 g, 169.20 g, respectively) in comparison to NPK treatment (44.50 mm, 192.43 g, 32.31 g, 150.37 g, respectively). The treatment T5 (HO-3) gave the highest yield components while T1 (control) recorded the lowest yield components. In addition, dry matter translocation percentage (43.40 g and 55.18 g, respectively) in cob and grains were maximum in HO-3 (Table 4) and the lowest observed in the control (36.7 g and 37.12 g, respectively). Also the correlation coefficient between total dry matter and grain weight (R2 = 0.923) and that between withered seeds and 100 seed weight (R2 = 0.7085) were positive and negative respectively (Figure 3A and B).

Soil fertility is the most important and controllable factor influencing plant nutrition (Wei et al., 2016; Khaliq, 2006). The type, value and rate of fertilizer application directly influences the level of nutrients available in plants and indirectly affects maize yield components, namely; cob length plant-1, cob diameter plant-1, cob weight plant-1, grain number cob-1, grain weight cob-1, husk weight cob-1, spindle weight cob-1, 100 seeds weight and withered seeds cob-1. The results reveals that maximum cob weight plant-

1, grain weight cob-1, grain number cob-1, husk weight cob-

1, spindle weight cob-1 and 100 seeds weight of (214 g, 169.20 g, 567.77, 21.53 g, 23.67 g and 34.57 g, respectively) were recorded in (HO-3). In contrast, maximum number of withered seeds cob-1 (19.50) was recorded in the control, indicating the positive impact of fertilization on maize yield. Particularly, cob diameter plant-

1, cob weight plant-1, 100 seeds weight and grain weight cob-1 were influenced significantly by (HO-3), in comparison to the commonly used NPK fertilizer, (Table 3). The similarity in maize yield components between (HO-3 and HO-2) could be attributed to their balanced nutrients content and synergism between micro and major nutrients.



Babaleshwar et al. (2017) and Siddika et al. (2016) mentioned the significant role of micro nutrients on major nutrients uptake, plant growth and other biochemical and physiological activities Also (Siddika et al., 2016; Potarzycki and Grzebisz, 2009) emphasized on Zn as a major yield limiting micro nutrients for cereal grain crops. Our findings concur with (Potarzycki and Grzebisz, 2009). Integration of mineral fertilizers and organic amendments improves fertilizer use efficiency, stimulates greater dry matter accumulation into various plant parts (Figure 2A), and finally results in higher yield components (Doan et al., 2015). In support to their statement, from our results in (Figure 3A), increase in dry matter weight correlated strongly (R2 = 0.923) to a rise in grain weight cob-1. In addition, HO-3 increased the average grain weight cob-1 by 45.3 % compared to the control and by 11.1 % in comparison to the NPK treatment, which explains the increase in grain yield.

Table 4: Dry matter translocation % in cob and grain

Treatments Translocation (%) in cob

Translocation (%) in grain

T1 (control) 36.7b 47.12c

T2 (NPK: 15-15-15) 41.8a 53.43ab

T3 (HO-1) 41.8a 53.33ab

T4 (HO-2) 41.8a 53.54ab

T5 (HO-3) 43.4a 55.18a

T6 (GOF) 41.8a 51.96b

CV (5%) 3.98 3.36

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups (n = 3) CV = coefficient of variation

(A) (B) Figure 2: Dry matter (A) distribution to various plant parts at flowering at (54DAP); (B) sample root image under the various treatments.

(A) (B) Figure 3: Correlation coefficient between total dry matter plant-1 and grain weight cob-1 (A); between withered seeds cob-

1 and 100 seeds weight (B)


Keteku et al. 152

According to (Xu et al., 2017) the endosperm of maize constitutes approximately 80% of the total grain weight, hence greater kernel sink capacity and endosperm cells number can be accelerated by plant growth hormones that influence cell proliferation for grain yield increment. Xu et al. (2017) investigated the effect of two hormones (6-Benzyladenine and Brassinolide) on endosperm cell division in maize crop. Results revealed that, hormones improved photosynthesis by hindering leaf senescence and most importantly, caused a 6.2 - 40.4% rise in grain endosperm cells, which accelerated kernel filling rate and grain weight by 2.9 - 16.0% over the control. Xu et al. (2017) concluded that treating maize with 6-Benzyladenine and Brassinolide at flowering improves the source and sink capacity of maize for higher yield. Similarly, a significantly different (13.8 -19.9%) increases in 100 seeds weight were noticed among our HO fertilizers compared to the control. Previous works (Gao et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2014) also stated the beneficial impact of added hormone treatments on grain yield. The significance of effect microganisms on nutrient availability and uptake has been demonstrated (Khaliq et al., 2006). Consistent to our findings, (Shahzad et al., 2013) revealed in an experiment that addition of P. thivervalensis to 75% chemical fertilizer, significantly increased 1000-grain weight in comparison to the untreated control plot. Number of withered seeds cob-1 decreased significantly (p < 0.05) by (72.5%, 72.2%, 72.1%, 68.1% and 56.1%, respectively) in (HO-3, NPK, HO-2, HO-1 and GOF) compared to the control treatment and it also correlated negatively to test weight, shown in (Figure 3B). Yield

The (Table 5) summarizes the post-harvest results obtained. Treatments applied significantly (p < 0.05) influenced grain yield and dry biomass yield. Maximum cob yield plot-1, grain yield plot-1, husk yield plot-1, spindle yield plot-1 and stover yield plot-1 were in the order (HO-3

> HO-2 > NPK > HO-1 > GOF > control). The highest maize grain yield ha-1 was recorded in HO-3 (8,276.69 kg) followed by HO-2 (7,420.00 kg) and NPK (7,266.69 kg) while the lowest was in the control (4,223.31 kg). A similar trend was observed for shelling percentage, despite numerical variations (80.14% in HO-3) significant differences were not observed among treatments. Gain yield increased by (50.0%, 43.3% and 41.9%), respectively in (HO-3, HO-2 and NPK) compared to the untreated plot. Seed yield increment resulted from the greater yield components accumulated by these treatments, cob diameter plant-1, cob weight plant-1, grain weight cob-1 and weight of 100 seeds in (Table 3) were significant in HO-3 over the NPK treatment. This explains the difference noticed in the economic yield. Moreover, (Alam, 2013) mentioned that, the yield of a crop can be expressed as the product of two components; kernel number and kernel weight. His ascension is confirmed by our results in (Table 3) as HO-3 recorded highest kernel number and kernel weight. Our findings are also in agreement with (Khaliq et al., 2006) statement that, a combination of NPK + EM + OM gave the maximum cotton seed yield (2,470 kg ha-1), accounting for a significant 44% yield increment over the control. Earlier studies (Intanon et al., 2017; Doan et al., 2015; Intanon, 2013a; Japkaew and Intanon, 2010) also agree with our yield results. According to (Lekfeldt et al., 2017) application of OM and mineral fertilizer improved solute transport system in top soil. From this assumption, the performance of the HO fertilizers could also be explained. In (Figures 2A and B), it is evident that the HO-3 and HO-2 treatments accumulated higher root biomass, as well as dry matter weight. OM decreases leaching of soil colloids (Lekfeldt et al., 2017), implying a reduction in nutrient loss, as plant nutrients usually binds to soil colloids. Therefore, in the presence of a good solute medium, roots can absorb adequate nutrients needed for maximum yield. The resulting effect of this, was higher yield, shown in (Table 5).

Table 5: Impact of fertilizers on maize yield

Treatments Cob yield Plot-1 (kg)

Husk yield plot-1 (kg)

Grain yield Plot-1 (kg)

Spindle Yield plot-1 (kg)

Stover yield Plot-1 (kg)

Shelling % Cob yield ha-1 (kg)

Grain yield ha-1 (kg)

T1 (control) 16.26d 1.67b 12.67d 1.92c 21.80d 77.92 5420.00d 4223.31d

T2 (NPK: 15-15-15) 27.90b 2.89a 21.80b 2.85b 29.20b 78.14 9300.00b 7266.69b

T3 (HO-1) 25.48b 2.82a 19.72bc 2.63bc 27.40b 77.39 8493.31b 6573.31bc

T4 (HO-2) 28.47a 2.93a 22.26ab 3.28a 29.90ab 78.19 9490.00ab 7420.00ab

T5 (HO-3) 30.98a 2.95a 24.83a 3.43a 31.47a 80.14 10324.69a 8276.69a

T6 (GOF) 22.50c 1.97 17.39c 2.24c 24.27c 77.29 7500.00c 5796.69c

CV (5%) 6.22 9.26 7.79 9.93 5.97 1.9 6.22 7.79

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups. CV = coefficient of variation

Chemical Composition The results in the (Table 6) showed significant (p <0.05) influence of fertilization on the maize grain quality parameters measured. The percentage content of NPK

were highest in HO-3 and T2 (NPK15-15-15), with average values of (1.520, 1.410; 0.540, 0.530 and 0.860, 0.850 %, respectively). N and P contents between NPK (15-15-15) and HO-2 were not significantly different. Ca contents were similar between the fertilizer types, however the



highest was measured in HO-3 (0.047%). The treatments did not show any significant differences with regards to Mg content. Also, the maximum crude protein content (8.634%) was again noted in HO-3. From the results, T1 (control) recorded the least values in all the parameters assessed. Soil microorganisms has long been reported to influence nutrient availability, solubility and absorption by plants (Zaredost et al., 2014; Shahzad et al., 2013; Khaliq et al., 2006). Effective microorganism and bio-fertilizers have the ability to convert nutritionally important elements (N and P) from unavailable to available forms via biological processes such as nitrogen fixation and solubilization of rock phosphate (Dikr and Belete, 2017; Intanon et al., 2011). Therefore, the higher chemical composition of HO-3 noticed in our studies can be attributed to the role of the effective microorganism present in this fertilizer (Table 1).

Among the HO fertilizers, HO-3 contained the best balanced nutrients (Table 2), this may had facilitated nutrients absorption by plant roots. The NPK content in grain were also high in T2 (NPK 15-15-15), however it was in most cases not significant from HO-2. Additionally, the highest crude protein content of grains under HO-3 nourishment compared to the T2 (NPK 15-15-15) is a good improvement in grain quality, although not significant. Percentage increment of crude protein in the treatments in comparison to the control were (39.5%, 34.7%, 27.6%, 10.7% and 6.1%) in HO-3, NPK (15-15-15), HO-2, HO-1 and GOF respectively. Our work concurs with (Zilic et al., 2011) who reported 10.13 -13.27% protein in the grains of some hybrid maize varieties.

Table 6: Chemical composition of maize grains

Treat-ments N% P% K% Ca% Mg% Crude Protein content %

T1 (control) 0.920c 0.270c 0.530d 0.030b 0.012 5.226c

T2 (NPK: 15-15-15)

1.410ab 0.530a 0.850a 0.040ab 0.015 8.009ab

T3 (HO-1) 1.030c 0.420b 0.740b 0.040ab 0.016 5.850c

T4 (HO-2) 1.270b 0.510a 0.770b 0.045a 0.016 7.214b

T5 (HO-3) 1.520a 0.540a 0.860a 0.047a 0.018 8.634a

T6 (GOF) 0.980c 0.360b 0.670c 0.038ab 0.015 5.566c

CV (5%) 9.65 8.86 3.54 8.66 6.74 9.65

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups (n = 3) CV = coefficient of variation Production Cost

The economic performance of a fertilizer is the most important factor affecting farmer’s choice. The cost of production, revenue and profit of each treatment presented in (Table 7 and 8) showed that production cost of treatments were highest in the order HO-3 (31,317.37-baht ha-1), NPK (29,903.37 baht ha-1), HO-2 (29,518.00 baht ha-1), HO-1 (27,732.64 baht ha-1), GOF (25,265.37 baht ha-1) and Control (19,062.64 baht ha-1). However, after the sale of produce (grain, husk, spindle and stover), the total revenue realized were significantly (p < 0.05) different among treatments. Maximum revenue was in the pattern (72,896.82; 65,729.54; 64,239.17; 58,311.83; 51,362.22 and 37,426.61 bahts ha-1) in (HO-3, HO-2, NPK, HO-1, GOF and Control, respectively). Similarly, after calculation of profit, variations between treatments were

very evident (Table 8). The treatment HO-3 recorded a significantly highest profit of (41,579.45-baht ha-1) compared to other treatments. From the economic analysis results HO-3 reduces the amount of NPK fertilizer by about 50%, not in cost but with regards to a reduction of sole chemical usage, implying that with the HO-3 fertilizer, we can reduce the amount of synthetic chemical deposited into our soils. HO-3 increased grain yield and profit by (12.2% and 17.4%, respectively) compared to sole NPK application. (Khaliq et al., 2006; Intanon et al., 2017) reported a similar finding. Benefit: cost ratio (B: C ratio) showed a significant treatment variation and the highest B: C ratio (2.33) was recorded for (HO-3), showing that, it is economically worthwhile nourishing maize with HO-3 fertilizer. Moreover, the B: C ratio of all treatments was in an acceptable range. Similar improvement in yield and profit was reported by (Intanon et al., 2o17; Japkaew and Intanon, 2010).


Keteku et al. 154

Table 7: Production expense

Expenditure Cost

Price unit-1 baht Quantity baht ha-1 baht ton-1

Materials costs

Basic material costsꓽ-

Seed cost 1250 3.6 bags 4500

Allacore weed control pill 100 6 box 600 5,100

Fertilizer costꓽ- 50 kg bag-1

T1 Control - -

T2 Chemical Fertilizer cost NPK:15-15-15 880 6 5,280

T3 HO-1 680 6 4,080

T4 HO-2 780 6 4,680

T5 HO-3 880 6 5,280

T6 Granular organic fertilizer (GOF) 450 6 2,700

Labour cost

Basic labour costsꓽ-

Labor cost For 2x ploughing 2000 2 4000

Labour cost for spraying herbicide 600

Labour cost for planting 3150 7750

Labour cost for fertilizer application 1000

Labour cost for harvesting 450

Labour cost for transporting yield 500

Other costs

Basic other cost (oil for pumps and spraying) 300

Fertilizer transportation cost 300

Maize threshing cost 250

Cost of storage sacks (50 kg sack-1: 10 baht sack-1) 200

Table 8: Cost of production, revenue and profit of treatments

Treatments T1 (Control)

T2 (15-15-15)

T3 (HO-1)

T4 (HO-2)

T5 (HO-3)

T6 (GOF)

CV 5%

Grain yield (kg ha-1) 4,223.31 7,266.69 6,573.31 7,420.00 8,276.69 5,796.69 -

Husk yield (kg ha-1) 500.44 963.31 940.00 976.69 983.31 656.69 -

Spindle yield (kg ha-1) 640.00 950.00 876.69 1,093.19 1,143.31 746.69 -

Stover yield (kg ha-1) 5,700.00 9,733.31 9,133.31 9,966.69 10,490.00 8,090.00 -

Material Cost

Total basic material cost (baht ha-1) 5,100.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 -

Fertilizer cost (baht ha-1) - 5,280.00 4,080.00 4,680.00 5,280.00 2,700.00 -

Labour Cost

Basic labour cost (baht ha-1) 7,750.00 7,750.00 7,750.00 7,750.00 7,750.00 7,750.00 -

Fertilizer application cost (baht ha-1) - 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 -

Harvesting cost (baht ton-1) 1,900.49 3,270.01 2,957.99 3,339.00 3,724.51 2,608.51 -

Yield transportation cost (baht ton-1) 2,111.66 3,633.35 3,286.66 3,710.00 4,138.35 2,898.35 -

Other cost

Total basic other costs (baht ha-1) 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 -

Fertilizer transportation cost (baht ha-1) - 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 -

Maize threshing cost (baht ton-1) 1,055.83 1,816.67 1,643.33 1,855.00 2,069.17 1,449.17 -

Maize storage sacks (baht ton-1) 8,44.66 1,453.34 1,314.66 1,484.00 1,655.34 1,159.34 -

Total production cost (baht ha-1) 19,062.64 29,903.37 27,732.64 29,518.00 31,317.37 25,265.37 -

Revenue

Grain (8.0 baht kg-1) 33,786.48 58,133.52 52,586.48 59,360.00 66,213.52 46,373.52 -

Husk (0.3 baht kg-1) 150.13 288.99 282.00 293.01 294.99 197.01 -

Spindle (1.0 baht kg-1) 640.00 950.00 876.69 1,093.19 1,143.31 746.69 -

Stover (0.5 baht kg-1) 2,850.00 4,866.66 4,566.66 4,983.35 5,245.00 4,045.00 -

Total revenue (gross profit; baht ha-1) 37,426.61d 64,239.17b 58,311.83bc 65,729.54ab 72,896.82a 51,362.22c 7.29

Net profit (baht ha-1) 18,363.97e 34,335.80b 30,579.19c 36,211.54b 41,579.45a 26,096.85d 4.64

Benefit: Cost ratio (B:C) 1.96d 2.15bc 2.10bc 2.23ab 2.33a 2.03cd 3.33

Ranking (1=best, 6= last) 6 3 4 2 1 5

Note: mean values with different superscript letter within each column denotes significance (p < 0.05) between different groups, CV = coefficient of variation.



CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the results from our studies, we conclude that, HO-3 fertilizer which contain balanced proportion of essential plant nutrients, soil amendments, EM and hormones produced the maximum yield and yield components (Table 3 and 5). Also, NPK and HO-2 treatments recorded equal maize yield. Increase in grain yield is due to the balanced nutrient status of these fertilizers, coupled with the fact that, the HO fertilizers contain OM and EM which improves nutrients availability and uptake. The hormones enhance growth and translocate maximum dry matter from source to sink, resulting in higher yield components. Chemical anaylsis of maize grain revealed maximum (N,P,K,Ca,Mg and crude protein) contents in HO-3 (Table 6). From the economics analysis (Table 8), the highest fertilizer production cost was with (HO-3). On the basis of profit and B: C ratio, HO-3 is the best fertilizer treatment suitable for farmers to maximize returns. A significant 17.4% rise in profit was realized with HO-3 application over NPK treatment. Therefore, HO-3 is the ideal fertilizer for maize farmers. However, further search for a more suitable hormone is necessary to reduce the amount of dry matter apportioned to the roots (Figure 2A) and translocate them to the cobs.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are immensely grateful to Naresuan University International Scholarship Scheme for funding this PhD program in Agriculture Science. The authors also appreciate the contributions and collaborative efforts of the International Development Center, and the Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Naresuan University, Thailand.

REFERENCES Abera G, Wolde-Meskel E. (2013). Soil properties and soil

organic carbon stocks of tropical Andosol under different land uses. OJSS. 3: 153-162.

Abera Y, Belachew, T. (2011). Effects of land use on soil organic carbon and nitrogen in soils of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 14: 229-235.

Ahmad AW. (1993). Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectrometric analysis of inorganic elemental content of plant material. Trans. Malaysian Soc. Plant Physiol. 4:5-16.

Alam MS. (2013). Growth and yield potentials of wheat as affected by management practices. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8: 6068-6072.

Babaleshwar SB, Koppad SR, Dharmatti PR, Math KK. (2017). Impact of micronutrients on growth, yield and quality of onion (Allium cepa). Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5: 1205-1209.

Blanchet G, Gavazov K, Bragazza L, Sinaj S. (Byerlee D. (1988). An economics training manual. Agronomic data to farmer’s recommendation, CIMMYT, Mexico. pp. 31-33.

Cai T, Xu H, Peng D, Yin Y, Yang W, Ni Y. (2014). Exogenous hormonal application improves grain yield of wheat by optimizing tiller productivity. Field Crops Res. 155: 172-183.

Dikr W, Belete K. (2017). Review on the effect of organic fertilizers, bio-fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers (NPK) on growth and flower yield of marigold (Targets erecta L.). J. Agri. Sci. Res. 5:192-204.

Doan TT, Tureaux TH, Rumpel C, Janeau JL, Jouquet P. (2015). Impact of compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize yield and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam: A three year mesocosm experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 514: 147-154.

Gao Z, Liang XG, Zhang L, Lin S, Zhao X, Zhou L, Shen S, Zhou SL. (2017). Spraying exogenous 6-benzyladenine and brassinolide at tasseling increases mark maize yield by enhancing source and sink capacity. Field Crops Res. 211: 1-9.

Hochman Z, Gobbett D, Horan H, Navarro GJ. (2016). Data rich yield gap analysis of wheat in Australia. Field Crops Res. 197: 97-106.

Hossain MS, Hossain A, Sarkar MAR, Jahiruddin M, Teixeira da Silva JA, Hossain MI. (2016). Productivity and soil fertility of the rice-wheat system in the High Ganges River Floodplain of Bangladesh is influenced by the inclusion of legumes and manure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 218: 40-52.

Intanon P, Keteku AK, Intanon R. (2017). Effect of different materials on soil pH improvement, soil properties, growth, yield and quality of sugarcane. Proceeding Soil Quality for Food Security and Healthy Life. . 13th International Conference of the East and Southeast Asia Federation of Soil Sciences (13th ESAFS), Pattaya, Thailand. , pp. 50-59

Intanon P, Sawamichai R, Kluay-Ngern B. (2011). Development of compound granular organic fertilizer for lower cost of rice production. NUJST. 19: 60-70.

Intanon P. (2013a). The influence of different types of fertilizers on productivity and quality of maize in the area of Kwaew Noi Bamrungdan Dam, Phitsanulok Province, Thailand. IJERD. 4: 15-20.

Japkaew S, Intanon P. (2010). The effect of organic pellet fertilizer, organic and chemical fertilizer, chemical and granular organic fertilizer with hormone mixed formula to the growth and yield of rice. Proceeding of the 7th Naresuan research conference. Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand. pp. 250-255.

Khaliq A, Abbasi MK, Hussain T. (2006). Effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources with effective microorganisms (EM) on seed cotton


Keteku et al. 156

yield in Pakistan. Bioresour. Technol. 97: 967-972. Kwadwo AO, Samson J. (2012). Increasing agricultural

productivity and enhancing food security in Africa, new challenges and opportunities. In: Synopsis of an International Conference. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Lekfeldt JDS, Kjaergaard C, Magid J. (2017). Long-term effects of organic waste fertilizers on soil structure, tracer transport, and leaching of colloids. J. Environ. Qual. 46: 862-870.

Linquist BA, Phengsouvanna V, Sengxue P. (2007). Benefits of organic residues and chemical fertilizer to productivity of rain-fed lowland rice and to soil nutrient balances. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 79: 59-72.

Lu RK. (1999). Analytical methods of soil and agricultural chemistry. 2nd edn. Beijing, China: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press.. pp. 107-240.

Omotayo OE, Chukwuka SK. (2009). Soil fertility restoration techniques in sub-Saharan Africa using organic resources. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 4: 144-150.

Potarzycki J, Grzebisz W. (2009). Plant Effect of zinc foliar application on grain yield of maize and its yielding components. Soil Environ. 55: 519-527.

Ren B, Zhu Y, Zhang J, Dong S, Liu P, Zhao B. (2016). Effects of spraying exogenous hormone 6-benzyladenine (6-BA) after waterlogging on grain yield and growth of summer maize. Field Crops Res. 188: 96-104.

Saleth RM, Inocencio A, Noble AD, Ruaysoongnern S. (2009). Economic gains of improving soil fertility and water holding capacity with clay application: the impact of soil remediation research in northeast Thailand. J. Dev. Eff. 1: 336-352.

Schulz H, Glaser B. (2012). Effects of biochar compared to organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil quality and plant growth in a greenhouse experiment. JPNSS. 175: 410-422.

Shahzad SM, Arif MS, Riaz M, Iqbal Z, Ashraf M. (2013). PGPR with varied ACC-deaminase activity induced different growth and yield response in maize (Zea mays L.) under fertilized conditions. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 57: 27-34.

Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, Bänziger M. (2011). Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security. 3: 307.

Siddika A, Joinul AM, Hoque TS, Hanif A, Ray PC. (2016). Effect of different micronutrients on growth and yield of rice. IJPSS. 12: 1-8.

Sriperm N, Pestia G, Tillmanb PB. (2011). Evaluation of the fixed nitrogen-to-protein (N: P) conversion factor (6.25) versus ingredient specific N: P conversion factors in feedstuffs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91:1182-1186.

Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108: 20260-20264.

Wang JY, Yan XY, Gong W. (2015). Effect of long-term fertilization on soil productivity on the North China Plain. Pedosphere. 25: 450-458.

Wei W, Yan Y, Cao J, Christie P, Zhang F, Fan M. (2016). Effects of combined application of organic amendments and fertilizers on crop yield and soil organic matter: An integrated analysis of long-term experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 225: 86-92.

Xu C, Gao Y, Tian B, Ren J, Meng Q, Wang P. (2017). Effects of EDAH, a novel plant growth regulator, on mechanical strength, stalk vascular bundles and grain yield of summer maize at high densities. Field Crops Res. 200: 71-79.

Yahya A. (1996). Effects of fertilizer rate on leaf nutrient composition, growth, flowering and quality of marigold plants. MARDI Res. J. 24:13-18.

Zaredost F, Hashemabadi D, Ziyabari MB, Torkashvand AM, Kaviani B, Solimandarabi MJ, Zarchini M. (2014). The effect of phosphate bio-fertilizer (Barvar-2) on the growth of marigold. J. Environ. Biol. 35:439-443.

Zasoski RJ, Burau RG. (1977). A rapid nitric‐perchloric

acid digestion method for multi‐element tissue analysis. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 8: 425-436.

Zhang F, Cui Z, Chen X, Ju X, Shen J, Chen Q, Liu X, Zhang W, Mi G, Fan M, Jiang R. (2012). Chapter one - Integrated Nutrient Management for Food Security and Environmental Quality in China. In D. L. Sparks (edn.), Advances in Agronomy, Academic Press. pp. 1-40.

Zilic S, Milasinovic M, Terzic, D, Barac, M, Ignjatovic-Micicet D. (2011). Grain characteristics and composition of maize specialty hybrids. Span. J. Agric. Res. 9: 230-241.

Accepted 1 November 2018 Citation: Keteku AK, Intanon P, Terapongtanakorn S, Intanon R. (2018). Evaluation of Fertilizer Management on Yield and Yield Components and Production Economics of “Pacific 999 Super” Maize Cultivar. World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(2): 147-156.

Copyright: © 2018 Keteku et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.

Documents

Research Article 2326-3997 Evaluation of Fertilizer ... · using Equation (1 and 2). Nitrogen content was determined by Kjeldahl digestion method and it content quantified by an auto