effect of d.i. grow, npk 17, 17, 17, farm yard manure and their combination on irish potato growth...
TRANSCRIPT
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL SCIENCES AND VETERINARY
MEDICINEFACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTEMENT OF CROP SCIENCES
OPTION OF CROP PRODUCTION
Preparedby:
Ernest NSHIMYIMANA Regine UMUBYEYI
For the fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Bachelor’s
Degree ( A0 ) in Crop
Production
Supervisor:
Mrs .TUYISHIME Olive (MSc)
EFFECT OF D.I. Grow, NPK 17, 17, 17, Farm Yard Manure AND THEIR COMBINATION ON IRISH POTATO GROWTH AND
YIELD Case study UR-CAVM, Busogo campus.
Academic year, 2013-2014
ii
DECLARATION
This is to certify that this memoir have been carried out by
Ernest NSHIMYIMANA and Regine UMUBYEYI and it has never been
submitted to any other University / College of high learning
education. This memoir has been submitted for the fulfillment of
the requirement of the award of Bachelor’s Degree in Crop
production.
The memoir was supervised by Mrs. Olive TUYISHIME (Msc)
Signed………………………………… Date……………………………
Ernest NSHIMYIMANA
Signed………………………………… Date……………………………
Regine UMUBYEYI
Declaration from the Supervisor
This work has been submitted for examination with my approval as
Supervisor.
Signed………………………………… Date……………………………
Mrs. Olive TUYISHIME (Msc)
i
DEDICATION
ii
This MEMOIR is
dedicated to
The Almighty God;
Our beloved parents;
To our sisters and brothers
Our friends; all our
Relatives and
Colleagues at UR-CAVM,
Busogo campus.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present work was achieved through numerous supports and
encouragements from several people that the lack of recognition
would be a profound ingratitude
At the first, we praise the Almighty God for his blessings and
protection that are immeasurable since we were born and in
particularly during our memoir.
We acknowledge the government of Rwanda for giving us supports to
accomplish our study in University of Rwanda, College of
Agriculture, Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine (UR-
CAVM) BUSOGO campus.
iii
We express our sincere thanks to Mrs. Olive TUYISHIME for her
tremendous effort, guidance, collaboration, encouragement and
genuine ideas that she has used to help us for our work
accomplishment.
Our sincere gratitude goes to UR-CAVM staff and all lecturers in
Crop Sciences Department, especially in Crop production option.
This is the result of their patience.
My heartfelt thanks go to our dear parents who have advised us to
go to school and supported us since we have begun up to now. We
would like to express our deep thanks to all of our friends and
classmates optionally and colleagues at (UR-CAVM) BUSOGO campus.
Our special thanks are oriented to everyone contributed in a
better fulfillment of our study.
Ernest NSHIMYIMANA
and
Regine UMUBYEYI
iv
ABSTRACT
Irish potato is among the most important tuber crops produced in
Rwanda and is among priority crops on which the national
programme of intensification and development of sustainable
production systems is primarily focusing, but so far its yield
is still below the genetic potential. A field experiment was
therefore conducted to investigate the effect of the effect of
N.P.K 17-17-17, FYM, DI-Grow and their combination on growth and
yield of Irish potato (variety Kinigi) in UR-CAVM farm in Busogo
campus located in Musanze District from December 2013 – April
2014. The experiment was laid out as a Randomized Complete block
design (RCBD) with eight treatments; T0 (control), T1 (FYM), T2
(NPK), T3 (DI-Grow), T4 (combination of FYM and NPK), T5
(combination of FYM and DI-Grow), T6 (combination of NPK and DI-
Grow) and T7 (the combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow). The
treatments were three times replicated. The measured agronomic
parameters were: the emergence rate, number of shoots per plant
at 40DAS, number of leaves at 40 DAS, stem height and plant vigor
at 40 and 60 DAS respectively and tuber yields. The results
showed that there was no significant difference at F pr equal to
0.485 on emergence rate in all treatments. The combination of
FYM, NPK and DI-Grow showed the highest result for all observed
parameters compared to the control except for plant vigor at 40
DAS where there was no significant difference between treatments.
The yield obtained in treatment of combination of FYM, NPK and
v
DI-Grow (30.55t/ha) was high at 17% than yield obtained in
treatment of combination of FYM and NPK (25.89t/ha) usually used
and more than double of total yield obtained in control
(13.44t/ha). It is evident that the best performer treatment was
a combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow at a rate of 10t/ha of FYM,
300kg/ha of NPK and 1L/ha of DI-Grow at concentration of 50ml/L
of water. This combination is therefore recommended to potato
growers to improve potato productivity.
RESUME
La pomme de terre est l'une des tubercules les plus importantes
produites au Rwanda et est parmi les cultures prioritaires sur
laquelle le programme national d'intensification et le
développement de systèmes de production durables est orienté,
mais jusqu'à présent, son rendement est encore en dessous du
potentiel génétique. Un essai a été réalisée pour étudier l'effet
de NPK 17-17-17, Fumier de ferme, DI-Grow et leur combinaison sur la
croissance et le rendement de pomme de terre- variété de Kinigi
dans UR-CAVM ferme à Busogo campus situé dans le District de
vi
Musanze, depuis Décembre 2013 à Avril 2014). L’essai a été
aménagé en le dispositif de blocs complètement randomisés avec 8
traitements ; T0 (témoin) T1 (Fumier de ferme), T2 (NPK), T3 (DI-
Grow), T4 (combinaison de FYM et NPK), T5 (combinaison de FYM et
DI-Grow), T6 (combinaison de NPK et DI-Grow) et T7 (la
combinaison de FYM, NPK et DI-Grow) avec trois répétitions.
Paramètres agronomiques; le taux de levée, nombre de pousses par
plante à 40jour de plantation, le nombre de feuilles à 40jours de
plantation, hauteur de la tige et de la vigueur de la plante à 40
et 60jours de plantation, respectivement, et le rendement en
tubercules ont été mesurées. Les résultats ont montré qu'il n'y
avait pas de différence significative sur le taux de levée dans
tous les traitements. La combinaison de Fumier de ferme, NPK et
DI-Grow a montré le résultat le plus élevé pour tous les
paramètres observés par rapport au témoin mais l'exception a été
observée pour la vigueur de la plante à 40jours de plantation où
il n’y avait pas de différence significative entre les
traitements. Le rendement obtenu dans le traitement de
combinaison de Fumier de ferme, NPK et DI-Grow (30.55t/ha) est
supérieur à 17% de rendement obtenu dans le traitement de
combinaison de Fumier de ferme et NPK (25.89t/ha) habituellement
utilisé et plus du double du rendement total obtenu dans le
contrôle(13.44t/ha). Il est évident que le meilleur traitement
était une combinaison de Fumier de ferme, NPK et DI-Grow à la
dose de 10t/ha de Fumier de ferme, 300kg/ha de NPK et 1L/ha de
vii
DI-Grow à une concentration de 50 ml / L d'eau. Cette combinaison
est donc recommandée aux producteurs de pommes de terre pour
améliorer la productivité de la pomme de terre.
ACCRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
Cv: Coefficient of Variation
d.f: degree of freedom
DAS: Days after Sowing
DMRT: Duncan Multiple Range Test
F.pr: Fisher probability
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
FYM: farm yard manure
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
Ha: Hector
Kg/ha: kilogram per hectare
Kg: kilogram
L.s.d: Least significance difference
m.s: mean square
MINAGRI: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
MINECOFIN: Ministry of finance and economic planning
viii
ml/L: milliliter per litter
N.P.K: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
Ppm: part per million
RAB: Rwanda Agriculture Board
RCBD: Randomized Complete Block Design
RHODA: Rwanda Horticulture development Authority
s.s: sum of square
t/ha: tons per hectare
Toc: temperature degree Celsius
UR-CAVM: University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture, Animal
Science and Veterinary Medicine
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................iDEDICATION....................................................iiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................iiiABSTRACT......................................................ivRESUME.........................................................vACCRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS....................................viTABLE OF CONTENTS............................................viiLIST OF TABLE.................................................ixLIST OF FIGURE.................................................xLIST OF APPENDIX..............................................xiCHAPTER ONE.INTRODUCTION.......................................11.1 Problem statement..........................................2
1.2 Objectives.................................................3ix
1.2.1 Main objective...........................................3
1.2.2 Specific objectives......................................3
1.2.3 Hypothesis...............................................3
CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..............................42.1 Background of potato crop cultivation......................4
2.1.1 Scientific classification of potato......................4
2.1.2 Morphological description of potato......................5
2.1.3 Physiology of Irish potato...............................5
2.1.4 Varieties of Irish potato released in Rwanda.............6
2.1.5 Irish Potato ecological requirements.....................7
2.1.6 Cultivation practices....................................7
2.1.7 Irish Potato crop management.............................8
2.1.8. Harvesting..............................................8
2.2 DI-Grow Fertilizer.........................................9
2.2.1 Composition of DI-Grow...................................9
2.2.2 Functions of DI-Grow.....................................9
CHAPTER THREE.MATERIAL AND METHODS............................123.1. Materials................................................12
3.1.1. Study site.............................................12
3.1.2 Test plant..............................................12
3.1.3 Fertilizers used........................................13
3.1.4 Other materials.........................................13
3.2 Methodology...............................................14
3.2.1 Soaking Irish potato in DI-Grow.........................14
3.2.2 Experimental protocol...................................14
x
3.2.2.1 Experimental design...................................153.2.3 Experimental procedures.................................153.2.3.1 Soil Sample collected in the Experimental field.......153.2.4 Land preparation........................................16
3.2.5 Planting and fertilizers application.....................16
3.2.6 Weeding and earthing-up.................................16
3.2.7 Diseases control........................................17
3.2.8 Harvesting..............................................17
3.2.9 Observed agronomic parameters...........................17
3.2.10 Statistical analysis...................................17
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION..........18CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION.......................................235.1 Effect of traitements on emergence rate...................23
5.2 Effect of traitements on number of leaves at 40 DAS.......23
5.3 Effect of treatments on number of shoots at the 40 DAS. . . .24
5.5 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after
planting.....................................................24
5.6 Effect of treatments on plant vigor.......................25
5.7 Effect of treatments on irish potato yield................25
CHAPTER SIX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION....................27REFERENCE.....................................................28LIST OF APPENDIX..............................................31
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: Climatic data of CAVM-farm during our study from
December 2013 to April 2014...................................12
xi
Table 2 The results of laboratory soil analysis before planting
..............................................................16
Table 3 Effect of treatments on Emergence rate at 30 days after
sowing........................................................18
Table 4 Effect of treatments on number of leaves and shoots at 40
days after sowing.............................................19
Table 5 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days
after sowing..................................................20
Table 6 Effect of treatments on plant vigor at 40 and 60 days
after sowing..................................................21
Table 7 Effect of treatments on Irish potato yield............22
xii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1: Experimental layout.................................15
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Analysis of variance of emergence rate 30 DAS......31
Appendix 2 Analysis of variance number of leaves 40DAS........31
Appendix 3 Analysis of variance number of shoots at 40 days. . .31
Appendix 4 Analysis of variance plant height at 40 days.......32
Appendix 5 Analysis of variance plant height at 60DAS.........32
Appendix 6 Analysis of variance plant vigor at 40DAS..........32
Appendix 7 Analysis of variance plant vigor at 60 DAS.........33
Appendix 8 Analysis of variance of irish potato yield t/ha. . . .33
Appendix 9 Calculation of fertilizers used....................34
Appendix 10 Row data of emergence rate expressed in % obtained
for all treatment.............................................36
xiv
Appendix 11 Row data of number of leaves counted in number at
30DAS.........................................................36
Appendix 12 Row of plant height expressed in cm at 40DAS......37
Appendix 13 Row of number of shoots counted in numbers at 40 DAS
..............................................................37
Appendix 14 Row of data of plant vigor expressed in % at 40DAS 38
Appendix 15 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 60 DAS. .38
Appendix 16 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 60 DAS 39
Appendix 17 Row data of irish potato yield expressed in t/ha. .39
xv
CHAPTER ONE.INTRODUCTION
In Rwanda about 90% of the population is engaged in the
agriculture sector but this does not mean that there is a high
production. The Rwandan agriculture is being challenged by the
problem of land scarcity which is due to the high population
growth rate (MINECOFIN, 2004).
Potato Solanum tuberosum L. is one of the Solanaceae family plants,
considered as one of most important vegetable crops in many
regions of the world (Matlob et al 1989). It is considered as a
rich crop of nutrient substances and is consumed very large
quantities as manufactured (Hassan 2003) The Irish potato falls
in the category of priority crops to be promoted in Rwanda’s
farming zones where prevailing agro-ecological conditions match
with Irish potato production requirements and subsequently
considered as staple food and major source of revenue for people
(MINAGRI, 2009).
In Rwanda, research focused on some agronomic practices.
Regarding fertilizer application, the recommended rates are 30
t/ha of FYM and 300Kg/ha of N.P.K 17-17-17 applied at plough and
planting times, respectively. The recommended methods of
fertilizer application are broadcasting and hole placement for
FYM and N.P.K, respectively (MINAGRI, 2010). DI-Grow is foliar
fertilizer that are made from Acadian seaweed, containing
complete ionic elements, both macro ionic elements and micro
1
elements it is recommended to use 1L/ha of DI-Grow with N=2.35%;
P2O5=4.44%; K2O=1.75% for tuber production(DYNAPHARMA 2012).
Despite its importance as a food crop, the productivity of this
crop is as low as 10 t/ha mainly due to poor agronomic practices
such as poor fertilization, the use of low quality tubers as
planting materials and lack of improved adaptable cultivars
(Tsegaw, 2006)
Today, many institutions like RAB, RHODA are concentrating their
effort to increase its productivity, through the selection of
performing varieties which have the high production in order to
satisfy the need of people and increase the Rwandan economy.The
maximum productivity would be achieved through a combination of
proper use of improved agricultural technologies including
fertilization, use of proper inputs and reducing crop losses due
to pests and diseases (MINECOFIN, 2009).
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
According to Gossens (2002), the sub-optimal Irish potato yields
in Rwanda are caused by lack of knowledge about good cultural
practices in general and inappropriate and low use of mineral
fertilizer in particular, among other factors.
According to Valerie et al. (2001), one of the causes of the
limited use of mineral fertilizer in Rwanda is insufficient
knowledge of the benefits and of how to use the mineral
2
fertilizers (information got from 53% of the 88% who were non-
users, which represents 47% of all farm households).
Mellor (2001) indicated that one of the requirements for rapid
growth of Irish potato production is the improvement of
production technology to optimizer fertilizer use efficiency. In
Rwanda, fertilizer use efficiency is low since the quality and
quantity of information available on fertilizer use is inadequate
and most farmers are unable to afford or access the comprehensive
package of complementary practices needed to get the most out of
the fertilizer (MINAGRI, 2009). Fertilizer use by most farmers in
Rwanda is partial. They only apply N (Urea), P and K elements,
while other elements are not applied especially the micro
elements, which has resulted into the deficiency of certain ionic
elements and the accumulation of certain ionic element in this
soil. For proper crop growth, 16 ionic elements are required
(macro and micro) so-called essential ionic elements. Each
element is equally important and cannot be replaced by another
(MINAGRI, 2009).
After observing the prevailing problems, MINAGRI has imported the
liquid organic fertilizer called DI-Grow and make its extension
in rural farmers during farmer field school and field
experimentation. Nevertheless, the farmers are not yet convinced
and understood its use with fertilizer especially FYM and NPK17,
17, 17. To overcome this challenge and find out the rational
improvement to production, it is tested in field experimentation.
3
This research will provide us some information about use of DI-
Grow, FYM and NPK17, 17, 17 on potato, the rate to be applied on
potato; its performance when combined with NPK and impact on
Irish potato yield.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
1.2.1 Main objective
The main objective of this work was to determine the effect of
DI-Grow, FYM, NPK 17-17-17 applied solely and their combination on
Irish potato growth and yield parameters in UR-CAVM farm.
1.2.2 Specific objectives
The specific objectives of this study were:
1. To evaluate the effect of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow applied solely
on irish potato growth and yield parameters
2. To evaluate the effect of combination of the three types of
fertilizers (DI-Grow, FYM, and NPK 17-17-17 ) on irish potato
growth and yield parameters
1.2.3 Hypothesis
To achieve these objectives the following hypotheses have been
formulated as follow:
1. FYM, NPK and DI-Grow applied solely affect Irish potato growth
and yield parameters
4
2. Combination of DI-Grow, FYM, and NPK 17-17-17 affect Irish
potato growth and yield parameters
CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Bbackground of potato crop cultivation
The Irish potato is a starchy, tuberous crop from the perennial
Solanum tuberosum of the Solanaceae family (also known as the
nightshades). It was in South America, between three and seven
thousand years ago, when scientists believe the potato was first
cultivated. According to genetic patterns, the potato most likely
originated between the south of Peru and the northeast of
Bolivia. The crop was sown from this area into the rest of the
Andes and beyond(Jeff, 2001). Potato expansion was developed in
Europe from where they were introduced to Africa and gave a good
result in Mediterranean and regions of tropical mountains
(Burton, 1989).
5
Today potatoes have become integral part of the world’s cuisine
and are the world’s fourth-largest food crop, following rice,
wheat, and maize (Lang, 2001)
Irish potatoes have been cultivated in Rwanda for nearly a
century, and most accounts trace introduction of the crop to the
arrival of German missionaries in the late 19th century (Scott,
1988).
2.1.1 Scientific classification of potato
The Irish potato belongs to the family of solanaceae to which
belong the tobacco, the tomato, etc. there are 8 cultivated Irish
potato species and about 200 most wild species. The most known
species is Solanum tuberosum which has following taxonomic
classification
Kingdom: plantae
Phylum: spermatophytes
Sub-phylum: angiosperms
Class: dicotyledons
Order: solanales
Family: solanaceae
Genus: solanum
Species: Solanum tuberosum .l
6
2.1.2 Morphological description of potato
Potato plants are herbaceous perennials that grow about 60 cm of
height, depending on variety, the culms dying back after
flowering. They bear white, pink, red, blue, or purple flowers
with yellow stamens. In general, the tubers of varieties with
white flowers have white skins, while those of varieties with
colored flowers tend to have pinkish skin.Potatoes are cross-
pollinated mostly by insects, including bees, which carry pollen
from other potato plants, but a substantial amount of self-
fertilizing occurs as well. Tubers form in response to decreasing
day length, although this tendency has been minimized in
commercial varieties (Salaman, 1989).
2.1.3 Physiology of Irish potatoThe physiology of potato includes the growth within the field
(the vegetative cycle) and growth in store (dormancy and
Emergence).
Growth of a potato plant occurs in several stages (Robert,
Stephen L., 1993)
Sprout development,
Plant establishment,
Tuber initiation,
Tuber bulking, and
Tuber maturation.
7
Timing of these growth stages varies depending upon environmental
factors, such as elevation and temperature, soil type,
availability of moisture, cultivar selected, and geographic
location (Randal 1993)
2.1.3.1 Sprout Development (Growth Stage I)
Emergence of seeds is initiated by imbibitions followed by
radical emergence and growth of root and shoot as a result of
high metabolic activity (Doganlar et al., 2000). In germinating
seeds, storage proteins are hydrolyzed and amino acids are
released (Lea and Joy, 1983; Gumilevskaya et al., 2001) once
tubers have broken dormancy and if environmental conditions are
favorable for growth (e.g., warmer temperatures), they begin
immediate sprouting.
2.1.3.2Plant Establishment (Growth Stage II)
“Plant establishment” refers to the growth period from early
sprouting until initiation of new tubers occurs, and this
includes development of both roots and shoots. Many growers refer
to this stage as “vegetative growth.” The mother tuber (seed
piece) is important during early plant growth but becomes less
important as the new plant establishes. A well-established root
system is important for subsequent growth and can allow for quick
regrowth after early season defoliation from frost, hail, or
insect damage (Robert, Stephen L., 1993)
8
2.1.3.3Tuber Initiation (Growth Stage III)
Under appropriate growth conditions, the tips of stolons will
“hook” and begin to swell, resulting in initiation of new tubers.
Potatoes need moderate amounts of nitrogen and cool nights for
good tuber growth. Water stress (inadequate water) will lead to
earlier tuber initiation (Robert, Stephen L., 1993).
2.1.3.4Tuber Bulking (Growth Stage IV)
This is the critical growth period for both tuber yield and
quality. Under optimal growing conditions, tuber growth rates
remain relatively constant during this period, which is often
referred to as the linear tuber growth phase. Research has shown
that two major factors influence tuber yield:
The photosynthetic activity and duration of the leaf
canopy, and
The lengths of the linear tuber growth phase (Robert,
Stephen L. , 1993)
2.1.3.5 Tuber Maturation (Growth Stage V)
As potato vines die back, several important things happen to the
tubers. The skin or periderm thickens and hardens which provides
greater protection to tubers during harvest and handling and
blocks entry of pathogens to the tuber. During tuber maturation,
specific gravity (dry matter) increases, which improves quality
for both processing and fresh market consumption (Robert, Stephen
L., 1993)
9
2.1.4 Varieties of Irish potato released in RwandaMore than 15 potato varieties have been released since 1979(ISAR,
2010).The following varieties of potato such as, Sangema, Cruza,
Mabondo, Victoria, Mizero, and Gikungu are recommended to be
cultivated in Rwanda (MINAGRI,2010)
2.1.5 Irish Potato ecological requirements
a) Temperature requirements
Potato is hardly crop that well resist relatively to coldness
(2o) and to the warmth. Excess temperature destroys it when it is
accompanied with dryness. Optimum temperature is 15 to25oc
(MINAGRI, 2002).
b) Water requirements
The soil moisture content must be maintained at a relatively high
level. For best yields, a 120 to 150 day crop requires from 500
to 700 mm of water (FAO, 2008).
c) Sunlight requirements
As it is generally for all green plants, potato requires sunlight
for all its growth for photosynthesis to take place (MINAGRI,
2002).
d) Soil
Irish Potatoes do best in a loose, well-drained, slightly acid
soil. Poorly drained soils often cause poor stands and low
yields. Heavy soils can cause tubers to be small and rough.
Soil with a pH range of 5.5-6.4 is considered ideal . Lowest
possible soil pH is 5.5. Soil pH below 4.8 generally results in
10
impaired growth. Too alkaline conditions can adversely affect
skin quality and can induce micronutrients deficiencies (FAO,
2008).
2.1.6 Cultivation practices
2.1.6.1 Land preparation
Growing potatoes involves extensive ground preparation. The soil
needs to be harrowed until completely free of weed roots. It is
so necessary to remove the depression in which could accumulate
rain water during the plant growth (FAO, 2008).
2.1.6.2 Planting
The potato crop is usually grown not from seed but from "seed
potatoes" - small tubers or pieces of tuber sown to a depth of 5
to 10 cm. Purity of the cultivars and healthy seed tubers are
essential for a successful crop. Tuber seed should be disease-
free, well-sprouted and from 30 to 40 g each in weight. Use of
good quality commercial seed can increase yields by 30 to 50
percent, compared to farmers' own seed, but expected profits must
offset the higher cost (FAO, 2008).
The planting density of potatoes depends on the size of the
tubers chosen, usually, about 2 to 2.5 of seed potatoes are sown
per hectare with 80 cm x 30cm plant spacing and one potato per
hole (MINAGRI, 2010).
2.1.6.3 Fertilization
11
The main purpose of applying fertilizers is to supply plant
nutrients in concentrated and readily available form in order to
get higher yields from fertilizer-responsive crops. (RAYAR,
2000).
Potato can benefit from application of organic manure at the
start of a new rotation. it provides a good nutrient balance and
maintains the structure to the soil (FAO, 2008)
The recommended dose is 30 t/ha of FYM, and 0.3 t/ha of N.P.K 17-
17-17 applied at plough and planting times, respectively (MINAGRI,
2010). The recommended methods of fertilizer application are
broadcasting and hole placement for FYM and N.P.K respectively
(Gupta, 2003).
2.1.7 Irish Potato crop management
2.1.7.1 Weeding
During the development of the potato canopy, which takes about
four weeks, weeds must be controlled in order to give the crop a
"competitive advantage". If the weeds are large, they must be
removed before ridging operations began (FAO, 2008).
2.1.7.2 Earthing up (Ridging)
It consists of mounding the soil from between the rows around the
main stem of the potato plant. Ridging keeps the plants upright
and the soil loose, prevents insect pests such a tuber moth from
reaching the tubers; and helps prevent the growth of weeds (FAO,
2008).
12
2.1.8. HarvestingAccording to the varieties, the potatoes are ready for harvesting
90 to 140 days after planting. It is recommended to cut stems
(killing haulms) at the level of the soil 2-4 weeks before
harvest to stimulate the hardening of the skin of tubers or to
hasten tuber skin setting. Thick skins prevent storage diseases
and shrinkage due to water loss .(FAO, 2008). The potato yield
can reach 40tones/ha in temperate region, while in tropical
region the yield is small for 5 to 11 tons /ha and 20 to 50 tons
in high altitude (MINECOFIN, 2002). In Rwanda, potatoes are
harvested when they are ripe and the yield can reach 9 to 40
tons/ha (MINAGRI, 2010).
2.2 DI-Grow Fertilizer
DI-Grow is foliar fertilizer that are made from Acadian seaweed,
containing complete ionic elements, both macro ionic elements
( N,P,K, Ca, Mg,S) and micro elements (Fe, Ze, Cu, Mo, Mn, B,
Cl). It also has plant growth hormones that is; auxins, cytokine,
and gibberellins. It also contains humic acid which is capable of
improving crop growth, expansion and crop production optimally
(DYNAPHARMA 2012).
according to Thomas (1996),he found that Acadian seaweed acting
as chelating good martial, and reassen the lack of mineral
nutrient and losing them by leaching and also make many nutrient
available in soil such as phosphate, calcium and trace elements .
13
Kowalski et al (1999) described the positive affection of seaweed
extracts on plant growth and yield of potato plant since they
affected significantly on shoot growth and leaf content of
nutrient minerals and increased quantitative and quality yield
traits significantly.
2.2.1 Composition of DI-Grow
In accordance with the analysis from DYNAPHARMA 2012 content and
composition of DI-Grow is as follows:
a) DI-Grow GREEN
C-Org=8.87%; N=2.35%; P2O5=4.44%; K2O=1.75%; Ca=8.9 ppm; Mg=0.36%;
S=0.61%; Micro element (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, Mo, Cl); MgO: 0.36%,
Fe: 867ppm,Mn:223ppm,Cu:144ppm,Zn:153ppm, B:
0.011%Mo:o.oo2%,Humic acid: 0.68%
b) DI-Grow RED
C-Org=8.46%; N=1.49%; P2O5=2.13%; K2O=2.41%; Ca=17.10 ppm; Mg=36%;
S=1.31%; Micro element (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn, Cl).
2.2.2 Functions of DI-Grow
1. Complement Fertilizer: Even though the DI-Grow contains
complete macro and micro ionic element, the amounts are very
small, that it is it still needs basic fertilizers but the basic
fertilizer reduces 30% of suggestion dosage.
2. Growth Stimulation Essence: These accelerate the vegetative
growth of plants, stimulate flowering /insemination and prevent
flower and fruit from falling easily. 14
3. Soil Conditioner. It repairs the physical nature of soil. That
is soil gradually becomes friable again.
The primary function of DI-Grow is being a complement
fertilizer , DI-Grow only increases plant’s resistance to disease
but does not treat the disease.
2.3.6 D.I. GROW APPLICATION
Application of ionic elements to the plant can be done through
the root, the trunk and the leaf. The technology of D.I Grow
application prioritizes spraying method, since this method is
more efficient and effective except for some crops where it is
impossible to spray the leaves, because the plant is too high.
The frequency of D I Grow application can be done optimally
according to the crop’s critical condition in general. The
average number of crop’s critical condition can be divided into
three phases, which are:
Young crop phase (vegetative phase)
Flower primordial phase (generative phase)
The enlargement of fruit or tuber phase
a) D.I GROW Application on Vegetative Phase
The application of D.I GROW in this phase is done to speed up the
growth and development of the roots, the stem and the leaves. The
first spraying on young plants is done when the young leaves are
able to photosynthesize optimally. At this phase, application of
D.I GROW green is done for plants at the age of 10 to 20 days15
after being planted, at the rate of 3 cc / liter of water
(DYNAPHARMA 2012)
b). Application of D.I. GROW in Generative Phase
This is an optimal growth phase of the plant before turning to
the generative growth phase. Application of D.I GROW at this
phase will make crops grow faster and the size of the plant will
be bigger than its normal size.
The relatively fast growth and increase in size of fruit that is
above normal occurs after application of D .I. Grow because D.I.
GROW contains plant growth hormones (Auxin, Cytokine, and
Gibberellins) which work simultaneously. Auxins cause cell
division, cytokine increases new cell growth through fast cell
division. While hormone Gibberellins increases the elongation of
formed cells and the crop becomes bigger and grows rapidly.
Visually, the flowering of this crop will happen earlier .(O’
Dell, C. 2003)
At this phase, we use D.I-Grow Red. This is done when the crop
reaches above the age of 30 days after planting (for season crop)
with the doze of 4-5 cc/liter of water (DYNAPHARMA 2012)
c).Application of D.I. GROW during Enlargement of Fruit/Tuber
Phase
At the end of the vegetative growth phase, the crop begins to
form depository tissues for carbohydrates, for example tubers.
Application during the flower primordial phase has assisted
formation of the depository tissues.
16
At this phase use DI-Grow of dosage 4-5 cc/Liter of water.
Application at this phase will give good results, and the
maturity of tubers occurs fast (DYNAPHARMA 2012).
ATTENTION
To gain optimal results, the following points should be
considered when using D.I Grow fertilizer
• The fertilizer should be mixed with water
• The fertilizer is sprayed to all parts of the crop and around
the root area.
• The fertilizer is used in the morning (at 06.00 – 09.00 a.m.)
or in the evening (after 16.00 p.m.)
• Do not use it under hot sunshine
• Do not use it when its almost raining
• The fertilizer must be used up, if the product remains, splash
it to the ground around the root
• If bug/pest problem occurs, the fertilizer can be mixed with
pesticide (DYNAPHARMA 2012)
17
CHAPTER THREE.MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Study site
The experiment was conducted in CAVM- farm at Busogo. This farm
is located in Busogo sector, Musanze District of the Northern
Province. The soil of Busogo farm is a volcanic soil derived from
basaltic rock. It has a pH of 6.05(analysed from UR-CAVM soil
lab). The previous crop was maize and the crop under test was
potato, Kinigi variety. The climatic conditions during our study
are described in below.
Table 1: Climatic data of CAVM-farm during our study from December 2013 to April 2014
MONTHS Precipitat
ionTo max To min Average To Humidity
December 130.9 21.8 oc 10.4 oc 15.7 oc 85%
January 88.7 22.8 oc 9.4 oc 15.8 oc 84.1%
February 44.7 22.5 oc 10.1 oc 15.9 oc 85.6%
March 261.8 22.2 oc 9.8 oc 14.9 oc 86.6%
April 136.2 20.1 oc 9.5 oc 14.8 oc 85.9%
(Source: UR-CAVM Station, 2013)
Before planting the soil of field experiment was analysed in soil
laboratory of UR-CAVM (Table2) in order to know the pH of the
soil, the organic matter and the rate of nutrients which was
available in the Soil.
18
3.1.2 Test plant The test plant used was Irish potato ,Kinigi variety from UR-
CAVM farm.
The main characteristics of this variety are as follows:
High yielding,
Early maturing(90 days),
Tolerant to bacteria wilt (BW),
Susceptible to late blight (LB).
Tuber size large,
Short vegetative cycle (PRAPAC,1990)
3.1.3 Fertilizers used
a) Farm yard manure
The farm yard manure (FYM) used in this experiment was collected
from UR-CAVM farm. According to MINAGRI, (2010), the recommended
dose is 20 tones of organic manure per hectare. MUNYEMANA, (1999)
reported that farm yard manure content is 1.5 % of Nitrogen,
0.44% of Phosphorus and 1.25% of Potassium. In addition, the
mineralization of farm manure takes a long process as 30%, 65%
and 75% only respectively of N, P and K are available for first
season. The FYM fertilizer 20t/ha reported to 6kg / 3m2 has been
applied (appendix9).
b) Mineral fertilizers
The mineral fertilizer used is NPK 17-17-17, a mixed fertilizer
which contains 17kg of Nitrogen, 17kg of Phosphorus and 17kg of
Potassium in 100kg of total compound. It is an important mixed
19
fertilizer available in the market to be applied for Irish potato
crop, the recommended dose is 300kg of NPK 17. 17.17 per hectare.
(MINAGRI, 2010).
c) DI-Grow
DI-Grow is a liquid organic fertilizer made from Acadian seaweed,
containing complete ionic elements, both macro ionic elements
( N,P,K, Ca, Mg,S) and micro ones (Fe, Ze, Cu, Mo, Mn, B, Cl).
according to laber, the fertliser used has contained C-Org=8.87%;
N=2.35%; P2O5=4.44%; K2O=1.75%; Ca=8.9 ppm; Mg=0.36%; S=0.61%;
Micro element (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, Mo, Cl); MgO: 0.36%, Fe:
867ppm,Mn:223ppm,Cu:144ppm,Zn:153ppm, B: 0.011%Mo:o.oo2%,Humic
acid: 0.68%
3.1.4 Other materialsTo carry out cultural farming practices like tillage, sowing,
collection of data and weeding; the materials used were: hoes for
cultivation, graduated ruler to measure the height of crops,
balance to measure the weight of fertilizers, the diameter to
measure the size of plots, the stake to limit the plot, rope,
bags and the Wheel-barrow to transport the farmyard manures and
knapsack sprayer for foliar fertilisation and pesticide
application.
20
3.2 METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Soaking Irish potato in DI-Grow.
DI-Grow was shake well before use
It was poured and directly mixed with water in proportion of
4cc in 16 L water
After the potato seeds were soaked in mixture of DI-Grow and
water during 15min -30min, 15 kg of Irish potatoes seeds were
soaked in bath of 20L
Agitate softly to avoid damage on skin of seeds
Seeds were removed in bath and deposed in cool dry place in
order to reduce infection and to avoid evaporation
Sowing was done immediately
3.2.2 Experimental protocol
1. Period: 2014 A season
2. Site: UR-CAVM Farm
3. Previous crop: Maize
4. Number of treatment: 8
5. Number of replication:3
6. Plot length: 2m
7. Plot width: 1.5m
8. Spacing between plants :0.30m
9. Spacing between plots: 0.5 m
10. Spacing between rows: 0.80m
11. Spacing between replications: 1 m21
12. Number of rows /plot: 3
13. Total experimental area:200 m2
14. Population density : 12plants per Plot
15. Fertilizer: FYM,NPK,DI-Grow
3.2.2.1 Experimental design
Figure 1: Experimental layout
Where :
T0 : Control
T1 : FYM
T 2: NPK
T3: DI-Grow
T4: FYM and NPK
T5: FYM and DI-Grow
T6: NPK and DI-Grow
T7: FYM, NPK and DI-Grow
The experimental design used in this experiment was a Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD) With eight treatments and three
replications. The plot comprising an area of 3 m2 and the
22
2m
B11.5m 0.5m 1 m
B2
B3
T4
T1 T2T5T4T7 T3T0T6
T6T5 T7T3 T4T1T0 T2
T6 T0 T5T3 T7T1T2
distance between plots (treatments) was 0.5 m. Thus the total
plots of experiment were 24.
3.2.3 Experimental procedures
3.2.3.1 Soil Sample collected in the Experimental field
Before planting, soil samples were randomly collected at 30 cm of
depth using Eldeman soil auger for routine characterization. The
soils samples were collected in diagonals, five locations have
been selected in each plot, 4 locations in corners and one
location in middle of plots. The bulk soil samples collected were
thoroughly mixed for homogeneity and a composite soil sample was
taken, for shipment to the lab analysis
3.2.3.2 Laboratory analysis
The soil samples collected from different plots were tested in
UR-CAVM laboratory for the following soil parameters: Soil pH,
Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) and Carbon(C). Soil
testing results are used to find out how much of nutrient would
be plant-available from the soil, and how much should be
additionally applied in the form of a mineral fertilizer to reach
an expected Irish potato production
Table 2 the results of laboratory soil analysis before planting
No Soil analysis
designation
Results
obtained
Methods and Equipment used
1 Available P 33.2ppm Smart soil faster analyzer
2 Exchangeable K 0.15meq/100gr Smart soil faster analyzer23
3 Organic C 4.0864% Walkley and Black modified
Method
4 pH H2O 6.05 Electronic pH meter
5 Nitrogen 0.0728% Kjeldahl method
3.2.4 Land preparationThe land was manually tilled with a hoe weed roots uprooted and
removed from the field in order to create a favorable condition
for seed potato placement, root penetration and plant growth.
This 1st digging was followed by a 2nd cultivation for soil
leveling before planting.
3.2.5 Planting and fertilizers application DI-Grow was first used in soaking then sprayed by knapsack
sprayer after the 1st weeding . NPK17-17-17 and FYM have been
applied while planting. The potato seeds have been planted in
rows spacing of 0.80m and 0.30 m of plants spacing in the deep of
10 cm. According to MINAGRI (2010) recommendations, the potato
seed rate of 2 tons /ha was used. As well as, the seed used for
planting should have a good germinating capacity and it should be
healthy and free from seed borne diseases and seeds of weeds .The
seeds used was obtained from UR-CAVM farm.
3.2.6 Weeding and earthing-up
Weeding was carried out 45 days after the potato seed have
sprouted, while earthing up was done two months after planting in
24
order to keeps the plants upright and the soil loose, prevents
insect pests such a tuber moth from reaching the tubers; and
helps prevent the growth of weeds.
3.2.7 Diseases control
During the experiment period, late blight transmitted through a
fungus called Phytophtora infestans has been observed as potato
disease. In order to fight against this disease, 50grams of
Dithane M45 in 20 l water were applied once in every two weeks
after potato seed sprouting until two weeks before harvesting.
3.2.8 Harvesting
To facilitate harvesting, the potato vines have been removed two
weeks before harvesting. Irish potato experiment has been
harvested 120days after planting. The harvesting was carried on
plot separately and potato tubers were collected in sacs by plot
in order to determine the potato yield.
3.2.9 Observed agronomic parameters
Emergence rate: Emergence rate was observed 30 days after
planting by counting all plants emerged and then calculating
their percentages.
Plant height: The heights of plants have been measured for
six plants randomly chosen in each experimental unit with
graduated rule. That parameter has been taken two times with
an interval of 15 days i.e. at 45days and 60 days after
planting.
25
Vigor: This parameter was measured by using Visual
observation. plants shrubbery was evaluated plot per plot then
scored at 10 point. The score was recorded in percentage.
Number of shoots and leaves per plant: This parameter was
evaluated by counting the shoots and leaves of each plant on
six plants randomly chosen in each experimental plot with
respect to the treatments.
Yield: The yield has been determined by weighing tubers per
plant and per experimental unit corresponding to each
treatment at harvesting.
3.2.10 Statistical analysis
Microsoft EXCEL was used for processing of data and tables.
GenStat 14th edition software was used for the analysis of
variance between the treatments (ANOVA) and the mean Comparison
was done by DUNCAN method.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
Table 3 Effect of treatments on Emergence rate at 30 days after
sowing
Treatments MeanControl 93aFYM 94.67aNPK 86.67aDI Grow 88.35a
26
FYM and NPK 86.67aFYM and DI-Grow 91.67aNPK and DI Grow 89.45aFYM,NPK and DI-Grow 90.56a
Grand mean=90.1
L.s.d= 8.91
CV%=1.8
F pr=0.485
The mean emergence rate was ranged between 86.67 and 94.67
percentages with a general mean of 90.1 %.The ANOVA of data
(appendix 1) showed that there was no significant difference (at
5% level of significance) among the treatments in terms of
emergence rate of Irish potato in the studied area at the
probability of 0.485 and the means comparison by DMRT at 5%
Homogenize all treatments into single group a.
27
Table 4 Effect of treatments on number of leaves and shoots at 40
days after sowing
Treatment Mean number of
leavesMean number of
ShootsControl 5c 3.333bFYM 6.333abc 3.333bNPK 6bc 3.667bDI-Grow 5.333c 3.667bFYM and NPK 6bc 4.333bFYM and DI-Grow 7ab 5abNPK and DI-Grow 5.333c 4bFYM,NPK and DI-Grow 7.667a 7a
Grand mean=6.08 Grand
mean=4.29
l.s.d= 1.371
l.s.d= 2.145
CV%=8.3 CV
%=22.1
Fpr=0.013
Fpr=0.038
The best results on mean number of leaves were observed in
treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination with 7.667 leaves
and the lowest mean number of leaves was observed in control
treatment with mean of 5leaves with a general mean of 6.08. The
ANOVA of data (appendix 2) reveals that there was significant
difference at the probability of 0.013 and the means comparison
by DMRT at 5% level of significance separate the results into 5
28
different groups (a, ab, bc, abc, c) in which the group showed
best result (a) composed by FYM, NPK and DI-Grow and other showed
poorest result (c) made by control, DI-Grow as single fertilizer
and NPK and DI-Grow fertilized treatment
The best results in shoots were observed in treatment of FYM, NPK
and DI-Grow combination with 7.000 mean number of shoots while
the lowest mean of 3.333were recorded in control and FYM
fertilized treatment. The result of statistical analysis have
indicated that there was a significant difference between
treatments as F pr equal to 0.038 is less than critical F (0.05)
at 5% level of significance.
The means comparison by DMRT at 5% separate the results into 3
different groups (a, ab, b) in which the group showed best result
(a) composed by treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination and
others showed poorest result (b) made by control, FYM and NPK,
FYM, NPK, DI-Grow and NPK and DI-Grow treatments and the rest FYM
and DI-Grow showing middle and heterogeneity among result.
Table 5 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after sowing
Treatment
Mean height
at 40DAS
Mean height
at 60DASControl 23.33 c 41.58 dFYM 26.83 bc 44.92 cdNPK 29.5 abc 48.08 bcd
29
DI-Grow 28.17 bc 43.25 dFYM and NPK 34.67 ab 53.75 abFYM and DI-Grow 33.33 ab 49.08 abcdNPK and DI-Grow 31.67 ab 52.83 abcFYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 36.17 a 57.17 a Grand mean =30.46Grand mean=48.83 l.s.d=7.072l.s.d=7.977 CV%=6.2CV%=3.9 F pr=0.024F pr=0.010
The mean height of vines at 40 DAS ranges between 36.17cm
observed in treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination and
23.33 cm observed control with the General mean of 30.46 cm. The
ANOVA of data (appendix 4) showed that There was significant
difference with the probability of 0.024 and the means comparison
by DMRT at 5% lever of significance separate the results into 5
different groups (a, ab, bc, abc, c) in which the group showed
best result (a) composed by treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow
combination and other showed poorest result (c) made by control.
At 60th day after planting, the mean height of vines ranges
between 41.58cm observed control and 57.17cm observed in
treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination with the General30
mean of 48.83 cm. The ANOVA of data (appendix5) showed that There
was significant difference with the probability of 0.010 and the
means comparison by DMRT at 5% lever of significance separate the
results into 7 different groups (a, ab, abc, abcd, bcd, cd, d) in
which the group showed best result (a) composed by treatment of
FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination and other was showed poorest
result (d) made by control and DI-Grow fertilised treatment.
Table 6 Effect of treatments on plant vigor at 40 and 60 days
after sowing
Treatment
Mean plant vigor
at 40DAS
Mean plant vigor
at 60DASControl 76.67 a 46.67 cFYM 73.33 a 60 bcNPK 63.33 a 63.33 abcDI Grow 63.33 a 46.67 cFYM and NPK 46.67 a 66.67 abFYM and DI-Grow 73.33 a 56.67 bcNPK and DI-Grow 53.33 a 65 abFYM,NPK and DI-Grow 73.33 a 78.33 a Grand mean=65.4
Grand mean=60.4
l.s.d= 27.19
l.s.d= 15.77
CV%=7.2
CV%=19.7
31
F pr=0.259
F pr=0.012
The mean plant vigor at 40 DAP was ranged between 76.67%cm
observed in control and 46.67% observed NPK and FYM treatment
with the General mean of 65.4%. The ANOVA of data (appendix6)
showed that there was no significant difference with the
probability of 0.259 at 5% lever of significance
At 60th Day after planting, the plant vigor was ranged between
46.67% observed in treatment of FYM and NPK and 78.33% observed
in treatment of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination with the General
mean of 60.4%. The ANOVA of data (appendix7) had showed that
there was significant difference with the probability of 0.012
and the means comparison by DMRT at 5% lever of significance
separate the result into 5 different groups (a, ab, abc, bc, c)
in which the group showing best result (a) composed by treatment
of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination and other showing poorest
result (c) made by control and DI-Grow.
Table 7 Effect of treatments on Irish potato yield
Treatment Mean
Homogeneous
groupControl 13.44 fFYM 18.55 de
32
NPK 24 bcDI Grow 15.66 efFYM and NPK 25.89 bFYM and DI-Grow 21.11 cdNPK and DI-Grow 26.11 bFYM,NPK and DI-Grow30.55 aGrand mean=21.91
l.s.d=3.483
cv%=2.7
F pr <.001
The effect of treatments on potato yield was analyzed at 120days
after planting. The highest yield was obtained in treatment of
FYM, NPK and DI-Grow combination 30.55t/ha while the lowest yield
was obtained in control (13.44t/ha) with the general mean of
21.91t/ha
The results from ANOVA as indicated in appendix 8; show that
there was a significant different due to fertilizers. The means
comparison by DMRT at 5% separates the result into 7 different
groups (a, b, bc, cd, de, ef and f) where (a) was representing
the best performer treatment (FYM, NPK and DI-Grow) and (f)
represent the poorest performer treatment (control).
33
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
5.1 EFFECT OF TRAITEMENTS ON EMERGENCE RATE
It was observed that the mean emergence rate was ranged between
86.67 and 94.67percentages with a general mean of 90.1%. The
ANOVA of data (appendix1) showed that there was no significant
difference at the probability of 0.485 among the treatments in
terms of emergence rate of Irish potato in the studied area. The
results are consistent with the findings of Lang et al. (1999)
according to which the rate of potato shoot emergence depends on
soil temperature. The findings of the present study agree with
the ones of Murphy et al (1967) which found that the rate of
sprout growth and consequently, the time until emergence are
temperature dependent and therefore somewhat dependent on soil
type and planting depth. The results of this study also confirm
the findings of Pavek et al. (2006) who found that soil moisture
and temperature are most commonly the major factors that
contribute to potato sprout growth and emergence rate. The
results also confirm the findings of Milthorpe (1967) who showed
that the mother tuber provides the main source of substrate until
the plants have a leaf surface of 200-400 cm2. Headiord (1961)
and White (1961) reported the same observation. Generally, the
rate of emergence of potato seedlings is faster the higher the
soil temperature and the greater the degree of development of the
sprouts at planting.
34
5.2 EFFECT OF TRAITEMENTS ON NUMBER OF LEAVES AT 40 DAS
In this research regarding the effects of treatments on number of
leaves at 40 DAS, the best result was recorded in treatment of
FYM combined with NPK and DI-Grow with mean number of leaves of
7.667compared to those observed in control treatement with 5 mean
number of leaves. these variation was revealed by Randal (1993)
where he explained that at early stage of growth, the plant begin
to grow in aerial parts and photosynthesis begin through it begin
to assimulate the nutrients contained in soil and nitrogen is
essential element for growth.The similar result was found by O’
Dell, (2003) where he explained that Auxins cause cell division,
cytokine increases new cell growth through fast cell division
While hormone Gibberellins increases the elongation of formed
cells and the crop becomes bigger and grows rapidly that fit with
the contribution of DI-Grow content in foliar development as
prooved by DYNAPHARMA 2012.
5.3 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON NUMBER OF SHOOTS AT THE 40 DAS
In this research , the effects of treatments on number of shoots
was tested at 40 DAS and the best results were observed in
treatment of FYM combined with NPK and DI-Grow with mean number
of 7.000 while the lowest mean of 3.333 were recorded in control
and DI-Grow. These result are consistent with J. M. Almekinders
(1996) where he explained the role of fertilizer combination on
35
potato shoots growth and highlights the role of nitrogen on
shoots growth.
The similar result was found by Kowalski et al (1999) where he
described the positive affection of seaweed extracts fertlisers
in combination of mineral fertilisers on plant potato growth and
also affected significantly on shoot growth. Also Jensen (2004)
reported that seaweed extracted fertilisers contain various micro
elements (Cu, Zn, Mo, B, Co) in addition to macro elements and
contain Auxins, Gibberellins’ and Cytokinins, when spray on
plants lead to increase root growth ability, nutrient elements
absorption, and stem thickness and growth significantly.
5.5 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after
planting
Based on result obtained, it was observed that the mean height of
vines at 40 DAS ranges between 36.17cm observed in treatment of
FYM combined with NPK and DI-Grow and 23.33 cm observed in
control with the General mean of 30.46 cm. while At 60th day after
planting, the mean height of vines ranges between 41.58cm
observed control and 57.17cm observed in treatment of FYM
combined with NPK and DI-Grow with the General mean of 48.83 cm.
For all period there was significance difference among treatments
that coincide with the result of Palm et al.,( 2000) where he
explained the role of nitrogen for plant growth. The overall
performance of treatment of FYM combined with NPK and DI-Grow for
36
all period was due to the nitrogen mixed with plant hormones
applied that are similar to the result obtained by David W.
(2011) who prooved the role of mixing nitrogen with plant
hormones for boosting vegetative growth and also for shoot and
leaf growth
Similar result are in harmony with those of Gupta, 2003 who
defined the nitrogen and plant hormones as the limiting nutrient
in plant growth and explain the role of Potassium in the breaking
down the Carbohydrates, a process which provides energy for plant
growth
5.6 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON PLANT VIGOR
The first 40 days of plantation plant vigor was ranged between
76.67% observed in control and 46.67% observed in FYM and NPK
treatment with the General mean of 65.4%. The ANOVA of data
(appendix6) showed that there was no significant difference
between treatments with the probability of 0.259 while at 60th day
after planting, the plant vigor was ranged between 46.67%
observed in FYM and NPK treatment and 78.33% observed in
treatment of FYM combined with NPK and DI-Grow with the general
mean of 60.4% and the ANOVA of data (appendix7) showed that there
was significant difference between treatments with the
probability of 0.012.
The improvement in plant vigor was due to plant become able to
uptake nutrient and they have developed photosynthesis parts that
increase quick regrowth that are similar to those Randal (1993)37
who explained the correlation of growth stage of potato and
nutrient uptake and these result are similar to those of Bryan G
(2008) reveal that Potatoes require optimal levels of essential
nutrients throughout the growing season and nutrient uptake rates
are often slow early in the season then increase rapidly during
the tuber bulking phase and then slow as the plant matures that
fit with the observation . Curiously the results obtained was not
fitting with those obtained in research made by Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada 2011 that revealed that the plant vigor depend
to plant variety not to fertilizers used.
5.7 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON IRISH POTATO YIELD
Based on yield obtained from all treatments, the treatment of FYM
combined with NPK and DI-Grow showed the highest yield in overall
replications with mean 30.55 t/ha where its supply more than 17%
of total yield obtained in treatment of NPK combined with farm
yard manure and more than double of total yield obtained in
control, whereas the treatments which were fertilized by single
fertilizer (FYM, NPK and DI-Grow) gave the lowest yield compared
to the treatments with combined fertilizers. This result coincide
with those of Tsegaw (2006), where they was comparing the effect
of farm yard manure and its combination with inorganic
fertilizers on potato yield and conclude that unless it is
integrated with inorganic fertilizers, the use of farmyard manure
alone may not fully satisfy crop nutrient demand, he proved that
the use of chemical fertilizers alone might have also resulted in
38
a possible depletion of essential micronutrients thereby
resulting in an overall reduction in total crop productivity
The overall performances of treatment of FYM combined with NPK
and DI-Grow indicate also the positive correlation of performance
of growth parameters and yield that fit with the result of S.
Maity et al.,(1977) who describe that the more the potato grow in
favorable condition the more the production increase.
The similar result was also found by Tisdale et al (1997) who
describe the positive contribution of soil fertility nutrient and
fertilizers applied to total yield increase. These results are in
agreement with what has been found by Kowalski et al. (1999), who
illustrated the positive effect of seaweed extracted fertilizers
on the growth of the plant and increasing the total yield of
potato plants and significantly affect the shoot growth
characteristics and leaves that increase the qualitative and
quantitative characteristics of the yield significantly.
The results are in agreement with the findings of Zebarth et al.
(2012) who found out the performance (in terms of potato tuber
yield) of combined fertilizer application compared to single
application. Also Lang et al. (1999) focused their research on
“Potato nutrient management for central Washington”, and
recommended combination of fertilizers in order to optimize
nutrient use efficiency and maximize potato tuber yield.
39
CHAPTER SIX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The main objective of this research was to determine the effect
of DI-Grow, FYM, NPK and the combination of NPK and FYM, FYM and
DI-Grow, NPK and DI-Grow and the combination of FYM, NPK and DI-
Grow on Irish potato growth parameters and yield in UR-CAVM farm,
Busogo campus located in Musanze District.
The results of the present study demonstrated that the integrated
use of FYM, commercial NPK and DI-Grow foliar fertilizers
significantly enhance the potato growth and yield as compared to
the use of each fertilizer solely.
Based on yield obtained from all treatments, the combination of
FYM, commercial NPK and DI-Grow foliar fertilizer at rate of 20
t/ha of Farm Yard Manure , 300kg/ha of NPK 17-17-17 and 1L/ha of
40
DI-Grow at concentration of 50ml/L of water showed the potential
yield around 30.55t/ha which was superior at 17% of total yield
obtained to the combination of 300kg/ha NPK17-17-17 and 20t/ha of
Farm Yard Manure fertilization and more than double of total
yield that obtained to control.
According to the results obtained in this experimentation the
following recommendations are formulated:
1. In light of this research work, we recommend Irish potato
producers of the study areas or others working in almost the
same conditions, to apply 20 t/ha of Farm Yard Manure, and
300kg/ha of NPK 17-17-17 at planting and 1L/ha of DI-Grow at
concentration of 50ml/L at vegetative growth in order to
enhance Irish potato performance and maximize yield.
2. The research was limited on the 1st feasibility aspect but
it is really of great importance to recommend undertaking a
similar study placing financial and/or economic analysis of
the research project to evaluate the economic profitability.
3. Several similar studies should be conducted, at different
locations, within different Irish potato production agro-
ecological zones and during different seasons, in Rwanda
with the aim of collecting reliable data on the effect of
DI-Grow, FYM, NPK and the combination of NPK and FYM, FYM
and DI-Grow, NPK and DI-Grow and the combination of FYM,
NPK and DI-Grow on Irish potato growth parameters and yield
41
REFERENCE
Bryan G. 2008 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers for Improved Nutrient Management: Potato (Solanum tuberosum) American Journal ofPotato Research 84(1):19-27
Burton, W.G. 1989. The Potato, 3rd edition. Longman Scientific and
Technical, Horlow, 742 pp.
C.M.J ALMEKINDERS and PC STRUIK (1996) shoot development and
flowering in potato. Potato Research 39 (4): 581-607
Chapman, Jeff. 2001 “The Impact of the Potato. Biosciences.
volume 2(54):802 – 811
David Whiting 2007. Plant Growth Factors: Plant Hormones CMG
Garden Notes #145 Colorado Master Gardeners Program in
Colorado State University Extension of Hormone Research 36,
61-72
Doganlar S, Frary A, Tanksley SD (2000). The genetic basis of
seed weight variation: tomato as a model system. Theor.
Appl. Genet. 100: 1267-1273.
DYNAPHARMA international 2014, DI-Grow product catalogue
FAO,(2008). Potato cultivation. Also Available on
http://www.potato2008.org/en/potato/cultivation.html.
Visited on 04 July 2014
Gossens, F. 2002. Potato marketing in Rwanda. Agricultural policy
development. Report no12.Rwanda pp18
GUPTA, P.K. (2003).A handbook of soil, fertilizer and manure. 2nd
Enlarged edition. Agrobios, India. P 6-116.
42
Hassan, A. A. (2003). Potato. Agricultural Sciences 148(3):197 -
206 Dar-Al-Arabiya Publications. Cairo. Egypt
Headiord, D.W.R. 1961. Sprout growth of the potato. Plant Science
10: 269-276
Jensen, E. (2004) Seaweed; Fact or Fanc. From the Organic
Broadcaster, Published by Moses the Midwest Organic and
Sustainable Education. From the Broad Caster. 12(3): 164-170
Kowalski, B., A. K. Jager and J. Vanstaden (1999). The effect of
a seaweed concentrate on the invitro growth and
acclimatization of potato plants. Potato Research. 42(1):
131-139
Lang N.S., R.G. Stevens, R.E. Thornton, W.L. Pan and S. Victory.
1999. Potato nutrient management Potato Research 84(1):19-
27.
Lang, James (2001). Notes of a Potato Watcher, Economic History
25 (2): 263–270.
Lea PJ, Joy KW (1983). Amino acids interconversion in germinating
seeds. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry: Mobilization of
Reserves in Emergence. Volume 17, Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 77-109
Matlob, A. N., E. Sultan, and K. S. Abdul (1989). Vegetable
Production Part one and two. Agricultural and Food Research
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-54
Mellor, J. W. 2001. Rapid Employment Growth and Poverty
Reduction: Sectoral Policies in Rwanda. USAID: Kigali,
43
Rwanda journals of African Economies 12 (2) 207-235
Milthorpe, F.L. 1967. Some physiological principles determining
the yield of root crops. Proc.1st Int. Symp. on Trop. Root Crops,
Trinidad, Vol 2 (1), 1-19.
MINAGRI, (2010). Farmer’s diary. National Agricultural Extension
Support Project (PASNVA) in collaboration with RADA pp27
MINAGRI. 2009. Strategic Plan for the Transformation of
Agriculture in Rwanda – Phase II. Kigali, Rwanda pp25-42
Minecofin, 2000. Rwanda Vision 2020. Kigali, Rwanda pp3-15
Minecofin, 2002. Poverty reduction program. Kigali, Rwanda.pp2-20
Minecofin, 2004, budget statement Kigali, Rwanda. P7
Munyemana 1999, Managing Livestock Manures, Booklets 1journals of
Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 64, 47-48
Murphy H. J., F. E. Manzer., M. J. Goven., D. C. Merriam.1967
Effect of physiological maturity and storage temperature on
emergence and yield of potatoes Potato Journal Volume 44,
Issue 7, pp 227-231
O’ Dell, C, 2003 Natural plant hormones are bio stimulants
helping plants develop high plant antioxidant Activity for
multiple benefits. Virginia Vegetable, Small Fruit and
Specialty Crops. 2(6):1-3.
Palm C.A., Myers R. J. K. and Nandwa S.M. 1997. Combined use of
organic and inorganic nutrient source for soil fertility
maintenance and replenishment. In: Buresh, R. et al. (eds.),
44
Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. SSSA Special Publication No
51. Wisconsin, USA. Pp 193~217.
Pavek M.J., Z. J. Holden, and J.E. P. Driskill. 2006. Accumulated
Heat Units for 2006: From Frost to Heatstroke. Washington
State University, Pullman,WA
PRAPAC,(1992).Annual report, Ruhengeri Rwanda
Randal C (1993)Potato Health Management, potato research Vol. 2
Issue 6 pp6-17
RAYAR, A.J. (2000). Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Saharan
Africa:the role of soil productivity. Tropical Agriculture.
4: 46-54 A.J.R Publication. Chennai, India.
Robert B. Dwelle and Stephen L. Love (1993) potato growth and
development. Potato Journal - Vol. 67 - Issue 10 - pp. 705-
718
ROBERT L. 2006 Factors affecting shoot initiation from tuber
discs of potato (Solanum tuberosum) Physiologia Plantarum
49(2):177 - 184
S. Maity, B.N. Chatterjee 1977 Growth attributes of potato and
their inter-relationship with yield. Potato Research ,Volume
20, Issue 4, pp 337-341
Salaman, R. N. [1949] 1985. The history and social influence of
the potato, Development Studies, 48(12): 1716–1730 ed. J. G.
Hawkes. Cambridge
Scott, G. J. 1988. Potatoes in central Africa: A survey of
Burundi, Rwanda, and Zaire. The Potatoes 7:739-
45
742International Potato Center. Lima.
Thomas, S. C. L. (1996). Nutrient weeds as soil amendments for
organic cally growth herbs. Jour of Herbs, Spices and
Medicinal Plant. 4(1): 3
Tisdale S.L., Havlin, J.L., Beaton, J.D and W.L. Nelson. 1993.
Soil Fertility and
Fertilizers: An introduction to nutrient management.
Prentice Hall Inc. Upper
Saddle River, NJ. Chapter 1. Soil fertility past and
present. P. 1‐13.
Tsegaw, T. 2006. Response of Potato to Paclobutrazol and
Manipulation of Reproductive Growth under Tropical Condition
.Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 12 (2), 257-265
Valerie K., E. Mpyisi, A. Murekezi and D. Neven . 2001.
Fertilizer Consumption in Rwanda: Past Trends, Future
Potential and Determinants. Policy Workshop on Fertilizer
Use and Marketing. 22-23 February 2001. MINAGRI and USAID:
Kigali, Rwanda
Zebarth, B.J., Bélanger, G., Cambouris, A.N., and Ziadi, N.
(2012). "Nitrogen Fertilization Strategies in Relation to
Potato Tuber Yield, Quality, and Crop N Recovery.", in He,
Z., Larkin, R.P. and Honeycutt, C.W. (eds.) - Sustainable
Potato Production: Global Case Studies, Springer New York,
Chapter 10, pp. 165-186
46
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMERGENCE RATE 30 DAS
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication stratum 2 43.59 21.79 0.84
Treatment 7177.03 25.29 0.98 0.485
Residual 14 362.5 25.89
Total 23583.12
Grand mean 90.1l.s.d. 8.91cv% 1.8APPENDIX 2ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NUMBER OF LEAVES 40DAS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
replication 2
4.083
3
2.041
7 3.33
Treatment 7
17.16
67
2.452
4 4 0.013
Residual 14
8.583
3
0.613
1
Total 23
29.83
33Grand mean 6.08 l.s.d 1.371
47
CV% 8.3APPENDIX 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NUMBER OF SHOOTS AT 40 DAYS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
replication 2
14.33
3 7.167 4.78
Treatment 7
31.62
5 4.518 3.01 0.038Residual 14 21 1.5
Total 23
66.95
8Grand mean 4.29l.s.d 2.145CV% 22.1
APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT HEIGHT AT 40 DAYS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication 2 56.33 28.17 1.73
Treatment 7
390.2
9 55.76 3.42 0.024
Residual 14
228.3
3 16.31
48
Total 23
674.9
6Grand mean 30.46 l.s.d 7.072CV% 6.2APPENDIX 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT HEIGHT AT 60DAS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication 2 57.51 28.75 1.39
Treatment 7
627.9
6 89.71 4.32 0.01
Residual 14
290.4
9 20.75
Total 23
975.9
6Grand mean 48.83 l.s.d 7.977CV% 3.9APPENDIX 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT VIGOR AT 40DAS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication
stratum 2 358.3 179.2 0.74
Treatment 7
2462.
5 351.8 1.46 0.259
49
Residual 14 3375 241.1
Total 23
6195.
8Grand mean 65.4l.s.d 27.19CV% 7.2
APPENDIX 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT VIGOR AT 60 DAS
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication
stratum 2
2264.
58
1132.
29 13.96
Treatment 7
2345.
83
335.1
2 4.13 0.012
Residual 14
1135.
42 81.1
Total 23
5745.
83Grand mean 60.4l.s.d 15.77CV% 19.7APPENDIX 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF Irish POTATO YIELD t/ha
Source of
variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.replication 2 5.429 2.714 0.69
50
stratum
Treatment 7
705.5
68
100.7
95 25.48 <.001Residual 14 55.38 3.956
Total 23
766.3
77Grand mean 21.91l.s.d 3.483cv% 2.7
APPENDIX 9 CALCULATION OF FERTILIZERS USED
1. Farm yard manure
The FYM fertilizer recommended is 20t/ha
51
Because we had 4 treatment required to apply each having 3
replicate, so we had 12 treatments that was fertilised by
FYM for all experment site.
1Ha is equal to 10000m2
1t is equal to 1000Kg
Total quantity of FYM used
The total quantity of FYM used for plot was 6Kg/3m2 of
surface of plot.
2. Mineral fertilizers
The mineral fertilizer used is NPK 17-17-17, a mixed fertilizer
which contains 17kg of Nitrogen, 17kg of Phosphorus and 17kg of
Potassium in 100kg of total compound
According to MINAGRI, (2010), the recommended dose is 300kg of
NPK 17. 17.17 per hectare.
That was equal to 0.09kg of NPK 17-17-17 /3m2 of plot unit.
52
3. DI-Grow
The fertliser used has contained C-Org=8.87%; N=3.19%;
P2O5=1.15%; K2O=1.21%; Ca=8.9 ppm; Mg=0.12%; S=0.61%; Micro
element (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, Mo, Cl); MgO: 0.36%, Fe:
867ppm,Mn:223ppm,Cu:144ppm,Zn:153ppm, B: 0.011%Mo:o.oo2%,Humic
acid: 0.68%. According to DYNAPHARMA it is recommended to use
1L/ha for tuber production with a concentration of 5ml/l of
water.
quantity of DI grow used per plot.
quantity of DI grow used per plot.
1ha 10000m2
1L 1000ml
10000m2 1000ml of DI Grow.
3m2 0.33ml used per plot
DI grow used for all plots needed: 4ml
53
water used for dilution:by DYNAPHARMA 2014,it is recommended to
dilute 5cc in 20 L water.
so,dilution used:
so, we have sprayed 16L of water in all plots fertilzed with DI
Grow using knapsack sprayer.
APPENDIX 10 Row data of emergence rate expressed in % obtained
for all treatment
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 95.67 91.67 91.67FYM 95.67 88.34 100NPK 86.67 85 88.34DI Grow 91.7 88.34 85FYM and NPK 85 86.67 88.34FYM and DI-Grow 91.67 100 83.34NPK and DI-Grow 88.34 91.67 88.34
54
FYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 100 88.34 83.34
APPENDIX 11 Row data of number of leaves counted in number at
30DAS
TREATMENT BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 95.67 91.67 91.67FYM 95.67 88.34 100NPK 86.67 85 88.34DI Grow 91.7 88.34 85FYM and NPK 85 86.67 88.34FYM and DI-Grow 91.67 100 83.34NPK and DI-Grow 88.34 91.67 88.34FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 100 88.34 83.34
APPENDIX 12 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 40DAS
TREATMENT BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 20 26 24
55
FYM 24 28.5 28NPK 27.5 37 24DI Grow 24.5 34.5 25.5FYM and NPK 37 35.5 31.5FYM and DI-Grow 37.5 32 30.5NPK and DI-Grow 34.5 27 33.5FYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 38 38.5 32
APPENDIX 13 Row data of number of shoots counted in numbers at 40
DAS
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 4 3 3FYM 4 2 4NPK 5 2 4DI Grow 3 3 5FYM and NPK 5 4 4FYM and DI-Grow 7 5 3NPK and DI-Grow 5 4 3FYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 10 6 5
56
APPENDIX 14 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 40DAS
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 80 70 80FYM 70 80 70NPK 70 50 70DI Grow 70 70 50FYM and NPK 30 50 60FYM and DI-Grow 80 80 60NPK and DI-Grow 60 80 20FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 90 60 70
APPENDIX 15 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 60 DAS
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 50 40 50FYM 60 70 50NPK 80 70 40DI Grow 60 50 30FYM and NPK 80 60 60FYM and DI-Grow 70 50 50NPK and DI-Grow 80 70 45
57
FYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 95 80 60
APPENDIX 16 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 60 DAS
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 35.5 46.25 43FYM 40 50 44.75NPK 47.5 49.5 47.25DI Grow 42.25 51.75 35.75FYM and NPK 55.75 51.25 54.25FYM and DI-Grow 48.5 49.25 49.5NPK and DI-Grow 58.25 54.5 45.75FYM,NPK and DI-
Grow 59.5 54.75 57.25
APPENDIX 17 Row data of Irish potato yield expressed in t/ha
TREATMENT
BLOCK
1
BLOCK
2
BLOCK
3Control 13.66 13.33 13.33FYM 20.66 20 15
58
NPK 23.33 25.33 23.33DI Grow 16.33 16.66 14FYM and NPK 26 23.33 28.33FYM and DI-Grow 23.33 18.33 21.66NPK and DI-Grow 25 28.33 25FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 31.66 30 30
59