ERNEST®INE FINAL MEMOIR

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL SCIENCES AND

VETERINARY MEDICINE

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTEMENT OF CROP SCIENCES

OPTION OF CROP PRODUCTION

Prepared by:

Ernest NSHIMYIMANARegine UMUBYEYI

For the fulfillment of the Requirement for the

Bachelor’s Degree ( A0 ) in Crop Production

Supervisor:

Mrs .TUYISHIME Olive (MSc)

Academic year, 2013-2014

EFFECT OF D.I. Grow, NPK 17, 17, 17, Farm Yard Manure AND THEIRCOMBINATION ON IRISH POTATO GROWTH PARAMETERSAND YIELD

Case study UR-CAVM, Busogo campus.

i

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)

ii

DEDICATION

This MEMOIR isdedicated to

The Almighty God;

Our beloved parents;

To our sisters and brothers

Our friends; all our

Relatives and

Colleagues at UR-CAVM,

Busogo campus.

iii

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.

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 focused, 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-Kinigi variety in UR-CAVM farm in Busogo campus located in Musanze District

during the long rainy season (December 2013 – April 2014. The experiment was laid out as a

Randomized Complete Block design(RCBD) with seven treatments; control, FYM, NPK, DI-

Grow, combination of FYM and NPK, combination of FYM and DI-Grow, combination of

NPK and DI-Grow and the combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow with three replicates. 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 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 they was not significant difference between treatments. The yield obtained in

treatment of combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow was high at 17% than yield obtained in

treatment of combination of FYM and NPK usually used and more than double of total yield

obtained in control. It is evident that the best performer treatment was a combination of FYM,

NPK and DI-Grow at 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.

v

RESUME

La pomme de terre est l'un des tubercules les plus importantes produites au Rwanda et est parmi

les cultures prioritaires sur lesquels 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,

FYM, 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 Musanze, pendant la

longue saison pluvieuse (Décembre 2013 - Avril 2014). L’essai a été aménagé en blocs de

RCBD avec sept traitements ; le contrôle, FYM, NPK, DI-Grow, combinaison de FYM et NPK,

combinaison de FYM et DI-Grow, combinaison de NPK et DI-Grow et la combinaison de FYM,

NPK et DI-Grow avec trois répétitions. Paramètres agronomiques; taux d'émergence, 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 FYM,

NPK et DI-Grow a montré le résultat le plus élevé pour tous les paramètres observés par rapport

à contrôle mais l'exception a été observée pour la vigueur de la plante à 40jours de plantation où

il n’était pas de différence significative entre les traitements. Le rendement obtenu dans le

traitement de combinaison de FYM, NPK et DI-Grow est supérieur à 17% de rendement obtenu

dans le traitement de combinaison de FYM et NPK habituellement utilisé et plus du double du

rendement total obtenu dans le contrôle. Il est évident que le meilleur traitement de l'interprète

était une combinaison de FYM, NPK et DI-Grow au taux de 10t/ha de FYM, 300kg/ha de NPK

et 1L/ha de 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.

vi

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

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 Celcius

UR-CAVM: University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture, Animal Science and Veterinary

Medicine

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i

DEDICATION................................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iv

RESUME ........................................................................................................................................ v

ACCRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLE ........................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURE........................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Main objective .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Specific objectives............................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.3 Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................... 4

2.1 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

2.1.8. Harvesting ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.1 Composition of DI-Grow ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2 Functions of DI-Grow...................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL AND METHODS.............................................................................. 12

3.1. Materials ............................................................................................................................................12

viii

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

3.2.2.1 Experimental design.......................................................................................................... 15

3.2.3 Experimental procedures ..................................................................................................... 15

3.2.3.1 Soil Sample collected in the Experimental field ............................................................... 15

3.2.4 Land preparation .................................................................................................................. 16

3.2.5 Planting and fertilizers application ...................................................................................... 16

3.2.6 Weeding and earthing-up ..............................................................................................................17

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 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS........................................................................... 18

4.1 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................................18

4.2 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................24

4.2.1 EFFECT OF TRAITEMENTS ON EMERGENCE RATE......................................................24

4.2.2 EFFECT OF TRAITEMENTS ON NUMBER OF LEAVES AT 40 DAS ...........................24

4.2.3 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON NUMBER OF SHOOTS AT THE 40 DAS ...................25

4.1.5 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after planting .....................................25

4.2.6 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON PLANT VIGOR .................................................................26

4.2.7 EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON IRISH POTATO YIELD ..................................................26

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................... 28

REFERENCE................................................................................................................................ 29

LIST OF APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 32

ix

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1: Climatic data of CAVM-farm during our study from December 2013 to April 2014 ... 12

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 at 40 days after sowing .................................. 19

Table 5 Effect of treatments on number of shoots at the 40 days after sowing ............................ 20

Table 6 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after sowing............................... 21

Table 7 Effect of treatments on plant vigor at 40 and 60 days after sowing ................................ 22

Table 8 Effect of treatments on Irish potato yield ........................................................................ 23

x

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1: Experimental layout ...................................................................................................... 15

xi

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix 1 Analysis of variance of emergence rate 30 das ......................................................... 32Appendix 2 Analysis of variance number of leaves 40das ........................................................... 32Appendix 3 Analysis of variance number of shoots at 40 days .................................................... 32Appendix 4 Analysis of variance plant height at 40 days............................................................. 33Appendix 5 Analysis of variance plant height at 60das................................................................ 33Appendix 6 Analysis of variance plant vigor at 40das ................................................................. 33Appendix 7 Analysis of variance plant vigor at 60 das ................................................................ 34Appendix 8 Analysis of variance of irish potato yield t/ha .......................................................... 34Appendix 9 Calculation of fertilizers used ................................................................................... 35Appendix 10 Row data of emergence rate expressed in % obtained for all treatment ................. 37Appendix 11 Row data of number of leaves counted in number at 30das ................................... 37Appendix 12 Row of plant height expressed in cm at 40das ........................................................ 38Appendix 13 Row of number of shoots counted in numbers at 40 das ........................................ 38Appendix 14 Row of data of plant vigor expressed in % at 40das ............................................... 39Appendix 15 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 60 das .................................................. 39Appendix 16 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 60 das ............................................... 40Appendix 17 Row data of irish potato yield expressed in t/ha ..................................................... 40

1

CHAPTER 1.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 ploughing

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 elements it is recommended to use 1L/ha of DI-Grow with

N=3.19%; P2O5=1.15%; K2O=1.21% at 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).

2

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In Rwanda, agriculture accounts for more than 90% of the labour force, yet remains

unproductive and largely practiced on a subsistence level with farmers owing less than 1 hectare,

which is too small to earn a living, this Result in intense exploitation of the land, with no

simultaneous application of corrective measures, most notably through fertilizer use

(MINECOFIN, 2000).

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 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 improvement of production

technology to optimizer fertilizer use efficiency. In Rwanda, fertilizer use effectiveness 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 NPK17, 17, 17. To overcome this challenge and find out the rational

improvement to production, it must be tested in field experimentation. This research will provide

us some information about use of DI-Grow on potato, the rate to be applied on potato; its

performance when combined with NPK and impact on Irish potato yield.

3

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

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.

1.2.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study were:

To evaluate the effect of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow applied solely on irish potato growth

parameters and yield

To evaluate the effect of combination of NPK and FYM, combination of NPK and DI-Grow

and combination of DI-Grow and FYM on irish potato growth parameters and yield

To evaluate the effect of combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow on irish potato growth

parameters and yield

1.2.3 Hypothesis

To achieve these objectives the following hypotheses have been formulated as follow:

FYM, NPK and DI-Grow applied solely affect Irish potato growth parameters and yield

Combination of NPK and FYM, combination of NPK and DI-Grow and combination of DI-

Grow and FYM affect Irish potato growth parameters and yield

Combination of FYM, NPK and DI-Grow affects potato growth parameters and yield

4

CHAPITER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 BACKGROUND 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).

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

5

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 potato

The physiology of potato includes the growth within the field (the vegetative cycle) and growth

in store (dormancy and germination).

Growth of a potato plant occurs in several stages (Robert, Stephen L., 1993)

Sprout development,

Plant establishment,

Tuber initiation,

Tuber bulking, and

Tuber maturation.

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 C, 1993)

2.1.3.1 Sprout Development (Growth Stage I)

Germination 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.

6

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)

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)

2.1.4 Varieties of Irish potato released in Rwanda

More 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)

7

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 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).

8

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

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 ploughing

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).

2.1.8. Harvesting

According 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

9

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 .

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.

10

2. Growth Stimulation Essence: These accelerate the vegetative growth of plants, stimulate

flowering /insemination and prevent flower and fruit from falling easily.

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 days 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

11

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.

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)

12

CHAPTER 3.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 Precipitation To 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.

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)

13

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

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=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%.

3.1.4 Other materials

To 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.

14

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 m

12. Number of rows /plot: 3

13. Total experimental area:200 m2

14. Population density : 12plants per Plot

15. Fertilizer: FYM,NPK,DI-Grow

15

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). This experiment was composed by eight treatments and three replications. The

elementary plot comprising an area of 3 m2 and the distance between plots (treatments) was 1 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. At end

of harvesting season, soil samples were also taken randomly from each individual plot. The bulk

soil samples collected were thoroughly mixed for homogeneity and a composite soil sample was

taken, for shipment to the lab analysis

2m

B11.5m 0.5m

1 m

B2

B3

T4

T1 T2T5T4T7 T3T0T6

T6T5 T7T3 T4T1T0 T2

T6 T0 T5T3 T7T1T2

16

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 analyzer

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 preparation

The 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 .

Chemical fertilizers 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.

17

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 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, Mildew 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 week after potato seed sprouting until two

week 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

Germination rate: Germination rate was observed 30 days after planting by counting all

plants germinated 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 three times with

an interval of 15 days i.e. at 45days and 60 days after planting.

Vigor: This parameter was measured by using Visual observation.

Number of shoots per plant: This parameter was evaluated by counting the shoots 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.

18

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 RESULTS

Table 3 Effect of treatments on Emergence rate at 30 days after sowing

Treatments Mean homogeneous group

Control 93 a

FYM 94.67 a

NPK 86.67 a

DI Grow 88.35 a

FYM and NPK 86.67 a

FYM and DI-Grow 91.67 a

NPK and DI Grow 89.45 a

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 90.56 a

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 0.027 and the means comparison by DMRT at 5% Homogenize

all treatments into single group a.

19

Table 4 Effect of treatments on number of leaves at 40 days after sowing

Treatment Mean Homogeneous group

Control 5 c

FYM 6.333 abc

NPK 6 bc

DI-Grow 5.333 c

FYM and NPK 6 bc

FYM and DI-Grow 7 ab

NPK and DI-Grow 5.333 c


Grand mean=6.08

l.s.d= 1.371

CV%=8.3

F pr=0.013

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 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

20

Table 5 Effect of treatments on number of shoots at the 40 days after sowing

Treatment Mean Homogenous group

Control 3.333 b

FYM 3.333 b

NPK 3.667 b

DI-Grow 3.667 b

FYM and NPK 4.333 b

FYM and DI-Grow 5 ab

NPK and DI-Grow 4 b

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 7 a

Grand mean=4.29

l.s.d= 2.145

CV%=22.1

F pr= 0.038

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

DI-Grow 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 and 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.

21

Table 6 Effect of treatments on plant height at 40 and 60 days after sowing

Treatment

Mean height at

40DAS

Mean height at

60DAS

Control 23.33 c 41.58 d

FYM 26.83 bc 44.92 cd

NPK 29.5 abc 48.08 bcd

DI-Grow 28.17 bc 43.25 d

FYM and NPK 34.67 ab 53.75 ab

FYM and DI-Grow 33.33 ab 49.08 abcd

NPK and DI-Grow 31.67 ab 52.83 abc

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 36.17 a 57.17 a

Grand mean =30.46 Grand mean=48.83l.s.d=7.072 l.s.d=7.977CV%=6.2 CV%=3.9F pr=0.024 F 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 General

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 .

22

Table 7 Effect of treatments on plant vigor at 40 and 60 days after sowing

Treatment

Mean plant vigor at

40DAS

Mean plant vigor at

60DAS

Control 76.67 a 46.67 c

FYM 73.33 a 60 bc

NPK 63.33 a 63.33 abc

DI Grow 63.33 a 46.67 c

FYM and NPK 46.67 a 66.67 ab

FYM and DI-Grow 73.33 a 56.67 bc

NPK and DI-Grow 53.33 a 65 ab

FYM,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

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.

23

Table 8 Effect of treatments on Irish potato yield

Treatment Mean Homogeneous group

Control 13.44 f

FYM 18.55 de

NPK 24 bc

DI Grow 15.66 ef

FYM and NPK 25.89 b

FYM and DI-Grow 21.11 cd

NPK and DI-Grow 26.11 b


Grand 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).

24

4.2 DISCUSSION

4.2.1 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 University of California, Division of

Agriculture and Natural Resources (1986) 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.

4.2.2 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 C (1993) where he explain 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, C. (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.

25

4.2.3 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 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.

4.1.5 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 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

26

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

4.2.6 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 C.

(1993) 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 my 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.

4.2.7 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

27

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 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.

28

CHAPTER 5. 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 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

29

REFERENCE

Bryan G. 2008 Nutrient management efficiency

Burton(1989) The potato with a special reference to the ontogeny of vascular system.23p

C.M.J ALMEKINDERS and PC STRUIK (1996) shoot development and flowering in potato.

Potato research 39(1996)581-607

Chapman, Jeff. 2001 “The Impact of the Potato.” History Magazine.

David Whiting 2007. Plant Growth Factors: Plant Hormones CMG Garden Notes #145 Colorado

Master Gardeners Program in Colorado State University Extension

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 2011

Gossens, F. 2002. Potato marketing in Rwanda. Agricultural policy development. Report

no12.Rwanda

GUPTA, P.K. (2003).A handbook of soil, fertilizer and manure. 2nd Enlarged edition. Agrobios,

India. P 6-116.

Hassan, A. A. (2003). Potato. Dar-Al-Arabiya Publications. Cairo. Egypt

Headiord, D.W.R. 1961. Sprout growth of the potato. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Nottingham

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 for central Washington. Wash. State Univ., Pullman, Coop. Ext. Bul.1871.

Lang, James (2001). Notes of a Potato Watcher, Texas A and M University, College Station,

Texas

Lea PJ, Joy KW (1983). Amino acids interconversion in germinating seeds. Recent Advances in

Phytochemistry: Mobilization of Reserves in Germination. Volume 17, Plenum Press,

New York, pp. 77-109

http://www.potato2008.org/en/potato/cultivation.html

30

Matlob, A. N., E. Sultan, and K. S. Abdul (1989). Vegetable Production Part one and two. Dar

Al-Kutub Publication. Mosul Univ., Iraq. (In Arabic).

Mellor, J. W. 2001. Rapid Employment Growth and Poverty Reduction: Sectoral Policies in

Rwanda. USAID: Kigali, Rwanda

Milthorpe, F.L. 1967. Some physiological principles determining the yield of root crops.

Proc.1st Int. Symp. on Trop. Root Crops, Trinidad, Vol II (1), 1-19.

MINAGRI, (2010). Farmer’s diary. National Agricultural Extension Support Project (PASNVA)

in collaboration with RADA

MINAGRI. 2009. Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda – Phase II.

Kigali, Rwanda

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2000. Rwanda Vision 2020. Kigali, Rwanda

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2002. Poverty reduction program. Kigali, Rwanda.

Minister for finance and economic planning, 2004, budget statement Kigali, Rwanda.

Munyemana 1999, Managing Livestock Manures, Booklets 1

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.), 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

Randal C (1993)Potato Health Management, (Ed.), APS

RAYAR, A.J. (2000). Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa:the role of soil productivity.

A.J.R Publication. Chennai, India.

Robert B. Dwelle and Stephen L. Love (1993) potato growth and development.

31

ROBERT L. 2006 Factors affecting shoot initiation from tuber discs of potato (Solanum

tuberosum)

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, ed. J. G. Hawkes.

Cambridge

Scott, G. J. 1988. Potatoes in central Africa: A survey of Burundi, Rwanda, and Zaire.

International 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., W. L. Nelson, J. D. Beaton and J. L. Harllin, (1997). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers.

Prentice. Hall of India, New Delhi

Tsegaw, T. 2006. Response of Potato to Paclobutrazol and Manipulation of Reproductive

Growth under Tropical Condition. Ph D dissertation, University of Pretoria etd, South

Africa

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 , N. A. And Ziadi N. 2012. Sustainable potato

production:Global case studies. Netherland, Springer Netherlands.

32

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 2 17.3 8.7 0.06

Treatment 7 3353.2 479 3.32 0.027

Residual 14 2020.2 144.3

Total 23 5390.7

Grand mean 80.2

l.s.d 21.04

CV% 1.3

APPENDIX 2ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NUMBER OF LEAVES 40DAS


replication 2 4.0833 2.0417 3.33

Treatment 7 17.1667 2.4524 4 0.013

Residual 14 8.5833 0.6131

Total 23 29.8333

Grand mean 6.08

l.s.d 1.371

CV% 8.3

APPENDIX 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NUMBER OF SHOOTS AT 40 DAYS


replication 2 14.333 7.167 4.78

Treatment 7 31.625 4.518 3.01 0.038

Residual 14 21 1.5

Total 23 66.958

Grand mean 4.29

l.s.d 2.145

CV% 22.1

33

APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT HEIGHT AT 40 DAYS


replication 2 56.33 28.17 1.73

Treatment 7 390.29 55.76 3.42 0.024

Residual 14 228.33 16.31

Total 23 674.96

Grand mean 30.46

l.s.d 7.072

CV% 6.2

APPENDIX 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT HEIGHT AT 60DAS


replication 2 57.51 28.75 1.39

Treatment 7 627.96 89.71 4.32 0.01

Residual 14 290.49 20.75

Total 23 975.96

Grand mean 48.83

l.s.d 7.977

CV% 3.9

APPENDIX 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT VIGOR AT 40DAS


replication stratum 2 358.3 179.2 0.74

Treatment 7 2462.5 351.8 1.46 0.259

Residual 14 3375 241.1

Total 23 6195.8

Grand mean 65.4

l.s.d 27.19

CV% 7.2

34

APPENDIX 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PLANT VIGOR AT 60 DAS



Treatment 7 2345.83 335.12 4.13 0.012

Residual 14 1135.42 81.1

Total 23 5745.83

Grand mean 60.4

l.s.d 15.77

CV% 19.7

APPENDIX 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF Irish POTATO YIELD t/ha



Treatment 7 705.568 100.795 25.48 <.001

Residual 14 55.38 3.956

Total 23 766.377

Grand mean 21.91

l.s.d 3.483

cv% 2.7

35

APPENDIX 9 CALCULATION OF FERTILIZERS USED

1. Farm yard manure

The FYM fertilizer recommended is 20t/ha

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.

36

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

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.

37

APPENDIX 10 Row data of emergence rate expressed in % obtained for all treatment

TREATMENT

BLOCK

1

BLOCK

2

BLOCK

3

Control 95.67 91.67 91.67

FYM 95.67 88.34 100

NPK 86.67 85 88.34

DI Grow 91.7 88.34 85

FYM and NPK 85 86.67 88.34

FYM and DI-Grow 91.67 100 83.34

NPK and DI-Grow 88.34 91.67 88.34

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

3

Control 95.67 91.67 91.67

FYM 95.67 88.34 100

NPK 86.67 85 88.34

DI Grow 91.7 88.34 85

FYM and NPK 85 86.67 88.34

FYM and DI-Grow 91.67 100 83.34

NPK and DI-Grow 88.34 91.67 88.34

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 100 88.34 83.34

38

APPENDIX 12 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 40DAS

TREATMENT

BLOCK

1

BLOCK

2

BLOCK

3

Control 20 26 24

FYM 24 28.5 28

NPK 27.5 37 24

DI Grow 24.5 34.5 25.5

FYM and NPK 37 35.5 31.5

FYM and DI-Grow 37.5 32 30.5

NPK and DI-Grow 34.5 27 33.5

FYM,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

3

Control 4 3 3

FYM 4 2 4

NPK 5 2 4

DI Grow 3 3 5

FYM and NPK 5 4 4

FYM and DI-Grow 7 5 3

NPK and DI-Grow 5 4 3

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 10 6 5

39

APPENDIX 14 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 40DAS

TREATMENT

BLOCK

1

BLOCK

2

BLOCK

3

Control 80 70 80

FYM 70 80 70

NPK 70 50 70

DI Grow 70 70 50

FYM and NPK 30 50 60




APPENDIX 15 Row data of plant vigor expressed in % at 60 DAS

TREATMENT

BLOCK

1

BLOCK

2

BLOCK

3

Control 50 40 50

FYM 60 70 50

NPK 80 70 40

DI Grow 60 50 30

FYM and NPK 80 60 60




40

APPENDIX 16 Row data of plant height expressed in cm at 60 DAS

TREATMENT

BLOCK

1

BLOCK

2

BLOCK

3

Control 35.5 46.25 43

FYM 40 50 44.75

NPK 47.5 49.5 47.25

DI Grow 42.25 51.75 35.75

FYM and NPK 55.75 51.25 54.25

FYM and DI-Grow 48.5 49.25 49.5

NPK and DI-Grow 58.25 54.5 45.75

FYM,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

3

Control 13.66 13.33 13.33

FYM 20.66 20 15

NPK 23.33 25.33 23.33

DI Grow 16.33 16.66 14

FYM and NPK 26 23.33 28.33

FYM and DI-Grow 23.33 18.33 21.66

NPK and DI-Grow 25 28.33 25

FYM,NPK and DI-Grow 31.66 30 30

ERNEST®INE FINAL MEMOIR

Documents

Transcript of ERNEST®INE FINAL MEMOIR