YIELD EFFECTS OF HYDRA-HUME, TRAFIX ES CAL EIGHT, AND QHP
ON TOMATO
Stuart F. McKinney and Keith S. Rucker
Tift County Cooperative Extension
P.O. Box 7548
Tifton, GA 31793
ksrucker@uga.edu
and
William Terry Kelley
Extension Horticulturist
P.O. Box 1209
Tifton, GA 31793
wtkelley@uga.edu
Introduction
Humus is the organic component of soil that resists further decomposition. It
results from the break down of organic material such as dead roots and other plant
residues. Cultural practices that attempt to increase soil organic matter, such as
conservation tillage and manure applications, all aim at eventually increasing the
level of humus within a particular soil so that productivity can be maximized. Soluble
humus present within a soil increases cation exchange capacity (CEC), water holding
capacity, and tilth.
Humus is generally classified into three groups based on molecular weights.
Humin is high in molecular weight, but insoluble in both acids and bases. Soluble
humus includes both humic and fulvic fractions. Humus molecules that are moderate
in weight (7000-700,000 Daltons) are humic acids. Humic acids are moderately dark
brown in color and soluble in bases. Molecules that are low in molecular weight (7007,000 Daltons) are referred to as fulvic acids. Fulvic acids are light yellow in color
and soluble in acids and bases.
Horizon Ag-Products specializes in the manufacture and formulation of
soluble humus products. Previous research has demonstrated that these products are
capable of stimulating plant growth and yield in other regions but little information is
available from the Southeast. In this experiment, several soluble humus products were
applied alone and in combination to tomato plots located within a commercial field
near Tifton, Georgia. The yield and tissue responses were observed.
Materials and Methods
Products tested in this experiment were Hydra-Hume (Horizon Ag-Products),
Hydra-Hume DG (Horizon Ag-Products), TraFix Es CAL Eight (Horizon AgProducts), and QHP (Horizon Ag-Products). Hydra-Hume is a 0-0-1 fertilizer that
contains high (12%) levels of humic acids in liquid formulation. Hydra Hume DG
contains 70% humic acids in dry granular formulation. TraFix Es CAL Eight is a low
pH fertilizer containing 5% nitrogen and 8% calcium as well as fulvic acids. QHP is a
- 49 -
new product containing both humic and fulvic acids as well as other organic
components.
Products were injected through the field’s drip irrigation system. The injection
equipment (Figure 1) consisted of a 12 gallon cone tank, small injection pump, and a
network of hoses. T-connectors were attached to the end of each hose which were
attached to individual drip tape lines in the field in order to enable injection to take
place. Injected products were mixed in the tank separately with 6 gallons of water per
injection over approximately a ten-minute period. After injection, water was allowed
to continue to be pumped through the drip tape in order to allow the injected products
to be flushed from the lines and into the test area.
Tomatoes (BHN 640 variety) were staked and grown in a plasticulture
production system. Plants were established in a commercial greenhouse and
transplanted to the field April 8 in 6 feet row spacing and 12 inch in-row plant
spacing. Pre-plant fertility included broadcast applications of 4-8-12 fertilizer (600
lb/A) and K-Mag (200 lb/A). K-Mag is a 0-0-22 fertilizer containing 11% magnesium
and 21% sulfur. Weekly fertility injections beginning at planting were 8-0-8 fertilizer
(3 gal/A) for the first 4 weeks and 4-0-8 fertilizer (4 gal/A) beginning the 5th week
after planting. Calcium Nitrate (200 lb/A) was applied on May 1. Calcium Nitrate
contains 19% calcium and 16% nitrogen. Standard management practices for pest
management and irrigation were followed by the grower.
Experimental plots were laid out in a Randomized Complete Block design
consisting of 12 treatments, each replicated four times. Hydra-Hume, TraFix Es CAL
Eight, and QHP were applied alone and in combination at various rates and timing as
shown in Table 1.
Results and Discussion
Data collection involved weekly measurements beginning at first harvest and
lasting for three weeks. Harvests dates were June 21, June 27, and July 5. The number
of tomatoes harvested for each plot was counted and, along with the weight of each
- 50 -
plot’s harvest, average fruit weight for each plot was calculated. All collections of
data were analyzed electronically by the SAS system, and subjected to the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) procedure. Results are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
Several determinations are made clear from these tables. Treatment 9 (QHP)
was the only treatment that had significantly higher yield (by weight) than treatment 1
(untreated). Other treatments that trended to yield greater than the untreated check
were treatment 5 (Es CAL Eight, injected every 3 weeks), treatment 11 (HydraHume, injected at transplant; plus QHP, injected every 4 weeks; plus Es CAL Eight,
injected every 3 weeks), and treatment 12 (Hydra-Hume DG, pre-plant broadcast;
plus QHP, injected every 4 weeks; plus Es CAL Eight, injected every 3 weeks). Since
no significant differences in average fruit weight occurred throughout the test, the
increased weight of yield from treatment 9 (QHP, injected weekly) was due to more
tomatoes harvested and not larger tomatoes.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Gibbs Wilson (Horizon Ag-Products), Philip Grimes (Docia
Farms), Herb Young (Bayer Crop Sciences), Elton Baldy (Bayer Crop Sciences),
Dustin Hawkins, and Jess Parker for their assistance with this project.
- 51 -
Table 1. Hydra-Hume, Es CAL Eight, and QHP treatments on experimental plots within a Tifton, GA commercial tomato field.
Treatment and
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Untreated
Hydra-Hume DG
Hydra-Hume
Hydra-Hume
Es CAL Eight
Hydra-Hume DG
Es CAL Eight
Hydra-Hume
Es CAL Eight
QHP
QHP
QHP
Es CAL Eight
Hydra-Hume
QHP
Es CAL Eight
Hydra-Hume DG
QHP
Es CAL Eight
Rate
40 lb/ac
1 gal/ac
1 gal/ac/app
1 gal/ac/app
40 lb/ac
1 gal/ac/app
1 gal/ac
1 gal/ac/app
1.5 lb/ac/app
1.5 lb/ac/app
1.5 lb/ac/app
1 gal/ac/app
1 gal/ac
1.5 lb/ac/app
1 gal/ac/app
40 lb/ac
1.5 lb/ac/app
1 gal/ac/app
Method
Date(s) Injected
Pre-plant broadcast
Inject at transplant
Inject at transplant followed by repeat apps every 3-4 wks
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
Pre-plant broadcast
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
Inject at transplant
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
Inject every 4 weeks beginning at first flower
Inject every week beginning at first flower
Inject every 4 weeks beginning at first flower
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
Inject at transplant
Inject every 4 weeks beginning at first flower
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
Pre-plant broadcast
Inject every 4 weeks beginning at first flower
Inject every 3 weeks beginning 1 week before flowering
52
4/2
4/2
4/2
5/12
5/12
6/16
6/2
6/23
5/12
6/2
6/23
5/12
5/12
5/12
5/12
5/12
6/2
6/23
4/2
4/2
5/19
5/26
6/2
6/9
6/9
6/9
6/2
6/16
6/23
6/23
4/2
5/12
5/12
6/9
6/2
6/23
4/2
5/12
5/12
6/9
6/2
6/23
Table 2. Cumulative total mean weight of marketable tomatoes harvested by date of
tomatoes treated with various rates and timings of soil amendments at Tifton,
Georgia in 2005.
Marketable Weight (lbs)
Treatment
21-Jun
27-Jun
5-Jul
(lbs/A)
01
1.6 AB
11.5 C
17.5 BC
5,082
02
1.0 AB
10.6 C
17.0 BC
4,937
03
1.0 AB
8.6 C
15.7 BC
4,559
04
0.2 B
9.1 C
14.9 C
4,327
05
2.2 A
17.6 AB
21.5 AB
6,244
06
2.7 A
11.1 C
17.0 BC
4,936
07
2.2 A
8.0 C
15.4 C
4,472
08
0.9 AB
10.9 C
18.3 BC
5,314
09
1.9 AB
18.3 A
26.4 A
7,666
10
1.5 AB
9.7 C
16.3 BC
4,733
11
2.3 A
12.4 ABC
20.7 ABC
6,011
12
1.6 AB
11.6 BC
20.6 ABC
5,982
Mean of Test
1.6
11.6
18.4
5,355
L.S.D. (0.05)
1.9
6.1
5.8
C.V. (%)
81.8
36.3
22
*Means within a column followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05, LSD,
ANOVA).
Table 3. Mean fruit weight of tomatoes by date harvested and overall mean fruit
weight of tomatoes treated with various rates and timings of soil amendments
at Tifton, Georgia in 2005.
Mean Fruit Weight (lbs)
Treatment
21-Jun
27-Jun
5-Jul
Overall
01
0.44 CD
0.55 ABC
0.43 AB
0.49 ABC
02
0.41 CD
0.58 A
0.41 AB
0.48 ABC
03
0.39 D
0.54 ABC
0.43 AB
0.47 BC
04
0.60 A
0.58 A
0.40 B
0.49 ABC
05
0.49 BC
0.55 ABC
0.42 AB
0.52 A
06
0.44 CD
0.51 BC
0.43 AB
0.47 BC
07
0.46 BCD
0.51 BC
0.43 AB
0.46 C
08
0.54 AB
0.56 AB
0.43 AB
0.49 ABC
09
0.59 A
0.54 ABC
0.45 A
0.51 AB
10
0.48 BC
0.50 C
0.40 AB
0.45 C
11
0.45 CD
0.53 ABC
0.43 AB
0.48 ABC
12
0.47 BCD
0.52 ABC
0.40 AB
0.46 C
Mean of Test
0.48
0.54
0.42
0.48
L.S.D. (0.05)
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.05
C.V. (%)
13.3
7.8
8.4
7
*Means within a column followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05, LSD, ANOVA).
53