1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Importance of the Study
Rice is the world’s most important food. More than half of the world’s population
depends on rice for food calories and protein, especially in developing countries. By the
year 2025, the world will need about 760 million tons of paddy, or 35 percent more than
the rice production in 1996, in order to meet the growing demand. However, arable lands
are mostly exploited, especially in Asia, where 90 percent of the world rice is produced
and consumed.
Rice production had steadily increased during the Green Revolution, but recently
its growth has been substantially slowed down. Moreover, crop intensification during the
Green Revolution has exerted tremendous pressures on natural resources and the
environment. On the other hand, under the globalization of the world economy, rice
producers are exposed to competition not only among themselves but also with the
producers of other crops. The future increased rice production, therefore, requires
improvement in productivity and efficiency. Innovative technologies such as hybrid rice,
New Plant Types, and possibly transgenic rice can play an important role in raising the
yield ceiling in rice production, thus increasing its productivity. Also, in many countries,
the gaps between yields obtained at research stations and farmers’ fields still exist.
Narrowing of these gaps could improve not only the productivity but also the efficiency
of rice production (Duwayri et al., 2014)
Some specialists, however, have expressed their concern about the economic
gains of narrowing the yield gaps. They considered that economically there is very limited
2
scope for further increasing rice yield by closing the gaps. Other specialists believe that
the yield gaps are economically exploitable for increasing rice yield. In a number of
countries, regardless of the initially high yield, national yields still significantly increased
during the last 30 years thanks to integrated national efforts in promoting rice
development programmes. In addition, it is well known that yields are different among
farmers in the same location. Good farmers usually reap more benefits from improved
technologies than mediocre farmers at the same place. The challenge for policy makers,
scientists and developers is how these gaps can be effectively and economically narrowed
at the rice grower level.
The use of foliar fertilizer is more economical and effective than the granulated
form of fertilizer, which can be attributed to the presence of micronutrients such as
manganese, zinc, iron and magnesium which make foliar fertilizers more advantageous
than any other fertilizer containing no trace elements. Recognizing the necessity of
advanced and appropriate technology to increase farm income and promote information
the use of foliar fertilizers as supplement (Dordas and Cruz, 2015).
B. Objectives of the Study
Generally the study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different foliar
fertilizers in rice production.
Specifically, it aimed to:
1. Determine the growth and yield performance of rice as applied with
Carrageenan, Humus Plus, Humic Acid and Supreme foliar fertilizers.
2. Determine the best foliar fertilizer enhance the yield of rice; and
3
3. To determine the return on investment of the different treatments.
C. Time and Place of the Study
The study was conducted at the Rice Production Area of Isabela State University,
Echague, Isabela from September to January, 2017.
D. Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study focused its scope on the evaluation of the growth and yield of rice as
affected by Carrageenan, Humus Plus, Humic Acid and Supreme foliar fertilizers. The
parameters gathered were plant height, number of productive and unproductive tillers per
hill, number of filled and unfilled spikelets per panicle, length of panicles, grain weight
per hill, grain yield per sampling area and weight of 1000 grains.
E. Definition of Terms
For better understanding of the study, the following terms are defined
operationally:
Application Rate. This is the amount of fertilizer applied per unit area of the
experiment based on soil analysis.
Fertilizer. It is any material either of natural and synthetic materials, including
manure and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium compounds, applied into soil or foliage
of the crop to increase its capacity to support plant growth.
Foliar
Feeding. It
is
a
technique
of
feeding
plants
by
applying
liquid fertilizer directly to their leaves.
Growth. It refers to the sum total of various physiological processes to increase
the dry weight and irreversible increase in size of the plants.
4
Potential Yield. It is an estimate of the upper limit of yield increase that can be
obtained from a plant.
Rates of Fertilizer. It refers to the weight of a particular fertilizer applied per unit
area.
Recommended Rate. It is the amount of nutrients needed by the crop to attain its
optimum yield.
Yield. It is the economic part of the plant used for human and animal consumption
and for commercial purposes.
5
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Benefits Derived from Micronutrient Fertilization
Foliar fertilizers immediately deliver nutrients to the tissues and organs of the
crop. The leaves are factories where photosynthesis produces compounds needed for
growth. These are absorbed right at the site they are used acting fast. For instance, eighty
percent of the phosphorus applied through conventional fertilizers may get fixed up in the
soil but up to 80 percent of the foliar-added phosphorus is directly absorbed (Faizi–Asl
and Valizadeh, 2005).
Foliar feeding produces an almost immediate effect on the plants. The nutrients
provided are already in the form that the plant needs. After absorption, all the plant has
to do is utilize these nutrients (Berglund, 2002). Foliar feeding is the best way to grow
plants in places where there is no enough water. This is because the plant will absorb
water through its roots. Foliar nutrition results are highest when the plant is showing high
growth activity, going from the vegetative to reproductive stage and when deficiencies
are present or when the crop has been damaged. To achieve the best results, the foliar
product should contain nitrogen, to act as an electrolyte to carry the other nutrients and
phosphorous, to move the nutrients within the plant (Grotz and Guerinot, 2006).
According to Kabata- Pendias and Pendias (1999) that the foliar nutrients enter
the plant through the leaf stomata and hydrophilic pores in the leaf cuticle. The nutrients
are only absorbed while in solution on the leaf surface. The beneficial effect of a foliar
application is an increase in chlorophyll synthesis which can often result in leaves turning
a darker green. The increase in photosynthetic activity will stimulate extra root growth;
6
in turn the root hairs excrete excess sugar which stimulates microbial colonies. These
bacterial colonies provide auxins and other root stimulating compounds. With the
increase in cellular activity gas exchange increases the uptake of water. As the roots take
up more water they also bring in more of the nutrients from the soil solution. The foliar
application stimulates the entire “pumping system” in the plant to increase the uptake of
the base applied nutrition. Foliar spraying also stimulates nutrient uptake from the soil.
The leaves after spraying will generate more carbohydrates that it will transport down to
the root and release as exudates. This will stimulate the microbial life in the soil and the
microbes will thrive around the root mass making more nutrients available to the plant.
Therefore it is a very good idea to use liquid fertilizers to supplement nutrient programs
to give your crops the optimum amount of nutrients it needs to get fast and efficient
goodness into the plant so it can work harder to produce top quality food.
Micronutrient spraying is a new method for crop feeding, which micronutrients
in form of liquid are used into leaves (Nasiri et al., 2010). Foliar application of
microelements is more beneficial than soil application. Since application rates are lesser
as compared to soil application, same application could be obtained easily and crop reacts
to nutrient application immediately (Zayed et al., 2011). Foliar spraying of microelements
is very helpful when the roots cannot provide necessary nutrients (Kinaci and
Gulmezoglu, 2007; Babaeian et al., 2011). Moreover, soil pollution would be a major
problem by micronutrients soil application. As people are concerned about the
environment and plant leaves uptake nutrients better than soil application, foliar spraying
was created (Bozorgi et al., 2011). Crop roots are unable to absorb some important
nutrients such as zinc, because of soil properties, such as high pH, lime or heavy texture,
7
and in this situation, foliar spraying is better as compared to soil application (Kinaci and
Gulmezoglu, 2007). Narimani et al. (2010) reported that microelements foliar application
improve the effectiveness of macronutrients. It has been found that microelements foliar
application is in the same level and even more influential as compared to soil application.
It was suggested that micronutrients could be applied successfully to compensate shortage
of those elements (Arif et al., 2006). These authors found that based on soil properties,
foliar spraying could be effective 6 to 20 times as compared to soil application. Resistance
to different stresses was increased by foliar application of micronutrients (Ghasemian et
al., 2010). Since in field situation, soil features and environmental factors which affect
nutrients absorption are extremely changeable, foliar application could be an advantage
for crop growth (Seifi Nadergholi et al., 2011). Effectiveness of foliar spraying is higher
and the cost of foliar application is lower as compared to soil application. Microelements
are defined substances that are crucial for crop growth; however, they are used in lower
amounts as compared to macronutrients, such as N, P and K. They have a major role in
cell division and development of meristematic tissues, photosynthesis, respiration and
acceleration of plant maturity (Zeidan et al., 2010). One of the most important roles of
micronutrients is keeping balanced crop physiology. Furthermore, these elements play
vital roles in CO2 flowing out, improvement in vitamin A and immune system activities
(Narimani et al., 2010). Zinc plays a special role in synthesizing proteins, RNA and DNA
(Kobraee et al., 2011). Zinc and iron take over different roles in crop, such as formation,
partitioning and utilization of photosynthesis assimilates (Sawan et al., 2008). The major
role of zinc element in crops is not clear Nasri et al. (2011). These authors found that
although zinc is an important element which should be provided for crop growth, but it
8
could be poisonous in large amount. As a matter of fact, the importance of zinc foliar
application is due to being given to crop immediately (Alloway, 2003). Gul et al. (2011)
claimed that profitability of micronutrients was obtained in combination with macro
elements, such as nitrogen and potassium. Ghasemian et al., (2010) declared that zinc
element is essential in chlorophyll production and pollen function.
Mechanisms of Uptake of Foliar Applied Nutrients
Green leaves are organs whose important functions are photosynthesis. Nutrient
will pass through these various layers, whereas at other times it may pass through the
spaces between these layers, which are typical for inorganic ions and ions absorbed by
leaves stomata’s (Eichert et al., 1998; Eichert and Burkhardt, 2001). When the stomatas
are open, foliar absorption is often easier (Burkhardt et al., 1999). Remobilization of
mineral nutrients is important during ontogenesis of a plant (Papadakis et al., 2007).
Description of the Foliar Fertilizers Used in the Study
Humus Plus. It contains nutrients (minerals such as, nitrates, phosphates,
potassium, copper, zinc dissolved in water) that plants need to be healthy. A soil
conditioner and a plant growth stimulant it contain 16.10 Potassium Humates, 76.10-80%
Humic Acid, water soluble powder 99% it is a humate from Leonardite that partially
decomposed humus, or soil organic matter. It is a natural decomposed dead plants and
animals for thousands of years.
Foliar Supreme. It is a foliar nutrient containing phosphorus, potassium and
micronized elemental sulfur.
9
Carrageenan. Carrageenans or carrageenins are a family of linear sulphated
polysaccharides that are extracted from red edible seaweeds. They are widely used in the
food industry, for their gelling, thickening, and stabilizing properties a substance
extracted from red and purple seaweeds, consisting of a mixture of polysaccharides. It is
used as a thickening or emulsifying agent in food products.
Humic Acids. A principal component of humic substances, which are the major
organic constituents of soil (humus), peat and coal. It is also a major organic constituent
of many upland streams, dystrophic lakes, and ocean water. It is produced by
biodegradation of dead organic matter.
Guaranteed Analysis of Different Foliar Treatments
Carrageenan Guaranteed Analysis of Different Foliar Treatments
N%
P2O5 %
K2O %
Ca ppm
2.02
4
6
120
Mg
ppm
9
Fe
ppm
48
Zn
ppm
35
Mn
ppm
5
Cu
ppm
0.40
 Amino acids + Fulvic acid + Humic acid > 1.88%
 Aluminium (AI) + Boron(B) + Cobalt(Co) < 300 ppm
 Sulphur (S) + Iron (Fe) + Sodium (Na) > 1%
 Iodine (I) + Manganese(Mn): 500 – 800 ppm
 Cytokinins + Alginic Acid + Mannitol + Gibberellins> 0.5 %
Humus Plus
Humic Acid
80%
Phosphorus
0.82%
Fulvic Acid
5.0%
Potassium
5.4%
pH- 10-11
10
Organic carbon
37.6%
Nitrogen
1.1%
Organic Matter
84.0%
Calcium
5.0%
Boron
10%
Humic Acid
Potassium
0.90%
N, P, K and Ca
Humic Acid
4.5%
Supreme Foliar
Analysis
wt/wt*
wt/vol
Phosphate
P2O5
16.00%
24.00%
Potassium
K2O
10.00%
15.00%
Sulphur
S
30.00%
45.00%
pH (10% Solution)
4.5-5.5
11
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Securing of Seeds
The seeds of rice (NSIC 222) were secured at the Seed Production Office of the
Isabela State University, Echague, Isabela.
B. Location of the Experimental Area
The experiment area was conducted at the Rice Production Area of the Isabela
State University, Echague, Isabela.
C. Collection of Soil Samples and Analysis
Soil samples were randomly collected in the proposed experimental area. It was
collected at plow level using shovel. The collected samples were spread in a newspaper
and thoroughly air dried, pulverized, inert and other debris were removed. One kilogram
composite soil was packed and submitted to the Regional Soils Laboratory, Cagayan
Valley Research Center, City of Ilagan for analysis. The result of the analysis was the
basis for fertilizer recommendation.
D. Land Preparation, Laying-out and Experimental Design
The area was cleared from grasses and stubbles to facilitate land preparation. It
was plowed initially by tractor and left idle for two weeks giving time for the weeds to
decay. An animal-drawn plow was used for the final plowing, harrowing and leveling.
The 287 square meter experimental area was divided in three equal blocks with a
dimension of 4 meters x 20.5 meters with one meter distance between blocks. Each block
12
was further subdivided into six equal plots of 3 meters x 4 meters with 50 centimeters
distance between plots.
The experimental treatments were randomly allocated following the procedure for
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD).
E. Seedling Production
A seedbed was leveled and raised at 4-5 centimeters height. The seeds were placed
in a container for soaking. The seeds was soaked in water and incubate for 12 hours.
Washed and changed the water every three hours. Incubated the seeds for 36 hours and
washed with clean water for every three hours and the moisture was maintain by watering
with sprinkle and until the seeds germinated.
The pre-germinated seeds was sown on the seedbed. The seedlings were irrigated
at 2-3 centimeters after 7 days to maintain its growth. One hundred grams of urea was
dissolved in four gallons of water and sprayed to the seedlings at 15 days after
sowing to produce vigorous seedlings. The occurrence of insect pests and diseases was
strictly monitored for immediate control.
F. Experimental Treatments
The different treatments used in the study were the following:
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
T4 – Humus plus Foliar Fertilizer
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
13
G. Spraying of Molluscicide and Herbicide
Molluscicide was sprayed before transplanting to control the golden apple snails
(kuhol) living in the experimental area while the weeds were controlled by spraying
herbicide (Butachlor) three days after transplanting following the recommendation of the
manufacturer.
H. Application of Fertilizer
The rate of fertilizer 60-20-0 kg NPK was applied in the study. Basal application
2.0 bags per hectare 16-20-0, 0.5 bag per hectare 21-0-0 and 10 bags per hectare organic
fertilizer was applied. In first topdressing, 2.0 bags per hectare 21-0-0 was done by
applying at 7-10 days after transplanting. Second topdressing, 1.0 bag per hectare 46-0-0
was done by applying at 20-25 days after transplanting. Third topdressing, 0.7 bag per
hectare 46-0-0 was applied in 35-40 days after transplanting and 1.0 bag per hectare 0-060 was applied during booting stage.
The application of inorganic fertilizer were supplemented with foliar fertilizers
and were applied at 30, 45 and 60 after transplanting at 1 liter per hectare every schedule
of spraying.
I. Pulling of Seedlings and Transplanting
At 23 days after sowing the seeds, pulling of seedlings was done carefully to avoid
root damage. This was done a day before transplanting.
Two seedlings per hill were transplanted at a distance of 20 x 20 centimeters.
Missing hills were replanted upon observation of mortality to have a complete plant
population per plot.
14
J. Care and Management of the Crop
Water Management. Water was maintained at a depth of 3-5 centimeters at the
early stage of crop growth up to ripening period of the panicles. All plots were
drained two weeks before harvesting.
Weed Control. Weeds was controlled by applying Butachlor granules at the rate
of one kg per hectare three days after transplanting. Hand weeding was done to
complement herbicide application.
Insect Pest and Disease Control. Maximum protection against insect pest and
diseases was done.
K. Harvesting, Threshing, Cleaning and Drying
The harvesting was done when 80% of the grains in the panicles turned yellow in
color.
Sample plants were harvested within the sampling area which were located at the
middle portion of each plot. Harvesting of samples per treatment was done one by one to
avoid intermixing of samples.
Samples were tied one by one and tags were placed per treatment.
The paddy was threshed after measuring the number of tillers, length of panicles
and counting the number of spikelets. Cleaning was done by winnowing to remove the
unfilled grains, leaves and straw that mixed in the newly threshed samples. Sun drying of
grain samples was done immediately in undisturbed pavement and repeated sun drying
was done until 14 percent moisture content was attained.
15
L. Data Gathered
1. Plant Height. Ten sample stakes were placed in each sample plant for every
plot was measured from the base of the culm to the tip of the highest leaf and to the tip of
the panicle at maturity.
2. Number of Productive and Unproductive Tillers per Hill. The number of
productive and unproductive tillers were separately counted and recorded. The tiller
bearing with filled spikelets were considered productive tillers. The tillers without
panicle or panicles with empty spikelets were considered unproductive tillers.
3. Length of Panicles. Ten panicles were randomly taken from the productive
tillers per treatment. The length was measured from the base up to the tip of the panicle
using foot rule.
4. Number of Filled and Unfilled Spikelets per Panicle. The sample panicles were
also used in counting the number of filled spikelets per panicle. The filled spikelet was
carefully detached and counted. On the other hand, the unfilled spikelets were also
counted and recorded just the same. The total number of each variable was divided by ten
to obtain the number of filled and unfilled spikelets per panicle.
5. Weight of 1000 Filled Grains. After weighing the grain yield, 1,000 grains were
randomly taken from the variety and weighed using the digital weighing balance.
6. Dry Grain Yield per Hill. The grain of the ten sample hills was weighed after
drying using the digital weighing balance.
7. Grain Yield per Sampling Area. The dried grain yield obtained in a six (6)
square meters sampling area from each plot was weighed using the digital weighing
balance.
16
8. Yield per Hectare. The seed weight per six (6) square meters sampling area was
the basis for the computation of yield per hectare using the formula:
Weight/Sampling Area (kg)
Yield per Hectare =
10000 m2
2
Sampling Area (m )
M. Statistical Analysis
All the data gathered were collated, tabulated and analyzed following the Analysis
of Variance for the Randomized Complete Block Design. Treatment means were
compared using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) if the result is significant.
N. Cost and Return Analysis
The return on investment was computed using the simple economic analysis. The
cost of production was based on the prevailing price of farm inputs and labor on
community. The gross income was determined based on the prevailing price of rice per
kilo in the market. The net income is equal to the gross income minus the cost of
production and the return of investment was computed by dividing the net income with
the cost of production multiplied by 100.
17
IV. OBSERVATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Observation
1. Stand and Vigor of the Crop. The plants in the different treatments had good
stand even in the midst of typhoon Lawin. However, it was observed that plants treated
with inorganic fertilizer plus Carrageenan Foliar fertilizer had more healthy leaves as
manifested with the dark green color of the leaves and sturdy over the plants in the other
treatments.
2. Occurrence of Insect Pests. Golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) was
observed during the establishment of the crop but the application of molluscicide was
done to control its occurrence. Weeds were also observed in the experimental area such
as the purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and jungle rice (Echinochloa colona) weeds
but they were controlled by hand weeding.
Rice bug (Leptocorisa oratorius) was also observed at milking stage. This was
controlled by the
application of insecticides
following
the manufacturer’s
recommendation.
3. Number of Days to Maximum Tillering. The fertilized and the unfertilized
plants had their maximum tillering at 32 days after transplanting.
4. Number of Days to Panicle Initiation. The plants had 50% panicle initiation
at 54 days after transplanting.
5. Number of Days to Physiological Maturity. The plants in all treatments
attained their physiological maturity at 88 days after transplanting as indicated on the
80% of the grains per panicle turning into yellow color.
18
6. Climatic Data during the Conduct of the Study. The climatic data during the
conduct of the study was taken at the nearest weather station from the experimental area
which is located at the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration - Agro meteorological Station, Isabela State University, Echague, Isabela
(Figure 1). The minimum temperature ranged from 21.31° C to 23.63° C while maximum
temperature 25.55° C to 33.16° C. The relative humidity ranged from 88.71 percent to
98.50 percent in the morning while it ranged from 72.71 percent to 94.75 percent in the
afternoon. Soil moisture was always available as manifested by the amount of rainfall
Temperature (°C), Relative
Humidity (%) & Rainfall (mm)
during the study which ranged from 2.53 mm to 17.09 mm.
Max. Temp. (°C)
Min. Temp. (°C)
R.H.(%) 2:00 PM
Rainfall (mm)
R.H. (%) 8:00 AM
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
W E E K S A F T E R TRANSPLANTING
Figure 1. Climatic Data during the Conduct of the Study.
10
19
B. Discussion of Results
1. Plant Height at 30, 60 Days after Transplanting and Maturity. The height
of plants at 30, 60 days after transplanting and maturity as influenced by different foliar
fertilizer are shown in Table 1. No Significant result was obtained in the height of plants
at 30 days after transplanting with means ranging from 65.08 to 71.19 centimeters.
On the other hand, the application of foliar fertilizers significantly influenced the
height of plants at 60 days after transplanting. Tallest plants were obtained in plants
treated with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3),
Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4),
Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5), Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6) and 60-20-0 kg NPK
ha-1 (based on soil analysis) (T2) with mean values of 108.25, 107.91, 107.73, 107. 29 and
106.68 centimeters, respectively. Shortest plants were found in the Control (T1) with
94.90 centimeters.
The height of plants at maturity was affected by the application of different foliar
fertilizers. The plants fertilized with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3), Humus Plus
Foliar Fertilizer (T4), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5) and Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
(T6) and 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis) (T2) produced the tallest plants at
maturity days after transplanting with mean values of 121.60, 119.31, 118.64, 118.48 and
118.47 centimeters, respectively. The plants in the Control plot (T1) obtained the shortest
plants with a mean of 102.57 centimeters. The result of the study was attributed to the
supplementation of foliar fertilizers. Foliar feeding of nutrient promotes root absorption
of the same nutrient or other nutrients through improving root growth and nutrients
movement from terminal leaves to depth roots. Leaf feeding enhances overall nutrient
level in the plant and sugar production during times of stress and it also increases
20
biochemical activities in the leaf by increasing chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids, which
presumably favor the photosynthesis. Foliar applications of micro-nutrients increased the
primary metabolites like photosynthetic pigments. Previous studies showed that when
Carrageenan is degraded or reduced to tiny sizes through irradiation technology, it can
promote growth in rice plants and make it resistant to certain pests (Ranada, 2015).
Table 1. Plant Height (cm) of NSIC Rc 222 Variety at 30, 60 Days after Transplanting
and Maturity as Influenced by Supplementation of Different Foliar Fertilizers.
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
Plant Height (cm)
30 DAT
60 DAT
Maturity
65.08
94.90b
102.57b
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
67.58
106.68a
118.47a
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
69.78
108.25a
121.60a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
68.33
107.91a
119.31a
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
71.19
107.73a
118.64a
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
70.43
107.29a
118.48a
ANOVA RESULT
ns
**
**
C.V. (%)
3.19
0.98
0.72
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
2. Number of Productive and Unproductive Tillers per Hill. The Table 2
shows the number of productive and unproductive tillers per hill as influenced by
different foliar fertilizer. Significant differences were noted in the number of productive
tillers, wherein plants applied with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3) obtained most
number of productive tillers with a mean of 22.17. Comparable result was noticed in
plants treated with Humus plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5)
21
and Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6) which had mean values of 18.13, 18.10 and 17.90,
respectively. It was followed by the plants treated with 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil
analysis) (T2) with a mean value of 13.93. The control plots (T1) revealed the least number
of productive tillers with 13.33. The increase in number of productive tillers was observed
in the application of Carrageenan conformed to the findings of Carlos (2015). Since in
field situation, soil features and environmental factors which affect nutrients absorption
and supplementation of foliar application could be an advantage for crop growth and
development (Seifi Nadergholi et al., 2011).
The number of unproductive tillers showed significant variations among the
treated plants over the Control (T1) with a mean value of 1.43. Treated plants with
60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis) (T2), Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6), Humic
Acid (T5), Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4) and Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3)
obtained the least number of unproductive tillers which had comparable mean values of
0.73, 0.63, 0.43 and 0.37, respectively.
22
Table 2. Number of Productive and Unproductive Tillers of NSIC Rc 222 Variety per
Hill as Influenced by Supplementation of Different Foliar Fertilizers.
Productive
Tillers
11.23d
Unproductive
Tillers
1.43a
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
13.93c
0.77b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
22.17a
0.37b
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
18.13b
0.43b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
18.10b
0.63b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
17.90b
0.73b
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
ANOVA RESULT
**
**
C.V. (%)
3.38
16.19
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
3.
Length of Panicles. Analysis of variance showed significant result of the
length of panicles as influenced by different foliar fertilizers presented in Table 3. Longest
panicles were observed in plants applied with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3) with a
mean value of 27.06 centimeters. It was followed by treated plants Humus Plus Foliar
Fertilizer (T4), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5), Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6) and 6020-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis) (T2) which had mean values of 24.31, 24.21, 24.06
and 23.00 centimeters, respectively. Shorter panicle was observed in the untreated plots
(T1) with a mean value of 20.90 centimeters. The length of panicles varied significantly
due to the application of the combination of inorganic and supplemtation of foliar
fertilizer. Increasing panicle length is in harmony with increasing concentrations of micro
elements from foliar fertilizer as cited by Malakouti and Kavousi (2004). Panicle length
23
was also significantly higher by applying Carrageenan compared with those in the
untreated plants. Carrageenan produced longer rice panicle is associated with producing
more rice grains (Carlos, 2015).
Table 3. Length (cm) of Panicles of NSIC Rc 222 Variety as Influenced by
Supplementation of Different Foliar Fertilizers.
TREATMENTS
Length (cm) of Panicle
T1 – Control
21.01c
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
23.00b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
27.06a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
24.31b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
24.21b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
24.06b
ANOVA RESULT
**
C.V. (%)
3.03
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
4. Number of Filled and Unfilled Spikelets. The number of filled and unfilled
spikelets per panicle as affected by different foliar fertilizers are presented in Table 4.
Significant variation was obtained in the number of filled spikelets, whereby the
application of Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3) produced the most number of filled
spikelets with a mean value of 216.20. It was followed by plants treated with Humus
Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5), Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
(T6) and 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis) (T2) with mean values of 167.50,
156.90, 155.13 and 144.10, respectively. The unfertilized plants (T1) obtained the least
24
number of filled spikelets with 101.04. The result means that the foliar fertilizers
composed of micromineral fertilizer which significantly increase the number of grains
per panicle. Malakouti (2005) stated that the application of foliar fertilizer at early
reproductive stage of the plants enhanced grain development (Malakouti and Kavousi,
2004).
The number of unfilled spikelets showed significant variation among treatments
treated with Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6), 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis)
(T2), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5), Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4) and Control
(T1) produced the most number of unfilled spikelets with means of 56.20, 55.10, 53.97,
46.97 and 41.20, respectively. The least number of unfilled spikelets were obtained by
treated plants with Carrageenan the Foliar Fertilizer with a mean value of 35.80.
Table 4. Number of Filled and Unfilled Spikelets of NSIC Rc 222 Variety as Influenced
by Supplementation to Different Foliar Fertilizers.
T1 – Control
Filled
Spikelets
101.04c
Unfilled
Spikelets
41.20a
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
144.10b
55.10a
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
216.20a
35.80b
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
167.50b
46.97a
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
156.90b
53.97a
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
155.13b
56.20a
TREATMENTS
ANOVA RESULT
**
*
C.V. (%)
7.18
15.65
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
25
5. Weight of 1000 Seeds. The weight of 1000 seeds as affected by different
foliar fertilizers is presented in Table 5. It was noticed that foliar fertilizers did not
significantly influence the weight of 1000 seeds with means ranging from 29.25 to 34.45
grams.
Table 5. Weight (g) of 1000 Seeds of NSIC Rc 222 Variety as Influenced by
Supplementation of Different Foliar Fertilizers.
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
Weight (g) of 1000
Seeds
29.25
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
30.90
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
34.45
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
32.00
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
31.73
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
30.90
ANOVA RESULT
ns
C.V. (%)
5.20
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
6. Weight of Grains per Hill and Grain Yield per Sampling Area. The weight
of grains per hill and sampling area as affected by the different foliar fertilizers are shown
in Table 6. Results revealed the application of foliar fertilizers had significant effect on
the grain yield per hill wherein the grain weight progressively increased with the
application of Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3) with a mean value of 61.00 grams while
the by plants treated with Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4), Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
26
(T5) and Supreme Foliar Fertilizer (T6) and 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis)
(T2) had comparable grain weights with mean values of 47.60, 47.03, 46.37 and 45.47
grams, respectively. Lightest grains was produced in the control plots (T1) with 21.90
grams. The result implies that foliar fertilizers led to a significant increase in rice grain
weight. Faranak Fareghi Naeini et al. (2014) reported similar results and they further
stated that application of foliar fertilizer in heading stage may increase the dry matter and
leaf area duration that may to increase in the 1000-grain weight. The result of the study
also conformed with the findings of Ranada (2015) that adding small amount of
Carrageenan leading to higher grain weight.
Likewise, significant result was noted on the grain yield per sampling area
wherein plants fertilized with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer (T3) produced heaviest grains
with a mean value of 7.23 kilograms. This was followed by treated plants with Humic
Acid Foliar Fertilizer (T5), Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer (T4) and Supreme Foliar
Fertilizer (T6) and 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis) (T2) had mean values of
5.40, 5.35 and 5.02 and 4.45 kilograms, respectively. The unfertilized plots (T1) revealed
the least weight of grains with 1.56 kilograms.
27
Table 6. Weight of Grains per Hill (g) and Grain Yield per 6 m2 Sampling Area (kg) of
NSIC Rc 222 Variety as Influenced by Supplementation of Different Foliar
Fertilizers.
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
Weight of Grains
Per Sampling
Per Hill (g)
Area (kg)
21.90c
1.56c
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
45.47b
4.45b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
61.00a
7.23a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
47.60b
5.35b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
47.03b
5.40b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
46.37b
5.02b
ANOVA RESULT
**
**
C.V. (%)
6.74
5.95
Note: Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
7. Projected Grain Yield per Hectare. The projected grain yield per hectare of
NSIC Rc 222 Variety as affected by different foliar fertilizers are presented in Table 7.
The grain yield of the different treatments is organized in a descending order: T3 had
12050.00 kilograms (12.05 tons), T5 had 9005.56 kilograms (9.01 tons), T4 had 8911.11
kilograms (89.11 tons), T6 had 8366.67 kilograms (8.37 tons), T2 had 7416.67 kilograms
(7.42 tons) and T1 with 2600.00 kilograms (2.6 tons).
28
Table
7.
Projected Grain Yield per Hectare of NSIC Rc 222
Variety as Influenced by Supplementation of Different Foliar Fertilizers.
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil analysis)
Computed Grain Yield
kilograms
tons
2600.00
2.60
7416.67
7.42
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
12050.00
12.05
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
8911.11
8.91
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
9005.56
9.01
sT6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
8366.67
8.37
8. Cost and Return Analysis. The cost and return analysis per hectare of NSICRc
222 variety as influenced by different foliar fertilizers are presented in Table 8. The return
on investment of selling dried grains is organized in a descending order: T3 had 299.34
percent, T5 had 221.29 percent, T4 had 217.84 percent, T2 had 208.50 percent, T6 had
204.34 percent and T1 had 84.33 percent.
29
Table 8. Cost and Return Analysis of One Hectare NSIC Rc 222 Variety Production as
Influenced by Different Foliar Fertilizers.
COST OF
PRODUCTION
28210.00
GROSS
INCOME
52000
NET
INCOME
23790
ROI
(%)
84.33
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1
(based soil analysis)
48081.67
148333
100252
208.50
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar
Fertilizer
60350.00
241000
180650
299.34
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar
Fertilizer
56072.78
178222
122149
217.84
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar
Fertilizer
56058.90
180111
124052
221.29
T6 – Supreme Foliar
Fertilizer
54981.67
167333
112352
204.34
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
30
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Summary
The study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different foliar fertilizers in
rice production. Specifically, it was conducted to determine the growth and yield
performance of rice as applied with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer, Humus Plus Foliar
Fertilizer, Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer and Supreme Foliar Fertilizers, determine the best
foliar fertilizer enhance the yield of rice and to determine the return on investment of the
different treatments. The study was conducted at the rice production area of the Isabela
State University, Echague, Isabela from October to January 2017. The different
treatments used were T1– Control, T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based on soil analysis), T3
– Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer, T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer, T5 – Humic Acid Foliar
Fertilizer and T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer. The experiment was laid out in Randomized
Complete Block Design with three replications.
The results of the study are summarized as follows:
1. No significant differences was noted in height of plants at 30 days after
transplanting.
2. Taller plants at 60 days after transplanting and at maturity were obtained in
plants treated with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer.
3. Most number of productive tillers was noted in plants fertilized with
Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer but the untreated plants had the most number of
unproductive tillers.
4. Longest panicles and most number of filled spikelets per panicle were
observed in plants applied with Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer.
31
5. The plants applied with Supreme Foliar Fertilizer, 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (T2),
Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer, Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer and without fertilizer attained
the most number of unfilled spikelets.
6. The different treatments including the control had comparable weight of 1000
seeds.
7. Heaviest grain per hill as well as the grain yield per sampling area were
produced in the application of Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer.
8. The supplementation of foliar fertilizer using Carrageenan garnered the
highest return on investment with 299.34 percent.
B. Conclusion
The application of Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer on NSIC Rc 222 significantly
obtained the highest grain yield per unit area.
C. Recommendation
Based from the results of the study, the application of 9 liters per hectare
supplementation of Carrageenan foliar fertilizer is recommended because it increased
yield by 3.63 percent.
Further study is recommended during the dry season to obtain more conclusive
results.
32
LITERATURE CITED
Alloway B. J. 2003. Zinc in Soil and Crop Nutrition. International Zinc Association, p.
114.
Arif M, M. A. Chohan, S. Ali, R. Gul and S. Khan. 2006. Response of wheat to foliar
application of nutrients. J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 1(4).
Babaeian M, A. Tavassoli, A. Ghanbari, Y. Esmaeilian and M. Fahimifard. 2011. Effects
of Foliar
Micronutrient Application on Osmotic Adjustments, Grain Yield
and Yield Components in Sunflower (Alstar cultivar) under water stress at three
stages. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 6(5):
1204-1208.
Berglund, D. R. 2002. Soybean Production Field Guide for North Dakota and
Northwestern Minnesota. Published in cooperative and with support from the
North Dakota Soybean Council.
Bozorgi H. A, E. Azarpour and M. Moradi. 2011. The Effect of Bio, Mineral Nitrogen
Fertilization and Foliar Zinc Spraying on Yield and Yield Components of Faba
Bean. World Appl. Sci. J., 13(6): 1409-1414.
Burkhardt, J., S. Dreitz, H. E. Goldbach, and T. Eichert. 1999. Stomatal uptake as an
important factor for foliar fertilization. In: Technology and Application of Foliar
Fertilizers: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Foliar
Fertilization, ed. Soil and Fertilizer Society of Thailand, pp. 63–72. Bangkok: Soil
and Fertilizer Society of Thailand.
Carlos, M. A. 2015. Carrageenan from Seaweeds: A Breakthrough that Boosts Rice
Productivity. DOST-PCAARRD S&T Media Service.
Dordas, R. D. Jr. and R. A. Cruz. 2015. Effect of Different Liquid Fertilizers on Yield
and Economic Analysis of Glutinous Corn (Zea mays Linn.) 2(2): 558-562.
Duwayri, M., D. T. Tran, and V. N. Nguyen. 2014. Reflections on Yield Gaps in Rice
Production: How to Narrow the Gaps. FAO, Rome, Italy
Eichert, T., and J. Burkhardt. 2001. Quantification of stomatal uptake of ionic solutes
using a new model system. Journal of Experimental Botany 52: 771–781.
Eichert, T., E. H. Goldbach, and J. Burkhardt. 1998. Evidence for the Uptake of Large
Anions through Stomatal Pores. Botanica Acta 111: 461–466.
Faizi–Asl V and G. Valizadeh. 2005. Study of the Effect of the Simultaneous Use of
Phosphorous and Zinc on the Absorption of the Micronutrients and Phosphorous
33
and on the Remaining Zinc in the Soil Under Dryland Cultivation of the Wheat
Cultivar Sardari. The Seedlings and Seed Journal, 21(2): 241– 267.
Faranak Fareghi naeini, Hamid Dehghanzadeh and Gholamreza Moafpourian. 2014.
Effects of Foliar Application of Micro Fertilizers on Grain Yield and Yield
Components of The Rice Sazandegi, Cultivar (Oriza sativa L.).
Agric.
sci.
dev., Vol (3), No (5), May, 2014. pp. 191-193.
Ghasemian V., A. Ghalavand, A. SorooshZadeh and A. Pirzad. 2010. The Effect of Iron,
Zinc and Manganese on Quality and Quantity of Soybean Seed. Journal of
Phytology 2(11): 73-79.
Grotz N., and M. L. Guerinot 2006. Molecular Aspects of Cu, Fe and Zn Homestasis in
Plants. Biochim. BiophysActa. 1763(7): 595-608.
Kabata- Pendias A and Pendias H, 1999. Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements. PWN,
WarSaw, Poland.
Kinaci E. and N. Gulmezoglu. 2007. Grain Yield and Yield Components of Triticale
upon Application of Different Foliar Fertilizers. Interciencia, 32(9): 624-628.
Kobraee S, K. Shamsi and B. Rasekhi. 2011. Effect of Micronutrients Application on
Yield and Yield Components of Soybean. Annals Biol. Res., 2(2): 476-482.
Malakouti, M. G. 2005. Sustainable Agriculture and Increase Yield by Optimizing
Fertilizer Use in Iran. Sana Pub. 496 Pp.
Malakouti M. G. and M. Kavousi. 2004. Balanced Nutrition of Rice. Depart. Of Agric.
Ministry of Agriculture, I. R. Of IRAN
Middleton, L. J., and J. Sanderson. 1965. The Uptake of Inorganic Ions by Plant Leaves.
Journal of Experimental Botany 16: 197–215.
Narimani H, M. M. Rahimi, A. Ahmadikhah and B. Vaezi. 2010. Study on the Effects
of Foliar Spray of Micronutrient on Yield and Yield Components of Durum
Wheat. Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2(6): 168-176.
Nasiri Y, S. Zehtab-Salmasi, S. Nasrullahzadeh, N. Najafi and K. Ghassemi-Golezani.
2010. Effects of Foliar Application of Micronutrients (Fe and Zn) on Flower Yield
and Essential Oil of Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.). J. Med. Plants Res.,
4(17): 1733-1737.
Nasri M, M. Khalatbari and H. Aliabadi Farahani. 2011. Zn-foliar Application Influence
on Quality and Quantity Features in Phaseolous vulgaris under Different Levels
of N and K Fertilizers. Adv.Environ. Biol., (Adv. Environ. Biol) 5(5): 839-846.
34
Papadakis, I. E., T. E. Sotiropoulos, and I. N. Therios. 2007. Mobility of iron and
manganese within two citrus genotypes after foliar applications of iron sulfate and
manganese. Journal of Plant Nutrition 30: 1385– 1396.
Ranada, P. 2015. Seaweed Additive Can Boost Rice Yield by 65% – Gov’t Scientists.
Sawan ZM, M. H. Mahmoud and A. H. El-Guibali. 2008. Influence of Potassium
Fertilization and Foliar Application of Zinc and Phosphorus on Growth, Yield
Components, Yield and Fiber Properties of Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium
barbadense L.). J. Plant Ecol., 1(4): 259-270.
Seifi Nadergholi M, M. Yarnia and K. F. Rahimzade. 2011. Effect of Zinc and Manganese
and Their Application Method on Yield and Yield Components of Common Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.CV. Khomein). Middle-East J Sci Res. 8(5): 859-865.
Zayed B.A., A.K.M. Salem and H.M. El Sharkawy. 2011. Effect of Different
Micronutrient Treatments on Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Growth and Yield Under
Saline Soil Conditions. World J. Agric.
Sci., 7(2): 179-184
Zeidan M. S., M.F. Mohamed and H.A. Hamouda. 2010. Effect of Foliar Fertilization of
Fe, Mn and Zn on Wheat Yield and Quality in Low Sandy Soils Fertility. World
J. Agric. Sci., 6(6): 696-699.
35
EXPERIMENTAL LAYOUT
RANDOMIZED COMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN
T3
T5
T6
T6
T2
T1
T4
T3
T2
T5
T4
T3
T1
T6
T4
T2
T1
T5
4m
LEGEND:
14 m
Treatments:
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 based soil analysis
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
T4 – Humus plus Foliar Fertilizer
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
Total Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Block Size - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plot Size - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alleyways between Blocks - - - - - - - - - - Alleyways between Plots - - - - - - - - - - - -
287 square meters
4 m x 20.5 m
3mx4m
1m
0.5 m
20.5 m
3m
36
Appendix Table 1. Plant Height (cm) 30 Days after Transplanting.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
64.10
64.66
66.47
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN
195.23
65.08
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
68.71
66.65
67.39
202.75
67.58
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
71.80
68.48
69.05
209.33
69.78
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
68.52
66.68
69.78
204.98
68.33
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
67.94
74.92
70.72
213.58
71.19
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
67.81
71.42
72.06
211.29
70.43
TOTAL
408.88
412.81
415.47
1237.16
MEAN
68.15
68.80
69.25
68.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
74.63
14.93
ERROR
10
47.94
4.79
TOTAL
17
126.24
C.V. = 3.19%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
3.66
1.83
0.38ns
4.10 7.56
3.11ns
ns – not significant
3.33
5.64
37
Appendix Table 2. Plant Height (cm) at 60 Days after Transplanting.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
95.83
93.27
95.60
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL
MEAN*
284.70
94.90b
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
105.90
106.18
107.97
320.05
106.68a
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
108.83
108.69
107.24
324.76
108.25a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
108.37
106.45
108.92
323.74
107.91a
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
108.29
106.99
107.91
323.19
107.73a
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
106.91
108.05
106.92
321.88
107.29a
TOTAL
634.13
629.63
634.56
1898.32
MEAN
105.69
104.94
105.76
105.46
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
406.04
81.21
ERROR
10
10.71
1.07
TOTAL
17
419.24
C.V. = 0.98%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
2.49
1.24
1.16ns
4.10 7.56
75.79**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
38
Appendix Table 3. Plant Height (cm) at Maturity.
R E P L I C A T I O N
TOTAL MEAN*
I
II
III
103.38 102.56
101.77
307.71 102.57b
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based 118.79
soil analysis)
117.42
119.21
355.42
118.47a
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer 122.96
120.75
121.10
364.81
121.60a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
119.75
118.66
119.52
357.93
119.31a
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer 118.49
117.57
119.86
355.92
118.64a
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
117.81
118.74
118.90
355.45
118.48a
TOTAL
701.18
695.70
700.36
2097.24
MEAN
116.86
115.95
116.73
116.51
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
721.17
ERROR
10
6.97
TOTAL
17
731.05
C.V. = 0.72%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
2.91
1.46
2.09ns
4.10 7.56
144.23
207.01**
3.33
0.70
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
39
Appendix Table 4. Number of Productive Tillers.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
11.30
11.40
11.00
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN*
33.70
11.23d
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
14.80
13.50
13.50
41.80
13.93c
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
22.20
22.00
22.30
66.50
22.17a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
17.30
18.00
19.10
54.40
18.13b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
17.50
18.30
18.50
54.30
18.10b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
17.80
17.80
18.10
53.70
17.90b
TOTAL
100.90
101.00
102.50
304.40
MEAN
16.82
16.83
17.08
16.91
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
217.83
43.57
ERROR
10
3.26
0.33
TOTAL
17
221.36
C.V. = 3.38%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
0.27
0.13
0.41ns
4.10 7.56
133.68**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
40
Appendix Table 5. Number of Unproductive Tillers.
R E P L I C A T I O N
TOTAL MEAN*
I
II
III
1.40
1.40
1.50
4.30
1.43a
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
0.90
0.70
0.70
2.30
0.77b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
0.40
0.50
0.20
1.10
0.37b
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
0.60
0.50
0.20
1.30
0.43b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar
Fertilizer
0.60
0.80
0.50
1.90
0.63b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
0.80
0.70
0.70
2.20
0.73b
TOTAL
4.70
4.60
3.80
13.10
MEAN
0.78
0.77
0.63
0.73
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
2.18
0.44
ERROR
10
0.14
0.01
TOTAL
17
2.40
C.V. = 16.19%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
0.08
0.04
2.92ns
4.10 7.56
31.34**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
41
Appendix Table 6. Length (cm) of Panicles.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
20.80
20.89
21.33
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN*
63.02
21.01c
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
22.67
23.53
22.79
68.99
23.00b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
28.28
26.27
26.63
81.18
27.06a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
25.25
23.79
23.89
72.93
24.31b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
24.20
23.47
24.95
72.62
24.21b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
25.24
23.08
23.87
72.19
24.06b
TOTAL
146.44
141.03
143.46
430.93
MEAN
24.41
23.51
23.91
23.94
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
58.36
11.67
ERROR
10
5.26
0.53
TOTAL
17
66.06
C.V. = 3.03%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
2.45
1.22
2.33ns
4.10 7.56
22.19**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
42
Appendix Table 7. Number of Filled Spikelets.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
92.00
104.53 106.60
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN*
303.13
101.04c
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
146.50
136.80
149.00
432.30
144.10b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
201.40
207.20
240.00
648.60
216.20a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
149.10
176.40
177.00
502.50
167.50b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
157.20
149.80
163.70
470.70
156.90b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
142.30
139.80
183.30
465.40
155.13b
TOTAL
888.50
914.53 1019.60 2822.63
MEAN
148.08
152.42
169.93
156.81
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
20747.20
4149.44
ERROR
10
1266.48
126.65
TOTAL
17
23619.48
C.V. = 7.18%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
1605.80
802.90
6.34ns
4.10 7.56
32.76**
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
3.33
5.64
43
Appendix Table 8. Number of Unfilled Spikelets.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
44.20
39.60
39.80
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN*
123.60
41.20a
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
53.70
59.00
52.60
165.30
55.10a
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
43.90
30.60
32.90
107.40
35.80b
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
53.20
50.50
37.20
140.90
46.97a
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
62.10
47.80
52.00
161.90
53.97a
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
71.40
38.10
59.10
168.60
56.20a
TOTAL
328.50
265.60
273.60
867.70
MEAN
54.75
44.27
45.60
48.21
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
1047.44
209.49
ERROR
10
569.03
56.90
TOTAL
17
2007.27
C.V. = 15.65%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
390.80
195.40
3.43ns
4.10 7.56
3.68**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 5% level
5.64
44
Appendix Table 9. Weight (g) of 1000 Seeds.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
29.90
29.40
28.45
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL MEAN*
87.75
29.25
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
32.10
32.60
28.00
92.70
30.90
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
32.35
34.00
37.00
103.35
34.45
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
32.00
32.20
31.80
96.00
32.00
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
31.10
31.40
32.70
95.20
31.73
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
31.20
30.30
31.20
92.70
30.90
TOTAL
188.65
189.90
189.15
567.70
MEAN
31.44
31.65
31.53
31.54
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
FREEDOM SQUARES
0.05
0.01
ns
REPLICATION
2
0.13
0.07
0.02
4.10
7.56
TREATMENT
5
44.34
8.87
ERROR
10
26.87
2.69
TOTAL
17
71.35
C.V. = 5.20%
3.30ns
3.33
ns – not significant
5.64
45
Appendix Table 10. Weight of Seeds per Hill.
R E P L I C A T I O N
TOTAL MEAN*
I
II
III
22.00
22.10
21.60
65.70
21.90c
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based
soil analysis)
44.70
46.90
44.81
136.41
45.47b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
59.70
60.40
62.90
183.00
61.00a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
47.70
46.90
48.20
142.80
47.60b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
42.80
54.30
44.00
141.10
47.03b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
42.80
52.00
44.30
139.10
46.37b
TOTAL
271.70
294.60
277.81
844.11
MEAN
43.28
47.10
44.30
44.90
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
2407.58
481.52
ERROR
10
91.52
9.15
TOTAL
17
2545.97
C.V. = 6.74%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
46.87
23.43
2.56ns
4.10 7.56
52.61**
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
3.33
5.64
46
Appendix Table 11. Weight of Seeds per Sampling Area.
R E P L I C A T I O N
I
II
III
1.62
1.51
1.55
TREATMENT
T1 – Control
TOTAL
MEAN*
4.68
1.56c
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1
(based soil analysis)
4.60
4.20
4.55
13.35
4.45b
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar
Fertilizer
7.24
7.25
7.20
21.69
7.23a
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar
Fertilizer
5.30
5.34
5.40
16.04
5.35b
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar
Fertilizer
4.90
5.25
6.06
16.21
5.40b
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
4.85
5.31
4.90
15.06
5.02b
28.51
28.86
29.66
87.03
4.75
4.81
4.94
TOTAL
MEAN
4.84
* Means with common letter/s are not significantly different with each other using
DMRT.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
OF
VARIATION
DEGREE
OF
FREEDOM
REPLICATION
2
TREATMENT
5
51.69
10.34
ERROR
10
0.83
0.08
TOTAL
17
52.63
C.V. = 5.95%
SUM
F – VALUES
MEAN
OF
SQUARE Computed
Tabular
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
0.12
0.06
0.70ns
4.10 7.56
124.95**
3.33
ns – not significant
** – significant at 1% level
5.64
47
Appendix Table 12. Projected Grain Yield per Hectare.
TREATMENTS
T1 – Control
Computed Yield
kilograms
tons
1.56
2600.00
T2 – 60-20-0 kg NPK ha-1 (based soil
analysis)
T3 – Carrageenan Foliar Fertilizer
4.45
7416.67
7.23
12050.00
T4 – Humus Plus Foliar Fertilizer
5.35
8911.11
T5 – Humic Acid Foliar Fertilizer
5.40
9005.56
T6 – Supreme Foliar Fertilizer
5.02
8366.67
48
Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Echague, Isabela
MEMORANDUM TO:
DR. RUFINO B. CALPATURA
College of Agriculture
Isabela State University
Echague, Isabela
Please serve as the Adviser to Ms. DIVINA G. MENDOZA’s thesis entitled
“ENHANCING THE GROWTH AND YIELD PERFORMANCE OF RICE (Oryza
sativa L.) THROUGH DIFFERENT FOLIAR FERTILIZERS”.
Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis
study.
(SGD) ARTEMIO A. MARTIN JR., Ph.D.
Department Chairman
49
Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Echague, Isabela
MEMORANDUM TO:
ENGR. VICTORIANO V. CASCO
College of Agriculture
Isabela State University
Echague, Isabela
Please serve as Member of the Advisory Committee to Ms. DIVINA G.
MENDOZA’s thesis entitled
“ENHANCING THE GROWTH AND YIELD
PERFORMANCE OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) THROUGH DIFFERENT FOLIAR
FERTILIZERS”.
Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis
study.
(SGD) ARTEMIO A. MARTIN JR., Ph.D.
Department Chairman
50
Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Echague, Isabela
MEMORANDUM TO:
DR. NATIVIDAD C. CALPATURA
College of Agriculture
Isabela State University
Echague, Isabela
Please serve as Member of the Advisory to Ms. DIVINA G. MENDOZA’s thesis
entitled “ENHANCING THE GROWTH AND YIELD PERFORMANCE OF RICE
(Oryza sativa L.) THROUGH DIFFERENT FOLIAR FERTILIZERS”
Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis
study.
(SGD) ARTEMIO A. MARTIN JR., Ph.D.
Department Chairman