Evaluation of the
application of two doses of organic fertilizer on the primary production of
centrosema (Centrosema Macrocarpum Benth) at 35 days after cutting
Published Instituto
Tecnológico Edwards Deming. Quito
- Ecuador Periodicity October - December Vol. 1, Num. 23, 2024 pp. 31-42 http://centrosuragraria.com/index.php/revista Dates of receipt Received: May 12, 2024 Approved: July 30, 2024 Correspondence author Creative Commons License Creative Commons License,
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es
Paul Andrés Márquez Tobar1
Corina Jessenia González Escobar2
William Andrés Iglesias Obando3
Ángel Fabricio Cedeño Boada4
Viviana Antonia Chávez Cedeño5
Ramon Junior Moreira Obando6
Luis Vargas Torres Technical University of Esmeraldas;
paul.marquez@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8145-276X Luis Vargas Torres
Technical University of Esmeraldas; corina.gonzalez.escobar@utelvt.edu.ec. Luis Vargas Torres Technical University of Esmeraldas;
William.iglesias@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-513X Luis Vargas Torres Technical University of Esmeraldas;
angel.cedeno@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2316-8319 Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas ; viviana.chavez@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8033-8081 Luis Vargas Torres Technical University of Esmeraldas;
ramon.moreira.obando@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5338-0105
Keywords: Primary production, Centrosema, humus, organic fertilizer
Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas; paul.marquez@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8145-276X Universidad
Técnica Luis Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas;
corina.gonzalez.escobar@utelvt.edu.ec. Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas; William.iglesias@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-513X Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas; angel.cedeno@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2316-8319 Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas ; viviana.chavez@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8033-8081 Universidad Técnica Luis
Vargas Torres de Esmeraldas; ramon.moreira.obando@utelvt.edu.ec; https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5338-0105
Palabras
clave: Producción primaria, Centrosema, humus,
fertilizante orgánico
Introduction
Livestock in Ecuador depends on grazing;
pastures, besides being the cheapest feed available for livestock feeding,
offer all the nutrients necessary for good animal performance, therefore,
everything that can be done to improve pasture production technology will
directly result in the production of meat, milk, etc.
In our environment, it has been
determined that the most economical feed for cattle production comes from
pastures, however, this is not enough to meet the productive requirements
either because of the limited protein they provide, the digestibility of nutrients,
the quality of the soils in which the pasture is developed or the seasonality
of the rains that limit the forage supply at certain times of the year.
One of the alternatives to improve
the quality of pastures is the maintenance of persistent legumes compatible
with grasses. These are a high value nutritional source, due to their protein
and calcium content, and at the same time they act as soil improvers. They can
be used in associations with grasses and in protein banks, considering the
management program and the availability of land in the production units (Benitez et al. 2012).
One practice to increase forage
yields is the use of fertilizers, as they provide nutrients that crops need,
and with fertilizers, more food and cash crops can be produced, and of better
quality. Therefore, the low fertility of soils that have been overexploited can
be improved.
Methodology
The research work was carried out in the Dairy Cattle program, Faculty
of Agricultural Sciences, Animal Husbandry Engineering, Technical University
"Luis Vargas Torres" of Esmeraldas, San Mateo parish, Canton
Esmeraldas, Ecuador at an altitude of 20 m.a.s.l. and a flat topography. The
average annual temperature is 28 ºC, it has an average annual rainfall of
1000mm, an annual relative humidity of 85% of soil with clay and clay loam
texture with a pH between 5.8-6.1.
§ ½ kg of
Centrosema macrocarpum seed
One plot of 16m x 10m (160
Table 1.
Distribution of plot blocks with their treatments.
|
Treatment 1 NKP 000 |
Treatment 2 NKP 275g |
Treatment 3 NKP 375g |
|
Treatment 2 NKP 275g |
Treatment 1
NKP
375g |
Treatment 2 NKP 000 |
|
Treatment 3 NKP 375g |
Treatment 3 NKP 000 |
Treatment 3 NKP 275g |
Source:
Author.
A completely randomized design with 3 treatments and 3 replications and
Tukey's comparison test (p<0.05) were used to measure statistical
differences among treatments.
Land preparation: One pass of harrow and one pass of
plow was made, then 150 ml of amine and 50 ml of herbicide were applied in 20
liters of water prior to the days of land division and 8 days prior to
planting.
Seed preparation: Centrosema seeds were subjected to
15 days in the nursery for germination and plant hatching.
Treatments: 3 rectangular plots were established
in each management system each plot with dimensions of 6m long and 4m wide.
Transplanting: Once the plants had completed their
development cycle in the seedbed, they were transplanted in the established
plots, with 27 Centrosema seedlings for each plot, where each 9 plants were
treated with different levels of organic fertilizer, for a total of 81
established plants.
·
Plant height at 35 days: This variable was calculated as the average of 10 plants selected in
each treatment and measured from the base of the plant to the apex of the
highest leaf of the plant.
·
Stem thickness: This variable was calculated from 10 plants selected from each treatment
and was taken with the aid of a caliper.
·
Biomass production: This variable was measured at 35 days with the help of a 1m2 quadrant,
where the forage was cut and weighed.
·
Distance between nodes: Plants were taken at random by measuring the distance between nodes with
a caliper, 1 plant per treatment and repetition was taken as a reference.
Results
For the
plant height variable, no statistical differences were observed when applying
the treatments, where the greatest height was observed in T2 (275 g of solid
earthworm humus), with 1.09 meters and the least height with T1 (0 g of
earthworm humus) with 0.69 m, as shown in Table 3.
Table 2
Average plant height
|
PLANT HEIGHT (m) |
|||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
EE |
||||
|
0,69 a |
1,09 a |
1,04 a |
1,44 |
||||
|
Means with a common letter are not significantly
different (p > 0.05). |
|||||||
|
E.E: Experimental Error |
|||||||
Castro (2018), who when evaluating the height of the legume
centrosema macrocarpum at 30 days of age, obtained an average height of 0.38 m,
being this value LESS than T2 that reached a height of 1.088m on
average, the differences found are probably due to the fact that (Castro, 2018)
applied phosphoric rock and possible factors that affected each other, the two
investigations were exposed to different climatic conditions.
In the research conducted by Cabrera (2014), he mentions that
at week 10 the height of the plant reached 0.60 m, as a result of the
application of poultry manure, this value being LOWER than T2 which
obtained a height of 1.088m at 35 days of the research, this is due to the
amount of organic fertilizer where an amount of 275g was applied (solid
earthworm humus) and the forms of application that were handled in the research
were totally different, so this research could overcome in plant height. The
differences achieved are probably due to the fact that the worm castings help
rooting and stimulation of root growth. Tenecela (2012).
Hidalgo et al. (2017), indicates that at 12 weeks of age the
greatest height of the plants was 0.96m, this is due to the effects of the application of nitrogen and
sulfur treatment, a value SIMILAR to that obtained in the present
investigation, which reached a height of 1.088m at T2, showing that the
difference in the days to be evaluated is (12 weeks vs. 5 weeks).
Guanoluisa (2015), presented a height of 0.83 m at 30 days of
age, being this value LESS
than the result obtained in the present investigation which reached a
height of 1.088 m in T2 at 35 days of cutting,
the differences found are probably due to the fact that Guanoluisa (2015)
conducted his study in the winter season.
For
stem thickness, highly significant differences were observed when using
different levels of earthworm humus, where the best response was observed in
T1, with 0.25 cm and the greatest thickness in T2 with 0.4 cm as shown in Table
4.
Table 3
Average stem thickness
|
THICKNESS OF
SIZE (cm) |
|||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
EE |
||||
|
0,25 b |
0,4 a |
|
0,36 ab |
0,03 |
|||
|
Means with a common letter are not significantly
different (p > 0.05). |
|||||||
|
E.E: Experimental Error |
|||||||
Razz & Faria (1996), in their research on phytological
characteristics of C. macrocarpum indicated that the stem thickness is 0.25 cm,
being this value EQUAL to T1 with 0.25
cm, which was obtained after 35 days of this research.
Vallejo (2022); in his botanical results of centrosema
indicated that it had 0.39cm, being this value HIGHER than the data
obtained in T1 of this research that reached a stem thickness of 0.25 cm, this
is due to the fact that the research of Vallejo (2022) influenced the factors
climate and age at the time of cutting.
Alomoto (2017), indicated that the stem diameter in his
research was 0.44cm, being this value HIGHER than the results obtained
in this research which reached an average of 0.25cm in T1 at 35 days, this is
due to the difference in amounts of fertilizer application and the form of
application that was handled in the research of Alomoto (2017).
The
statistical analysis of the variable distance between nodes recorded highly
significant differences, where the best responses were obtained with treatments
T2 and T3 with 33.9 cm and 31.9 cm respectively, and the smallest distance was
observed in T1 without the application of humus with 25.76 cm as shown in Table
5.
Table 4.
Average distance between nodes
|
DISTANCE/NUDES
(cm) |
||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
|
EE |
||
|
25,76 b |
33,9 a |
31,9 a |
1,52 |
|||
|
Means with a common letter are not significantly
different (p > 0.05). |
||||||
|
E.E: Experimental Error |
||||||
Guanoluisa (2015), indicates that the average distance between nodes was
18.10 cm, being this value LESS than the data obtained in T2 of this
research that reached a distance between nodes of 33.90 cm, this is due to the
fact that in the research of Guanoluisa (2015) no fertilizer was applied.
In the research conducted by Murillo (2014), he
indicated that the distance between nodes was 28.08 cm, being this value LESS
than T2 that obtained a distance between nodes of 33.90cm at 35 days of the
research, this is due to the amount of organic fertilizer with an application
of 275g (solid earthworm humus) and the form of application that was handled in
the research were different.
For the
biomass variable, statistical differences were observed when applying the
treatments, where the highest production was observed in T2 with 0.59 kg/m2
and the lowest value was presented with T1 with 0.40 kg as shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Average biomass production
|
BIOMASS PRODUCTION
Kg/FV |
|||||||
|
T1 |
|
T2 |
|
T3 |
|
EE |
|
|
0,4 b |
0,59 a |
0,45 ab |
|
0,05 |
|||
|
Means with a common letter are not significantly
different (p > 0.05). |
|||||||
|
E.E: Experimental Error |
|||||||
The research conducted by
Maiquiza & Rios (2022), in their study mentions that at 35 days reached
0.10kg/m2 on average in green
matter yield, being this value LOWER than T2 with 0.59kg/m2 , which was obtained at 35 days of this
research, this is due to the difference in amounts of fertilizer application,
the forms of application that were handled in the research of Maiquiza &
Rios (2022).
Cabrera (2014), in his study mentions that at 18 weeks
he reached (12.47 a) average green matter yield, being this value HIGHER than
T2 with 0.59kg/m2 , showing
that, the production of this research is affected by the days to be evaluated,
This is because the research of Cabrera (2014) was conducted at 18
weeks, ie (18 vs 5) weeks.
Guanoluisa (2015), indicates that the green matter
yield obtained in his research, was 0.148kg/m2 on average at 30 days, being this value LOWER
than the results obtained in this research, which reaches an average of
0.59kg/m2 in T2 at 35 days of cutting, this is because
in the research of Guanoluisa (2015), no fertilizer was applied.
Yauri (2019), indicates that the green matter yield
obtained in his research, was 0.37 kg/m2 , being this value LESS than
the data obtained from this research that achieves a green matter yield of
0.59kg/m2 at T2, this is
because Yauri's (2019) research was conducted in degraded soils and low levels
of organic matter.
Conclusions
From the results obtained in the research, analysis and interpretation,
it is concluded that:
When evaluating the plant height of Centrosema
(macrocarpum benth) at 35 days of age, the best results were obtained in
T2, with an average of 1.09 m, which was given 275 g of solid earthworm humus.
Stem thickness measurements of the treatments
were determined, in terms of numerical values T2 and T3 were superior in
numerical values, where T1 0.25cm is the best because it does not require
excess fiber.
When
evaluating the distance between nodes in the Centrosema legume (Centrosema
Macrocarpum Benth), a better result was obtained in T1 with 25.76 cm
distance, as opposed to T2 33.9 cm and T3 31.9 cm, being this a physiological
indicator of improvement, making the plant species not to suffer stress
situations.
Regarding biomass production, similar results
were obtained between T1 with 0.40 kg/m2 and T3 with 0.45 kg/m2 , unlike T2
which was higher, reaching 0.59 kg/m2 . In this variable there were
effects produced by the proximity to the fence of the experimental area, which
contained tree species that produced shade on T3.
References
Alomoto, M. A. (2017). Agronomic
behavior of grasses and legumes. La Mana: Technical University of
Cotopaxi.
Angel, J. G. (2014). Vermiculture
(Address). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6p9t_d18M
Benitez, E., Sanchez, E., Jumbo, D.,
& Chamba, H. (2012). Promising grasses and legumes for livestock
feeding in the southern Amazon of Ecuador.
Blanco, M. (2015). Vermiculture
2. Retrieved from https://es.slideshare.net/Chemaio/lombricultura-2
Cabrera, R. D. (2014). Effect of
the application of different types of organic fertilizers in the establishment
phase of Centrosema macrocarpumen degraded soils of Yurimaguas. Retrieved
from https://repositorio.unapiquitos.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12737/3834
Camacho, S. M. (April 14, 2021). Tecnicrop. Retrieved from Humus de
lombriz, beneficios para el suelo:
https://tecnicrop.com/blog/humus-de-lombriz-beneficios-para-el-suelo#:~:text=Permite%20solubilizar%2C%20fijar%20y%20retener,el%20aire%20y%20la%20planta.
Carrero, J. (March 16, 2012). Importance
of forage legumes. Retrieved from Good Animal Production:
https://buenaproduccionanimal.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/importancia-de-las-leguminosas-forrajeras-2/#respond
Castro, G. J. (2018). USE OF
THREE SPECIES OF LEGUME VEGETABLES Centrosema macrocarpum. Peru: UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA DE LA SELVA.
Dervin (2015). Importance of legumes in ruminant diets.
Retrieved from
https://www.engormix.com/ganaderia-leche/articulos/importancia-leguminosas-alimentacion-rumiantes-t32694.htm
FAO. (2002). Fertilizers and
their use. Paris: IFA.
Gonzalez, K. (October 19, 2019). Info
grasses and forages. Retrieved from Centrosema macrocarpum Benth Technical
Data Sheet:
https://infopastosyforrajes.com/leguminosas/centrosema-macrocarpum-benth/
González, R., Anzules, A., Vera, A., & Riera, L. (1997).
Manual of tropical pastures for the
Ecuadorian Amazon.
Napo: INIAP.
Guanoluisa, J. J. (2015). Adaptation
and nutritional value of legumes. La
Mana: Technical University of Cotopaxi.
Hidalgo, H. B., González, J. C., Guamán, H. C., & Luis
Wilfrido Gusqui Vilema, D. G. (2017). Centrosema growth under nitrogen plus
sulfur fertilization. Ecuador - Santo Domingo: Universidad Tecnologica
Equinoccial. Retrieved from Repository:
https://repositorio.unsm.edu.pe/handle/11458/3597
Inca (2000). Effect of legume
residues on earthworm (Eisenia foetida) population stages and biological
characterization of humus. Havana Cuba: Tropical Crops.
Leon, R., Bonifaz, N., &
Gutierrez, F. (2021). Sowing and Production of Pastures. Institutional
Repository. Salesian Polytechnic University.
Maiquiza, J. D., & Rios, C. L.
(2022). Pasture production with organic fertilizer. La Mana: Technical
University of Cotopaxi.
Murillo, R. A. (2014). Rhizospheres
of gramineous and leguminous associations of livestock interest. Los Rios: University of Guayaquil.
Nostoc biothec. (2023). Obtenido de
https://www.nostoc.es/humus-de-lombriz-solido-que-es-fabricacion-y-beneficios/#:~:text=y%20%C3%BAnicas%20posee.-,%C2%BFQu%C3%A9%20es%20el%20Humus%20de%20Lombriz%20s%C3%B3lido%3F,el%20tracto%20digestivo%20de%20%C3%A9stas.
Razz, R., & Faria, N. (1996). Botanical
characteristics of centrosema. La Cañada:
FONAIAP.
Rolando, C. (1978). Forage legumes for the Ecuadorian
tropics. Pichilingue: INIAP.
Rolando, C. (1978). Forage legumes
for the Ecuadorian tropics (Pichilingue Experimental Station). Technical
Data Sheet. National Institute of Agricultural Research.
Sanchez, A. (2006). Legumes as
forage potential in bovine feeding. Engormix, 1-4.
Tenecela, J. (2012). Production
of earthworm humus through the use and management of organic waste.
Cuenca: University of Cuenca.
Tropical Forage (2020). Centrosema
macrocarpum. Retrieved from
https://www.tropicalforages.info/text/entities/centrosema_macrocarpum.htm
Ulibarry, P. G. (2019). Environmental
consequences of fertilizer application. Chile:
BCN.
Vallejo, A. (2022). Foliar analysis. Centrosema
macrocarpum, 1-6.
Yauri, C. J. (2019). Use of three legumes Canavalia
ensiformes,centrosema macrocarpun, pueraria in soil recovery. Peru:
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA DE LA SELVA.
Yepez, A. E. (2018). ADAPTATION
OF TWO FORAGE LEGUME VEGETABLES (Arachis pintoi and Centrosema. Ibarra:
PUCE.
ZS Spain (2020). Agricultural
Fertilizers. Retrieved from
https://www.zschimmer-schwarz.es/noticias/fertilizantes-agricolas-tipos-de-fertilizantes-usos-y-beneficios/