| Literature DB >> 35720159 |
Yohannes Gelaye1, Esubalew Tadele1.
Abstract
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) is a popular leafy vegetable in Ethiopia. However, the production and productivity of the crop are often constrained by several factors, such as deprived soil fertility and poor agronomic practices. Thus, a study was conducted in two locations in the East Gojjam zone of northwestern Ethiopia during the 2021/2022 cropping season to evaluate the effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates on the growth and yield components of cabbage. Three numbers of cabbage buds (1, 2, and 3) and four levels of farmyard manure (0, 2.5, 5, and 7.5 tons/ha) were laid out in a 3 × 4 factorial arrangement in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Data on yield and quality were recorded and subjected to analysis of variance. The results revealed that growth, yield, and quality components were significantly influenced by the interaction effects of bud number and farmyard manure fertilizer rate. In both locations, the highest marketable (41.8 tons/ha) and total (43.1 tons/ha) yields were attained from the combined effects of 2 buds of cabbage and 5 tons of farmyard manure. The highest medium-sized heads (31.8 tons/ha) of cabbage were also recorded from the combination of 2 buds with 5 tons of farmyard manure. Moreover, the combined effects of 2 buds and 5 tons of farmyard manure showed the highest net benefit (5,679.03 US dollars) over the other treatments at the two locations. Hence, based on the results of the study, the combination of 2 buds and 5 tons of farmyard manure fertilizer can be suggested for the economical production of cabbage in northwestern Ethiopia and similar environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720159 PMCID: PMC9203243 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2108401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Mean air temperature, monthly rainfall, soil temperature, relative humidity, and soil moisture in the Sinan and Debre Markos areas.
| Experimental sites | Cropping season months | Mean monthly rainfall (mm) | Mean air temperature (°C) | Soil temperature (°C) | Relative humidity (%) | Soil moisture (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | ||||||
| Lo1 | June | 165 | 14.30 | 15.5 | 18.10 | 89.02 | 28.12 |
| July | 397 | 14.35 | 15.29 | 17.32 | 86.14 | 25.34 | |
| August | 143 | 14.29 | 15.45 | 17.97 | 87.02 | 27.95 | |
| September | 145 | 14.77 | 16.05 | 18.40 | 80.04 | 51.58 | |
| October | 45 | 14.53 | 15.75 | 18.19 | 75.29 | 36.38 | |
|
| |||||||
| Lo2 | June | 14.27 | 15.4 | 91.4 | |||
| July | 14.30 | 15.27 | 88.7 | ||||
| August | 14.23 | 15.01 | 87.3 | ||||
| September | 14.09 | 16.02 | 80.1 | ||||
| October | 14.31 | 15.70 | 77.8 | ||||
Source: Debre Markos University Choke Watershed project office, 2021.
Soil characteristics of experimental sites.
| Locations | Parameters | Amount present | Classifications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lo1 | Soil texture | 14:64:22 (sand, clay, silt %) | Clay |
| pH | 5.2 | Acidic | |
| CEC (cation exchange capacity) | 20.61 cmol/kg | Medium | |
|
| |||
| Lo2 | Soil texture | 12:56:20 | Clay |
| pH | 5.5 | Acidic | |
| CEC | 23.54 cmol/kg | Medium | |
Source: Debre Markos University Choke Watershed project office, 2021.
Figure 1Interaction effects of bud numbers and farmyard manure on cabbage phenology.
Figure 2Plant height as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Figure 3Head weight as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Figure 4Marketable yield as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Figure 5Total yield as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Figure 6Compactness index as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Some yield and quality components of head cabbage as influenced by the interaction effects of bud number and farmyard manure fertilizer.
| Location | Bud | FYM | S | UY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lo1 + Lo2 | 1 | 0 | 4.5ab | 4.5ab |
| 2.5 | 1.5bc | 1.5bc | ||
| 5 | 1.4bc | 1.6bc | ||
| 7.5 | 1.7bc | 1.7bc | ||
| 2 | 0 | 5.1a | 5.1a | |
| 2.5 | 1.4bc | 1.4bc | ||
| 5 | 1.5bc | 1.3bc | ||
| 7.5 | 1.3bc | 1.3bc | ||
| 3 | 0 | 6.3a | 6.3a | |
| 2.5 | 1.6bc | 1.6bc | ||
| 5 | 1.7bc | 1.7bc | ||
| 7.5 | 1.7bc | 1.7bc | ||
|
| ||||
| LSD (1%) | 2.5 | 2.4 | ||
|
| ||||
| CV (%) | 39.4 | 38.1 | ||
LSD = least significant difference and CV (%) = coefficient of variation in percent.
Mean squares values for the combined analysis of growth, yield, and quality components of head cabbage.
| Factors | df | Parameters | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH | Hw | CTM | MY | UY | TY | HI | HM | S | M | L | ||
| Lo | 1 | 253.5 | 937,308.7ns | 1.41ns | 118.86ns | 0.60ns | 102.60ns | 74.42ns | 58,527.61ns | 0.68ns | 32.58ns | 24.50ns |
| Bud | 2 | 114.1 | 2,118,526 | 1.23 | 485.89 | 2.11ns | 448.02 | 147.34 | 371.46ns | 2.17ns | 267.70 | 31.92 |
| FYM | 3 | 521.2 | 7,728,043ns | 3.65 | 1,383.67 | 64.05ns | 921.85 | 690.46 | 820.29ns | 64.28 | 714.52 | 115.21 |
| Lo | 2 | 3.8ns | 5,013.847ns | 0.01 | 1.04ns | 0.06ns | 0.89ns | 1.65ns | 90.54 | 0.03ns | 18.06 | 13.28ns |
| Lo | 3 | 5.4ns | 39,590.24ns | 0.01 | 3.82ns | 0.66ns | 7.07ns | 1.66ns | 60.81 | 0.61ns | 11.33ns | 16.33ns |
| B | 6 | 86.7 | 2,568,926ns | 1.21 | 354.25 | 1.18 | 352.66 | 144.32 | 358.05ns | 1.12 | 219.31 | 14.76 |
| Lo | 6 | 2.8ns | 3,228.514ns | 0.03ns | 3.99ns | 0.62ns | 6.23ns | 2.52ns | 86.05 | 0.69ns | 8.27ns | 16.19ns |
| Residuals | 48 | 7.8 | 208,471.5 | 0.05 | 25.66 | 1.26 | 27.74 | 25.46 | 22.87 | 1.31 | 14.53 | 3.70 |
df = degree of freedom, Lo = Location, PH = plant height, Hw = head weight, CTM = Compactness index, MY = marketable yield, UY = marketable yield, TY = total yield, HI = head initiation, HM = head maturity, S = small-sized heads, M = medium-sized heads, L = large sized heads, and ns = no significant difference. , , and = indicated significant, highly significant, and very highly difference, respectively.
Figure 7Medium-sized heads as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Figure 8Large-sized heads as influenced by the interaction effect of bud numbers and farmyard manure fertilizer rates.
Marginal rate of return (MRR) of cabbage yield as affected by bud number and farmyard manure fertilizer rates in northwestern Ethiopia.
| Treatment combinations | TVC (USD/ha) | MC (USD/ha) | NB (USD/ha) | MB (USD/ha) | MRR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:0 | 0.00 | 484.61 | |||
| 1:2.5 | 52.88 | 52.88 | 2,176.34 | 1,691.73 | 61.5 |
| 2:2.5 | 55.76 | 2.88 | 2,519.61 | 343.26 | 228.8 |
| 2:5 | 108.65 | 52.88 | 5,679.03 | 3,159.42 | 114.8 |
MC = marginal cost, MB = marginal benefit, and MRR = marginal rate of return.
Dominance analysis for cabbage yield as affected by bud number and farmyard manure fertilizer rates in northwestern Ethiopia.
| Bud + FYM | TVC (USD/ha) | NB (USD/ha) | B:C ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:0 | 0.00 | 484.61 | – |
| 2:0 | 2.88 | 384.80D | 133.6 |
| 3:0 | 3.84 | 286.92D | 74.7 |
| 1:2.5 | 52.88 | 2,176.34 | 41.15 |
| 2:2.5 | 55.76 | 2,519.61 | 45.17 |
| 3:2.5 | 56.73 | 1,895.57D | 33.41 |
| 1:5 | 105.76 | 2,289.61D | 21.64 |
| 2:5 | 108.65 | 5,679.03 | 52.26 |
| 3:5 | 109.61 | 1,662.69D | 15.16 |
| 1:7.5 | 158.65 | 1,364.42D | 8.6 |
| 2:7.5 | 161.53 | 1,929.23D | 11.94 |
| 3:7.5 | 162.5 | 2,232.88D | 13.74 |
B:C = Benefit-cost ratio.
Economic analysis of cabbage as influenced by bud number and farmyard manure fertilizer rate.
| Lo | Bud + FYM | IC per ha FYM (USD) | AC (USD) | LC for mgt (USD) | TVC (USD) | MY (tons/ha) | ADY (tons/ha) | GI | NB | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lo1 and Lo2 | 1:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.5 | 3.15 | 484.61 | 484.61 | 10 |
| 1:2.5 | 48.07 | 4.80 | 0.00 | 52.88 | 16.1 | 14.49 | 2,229.23 | 2,176.34 | 5 | |
| 1:5 | 96.14 | 9.6 | 0.00 | 105.76 | 17.3 | 15.57 | 2,395.38 | 2,289.61 | 3 | |
| 1:7.5 | 144.23 | 14.42 | 0.00 | 1,158.65 | 11.0 | 9.9 | 1,523.07 | 1,364.42 | 9 | |
| 2:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.88 | 2.88 | 2.8 | 2.52 | 387.69 | 384.80 | 11 | |
| 2:2.5 | 48.07 | 4.80 | 2.88 | 55.76 | 18.6 | 16.74 | 2,575.38 | 2,519.61 | 2 | |
| 2:5 | 96.14 | 9.6 | 2.88 | 108.65 | 41.8 | 37.62 | 5,787.69 | 5,679.03 | 1 | |
| 2:7.5 | 144.23 | 14.42 | 2.88 | 161.53 | 15.1 | 13.59 | 2,090.76 | 1,929.23 | 6 | |
| 3:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.84 | 3.84 | 2.1 | 1.89 | 290.76 | 286.92 | 12 | |
| 3:2.5 | 48.07 | 4.80 | 3.84 | 56.73 | 14.1 | 12.69 | 1,952.30 | 1,895.57 | 7 | |
| 3:5 | 96.14 | 9.6 | 3.84 | 109.61 | 12.8 | 11.52 | 1,772.30 | 1,662.69 | 8 | |
| 3:7.5 | 144.23 | 14.42 | 3.84 | 162.5 | 17.3 | 15.57 | 2,395.38 | 2,232.88 | 4 |
L = locations, IC = input cost, AC = application cost, LC = labor cost, TVC = total variable cost, MY = marketable yield, ADY = adjusted yield, GI = gross income, NB = net benefit, and USD = US dollars.