NARRDS Form No.

1
CY 2008
For us of Researcher

ILOCOS AGRICUlTURE RESOURCES RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT CONSORT! UM

AGENCY IN-HOUSE REVIEW

COMPlETED PROJECT

A. BASIC INFORMATION

1. Program Title:

a. Project Title: ON-FARM TRIAL ON THE USE OF BIO-FERTILIZERS

ON INBRED AND HYBRID RICE

b. Study Title:

2. Researcher(s): Orine, M.C., Franco, EJ.A., Pablo, M.B. and Pereras, L. et. al.

3. Implementing Agency/Station

a. Lead Agency: Department of Agriculture

b. Cooperating Agency (ies):
• City Government of Laoag
• Municipal Government of Sudipen
• Municipal Government of Tagudin
• Provincial Government of !locos Norte
• Provincial Government of llocos Sur
• Provincial Government of La Union
c. Project Site (s): Bengcag, Laoag City, llocos Norte
Lacong, Tagudin, llocos Sur
Poblacion, Sudipen, La Union

4. Funding Agency: DA-RFU I (ILIARC)

 ON-FARM TRIAL ON THE USE OF Blo-FERTIUZERS ON
INBRED AND HYBRID RICE

(A Pooled Report}

Rationale

Inorganic fertilizer constitutes the major cost in rice production. However, the ever increasing
price of chemical fertilizers remains beyond our control and are becoming unaffordable, hence, affecting
the livelihood and income of farmers especially the marginal ones. Due to its high cost, development of
new technologies are introduced to find means to reduce cost but at profitable production.

Many are becoming aware of the potential of microbial fertilizers as alternative nutrient source
that can provide some of the N requirement for rice and corn. Microbial-based fertilizers can replace up
to 50% of the total amount of N requirement of rice.

Objectfves

1. To determine the effectiveness of microbial fertilizers on the growth and yield performance of
inbred and hybrid rice;

2. To determine the percentage of N reduction when using microbial fertilizer; and

3. To determine the profitability of using microbial fertilizer.

Methodology

The set-up was conducted in three locations located in three provinces namely laoag City, llocos
Norte, Tagudin, llocos Sur and Sudipen, La Union during the dry season (December 2007 to April 2008).
It was laid out in strip plot design with three replications where in Horizontal factor is the bio-fertmzer
while the Vertical factor is the nitrogen levels. The treatment plots measuring 4m x 4m (16m 2) were
partitioned with levees to prevent diffusion of fertilizer to other treatments. Required water level was
maintained throughout the growth and development of the crops.

The seedlings were raised through wetbed method. Seeds were soaked in clean water for 24
hours and incubated for 36 to 48 hours. The pre-germinated seeds were then sown in 400 m 2 seedbed
at the rate of 40 kgs/ha.

The area was thoroughly prepared one week before transplanting to allow biomass
decomposition. It was puddled through conventional plowing and harrowing for better soil tilth. The
slurry method was followed in applying the bio-fertilizers. Root dipping of seedlings was done before
transplanting.

Transplanting was done 25 days after sowing. Straight row method of planting at one to two
seedlings per hill was followed at a distance of 20 em between hills and 20 em between rows. Basal and
topdressing application was based on the computed fertilizer rate and soil analysis recommendation for
each treatment. All cultural management practices on rice were followed.

Treatments were as follows:

Horizontal Factor: Microbial Fertilizer

M1- without Microbial Fertilizer

M2- with Bio-N
M3- with Vita T-N
M4- with Bio Con

Vertical Factor: % N requirement (based on soil analysis)

51-100% N requirement
52- 75% N requirement
53 -50% N requirement
54- recommended Rate (90-21-21)

Data Gathered

Growth and Yield Performance

Plant Height (em). This was measured at maturity using 10 random hills per pfot. Measurement was
made from the base of the plant to the tip of the tallest leaf using a meter stick.

Tiller Count. Tiller count was taken from 10 random hills per plot at 45 OAT. Likewise, number of
productive tillers per plot was determined at harvest time.

Panicle Count. The number of panicles from 10 sample hills per plot was counted and this represented
the number of productive tillers.

Panicle Length (em). The panicle length was randomly taken from 10 panicles at harvest by measuring
from the neck nose up to the tip of the uppermost grain using a foot ruler. These are middle panicle of
the 10 sample hills per plot.

Filled and Unfilled Grains. These were taken from 10 panicles of the 10 sample plants from each.

Weight of 1,000 Seeds (g). This was based on the weight of 1,000 grains that were taken from the
threshed grains of the 10 sample hills.

Fodder Yield (t/ha). This was taken from the harvest area (4 m 2 ) after threshing and computed using the
following formula:

Fodder yield = weight of straw/crop cut x 10

crop cut area
Grain yield (t/ha) was based on the yield taken from the harvest area and projected in hectare basis
using the following formula:

Computed yield =yield/crop cut x 10 x 100- MC

crop cut area 86

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

HYBRID

The hybrid variety Bigante was used in evaluating the response of hybrid rice to the application
of different bio-fertilizer in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Four rates were used being the result
of the soil analysis (considered as 100% N" Treatment) as the anchor in computing the reduced nitrogen
rate. The Regional Fertilizer Recommendations for hybrid rice (9Q-21-21) was also used.

Agronomic Characters

Five agronomic characters were considered namely: 1) Grain Yield (t/ha); 2) Spikelet Fertility
(%); 3) Panicle Length (em); 4) Number of Productive Tillers; and 5) Plant Height was considered in the
analysis. Table 1 shows the summary of the pooled ANOVA. The differences of the locations were
apparent in all the characters considered except that of the number of productive tillers. This was
expected as the two locations have two distinct soil textures being light in Sudipen, La Union and heavy
in Tagudin, !locos Sur.

The effect of the different bio-fertilizers applied was very apparent in the grain yield of hybrid as
wen as spikelet fertility, a closely associated character to yield. On the average, Vital-N appeared to be
the best among the three bio-fertilizers tested (Table 2). The other two (Bio-N and Biocon) however,
also produced yield better than the one purely inorganic fertilized treatment.

Mtrogen was the element that largely determines the productivity of the hybrid rice. Decreasing
the amount of N by 25% would reduce yield as much as 20%. The decrease in N was not necessarily
linear with the reduction of grain yield. Decreasing N by 50% would reduce yield by 13%.

No character manifested significant interaction for the location, Bio-fertffizers and Mtrogen
rates. Interactions between bio-fertilizers and nitrogen were apparent only in Plant Height and Spikelet
Fertility.

The reduction in the amount of Nitrogen coufd not be furry compensated with the addition of
bio-fertilizers and would not restore yield levels attained when N is not limiting and 100% available.
However, the increase in yield obtained from the purely inorganic fertilized rice plants to those fertilized
with a combination of inorganic and bio-fertilizers is encouraging considering the skyrocketing cost of
inorganic fertmzers.
Cost and Return Analysis

Cost and Return Analysis indicates that a decrease in the amount of N applied would correspond
to a decrease in the Net Profit Cost Ratio (NPCR) which in turn increase the cost of producing a kilogram
of paray. The use of bio-fertirizer then is an added cost of production, but the corresponding increase in
yield adequately compensates such additional cost.

Table . Basic information of the experimental areas.

Location Soil Texture pH OM Content p K
Hybrid Set-ups
• Tagudin, llocos Sur Heavy 6.0 1.5 12.0 84.0
Inbred Set-ups
• Laoag, City, llocos Norte Medium 6.7 1.5 15.3 45.6
• Sudipen, La Union Light 6.0 2.0 16.0 56.0

Table . Pooled AN OVA of the different agronomic characters of hybrid rice.

Source of Grain Yield Panicle Length Plant Height Number of Spikelet
Variation (t/ha) (em) (em) Productive Tillers Fertility(%)
Location (L) * ** ** ns **
Bio-fertilizer (A) ** ns ns ns *
Nitrogen (B) ** ** ** ** **
LxA ns * ns ns *
LxB ** ns ** ns **
AxB ns ns * ns **
LxAXB ns ns ns ns ns
cv (a)% 5.435 3.775 2.950 12.690 3.052
cv (b)% 5.244 3.709 2.254 12.428 3.245
**-Highly significant
* -Significant
ns - Not Significant

Table . Pooled ANOVA of different agronomic characters of inbred rice.

Soureeof Weight of Grain Yield Panicle Plant Number of Spikelet
Variation 1,000 Seeds (g) (t/ha) Length (em) Height (em) Tillers Fertility (%)
Location (L) ** ns ** ** ns *
Bio-fertilizer (A) ns ns ns ns ns *
Nitrogen (B) ** ** ns ** * ns
LxA ns ns ns ns ns *
LxB ns ** ns ** ** ns
AxB ns ns ns ns ns ns
LxAX B ns ns ns * ns ns
cv (a)% 5.490 14.296 6.488 3.962 17.852 2.787
cv (b)% 4.031 10.784 3.431 2.076 9.117 4.026
**- Highly significant
* -Significant
ns- Not Significant
Table 2.Grain Yield (t/ha) of hybrid rice (var Bigante) applied with different rates of nitrogen used in combination with different brands of bio-
fertilizers conducted durin~ the dry season of 2008.
Fertilizer Rates %N No %Yield +Bio %Yield +Vital %Yield +Bio %Yield Average** %Yield
Reduction Microbia Reductio N Reduction N Reduction con Reduction (Among Reduction
I nfrom from SA frotn SA from SA Fertilizer Rates) from SA
SA
Soil Analysis (SA)
140~60-30 - 8.38 - 8.91 - 10.12 - 9.08 - 9.12 a
105~60-30 25 6.91 (18.00} 7.61 (15.00) ?.47 (26.00) 7.30 (20.00) 7.93 c (13.00)
70~60-30 50 7.47 (11.00) 7.88 (12.00) 8.52 (16.00) 7.83 (14.00) 7.32 d (20.00)

Recommended Rate (RR)

90~21-21 36 7.98 8.57 8.9 8.45 8.48 b
Average (Among 7.68c 8.24 b 8.76a 8.16 b
bio-fertilizers)
**
INBRED

The hybrid variety PSB-Rc 82 was used in evaluating the response of inbred rice to the
application of different bio-fertilizers in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Four rates were used
being the result of the soil analysis (considered as 100% N Treatment} as the anchor in computing the
reduced nitrogen rate. The Regional Fertilizer Recommendations for hybrid rice (90-21-21) was also
used.

Agronomic Olaracters

Five agronomic characters were considered namely: 1) Grain Yield (t/ha); 2) Spikelet Fertility
(%); 3) Panicle Length (em); 4) Number of Productive Tillers; 5) Weight of 1,000 Seeds (g); and 6) Plant
Height was considered in the analysis. Tabfe 4 shows the summary of the poofed ANOVA. The
differences of the two locations were apparent in all the characters considered except that of the
number of productive tillers and grain yield. This was expected as the two locations have two distinct
soil textures being light in Sudipen, La Union and medium in Laoag City, Jlocos Norte.

The effect of the different bio-fertilizers applied was apparent only with that of spikelet fertility
(%), a closely associated character to yield. Apparently, inbred rice is less responsive to the application
of bio-fertilizers as its effect is manifested only when N level was too limiting at 50% reduction. Like in
the hybrid, nitrogen was the element that largely determines the productivity of the inbred rice but the
inbred have better toleranc~ to the reduction in the amount of N.

Plant height was the only character that manifested significant interactions for the Location, Bio-
fertilizers and Nitrogen rates. There appeared no significant interactions between bio-fertilizer and
nitrogen.

Cost and Return Analysis

Cost and Return Analysis indicates that there was no consistent trend on the effect of bfo-
fertilizers as supplement of Nitrogen.

The Net Profit Cost Ratio in inbred when it comes to the affect of bio-fertilizers as supplement to
inorganic N was far behind compared to hybrid. The cost of producing a kilogram of palay is doubled in
the inbreds.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of bio-fertilizers in reducing the use of
inorganic N for hybrid and inbred rice: The highlights of the study are the following:

1) Hybrid rice is more responsive than their inbred counte~parts to the use of bio-fertilizers;

2) Cost of production in inbred is doubled compared to the cost of hybrid;

3) Vitai-N was found best having the best response in terms of grain yield among the three bio-
fertilizers evaluated; and
 4) Light textured soils appeared to be the most responsive to the addition of bio-fertilizers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) A re-trial for the inbred should be conducted as variety could also be a factor why no
consistency in the result. The variety used may be Jess responsive, and

2) The impact of Vita I-N to a large scale commercial hybrid rice production must be evaluated .

.
Table _ . Grain Yield (t/ha) of inbred rice applied with different rates of nitrogen used in combination
with different brands of bio-fertilizers conducted during the dry season of 2008.

Fertilizer % N Reduction No +Bio +Vital +Bio Average ** (Among Fertilizer

Rates Microbial N N con Rates)
Soil Analysis (SA)
105-65-50 - 5.41 6.04 6.32 6.33 6.03 a
79-65-50 26 5.75 5.91 6.03 6.00 5.92a
53-65-50 52 4.78 5.13 5.51 5.26 5.17 b

Recommended Rate (RR)

95-26-26 10 5.66 5.97 6.35 5.76 5.94 a

Average (Among bio-fertilizers) 5.40 5.76 6.05 5.84

ns
**-All means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at O.Ollevel DMRT.
 TREATMENTS

Labor Cost Material Total Production Yield (t/ha) Gross Income Net Income Net Profit Cost Cost of Producing
Hybrid
P/ha Cost P/ha Cost P/ha atl4%MC P/ha P/ha Ratio (NPCR) a kilo of Palay
No Bio-fertilizer + 100% N (SA) 29,667.50 18,145.63 47,813.13 8.38 150,840.00 103,026.87 2.15 5.71
No Bio-fertilzer + 75% N 27,047.47 16,674.16 43,721.63 6.91 124,380.00 80,658.37 1.84 6.33
No Bio-fertilzer + 50% N 26,687.16 15,575.29 42,262.45 7.47 134,460.00 92,197.55 2.18 5.66
No Bio-fertilzer + Reg' I Rec. 28,762.90 14,882.04 43,644.94 7.98 143,640.00 99,995.06 2.29 5.47

Bio-N + 100% N(SA) 30,752.42 18,572.29 49,324.71 8.91 160,380.00 111,055.29 2.25 5.54
Bio-N + 75% N 28,240.54 17.107.69 45,348.22 7.61 136,980.00 91,631.78 2.02 5.96
Bio-N +SO% 27,717.01 15,998.16 43,805.17 7.88 141,840.00 98,034.83 2.24 5.56
Bio-N + Reg'l Rec. 29,983.47 15,317.37 45,300.84 8.57 154,260.00 108,959.16 2.41 5.29

Vitai-N + 100% N (SA) 33,574.16 18,848.03 52,422.19 10.12 182,160.00 129,737.81 2.47 5.18
Vitai-N + 75% N 28,852.54 17,237.69 46,090.23 7.47 134,460.00 88,369.77 1.92 6.17
Vitai-N + 50% N 28,117.87 16,114.36 44,232.23 8.52 153,360.00 109,127.77 2.47 5.19
Vitai-N + Reg'l Rec. 30,687.27 15,453.39 46,140.64 8.97 161,460.00 115,319.36 2.50 5.14

Bio-con + 100% N(SA) 31,020.70 18,579.83 49,600.53 9.08 163,440.00 113,839.47 2.30 5.46
Bio-con + 75% N 27,873.34 17,073.69 44,947.03 7.30 131,400.00 86,452.97 1.92 6.16
Bio-con + 50% 27,316.55 15,961.96 43,278.11 7.83 140,940.00 97,661.89 2.26 5.53
Bio-con + Reg'l Rec. 29,371.47 15,267.37 44,638.84 8.45 152,100.00 107,461.16 2.41 5.28
 TREATMENTS

Labor Cost Material Total Production Yield (t/ha) Gross Income Net Income Net Profit Cost Cost of Producing
Inbred
P/ha Cost P/ha Cost P/ha at14%MC P/ha P/ha Ratio (NPCR) a kilo of Palay
No Bio-fertilizer + 100% N (SA) 23,840.24 20,472.81 44,313.04 4.18 75,179.88 30,866.84 0.70 10.61
No Bio-fertilzer + 75% N 24,117.04 18,947.47 43,064.51 3.62 65,160.00 22,095.49 0.51 10.04
No Bio-fertilzer + 50% N 22,158.38 15,885.30 38,043.68 4.29 77,220.00 39,176.32 1.03 10.50
No Bio-fertilzer + Reg'l Rec. 24227.98 14,344.51 38,572.49 4.35 78,300.00 39,727.51 1.03 8.87

Bio-N + 100% N(SA) 25,160.57 20,966.09 46,066.66 4.59 82,676.34 36,609.68 0.79 10.03
Bio-N + 75% N 23,295.37 19,240.80 42,536.17 4.43 79,740.00 37,203.83 0.87 10.62
Bio-N +SO% 24,672.04 16,396.63 41,068.67 4.01 72,180.00 31,111.33 0.76 9.27
Bio-N + Reg'l Rec. 24,732.31 14,724.51 39,456.82 4.50 81,000.00 41,543.18 1.05 8.77

Vitai-N + 100% N (SA) 25,701.71 21,041.47 46,742.64 4.77 85,860.00 39,117.36 0.84 9.80
Vitai-N + 75% N 23,898.97 19,386.13 43,375.10 4.51 81,180.00 37,804.90 0.87 10.25
Vitai-N + 50% N 24,927.11 16,513.30 41,440.41 4.23 76,140.00 34,699.59 0.84 9.18
Vitai-N + Reg'l Rec. 25,966.51 14,905.17 40,871.68 4.90 88,259.94 47,388.26 1.16 8.34

Bio-con + 100% N(SA) 25,731.77 20,953.47 46,685.24 4.78 86,040.00 39,354.76 0.84 9.77
Bio-con + 75% N 27,018.10 19,494.11 46,512.21 4.77 85,860.00 39,347.79 0.85 8.89
Bio-con + SO% 25,712.51 16,474.64 42,187.15 5.23 94,140.00 51,952.85 1.23 8.84
Bio-con + Reg'l Rec. 24,538.51 14,721.83 39,260.34 4.44 79,858.80 40,598.46 1.55 8.85