IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pkp/ijosar/v3y2016i3p54-57id241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Effect of Organic and In-Organic Fertilizer Treatment on the Growth and Tuberyeild of Sweet Potato (Ipomea Batata L)

Author

Listed:
  • Adeyeye A.S
  • Akanbi W.B
  • Sobola O.O
  • Lamidi W.A
  • Olalekan K.K

Abstract

The experiment was conducted at the teaching and Research farm of the Federal University Wukari Taraba State, Nigeria to assess, evaluate and compare the effect of organic fertilizers such as poultry manure, cow dung, organic manure and in-organic fertilizers such as NPK and urea on the growth and tuber yield of sweet potato. The recommended rates of cow dung (10t/ha) poultry manure (10t/ha), organic manure (10t/ha) NPK15:15:15 (400kg/ha) and urea (200kgN/ha) were applied as treatment to sweet potato with a control at (0kg/ha). These were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Measurement were taken on the growth and tuber yield at harvest such as the length of primary vein, number of secondary vein number of leaves, number of tuber and tuber weight. Data collected were analyzed using (ANOVA) and the significant means separated using Duncan multiple difference at 5% probability level. The result revealed or showed that numbers of leaves were significant in all the treatments. Application of urea fertilizer produced the highest number of tuber per plant, while tuber weight was not significantly different, but poultry manure application had the higher mean value of (2.34kg). It was concluding that application of poultry manure as organic fertilizer are better and can compare readily with inorganic fertilizer (urea) in the production of sweet potato.

Suggested Citation

  • Adeyeye A.S & Akanbi W.B & Sobola O.O & Lamidi W.A & Olalekan K.K, 2016. "Comparative Effect of Organic and In-Organic Fertilizer Treatment on the Growth and Tuberyeild of Sweet Potato (Ipomea Batata L)," International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 3(3), pages 54-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:pkp:ijosar:v:3:y:2016:i:3:p:54-57:id:241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/70/article/view/241/321
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pkp:ijosar:v:3:y:2016:i:3:p:54-57:id:241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dim Michael (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/70/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.