25
Total dry weight and leaf number was significantly effected by application of either biofertilizer, meanwhile, plant height, steam diameter and root dry
weight were only slightly affected Figure 6. This caused significantly increased of total dry weight by the biofertilizer. The application of centrifugated
biofertilizer B4 and B5 that contains high amount of viable microbial population Table 1 increased leaf number and total dry weight when compared with
freezedried biofertilizer B2 and B3.
B. Effect of Biofertilizer on Vegetative Growth of Potato
The result showed that the application of biofertilizer causes increased the average vegetative growth of potato plant Figure 7. There was no significant
improvement in plant heihgt, steam diameter, leaf number and total dry weight but tended to increase as response to biofertilzer application Figure 7. The
improvement was due to increase of root indicated by higher root dry weight. The application freezedried biofertilizer without storage B2 that contained high
viability cell by approximately 4,1x10
7
Table 1 showed increased the root dry weight better than the application of freezedried biofertilizer 3 month storage
B3. Although, there are no siginificant different between B1, B2 Figure 7.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
26
a Plant heighcm b. Leaf number
c.Steam diametercm d. Root dry weightg
e. Total dry weight
Figure 7 Potato growth as response to different application biofertilizer. B0: without biofertilizer, B1: liquid biofertilizer, B2: freezedried
biofertilizer without storage, B3: freezedried biofertilizer with 3 months storage, B4: centrifuged biofertilizer without storage and B5:
centrifuged biofertilizer with 3 months storage. Stander error SE which show no different significant by Duncan test at 0.05.
B. Effect of Combination Biofertilizer and Nutrition Sources on Plant
Growth of Tomato
The result showed that the application of biofertilizer in combination with nutrition source caused increased vegetative growth of tomato plant when
compared to control A2B0 as presented in figure 8.
0,1 10,1
20,1 30,1
40,1 50,1
B0 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
p lan
t h
igh c
m
biofertilizer
0,2 0,4
0,6 0,8
1 1,2
B0 B1
B2 B3
B4 B5
ste am
d ia
m te
r
biofertilizer
50 100
150 200
B0 B1
B2 B3
B4 B5
to tal
d r
y w
ie gh
tg
biofertilizer
50 150
250 350
450 550
B0 B1
B2 B3
B4 B5
le af
n u
m b
e r
biofertilizer
0,5 1
1,5 2
2,5 3
B0 B1
B2 B3
B4 B5
r o
o t
d r
y w
ie gh
tg
biofertilizer
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
27
a.
Total dry weight
g b.
Leaf number per plant
c. Plant height cm d .Steam diameter cm.
e. Root dry weightg
Figure 8 Tomato growth as response to combination of biofertilizer and nutrient source. B0: without biofertilizer, B1: liquid biofertilizer, B2:
freezedried biofertilizer without storage , B3: freezddried biofertilizer with 3 months storage, A1:50 NPK, A2: 100 NPK. Stander error
SE which show no different significant by Duncan test at 0.05.
Leaf number was the parameter that mostly affected by application of either biofertilizer and anorganic fertilizer. On the other hand, plant height and
steam diameter slightly affected Figure 8. Consequently this caused significantly
20 70
120 170
B0 B1
B2 B3
to ta
l d
r y
w ie
ig h
tg
treatment
A1 A2
5 25
45 65
85 105
125
B0 B1
B2 B3
p lan
t h
e igh
t c
m
treatment
A1 A2
2 4
6 8
10
B0 B1
B2 B3
r o
o t
d r
y w
ie gh
tg
treatment
A1 A2
100 200
300 400
500 600
B0 B1
B2 B3
le af
n u
m b
e r
p lan
t
treatment
A1 A2
0,5 1
1,5 2
B0 B1
B2 B3
S te
am d
iam te
r c
m
treatment
A1 A2
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
28
response of total dry weight by the treatment. Eventhough not significantly different, application with 50 of NPK tended to have higher response than 100
of NPK. Application with 100 NPK resulted in almost the same dry weight and plant height for combination with B1, B2 as well as B3.
C. Effect of Biofertilizer and Nutrition Source on Vegetative Growth of
