18
to each plant with the dosage of 40 ml per plant after two week of planting and with dosage 60 ml per plant after two week from the first application.
Parameters Observed
The following measurements were recorded:
a. Analysis of nutrient content of soil and compost samples.
At the beginning of the experiment samples were taken from the soil that used at depth of 25-30 cm and nutrient content was analayzed to see availability
of nutrients. Besides that, nutrient in the compost was also analyzed.
b . Plant growth including:
Parameter was recorded during vegetative stage included: plant growth such as plant height, leaf number, diameter of steam, and plant dry weight. The
mesurment of plant growth of tomato and potato was conducted every 10 days after the 14-day-old plants.
c . Plant production:
The crop production was recorded during harvest time including number fruit cluster, number of fruit tuber per plant, tuberfruit weight per plant and fruit
size for tomato and production tuberfruit per per plot.
d. Analysis of plant nutrient absorption
.
Nutrient absorption data was obtained by measuring the absorption pattern of macro N, P, K, Ca, and Mg and micro Fe, Cu and Zn elements of the whole plant
to understand the effectiveness of biofertilizer to improve solubilization of those element as well as plant growth and productivity. Analysis of nutrient absorption
was conducted in the early phase of generative plants flowering by took whole the plant sample and dried into oven at 70
C during 3 days then analysed by Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer AAS in Laboratory of the Department of Soil and Land Resources, Faculty of Agriculture IPB Bogor. While, N was analyzed
by method of Kjeldahl and P by spectrophotometer.
e. Percentage of infected plant was calculated based on 10 plant sample from each treatment of all block.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
19
Statistical Analysis
Statistical methods used to analyze data of this study is as follows: Y
ijk
= +
i
+
j
+
k
+
ij
+
ijk
Where:
Y
ijk
: Observation at the i
th
biofertilizer to j
th
anorganic fertilizer
k
block
: is the population mean;
i
: is the treatment effect of the i
th
biofertilzer;
j
: is the treatment effect of the j
th
anorganic fertilizer;
ij
: is the interaction effect between the i
th
bioferilizer and j
th
anorganic fertilizer;
γ
k
: is the bloc effect of the k
th
bioferilizer;
ijk
: is the random error;
The data were statistically analyized using SPSS 16 for Windows. Duncan test at probability level 0.05 was used to separate the means when the ANOVA
indicated significant effects of treatments Mattjik Sumertajaya 2006.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
20
RESULT
Soil Analysis
Soil samples in this experiment were found to have chemical properties as follows: acid pH 5.80, low organic C content 2,31, N-total was low 0.20, P
Brayl low 5.2 ppm, Ca Low 1.53 me100g, low Mg 0,89 me100g, high K 0.54 me100g. Based on soil physical properties, the soil texture was dominated
by sand 36.84, dust 43.88 and clay 19.28 Appendix 1.
Analysis Compost
Nutrient content of compost used in this study has well qualified in accordance with the National Standardization Agency. Value of C N ratio is
between the minimum value 10 and maximum 20 as in Appendix 2.
Viability of Bacteria
The result of viability test for bacteria during storage 0, 1, 2 and 3 months of storage presented in Table 1. Viability of bacterium declined slighting after
freeze drying and centrifugation mechanism then it was stable until 2 month storage. After 2 months, the viability of each bacterium contained in biofertilizers
was declined. Bacillus sp that produce by centrifugation showed did not decline in viability during storage. Pesodomonas bacteria also showed decline viability
during storage. On the other hand, viability Azospirillum sp. and Azotobacter sp. also declined after 0 months storage in biofertilizer with both methods Tabel 1.
Table
1 viability of bacteria that used as biofertilizer
No Technique
Species Storage time
0 month 1 month
2 months 3 months
1 Centrifugation
Bacillus 2.81 x 10
8
2,99 x 10
8
2.3 x 10
8
2.2 x 10
8
Pseudomonas 6,37 x 10
8
5,94 x 10
8
1.15 x 10
7
2.75 x 10
6
Azospirillum 1.98 x 10
8
6.9 x 10
7
1.99 x 10
7
1.79 x 10
7
Azotobacter 4.2 x 10
8
4.28 x 10
7
3.10x 10
7
2.33 x 10
7
2 Freezedried
Bacillus 4.1 x 10
7
1,2 x 10
7
3.17 x 10
6
2.88 x 10
6
Pseudomonas 2 x 10
7
3 x 10
8
2.66 x10
5
1.74 x 10
5
Azospirillum 1,9x10
7
4,6x10
6
9,8x10
5
6,2x10
4
Azotobacter 5.1 x 10
6
1,53 x 10
6
1.28 x 10
5
1.13 x 10
5
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
21
Generally, the viability of bacteria freezedried biofertilizer showed more decline rather than the bacterium viability of centrifugation mechanism bioferti-
lizer.
Nutrient Absorption A. Effect of Biofertlizer on Nutrient Absorption on Tomato Plant
The results reported in Table 2 demonstrated clearly that application of biofertilizer at tomato plant increased significantly of nutrient absorption for the
macro and micro as acompared to control. The highest increased of N absorption reached to 145.2 , P 124.8, K 98.9 that was obtained by application with
centrifuged biofertilizer without storage B4 that showed contains high amount of viable microbial population. While, absorption of Ca and Mg had maximum value
by application of centrifuged biofertilizer with 3 months storage B5 by about 447.3 and 317.9 as compared to control B0. On the other hand, the lowest
value of nutrient absorption macro showed by application with liquid biofertilizer B1 at nutrient N, P, K, and Mg by approximately of 76.04 , 45, 1, 17 and
208.9 as a compared to control. For nutrient Ca, the lowest value indicated by freezedried biofertilizer without storage B2.
Table 3 Means of nutrient absorption by application of biofertilizer in tomato.
treatment Macro
Micro Ng
Pg Kg
Cag Mgg
Fe mg Cumg
Znmg B0
1.7 a 0.3 a
3.3 a 0.1 a
0.3 a 19422.9 a
3668.3 a 10348.6 a
B1 3.1 b
0.4 ab 3.9 a
0.5 b 0.8 b
40220.3 bc 5514.6 ab
15524.7 abc B2
3.3 b 0.5 bc
4.5ab 0.5 b
0.9 bc 34705.2 b
4871.9 a 14451.4 ab
B3 3.7 b
0.6 bc 4.6ab
0.6 b 0.9 bc
52971.9 c 5682.8 ab
16371.9 abc B4
4.3 b 0.7c
6.6c 0.7 b
0.9 bc 43152.5 bc
7440.1 b 21850.4 c
B5 3.7 b
0.6 bc 5.9bc
0.7 b 1.2 c
41881.1 bc 5537.3 ab
18951.8 bc
Where: B0 without biofertilizer, B1: liquid biofertilizer, B2: freezedried biofertilizerwithout storage, B3: freezedried biofertilizer with 3 months
storage, B4: centrifuged biofertilizer without storage and B5: centrifuged biofertilizer with 3 months storage. Means fowllowed by same litter in
column are not significantly different at level 0, 05 by Duncan.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer
http:www.novapdf.com
22
Absorption micro nutrient siginifcantly influenced by biofertilizer application. The improvement was higher in Fe, with the maximum was showed
by treatment of B3172.2. Cu and Zn also increased but not as high as Fe, and the maximam value showed by the treatment of B4 102.8 and 111.1
respectively Table 2. Biofertilizer improved total macro and micro nutrient uptake in tomato
plant. The highest increased of total macro nutrient absorption obtained by application with centrifuged biofertilizer without storage B4 by about 119.4
with mean 2.63 g per plant, and the highest increase of total micro nutrient absorption recorded by freezedried biofertilizer with storage 3 months B3
followed by B4 about of 124.4 and 116.6 respectevily Figure 4.
a.
Nutrient absorption macro b. Nutrient absorption micro
Figure 4 Nutrient absorption macro and micro as response to different biofertilizer application in tomato plant. 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.
b.Effect of Biofertilizer on Nutrient Absorption in Potato Plant
