A trial was conducted at the La Estrella Azucarera. S.A (CALESA) sugar cane mill in Panama. They compared different applications of IHO-BIO against a non-fertilised control group.
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted across two fields on 5 rows of cane.
| Field 701 | Field 713 | |
|---|---|---|
| Plant Age | 12 months | 12 months, second harvest |
| Variety | E07-09 | DB83114 |
| Soil Type | Entisol | Oxisol |
| Soil Texture | Franco Clay | Franco Clay |
| Agricultural Classification | III medium | IV moderate |
| Plot Area | 32 m2 | 36 m2 |
| Groove | 20 m | 20 m |
| Distance Between Grooves | 1.60 m | 1.80 m |
For each field, data was collected for 20 plants per field for the:
- height
- diameter
- number of stems
The production of cane (t cane / ha) was estimated using the formula proposed by Martins and Landell (1995):
Tena / ha = D2 * Alt * # of stems * (0.007854 / furrow distance)
In field 701 two treatments were used:
- Treatment 1: Three applications of IHO to 3 liters / ha.
- Treatment 2: Control without IHO.
The first application was made at 60 days of planting and the remaining two at 20 days after the previous one.
In field 713 three treatments were used:
- Treatment 1: Three applications of IHO to 3 liters / ha.
- Treatment 2: Two applications of IHO to 3 liters / ha.
- Treatment 3: Control without IHO.
The first application was made at 50 days of cutting and the remaining two at 20 days of the previous one.
In both fields these were manual foliar applications as a fertilization supplement. The data was processed by analysis of fixed effect variance. As there were significant differences between the treatments a test of comparison of means (Tukey) was applied.
Results
Field 701
The variance analysis (Tukey’s honest significance test) showed highly significant differences (Table 1), where the IHO treatment exceeded the control, reaching an increase over 35%.
| F. Variation | G.L. | C. Mean | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatments | 1 | 2755.93 | ** |
| Error | 8 | 91.83 | |
| Average ± E.S. | 109.53 ± 4.29 |
Field 713
As in the previous case, the analysis of variance for the treatments studied also reflected highly significant differences (Table 2). The treatments with IHO statistically outperformed the control, however, between them there were no differences, in both cases percentage increases were reached in relation to the control of 42.14% and 33.53%.
| F. Variation | G.L. | C. Mean | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatments | 2 | 1766.87 | ** |
| Error | 12 | 28.66 | |
| Average ± E.S. | 105.73 ± 2.39 |
Conclusions
The two studies showed that the treatments of IHO exceeded the control in the production of sugarcane, that oscillated between 33.53% and 42.14%. The treatment of 2 applications of IHO at 3 L / ha (T2) showed no significant difference with that of 3 applications at 3 L / ha (T1), the difference between them is 6.45&, however the use of the former can be an alternative to increase production and reduce costs both in product and in application.