The Impact of Nano Processed Cattle Manure Combinations on the Yield and Quality Changes of Cotton

Abstract

Sustainable agriculture necessitates the exploration of organic fertilizers to promote both crop productivity and soil health. The objective of this two-year study was to evaluate the effects of different combinations of processed cattle manure on the yield and quality of cotton crops, with a focus on determining the optimal dosage of these fertilizers. Parameters including seed cotton yield, lint yield, ginning percentage, and physiological traits such as chlorophyll content and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) were analyzed. Results revealed significant differences in yield and physiological traits among fertilizer treatments. Notably, combinations involving cattle manure as base fertilizer exhibited superior performance compared to synthetic fertilizer alone. The application of 230 kg da-1 of cattle manure as base fertilizer, in particular, resulted in optimal yield and quality, highlighting the potential of organic fertilizers in enhancing crop productivity. While synthetic fertilizers tended to enhance chlorophyll content, cattle manure applications promoted a more balanced improvement in yield components without compromising plant vigor. Integrating processed cattle manure into fertilizer regimes emerges as a promising strategy for sustainable cotton production. The dose of processed manure fertilizer will provide ten times less use than the dose of normal manure fertilizer. This will make the use of manure fertilizers more active and the use of organic fertilizers more widespread.

Keywords

• Cotton
• Processed cattle manure
• sustainable agriculture
• crop yield
• chlorophyll content

References

1. Adeli A, Brooks J P, Read J J, Shankle M W, Feng G & Jenkins J N (2019). ‘Poultry litter and cover crop integration into no-till cotton on upland soil’, Agronomy Journal, 111(4): 2097–2107, available: doi:10.2134/agronj2018.05.0328.
2. Ahmad S, Ghaffar A, Rahman M H U, Hussain I, Iqbal R, Haider G & Bashir M S (2021). ‘Effect of application of biochar, poultry and farmyard manures in combination with synthetic fertilizers on soil fertility and cotton productivity under arid environment’, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 52(17): 2018–2031, available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2021.1908324
3. Aula L, Omara P, Dhillon J S, Fornah A & Raun W R (2019). ‘Influence of applied cattle manure on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain yield, soil pH and soil organic carbon’ Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 50(16): 2056–2064, available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1648664
4. Beyyavaş V, Yılmaz Ş N, Cevheri C İ & Cun S (2022). ‘Effects of different fertilizer applications on yield, yield components and fiber quality in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)’, Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science 26(3): 371–379
5. Blaise D, Singh J V, Bonde A N, Tekale K U & Mayee C D (2005). ‘Effects of farmyard manure and fertilizers on yield, fiber quality and nutrient balance of rainfed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)’, Bioresource Technology 96(3): 345–349, available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.03.008
6. Blaise D, Singh J V, Venugopalan M V & Mayee C D (2003). ‘Effect of continuous application of manures and fertilizers on productivity of cotton-sorghum rotation’, Acta Agronomica Hungarica 51(1): 61–67, available: https://doi.org/10.1556/AAgr.51.2003.1.8
7. Camargo J A and Alonso Á (2006) ‘Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: a global assessment’, Environment International, available: 32(6): 831–849
8. Carpenter S R, Caraco N F, Correll D L, Howarth R W, Sharpley A N & Smith V H (1998). ‘Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen’ Ecological Applications 8(3): 559–568

9. Cevheri C İ & Yılmaz A (2018). ‘Research on the effects of NPK (chemical fertilizer) and organic fertilizers used for some cotton species (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in semi-arid climate conditions on growing crops, growing crop elements and sustainable agriculture’, Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Bursa Uludag University 32(2): 1–17
10. Das S, Jeong S T, Das S & Kim P J (2017). ‘Composted cattle manure increases microbial activity and soil fertility more than composted swine manure in a submerged rice paddy’, Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 281326
11. Doğan S, Doğan Y & Eren A (2021). ‘The Effect of Different Fertilizer Sources on Yield and Nutrient Content in Corn Cultivation as the Second Crop’ Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 11(1): 722–731
12. Ginting S (2019). “Promoting Bokashi as an Organic Fertilizer in Indonesia: A Mini Review,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour., 21(4): 142 144, doi: 10.19080/ijesnr.2019.21.556070.
13. Iren O B & Aminu Y G (2017). ‘Soil nutrient dynamics and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) following an amendment with cattle manure’, International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 16(2): 1–10 Kumar M S, Bhoyar S M, Deshmukh P W, Sathyanarayana E & Karangami L D (2017). ‘Yield and quality of rainfed cotton in response to organic manures under vertisol’, Plant Archives, Vol. 17, No. 1, 412-416 ref. 21.
14. Kumari S R, Subbaravamma P & Reddy A N (2005). ‘Response of cotton to farmyard manure in deep black cotton soils under rainfed conditions’, Journal of Cotton Research and Development 19(2): 220–223
15. Mitchell C C & Tu S (2005). ‘Long-term evaluation of poultry litter as a source of nitrogen for cotton and corn’, Agronomy Journal, 97(2): 399–407
16. Nguyen T T, Sasaki Y, Katahira M & Singh D (2021) “Cow manure application cuts chemical phosphorus fertilizer need in silage rice in Japan,” Agronomy 11(8): 1–12, doi: 10.3390/agronomy11081483.
17. Özyakar H D & Yılmaz H (2021). ‘Economic Analysis of Manure Utilization and Management Practices in Dairy Farms: The Case of Burdur Province’, Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology 9(3): 460–469
18. Robertson G P & Swinton S M (2005). ‘Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture’ Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(1): 38–46