Influences of Vermicompost and Organic Mulching on Growth ...

Journal Of Agriculture Biotechnology ( J. Agri. Bio.)

Hasan;MM*, Ali;MA, Rubel;MMK, Shah;M.,Alzahrani;Y.and Hakeem;KR*

19 | Volume 03 Issue 01| Page 19-31

Influences of Vermicompost and Organic Mulching on Growth, Yield and Profitability of Carrot (Daucus Carota L.) Md. Mahadi Hasan2*,Md. Arfan Ali1,3, Md. Mahamud Kali Rubel3, Muzammil Shah2,Yahya Alzahrani2 and Khalid Rehman Hakeem2* Affiliation: 1Department of Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia 3Department of Horticulture, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Bangladesh Address reprint requests to * Md.Mahadi Hasan2 and *Khalid Rehman Hakeem2 2Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia Or [email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT Vermicompost and organic mulching is an environment friendly component used as a bio fertilizer in agricultural sector. The current study was conducted to determine the effects of vermicompost and organic mulching on growth yield and profitability of carrot (Daucuscarota L.). Vermicompost was processed from waste and it was applied to field plots in the three different concentrations viz., 2t/ha (V1), 4 t/ha (V2) and 6 t/ha (V3) with control (V0), and four levels of mulching viz., control (M0), rice straw (M1), water hyacinth (M2), and sawdust (M3), respectively. Plant height, number of leaves, leaves fresh weight, root length, leaves dry matter content, root fresh weight, root dry matter content and root diameter, significantly differed among the vermicompost doses and mulching at different levels. Among the different level of vermicomposts, the highest marketable yield and gross yield (27.68 t/ha) of the root (26.35 t/ha) were recorded from V2 while the lowest (18.71 t/ha) and (20.18 t/ha) from control (V0). The highest marketable yield (27.89 t/ha) and the gross yield (29.48 t/ha) of root observed from M2 while the lowest (15.81 t/ha) and (17.12 t/ha) from control (M0) under mulching treatment. Similarly, the highest marketable yield (33.24 t/ha) and gross yield (34.45 t/ha) of root were marked from V2M2 and the lowest (17.46 t/ha) and (18.65 t/ha), respectively from V0M0 under combined treatment. The highest (3.64) benefit-cost ratio was recorded from V2M2 while the lowest (1.68) from V3M0 and it was indicated that vermicompost @ 4 t/ha with water hyacinth mulching was found suitable for carrot cultivation.

KEY WORDS Daucuscarota; Growth; Yield; Vermicompost; Organic mulching

INTRODUCTION Carrot (Daucuscarota L.) is a versatile vegetable crop belongs to the family Apiaceae and distributed almost all over the world particularly in temperate and subtropical regions. It is considered as a root crop and used for making soups, curries salad, stews, and pickles. In many countries, top leaves are used as a poultry feed, and as a supply for extraction of leaf proteins (Zhang et al., 2017; Arscott and Tanumihardjo, 2010).The carrot is one of the profitable crops in Bangladesh. It has been reported that the entire production of carrot was 14075 metric tons under 1415 ha in Bangladesh during 2009-2010 year (BBS, 2010). An average yield of carrot is about 25 tons/ha in Bangladesh (Rashidi, 2009) which are

comparatively low from major carrot producer countries. Several attempts have been made to increase the yield potential of root crops, but farmers are concerned with the use of inorganic fertilizers which results in decrease fertility of soil, soil health, contents of organic matter and decreases the microbial activity of soil (Chen et al., 2014). Vermicompost is regarded ecologically sound bio-fertilizer and also cost–effective and eco-friendly (Amooaghaie and Golmohammadi 2017). Vermicompost is a potential source of readily available nutrients, growth enhancing substances and a number of beneficial micro-organisms like N-fixing, P- solubilizing and cellulose decomposing organisms (Singh et al., 2008;

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

mailto:[email protected]�




Archana and Anubha 2011; Amooaghaie and Golmohammadi 2017). It enhances soil fertility as it increases soil porosity, aeration, moisture holding capacity, available plant nutrients, acts as a complex fertilizer granules and accelerates nitrogen mineralization (Prabhaet al., 2007; Azarmiet al., 2008; Agric 2009; Martin and Brathwaite 2012). It has been studied that the vermicompost effects on the plant growth, yield and quality of crops considerably. As a result, the seed germination, vigour, flowering and fruiting of plant, tuberization, development of root size colour shelf life and quality are apparently improved (Suthar et al., 2005; Ansari, 2008; Chanda et al., 2011). The carrot is grown in the winter season when rainfall is sparse. Therefore, irrigation becomes essential for providing sufficient moisture to growing this crop. Mulching is the process of spreading a material over the soil surface. It is highly effective in checking evaporation of water and could be an effective cultural practice alternative to irrigation to maintain the soil moisture status (Hamlyn 2007).

Mulching likes water hyacinth, sawdust, straw, black polythene ensures economic utilization of existing soil moisture, improves the agro-physical properties of soil by enhancing microbial activity in soil(Lori M et al., 2017) and also can control the weeds effectively (Verica et al., 2012). It has been studied that organic mulching enhances the environment of soil, oxygen availability of soil, plant growth, activity of microbes, soil porosity, water infiltration, availability of nutrient, yield of some crops like carrot, potato, ginger; soil compaction and fertilizer leaching, control soil temperature and reduces evaporation (Bhatt et al., 2006; Anikweet al., 2007; Sarkar and Singh, 2007; Glab and Kulig,2008; Rashidiet al., 2009; Arora et al., 2011). These studies would reveal that the influence of vermicompost and mulching not only focuses on the productivity but also on the quality features of carrots. Our aim was to find out the suitability of vermicompost and traditional mulch for improving the yield of carrot and to assess their profitability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS EXPERIMENTAL SITE AND MATERIAL The experiment was carried out at the Horticulture Farm, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University (SAU), Dhaka, Bangladesh. The soil texture was salty loam and pH 5.8. It belongs to the Modhupur Tract (UNDP, 1988) under the AEZ No. 28. Soil sample of the experimental plot was collected from a depth of 0-30 cm before conducting the experiment and analyses were done and showed nitrogen 0.03%, phosphorus 20 ppm, exchangeable potassium 0.1 me/ 100g soil and organic carbon 0.45%. Seeds of carrot cv. New Kuroda (a Japanese variety) were used during the experiment. TREATMENTS The field experiment was conducted to study the effect of four levels of vermicompost and four levels of mulching. Different levels of two factors were as follows: Factor A: Four levels of vermicomposts were used denoted as V0, Control (No vermicompost),V1(2 t/ha )and V2(4 t/ha), V3( 6 t/ha).Factor B: Four levels of mulching were used denoted as M0 Control (No mulch material),M1 ( Rice straw), M2 (Water hyacinth), M3(Sawdust). The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with

three replications. The treatments combination was distributed randomly in each block separately. Land preparation, manuring and intercultural operation were done properly. Vermicompost was utilized as the significant source of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) and it was applied during final land preparation as per treatment. OBSERVATIONS RECORDED An ideal vermicompost contains 1.57% N, 1.26% P2O5, 2.60% K2O, 0.74% S, 0.66% Mg and 0.06% B (Krishi Diary, 2012). Mulch materials were placed around the holes immediately after sowing of seeds as per treatment in each plot. The fresh water hyacinth and rice straw were chopped into small pieces (5 cm) and sun dried for three days before placing over the plot. The thickness of mulch materials was maintained at 5 cm approximately. Growth parameters were recorded at 20 days interval after 50 days of sowing and continued to harvest. Randomly selected ten (10) plants from each plot were tagged for recording the data. Plants were selected from the middle of the plot by leaving the plants at the end of the row to avoid border effect. Yield parameters were calculated as follows:

Fresh weight of root (g)

i) Percentage of root dry matter = ---------------------------------------- × 100 Dry weight of root (g)




Area of single plot (m×m) ×Average yield per plant (g) × 10000 ii) Gross yield (kg/plot) = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spacing (cm× cm) × 1000 iii) Gross yield of roots per hectare was calculated by using the following formula:

Area (ha) ×Average yield per plant (g) × 10000 Gross yield (t/ha) = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spacing (cm× cm) × 1000× 1000 Marketable yield = Gross yield – Nonmarketable yield (No. of cracked and branched root)

iv) Marketable yield of roots per hectare was calculated by conversion of the marketable root weight per plot and recorded in a ton.

Gross return Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) = -------------------------------- Total cost of production DATA ANALYSIS The recorded data on different growth and yield parameters were estimated for better statistical studies. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed with the help of MSTAT program. For interpretation of the results, treatment means were separated by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: PLANT HEIGHT Plant height was significantly affected by vermicompost at 50, 70 and 90 DAS of carrot (Fig. 1A). The tallest plant at 50 DAS (12.73 cm), 70 DAS (23.06 cm) and 90 DAS (39.58 cm) was recorded in 4-ton vermicompost (V2). Whereas, the shortest plant height was statistically similar for the treatment V0 and V3 at 50 DAS (about10.21 cm), 70 DAS (about 19.59 cm) and 90 DAS (35.28 cm). The result showed that the plant height has increased gradually with the rising level of vermicompost application up to the treatment V2 then decreased on the treatment V3(Fig 1B). Shows the effect of mulching on the plant height. The tallest plant at 50 DAS (14.21 cm), 70 DAS

(24.51 cm) and 90 DAS (44.72 cm) was found in water hyacinth (M2). Whereas, the shortest plant height at 50 DAS (7.96 cm), 70 DAS (19.35 cm) and 90 DAS (33.38 cm) were found in control (M0) but it was statistically similar to M3.Water hyacinth mulch produced the longest plant through ensuring of optimum soil moisture. Resende et al., (2005) reported that mulch with wood chips and wood dust increased the carrot yield. Akand (2003) mentioned that organic mulching had a significant effect on most of the yield contributing parameters of carrot. By the treatment combinations of vermicompost and mulching, the plant height was influenced significantly at 50 DAS except at 70 DAS and 90 DAS (Table 2). The tallest plant at 50 DAS (16.90 cm) was from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2) while the shortest plant height at 50 DAS (7.567 cm) was from (V0M2) but it was statistically similar to V0M0, V0M1 and V0M3. Mulch materials ensured the uptake of essential nutrient through the holding of optimum moisture. Vermicompost also helps in proper growth and ultimate results were the longest plant of carrot.




Fig.1 : Effects of different vermicompost (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost) on plant height (A) and number of leaves (B)in carrot at different days at 50 DAS, 70DAS and 90 DAS. Effects of different organic mulching (M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust)on plant height(C) and number of leaves (D) at different days at 50 DAS, 70DAS and 90 DAS (B). Table 1 Different doses of vermicompost with nutrients Different doses of Vermicompost(t/ha)

Available amount of nutrient(kg/ha)

N P2O5 K2O 2 31 25 52

4 63 50 104 6 95 76 156

NUMBER OF LEAVES FOR EACH PLANT Due to variation in different doses of vermicompost, the foliage coverage of plants was influenced significantly at different dates of observations (Fig. 1C).The maximum number of leaves plant-1at 50 DAS (4.24), 70 DAS (6.95) and 90 DAS (11.20) were found in 4-ton vermicompost (V2) while the minimum or lower number of leaves plant-1 at 50 DAS (3.33) from V3, 70 DAS (5.63) and at 90 DAS (9.07) were found in control(V0) but it were statistically similar to V1 and V3. The optimum level of vermicompost application has increased the height and leaves of the plant. The organic mulching considerably influenced the leaves number for each plant (Fig.1D). The most number of leaves plant-1at 50 DAS (4.72), 70 DAS (7.26) and 90 DAS (11.43) were recorded in water hyacinth mulching (M2). On the contrary, the least amount number of leaves plant-1 at 50 DAS (2.85), 70 DAS (4.87) and 90 DAS (8.07) were found in control (M0). The

results indicated that the leaves number plant-1

was enhanced with the application of mulch materials. Roy et al., (1990) reported that straw and sawdust raised the leaves number per plant and they also recommended that water hyacinth is the best mulch material in increasing crop growth. The significant variation was observed among the treatment combinations of vermicompost and mulching except at 50 DAS (Table 2). The uppermost number of leaves plant-1

at 50 DAS (5.40), 70 DAS (8.60) and 90 DAS (14.40) were found in the treatment combination of 4 ton vermicompost with water hyacinth mulching(V2M2) while, the lowest leaves number plant-1 at 50 DAS (2.70) and 70 DAS (3.57) and 90 DAS (6.13) were recorded from control plot with rice straw mulching (V0M1). Mulch materials and optimum level of vermicompost gave the utmost number of leaves plant-1 by ensuring appropriate soil moisture and essential nutrients.

Table 2: The treatment combination of vermincompost and mulching effects on the height and leaves number per plant at DAS. Treatments combination

Plant height (cm) Number of leaves/ plant 50 DAS

70 DAS

90 DAS

50 DAS

70 DAS

90 DAS

V0M0 8.00 ij 18.57 e 31.33 f 2.87 h 5.17efg 8.13 e V1M0 11.60defg 19.63 de 35.73de 3.30efgh 4.87 fg 8.53 de V2M0 12.23cdef 21.37cde 40.53 bc 4.83 ab 5.80 def 9.33 cde




V3M0 10.00 ghi 18.80 e 33.50 ef 4.00 cde 6.67bcd 10.27bcd V0M1 8.267ij 19.03 de 35.57 de 2.70 h 3.57 h 6.13 f V1M1 12.60bcde 21.60bcde 37.70 cd 3.80defg 6.37 cd 9.20 cde V2M1 14.33 b 25.30 ab 46.50 a 4.50 bcd 7.10 bc 11.20 b V3M1 11.30 efg 20.17 cde 35.00def 3.20 fgh 6.20cde 9.80bcde V0M2 7.567 j 20.33 cde 34.47def 3.00 h 6.40 cd 9.80bcde V1M2 14.23 bc 23.47 bc 38.20bcd 3.97cde 6.30 cd 10.20bcd V2M2 16.90 a 27.87 a 49.67 a 5.40 a 8.60 a 14.40 a V3M2 12.20cdef 20.57 cde 36.00 de 4.60 bc 6.50bcd 10.40 bc V0M3 8.00 ij 19.47 de 32.13 ef 2.83 h 4.33 gh 8.20 e V1M3 10.40 fgh 22.63 bcd 36.20 de 3.17 gh 6.33 cd 9.63bcde V2M3 13.37 bcd 23.50 bc 42.20 b 4.13 bcd 7.53 b 10.77 bc V3M3 9.07 hij 20.37 cde 34.30 def 3.20 fgh 6.23 cd 9.20 cde LSD0.05 2.04 3.72 4.07 0.78 1.06 1.76 CV% 10.86 10.41 6.53 12.57 10.34 10.87 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust). FRESH WEIGHT OF LEAVES Fresh weight of leaves varied significantly (Table 3) due to different levels of vermicompost. The most amount of leaves fresh weight (87.29 g) was found from 4- ton vermicompost (V2) and the minimum fresh weight of leaves (77.13 g) was found from control (V0) which was statistically analogous with V1and V3.Significant variation (Table 3) was obtained from sawdust mulching (M2) while the least amount of leaves fresh (58.20 g) was obtained from control treatment (M0). Different types of mulch materials preserved soil moisture and ultimately results in maximum

growth with the highest fresh weight of leaves per plant. Akand (2003) mentioned that mulch materials had a significant effect on most of the yield parameters like the fresh weight of leaves for each plant. The leaves fresh weight was statistically significant due to the combined effect of vermicompost and mulching (Table 4).The 98.68 gm of leaves fresh weight was recorded from 4-ton vermicompost with the mulching of water hyacinth (V2M2) as recognized the maximum amounts while the minimum leaves fresh weight (56.86 g) was from V0M3 but it was statistically similar (57.26) to V0M0.

Table 3 : Vermicompost and mulching effect on leaves fresh weight per plant, leaves dry matter content(%), root fresh weight per plant(g), root dry matter content(g), the length of root length (cm) and root diameter(cm). Treatments Leaves fresh

weight per plant (g)

Leaves dry matter content (%)

Root fresh weight per plant (g)

Root dry matter content (%)

Root length (cm)

Root diameter(cm)

Vermicompost V0 77.13 c 13.10 b 60.55 d 9.39 b 13.25 b 6.35 c V1 80.53 b 13.33 b 67.38 c 10.40 ab 13.45 b 6.18 c V2 87.29 a 14.49 a 83.04 a 11.13 a 15.20 a 8.03a V3 79.30 bc 13.57 b 77.16 b 10.01 ab 13.37 b 7.02b Mulching M0 58.20 d 11.48 c 51.37 d 9.66 b 12.42 d 4.66 d M1 83.29 c 13.76 b 68.89 c 9.81 ab 13.30 c 6.18 c M2 93.80 a 15.06 a 88.45 a 11.04 a 15.78 a 8.77 a M3 88.96 b 14.19 b 79.42 b 10.41 ab 13.77 b 7.97 b CV% 4.57 6.47 3.32 14.15 3.82 6.07 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust) DRY MATTER CONTENT OF LEAVES Due to different doses of vermicompost, the leaves dry matter content was statistically significant (Table 3). The uppermost percentage

of dry matter content was 14.49% which obtained from4 ton vermicompost (V2) and the lowest (13.10%) was found in the level of control (V0). It has been estimated that the different mulching application influenced significantly in the dry




matter content of leaves (Table 3). The highest leaves dry matter content (15.06%) was found from water hyacinth mulching (M2) and the lowest (11.48%) was obtained from control (V0).There was significant variation among the

treatment combinations of vermicompost and mulching (Table 4).The highest and lowest dry matter contents were 16.19% and 11.31% respectively.

Table 4: Combined effect of vermicompost and mulching on the leaves fresh weight per plant,leaves dry matter content (%), root fresh weight per plant(g), root dry matter content(g), length of root length (cm) and root diameter(cm)

Treatments Leaves fresh weight plant (g)

Leaves dry matter content (%)

Root fresh weight per plant (g)

Root dry matter content (%)

Root length (cm)

Root diameter(cm)

V0M0 57.26 g 11.31 f 59.38 p 8.210 g 12.13 h 4.00 h V1M0 74.78 f 11.68 f 55.96 p 9.34 f 12.53 g 5.20 g V2M0 82.24de 13.78 cde 90.03 b 9.89 d 15.07 c 8.80 b V3M0 94.25ab 15.64 ab 64.27mo 10.10cd 13.27 e 7.40 de V0M1 58.28g 11.46 f 64.72mn 10.30 c 12.00 i 4.33 h V1M1 78.36ef 13.40 de 68.14 lm 9.40 f 13.13 f 5.40 fg V2M1 88.70bc 13.30 e 75.13efg 11.56 b 15.27 b 7.27 de V3M1 96.78 a 15.16 abc 73.03 gk 10.34 c 13.40 e 7.70 cd V0M2 60.42 g 11.52 f 74.50efgh 10.40 c 13.40 e 5.90 f V1M2 94.28ab 15.18 abc 77.92ef 10.20cd 14.40 d 7.20 de V2M2 98.68 a 16.19 a 103.30 a 12.50 a 17.93 a 10.80 a V3M2 95.78 a 15.05 abc 82.81 cd 11.40 b 15.07 c 8.20 bc V0M3 56.86 g 11.61 f 69.99 jkl 9.72 e 12.13 h 4.40 h V1M3 85.72cd 14.78abc 73.40ghi 10.30 c 13.13 f 6.90 e V2M3 86.24cd 13.48 de 85.30 c 10.21cd 14.87cd 8.20 bc V3M3 88.38bc 14.40bcde 78.29 e 9.80de 13.33 ef 8.57 b CV% 4.57 6.47 3.32 14.15 3.82 6.07 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust). FRESH WEIGHT OF ROOTS Fresh weight of roots was significantly influenced due to different levels of vermicompost (Table 3). 83.04gm fresh weight of root considered as the highest amount obtained from 4-ton vermicompost (V2) whereas the lowest amount was 60.55gm found from control (V0).The increasing and decreasing trends of fresh weight of roots were subjected to change. It was increased up to a certain level and then decreased. Different mulching has a significant effect on the fresh weight of root (Table 3). The fresh weight of root (88.45 g) was from water hyacinth (M2) and the smallest amount (51.37 g) was obtained from control treatment (M0). Resendeet al. (2005) reported that mulch materials were technically and economically viable for carrot cultivation. Akand (2003) mentioned that mulch materials had a significant effect on most of the yield contributing parameters. The interaction effect of vermicompost and mulching had a significant effect on root fresh weight considerably (Table 4). Most amounts (103.30g) were recorded in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). The minimum fresh weight of root (55.96g) was recorded in control (V0M0). Mulch materials and optimum level of

vermicompost provided the greatest amount of root fresh weight per plant by ensuring appropriate soil moisture and essential nutrients. DRY MATTER CONTENT OF ROOT The root was influenced significantly in the case of dry matter content due to different doses of vermicompost and mulching (Table 3,4).The greatest amount of dry matter content (11.13 %) in roots were recorded in 4-ton vermicompost (V2) and the lowest amount ( 9.39%) was recorded in control (V0).The combined effect of vermicompost and mulching showed the insignificant effect on dry matter content of root (Table 4).However, the highest content (12.50%) was recorded in the combination of treatment of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). LENGTH OF ROOT With the increasing certain level of vermicompost, the root length was gradually increased (Table 3). The highest length of the root (15.20 cm) was recorded from 4-ton vermicompost (V2) while the minimum root length (13.25 cm) was recorded from control (V0).The maximum length of root was 15.78cm and obtained from water hyacinth (M2) while the minimum was 12.42 cm recorded from control (M0). Mulch materials had a




significant effect on most of the yield parameters. Akand (2003) stated that mulch materials obviously influence the root length of the carrot. The combined effect of vermicompost and mulching exhibited insignificant deviation on the root length (Table 4). However, the maximum root length (17.93 cm) was recorded from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). DIAMETER OF ROOT The root diameter influenced by the vermicompost and mulching application (Table 3).The maximum root diameter (8.03 cm) was recorded from 4 -ton vermicompost (V2) while the minimum root diameter (6.18 cm) from 2-ton vermicompost (V1) followed (6.35 cm) by control (V0).The maximum diameter of the root (8.77 cm) was recorded from water hyacinth (M2) while the least diameter of the root (4.66 cm) was recorded from control (M0).Significant variation was found owing to the combined effect of vermicompost and mulching on the diameter of the root (Table 4). The maximum and minimum diameters of the root were 10.80 cm and 4.00 cm and it was accurately recorded from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2) and control (V0M0) respectively.

GROSS YIELD OF ROOT PER PLOT Gross yield of root per hectare was statistically significant for vermicompost and organic mulching (Table 5). The maximum root gross yield per plot (6.23 kg) was recorded from 4-ton vermicompost (V2) while the minimum gross yield of root per plot (4.54 kg) was obtained from control. Akand (2003) mentioned that mulch materials had a significant outcome on most of the yield contributing parameters. The combined effect of vermicompost and mulching significantly varied on the gross yield of the root (Table 6). The maximum gross yield of root per plot (7.75 kg) was obtained from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). Whereas the minimum gross yield of the root (4.20 kg) was recorded from control. GROSS YIELD OF ROOT PER HECTARE Gross yield of root per hectare was statistically significant for different levels of vermicompost (Table 5).The maximum and minimum gross yield of carrot were 27.68 t/ha and 20.18t/ha at different level of vermicompost application. Different mulching was statistically significant on the gross yield of the root (Table 5). From water hyacinth (M2),the gross yield (29.48 t/ha) was recorded while the least gross yield (17.12 t/ha) was found to have in control (M0).The combined consequence of vermicompost and mulching was significantly varied on a gross yield of the root (Table 6).

Table 5: Effect of vermicompost and mulching on cracking root per plant, branched root per plant, gross yield of root/plot, gross yield of root/ha, marketable yield/ha, non-marketable yield/ha Treatments Gross yield

of root/plot (kg)

Gross yield of root/ha (t)

Marketable yield/ plot (kg)

Marketable yield/ha (t)

Non-marketable yield/ha (t)

Vermicompost V0 4.54 d 20.18d 4.21 d 18.71 d 1.47 c V1 5.05 c 22.46 c 4.70 c 20.91 c 1.55 b V2 6.23 a 27.68 a 5.93 a 26.35 a 1.33 d V3 5.79 b 25.72 b 5.43 b 24.12 b 1.60 a Mulching M0 3.85 d 17.12d 3.56 d 15.81 d 1.31 c M1 5.17 c 22.96 c 4.84 c 21.51 c 1.46 b M2 6.63 a 29.48 a 6.28 a 27.89 a 1.59 a M3 5.96 b 26.47b 5.60 b 24.88 b 1.59 a CV% 3.32 3.32 3.53 3.53 1.56 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust) MARKETABLE YIELD OF ROOT PER PLOT Marketable yield of root increased with increasing vermicompost level up to a certain level and then decreased (Table 5). With the increasing of different level of vermicompost in an optimum

level the marketable root has augmented and at the certain level, it was decreased gradually. The highest marketable root yield per plot (5.93 kg) was recorded from 4-ton vermicompost (V2). The lowest marketable yield of root per plot (4.21 kg) was recorded in control (V0). The effect of




mulching was influenced significantly on the marketable yield of the root (Table 5). The highest marketable yield of root per plot (6.28 kg) was recorded in water hyacinth (M2). The lowest marketable yield of root per plot (3.56 kg) was recorded in control (M0). The interaction results of vermicompost and organic mulching on the marketable yield of root tha-1 was significant

(Table 6).The highest marketable yield of root per plot (7.48 kg) was recorded in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). The lowest marketable yield of the root (3.93 kg) was recorded in control (V0M0).Water hyacinth mulch materials and optimum level of vermicompost produce the highest marketable yield of the root of the carrot.

Table 6: Combined effect of vermicompost and mulching on cracking root per plant, branched root per plant, gross yield of root/plot, gross yield of root/ha, marketable yield/ha, non-marketable yield/ha

Treatments Gross yield of root/plot (kg)




Non-marketable yield/ha (t)

Benefit cost ratio (BCR)

V0M0 4.20 n 18.65 n 3.93 n 17.46 n 1.19 h 3.30 V1M0 4.45 n 19.79 n 4.16 n 18.47 n 1.32 g 2.53 V2M0 6.75 b 30.01 b 6.35 b 28.24 b 1.77 a 2.97 V3M0 4.82 lm 21.42 lm 4.46 klm 19.84 klm 1.58 d 1.68 V0M1 4.85 lm 21.57 lm 4.54 kl 20.17 kl 1.40 f 3.59 V1M1 5.11 kl 22.71 kl 4.75 jk 21.13 jk 1.58 d 2.81 V2M1 5.64efg 25.04efg 5.26 eh 23.38 eh 1.67 c 2.40 V3M1 5.48 ghij 24.34 gj 5.13 ghi 22.80 ghi 1.54 d 1.90 V0M2 5.59 eh 24.83eh 5.29 efg 23.50 efg 1.33 g 3.10 V1M2 5.84 ef 25.97 ef 5.54 e 24.64 e 1.33 g 2.57 V2M2 7.75 a 34.45 a 7.48 a 33.24 a 1.21 h 3.64 V3M2 6.21 d 27.60 d 5.88 cd 26.13 cd 1.47 e 1.87 V0M3 5.25 ijk 23.33 ijk 4.95 j 22.01 j 1.32 g 3.56 V1M3 5.51 ghi 24.47 ghi 5.15 ghi 22.88 ghi 1.59 d 2.72 V2M3 6.40 c 28.44 c 6.01 c 26.72 c 1.72 b 2.51 V3M3 5.87 e 26.10 e 5.47 ef 24.32 eh 1.78 a 1.89 CV% 3.32 3.32 3.53 3.53 1.56 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust). MARKETABLE YIELD OF ROOT PER HECTARE Marketable yield of root per hectare was decreased statistically significantly (Table 5).The highest marketable root yield(26.35 tha-1) was recorded in 4-ton vermicompost (V2). The lowest marketable yield of the root (18.71 ha -1) was recorded in control (V0). The effect of mulching was influenced significantly on the marketable yield of the root (Table 5). The highest marketable yield of the root (27.89 tha-1) was recorded in water hyacinth (M2). The lowest marketable yield of the root (15.81 tha-1) was recorded in control (M0). The interaction effect of vermicompost and organic mulching on the marketable yield of root tha-1 was significant (Table 6). The highest marketable yield of the root (33.24 tha-1) was recorded in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2). The lowest marketable yield of the root (17.46 tha-1) was recorded in control (V0M0).

NON-MARKETABLE YIELD OF ROOT PER HECTARE There was a significant difference in non-marketable yield of the root due to vermicompost and mulching (Table 5).The highest non-marketable yield of the root (1.60 tha-1) was recorded in the vermicompost of 6 ton (V3). The lowest non-marketable yield of the root (1.33 tha-

1) was recorded in the vermicompost of 4 ton (V2). The highest non-marketable yield of the root (1.59 tha-1) was recorded in the mulching of water hyacinth (M2) and sawdust (M3) that was statistically similar. The lowest non-marketable yield of the root (1.31 tha-1) was recorded in control (M0). The interaction effect of vermicompost and mulching on the non-marketable yield of the root was significant (Table 6). The highest non-marketable yield of the root (1.78 tha-1) was recorded in the treatment combination of 6-ton vermicompost with sawdust (V3M3) followed by (11.77 tha-1) in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with control (V2M0). The lowest non-marketable yield of the root (1.20 tha-1) was recorded in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water




hyacinth (V2M2) followed (1.19 tha-1) by control with statistically similar rank. CRACKED ROOT The maximum cracked root (2.66%) was obtained from 2-ton vermicompost(V1) while the minimum cracked root (1.98%) was recorded in 4-ton vermicompost (V2) (Table 7). The maximum cracked root (2.87%) was recorded from control (M0) while the minimum cracked root (2.10%) was obtained from water hyacinth mulching (M2)

but it was statistically similar (2.31%) to sawdust mulching (M3). The combination of different doses of vermicompost and mulching was significant in the percentage of cracked root. The maximum cracked root (3.41%) was recorded in the treatment combination ofV0M1 but it was similar with V0M3. The minimum cracked root (1.46%) was recorded from the treatment combination of 4 to vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2) but it was statistically similar to (V3M2).

Table 7: Effect of vermicompost and mulching on fresh weight of root per plant, cracking root per plant, branched root per plant, the gross yield of root/plot, the gross yield of root/ha, marketable yield of root/plot and marketable yield/ha Treatments Fresh

weight of root per plant (g)

Cracking root per plant (%)

Branched root per plant (%)

Gross yield of root/plot (kg)


Market able yield/ plot (kg)

Market able yield/ha (t)

Vermicompost V0 60.55 d 2.41 b 4.35 a 4.54 d 20.18d 4.21 d 18.71 d V1 67.38 c 2.66 a 4.19 a 5.05 c 22.46 c 4.70 c 20.91 c V2 83.04 a 1.98 c 3.08 b 6.23 a 27.68 a 5.93 a 26.35 a V3 77.16 b 2.56 ab 4.71 a 5.79 b 25.72 b 5.43 b 24.12 b Mulching M0 51.37 d 2.87 a 4.92 a 3.85 d 17.12d 3.56 d 15.81 d M1 68.89 c 2.33 b 4.14 b 5.17 c 22.96 c 4.84 c 21.51 c M2 88.45 a 2.10 c 3.46 c 6.63 a 29.48 a 6.28 a 27.89 a M3 79.42 b 2.31 bc 3.80 bc 5.96 b 26.47b 5.60 b 24.88 b CV% 3.32 10.11 16.20 3.32 3.32 3.53 3.53 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust) BRANCHED ROOT The branched root percentage diverse significantly due to different levels of vermicompost (Table 7). The maximum branched root (4.71%) was recorded from 6-ton vermicompost (V3) while the minimum branched root (3.08%) was found in 4 -ton vermicompost (V2). Different mulching showed the significant variation in the percentage of branched root (Table 2). Maximum branched root (4.92%) was found in control treatment (M0) and the minimum branched root (3.46%) was obtained from water

hyacinth (M2) followed by the sawdust (3.80%) with similar rank. The percentage of branched root differed notably on account of the combined effect of vermicompost and mulching (Table 8). The maximum branched root (5.70%) was recorded from control (V0M0) but it was statistically similar to V0M3 (5.38) and V1M3 (5.07). The minimum branched root (2.03%) was recorded from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V2M2) followed (2.82%) by the 2 -ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (V1M2).

Table 8: Vermicompost and mulching combined effect on the fresh weight of root/ plant, cracking root/ plant, branched root/ plant, the gross yield of root/plot,the gross yield of root/ha, marketable yield of root/plot and marketable yield/ha. Treatments combination

Fresh weight of root per plant (g)

Cracking root per plant (%)

Branched root per plant (%)

Gross yield of root/plot (kg)




V0M0 59.38 p 2.32 efg 5.70 a 4.20 n 18.65 n 3.93 n 17.46 n V1M0 55.96 p 2.10 g 4.56 bcd 4.45 n 19.79 n 4.16 n 18.47 n V2M0 90.03 b 2.31 efg 3.64 def 6.75 b 30.01 b 6.35 b 28.24 b V3M0 64.27mo 2.90 bc 3.50 def 4.82 lm 21.42 lm 4.46 klm 19.84 klm V0M1 64.72mn 3.41 a 4.34 bcd 4.85 lm 21.57 lm 4.54 kl 20.17 kl V1M1 68.14 lm 2.73 bcd 4.12 cde 5.11 kl 22.71 kl 4.75 jk 21.13 jk V2M1 75.13efg 2.34defg 4.40 bcd 5.64efg 25.04efg 5.26 eh 23.38 eh V3M1 73.03 gk 2.15 fg 3.89 def 5.48ghij 24.34 gj 5.13 ghi 22.80 ghi




V0M2 74.50efg 2.62 cde 4.25 cde 5.59 eh 24.83eh 5.29 efg 23.50 efg V1M2 77.92ef 2.17 fg 2.82 fg 5.84 ef 25.97 ef 5.54 e 24.64 e V2M2 103.30 a 1.46 h 2.03 g 7.75 a 34.45 a 7.48 a 33.24 a V3M2 82.81 cd 1.66 h 3.21 ef 6.21 d 27.60 d 5.88 cd 26.13 cd V0M3 69.99 jkl 3.12 ab 5.38 ab 5.25 ijk 23.33 ijk 4.95 j 22.01 j V1M3 73.40ghi 2.30 efg 5.07 abc 5.51 ghi 24.47ghi 5.15 ghi 22.88 ghi V2M3 85.30 c 2.31 efg 3.78 def 6.40 c 28.44 c 6.01 c 26.72 c V3M3 78.29 e 2.51 cdef 4.59 bcd 5.87 e 26.10 e 5.47 ef 24.32 eh CV% 3.32 10.11 16.20 3.32 3.32 3.53 3.53 Means Followed by uncommon letter under the same factor are significantly differed at 5% level by DMRT (V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Economic analysis was done with a view to observing the comparative cost and benefit under different treatment combinations of vermicompost and mulching. For this purpose, the input cost for land preparation, seed, sowing, manure and fertilizer, intercultural operation and manpower required for all the operations were recorded against each treatment, which was then enumerated into cost per hectare. The details of economic analysis have been presented in (Table 9). Due to the cost of vermicompost and mulching, production cost variation was observed (Table 9A & 9B).The total cost of cultivation ranged between Tk105520 and 257160 ha-1. The highest cost of production was involved when used 6-ton vermicompost with sawdust (Tk

257160 ha-1). The lowest cost of production was in control (Tk 105520 ha-1). The highest gross return was obtained from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (Tk 850831 ha-1) while the lowest gross return was found from control (Tk 349200 ha-1) Table (9). However, the highest net profit was obtained from the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (Tk 505190 ha-1) (Table 9C). The maximum benefit-cost ratio was recorded in the treatment combination of 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth (3.64). The lowest benefit-cost ratio was recorded in the treatment combination of 6-ton vermicompost with no mulching (1.68) (Table 9C). From the economic point of view, 4-ton vermicompost with water hyacinth was more profitable than the other treatment combination.

Table 9: (A) Production costof carrot per hectare as influenced by vermicompost and mulching (Tk/ha). A. Input cost (Material and non-material) Treatment Combination

Labor Cost

Ploughing Cost

Seed Cost

Irrigation cost

Mulch material Vermicompost Insecticide

cost Sub (A) Total Cost (Tk)

V0M0

20000 7000 3000 8000 0 0 10000 48000

V1M0 20000 7000 3000 8000 0 40000 6000 84000

V2M0 20000 7000 3000 8000 0 80000 6000 124000

V3M0 20000 7000 3000 8000 0 120000 6000 164000

V0M1

24000 7000 3000 5000 5000 0 10000 54000

V1M1 24000 7000 3000 5000 5000 40000 4000 88000

V2M1 24000 7000 3000 5000 5000 80000 4000 128000

V3M1 24000 7000 3000 5000 5000 120000 4000 168000

V0M2

26000 7000 3000 3000 40000 0 10000 89000

V1M2 26000 7000 3000 3000 40000 40000 6000 125000

V2M 26000 7000 3000 3000 40000 80000 4000 163000




2 V3M2 26000 7000 3000 3000 40000 120000 4000 203000

V0M3

26000 7000 3000 8000 10000 0 10000 64000

V1M3 26000 7000 3000 8000 10000 40000 10000 104000

V2M3 26000 7000 3000 8000 10000 80000 10000 144000

V3M3 26000 7000 3000 8000 10000 120000 10000 184000

Seed 3 Kg @ Tk. 1000/kg; Labour cost @ Tk. 250/day; Rice straw @ Tk. 5000/ha; Water hyacinth @ Tk. 4000/ha; Sawdust 100 bag/ha @ Tk. 100/bag; Vermicompost @ Tk. 20/Kg

Table 9(B): Overhead cost and total cost of production (TK)

Treatment combination

Cost of lease of land for 6 months (13% of value of land Tk. 8,00000/year)

Miscellaneous cost (Tk. 5% of the input cost)

Interest on running capital for 6 months (Tk. 13% of cost/year)

Sub total cost (B) (Tk)

Total cost of production [Input cost (A)+ overhead cost (B)] (Tk./ha)

V0M0 52000 2400 3120 57520 105520 V1M0 52000 4200 5460 61660 145660 V2M0 52000 6200 8060 66260 190260 V3M0 52000 8200 10660 70860 234860 V0M1 52000 2700 3510 58210 112210 V1M1 52000 4400 5720 62120 150120 V2M1 52000 6400 8320 66720 194720 V3M1 52000 8400 10920 71320 239320 V0M2 52000 4450 5785 62235 151235 V1M2 52000 6250 8125 66375 191375 V2M2 52000 8150 10595 70745 233745 V3M2 52000 10150 13195 75345 278345 V0M3 52000 3200 4160 59360 123360 V1M3 52000 5200 6760 63960 167960 V2M3 52000 7200 9360 68560 212560 V3M3 52000 9200 11960 73160 257160 V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust.

Table 9(C): Economic analysis in carrot production as influenced by vermicompost and mulching Treatment combinations

Marketable yield of root (kg/ha)

Total costof production(Tk/ ha)a

Gross return(Tk/ ha)b

Net profit (Tk/ ha)

Benefit cost ratio

V0M0 17460 105520 349200 243680 3.30

V1M0 18470 145660 369400 223740 2.53

V2M0 28240 190260 564800 374540 2.97

V3M0 19840 234860 396800 161940 1.68

V0M1 20170 112210 403400 291190 3.59

V1M1 21130 150120 422600 272480 2.81

V2M1 23380 194720 467600 306875 2.40

V3M1 22800 239320 456000 216680 1.90

V0M2 23500 151235 470000 318765 3.10

V1M2 24640 191375 492800 301425 2.57

V2M2 33240 233745 850831 617086 3.64

V3M2 26130 278345 522600 244255 1.87

V0M3 22010 123360 440200 316840 3.56




a Calculated based on market price (February 2012). b Considering Tk. 20 per kg of marketable roots at harvest.

V0= Control, V1= 2 ton vermicompost, V2= 4 ton vermicompost and V3= 6 ton vermicompost, M0= Control, M1= Rice straw, M2= Water hyacinth and M3= Sawdust CONCLUSION Gross yield significantly influenced by different doses of vermicompost and mulching. The growth and yield contributing characters of carrot were increased with the increase of vermicompost doses up to a certain limit then decreased. Water

hyacinth had more positive outcome than other mulches in carrot production. So, it can be concluded that vermicompost @ 4 ton/ha with water hyacinth mulching were found suitable for carrot cultivation.

REFERENCES Amooaghaie R and Golmohammadi S (2017),Effect of Vermicompost on Growth, Essential Oil, and Health of Thymus Vulgaris.Compost sci utilization 25(3):1-12 Anikwe MAN, Mbah CN, Ezeaku PI and Onyia VN (2007) Tillage and plastic mulch effects on soil properties, and growth and yield of cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) on an ultisol in south-eastern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res93: 264-272. Ansari AA (2008), Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on the productivity of spinach (Spinacia oleracea), onion (Allium cepa) and potato (Solanum tuberosum). World JAgric. Sci. 4(5): 554-557. Akand MH (2003), Effect of organic manure and mulching on the growth of carrot. MS thesis, Dept. of Horticulture, BAU, Mymensingh. Arora VK, Singh CB, Sidhu AS and Thind SS (2011) Irrigation, tillage and mulching effects on soybean yield and water productivity in relation to soil texture. Agric Water Manag. 98: 563-568. Azarmi R, Giglou MT and Taleshmikail RD (2008) Influence of vermicompost on soil chemical and physical properties in the tomato field. African J Biotech.7(14): 2397-2401. Arscott SA and Tanumihardjo SA (2010) Carrots of Many Colors Provide Basic Nutrition and Bioavailable Phytochemicals Acting as a Functional Food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Sci Food Safety, 9: 223–239. Archana AB and Anubha K (2011), Standardization of Herbal Drugs: An Overview IRJP 2011, 2 (12), 56-60. BBS (2010) Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, Dhaka, Bangladesh. p. 124. Bhatt R and Khera KL (2006) Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the sub-mountainous tract of Punjab, India. SoilTillage Res.88: 107-115. Chanda GC, Bhunia G and Chakraborty SK (2011) The effect of vermicompost and other fertilizers on the cultivation of tomato plants. J Hortic Forest.3(2): 42-45. Chen YP, Liu Q, Liu YJ, Jia FA, and He XH (2014) Responses of soil microbial activity to cadmium pollution and elevated CO2. SciRep. 4(1) 4287-4289. Devaus A and Havercort F (1987), The effect of shifting planting dates and mulching on lat blight (Phytophthora infestans) and drought stress of potato

crops grown under tropical high land conditions. Expt Agric 23(3): 325-333. FAO (2004), Production Year Book. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy, 61(2): 99-111. Glab T and Kulig B (2008), Effect of mulch and tillage system on soil porosity under wheat (Triticum aestivum). Soil Tillage Res99: 169-178. Hamlyn GJ (2007) Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. J.Exp.Bot.58(2):119–130. Krishi Dairy (2012), Dept. of Agriculture Extention, Ministry of Agriculture Bangladesh, Dhaka. Page 50-53. Lori M, Symnaczik S, Ma¨der P, De DG and Gattinger A (2017), Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity:A metaanalysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0180442. Prabha KP, Loretta YL and Usha RK (2007), An experimental study of vermin-biowaste composting for agricultural soil improvement. Bioresource Technol99: 1672-1681. Rashidi M, Abbassi S and Gholami M (2009) Interactive effects of plastic mulch and tillage method on yield and yield components of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). American Eurasian J Agric Env Sci5: 420-427. Resende FV, Souza LS, Oliveira PSR and Gualberto R (2005), Efficiency of mulching on soil moisture and temperature, weed control and yield of carrot in summer season. Ciecia Agrotecnologia. 29(1): 100-105. Roy AK, Mushi AA and Khan AH (1990), Effect of different mulches on the growth of potato. Bangladesh J Bot. 19(1): 41-46. Sarkar S and Singh SR (2007), Interactive effects of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Soil Tillage Res. 92: 79-86. Singh R, Sarma R, Satyendra K, Gupta R and Patil R (2008), Vermicompost substitution influences growth, physiological disorders, fruit yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa). Bioresource Technol. 99: 8502-8511. Suthar S (2009a), Earthworm communities a bioindicator of arable land management practices: a

V1M3 22880 167960 457600 289640 2.72

V2M3 26720 212560 534400 370330 2.51

V3M3 24320 257160 486400 229240 1.89




case study in semi-arid region of India. Ecol Indicators.9(3): 588-594. Suthar S, Choyal R, Singh S and Sudesh (2005) Stimulatory effect of earthworm body fluid (vermiwash) on seed germination and seedling growth of two legumes. J. Phytological Res. 18(2): 219-222. UNDP (1988), Land Resource Apprisal of Bangladesh for Agricultural Development Report Agro-ecological Regions of Bangladesh, FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 577.

Verica V, Branko K, and Sasa O (2012), Weeds in Forestry and Possibilities of Their Control, Weed Control, Dr. Andrew Price (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0159-8. Zhang W, Grimi N, Jaffrin MY, Ding L and Tang B (2017), A short review on the research progress in alfalfa leaf protein separation technology. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.92: 2894–2900. doi:10.1002/jctb.5364

Source of funding: The first author is thankful to SAU Research system, Bangladesh for providing research fund. Article Citation: Hasan;MM*, Ali;MA, Rubel;MMK, Shah;M.,Alzahrani;Y.and Hakeem;KR*.. Influences of Vermicompost and Organic Mulching on Growth, Yield and Profitability of Carrot (Daucus Carota L.). Journal of Agriculture Biotechnology: 2018;03(01):19-31. Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest and original work. Competing interest / Conflict of interest: The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research, patents and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript. Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Majority of the information gathered are from media sources which don’t reflect the author’s own opinion. Copyright © 2018 Md. Mahadi Hasan*, Khalid Rehman Hakeem*, Md. Arfan Ali1, Md. Mahamud Kali Rubel, Muzammil Shah and Yahya Alzahrani. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.




Influences of Vermicompost and Organic Mulching on Growth ...

Documents