EFFECTS OF DRY BIOSLURRY AND CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS ON YIELD, YIELD COMPONENTS OF TOMATO AND SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN ARBA MINCH ZURIA, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA MSC THESIS GEREMEW BIRAMO HAWASSA UNIVERSITY Collage of Agriculture Hawassa, Ethiopia March, 2017 EFFECTS OF DRY BIOSLURRY AND CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS ON YIELD, YIELD COMPONENTS OF TOMATO AND SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN ARBA MINCH ZURIA, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA GEREMEW BIRAMO DOLISSO MAJOR ADVISOR: - GIRMA ABERA (PhD) CO-ADVISOR:- BIRHANU BIAZIN (PhD) A Thesis submitted to the School of Plant and Horticultural Science HAWASSA UNIVERSITY College of Agriculture In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Agriculture (Specialization: Soil Science) Hawassa, Ethiopia March, 2017 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HAWASSA UNIVERSITY ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET (Submission Sheet-1) This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effects of Dry Bioslurry and Chemical Fertilizers on Yield, Yield Components of Tomato and Soil Chemical Properties in Arba Minch Zuria, Southern Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with specialization in Soil Science, the Graduate Program of the School of Plant and Horticultural Science, Hawassa University, College of Agriculture, and is a record of original research carried out by Geremew Biramo Dolisso, under my supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma. The assistance and help received during the course of this investigation have been duly acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department. ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of Major Advisor Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of Co-advisor Signature Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents pages STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOUR .................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...................................................................................................... II LIST OF ACRONMYS ....................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX .......................................................................... VI ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... VII 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 5 2.1. Origin and Distribution of Tomato............................................................................. 5 2.2. Climate and Growth Requirements of Tomato .......................................................... 6 2.3. Nutrient Requirements and Deficiency in Tomato .................................................... 7 2.4. Bioslury and its Nutrient Content .............................................................................. 9 2.5. Effect of Bioslurry on Crop Yield and Soil Characteristics ..................................... 10 2.6. Utilization of Bioslury as Fertilizer for Crop Production in Ethiopia ...................... 11 2.7. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Crop Performance and Yield ........ 12 2.8. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer on Soil Characteristics ........................ 13 2.9. Residual Effect of Bioslurry ..................................................................................... 15 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................. 16 3.1. Experimental Site ..................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Experimental Materials ............................................................................................ 18 3.3. Experimental Design and Treatments ...................................................................... 18 3.4. Experimental Procedures.......................................................................................... 20 3.5. Cultural practices...................................................................................................... 20 3.6. Data Collection and Measurements ......................................................................... 21 3.6.1. Crop phonology ................................................................................................ 21 3.6.2. Growth parameters ............................................................................................ 21 3.6.3. Yield and yield related parameters ................................................................... 22 3.7. Soil Sampling and Analysis ..................................................................................... 24 3.8. Chemical Analysis of Bioslurry ............................................................................... 25 3.9. Plant Tissue Sampling and Analysis ........................................................................ 25 3.10. Economic analysis .................................................................................................... 26 3.11. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 27 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 28 4.1. Bioslury and Soil Physico-Chemical Analysis ........................................................ 28 4.1.1. Chemical Composition of the Bioslury ............................................................. 28 4.1.2. Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil Before Planting ...................................... 29 4.2. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Crop Phenology ................................................ 31 4.3. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Growth Parameters ........................................... 34 4.3.1. Plant height ....................................................................................................... 34 4.3.2. Primary and secondary branches....................................................................... 35 4.3.3. Number of fruit cluster per plant ...................................................................... 38 4.4. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Yield and Yield Components............................ 39 4.4.1. Average fruit weight ......................................................................................... 39 4.4.2. Number of fruit per cluster ............................................................................... 40 4.4.3. Fruit size ............................................................................................................ 42 4.4.4. Marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number ............................................. 44 4.4.5. Marketable, unmarketable and total fruit yield ................................................. 46 4.5. Soil and plant tissues analysis .................................................................................. 49 4.5.1. Chemical properties of soil after harvesting ..................................................... 49 4.5.2. Plant tissue N and P analysis ............................................................................ 56 4.6. Relationships between Parameters Measured .......................................................... 59 4.7. Economic Evaluation ............................................................................................... 60 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 64 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 67 7. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................... 80 i STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOUR I declare that this thesis is my own work and all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma or certificate. Name: Signature: Place: College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. Date of Submission: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT First and foremost, I thank God for giving me health, peace and power to complete this work and thank him for all. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Girma Abera who helped me from research proposal development up to final thesis production with full compassion, patience, interest, encouragement and constructive criticism. He made me feel more confident and strong worker than ever before and I found his suggestions invaluable. I also very grateful and would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my co-advisor Dr. Birhanu Biazin, for his unreserved support, guidance, suggestions and encouragement. I would like to pay my sincere gratitude to Dr. Ashebir Balcha; Director, Arbaminch Agricultural Research Centre (AARC) and all technical and supportive staffs of the center for facilitating my study in one way or another for the successful completion of my study. I am especially very thankful to Mr. Asnake Yohannis and Mr. Sileshi Beyene for providing the experimental field and other valuable materials during the study. My deepest, sincere and respectful thanks go to my wife Woizero Roman Tezera, my little daughter Adonay, my mother Woizero Bizunesh Helena, and my brothers Mr. Biruk, Mr. Wondimagegn and Tekalign, for their love, encouragement and support in every aspect of my life. The burden that my dear Roman had to bear in managing the family alone, besides providing all the support and encouragement I needed, and the pain that the family had undergone while I was away for the study is highly recognized. I am indebted to my family for reassuring me during difficult times. I want to express my gratitude to Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) for giving the Sponsorship. Also I would like to extend my gratitude to ILRI-LIVES project for providing financial support of the study. iii LIST OF ACRONMYS ACB Abaya-Chamo Basin ADP Adenosine triphosphate ANOVA Analysis of Variance ATP Adenosine triphosphate C/N Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio CEC Cation Exchange Capacity CSA Central Statistical Agency DAP Diammonium Phosphate DAT Days after transplanting DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research ETHIO-GIS Ethiopian-Geographical Information System Ethiosis-ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FYM Farm Yard Manure GDP Gross Domestic Product GLM General Linear Model ISFM Integrated Soil Fertility Management Kg Kilo gram LEISA Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture LSD Last Significance Difference masl Meter above sea level m meter MoA Ministry of Agriculture NH4 + Ammonia pH Power of hydrogen PM Poultry Manure Ppd Person per day Ppm Parts per million Q ha-1 Quintal per hectare RDA Recommended Daily Allowance RDF Recommended Dose of Fertilizer SAS Statistical Analysis Software SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional UNEP United Nations Environment Program VC Vermicompost iv LIST OF TABLES Table………………………………….………………..………………………......….Pages 1: Treatment set up and nutrient contents in each treatment ............................................... 19 2: Elemental Composition and Nutrient Content of Bioslurry ............................................ 28 3: Selected Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil before Planting ............................... 30 4: Main effects of fertilizer sources and variety on tomato phenology ............................... 32 5: Main effects of fertilizer sources and variety on growth parameters of Tomato ............ 36 6: Interaction effects of fertilizer x variety on phenology, growth and yield components of tomato ............................................................................................................................. 38 7: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on yield parameters of Tomato ............................ 42 8: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number of tomato ............................................................................................................ 45 9: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on marketable, unmarketable and total fruit yield of tomato ......................................................................................................................... 48 10: Soil chemical properties as influenced by the main effects of variety and fertilizers application after crop harvest .......................................................................................... 51 11: ConcentrationX of N and P in tomato leaf as influenced by organic and inorganic soil amendments .................................................................................................................... 58 12: Partial budget and dominance analysis of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fruit yield of tomato varieties ................................................................................................. 61 13: Marginal analysis of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fruit yield of tomato ........... 62 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure…………………………………………………………………………………..Page 1: Map of Arba Minch Zuria woreda and location of the study area .................................. 16 2: Rainfall and temperatures of Arba Minch area (1993-2012) .......................................... 17 vi LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX Appendix Table……………………………………………………………………….Page 1: Mean squares of tomato phonological parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety ..................................................................................................................... 76 2: Mean squares of tomato growth parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety ............................................................................................................................ 76 3: Mean squares of tomato leaf and fruit yield parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety .................................................................................................. 77 4: Mean squares of tomato yield and yield related parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety .................................................................................................. 77 5: Standard values for soil chemical and nutrient parameters ............................................. 78 6: Simple Correlation coefficients of selected growth, yield and yield related parameters of tomato ............................................................................................................................. 79 vii Effects of Dry Bioslurry and Chemical Fertilizers on Yield, Yield Components of Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.) and Soil Chemical Properties in Arba Minch Zuria, Southern Ethiopia Geremew Biramo (BSc), Wolaita Soddo University Girma Abera (PhD): Major Advisor, Hawassa University Birhanu Biazin (PhD): Co-Advisor, ILRI- LIVES Project ABSTRACT Low soil fertility and low level of fertilizer application have caused low productivity of tomatoes in Arbaminch areas. Therefore, this experiment was conducted to determine the effects of sole and combined application of bioslurry (Biosl) and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of two tomato varieties (Gelilea and Roma VF), and on soil properties. The inorganic fertilizers encompassed recommended Nitrogen and Phosphorous (NP) and blended fertilizer (BF) formulated for the study area (NPSZnB). Hence, a factorial combination of six levels of fertilizers and two types of tomato variety were laid out in RCBD with three replications. The studied soil was loam in texture and moderately acidic (pH 6.0). It had low total N (0.11%), organic carbon (1.64%), available P (10.2 ppm) and moderate in cation exchange capacity (20.2 cmol(+) kg-1). All phenological parameters of tomato were significantly affected by the main effects of fertilizer and variety. The effect of fertilizer had significant influence on all growth parameters. Furthermore, the main effect of fertilizer and variety had significant influence on all yield and yield parameters except the main effect of variety on marketable and total fruit number of tomato. Fertilizer and variety interacted to significantly influence days to flowering, number of primary and secondary branches, cluster per plant and average fruit weight. High total fruit yield (35.8 t ha-1) and marketable fruit yield (32.4 t ha-1) were recorded when NP combined with Biosl, and BF combined with Biosl. Total N and OC increased in soil after harvest as compared to their concentration in soil before sowing for all treatments. The correlation analysis showed that total and marketable fruit yield exhibited positive association with all parameters studied, except with days to flowering, fruiting, maturity, and fruits per cluster. In conclusion, the results showed that the highest marketable fruit yields were obtained at the applications of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl. Furthermore, economic analysis indicated that application of NP+Bios and BF+Biosl resulted in the highest net benefit with acceptable marginal rate of return (above 100%). Generally, the organic and inorganic nutrient sources applied in sole and in combination have improved most of the tomato growth and yield components as well as some soil chemical properties. However, the result of this study was from one season. Hence, similar studies have to be conducted in a number of seasons and locations of similar agro-ecology, soil type and crop in order to draw firm conclusions and make final recommendation. Key words: Bioslurry, fruit yield, inorganic fertilizer, soil characteristics, Tomato 1 1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture contributes more than 40 % to GDP, 80 % of foreign exchange earnings, 70 % of raw material for domestic industries, and 85 % of employment for the population in Ethiopian economy. The country still has a sizeable number of households that are food insecure due to lack of balance between food production and the feeding population. The situation is also further aggravated by a number of environmental challenges (like soil fertility degradation, deforestation, rainfall variability, etc), resulting directly or indirectly from human activities due to unsustainable agricultural practices, rapid population growth, and consequently increase in the exploitation of natural resources (Getachew, 2011). Decreasing soil productivity has become a global concern as soil fertility is diminishing gradually for many reasons including soil erosion, nutrient mining, accumulation of salts and other toxic elements. Intensification of agriculture emphasizes heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which leads to adverse environmental effects. Many efforts are being exercised to combat these, the unfavorable consequences of chemical farming (Faheed et al., 2008). As a solution, organic fertilizers have emerged as a promising component of integrating nutrient supply system in agriculture. Fertilizers specifically, DAP and Urea was used for crop production as major chemical fertilizers in Ethiopia. However, blended fertilizers have been introduced recently. With the increasing population and decreasing land availability for agricultural production, fertilizer has become the leading resource for increased productivity per unit area. However, smallholder farmers do not afford full levels of recommended chemical fertilizer application. Although, balanced use of both macro and micro nutrients in crops 2 plays significant role in increasing the yield, it may not be available from chemical fertilizers. Besides, the world agriculture focuses on Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) which has enhanced the need of eco-friendly organic farming in agriculture sector (Amrit, 2006). Biogas dregs and slurry are by-products of biogas generated during gas production. These residues, especially biogas slurry, are a good source of plant nutrients and can improve soil properties (Garg et al., 2005). In Ethiopia, few crop residues are often retained on farmers’ field due to their competitive use in livestock feed, energy, cash source and construction material. Given the poor economic capacity of smallholder farmers, the chemical fertilizers used for crop production are still at inadequate rates (Girma, 2016). The farmer needs to use optimum chemical fertilizer to increase their crop production. However, if only mineral fertilizers are continuously applied to the soil without adding organic manure, productivity of land will decline due to depletion of soil microbial biomass and activity. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is the most widely grown vegetable in the world (Tesfaye, 2008). It is a profitable cash crop and providing a higher income to small scale farmers that widely cultivated both under irrigation and rain fed throughout the year in Ethiopia (Lemma, 2002). The national average of tomato fruit yield in Ethiopia is often low (198 q ha-1) compared even to the neighboring African countries like Kenya (232 q ha- 1) (FAO, 2013). Current productivity under farmers condition at Arbaminch area is 110 q ha-1, (personal communication) whereas yield up to 400 q ha-1 can be recorded on research plots (Tesfaye, 2008). 3 However, its yield and production in Ethiopia is highly constrained by several factors. Among these, poor soil fertility, lack of well adapted improved varieties, lack of adequate nutrient supply and poor agronomic management practices (spacing, planting time, irrigation, etc) are the main constraints to agricultural production systems in low-input agriculture in the country and particularly to the study area (Dandena et al., 2011). Furthermore, in the major tomato production belt of central rift valley of Ethiopia high temperature, diseases, poor irrigation practices and fertilization are some of the constraints to reduce normal vegetative and reproductive organs development for proper fruit settings and maturation (Dandena et al., 2011). Chemical fertilizers are not the most appropriate solution to overcome these constraints, especially for vegetables that have increasingly short time and are consumed fresh. Use of chemical fertilizers are also expensive and a threat to human health (Weltzein, 1990). So, it is suggested that there should be an emphasis on finding alternatives to chemical fertilizers such as compost and bioslurry, which are cheaper than other sources of nutrients and relatively safe (Rindle, 1997). The use of these organic sources has a role in the management of plant diseases and soil fertility in field and greenhouse (Muhammad, 2011). It is important to note that in Arbaminch area huge number of biogas structure were constructed for household fuel consumption. Therefore, putting emphasis on locally available low cost organic manure becomes an attractive option. Proper use of bioslurry can reduce the dependency of many farmers on increasingly expensive chemical fertilizer. 4 Moreover, its benefits need to be substantiated with scientific evidence to demonstrate to the agricultural experts and farmers, amongst others, on its impact to increased yield (Getachew, 2011). Research efforts on how to use these resources and use of bioslurry together with low rates of mineral fertilizers could be an alternative solution for sustainable fertility management and promote food self-sufficiency especially for resource poor farmers. In general, the role of bioslurry as organic fertilizer and effects on tomato growth and yield as well as on soil properties has not been studied under contrasting with chemical fertilizers (blended versus non-blended) in the semi-arid lowland areas around Arba Minch. Hence, this study was proposed with the following objectives: General objective  To investigate the potential use of organic fertilizer (bioslurry) in combination with soil applied inorganic fertilizers for improved tomato crop production and soil properties Specific objectives  To evaluate the effect of sole and combined application of bioslurry and chemical fertilizers on growth performance, yield and yield components of tomato  To determine the residual effects of sole and combined application of bioslurry and chemical fertilizers on physical and chemical properties of soil  To determine appropriate combinations of bioslurry and chemical fertilizers use for economic yield production of tomato 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Origin and Distribution of Tomato The tomato belongs to the solanaceae family and the genus Lycopersicon, a genus that consists of a relatively few species of annual or short lived perennial herbaceous plants (George et al., 1983). The cultivated tomato belongs to a species Lycopersicon esculentum Miller and the cherry tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum variety ceraciforme) is direct ancestor of the modern cultivated forms (Taylor, 1986). Cultivated tomato is a self- pollinated crop with somatic chromosome number of 24. The center of origin of tomato is believed to be in Tropical America probably Mexico or Peru and the name tomato is of South American origin (Gould, 1983). According to Gould (1983) the tomatoes were taken to Europe from Mexico or Peru during the early sixteenth century, but the cultivation for the market has been practiced since about the 1800. It was introduced to Africa in the 16th century (George et al., 1983). Tomato is self-pollinated crop that produces mature fruits in about 25-30 days after fertilization. Time from transplant to first harvest needs 70 to 75 days for cherry types, 75- 80 days for the plum types, and 80-90 days for the large fruited type tomatoes. Ripening phase of tomato fruit characterized by fruit softening, coloring, and sweetening (Giovannoni, 2001). Environmental stress, such as poor nutrition, unfavorable weather, or insect and disease pressure may result in abscission during or after flowering (Bohner and Bangerth, 1988). Tomato is one of the most widely consumed vegetable crops in the world, not only because of its volume, but also because of its overall contribution to nutrition and its 6 important role in human health. Tomatoes rank first in the "relative contribution to human nutrition" when compared to 39 major fruits and vegetables (Bourne, 1977). One medium sized tomato provides 40% of the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), 20% of the RDA of vitamin A, substantial amounts of potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and lesser amounts of iron, magnesium, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin, yet contains only about 35 calories (FAO/UNEP, 1979). 2.2. Climate and Growth Requirements of Tomato Tomato is a warm season crop, however; it can be grown under a wide range of climate and soil conditions both in tropical and temperate regions (Gould, 1992). Tomato is sensitive to high nighttime temperatures, especially the large fruited fresh varieties. High nighttime temperatures may lead to lower fruit set or to small, seedless fruit development. Optimum temperature for fruit set is 15-20ºC (Gillaspy et al., 1993). According to Rice et al. (1990), elevation up to 2000 m.a.s.l are suitable for tomato culture and yields are generally higher at elevation over 500m. There are also varieties that can adapt at lower elevation, but their yields are generally lower. Therefore, tomato is produced in different agro ecological zones. Other researchers reported that 5-6ºC diurnal variation is required for optimal growth and development (Rice et al., 1990). Tomato requires clear and dry weather, but it is not sensitive to day length. The tomato prefers a dry atmosphere and moderately high temperature coupled with plenty of sunlight and air (Shewell-cooper, 1961). In the central low land areas of Ethiopia, the optimal growing temperature ranges between 24 and 28ºC occurring during the day and 14 -17ºC at night, which is favorable for production of high quality fruits (Lemma, 1998). Tomatoes 7 do not have high requirements regarding the soil type where they will be grown. It can grow on many soil types but all good tomato soils must drain well, fertile soils with a good moisture retention capacity and a relatively high level of organic material although many varieties tolerate a wide range of soil conditions. Tomatoes grow well in alkaline soils, but the tomatoes prefer neutral to light acid soils (pH 5.5 to 7). High relative humidity when combined with high temperature has a negative effect on tomato plant. Rapid germination of fungal spores and spread of bacterial activities are some of the problems associated with these conditions (Atherton and Rudich, 1986). 2.3. Nutrient Requirements and Deficiency in Tomato Tomato plants have high requirement, are heavy feeders, for macro-nutrient elements including potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) and some micronutrients such as iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn) (Abbasi et al., 2002). A study by Hinman et al. (2012) revealed that without adequate supply of K and Ca for tomato plant uptake and utilization, tomato fruits will not accumulate soluble solids content (sugars) and will be susceptible to physiological disorders such as blossom end-rot. According to Jones (2008), smaller requirements of the elements Nitrogen (N), Magnesium (Mg), Phosphorus (P), Boron (B) and Copper (Cu) are also important for dry matter partitioning and fruit setting of tomato plant (Eliakira and Peter, 2014). The nitrogen requirement of tomatoes is generally considered to be moderately high, with some authors suggesting only about 150 kg N ha-1, reducing this to 125 kg. However, in high rainfall areas, or for large scale production, a minimum of 250 kg N ha-1 should be considered, for target yields of about 50 tons ha-1. Adequate nitrogen promotes better 8 growth and better flower and fruit set. Deficiencies lead to poor uptake of other nutrients and restrict root and shoot growth. Phosphorus is an important nutrient for root and flower development, fruit set, to hasten fruit maturity, and ensures more vigorous growth, especially of young plants. It also promotes early flowering and fruit setting. An early symptom of phosphorus deficiency in tomatoes is the development of a purplish color on the undersides of the leaves. The stems are slender and fibrous, leaves are small and the plants are late in setting and maturing fruit. The potassium requirement of tomatoes is high. Plant analyses indicate that the plants take up about 50% more potassium than nitrogen. The major effect of high potassium is its influence on fruit quality, rather than on yield. The color, taste, firmness, sugars, acids and solids of the fruit are all improved with adequate levels of potassium. It also strengthens plant cells and makes the plant less susceptible to attacks by many diseases. An excess of potassium, on the other hand, leads to a reduced uptake of, especially, magnesium. This can result in a magnesium deficiency. Tomatoes have a high calcium requirement. Deficiencies may occur on acid soils, on soils with very high potassium levels, or under conditions of poor calcium uptake and translocation, such as drought conditions. The major symptom is that of blossom-end rot of the fruit. The use of calcium nitrate sprays will reduce the incidence of this condition. Generally, the tomato crop requires a number of macro and micro nutrients in an adequate amount for their physiological growth and optimum crop yield. These essential nutrient elements provides many functions to the crop including promotes better growth and better flower and fruit set, resistance to diseases, improves nutrient uptake of the crops. 9 2.4. Bioslury and its Nutrient Content Biogas slurry proved to be of high quality organic manure compared to the farmyard manure (FYM), digested sludge tends to have more nutrients. Studies reported that FYM contains 0.8% of Nitrogen (N), 0.7% of Phosphorous (P), and 0.7% of Potassium (K), while NPK content of composted manure is 1%, 0.6%, and 1.2% respectively. Similarly, digested (biogas) slurry contains 1.60% N, 1.55% P and 1.00% K, and composted slurry comprises of 0.75% N, 0.65% P and 1.05% K (Amrit, 2006). However, nutrients, especially nitrogen, are lost by volatilization when exposed to sunlight (heat) and by leaching due to rain (Karki and Joshi, 1997). Bioslurry beside its use as soil amendment for crop growth also offers a promising win- win opportunity as at the same time it prevents adverse environmental impacts of waste disposal. Application of digested bioslurry increases the crop yield, quality of vegetables like size and shapes. It also helps in reduction of dependence on mineral fertilizer (Karki, 1996). Yield increase due to bioslurry application has been reported in many crops. Vegetable crops produced with bioslurry have better quality as compared to those produced with chemical fertilizer (Krishna, 2001). As the slurry contains readily available form of plant nutrients, it can be applied both as basal and topdressings. If it is applied to standing crop, it should be diluted with water at the ratio of 1:1.5 -2.0. Otherwise, it will have burning effect on the lower leaves of plants due to high concentration of ammonia and phosphorus in it. To avoid the loss of ammonia (NH+), wet slurry should be utilized immediately after it is transported to the field (Kijne, 1984; Demont et al., 1990). 10 2.5. Effect of Bioslurry on Crop Yield and Soil Characteristics Various studies had reported wide variation in the nutrient content in biogas slurry. Theoretically, in anaerobic condition most of the compounds will be in reduced form. Therefore, most of the nitrogen will be in the ammonium form (NH4 +), which is readily available to the plant. Similarly, phosphorus and potassium will also be in readily available form to plant as they are released from organic complex. Recommended dose of chemical fertilizer in conjunction with 20 t ha-1 bioslurry resulted in highest tomato fruit yield increment (36.2%) over control (without fertilizers) followed by 28.4% yield increment by sole application of bioslurry (20 t ha-1). Application of both liquid and composted form of bioslurry resulted in higher yield increment (18.4% and 28.4% respectively) of cabbage as compared to that of the application of FYM alone and also full dose of recommended chemical fertilizer which resulted in 14% and 19.6% yield increment over control respectively. Marchaim (1983) observed that application of digested effluent over a period of years leads to increased crop production. Crops treated with composts and bioslurry from anaerobic digestion do not usually show nutrient deficiency because carbon rich materials have already been decomposed during the treatment, immobilizing the nutrients in the organic waste, rather than the plant available nutrients in the soil. This tends to provide a store of rapidly available nutrients that will be released to the crop over the course of the growing season, so providing nutrients when the crop can make use of them and minimizing losses (Vianney et.al. 2011). 11 Long-term experiments demonstrated the physical and chemical properties of the soil improved markedly after a few years of applying digester effluent, while total crop yields were 11-20% higher than in controls (Marchaim, 1992). The use of slurry without anaerobic digestion is still very common in many countries, and its value cannot be ignored (Vetter et al., 1988). 2.6. Utilization of Bioslury as Fertilizer for Crop Production in Ethiopia In Ethiopia, there is a little attempt in the utilization of bioslurry as a fertilizer to improve crop production and maintain the physical and chemical properties of soil. However, the utilization of bioslurry varies from region to region. Except in a few households, bioslurry in urban areas is not mostly utilized but rather discarded to waste lands especially in Debre-zeit and Butajira towns. However, in recent years the local energy expert in Meskan in collaboration with Butajira municipality has started to collect bioslurry from these households for the greening project of Butajira town (Getachew, 2011). Although there are a number of promising stories told by farmers there is still lack of enough empirical data to substantiate the stories and preliminary results from few trials. In SNNPR rural areas of Meskan and Arbaminch woreda, bioslurry is used in liquid form predominantly for production of fruit trees such as banana, mango, khat, orange, and other vegetables. Terefe Mekuriya, the resident of Lente kebele in Arba Minch Zuria woreda, informed that he tried to conduct trial to compare the effect of bioslurry and compost on his banana plot. According to the results he observed, bioslurry was very effective in making the banana plant greener within a short period of time as compared to compost. 12 Another story told by Worku Sima from Yetebon kebele in Meskan woreda, expressed bioslurry as ‘glucose’ for his khat (Chata edulis) plot. In Oromiya region, the majority of farmers use bioslurry for crop production after composting. However, some model farmers like Beyene Tadesse in Hitosa and Delelegn Girma in Lode Hitosa woreda use bioslurry not only for crop production but also for horticulture, forage, and pasture. In crop production, Beyene was able to produce 4700 kg of wheat per hectare as compared to 3200 kg he produced on average using chemical fertilizer (Getachew, 2011). 2.7. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Crop Performance and Yield Nutrient combination to support and sustain crop growth is very important due to the rising cost of chemical fertilizers and the bulkiness and unavailability of organic manure. Complementary use of organic and inorganic fertilizers has been proven to be a sound soil fertility management strategy in many countries of the world (Lombin et al., 1991). It is obviously understood that chemical fertilizers have helped to improve yields of crops. However, farmers are reluctant to use sources of inorganic fertilizers because of the higher costs compared with organic fertilizers. Thus, farmers are now looking for alternatives to organic fertilizers. An experiment conducted in South West Nigeria on the influence of organic manure and NPK fertilizer on yield and yield components of maize crops under different cropping systems revealed that, application of NPK and organic manure significantly increased grain yield as well as other parameters. It was recorded that 13 complementary application gave the higher values and the trend in both locations was NPK plus organic manure > NPK> organic manure> no fertilizer (Lombin et al., 1991). The combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers does not only improve crop yield but also improves the physical status of the soil (Denis et al. (1993). Reports indicated that organic and inorganic fertilizers applied to the soil supplied plant nutrients for crop growth and affected the plants physiological processes, which serve as important instruments in yield development (Amujoyegbe et al., 2007). This result of field studies indicates that inorganic fertilizer and poultry manure in combination is a better nutrient source compared to sole application of poultry manure and inorganic fertilizer. Amujoyegbe et al. (2007) explained further, that the results recorded was due to the fact that the inorganic fertilizer component of the mixture provided early nutrient to the growing crops during the vegetative growth stage, while the organic component provided nutrients at the later stage of the crop development. Kang and Balasubranamian (1990) has observed that high and sustained crop yield could be achieved with a judicious and balanced NPK fertilizer combined with organic matter amendments. Incorporation of organic manure every year along with recommended dose of NPK fertilizer have been found to produce higher cocoyam and sweet potatoes, leaf numbers and yields than the NPK treatment alone (Osundare, 2004 ). 2.8. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer on Soil Characteristics There is the need to combine the use of organic and inorganic fertilizers to reduce high cost of chemical fertilizers. The use of organic and inorganic fertilizers have been found to 14 improve soil physical conditions as asserted by Agbede et al. (2010) by reducing bulk density, increasing porosity and water holding capacity. The combined effect of the use of organic and inorganic fertilizers does not only reduce bulk density and improve water holding capacity but allows nutrient to be available throughout the growing period and reduces leaching. As the inorganic fertilizers quickly release the major nutrients, the organic manure releases both major (NPK) and micro-nutrients and other growth promoting substances slowly over long period for a crop growth. The organic substances bind the soil together, improving soil structure, retains soil moisture and improves water infiltration thereby improves soil productivity. Chemical fertilizers alone according to Agbede et al. (2010) most of the time increases soil acidity, nutrient leaching, nutrient unbalance and degradation of soil physical properties and organic matter status. In an experiment to compare the evaluation of organic manure and NPK fertilizer on soil physical and chemical properties, growth and yield of yam in south western Nigeria revealed that, there were significant increase in soil organic carbon, N, P, K, Ca, and Mg as well as leaf N, P, K, Ca and Mg concentrations than manure or inorganic fertilizers alone and the control. Application of organic materials alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizer helped in proper nutrition and maintenance of soil fertility (Salim et al., 1998) and organic manures also increased the efficiency of chemical fertilizers (Hussain et al., 1998). Beneficial effects of FYM on crop production through improved fertility and physical properties of soil are an established fact (Singh and Sarivastore, 1971) and providing 15 greater stability in production, but also maintaining better soil fertility status (Nambiar, 1997). 2.9. Residual Effect of Bioslurry The slow release of nutrients from bioslurry and its residual effect on subsequent crops is of prime importance. Bioslury gives greatest yield in the second and third years (Jokela, 1992). Muller-Sumann and Kotschi (1994) reported that the release of nitrogen (N) from bioslurry lags behind that of corresponding amount of soluble chemical fertilizer when it was first applied. They also stated that to assess the full effect of manure on yields, it is vital that the delayed effects be taken into account. Fixed nutrients from bioslurry increases soil humus build-up and nutrient supplies later. According to Prasad and Singh (1980), the fertilizing effect of bioslurry increases significantly with regular application. Soils treated with phosphorus-compost showed marked increase in the availability of soil P in residual crops (Singh and Yadav, 1998). It has been observed by Jones (1971) that poultry manure can positively affect yields in the second and third cropping seasons and the immediate and delayed effect of poultry manure application maximizes its effect on crop yield. 16 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Experimental Site The field experiment was carried out at Kola Shele, Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, Gamo Gofa Zone of SNNPR. It is located near Arba Minch, on latitude of 05o42’ to 06o12’ north and longitude of 37o18’ to 37o40’ east and altitude ranging from 1179-1223 masl in between Lake Abaya-Chamo Basin (ACB). The area is geographically located at 250 km from the Regional Capital, Hawasa and at about 495 km south of Addis Ababa. Arba Minch Zuria Woreda Study site Figure 1: Map of Arba Minch Zuria woreda and location of the study area The long-term weather information at Arba Minch Meteorological station (1993-2012) revealed that the rainfall pattern is a bimodal type with a total rainfall of 830 mm per annum, and the mean minimum, maximum and average air temperatures are 26, 30 and 28 °C, respectively. The highest mean monthly rainfall amounts were observed during April 17 (145.8 mm) and May (141.2 mm) while the lowest amounts were observed during January (30 mm) and February (22 mm) (Tuma et al., 2013a). According to the soil map of Ethiopia which was adapted from ETHIO-GIS Data Sets, the soil of the study area is Eutric Vertisols (Tuma et al., 2013b). Figure 2: Rainfall and temperatures of Arba Minch area (1993-2012) Major crops grown in the area include maize, teff, sorghum, haricot bean, irrigated banana, mango, avocado and vegetables (CSA, 2016). The farming system is dominantly small scale, and characterized by crop and livestock mixed production systems and is mainly for their family requirements (subsistence type). The people of the study area earn their living primarily from both irrigation and rainfed agriculture and livestock husbandry plays a second major role, next to crop production, both as the source of food and income. 18 3.2. Experimental Materials Two tomato varieties, bioslurry, N fertilizer in the form of urea (46% N), phosphate fertilizer in the form of triple super phosphate (TSP, 46% P2O5) and blended fertilizer in the form of NPSZnB were used for the study. Tomato varieties, Gelilea and Roma VF obtained from LIVES Project and Woreda Agricultural Office, respectively were selected based on their adaptability and high yielding potential. Gelilea is an indeterminate type fresh market tomato with globular shape of fruits whereas Roma VF is a determinate type with pear shaped fruit preferred by most farmers in the study area. Galilea is a tomato variety introduced from Israel by a private seed breeding and maintaining company called Hazera Genetics Limited and then recommended for production in Ethiopia in 2011. According to LIVES project field office, Gelilea variety has a good ecological adaptability, pest and disease resistance and also has a greater yield increment than the local varieties in the study area. Similarly Roma VF has a good agronomic performance; it was released from Melkasa Agricultural Research Center (MARC) in 2007. Both varieties are irrigated type and currently they are under production and most adapted throughout the country. 3.3. Experimental Design and Treatments The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with factorial arrangements with two factors, variety and fertilizer. Hence, two varieties of tomato (Galilea and Roma VF) were treated with six different types of fertilizer sources; 1) control, without fertilizer application (CT), 2) recommended Nitrogen and Phosphorus (NP) fertilizer, 3) blended fertilizer (BF), 4) combined recommended NP plus bioslurry 19 (NP+Biosl), 5) combined blended fertilizer plus bioslurry (BF +Biosl) and bioslurry alone (Biosl) (Table 1). Therefore, there were a total of 12 treatments (2 varieties x 6 fertilizer levels). Each of these treatments was tested in the field with three replications in one farmer field. The description of treatment was presented in table 1. Table 1: Treatment set up and nutrient contents in each treatment Variety Fertilizer code Treatments Nutrient contents in the treatment Gelilea CT Gelilea + Control 0 kg ha-1 NP Gelilea + NP 92 kg N + 30 kg P ha-1 BF Gelilea + BF 200 kg NPSZnB +124 kg ha-1 of urea (top dressed) NP+Biosl Gelilea + NP+Biosl 46/15 kg N/P ha-1 and 7 t ha-1 bioslurry BF+Biosl Gelilea + BF+Biosl 100 kg NPSZnB + 7 t ha-1 bioslurry + 62 kg ha-1 of urea (top dressed) Biosl Gelilea + Biosl 14 t ha-1 bioslurry Roma VF CT Roma + Control 0 kg ha-1 NP Roma + NP 92 kg N + 30 kg P ha-1 BF Roma + BF 200 kg NPSZnB +124 kg ha-1 of urea (top dressed) NP+Biosl Roma + NP+Biosl 46/15 kg N/P ha-1 and 7 t ha-1 bioslurry BF+Biosl Roma + BF+ Biosl 100 kg NPSZnB + 7 t ha-1 bioslurry + 62 kg ha-1 of urea (top dressed) Biosl Roma + Biosl 14 t ha-1 bioslurry Key: CT=control; NP= recommended NP rate; BF= blended fertilizer; Biosl= bioslurry compost NPSZnB is one of blended formula that was recommended to the study area by Ethiosis- ATA Regional Office; thus, NPSZnB blended formula was used for this experiment. The blended fertilizer was expected to provide adequate amount of essential nutrients for the plant growth and maximum yield; and it contains 17.5N+34.9P2O5+7.6S+2.23Zn+0.3B in 100 kg blended fertilizer. Urea and TSP as a source of nitrogen and phosphorous at a rate 20 of 92 kg N and 30 kg P ha-1, respectively were applied for the treatments which received full dose of the recommended rate of N and P fertilizer while for those treatments in combination with bioslurry half of the recommended rate of N and P fertilizers were applied (Table 1). Bioslurry was mixed thoroughly, weighed for each plot, spread evenly, and incorporated into the soil two weeks before planting accordingly to their rates. 3.4. Experimental Procedures The land was ploughed using oxen based on the traditional practice of tillage in Ethiopia. The land was prepared to avoid cobbles, leveled properly and furrows were made manually in such a way that it allows proper furrow irrigation. Seedlings of two tomato varieties that were raised in a well prepared nursery bed close to the experimental field. Hence, seedlings were transplanted to the field experimental plots when they were about 35 days old. Irrigation was applied every three days to bring the soil moisture content to field capacity uniformly for all treatments during the whole growing season. Seedlings were planted at a spacing of 100 cm between rows and 35 cm between plants. Each experimental plot had 4m length x 3m width, with 32 plants per plot. A total of 16 plants per plot, from the middle two rows, were considered for agronomic data collection. The distance between plots and blocks were 1 m and 1.30 m, respectively. 3.5. Cultural practices Cultural practices such as weeding, hoeing, watering, staking, disease and pest control were applied uniformly for all treatments in order to produce healthy and strong seedlings. During the course of the study, fungicide (Ridomil MZ 68 WP) was applied at two weeks 21 interval to control late blight, leaf blight, and bacterial disease since the incidence was observed. 3.6. Data Collection and Measurements In each treatment, five plants were randomly selected from the central two rows and tagged before flowering for recording quantitative data measurements. Crop growth, phenology, yield and yield components were considered in this study. However, crop phenology observations were made on plot basis. All parameters to be considered are listed below with descriptions. 3.6.1. Crop phonology Days to 50% flowering: were recorded as the number of days from transplanting to the time when 50% of plants in each plot set flowers. Days to 50% fruiting: were recorded as the number of days from the date of transplanting to date when 50% of plants in each plot bear fruit. Days to 90% maturity: were recorded as the numbers of days from the date of transplanting to the date when 90% of the plants in each plot had physiologically mature fruits. Duration of harvest: was recorded as days from the first to the final harvest. 3.6.2. Growth parameters Plant height: The plant height was measured from the ground level to the tip of upper most part of the main stem at 50% flowering stage. Number of primary branches: Number of branches extended from the main stem were counted and recorded on 5 randomly selected plants at flowering stage from each plot. 22 Number of secondary branches: Number of branches extended from the primary branches was counted and recorded on 5 randomly selected plants at flowering stage from each plot. Height of primary and secondary branches: The height of primary and secondary branches was recorded on 5 randomly selected plants at 50% of flowering stage from each plot. Leaf length (LL): The average length of three leaves which was taken from the upper, middle and lower parts of 5 plants were measured at 50% flowering stage and expressed in centimeters. Leaf width (LW): The average width of three leaves which was taken from the upper, middle, and lower parts of 5 plants were measured at the widest point of leaf at 50% flowering stage and expressed in centimeters. 3.6.3. Yield and yield related parameters Average fresh fruit weight (g): this was calculated from 5 marketable fruits from each plot selected during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th harvest. Average fresh fruit weight (g) = total weight of fresh fruits (g) Number of fresh fruits Fruit diameter (cm): five randomly taken sample fruits per plot were measured during peak harvest and the mean value was used to calculate mean fruit size. The size of the fruit was determined using a vernier caliper. The diameter was measured along the longitudinal (stem to blossom end) and cross-sectional axis (transverse diameter). Number of fruit cluster per plant (CP): this was recorded by counting the total number of fruit clusters per plant from 5 randomly selected plants from each plot at full maturity. 23 Number of fruits per cluster (FC): It was recorded by counting the total number of fruits per cluster from five randomly selected plants at physiological maturity. Total number of fruits per plant: The number of all fruits that were harvested from the five earlier randomly tagged plants was counted. Marketable fruit number per plant: Those fruits from the five tagged plants, which were free from visible damage, insect pest, diseases, and not extra small sized fruits (>20 g), were considered as marketable. The fruits were counted at each harvest time, averaged and expressed in numbers. Unmarketable fruit number per plant: Fruits with cracks, rotting, damaged by insects, diseases, birds and sunburn as well as extra small sized fruits which were collected from the five tagged plants were considered as unmarketable. The fruits were counted at each harvest time, averaged and expressed in numbers Total fruit weight per plant (kg): All fruits produced by five earlier randomly tagged plants were weighed, averaged and expressed in kilo gram per plant. Marketable fruit weight per plant (kg): Those fruits from the five tagged plants, which were from visible damage, insect pests, diseases, and not extra small sized fruits, were weighed, averaged and expressed in kilo gram per plant. Unmarketable fruit weight per plant (kg): Fruits with cracks, rotting, damaged by insects, diseases, birds and sunburn as well as extra small sized fruits( < 20 g) which were collected and weighted from the five plants of each plot were considered as unmarketable. Fruit yield per hectare (ton): marketable and unmarketable fruit yield ha-1 was calculated on the basis of fruit yield per plant and expressed in tons per hectare. 24 3.7. Soil Sampling and Analysis Surface soil (0-20 cm) samples were collected randomly from 10 spots of the experimental field before planting by using auger and composited for analysis of selected physicochemical properties including texture, pH, organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphors and potassium, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable basis. In the same way, soil samples were collected from three spots for each treatment in every replication just after harvest. These samples were composited to yield one representative sample per replication. The samples were air dried and ground to pass through 2.0 mm sieve before laboratory analyses. However, for total nitrogen and organic carbon content analyses the soil sample was prepared by passing through 0.5 mm sieve. The soil samples were analyzed for some parameters relevant to the study at the Hawassa Soil Laboratory center, Regional Bureau of Agriculture. Physico-chemical properties mainly pH, organic matter content, total N, available P and K, CEC, exchangeable bases, and soil particle distribution (texture) were determined for the soil samples collected before and after planting. Organic matter content of the soil was determined by wet combustion with K2Cr2O7 (Walkley and Black, 1934). Total nitrogen was determined according to Micro-Kjeldahl method with sulphuric acid (Jackson, 1962). Determination of available phosphorous was carried out according to the methods of Olsen and Dean (1965). Exchangeable potassium was extracted using 1N neutral ammonium acetate at pH 7 (Pratt, 1965) and determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The pH of the soil was determined by glass electrode pH meter using soil: water suspension of 1:2.5 ratios as described by Jackson (1973). Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was measured after saturating the soil with 1N ammonium acetate (NHOAc) (Chapman, 1965). Particle size 25 distribution was determined by the hydrometer method using particles less than 2mm diameter. The procedure measures percentage of sand (0.05-2.0 mm), silt (0.002 - 0.05 mm) and clay (≤0.002mm) fractions in soils (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007; Motsara and Roy, 2008). 3.8. Chemical Analysis of Bioslurry Determination of the nutrient content of bioslurry is very essential point to know the nutrient concentration of bioslurry and also to make the treatment arrangement. Total N in bioslurry sample was estimated by semi-micro kjeldahl method as described in section 3.7. But, 0.1 g oven dried sample was digested instead of 1 g soil sample for manure analysis. The phosphorus, potassium, pH, OM content and CEC were determined by using the procedures stated for soil analysis above in section 3.7. The analyzed results of the bioslurry are presented in the result and discussion section. 3.9. Plant Tissue Sampling and Analysis Plant leaf samples were collected from each treatment plot by taking three fully expanded leaves from the top of the five randomly selected plants, between flowering and the beginning of fruit ripening. The collected tissue samples were washed, dried and ground to allow passing through < 1 mm size sieve for determination of N and P contents of the plant tissues. The prepared leaf samples were analyzed in Sodo Soil Testing Laboratory. Nitrogen content was determined by Kjeldahl method (Dewis and Freitas, 1970). The tissue was oxidized by concentrated hydrochloric acid and the oxidized sample distilled with boric acid to liberate and collect the ammonia from ammonium sulphate and N concentration was determined by titration of the acid distillate. Phosphorous was also 26 determined calorimetrically using molybdate and metavanadate for color development. The reading was made at 460 nm wavelength. 3.10. Economic analysis Partial budget analysis was employed for economic analysis of fertilizer application and variety, and it was carried out for combined fruit yield data. The potential response of crop towards the added fertilizer and price of fertilizers during planting ultimately determine the economic feasibility of fertilizer application (CIMMYT, 1988). To estimate economic parameters, tomato fruits and seeds were valued at an average open market price of 6.00 Birr kg-1 for fruit, and 1250 and 500 Birr kg-1 for Gelilea and Roma VF seed, respectively. To estimate the total costs, mean current prices of Urea (13 Birr kg-1), DAP (14 Birr kg-1), blended fertilizer (14.5 birr kg-1) and bioslurry (50 Birr q-1) were collected at the time of planting. Though, TSP was used as a source of P, the price of DAP was considered for the calculation by equating the amount of P since current price of TSP is unknown. Forty five workers for bioslurry application, fifteen workers for TSP application, eighteen workers for blended fertilizer application and twenty nine workers for urea application were considered per hectare. The wage rate per worker was 100 Birr per day. Cost of land preparation, field management, harvest, transportation, protection, storage, post-harvest, and others were not included in the calculation because these activities were applied equally for all treatments. The economic analysis was based on the formula developed by CIMMYT (1988) and given as follows: Gross average yield (GAY) (kg ha-1 or ton ha-1): is an average yield of each treatment 27 Adjusted yield (AJY): is the average yield adjusted downward by a 10% to reflect the difference between the experimental yield and yield of farmers. AJY = GAY - (GAY * 0.1) Gross field benefit (GFB): was computed by multiplying field/farm gate price that farmers receive for the crop when they sale it as adjusted yield. GFB = AJY * field/farm gate price of a crop Total cost (TC): mean current prices of urea (13 birr kg-1), DAP (14 birr kg-1), blended fertilizer (14.5 birr kg-1), bioslurry compost (50 birr Qt-1), wage for compost application, DAP application, blended fertilizer application and urea application were considered per hectare. Net benefit (NB): was calculated by subtracting the total costs from the gross field benefit for each treatment. NB = GFB – TC Marginal cost (MC) = change in costs between treatments. Marginal benefit (MB) = change in benefits between treatments. Marginal rate of return {MRR (%)} = (MB/ MC)*100 3.11. Data Analysis Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using the GLM Procedure of SAS software version 9.0 (SAS Institute, 2002). All significant treatment means were compared using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level. Simple Pearson correlation analysis was done using SAS Institute (2002) to determine the association between selected growths, yield and yield related traits. 28 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Bioslury and Soil Physico-Chemical Analysis 4.1.1. Chemical Composition of the Bioslury The results on the chemical composition of the bioslurry which was utilized as organic source of soil fertility amendment in the study are presented in Table 2. The result showed that the bioslurry contains 8.6% organic C, 1.3% total N, 114.2 ppm available P, 284.1 ppm available K and a pH of 7.2 (1:2.5 H2O), which is slightly alkaline in reaction. The narrow carbon to nitrogen ratio (7:1) in the organic nutrient source indicates that the bioslurry is well decomposed to the level of average soil organic matter. Table 2: Elemental Composition and Nutrient Content of Bioslurry pH (H2O) OC (%) TN (%) C:N ratio Av. P (mg kg-1 ) Av. K (meq/100gm) CEC (cmol(+) kg-1 ) 7.2 8.6 1.3 6.6 114.2 284.1 27.3 pH: Power of hydrogen, OC: Organic carbon, OM: organic matter, T.N: Total nitrogen, Av. P: Available phosphorous, Av. K: Available Potassium, CEC: cation exchange capacity The CEC of the bioslurry was 27.3 cmol(+) kg-1. The content of most of the nutrients in bioslurry were similar to the analytical results of compost prepared from decomposable plant materials reported by Wakene et al. (2004) except for N which was high (3.42%) in the latter compared to 1.3% contained in the bioslurry. In addition to the macronutrients, the bioslurry could probably supply the soil with appreciable amounts of micronutrients such as Mn, Fe, Zn and other micronutrients. This implies that organic fertilizer is a source of most essential plant nutrients and, thus a complete fertilizer to be used for sustaining crop production provided that other abiotic and biotic factors are favorable. 29 4.1.2. Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil Before Planting The soil analysis before planting (Table 3) indicated that as compared to the standard values for soil chemical and nutrient parameters (Appendix Table 5); the topsoil (0-20 cm) was loam in texture and has a pH value of 6.0 in a 1:2.5 soil to water solution. It was found to be moderately acidic in reaction, as per the classification set by Tekalign (1991). According to the limit suggested by Murphy (1968) for Ethiopian soils, the organic carbon (1.64%) of the soil is rated as medium and the total nitrogen content (0.11%) as low. The C: N ratio of 15:1 is greater compared to the generally established 10:1 average C: N ratio for soil organic matter and N of mineral soils indicating that the soil organic matter is moderately depleted (Wakene and Heluf, 2003). Correspondingly, the standards set by Landon (1991); the experimental soil has low total N and medium available K. Such findings further signify that the soils require external application of nutrients according to recommendation for the crops grown. According to the soil P nutrient class ranges identified by Marx (1996), soils containing less than 10 ppm are considered as low in available P, those grouped in the range of 10-20 ppm are considered as medium, and the rest containing greater than 20 ppm are classified as high in available P. Thus, the experimental soil is medium in available P (10.2 ppm), which indicated the need for phosphorus application. The CEC of the soil in the study area was 20.2 cmol(+) kg-1 while the base saturation of the sample was 40.29%. The CEC and percent base saturation (PBS) values observed are generally moderate although they fall on the normal range for moderately acidic soils with pH values of less than 6.5 such the soils of the study area containing a pH value of 6.0. 30 Exchangeable Ca (5.41 cmol(+) kg-1) followed in this order by exchangeable Mg (1.73 cmol(+) kg-1) and exchangeable K (0.64 cmol(+) kg-1) is the dominant basic cation in the soil of the experimental field (Table 3). Table 3: Selected Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil before Planting Physical and chemical properties Values pH (H2O) 6.0 OC (%) 1.64 T.N (%) 0.11 Av. P (ppm) 10.2 Av. K (meq 100 -1gm) 19.4 CEC (cmol(+) kg-1) 20.2 Ca (cmol(+) kg-1) 5.41 Mg (cmol(+) kg-1) 1.73 K (cmol(+) kg-1) 0.64 Na (cmol(+) kg-1) 0.36 BS (%) 40.29 Sand (%) 48 Silt (%) 20 Clay (%) 32 Textural class Loam T.N: Total nitrogen, OC: Organic carbon, Av. P: Available phosphorous, Av. K: Available Potassium, CEC: cation exchange capacity, Ca: Exchangeable Calcium, K: Exchangeable Potassium, Mg: Exchangeable Magnesium, Na: Exchangeable Sodium and BS: Base saturation Generally, the content of the soil fertility parameters studied are indicatives of the fact that the soils of the study area are deficient in most of the major plant nutrients particularly in available P and nitrogen, and the basic cations of Ca, Mg and K. In addition, the soil is moderately acidic as to limit crop production through increasing the solubility and availability of certain toxic micronutrients and by reducing the availability of P through 31 enhanced P fixation as insoluble compounds of Al and Fe phosphates (Wakene and Heluf, 2003). The relatively poor soil fertility and the acidic soil reactions were also realized earlier in the research findings of Tuma et al., (2013b). These properties indicate that the experimental soil has some limitations with regard to its use for crop production. 4.2. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Crop Phenology Fertilizer and variety showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) effect on phenological parameters (days to 50% flowering, 50% fruiting, 90% maturity and duration of harvest) of tomato except main effect of fertilizer on duration of harvest (Table 4). The result also showed that fertilizer and variety had no significant interaction effect on days to 50% fruiting, days to 90% maturity and duration of harvest. However, variety x fertilizer interaction was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected days to 50% flowering (Appendix Table 1). Single and combined application of organic and inorganic soil amendments in the form of NP, BF and Biosl delayed the days to flowering, fruiting and maturity of tomato as compared to the control. The control treatment reduced the days to flowering by 13.9 and 14.2%, the days to fruiting by 11.7 and 11.4% and the days to maturity by 12.9 and 12.4% as compared to the combined application of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl treatments, respectively. Soil amended with NP, BF and Biosl alone, and their combined application was increased the days to fruiting and maturity as compared to control. Applying balanced plant nutrients to the soil through organic and inorganic fertilizers prolonged the number of days required by the plants to reach flowering, fruiting, maturity, as well as final harvesting (Table 4). This may be attributed to the high availability of 32 essential nutrients (particularly N) in the soil which leads to enhanced excessive vegetative growth and probably delays reproductive growth by decreasing sink strength of flowers relative to vegetative tissues. This result is corroborated by the findings of Sainju et al., (2003) who reported that high N level in the soil promoted excessive vegetative growth which delayed flowering, fruit setting and maturity in tomato. The earliness to flowering, fruiting and maturity in control might be due to the fact that plants under stress forced to complete their life cycle for survival. Similar findings were reported by Naidu et al. (2002) in tomato and Prativa and Bhattarai (2011) in tomato. Table 4: Main effects of fertilizer sources and variety on tomato phenology Treatments Days to 50% flowering Days to 50% fruiting Days to 90% maturity Duration of harvest Fertilizer (F) Control 33.3b 54.5c 77.7d 37.00 NP 35.0b 56.5bc 83.3bc 36.98 BF 36.0ab 60.2ab 84.5b 36.00 NP + Biosl 38.7a 61.7a 89.2a 35.45 BF + Biosl 38.8a 61.5a 88.7a 35.20 Biosl 35.7b 55.3bc 80.8cd 34.95 LSD (0.05) 2.89** 4.98* 3.38** NS Variety (V) Gelilea 35.3b 56.4b 82.1b 30.26b Roma VF 37.2a 60.1a 86.0a 33.61a LSD (0.05) 1.67* 2.87* 1.95** 1.76* Mean 36.3 58.3 84.0 34.9 CV (%) 6.65 7.13 3.36 5.94 Means in the column followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). NS- non significant; *significant at 0.05; **significant at 0.01 Sole application of Biosl and NP treatments did not significantly influence the days to flowering, fruiting and maturity as compared to the control. This might be associated with 33 the low level of available P in the soil of plots which received NP and Biosl alone. This finding was in agreement with that of Sommerfeldt and Knuston (1965) who reported that maturity is delayed when there is deficiency of P in the soil. The field observation also showed that the tomato plants treated with Biosl alone were thin and stems were still green up to maturity compared to plants treated with the combined application of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers. Correspondingly, the control plot showed shortest days to flowering, fruiting and maturity as compared to plots treated with organic and inorganic nutrient source since the control plot had low amount of available P in the soil as a result the uptake of other nutrients by the plant would be minimized. Due to this fact, the plants can early mature from the normal period of physiological maturity. The variety significantly influenced the phenological parameters of tomato like days to flowering and fruiting (P ≤ 0.05) and days to maturity (P ≤ 0.01) (Appendix Table 1). The number of days to final fruit harvest was 112 and 120 DAT for Gelilea and Roma VF varieties, respectively. The length of fruit harvest days of Roma VF variety had increased by 11.8% over Gelilea variety, which is also significantly different. The observed difference between two varieties on days to flowering, fruiting, maturity, and duration of harvest was mainly attributed to the genetic makeup of the cultivar (Amjad et al., 2001). Analysis of variance indicated that fertilizer and variety had no significant interaction effect on days to fruiting, days to maturity and duration of harvest. However, variety x fertilizer interaction significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected the number of days to flowering (Appendix Table 1). The longest days to flowering was recorded from the combined application of BF+Biosl for Roma VF variety while Gelilea variety reached 50% 34 flowering at 35 days under similar fertilization (BF+Biosl) (Table 6). Thus, Geliliea variety has an advantage on days to flowering since it needs shorter days to set flower than Roma VF variety. 4.3. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Growth Parameters 4.3.1. Plant height Plant height was significantly (P≤0.05) affected by the main effect of fertilizer. However, main effect of variety as well as the interaction of fertilizer and variety had non significant (P>0.05) difference on plant height (Appendix table 2). Application of blended fertilizer in combination with bioslurry (BF+Biosl) produced significantly taller plants which were higher by 12.5% over the control (Table 5). The observed improvement of plant height due to the application of organic and inorganic soil amendments might be by improving the soil physical, chemical and biological properties and leading to the adequate supply of nutrients to the plants which might have promoted the maximum vegetative growth. This might be because of the ability of bioslurry compost to supply numerous plant nutrients and in creating suitable plant growing environment by improving moisture and nutrient status of the soil which enhance growth and general performance of the plants. Consistent with this suggestion, Hader (1986) reported that organic fertilizers compensate for both the deficit and the excess of elements in the soil, which can take place with mineral fertilization. Due to the fact that nitrogen is an essential component of protein therefore a fundamental building material of the cells, as a constituent of all enzymes, which are specialized protein, nitrogen is involved in metabolic processes throughout the plant, as the result the 35 plant grow vegetatively very well with added N fertilizer. In support of this, Gomez-Lepe and Ulrich (1974) and Atherton and Rudich (1986) indicated that plant vigor and growth generally increases with the supply of high amount of nutrients like nitrogen fertilizer. The result of this experiment is in conformity with the findings of Gonzalez et al. (2001) who reported that organic manure and inorganic fertilizer supplied most of the essential nutrients at growth stage resulting in increase of growth variables including plant height. Corroborating the results of this study, Ojeniyi et al. (2007) also observed that NPK and animal manure significantly increased plant height in tomato compared to the control treatment. Plant height increment in response to the fertilization treatment may be attributed to stem elongation. Various studies conducted in Ethiopia reported that plant height increased as the amount of applied nutrients increased to the soil (Zewidu et. al., 1992; Mekonen, 1999). Samuel (1981) also reported that plant height measured increased significantly with increasing levels of nitrogen in wheat. Similarly, Yohannes (1994) reported a significant increment in the height of Enset crops as the rates of N and P applications were increased. 4.3.2. Primary and secondary branches The number of primary and secondary branches was significantly affected by fertilizer. Similarly, interaction of fertilizer x variety had significant effect on primary branches (P ≤ 0.05) and secondary branches (P ≤ 0.01). However, the number of primary and secondary branches was non-significantly affected by variety (P ≤ 0.05) (Appendix table 2). Gelilea produced 6 primary and 12 secondary branches under BF+Biosl whereas Roma VF 36 produced 3.33 primary and 8 secondary branches under similar (BF+Biosl) fertilization (Table 5). The combined application of NP+Biosl increased the number of primary branches by 36.5 and 32.7% over NP and control treatment, respectively. Soil amended with NP+Biosl resulted in highest number of primary branches than other treatments but significantly not different with the combined application of BF+Biosl treatment. Similar to primary branches, the number of secondary branches was highest with the combined application of NP+Biosl treatment. Application of NP+Biosl had increased the number of secondary branches by 24.8, 24.8 and 15.9% over the control, NP and BF treatments, respectively. Table 5: Main effects of fertilizer sources and variety on growth parameters of Tomato Treatment Plant height No of primary branches No of secondary branches No of clusters per plant Fertilizer (F) Control 56.0c 3.5c 8.5b 12.2c NP 59.8abc 3.3c 8.5b 13.2ab BF 60.3abc 4.0bc 9.5b 12.7bc NP + Biosl 61.8ab 5.2a 11.3a 13.5a BF + Biosl 64.0a 4.7ab 10.0ab 13.5a Biosl 58.5bc 4.0bc 10.0ab 13.5a LSD (0.05) 4.82* 1.15* 1.65* 0.68** Variety (V) Gelilea 60.9 4.3 9.8 13.2 Roma VF 59.2 3.9 9.5 12.9 LSD NS NS NS NS Mean 60.1 4.1 9.6 13.1 CV (%) 6.69 23.35 14.29 18.51 Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) NS- non significant; *significant at 0.05; **significant at 0.01 37 This might attributed to possible supplies of balanced plant nutrients to the soil from bioslurry compost and inorganic fertilizers which might promote the lateral shoot growing of the plant. This seems that sufficient amount of nutrients in soil near to the plant roots are available which easily absorbed by the plant root to produce more vegetative growth. This result supports the findings of Alabi (2006) who found that number of branches was significantly increased in response to increasing the levels of both P2O5 and poultry droppings when compared with the control values. Similarly these results also agreed with that of Abdalla et al., (2001), Glala et al., (2010) and Glala et al., (2012) who reported similar results in pepper plants. The promoting effect of N on the growth parameters can be explained on the basis of the fact that N supply increases the number of meristematic cells and their growth leading to the formation of shoots (tillers) in addition to leaf expansion and number (Lawlor, 2002). Furthermore, N application is known to increase the levels of cytokines, which affects cell wall extensibility (Arnold et al., 2006). It is, therefore, logical to speculate that N was involved directly or indirectly in the enlargement and division of new cells and production of tissues which in turn were responsible for increase in growth characteristics. In general, the increase in number of branches per plant might be due to balanced nutrient supply in the root zone that may have enhanced nutrient uptake of the plant for better growth. The superiority observed due to the combined application of organic and inorganic nutrient sources compared to the control (without fertilizer) may be due to direct promotion of root growth (Glala et al., 2010) and the release of the fixed nutrients, hence 38 increasing the concentration and availability of nutrients in the root zone and increase in plant growth and development (Okon and Vanderleyden, 1997). Table 6: Interaction effects of fertilizer x variety on phenology, growth and yield components of tomato Treatment Days to 50% flowering No of branches plant-1 No of clusters per plant Average fruit weight Variety x Fertilizer Primary Secondary Gelilea Control 36.0bcd 3.00d 7.00f 12.0e 59.00efg NP 35.7cd 3.33d 8.33de 13.3bc 63.00de BF 35.0cd 4.33bcd 9.66bcd 12.6cde 66.0bcd NP+Biosl 37.7bc 5.33ab 11.0abc 13.3bc 71.0ab BF+Biosl 35.0cd 6.00a 12.0a 14.3a 75.0a Biosl 32.3d 3.66cd 9.00cde 13.6ab 61.0def Roma VF Control 35.3cd 4.00bcd 10.00abcd 12.3de 59.3efg NP 34.3cd 3.33d 8.66de 13.0bcd 54.0g BF 37.0bc 3.66cd 9.33cd 12.6cde 69.3abc NP+Biosl 39.7ab 5.00abc 11.66ab 13.6ab 63.3cde BF+Biosl 42.7a 3.33d 8.00de 12.6cde 65.0bcde Biosl 34.3cd 4.33bcd 11.0abc 13.3bc 55.6fg F-test * * ** * * SEM (±) 1.36 0.544 0.776 0.347 2.18 CV (%) 6.65 23.35 14.29 18.51 5.87 Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance; LSD0.05 = Least Significant Different at P ≤ 5%; SEM= Standard Error of mean; CV = Coefficient of variance. 4.3.3. Number of fruit cluster per plant The analysis of variance showed that there was significant (P ≤ 0.05) interaction effect of fertilizer and variety on the number of fruit clusters per plant of tomato. Similarly, the main effect of fertilizer remained significant (P ≤ 0.01). However, the main effects of variety was not-significantly affected the number of fruit cluster per plant at P > 0.05 39 (Appendix Table 2). Applications of NP+Biosl, BF+Biosl and Biosl alone were resulted equal number of fruit clusters production per plant and increases by 9.6% over the control. The maximum number of fruit clusters per plant might be due to the effects of P in promoting flower bud formation. The result supports the findings of Solaiman and Rabbani (2006) who found that number of clusters per plant ranged from 13.55 recorded in the control, to 23.48 recorded in treatment (200kg N + 35kg P2O5 +80kg K+ 15kg S ha - 1), which received the full dose of NPKS. Increase in the number of fruit clusters per plant led to increased total fruit yield of tomato due to positive correlation between the number of fruit cluster, and growth and yield parameters of tomato. 4.4. Effect of Fertilizer and Variety on Yield and Yield Components The mean data of average fresh fruit weight, fruit size, fruits per cluster, marketable and unmarketable fruit number per plant, marketable and unmarketable fruit yield per plant, and total fruit number and yield were presented from Table 7 to 9. 4.4.1. Average fruit weight The main effects of fertilizer and variety significantly (P ≤ 0.01) influenced the average fresh fruit weight of tomato. Similarly, the interaction of fertilizer and variety was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected average fresh fruit weight (Appendix Table 3). The average fresh fruit weight of tomato was increased significantly in response to increasing the level of applied nutrients from the control to BF+Biosl treatment (Table 7). Application of BF+Biosl, NP+Biosl and NPSZnB treatments were resulted in maximum fruit weight as compared to sole application of NP, Biosl and control treatment. The 40 highest average fruit weight (70.0 g) was measured from BF+Biosl treatment which was increased by 18.4% over the control (58.5 g). The result of this study is in agreement with the findings of Fandi et al. (2010) who reported that low amount of nutrients (particularly N) resulted in smaller fruit weight since the rate of photosynthetic activity of the plant would drop sharply. There was a significant difference between two varieties on the average fresh fruit weight of tomato. The average fruit weight of Gelilea variety had significantly increased by 7.2% over Roma VF. This difference might be due to the physiological characteristics of the cultivars or the genetic variability among varieties. 4.4.2. Number of fruit per cluster The analysis of variance showed that the number of fruits per cluster was significantly affected by the main effects of fertilizer and variety (P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.01), respectively. However, variety x fertilizer interaction did not significantly influence the number of fruits per cluster (Appendix Table 3). The highest number of fruits per cluster was obtained from the application of BF+Biosl which increased the number of fruits per cluster by 27.4% over the control. Application of NP+Biosl had non significant difference with the application of BF+Biosl treatment (Table 7). The results showed that combined application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizer sources affected yield parameters of tomato. The superiority could be attributed to the faster enhancement of vegetative growth and storing sufficient reserved food material for differentiation of buds into flower buds. This result is in agreement with the findings of 41 Kuppuasmy et al. (1992), who reported that application of poultry manures at 7 t ha-1 with full dose of NPK fertilizer recorded the maximum number of fruits plant-1 (30.7), fruit yield (1.1 kg plant-1) and seed yield (0.68 g plant-1). Poultry manure contains all the essential plant nutrients (Dosani et al., 1999) increased the release of macro as well as micro nutrients in the soil resulting better extraction of nutrient uptake, increased fruit maturity period which in turn increased the yield (Ramesh, 1997). In the present study, application of BF+Biosl recorded maximum number of fruits per cluster (11.7). The reason might be due to the maximum photosynthetic activity and accumulation of number of fruits in case of BF+Biosl might be due to increased number of flowers which might have formed into fruits due to adequate availability of major and minor nutrients during its growth and development. The increase in fruit number per plant might be due to the increased growth and flower attributes which in turn lead to the increased photosynthesis and dry matter production. The lowest number of fruits per cluster was recorded in control plot (8.5). The reason might be due to low availability of essential nutrients during its development. Similar findings were reported by Naidu et al. (2002), Rafi et al. (2002), Poulet et al. (2004), and Rodge and Yadlod (2009) in tomato and Sugeet et al. (2011) in brinjal. Roma VF variety had increased the number of fruits per cluster by 18.3% over Gelilea. Higher number of fruits per cluster was observed at Roma VF (10.9) while the lower was obtained from Gelilea variety (8.9). This difference is might be due to the genetic make-up of the varieties or their response to the applied nutrients. 42 Table 7: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on yield parameters of Tomato Treatment Average fruit weight (g) Number of fruit per cluster Fruit width (cm) Fruit length (cm) Fertilizer(F) Control 58.5b 8.5c 4.3b 4.1c NP 59.2b 9.7bc 5.0ab 4.73b BF 67.2a 9.2c 5.3a 4.9ab NP + Biosl 67.7a 11.0ab 5.5a 5.2a BF + Biosl 70.0a 11.7a 5.5a 5.3a Biosl 58.3b 9.5bc 5.0ab 4.6bc LSD (0.05) 4.47** 1.79* 0.734* 0.52* Variety (V) Gelilea 65.8a 8.9b 5.7a 5.0b Roma VF 61.1b 10.9a 4.6b 5.5a LSD (0.05) 2.58** 1.033** 0.424** 0.352* Mean 63.5 9.9 5.1 4.9 F*V * NS NS NS CV % 5.87 15.07 12.0 3.10 Means in the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P≤ 0.05); NS= non-significant 4.4.3. Fruit size The results showed that size of tomato fruit was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) influenced by the main effects of fertilizer and variety. However, this parameter was not affected by the interaction of fertilizer and variety (P > 0.05). Application of organic and inorganic fertilizers showed significant difference on the width and length of tomato fruit. Soil amended with BF, NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl combinations recorded the maximum fruit width as compared to NP, Biosl and control treatments. Yet the sole and combined application of bioslurry compost and inorganic soil amendments were significantly not difference between them. Combined application of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl increased the fruit width of tomato by 21.8% over the control (Table 7). 43 Similar to fruit width, fruit length of tomato showed an increasing trend by the application of NP, BF and Biosl alone and in combination. Application of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl had increased the fruit length of tomato by 22.6 and 21.2% over the control. Both width and length of fruits increased with increasing the level of applied nutrients up to the treatment of BF+Biosl with the reduction of fruit width and length at Biosl treatment. One of the possible reasons for the reduction of tomato fruit size could be the competitions for assimilate among higher fruit number that was induce by adequate fertilization, whereas at the lower level of available nutrients it could be due to the relatively lower photosynthetic area (vegetative growth) to portion assimilate to the fruits. Gelilea variety produced heavier fruits and had wider fruit size while longer and lighter fruits were obtained from Roma VF. This difference could be due to the fact that Gelilea had more vegetative growth than Roma VF, and lesser number of fruits with relatively less competition among fruits for assimilates. Moreover, Gelilea had big globular shape fruits while Roma VF had pear-shaped fruits, which is varietal character for the size difference. It is known that fruit size is dependent on assimilate distribution which is controlled by the activity of both source and sink where lower assimilate lead to competition between vegetative and reproductive parts, among inflorescences and fruit on the same truss (McAvoy et al., 1989; Wien, 1997). The result is in agreement with the observation of Nicklow and Downes (1971) who indicated that high amount of nutrients in the soil promoted the development of more clusters per plant, which resulted in a greater fruit load per plant with smaller fruit size. The result of this investigation clearly indicated that the level of applied nutrients largely affected tomato fruit size distribution. Thus, based on the 44 market and consumers` demand, it is possible to produce tomato fruit with different size through the selection of appropriate level and type of plant nutrients to be applied. 4.4.4. Marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number Variety x fertilizer interaction was non-significantly affected tomato marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number per plant. Similarly, the main effects of variety non- significantly influenced these parameters. However, the main effects of fertilizer significantly (P ≤ 0.01) influenced marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number per plant of tomato. The number of unmarketable fruit per plant had a non-consistent pattern in response to increasing the level of applied nutrients, but the lowest number of unmarketable fruit per plant was recorded at the control (Appendix Table 4). The application of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl treatment was resulted in the maximum number of marketable and total fruit of tomato. The lowest number of marketable and total fruit was recorded from the control. Soil treated with NP+Biosl was increased the number of marketable and total fruit by 41.7 and 42.2% over the control, respectively. Similarly, application of BF+Biosl was increased the number of marketable and total fruit by 42.5 and 42.2% over the control, respectively (Table 8). Application of NP alone had resulted relatively maximum number of marketable and total fruit, hence there was non-significant difference between NP, NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl treatments. Unmarketable fruit number was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by the applied fertilizer. Treatments with Biosl, BF, NP and their combination had increased the unmarketable fruit number over the control but they were not different significantly. 45 This result supports the finding of Yahaya, et al. (2010) who found that more number of fruits per plant was recorded with the combined application of 10 t ha-1organic manure with inorganic fertilizer. Similarly, these results are in agreement with the findings of Alabi (2006) who observed that both P and poultry dropping treatments significantly increased the number of fruits per plant, with poultry dropping treatment giving the highest number of fruits per plant. The findings of Asawalam et al. (2007) also supports these results strongly that the combined application of poultry manure and inorganic fertilizer significantly increased the number of fruits per plant compared to plants grown in other treatments as well as those grown without poultry manure for pepper. Table 8: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on marketable, unmarketable and total fruit number of tomato Treatment Fruit number per plant Factor Type/level Marketable Unmarketable Total Fertilizer (F) Control 9.2c 3.7b 12.6d NP 13.8ab 6.0a 20.0ab BF 12.5b 5.8a 18.7bc NP + Biosl 15.8a 6.2a 21.8a BF + Biosl 16.0a 6.2a 21.8a Biosl 12.0b 5.0a 17.0c LSD (0.05) 2.59** 1.19** 2.84** Variety (V) Gelilea 13.8 5.6 19.22 Roma VF 12.6 5.4 18.11 LSD (0.05) 1.49 NS 0.685NS 1.64NS Mean 13.2 5.5 18.7 CV % 16.38 18.11 12.72 Means in the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P≤ 0.05); NS=not significant This significant variation among the fertilizer treatments was observed due to the application of balanced nutrients to the soil through organic manure and inorganic fertilizers significantly improves the nutrient status of soil as a result the plant growth as 46 well as the size and number of fruits increased (Alabi, 2006). Similar to this, Ogwulumba et al. (2009) reported that tomato plant treated with organic amendments including poultry manure in the range of 10 - 20 t ha-1and inorganic fertilizers produced higher number of fruit per plant as well as average fruit weight than tomato plants not supplied with either organic manure or inorganic fertilizers. The finding of Tadewos (2011) also supports the results which were reported earlier by other authors that the application of poultry manure with or without rapeseed cake had a remarkable positive effect on number of fruits per plant. 4.4.5. Marketable, unmarketable and total fruit yield Fertilizer and variety significantly (P ≤ 0.01) influenced marketable and total fruit yield of tomato. Also, the main effects of fertilizer had significant (P ≤ 0.01) effect on unmarketable fruit yield while main effects of variety remained non-significant. However, the two-way interaction of fertilizer x variety was not significantly (P > 0.05) affected marketable, unmarketable and total fruit yield of tomato (Appendix Table 4). NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl gave significantly better marketable yield than Biosl alone, NP and control treatments. The highest fruit yield was obtained from the application of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl treatments while the lowest fruit yield was from the control. Soil amended with NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl had increased the marketable fruit yield by 34.9 and 33.6%, and the total fruit yield by 28.5 and 27.8% over the control (Table 9). This indicates that application of organic manure in combination with inorganic fertilizers had resulted in increased vegetative growth, leaf area, and photosynthetic capacity and better partitioning of assimilate towards the fruits. This had resulted in higher-sized fruits with 47 better appearance that increased proportion of marketable yield for fertilized plots than unfertilized plots. This result is supported by the findings of Kumaran et al. (1995) who recorded an increase in marketable fruit yield by the application of NPK with FYM and Vermicompost. This finding also agree with the findings of Bahadur et al. (2004) who showed that application of organic manures combined with recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers had superior performance in tomato yield. Similarly, this finding also supports the results of Sendur et al. (1998) who summarized that application of organic manures (FYM, vermicompost, neem cake) combined with recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers showed superior performance in fruit yield of tomato. Application of vermicompost along with inorganic fertilizers produced significantly higher yield than application of inorganic fertilizer alone (Shalini et al., 2002). In the present study, the main effects of fertilizer had significant (P ≤ 0.05) influence on unmarketable fruit yield of tomato. Application of inorganic fertilizers (NP or NPSZnB) combined with bioslurry decrease unmarketable fruit yields as compared to other treatments as well as to control. The lowest unmarketable fruit yield (2.93 t ha-1) was recorded at the application of BF+Biosl while the maximum unmarketable fruit yield (4.44 t ha-1) was recorded at the control (Table 7). This variation might be due to low level of nutrients in the soil at the control plot; as a result the plants become susceptible to diseases and produce more fruits with very small size. Application of BF+Biosl was reduced the unmarketable fruit yield by 34% over the control. This result is in line with the earlier findings of Meaza (2005) who found that the unmarketable fruit yield obtained from 48 manure (10 t ha-1) + P(40 kg ha-1) treated tomatoes was significantly lower than N(105 kg ha-1) + P(40 kg ha-1) treated tomato fruits. Table 9: Main effects of fertilizer and variety on marketable, unmarketable and total fruit yield of tomato Treatment Fruit yield (ton ha-1) Factor Type/level Marketable Unmarketable Total Fertilizer (F) Control 21.11c 4.44a 25.55c NP 26.0b 4.17a 30.17b BF 28.9ab 4.18a 33.07ab NP + Biosl 31.77a 3.99ab 35.76a BF + Biosl 32.44a 2.93c 35.37a Biosl 25.78b 3.37bc 29.15b LSD (0.05) 4.06** 0.779** 4.24** Variety (V) Gelilea 30.37a 4.01 34.38a Roma VF 24.96b 3.68 28.65b LSD (0.05) 2.35** 0.45 NS 2.45** Mean 27.67 3.85 31.70 CV % 12.26 16.9 11.23 Means in the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P≤ 0.05); NS=not significant The marketable and total fruit yield of tomato was significantly (P ≤ 0.01) influenced by the main effect of variety while unmarketable fruit yield was not affected significantly. The highest marketable and total fruit yield was obtained from Geliea while the lowest obtained from Roma VF variety. Thus, the marketable and total fruit yield of Gelilea variety was higher than that of Roma VF by 21.7 and 16.7%, respectively (Table 9). The mean unmarketable fruit yield of Roma VF variety was lower than that of Gelilea variety by 8.9%, but with no significant difference between them (Table 9). 49 Most of the fruits grouped as unmarketable were because of cracking, soft rot, blossom end rot, birds and insects attack, and very small sized fruits, which were dominant in Gelilea variety than in Roma VF and their number were decreased with the rate of applied essential plant nutrients increased. Tomato yields are highly responsive to the application of nutrients specifically nitrogen and phosphorous. Nutrient requirement of the tomato is an important factor if large quantities of high quality fruits are to be produced effectively and efficiently (Anderson et al., 1999). 4.5. Soil and plant tissues analysis 4.5.1. Chemical properties of soil after harvesting The chemical analysis results of the soil samples collected from the experimental plots based on treatment just after harvesting the crop are presented in Table 10. A comparison of soil chemical properties before and after cropping revealed that application of bioslurry with inorganic fertilizers increased some chemical characteristics of soil, indicating that there is improvement of the fertility status of soil. Soil pH, total N, organic C, available P & K, exchangeable Ca and CEC were increased due to the application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers after harvest while exchangeable K, Mg, Na, and base saturation decreased slightly with the application of bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers as compared to the control (Table 10). However, the increment or reduction in values of soil parameters was non-consistent. The highest soil pH was recorded with the application of Biosl alone at Gelilea variety which was increased by 13.2% over the control while at Roma VF variety, the highest soil pH was recorded with the application of NP+Biosl which higher by 8.9% over the control 50 (Table 10). Although the increment is generally small in magnitude, the trend is in agreement with the findings of Taye (1998) and Ouedraogo et al. (2001) who observed rise in soil pH with the increased rates of applied inorganic and organic sources including decomposed coffee husk and farmyard manure. However, in contrast to the current findings, Sarwar G. et. al. (2008) who indicated that application of compost alone and in combination with inorganic fertilizers reduced the soil pH significantly as compared to control as well as chemical fertilizers alone after harvesting rice and wheat crop. Similarly, contrasting with the present study, Smiciklas et al., (2002), Pattanayak et al., (2001) and Yaduvanshi (2001) also observed a decrease in soil pH after the use of organic materials. The production of organic acids (amino acid, glycine, cysteine and humic acid) during mineralization of organic materials by heterotrophs and nitrification by autotrophs would have caused this decrease in soil pH. Organic carbon content of soil was improved with application of bioslurry in combination with different forms of inorganic fertilizers to the soil. From the present study, the highest organic carbon content of 2.45 and 2.38% was observed with the application of full dose of bioslurry (14 t ha-1) for Gelilea and Roma VF variety, respectively while the lowest content of organic carbon (1.88 and 1.84%) was observed from the control plots where no bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers were added. Similar results were also obtained by earlier workers (Pattanayak et al., 2001; Singh et al., 2001; Selvakumari et al., 2000; Smiciklas et al., 2002; Sarwar et al., 2003). 51 Table 10: Soil chemical properties as influenced by the main effects of variety and fertilizers application after crop harvest Treatment Variety Fertilizer (kg ha-1) Gelilea Roma VF pH (H2O) OC (%) TN (%) Ava. P (ppm) Ava. K (meg/100 gm) pH (H2O) OC (%) TN (%) Ava. P (ppm) Ava. K (meg/100 gm) Control 5.33 1.88 0.189 8.4 15.2 5.31 1.84 0.183 7.2 16.6 RNP 5.38 2.11 0.211 9.8 18.4 5.46 2.05 0.201 9.6 19.4 BF 5.46 2.01 0.209 11.6 16.6 5.25 1.96 0.207 10.4 21.2 RNP + BC 5.65 2.34 0.202 14.4 27.2 5.83 2.18 0.205 13.6 25.2 BF + BC 5.54 2.15 0.200 9.4 14.2 5.64 2.25 0.212 13 18.4 BC 6.12 2.45 0.195 9.8 17.8 5.58 2.38 0.198 12.4 17.2 52 Continued… Treatment Variety Fertilizer (kg ha-1) Gelilea Roma VF CEC (Cmol(+)/kg- 1 PBS (%) Exchangeable bases (Cmol(+)/kg-1 CEC (Cmol( +)/kg-1 PBS Exchangeable bases (Cmol(+)/kg-1 Na K Ca Mg Na K Ca Mg Control 18.6 42.52 0.18 0.65 5.46 1.62 18.2 40.82 0.15 0.61 4.94 1.73 RNP 21.8 40.00 0.13 0.52 6.51 1.57 18.7 40.21 0.14 0.58 5.15 1.65 BF 22.6 38.14 0.12 0.59 6.15 1.76 20.6 37.57 0.11 0.57 5.54 1.52 RNP + BC 24.5 40.24 0.17 0.73 7.01 1.95 20.3 40.73 0.16 0.62 5.82 1.67 BF + BC 19.5 39.74 0.15 0.64 5.12 1.84 22.1 41.35 0.14 0.67 6.41 1.92 BC 18.4 37.60 0.11 0.51 4.62 1.68 19.8 39.29 0.13 0.57 5.56 1.52 53 From this study, it was observed that single and combined application of inorganic fertilizers with bioslurry resulted in an increase of soil organic matter status. A combination of bioslurry and chemical fertilizer also proved helpful in increasing the organic matter level of the soil. The status of organic matter in the soil had a relationship with the quantity applied. Comparatively more fruit yield and biomass production in different treatments also contributed towards the improvement of organic matter status of the soil. Phosphorus status of soil after crop harvest was improved significantly when bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers were added to the soil (Table 10). With Gelilea variety, the lowest available P (8.4 mg kg-1) content was observed from the control plot. However, the highest values of 14.4 and 11.6 mg kg-1 of soil were recorded at NP+Biosl and Biosl alone treatments, which increased by 41.7 and 27.6% over the control, respectively. Single application of NP fertilizer proved superior to control but equal to the application of BF+Biosl as well as Biosl treatments. Similar to Gelilea variety, the highest content of soil available P (13.6 mg.Kg-1) at Roma VF variety was obtained from NP+Biosl which followed by BF+Biosl and Biosl alone treatments which measured the values were 13 and 12.4 mg.Kg-1, respectively. While the lowest content of soil available P (7.2 mg.Kg-1) was recorded at the control. The increase in soil available P might be attributed to organic manure, which helped in releasing the higher amount of P from the soil. Similar results were observed by Tolanur and Badanur (2003) in pigeon pea. It was also observed that sole application of 100% RDF resulted in lower OC, available P and available K as compared to other treatment 54 combinations. The organic C, CEC, and total N declined with application of inorganic fertilizer alone and increased with conjunctive use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers. Similarly, soil available P and K increased significantly with application of vermicompost and FYM in combination with chemical fertilizers over the inorganic fertilizer alone. This finding is corroborated with the findings of many workers (Tolesa, 1999; Tolanur and Badanur, 2003; Swarp, 2000; Wakene et al., 2002). Most crops do not take up more than about 10-15% of the P added in fertilizers during the first year of application. This is due not only to the tendency of the soil to fix the added P but also to the slow rate of movement of this element to the plant roots in the soil solution (Brady, 1990). When the amount of fertilizer P added to soil exceeds removal by cropping, the fertilizer P residues gradually increase, with a corresponding rise in P concentration in the soil solution (Tisdale et al., 2002) This finding is supported by Tolanur and Badanur (2003) who reported that the increased available P content of the soil might be due to release of organic acids during decomposition which in turn helped in releasing P. In agreement with the result of this study, various other studies have also shown the importance of organic nutrient sources, particularly when integrated with mineral fertilizer in improving the fertility status of the soil (Tolessa, 1999; Singh et al., 2001; Wakene et al., 2002; Tolanur and Badanur, 2003). Therefore, the application of bioslurry can be expected to enhance the availability of soil P and promote the efficiency of P fertilizers. The assumptions drawn from these data lead to say that application of bioslurry alone and in combination with chemical fertilizers had contributed more than chemical fertilizers alone in building up the phosphorus status of the soil. 55 From Gelilea variety, the highest total N content (0.211%) was observed at NP treatment while the lowest content was recorded at the control plot (0.189%). Similarly from Roma VF variety, the highest total N content (0.212%) was obtained at BF+Biosl treatment while the lowest content was recorded at the control plot (0.183%). Total N content of the soil was influenced by the application of both bioslurry and inorganic fertilizer sources. From the analytical results, N content of the soil slightly increased as the level of both bioslurry and inorganic fertilizer sources increased. The total N content at all levels of fertilizer treatments were higher than the total N recorded in the absolute control (no bioslurry plus inorganic fertilizers). This result is also supported by the findings of Faassen and Lebbink (1994) who obtained similar results earlier in which they reported that replacement of 35% of mineral fertilizer by stabilized organic N in the form of compost and processed animal manure resulted in increased amount of N in the pool of humus in the soil and concomitantly increased the N supply to the crop from soil N mineralization. Chen et al. (2001) investigated the effect of compost on the availability and the mineralization potential of N in two different acid soils: clay loam and clay with a pH of 4.6 and 4.5 and organic carbon contents of 6.9 g/kg and 3.6 g/kg, respectively, at different times. Results showed that the availability of N in both soils increased in response to the addition of both types of compost in conjunction with the inorganic fertilizer. Kanchikerimath and Singh (2001) also reported that crop yield, soil organic carbon, total N and mineralizable carbon and N increased with the application of inorganic fertilizers. 56 However, there was greater increase of these parameters when manure was applied along with inorganic fertilizers. As indicated in Table 10, the concentration of the basic cations of K, Ca, Mg, Na, and CEC varied from 0.51 to 0.73, 4.62 to 7.01, 1.52 to 1.95, 0.11 to 0.18 and 18.2 to 24.5 in cmol(+) kg-1, respectively, in the soil after harvesting the crop. In general, the changes in basic cations of the soil showed little variations due to the application of treatments as compared to the respective contents in the pre-planting soil analysis results. Similar findings were reported by Ouedraogo et al. (2001) who obtained no significant differences in soil basic cations and organic matter content due to treatments receiving compost and no compost. However, they reported that application of compost increased the CEC of soils from 4 to 6 cmol kg-1, while the effect of compost on CEC was negligible in the present study. As compared to the control the soil exchangeable Ca and Mg content tend to increase more with increased levels of both the organic and inorganic amendments. 4.5.2. Plant tissue N and P analysis The results of the tissue analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in plant leaf as influenced by the combined and single application of different levels of both organic (bioslurry) and inorganic nutrient sources are presented in Table 11. Leaf tissue nitrogen and phosphorous content increased with increasing of the applied plant nutrient sources especially nitrogen and phosphorous. The results of the present study indicated that the application of balanced nutrients to the soil through organic and inorganic fertilizer sources were increased nutrient concentration in leaf tissue of tomato plant. 57 With regards to the effects of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on leaf N content, a combined application of NP+Biosl treatment resulted the highest N content of 3.49 and 3.17% at Gelilea and Roma VF variety, respectively (Table 11) which may be due to high availability of nutrients in the soil. This highest N content was followed in this order by 3.33, 3.29 and 3.23% which were observed from the application of BF+Biosl, Biosl, and NP respectively. The lowest N content of tomato leaf (2.54 and 2.88%) was recorded from control treatment. The result of the present study is consistent with the findings of Joern and Vitosh (1995) who found that the combined application of organic and inorganic nutrient sources maximized leaf tissue nitrogen concentration. This finding is in conformity with the findings of Romero-Lima et al.(2000) who reported that N content in leaf tissue was significantly affected by the sources and amount of organic fertilizer applied. Yibekal (1998) also reported that increasing N from 0 to 150 kg ha-1 increased N concentration in potato tuber from 0.59% to 0.69%. When P application increased from 0 to 60 kg ha-1 N concentration on the potato tuber increased from 0.43% to 0.78%. Similarly, different authors (Widdowson and Penny, 1975; Lauer, 1985; Millard and Marshall, 1986; Sharma and Sharma, 1988) observed a rise in N concentration in the tuber tissue as the N application rates were increased. The highest content of P in leaf was observed from the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizer sources with both varieties. Increasing the levels of applied organic and inorganic fertilizer sources from 0/0 to NP+Biosl was increased P content of leaf for Gelilea from 0.20 to 0.26% and, for Roma VF from 0.18 to 0.25%. The highest 58 concentration of P in leaf was recorded from the application of NP+Biosl which increased by 30 and 39% over the control with Gelilea and Roma VF variety, respectively. However, the lowest content of P in leaf was observed from Gelilea variety (0.20%) and from Roma VF variety (0.18%) at the control plot (Table 11). Similar to N concentration, the highest P content was observed with the combined application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers than the application of NP, blended fertilizer and bioslurry alone. This could be due to the fact that application of N and P increased the levels of available N and P in the soil which in turn enhanced uptake by the plants and improved plant growth and development thereby increasing the amount of nutrients assimilated in fruit tissue and in the whole plants. Table 11: ConcentrationX of N and P in tomato leaf as influenced by organic and inorganic soil amendments Fertilizer kg ha-1 Gelilea Roma VF N (%) P (%) N (%) P (%) Control 2.88 0.20 2.54 0.18 NP 3.23 0.23 2.70 0.22 BF 3.18 0.22 2.87 0.21 NP + Biosl 3.49 0.26 3.17 0.25 BF + Biosl 3.33 0.25 2.96 0.24 Biosl 3.29 0.24 2.56 0.24 x= data were not analyzed statistically Nigussie et al. (2001) also investigated that plants supplied with P had significantly increased P concentration in potato, cabbage and carrot shoots than those not supplied with P at all stages of growth. The increased trend of P content observed as the application rates of both soil amendments increased can primarily be attributed to increased production with 59 N and P application, which influenced fruit and biomass yields and the macro and/or removal of micronutrient. This result is in agreement with that of Holford and Doyle (1993) who indicated that applied N increased the crop removal of all nutrients while added P had little or no effect. These facts had also been described in Brady and Weil (2002) that manure is known to influence the availability of inorganic phosphorus as organic matter influences phosphorus availability in many ways. Generally, the maximum N and P content in leaf tissue was observed with the combined application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers (NP or NPSZnB) over the control as well as the application of inorganic fertilizers or compost alone. This may be attributed to the complementary effects of the two nutrient sources in improving the overall soil environment whereby the inorganic nutrient source provides a more readily available N and P, and other micronutrients in adequate quantity particularly blended fertilizer. This may be attributed to the improvement of soil physical properties by the organic nutrient sources in addition to contributing to nutrient availability (Roy and Wright, 1974). 4.6. Relationships between Parameters Measured Results from the simple linear correlation analysis indicated that most of the phonological, growth, yield and yield components data had either positive or negative relation with each other (Appendix Table 6). Total fruit yield per hectare was positively correlated with plant height (r = 0.434**), number of marketable fruit per plant (r = 0.909**), total number of fruit per plant (r = 0.872**), marketable fruit yield per plant (r = 0.998**), total fruit yield per plant (r = 60 0.993**), unmarketable fruit yield per plant (r = 0.452**), fruit width (r = 0581**), average fruit weight (r = 0.492**), number of fruit cluster per plant (r = 0.415*) and number of unmarketable fruit per plant (r = 0.396*). However, total fruit yield per hectare was not negatively correlated with any phonological, growth, and yield components of tomato. Total fruit yield per hectare had no any correlation (either negative or positive) with days to 50% flowering (r = 0.07), days to 50% fruiting (r = 0.276), days to 90% maturity (r = 0.293), number of primary branches (r = 0.216), number of secondary branches (r = 0.108), and number of fruits per cluster (r = 0.165). The correlation analysis for total fruit number per plant of tomato showed that it was positively correlated with days to 90% maturity (r = 0.576**), plant height (r = 0.464**), number of fruit cluster per plant (r = 0.431**), number of marketable fruit per plant (r = 0.954**), number of unmarketable fruit per plant (r = 0.674**), marketable fruit yield per plant (r = 0.872**), unmarketable fruit yield per plant (r = 0.634**), fruit yield per hectare (r = 0.872**), days to 50% fruiting (r = 0.406*), number of fruit per cluster (r = 0.396*), fruit width (r = 0.403*) and average fruit weight of tomato (r = 0.368*). It had no correlation (either positive or negative) with days to 50% flowering (r = 0.187), number of primary branches (r = 0.258), and number of secondary branches (r = 0.224). 4.7. Economic Evaluation The highest fruit yield (37.7 and 30.6 t ha-1) for Gelilea and Roma VF varieties were recorded at NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl, respectively. Similarly, the adjusted fruit yield (33.9 and 27.6 t ha-1) according to CIMMYT (1988) was high when NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl were applied for Gelilea and Roma VF varieties, respectively (Table 12). The partial 61 budget analysis indicated that the highest net benefit of 194,258 and 156,808 ETB per hectare were obtained from NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl application to Gelilea and Roma VF varieties, respectively. The lowest net benefit of 128,350 and 97,888 ETB per hectare were obtained at control from Gelilea and Roma VF varieties, respectively (Table 12). The same treatments which recorded highest net return also recorded highest benefit: cost ratio of 20.03 and 19.1, respectively. These observations are in agreement with those obtained in central Kenya by Makoha et al. (2000) and Bangladesh by Bhuiyan (2001). Table 12: Partial budget and dominance analysis of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fruit yield of tomato varieties Fertilizer (kg ha-1) variety AvY (kg ha-1) AJY (kg ha-1) GFB (birr ha- 1) TC (birr ha-1) NBF (birr ha- 1) Dominance Control Gelilea 24000 21600 129,600 1250 128,350 100% BF Gelilea 29330 26397 158,382 7662 150,720 100% NP Gelilea 30230 27207 163,242 8150 155,092 50% BF+ 50% Biosl Gelilea 34230 30807 184,842 9506 175,336 50% NP+ 50% Biosl Gelilea 37770 33993 203,958 9700 194,258 100% Biosl Gelilea 26670 24003 144,018 11250 132,768 Dominated Control Roma VF 18220 16398 98,388 500 97,888 100% BF Roma VF 22660 20394 122,364 6912 115,452 100% NP Roma VF 27550 24795 148,770 7400 141,370 50% BF+ 50% Biosl Roma VF 30660 27594 165,564 8756 156,808 50% NP+ 50% Biosl Roma VF 25770 23193 139,158 8950 130,208 Dominated 100% Biosl Roma VF 24890 22401 134,406 10500 123,906 Dominated AvY= average fruit yield; AJY= average adjusted fruit yield; GFB= gross field benefit of fruit; TC=total cost; NBF= net benefit from fruit yield However, according to the result of the dominance analysis treatments with Biosl from Gelilea variety and treatments with NP+Biosl and Biosl from Roma VF variety were 62 dominated by other treatments (Table 12). Hence, the dominated treatments were eliminated from further economic analysis. To identify treatments with the optimum return to the farmer investment, marginal analysis was performed on non-dominated treatments. Applications of NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl were resulted in highest marginal rates of return when compared to other treatments and nil application of fertilizer (Table 13). According to CIMMYT (1988), the minimum acceptable marginal rate of return should be above 100%. The current study indicated that the marginal rate of return was found to be above 100% for all treatment combinations. In general, the cost benefit analysis revealed that applying bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers increased tomato fruit yield significantly, resulting in high economic returns. Table 13: Marginal analysis of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fruit yield of tomato Fertilizer (kg/ha) variety TC (birr/ha) NBF (birr/ha) MC MB MR MRR (%) BCR Control Gelilea 1250 128,350 - - - - - 100% BF Gelilea 7662 150,720 6412 22370 3.48 348.8 19.67 100% NP Gelilea 8150 155,092 488 4372 8.96 895.9 19.02 50% BF+ 50% Biosl Gelilea 9506 175,336 1356 20244 14.92 1492.9 18.44 50% NP+ 50% Biosl Gelilea 9700 194,258 194 18922 97.5 9753.6 20.03 Control Roma VF 500 97,888 - - - - - 100% BF Roma VF 6912 115,452 6412 17564 2.74 273.9 16.7 100% NP Roma VF 7400 141,370 1356 15438 11.38 1138 17.9 50% BF+ 50% Biosl Roma VF 8756 156,808 488 25918 53.1 5311 19.1 TC = total cost; NBF = net benefit from fruit yield; MC = marginal cost; MB = marginal benefit; MR= marginal rate; MRR = marginal rate of return; BCR = benefit cost ratio 63 The high net benefit from the above mentioned treatments could be mainly attributed to the high fruit yield resulted from the application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers while the low net benefit was ascribable to the low fruit yield due to absence of adequate nutrients. From the above results, it was apparent that the treatments with NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl were more profitable than the rest of treatment combinations considering the net economic benefit obtained from the system. 64 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The experiment was conducted on farmer’s field under irrigated condition at Arba Minch Zuria woreda to determine the effects of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers (blended and non-blended) on growth, yield and yield components of tomato and on soil characteristics. The factorial combinations of six fertilizer levels (Control, NP, BF, NP+Biosl, BF+Biosl, and Biosl) and two tomato varieties (Gelilea and Roma VF) were laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Analysis of a composite soil sample revealed that the soil of the experimental field was loam in texture and moderately acidic in reaction (pH= 6.0) with 0.11 % total N, 1.64 % organic C, 10.2 ppm available phosphorous, 19.4 meq/100gm available potassium and 20.2 cmol(+) kg-1 of CEC. The nutrient status of the soil increased after harvest of tomato showed an increase due to the application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers. The highest total N (0.212 %) and the lowest total N (0.183 %) were recorded from the applications of NP (92/30 kg ha-1) and control, respectively. Application of bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers (NP or NPSZnB) significantly influenced most of the growth parameters, yield and yield components of tomato. Combined application of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers (NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl) delayed days to flowering, fruiting and maturity. Vegetative growth parameters of tomato showed an increasing trend when the level of applied nutrients increased through the application of bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Plant height, number of primary and secondary branches, and number of cluster per plant increased as the level of applied nutrients increased. Similarly, increase in number of fruits per cluster, average 65 fruit weight, fruit width, and fruit length were also recorded from applications of bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers (NP+Biosl and BF+Biosl). However, application of bioslurry alone (14 t ha-1) resulted in a slight decrease on plant height, number of fruits per cluster, average fruit weight, fruit width, and fruit length. Therefore, application of bioslurry in combination with inorganic fertilizers (blended or non-blended) proved to be superior to others with respect to most of growth, yield components and phenological parameters. The present study also showed that application of bioslurry in conjunction with inorganic fertilizers resulted in significant increment on marketable and total fruit number, and yield of tomato. The highest marketable and total fruit number was recorded from the application of NP+Biosl, and from BF+Biosl. Similarly, the marketable and total fruit yield of tomato was higher (32.44 tons/ha and 35.37 ton ha-1) due to the application of NP+Biosl, and BF+Biosl and the magnitude of increment in tomato fruit yield were 53.7 and 38.4 %, respectively over the control. Most of the yield contributing parameters was positively and significantly correlated with total fruit yield of tomato except days to flowering and number of fruits per cluster. The concentration of N and P in the leaf tissue at all treatment combinations was inconsistent. The highest content of N and P in leaf was obtained from the combined application of both soil amendments. Significant responses in growth, yield and yield components of tomato were obtained from the combined applications of bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers. The application of bioslurry might have supplied the required amount of plant nutrients for vegetative growth due to the availability of micro-nutrients and can support the crop during the later growth 66 stages due to the slow and continuous decomposition and release of nutrients. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that application of 7 t ha-1 bioslurry in combination with 46/15 kg ha-1 N/P and/or 100 kg ha-1 NPSZnB blended fertilizer may be recommended for smallholder tomato producers in the experimental area and other areas of the country having similar agro ecology and socio economic status. In general, increment in yields and some growth components of tomato as well as soil nutrient improvements were observed in response to bioslurry and inorganic fertilizers, and their interaction. From this study, it is suggested that further study be conducted in relation to the following points:  Although yield and some growth parameters of tomato significantly increased in response to the increased application of bioslurry supplemented with inorganic fertilizers, it is too early to reach a conclusive recommendation since the experiment was conducted only at one location for one season. Hence, studies should be conducted including the current varieties and other improved cultivars of the crop on different agro-ecology and soil type.  One of the advantages of the use of bioslurry is that nutrients are released over a long period of time. Thus, the study should be extended at least for three consecutive growing seasons using different vegetable crops through crop rotation to determine if there are also nutrient residual effects of the bioslurry. 67 6. REFERENCES Abdalla, A.M., F.A. Rizk and S.M. Adam. 2001. The productivity of pepper plants as influenced by some bio-fertilized treatments under plastic house condition. Bull Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., 52: 625-640. , 46: 203-205. Alabi, D.A., 2006. Effects of phosphorus and poultry droppings on growth and nutrient components of pepper (Capsicum annuum L). African Journal of Biotechnology, 5 (8): 671-677. Amjad, M., M.A. Anjum and A. Ali. 2001. Effect of phosphorus and planting density on seed production in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench). International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. Pp. 380-383. Amrit B. 2006. Country Report on the Use of Bioslurry in Nepal, Final Report: Submitted to SNV/BSP-Nepal. September, 2006. Asawalam, E.F., K.C. Emeasor and J.C. Okezie, 2007. Control of pests of some capsicum species (pepper) cultivars using soil amendments in Umudike Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 6:1975-1979. Assefa Workineh. 2015. Response of Barley (Hordium vulgare L.) to Integrated Cattle Manure and mineral fertilizer application in the vertisol areas of South Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, pp. 71-76. Atherton J.G. and Rudich J. 1986. The Tomato Crop. Chapman and Hall, London. 661p. Black, C.A. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part-I Amer. Soc. Agron. Inc. Medison, Washington, USA. pp. 999-1492. Bohner, J. and Bangerth, F. 1988. Cell number, cell size, and hormone levels in semi- isogenic mutants of Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium differing in fruit size. Physiologia Plantarum. Bourne, M.C. 1977. Postharvest food losses - the neglected dimension in increasing the world food supply. Cornell University International Agriculture Mimeograph. Vol. 53. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The nature and properties of soils. 13th edn. Pearson. Singapore. Chane Abate, 1999. Management of coffee processing by-products for improved and Sustainable Coffee production in Ethiopia. Inaugural-Dissertation, ZurErlangung des Doktorgrades (Dr. Agri.) beim Fachbereich Agrarwissen schaften und Umweltsi cherung der Justus Lubig-Universitat.Giessen. pp. 54-126. Chen, L.Z.; Xia Z.L. & Au SJ. 1988. The integrated use of organic and chemical fertilizer in China. SFCAAS (Ed.). Proceedings of International Symposium on Balanced 68 Fertilization. Chinese Agric. Press, pp. 390-396.CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Dandena Gelmesa, Bekele Abebie and Lemma Desalegn, 2011. Regulation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit setting and earliness by gibberellic acid and 2, 4- dichlorophenoxy acetic acid application Driven, L., B. Rovert, B. Cate and L.A. Nelson, 1973. Discontinuous Model for Rapid Correlation, Interpretation and Utilization of Soil Analysis and Fertilizer Response Data. International Soil Fertility Evaluation and Improvement Program. Technical bulletin No. 7. pp. 7-14. EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research). 2004. Directory of released crop varieties and their recommended cultural practices, Addis Ababa. Eliakira Kisetu and Peter Heri, 2014. Effects of Poultry Manure and NPK (23:10:5) Fertilizer on Tomato Variety Tanya Grown on Selected Soil of Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Asian Journal of Crop Science, 6: 165-175. EMA (Ethiopian Mapping Authority). 1975. National Atlas of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Fandi, M., Muhtaseb, J. and Hussein, M. 2010. Effect of NPK concentrations on yield and fruit quality of tomato (Solanumlycopersicum L.) in tuff culture. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 11 (2): 179-184. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2013. Production year book. FAO/UNEP. 1979. Recommended practices for the prevention of mycotoxins in food, feed, and their products. Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Vol. 51. George, W.L. and A.B. Stenley. 1983. Chapter 3(Part I). In: Guold, W.A (Ed.). 1983. Tomato Production, Processing and Quality Evaluation (2nd ed.).AVI publishing company, inc. Westport, Connecticut Getachew Eshete, 2011. Bioslurry - is it a fertilizer in the making? Case Studies: SNV Netherlands Development Organization. Gillaspy, G.H., Ben-David and Gruissem, W. 1993. Fruits: a developmental perspective. Giovannoni, J. 2001. Molecular biology of fruit maturation and ripening. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 52, 725.749. Girma Abera, 2001. Influence of nitrogen and phosphorus on yield, yield components and tuber quality of two potatoes on Nitosols in Bako area. An MSc thesis presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. pp 112 69 Glala, A.A., E.E.H. Abd El-Samad, S.O. El-Abd and H.A. Obiadalla-Ali, 2012. Increasing Organic Production of Summer Squash by Modulating Plant Sex Ratio. Acta Hort. (ISHS), 933: 137-143. Glala, A.A., M.I. Ezzo and A.M. Abd-Alla, 2010. Influence of Plant Growth Promotion Rhizosphere-Bacteria “PGPR” Enrichment and Some Alternative Nitrogen Organic Sources on Tomato. Acta Hort. (ISHS), 852:131-138. GME (Geological Mapping Ethiopia). 1975. National Geological Map of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Gomez-Lepe, B.E. and A. Ulrich. 1974. Influence of nitrate on tomato growth. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science 99:45-49. Gonzalez, D., Avarez, R. and Matheus, J., 2001. Comparison of three organic fertilizers for the production of sweet corn. Proceedings of the Inter American Society for Tropical Horticulture, 45: 106-109. June 17-19, 2001. Mexico city, Mexico. Gould, W.A. (Ed.). 1983. Tomato Production, Processing and Quality Evaluation (2nd Ed.). AVI publishing company, inc. Westport, Connecticut. Gould, W.A. 1992. Tomato Production, Processing and Technology, 3rd Ed., CTI Publishers, Baltimore, MD. Habtie Honelign. 2007. Comparison of different irrigation scheduling methods for tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in Libo kemkem Woreda, South Gondar Zone. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. pp. 17-18 Hader, Y., 1986. The role of organic matter in the introduction of biofertilisers and biocontrol agents to soil. Pp 169-180. In; Chen, Y., Avnimelech, Y.eds. The Role of Organic Matter in Modern Agriculture. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Hector Valenzuela, Randall T. Hamasaki, and Ted M. Hori, 1998. Field Tomato Production Guidelines for Hawaii. University of Hawaii. Hussain, T. Jullani, G. and Iqbal, M.Z. 1998. Integrated use of organic and inorganic N fertilizer in rice-wheat cropping system. Pak. J. Soil Sci. 3:19-23. Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. pp. 151-154. Kangmin, L. and Mae-Wan, H. 2006. Biogas in China, ISIS Press Release. Kluepfel, M. and Dufault, R.J. 2002. Tomato. Home vegetable gardening. Kwabena, A. 2011. Influence of grass-cutter, chicken manure and NPK amendments on soil characteristics, growth and yield response of carrot (daucus carota), Msc thesis. 70 Ladha, J.K., Kirk, G.J.D., Bennett, J., Reddy, C.K., Reddy, P.M. and Singh, U., 1988a. Opportunities for increased nitrogen use efficiency from improved lowland rice germplasm. Field Crops Research 56: 36-39. Landon, J.R. (ed.). 1991. Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook of Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, New York. 474p. Landon, J.R., 1991. Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and sub-tropics. Longman Inc., New York 282 Lawlor, D.W., 2002. Carbon and nitrogen assimilation in relation to yield: mechanisms are the key to understanding production systems. Journal of Experimental Botany. 53(370): 773- 787 LEISA, 2005. Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 21 No. 1. Lemma Desalegn, Yayeh, Z. and Herath, E. 1992. Agronomic Studies in Tomato and Capsicum. In: Herath and Lemma (Eds.). Horticulture Research and Development in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the Second National Horticultural Workshops of Ethiopia. 1-3 December. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp 153-163. Lemma Desalegn. 1998. Seed production guideline for tomatoes, onion and hot pepper. EIAR, Addis Ababa. Lemma Desalegn. 2002. Tomatoes. Research Experience and Production Prospects. Research Report 43. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 48. Marchaim, U. and Criden, J., 1981. Fuel gas production from biomass, Vol. 1, CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 95-120. Marchaim, U., 1983. 3rd International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Boston, MA, pp. 343-355. Marchaim, U., 1992. Biogas processes for sustainable development. Marschner, H., 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. II. 2nd. Academic Press, London. New York .889p. Marx, E.S., J. Hart and R.G. Stevens, 1996. Soil test interpretation guide. Oregon State University. 348 p Mary, P., 2006. Tomato production practices. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/ 71 Mengel, K., and E.A. Kirby. 1996. Principles of plant nutrition. Panama Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, India.314p. Muhammad S. 2011. Potential of bioslurry and compost at different levels of inorganic nitrogen to improve growth and yield of okra (Hibiscus esculetus L.) Muluneh Menamo and Zinabu Wolde, 2015. Effect of Cyanobacteria application as Biofertilizer on Growth, Yield and Yield Components of Romaine Lettuce (Lactuca sativaL.) on Soils of Ethiopia. Murphy, H. F., 1968. A Report on the Fertility Status of Some Soils of Ethiopia. HSIU/College of Agriculture Alemaya. Experiment station. Bull. No.44. p.551. Murphy, H.H., 1968. A Report on the Fertility Status and other Data on some Soils of Ethiopia. College of Agriculture, Hailesellassie I University. Experiment Station Bull. No 44. Nambiar, K.K., 1997. Soil health and organic matter: Changing scenario. Proc. Nat. ACAD. Sci. India, School of plant science. pp 141-160. Nonnecke, I.B.L. 1989.Vegetable Production. Van Nostrand Reinhod. New York. 204p. Ogwulumba, S.I., Ugwuoke and Ogbuji, R.O., 2009. Infectivity of Meloidgyne javanica Trueb on tomato CV.UC82B as influenced by different levels of rice husk and guinea grass ashes. American Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 6:466-469. Ojeniyi, S.O., Awodun, M.A. and Odedina, S.A., 2007. Effect of animal manure amended spent grain and cocoa husk on nutrient status, growth and yield of tomato. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 2 (1): 33-36. Okon, Y. and J. Vanderleyden, 1997. Root-associated Azospirillum species can stimulate plants. ASM News 63: 366-370. Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanable, F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Dept. Agric. Res., pp. 929. Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D.R. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part-2. 2 nd Edn. Amer. Soc. Agron. Inc. Madison, Washington, USA. pp. 98-765. Rice, R.P., Rice, L.W. and Tindall, H.D. 1990. Friut and Vegetable production in warm climates. Macmillan Education Ltd. London and Basingstoke. Sahlemedhin Serstu and Taye Bekele. 2000. Procedures for Soil and Plant Analysis. Technical Paper No. 74. 72 Sainju, U.M., Randane, D., Singh, B.P., 2003. Mineral nutrition of tomato. Food, Agriculture and Environment Vol. 1(2): 176-183. Salim, M. 1999. Diversity: Role in integrated pest management. Sci. Tech. Dev. 18(4): 26 31.The Plant Cell 5, 1439.1451. Salim, M.S., Mian, M. and Mahmoodul H. 1998. Annual technical report of project improvement of soil productivity through biological mean. Pak. Agric. Res. Council, Islamabad. Salisbury, F.B. and C.W. Ross. 1992. Plant physiology. 4th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. 682p. Samuel Geleta, 1981. Uptake of durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on Koticha and Gombore soils of Ada Plains. M.Sc Thesis. Addis Ababa Unversity, Addis Ababa. SAS Institute. 2002. SAS version 9.01. SAS Institute Inc., NC, USA. Sendukumaran, S., Natarajan, S. and Thamburaj, S., 1998. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of tomato. South Indian Horticulture society Shewll-cooper, W.E. 1961, Herbs, Salads and Tomatoes. Jonn Giffor LTD, London.155p. Singh, K. and Sarivastore. 1971. Effect of organic manure in Soil fertility as shown by nutrient availability and crop yield response in Potato. New Pro. Symposium on soil evaluation, New Delhi. Singh, Y.V, and Mandal, B.K. 2000. Rate of mineralization of Azolla, other organic materials and urea in water logged soils. Trop. Agr. (Trinidad), 77 (1): 119-122. Solaiman, A. R. and Rabbani, M. G., 2006. Effects of NPKS and cow dung on growth and yield of tomato. Bulletin of the Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kyushu University 29:31– 37. Sommerfeldt, T. G., and K. W. Knutson, 1965. Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus on the Growth and Development of Russet Burbank Potatoes Grown in the South-Eastern Idaho. American Potato Journal. 42: 351-360. Taye Kufa, 1998. Response of coffee arabica to various nutrient regimes. M.Sc. Thesis, Presented to the School of Graduate Studies. Alemaya University of Agriculture. pp.121- 124. Taylor, I.B. 1986. Chapter 1. In: Atherton, J.G. and J.G. and J. Rudich (Eds.). 1986. The tomato crop. Chapman and Hall Ltd. Biosystematics of the tomato, London, New York. 73 Tekalign Mamo and I. Haque, 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils. III. Evaluation of some soil test methods for available phosphorus. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad), 68: 51-56. Tekalign T., 1991. Soil Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and Compost Analysis. Working Document No. 13. International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa. P220. Tesfaye Balemi. 2008. Response of tomato cultivars differing in growth habit to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers and spacing on vertisol in Ethiopia. Tisdale, S.L., W.L.Nelson, J.D. Beaton and J. L.Havlin. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th edn. MacMilln Company, New York. pp. 634. Tsigie Simur. 2012. The Current Status of Traditional Biomass Energy Utilization and Its Alternative Renewable Energy Technology in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia, Master of Science Thesis EGI-2012-123MSC EKV 932. Tuma Ayele, Sheleme Beyene and Abayneh Esayas. 2013a. Changes in land use on soil physicochemical properties: The case of smallholders fruit-based land use systems in Arba Minch, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 5, Issue, 10, pp.3203-3210, October, 2013 Tuma Ayele, Tesema Tanto and Mekonen Ayana, 2013b. Rating and Correlating Physicochemical Properties of Eutric Vertisols in Abaya Chamo Lake basin, South-west Ethiopia. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production. Vol., 4 (S), 3559 3568, 2013 Vetter, H. and Steffens, G. 1988. Joint Meeting of FAO Bodies, Liebefeld, Switzerland. Vianney, T., 2011. Small-Scale Biogas digester for Sustainable Energy production in Sub- Saharan Africa, Review. Wakene Negassa, Heluf Gebrekidan, Tolera Abdena and Geremew Eticha, 2004. Evaluation of Integrated Use of Compost with Low Rates of NP Fertilizers for Increasing Maize Yield on Alfisols of Western Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics Wakene, N, Kefalew N, D.K .Friesen, J. Ronson and Abebe Y, 2002. Determination of Optimum FYM and NP fertilizers for maize on farmer's fields. Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, Nairobi, Kenya Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An example of the digestion method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Journal of Soil Science 34: 29-38. 74 Wang X.B., Cia D.X. and Hang J.Z. 2001. Land application of organic and inorganic fertilizers for corn in dry land farming in a region of north China sustaining global farm. D.E Ston. R.I.I.I. Montar and G.C. Steinhardt (Eds.), pp. 419-422.2001. Yohannes, U., 1994. The effect of NPKS on the yield and yield components of Ensete (Ensete ventricosum W.) in Southeast Ethiopia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Institute of Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture. Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany. Zewdu Yilma, Lemma Zewide and D.G. Tanner. 1992. A study of several factors limiting wheat yields on farmer’s fields and on-station in Bale of Ethiopia pp.510-516. In: Tanner D.G. and Mwangi, W. (eds.). Proceding of Seventh Regional Wheat Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. Nauru, Kenya /CIMMYT. 75 7. APPENDIX 76 Appendix Table 1: Mean squares of tomato phonological parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety Source of Variation DF Mean square DFL DFR DMA DH Replication 2 2.583ns 41.44ns 50.19** 6.67ns Fertilizer 5 27.58** 61.84* 119.16** 25.87ns Variety 1 34.02* 121.00* 140.02** 57.27* F X V 5 15.09* 9.13ns 4.227ns 6.322ns Error 22 5.825 17.292 7.982 4.626 Total 35 85.098 250.702 321.579 100.752 ns: non-significant at P ≤ 0.05, * significant at P ≤ 0.05, ** significant at P ≤ 0.01, DFL: Days to 50% flowering, DFR: Days to 50% fruiting, DMA: Days to 90% maturity, DH: Duration of harvest Appendix Table 2: Mean squares of tomato growth parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety Source of Variation DF Mean square PLHT NPBr NSBr HPBr HSBr CP Replication 2 4.75ns 0.53ns 0.77ns 37.19ns 22.53ns 0.75ns Fertilizer 5 45.25* 2.91* 6.89* 10.43ns 14.71ns 1.85** Variety 1 26.69ns 1.0ns 0.69ns 38.03ns 28.44ns 0.69ns F X V 5 5.56ns 2.53* 8.76** 36.83ns 30.91ns 0.83* Error 22 16.204 0.921 1.898 31.497 18.436 0.325 Total 35 98.459 7.892 19.024 153.972 115.024 4.446 ns: non-significant at P ≤ 0.05, * significant at P ≤ 0.05, ** significant at P ≤ 0.01, PLHT: plant height, NPBr: number of primary branch, NSBr: number of secondary branch, HPBr: height of primary branch, HSBr: height of secondary branch and CP number of cluster per plant 77 Appendix Table 3: Mean squares of tomato leaf and fruit yield parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety Source of Variation DF Mean square NFPC AFW (g) FtW (cm) FtL (cm) LfW LfL Replication 2 4.09ns 18.36ns 0.527ns 1.84* 0. 53ns 1.08ns Fertilizer 5 8.45* 172.2** 1.17* 2.98* 0.71ns 1.05ns Variety 1 38.03** 200.7** 11.11** 3.45* 1.77* 4.69* F X V 5 1.82ns 43.69* 0.64ns 0.76ns 1.44** 0.56ns Error 22 2.234 13.906 0.376 0.628 0. 345 0.628 Total 35 54.614 448.87 13.834 9.66 3.92 8.01 ns: non-significant at P ≤ 0.05, * significant at P ≤ 0.05, ** significant at P ≤ 0.01, NFPC: number of fruits per cluster, AFW: average fruit weight, FtW: fruit width, FtL: fruit length, LfW: leaf width and LfL: leaf length Appendix Table 4: Mean squares of tomato yield and yield related parameters as influenced by fertilizer application and variety Source of Variation DF Mean square Fruit number plant-1 Fruit yield (ton ha-1) Marketable Unmarketable Total Marketable Unmarketable Total Replication 2 2.69ns 0.194ns 3.58ns 1.93ns 0.273ns 0.927ns Fertilizer 5 40.04** 5.83** 72.7** 108.6** 1.987** 131.02** Variety 1 13.44ns 0.25ns 11.11ns 263.14** 0.957ns 295.6** F X V 5 10.77ns 1.92ns 14.37ns 20.79ns 0.617ns 22.68ns Error 22 4.694 0.982 5.643 11.52 0.423 12.54 Total 35 71.638 9.169 107.436 406.013 4.257 462.827 ns: non-significant at P ≤ 0.05, * significant at P ≤ 0.05, ** significant at P ≤ 0.01 78 Appendix Table 5: Standard values for soil chemical and nutrient parameters pH (1:2.5, H2O) Available P (ppm) Total N (%) Organic matter (OM) CEC (cmol(+)/kg) Range Class Range Class Range Class Range Class Range Class < 4.5 VSA 0-5 L 0.1-0.2 L > 5.2 H < 5.0 VL 4.5-5.2 SA 5-15 M 0.2-0.5 M 2.6-5.2 M 5.0-15.0 L 5.3-6.0 MA >15 H 0.1-1.0 H 0.7-2.6 L 15.0-25.0 M 6.1-6.6 St.A < 0.7 VL 25.0-40.0 H 6.7-7.3 N > 40 VH 7.4-8.0 MAl > 8.0 SAl VSA = very strongly acidic; SA = strongly acidic; MA = moderately acid; St.A = slightly acidic; N = Neutral; MAl = moderately alkaline; SAl = slightly alkaline; L = Low; M = Medium; H = High; VH = Very high; VL = Very low VH = Very high Adapted from Driven et al., 1973; Landon, 1984 & 1991; Tekalign, 1991; Marx, 1996; Murphy, 1968; Berhanu, 1980 79 Appendix Table 6: Simple Correlation coefficients of selected growth, yield and yield related parameters of tomato DFL DFR DMA PLHT NPB NSB NCP NFC NFPM NFPUN TFNPP FYDPM FYDPUN TFYDPP FYDT FRWD FRWT DFL 1.00 DFR 0.566** 1.00 DMA 0.508** 0.527** 1.00 PLHT 0.179 0.199 0.415* 1.00 NPB 0.051 -0.074 0.224 0.255 1.00 NSB 0.066 0.031 0.245 0.174 0.841** 1.00 NCP -0.051 0.028 0.273 0.344* 0.407 0.475** 1.00 NFC 0.312 0.516** 0.57** 0.345* 0.156 0.298 0.074 1.00 NFPM 0.222 0.46** 0.508** 0.406* 0.228 0.186 0.382* 0.343* 1.00 NFPUN 0.018 0.093 0.492** 0.405* 0.220 0.222 0.365* 0.353* 0.424** 1.00 TFNPP 0.187 0.406* 0.576** 0.464** 0.258 0.224 0.431** 0.396* 0.954** 0.674** 1.00 FYDPM 0.070 0.276 0.293 0.434** 0.216 0.108 0.415* 0.165 0.909** 0.396* 0.872** 1.00 FYDPUN -0.048 -0.056 0.337* 0.463** 0.289 0.266 0.409* 0.173 0.427** 0.871** 0.634** 0.452** 1.00 TFYDPP 0.059 0.250 0.318 0.466** 0.240 0.137 0.442** 0.177 0.905** 0.485** 0.897** 0.993** 0.555** 1.00 FYDT 0.070 0.276 0.293 0.434** 0.216 0.108 0.415* 0.165 0.909** 0.396* 0.872** 0.998** 0.452** 0.993** 1.00 FRWD -0.188 0.119 0.096 0.540** 0.302 0.207 0.449** -0.025 0.380* 0.285 0.403* 0.581** 0.414* 0.597** 0.581** 1.00 FRWT 0.126 0.173 0.268 0.32 0.416 0.283 0.128 0.148 0.359* 0.229 0.368* 0.429** 0.393* 0.453** 0.429** 0.544** 1.00 ns: non-significant at P≤0.05, * significant at P≤0.05, ** significant at P≤0.01, *** significant at P≤0.001. DFL=days to 50% flower; DFR=days to 50% fruiting; DMA=days to 90% maturity; PLHT=plant height; NPB= number of primary branches plant-1; NSB= number of secondary branches plant-1; NCP= number of cluster plant-1; NFC = number of fruit cluster-1; NFPM =number of marketable fruit plant-1; NFPUN =number of unmarketable fruit plant-1; FYDPM = marketable fruit yield plant-1; FYDPUN = unmarketable fruit yield plant-1 ; FYDT= fruit yield t ha-1; FRWD= fruit Width; and FRWT= fruit weight BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author was born on 17 June 1988, in Metehara town, East Shewa zone. He attended his elementary class at Merti Elementary School, and his senior secondary class at Merti high School. He was accomplished his secondary education in 2007. Then he joined Wolaita Soddo University in 2008. Soon after his graduation, he was recruited by Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Arba Minch Agricultural Research Center on the position of Soil Science researcher in the Natural Resource Research work process. Finally after three years of service at Arba Minch Agricultural Research Center, he was able to get an opportunity to pursue his MSc. in Soil Science at Hawassa University in the year 2014.