Proposin Gro in G idelineUsin Proposing Growing Guideline Using

Proposing Growing Guideline Using Proposin
Gro in G ideline Usin
Methane Fermentation Digested
Methane Fermentation Digested Sludge as a Liquid Fertilizer for Rice
Sludge as a Liquid Fertilizer for Rice Production Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University,
Kyoto University,
Nakade Jun, Ryu Chanseok, Suguri
Masahiko Iida Michihisa,
Masahiko,
Michihisa Ohdoi Katsuaki,
Katsuaki
Umeda Mikio
Yagi Bio Ecology Center(YBEC)
What is the YBEC?
Biogases
CH4 65%
CO2 34%
H2S 1%
Hot water
El t i it
Electricity
Gasholder
Heating the
tank
residue
Generated gas
Calorie of gas
Methane rate
Power
generation
Hot water
Digestion
tank
3000m3/day
5000kcal/m3
65%
134kW×24h/d
5000Mcal/d
Generators
（70kw and 80kw）
The
h residue
id
is
i applied
li Discharge
d to
to
river
the paddy
fields
as
a
liquid
Liquid
q
Wastewater
Dehydrator
f ili treatment
fertilizer
Wastewater
W
t
t ttreatment
t
t
fermentation for
f 2
% off
cost accounts
25%
Compost
the total expenditure in
Dehydrated cake
(moisture content
70%)
this
facility.
y
Solid
Past research result
Yield comparison between
chemical and liquid fertilizers
chemical and liquid fertilizers
Components of liquid fertilizer
(2005〜2006)
(2005
2006)
Concentration
0 20 0 40％
0.20〜0.40％
N
0.02〜0.05％
P
TheKapplied0.20〜0.25％
amount of the
liquid
q
fertilizer to p
paddy
y
field
2〜4t/10a
LF
CF
Grain yield(kg /10a)
Componen
t
(Kyoto University,
Inamura et al )
Problems
Various studies proved that liquid fertilizer was practical
Farmers did not use this fertilizer.
Why?
y
•This fertilizer was made of the excrement.
•I don’t know how to use it.
I d ’t k
h t
it
•Why should I change the fertilizer. etc.
Objectives
To spread the use of liquid fertilizer,
①the effectiveness of liquid
①
q
fertilizer must be
proved at farmers fields
②it is important to investigate what is the best
way to apply the liquid fertilizer
Objectives in this research are to
j
①compare protein content and brown rice yield
bet een LF and CF fields
between LF and CF fields
②propose the growing guideline which improves rice quality and quantity using liquid fertilizer in Yagi area.
Materials and methods
E
Experimental
i
t l fields
fi ld and
d varieties
i ti
Experimental fields
Fertilizer
5 districts(A〜E)
districts(A E)
• Chemical fertilizer（C
Yagi town, Nantan city, Kyoto prefecture
• Liquid fertilizer(LF)
Variety
• KINU
KINU-HIKARI
HIKARI (Early growing party)
• HINO-HIKARI (Middle growing party)
Year
Districts
KINU-HIKARI
HINO HIKARI
HINO-HIKARI
CF
LF
CF
LF
A
4
12
2
5
B
5
4
0
4
2009
C D
・ ・
・ ・
4 1
3 2
2010
E Total A B C D
9
5 4 ・ ・
・
・ 16 29 6 ・ ・
2
9
4 ・ 3 ・
2
16
7 2 4 2
E Total
4
13
2
37
7
・
7
22
Materials and methods
Ri quality
Rice
lit test
t t
Protein content was analyzed as a rice quality.
Rice
Rice plants plants
sampling
Rice Crop Taste
Analyzer
(Satake Co, Japan)
•Threshingg
•Husking
•Sorting
Drying
15%(w.b.)
Protein content analysis
Materials and methods
Yi ld weighing
Yield
i hi
Yields at each field were weighed by some
scales.
Rice center
Weighing
machine
Automatic graderscale
Track scale
Crane
Materials and methods
Fi ld managementt d
Field
data
t
Field management data at each field was
collected.
Field management
• Transplanting
datadate
• Basal
B
l dressing
d
i
d
date
t and
d
amount
• Top dressing date and
amo nt
amount
Materials and methods
T
Transplanting
l ti
area measurementt
Yield and the amount of applied fertilizer
g/
were converted into kg/10a.
Trans planting area was
measured by Aｒｃ
GIS9.1(ESRI)
(
)
Yield and the amount of
applied fertilizer were
converted into kg/10a
g
Area measuring (0.04m2/pixe
Materials and methods
C
Comparison
i
b
between
t
LF and
d CF fi
fields
ld
Yi ld and
Yield
d protein
t i content
t t in
i LF fields
fi ld were
compared to those in CF by t-test and general
statistical
t ti ti l methods.
th d
LF
Li id F ili
LF: Liquid Fertilizer
Yi ld
Yield
CF :Chemical Fertilizer
Protein content
Method
• T‐test
• General statistical methods General statistical methods
Materials and methods
P
Proposing
i
growing
i
guideline
id li
Protein content and
yield
y
e d data in eac
each
year
standardized
Standardized
protein
p
ote co
content
te t and
a d
yield data
(mean = 0,
0 standard deviation = 1)
Yield
[kg/10a]
521
413
Each field data
574
(2009)
467
585
Mean
512
S.D.
72.6
SD
72 6
S.D. : standard deviation
Example
standardize
d
Standardized
yield data
0.12
-1 36
-1.36
0.85
-0.62
1.01
0.0
1.0
10
Materials and methods
P
Proposing
i
growing
i
guideline
id li
Growing factors
(combined two years
data)
•
•
•
•
The
The
The
The
k-means
clustering
Three groups
number of days from basal dressing to transplanting date (Day
amount of basal dressing (Basal dressing)
amount of top dressing (Top dressing)
total applied amount (Total amount)
Basal dressing
[Nkg/10a]
1.7
2.5
3
Each field data
1.8
(2009&2010)
4.9
5.5
3.3
Example
Group
k-means
l
clustering
Small
Middle
Large
Basal dressing
[Nkg/10a]
1.7
1.8
2.5
3.0
33
3.3
4.9
5.5
Materials and methods
P
Proposing
i
growing
i
guideline
id li
Mean of standardized value at each group were
p
compared
Example
Basal
Group
dressing
[Nkg/10a]
17
1.7
Low
(1.7〜1.8)
1.8
2.5
Middle
3.0
(2.5〜3.3)
3.3
4
9
4.9
Hi
h
High
(4.9〜5.5)
5.5
•Lower
L
protein
t i content
t t
•Higher yield
Standardized
yield data
0.12
0
12
-1.36
0.85
-0.62
-0.44
0
44
0.44
1.01
Mean of
standardize
d value
-0.62
-0.07
Compared
0.72
Standardized value is bigger
Results
KINU HIKARI Protein
KINU-HIKARI
P t i content
t t
Protein content in CF were significantly lower
than that in LF in 2009,, but not in 2010
**
** P<0.01
N=9
N=16
N=13
N=27
Results
KINU HIKARI Yield
KINU-HIKARI
Yi ld
Yields in CF were significantly higher than those
in LF
**
**
** P<0.01
N=9
N=16
N=13
N=27
Results
HINO HIKARI Protein
HINO-HIKARI
P t i content
t t
There were no significant differences between
CF and LF
** P<0.01
N=9
N=16
N=7
N=22
Results
HINO HIKARI Yield
HINO-HIKARI
Yi ld
Yields in CF were equal to those in LF
** P<0.01
N=9
N
9
N=16
N
16
N=7
N
7
N=22
N
22
Growing guideline
KINU HIKARI
KINU-HIKARI
Factor
Days
[days]
Basal Dressing
[N kg/10a]
Top Dressing
T
D
i
[N kg/10a]
Total N
[N kg/10a]
Group
n
Standardized
value of yield
0〜8
12 18
12〜18
19〜28
4.9〜6.4
6.9〜8.6
8.7〜10.9
0〜1.7
0
1.7
2.3〜5.2
5.5〜7.4
8 5〜11 2
8.5〜11.2
11.5〜13.8
14.1〜17.4
11
18
23
10
21
18
6
34
12
10
31
7
-0.32
0 03
0.03
0.13
0.08
-0.15
0.13
-0.03
0.03
-0.02
0.08
0 39
0.39
-0.22
0.49
Standardized
value of
protein content
-0.55
-0.14
0 14
0.37
-0.30
-0.18
0.39
0.48
0.04
-0.36
0 23
0.23
-0.10
-0.01
Growing guideline
HINO HIKARI
HINO-HIKARI
Some factors
S
f
were affected
ff
d to
quality
y and q
quantity
y
the rice q
Factor
Days
[days]
Basal Dressing
[N kg/10a]
Top Dressing
[N kg/10a]
Total N
[N kg/10a]
Group
n
Standardized
value of yield
1〜6
11〜22
24〜38
4.1〜6.4
6 9〜8 8
6.9〜8.8
9.4〜11.5
0〜1.7
26 60
2.6〜6.0
6.6〜10.3
8.3〜10.9
11.3〜13.3
13.8〜16.7
6
20
12
4
26
7
5
26
6
8
21
7
-0.82
0.03
0.36
-1.64
0 08
0.08
0.64
0.56
-0.07
0 07
-0.18
0.08
-0.06
0.08
Standardized
value of
protein
t i content
t t
0.23
-0.18
0.21
0.29
-0
0.01
01
-0.10
-0.12
-0.13
0 13
0.66
0.25
-0.27
0.48
Conclusion
KINUKINU
HIKARI
• Protein content in CF were significantly lower
than that in LF in 2009, but not in 2010.
• Yields in CF were significantly higher than
those in LF.
HINO
HINOHIKARI
• In protein content, there were no significant
differences between CF and LF
LF.
• Yields in CF were similar to those in LF.
Conclusion
Growing guideline
• It might be possible to control the quality and quantity of rice in LF fields by changing the field managements.
f i i LF fi ld b h i th fi ld
t
• To propose more reliable growing guideline, it is necessary to cumulate these data during several years
necessary to cumulate these data during several years .