The yield performance of selected traditional rice cultivars grown in mid country wet zone

Studies on the yield performance of selected traditional rice

cultivars grown in mid country wet zone

J.H.M.M.JayaweeraDepartment of Crop

Science University of

Peradeniya.

Introduction

Oryza sativa

• Staple food• Employment

Production surplus

Can’t export-low quality

Low potential

High cost for NIV-

pest disease weeds

Lack of research

Traditional Verities with

diversityTraditional varieties

with low cost

Introduction

Oryza sativa • Staple food• Employment

Production surplus

Can’t export-low quality

Low potential

High cost for NIV-

pest disease weeds

Lack of research

Traditional Verities with

diversityTraditional varieties with low cost

Objectives

to evaluate traditional rice varieties suitable

for mid country wet zone

General objective

Objectives

1. To compare performance of traditional rice varieties (TRV) and new improved varieties (NIV) qualitatively and quantitatively

2. To compare performance of NIV under high in-put and low in-put conditions

Specific objectives

Methodology• 5 treatments in 3 blocks (RCBD)T1-Baranigla with organic fertilizerT2-Kiri Murunga organic fertilizerT3-Sudu Heenati organic fertilizerT4-Kalu heenati organic fertilizerT5-Bg 300 with organic fertilizerT6-Bg 300 with chemical fertilizer • Block size – 2m*5m• Seed paddy broad cast - 75 kg/ha

Observations• Yield• Yield components

No. panicles/m2

No. spikelets/panicleFilled grain %Potential size of grain

• Crude protein content• Paddy to rice ratio (fraction of rice)• Head rice yield (HRY)

Yield

No.of spikelets/panicle

Thousand grain weight

Crude protein content

Ratio between rice and paddy

Results and discussion

Treatment No.of spikelets/panicle1.Baranigala 99b

2.Kirimurunga 142b

3.Suduheenati 204a

4.Kaluheenati 105b

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 115b

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 131b

For each harvest, means with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05)

Table 2: Number of spikelets per panicle of different treatments

Treatment Thousand grain wt.(g)

1.Baranigala 25.5e

2.Kirimurunga 30.3c

3.Suduheenati 38.3a

4.Kaluheenati 32.3b

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 27.1d

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 27.0d

Treatment Yield (mt/ha)

1.Baranigala 3.64a

2.Kirimurunga 3.64a

3.Suduheenati 2.88c

4.Kaluheenati 1.90b

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 3.42a

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 3.79a

Treatment Crude protein content (%)

1.Baranigala 3.06b

2.Kirimurunga 2.87c

3.Suduheenati 3.12b

4.Kaluheenati 3.40a

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 2.80cd

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 2.70d

Treatment Fraction of rice

1.Baranigala 1.26cd

2.Kirimurunga 1.20d

3.Suduheenati 1.57a

4.Kaluheenati 1.43b

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 1.32bc

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 1.20d

Treatment Head rice yield1.Baranigala 55.59b

2.Kirimurunga 55.00b

3.Suduheenati 59.02a

4.Kaluheenati 59.25a

5.BG-300(organic fertilizer) 52.40c

6.BG-300(chemical fertilizer) 60.09a

Conclusions

• Quality wise and quantity wise - BG-300<TRV in low potential lands

• No significant difference between compost treated and chemical fertilizer treated BG-300

• Beneficial to grow TRV in low potential paddy lands

Thank you