IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erd

Effect of Pre-Rice Mungbean and Cattle Manure
Application on Growth and Yield of Organic RiceANAN POLTHANEE*
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
E-mail: panan@kku.ac.th

ARUNEE PROMKHAMBUT
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

VIDHAYA TRELO-GES
Khon Kaen University, KhonKaen, Thailand
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of different rates oforganic fertilizers with or without mungbean crop residues incorporated into the soil after
harvesting, on growth and yield of transplanted rice as well as economic return ofmungbean as pre-rice crop.  An  experiment  was  conducted  in  a  farmer’s  field  in  Muang Yai
Village, Khon Kaen Province, Thailand, in 2011. A split-plot arrangement of treatments ina RCBD (randomized completed block design) was used, with pre-rice mungbean or fallow
with weeds incorporated into the soil in main plots, and cattle manure at four rates (0;3,125; 6,250; 9,375 kg/ha) as subplots. Incorporation of mungbean residue into the soil
provided 3.2 t of dry matter per ha containing 50.2 kg N, 9.8 kg P and 166.2 kg K per ha.
Incorporation of weeds in the fallow treatment provided 1.7 t of dry matter per hacontaining 11.3 kg N, 2.8 kg P and 90 kg K per ha. Mungbean residues incorporated into
the soil significantly increased plant height and tiller number per hill but had no significant
effect on top dry weight per hill of the succeeding rice crop at panicle initiation stage (PI).
At harvest, pre-rice mungbean significantly increased top dry weight per hill of rice.
Application of different rates of cattle manure significantly affected plant height at PI andharvest. Cattle manure applied at the highest rate (9,375 kg/ha) had the highest plant height.
Grain yield of rice was not significantly affected by pre-rice management. However,incorporation of mungbean residues produced an increase in rice grain yield over fallow
treatment of 416 kg/ha (or 17%). Incorporation of mungbean significantly increased
panicle number per hill. Incorporation of mungbean residue and application of cattle
manure at 6,250 kg/ha produced the maximum panicle number per hill. Cattle manure
application at the rate of 9,375 kg/ha resulted in the maximum rice grain yield (2,920
kg/ha). No significant interaction between pre-rice residue management and cattle manure
application was found on rice grain yield. Growing mungbean before rice provides theadvantage of marketable grain of mungbean to 1.6 t/ha. The net economic return was foundhighest in growing mungbean alone with transplanted rice later (2,855US $/ha) or threetimes higher than the fallow treatment.
Keywords animal manure, mungbean residue, organic rice

INTRODUCTION
The development and popularity of organic farming in Thailand have arisen due to issues that havebeen building in the country for several years. These include poverty among small farmers, theproblem of agricultural chemical residues, and the increasing consumer need for organic
agricultural products in the foreign market (Thanwa, 2001; Vitoon, 1994; Saetang et al., 2003).
Organic rice production has played an important role in recent years in boosting the income of
farmers in Northeast Thailand, due to expanding market demand in European countries since 2003
Ⓒ ISERD

1

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1(Economic Research Center, 2003). One of its conditions at the production stage is that organic ricemust be cultivated without chemical fertilizer and pesticides. With regard to soil fertility, compost,
green manure and animal manure play an important role in improving the crop yield from organic
rice farming. However, there is little information about the use of pre-rice mungbean as green
manure after pod harvesting. The objectives of the study were to investigate the effect of pre-rice
mungbean management and the application of different rates of cattle manure fertilizers on growthand yield of organic rice under rainfed conditions, as well as economic return of mungbean as prerice crop.
METHODOLOGYThe  experiment  was  conducted  in  a  farmer’s  field  in  Muang Yai village, Khon Kaen province in2011. The soil physio-chemical characteristics before planting mungbean and rice are shown in
Table 1. In general, the soil texture is sand. Before growing mungbean, soil is strongly acidic andhas low OM, total N, available P and exchangeable K. However, after incorporation of weed andmungbean residue most soil characteristics improved, particularly in the mungbean residues
incorporation treatment.
A split-plot arrangement of treatments in a randomized completed block design with four
replications was used. Pre-rice management (fallow with weeds incorporated into the soil and prerice mungbean in which residues were incorporated into the soil after pod harvesting) was the
main-plot factor, while the application of different rates of cattle manure (0, 3,125, 6,250 and 9,375
kg/ha) were the sub-plot factors.
Table 1 Soil physio-chemical characteristics of the experimental field at 0-15 cm
Soil characteristics

Before growing
mungbean

Before growing rice
FallowpHa
EC (mS/cm)b
Organic matter %)c
Total N (%)dAvailable P (mg/kg)eExchangeable K(mg/kg)f
Soil textureg
a

4.92
0.03
0.468
0.038
6.67
73.60
Sand

5.09
0.015
0.604
0.036
8.01
57.48
-

Mungbean residue
incorporated
5.15
0.024
0.741
0.045
9.06
100.44-

pH meter (1 : 1 H2O); bEC meter (1 : 5 H2O); cWalkley and Black method; dKjeldahl method; eBray II and molybdenumblue method; f1N  NH4OAc  pH  7  and  ﬂame  photometry  method  and  gHydrometer method

Table 2 Schedule of technical operations related to each treatment of the experiment in 2011
1st
plowing

2nd
plowing

MungbeansowingMungbeanharvest30 Apr.

7 May

11 May11, 20 Jul.

Mungbean
and weedincorporation
23 Jul.

Applicationof cattle
manure10 Aug.

Ricetransplanting
12 Aug.

Weeding

Flower-ing

Rice
harvest17 Sep.

23 Oct.

23 Nov.

Field managements of legume and succeeding rice crop are reported in Table 2. Before growing
mungbean,  soil  was  ploughed  twice  as  in  the  farmers’  usual  cultivation  practice  from  late  April  to  the beginning of May. The main plots of each experiment were constructed by creating bunds
surrounding areas of 4 x 17.5 m. Then cattle manure at the rate of 3,125 kg/ha were applied in the
pre-rice mungbean treatment. The cattle manure application was done as the starter for thesymbiotic fixation of N and favored the highest grain yield for mungbean. Mungbean was handseeded at a spacing of 20 × 50 cm. Pods of mungbean was harvested twice about 2 months aftersowing. Before incorporation of weeds and mungbean residues into the soil, weeds and mungbean
residues were randomly collected from 3 sites of 1 × 1 m to determine their dry weights (1,713 and
3,163 kg/ha, respectively). Total N, P and K contents of weeds and mungbean residues were also
Ⓒ ISERD

2

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

analyzed (1.59%, 0.3% and 5.25% for dry weight of mungbean residue and 0.66%, 0.16% and5.25% for dry weight of weed, respectively). The amount of nutrients returned to the soil byincorporating weeds and mungbean residues into the soil was calculated as in Eq. (1)Dry weight (kg/ha) x nutrient content (%)
100

(1)

Cattle manure at different rates was applied about 18 days after the incorporation of weeds andmungbean residues. Total N, total P and total K of cattle manure were determined (1.3%, 0.3% and1.95% of dry weight, respectively). The amount of nutrients in the cattle manure applied to the soil
was calculated as in Eq. (2)Rate of application (kg /ha) x nutrient content (%)
100

(2)

Rice seedlings were transplanted 1 day after the cattle manure application. Five seedlings perhill were transplanted in the pattern of 25 x 25 cm. Rice cv. KDML 105 was used in this study.
Hand weeding was done once every 35 days after transplanting. No insecticide or fungicide wasused in this experiment.
Five hills from each plot were measured to classify their height and tiller number per hill at
panicle initiation (PI) growth stage and harvesting stage. Again, five hills from each plot outside
the harvesting area were randomly selected and oven dried at 80 ℃ for 4 days to determine top dry
weight at PI and harvest. The nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents of leaves were
determined at PI. The numbers of panicles per hill in the harvesting areas were measured at harvest
time. For the same samples, ten panicles from each plot were randomly selected to determine thenumber of filled and unfilled grains and the percentage of filled grains per panicle was calculated.
The grain yield was taken from the 6 m2 harvesting area of each plot and calculated as kg/ha at 14%
moisture content. The filled grains were randomly selected from the grain yield sample todetermine the weight of 1,000 grains. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance proceduresand LSD was used to compare treatment methods when the F-test was significant.
RESULTS
Grain yield of mungbean and nutrient recycling to the soil
Grain yield of mungbean averaged 1,635 kg/ha. Incorporation of mungbean residues into the soil
provided about 4 times higher N, P and K contribution than by weeds, 50.2 kg N, 9.8 kg P and
166.2 kg K per ha, respectively (Table 3). The amount of nutrients returned to the soil was further
increased when cattle manure was applied and was higher in pre-rice mungbean treatment thanfallow treatment. Application of the highest rate of cattle manure, 9,375 kg/ha, resulted in thehighest N, P and K returned to the soil, 133.4 kg N, 71.1 kg P and 273.1 kg K per ha, respectively
under fallow treatment and 172.3 kg N, 78.1 kg P and 349.3 kg K per ha, respectively under prerice mungbean. However, the ratio of increase of nutrients among cattle manure application rates
was small in pre-rice mungbean treatment, i.e. N returned to the soil was only 3, 4 and 6 times
higher than no cattle manure application when cattle manure was applied at the rates of 3,125,
6,250 and 9,375 kg/ha, respectively. In contrast to fallow treatment, N returned to the soil was 8,15, and 22 times higher than no cattle application when cattle manure was applied at the rates of
3,125, 6,250 and 9,375 kg/ha, respectively (Table 3).
Growth of following rice
Incorporation of mungbean residues significantly increased plant height and tiller number per hillof succeeding rice but had no significant effect on top dry weight at PI growth stage (Table 4).
Ⓒ ISERD

3

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Application of different rates of cattle manure affected plant height at PI but not tiller number per
hill and top dry weight. The maximum plant height was obtained at the highest rate of cattle
manure application (9,375 kg/ha), but was not significantly different from the rates of 3,125 and
6,250 kg/ha. No interaction between pre-rice mungbean management and cattle manure application
rate on plant growth at PI was observed (Table 4).
Table 3 Total N, P and K (kg/ha) returned to the soil by weed and mungbean residue atdifferent cattle manure application rates before growing rice
Cattle manure application
rate (kg/ha)

Nutrients returned to the soil (kg/ha)
Weed incorporation
Mungbean residue incorporation
N
P
K
N
P
K
0
11.3
2.8
90.0
50.2
9.8
166.2
3,125
52.0
25.6
151.0
90.9
32.6
227.2
6,250
92.7
48.3
212.1
131.6
55.3
288.3
9,375
133.4
71.1
273.1
172.3
78.1
349.3
N, P and K contents in plant tissues were analyzed by micro-kjeldahl method and indophenol blue method, wet oxidation
method and yellow molybdovanadophosphoric acid method and wet oxidation   method   and   ﬂame   photometry   method,  respectively.

(a)(b)
Fig. 1  Interactions between pre-rice management and cattle manure application rates ontiller number per hill (a) and panicle number per hill (b) of KDML 105 at harvest
Table 4 Plant growth of KDML 105 as affected by pre-rice managements and cattle manure
application rates at panicle initiation stage and harvest
Treatment
Height(cm)

PI
Tiller no.
per hill

Top dry
weight perhill (g)Height(cm)

Pre-rice management
Fallow
78.8b
10b
11.13
121.8
Mungbean
90.1a
12a
14.88
128.5
F-test***ns
ns
Cattle manure application rate
0 (kg/ha)
80.4b
10
12.57
118.7c3,125 (kg/ha)
83.5ab11
11.69
123.3bc
6,500 (kg/ha)
85.8a
11
14.15
128.2ab
9,375(kg/ha)
88.0a
12
13.60
130.4aF-test*ns
ns*
Interaction
F-testns
ns
ns
ns
CV a (%)
8.44
8.60
28.59
7.05
CV b (%)
6.04
18.21
26.57
5.28
Means followed by the same letter in the same column had no significant difference by LSD.
*,** indicate significance at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively. ns= not significant

HarvestTillerno. perhill

Top dry
weight per hill
(g)

7
9
ns

31.65b
42.67a
*

7
8
8
8
ns

30.99
36.45
40.37
40.81
ns

*
19.76
14.86

ns
16.77
20.87

At the harvest stage, incorporation of mungbean residues significantly increased top dry
weight of rice but had no significant effect on plant height and tiller number per hill (Table 4).
Cattle manure application rates significantly affected plant height at harvest. Application of theⒸ ISERD

4

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

highest rate of cattle manure gave the maximum plant height but it was not significantly different
from the rate of 6,250 kg/ha. Cattle manure application rates had no effect on tiller number per hill
and top dry weight of rice. An interaction between pre-rice mungbean management and cattle
manure application rate was found in tiller number per hill at harvest (Table 4). Under pre-rice
mungbean treatment, application of cattle manure at the rate of 6,250 kg/ha resulted in the
maximum tiller number per hill (10 tillers per hill) and was lowest in no cattle application treatment
and at the rate of 3,125 kg /ha (7 tillers per hill). Under fallow treatment, application of different
rates of cattle manure had no significant effect on tiller number per hill at harvest (Fig. 1(a)).
Table 5 Yield and yield components of KDML 105 as affected by pre-rice managements andcattle manure application rates at harvest
Treatment

Grain yield(kg/ha)Panicle(no. per
hill)

Grain
(no. perpanicle)Filledgrain(%)

Pre-rice management
Fallow
2,433.5
6.19b
109.6990.50
Mungbean2,849.9
7.50a
106.81
90.13
F-testns*
ns
ns
Cattle manure application rate
0 (kg/ha)
2,358.6b
6.13b
98.50
90.38a3125 (kg/ha)
2,578.9ab
6.88a
111.1388.63b6250 (kg/ha)
2,709.3ab
7.38a112.8791.00a9375 (kg/ha)
2,919.9a
7.00a
110.501.25a
F-test***ns*
Interaction
F-testns*
ns
ns
CV a (%)
18.57
11.46
10.35
3.22
CV b (%)
10.32
10.37
15.34
1.78
Means followed by the same letter in the same column had no significant difference by LSD*,** indicate significance at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively. ns= not significant

1,000 grain
weight
(g)
29.06
29.14
ns
28.90
28.92
28.94
29.63
ns
ns
3.90
3.13

Grain yield and yield components of succeeding rice
Grain yield of rice was not significantly affected by pre-rice management. However, incorporationof mungbean residues tended to increase rice yield up to 17% over the fallow treatment (Table 5).
Cattle manure application rates significantly affected rice grain yield. The maximum grain yield
was obtained at the highest cattle manure application rate (2.9 t/ha) but it was not significantly
different from other two rates. There was no interaction between pre-rice mungbean management
and cattle manure application rate in grain yield of rice (Table 5).
Growing mungbean before rice significantly increased panicle number per hill but had no
significant effect on grain number per panicle, filled grain percentage and 1,000 grain weight.
Cattle manure application rate significantly affected panicle number per hill and filled grain
percentage. Cattle manure application at the rate of 6,250 kg/ha provided the maximum panicle
number per hill but it was not significantly different from the other two application rates.
Maximum filled grain percentage was obtained when cattle manure was applied at the highest rate
(Table 5). Interaction between pre-rice mungbean management and cattle manure application rate
was found. When mungbean residue was incorporated into the soil, application of cattle manure at
the rate of 6,250 kg/ha gave the maximum panicle number per hill. However, when the field wasleft fallow, application of cattle manure at the rate of 3,125kg/ha resulted in the maximum panicle
number per hill. No cattle manure application treatment provided the lowest panicle number per
hill in both pre-rice managements with lowest in fallow treatment (Fig. 1b).
Nutrient concentration of rice at PI
Fallow and incorporation of mungbean residue into the soil had no significant effect on N and K
concentrations of KDML 105 rice leaves at PI but had significant effect on P content (Table 6).
Phosphorus concentration in rice leaves was higher in fallow treatment than mungbean residueⒸ ISERD

5

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

incorporation. Cattle manure application rates significantly affected N and P content in rice leaves
but not K content. In terms of N concentration, application of the highest rate of cattle manureprovided the highest leaf N concentration. Nevertheless, the highest P concentration was obtained
when cattle manure was applied at the rate of 6,250 kg/ha (Table 6). There were interactions
between pre-rice mungbean management and cattle manure application rate. When mungbean
residues were incorporated into the soil, application of the highest rate of cattle manure provided
the highest leaf N concentration. Under fallow treatment, application of different cattle manure
rates had no significant effect on leaf N concentration (Table 7).
Table 6 Nutrient concentration (%) in leaf of KDML 105 as affected by pre-ricemanagements and cattle manure application rates at panicle initiation stage
Treatment
N (%)
P (%)
Pre-rice management
Fallow
1.977
0.229aMungbean
1.948
0.209bF-testns**
Cattle manure application rate
0 (kg/ha)
1.958b0.212b3,125 (kg/ha)
1.905b0.222ab
6,250 (kg/ha)
1.946b0.235a9,375 (kg/ha)
2.041a0.206bF-test**Interaction
F-test**ns
CV a (%)
8.27
1.12
CV b (%)
3.90
8.78
Means followed by the same letter in the same column had no significant difference by LSD*, ** indicate significance at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively. ns= not significant

K (%)
2.225
2.323
ns
2.230
2.222
2.333
2.310
ns
ns
5.72
5.28

Table 7 Interactions between pre-rice management and cattle manure application rates on
nitrogen concentration in leaf of KDML 105 at panicle initiation stage
Cattle application rate

N concentration in leaves of rice at PI
Fallow
Mungbean
0 kg/ha
2.019
1.896bc
3,125 kg/ha
1.973
1.836c6,250 kg/ha
1.938
1.954b
9,375 kg/ha
1.976
2.1045aMeans followed by the same letter in the same column had no significant difference by LSD

Table 8 Yield, production cost, gross income and net income
Treatment

Yield
Production
Gross income
Net income(kg/ha)cost(US $/ha)(US $/ha)(US $/ha)Mungbean
Rice
Fallow
0
1,995
26
966
940
Fallow+3125 kg CM per ha
0
2,502
176
1,211
1,035
Fallow+6250 kg CM per ha
0
2,427
327
1,175
848
Fallow+9375 kg CM per ha
0
2,810
477
1,360
883
Mungbean
1,635
2,722
297
3,152
2,855
Mungbean+3125 kg CM per ha
1,635
2,656
448
3,120
2,672
Mungbean+6250 kg CM per ha
1,635
2,992
598
3,282
2,684
Mungbean+9375 kg CM per ha
1,635
3,030
748
3,301
2,553
Note: CM = cattle manure; Planting material = mungbean seed 35 baht/kg, KDML 105 rice seed 26 baht/kg and cattle
manure price 1.5 baht/kg; Market price of crop: mungbean seed 35 baht/kg and KDML 105 rice 15.1 baht/kg;
1 US$ =31.2 Thai baht
Production cost = Material cost + Land preparation for mungbean growing; Household labor is considered as farminglaborⒸ ISERD

6

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Economic return of growing mungbean before rice
All mungbean growing treatments provided higher net income than all fallow treatments. This isdue to the additional income from selling mungbean grains. The net income of growing mungbean
before rice without cattle manure application, however, yielded the highest net income because of
low production cost. The net income was similar when growing mungbean as a pre-rice crop andapplication of different rates of cattle manure (Table 8).
DISCUSSION
The incorporation of mungbean residues into the soil did not significantly increase the grain yieldof KDML 105 rice over the fallow treatment. However, pre-rice mungbean increased rice grain
yield over fallow treatment by 416 kg/ha (or 17%). Suriyakup et al. (2007a) reported that grain
yield of direct-seeded RD 6 rice variety was not significantly different when mungbean wasincorporated into the soil at the flowering stage. However, grain yield of transplanted RD 6 ricewith mungbean residues incorporated into the soil was increased by 355-1,399 kg/ha over the
fallow treatment with weeds incorporated into the soil (Suriyakup et al., 2007b). In India, sown
summer mungbean increased rice grain yields by 05-0.9 t/ha (Sharma et al., 2000) or 0.3 t/ha
(Sharma et al., 1995). In the present experiment, the mungbean residue provided 3,163 kg/ha dry
weight containing 50 kg N per ha, 10 kg P per ha and 166 kg K per ha. A similar amount ofmungbean residue contributed to the soil of 2,810-4,170 kg/ha dry weight and 53-57 kg N per ha(Suriyakup et al., 2007b), 2.2-3.2 t/ha dry matter and 56.8- 70.2 kg N per ha (Sharma et al., 1995)
have been reported. Bhuiyan et al. (2009) reported that mungbean residue accumulated 1.14-1.76 t
of dry matter per ha which amounted to 14.6-43.1 kg N per ha, 1.26-3.66 kg P per ha and16.3-35.9
kg K per ha. Poomthaisong (2002) reported that the amount of nitrogen fixed by mungbean was 3551 kg N per ha. However, in this study, the amount of nitrogen returned to the soil did not include
nitrogen from fixation process.
Increase in the application rates of cattle manure significantly improved rice grain yield.
Application of cattle manure at the highest rate (9,375 kg/ha) resulted in the maximum grain yield
but did not make significant difference from other application rates. Polthanee et al. (2011)
reported that application of cattle manure at 9,375 kg/ha with rice straw incorporated into the soil
provided the maximum transplanted KDML 105 rice grain yield (3,820 kg/ha) (increased 717 kg/ha
over no fertilizer plot). Grain yield of direct-seeded KDML 105 rice with cattle manure at the samerate was increased by 258 kg/ha over no fertilizer (Polthanee et al., 2008). Application of farmyard
manure at 7 t/ha did not affect yield of rice and wheat in Bhutan but it increased organic carbon in
the soil (Chettri et al., 2003). The maximum cattle manure rate in the study provided additional N,
P and K to rice at122 kg, 68 kg and 183 kg, respectively. In the present study, calculated nutrients
returned to the soil did not include nutrients from cattle manure being used as starter and nitrogen
fixation process. Abe et al (1995) reported that cattle manure applied to the rice crop supported root
growth at deeper soil layers by increasing root density and enhanced root growth.
The sufficient N concentration in leaves at the PI stage was about 2.6-3.2% of dry weight(Mikkelsen and Hunziker, 1971). In this study, the N in leaves at the PI stage was 1.905-2.041% of
dry weight for all treatments. This indicates that the N in soil was not adequate for plant growth at
PI. Dobermann and Fairhurst (2000) indicated that the N deficiency at the PI stage caused a
reduction of grain numbers per panicle and filled grain percentage. The significant differences intiller and panicle number per hill and filled grain percentage in this study may indicate that N is thelimiting factor for rice crop production in sandy soils. Applied N may be lost by leaching,denitrification or remobilisation by microbiorganisms.
The sufficient P concentration value in leaves at the PI stage was about 0.17% of dry weight(Fageria et al., 1988). In the present experiment, P in leaves at the PI stage was 0.206-0.235% of
dry weight for all treatments. This indicates that P in soil provided an adequate amount for rice
growth at PI. Similarly, in the case of K, the sufficient K concentration value in leaves at the PI
stage was about 1.0-2.2% of dry weight (Jones et al., 1991). In the present study, K in leaves at theⒸ ISERD

7

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

PI stage was 2.222-2.333% of dry weight for all treatments. This indicates that K in the soil was
sufficient for rice growth at PI.
In the present experiment, even though rice grain yield from the mungbean-rice cropping
system was not significantly different from fallow treatment, growing mungbean before riceprovides the advantage of marketable grain of mungbean to 1.6 t/ha. Net income of all growing
mungbean before rice treatments was 2.6-3.0 times higher than fallow treatment. Introduction ofsummer mungbean in the rice-wheat cropping system yielded 0.4-1.3 t/ha protein-rich grain in
India (Sharma et al., 2000). Nevertheless, in terms of economic return for the whole cropping
system, application of cattle manure at 3,125kg /ha at sowing date of mungbean may be sufficient
to support mungbean growth and reduce the production cost of rice growing.
CONCLUSION
The incorporation of mungbean residue into the soil did not significantly increase the grain yield of
KDML 105 rice over the fallow treatment. However, pre-rice mungbean increased rice grain yieldover fallow treatment by 416 kg/ha (or 17%). In addition, the net economic return was found higher
in all growing mungbean before rice cropping system than the fallow treatment . Application of
cattle manure at 9,375 kg/ha resulted in the maximum grain yield (2,920 kg/ha) due to the effect on
panicle number per hill and filled grain percentage. Incorporation of mungbean residue and cattle
manure application at 9,375 kg/ha could not provide sufficient N to the rice crop in this experiment.
Improvement of residue incorporation method, increase in cattle manure application rate or anotherrich N organic fertilizer source, as well as water management in the field need to be further studied
to improve rice grain yield in sandy soil.
REFERENCES
Abe, J., Songmuang, P. and Harada, J. 1995. Root growth of paddy rice with application of organic materials
as fertilizers in Thailand. JARO, 29, 77-82.
Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Mian, M H., Islam, M.S., Islam, M.R. and Alam, F. (2009) The contribution of mungbean
residue and cowdung in supplying nutrients. Bull. Inst. Trop. Agr., Kyushu Univ., 32, 35-42.
Chettri, G.B., Ghimiray, M. and Floyd, C.N. 2003. Effects of farmyard manure, fertilizers and green
manuring in rice-wheat systems in Bhutan: Results from a long-term experiment. Expl. Agric., 39, 129144.
Dobermann, A. and Fairhurst, T.H. 2000. Rice: nutrient disorders and nutrient management. International
Rice Research Institute, Philippines.
Economic Research Center. 2003. Study on developing Hom Mali organic rice for export to Europe andUnited States of America (in Thai). Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart Univ. 286.
Fageria, N.K., Wright, R.T. and Buligar, V.C. 1988. Rice cultivar evaluation for phosphorus use efficiency.
Plant Soil, 111, 105-109.
Jones, J.B., Wolf, B. and Mills, H.A. 1991. Plant analysis handbook: A practical sampling, preparation,
analysis and interpretation guide. Micro-Macro Inc., USA.
Mikkelsen, D.S., Hunziker, R.G. 1971. A plant analysis survey of California rice. Agri. Chem., 14, 18-22.
Polthanee A. and Treloges, V. 2008. Effect of rice straw management and organic fertilizer application on
growth and yield of dry direct-seeded rice. Paddy Water Environ., 6, 237-241.
Polthanee, A. Promkhambut, A. and Kaewrahan, S. 2011. Growth and yield of organic rice as affected byrice straw and organic fertilizer. IJERD, 2, 93-98.
Poomthaison, J. 2002. Growth and nitrogen fixation of some mungbean cultivars and subsequent effect ofmungbean residues on maize. Master of Science Thesis in Agronomy. Graduate School, Khon Kaen
University, Thailand.
Saetang, C., Igata, M., Niinuma, K., Goto, K., Matsuda, T. and Pitipunya, R. 2003. Present condition of theorganic agricultural products authentication system in Thailand. J. ISSAAS, 9, 179-195.
Sharma, S.N., Prasad, R. and Singh, S. 1995. The role of mungbean residues and Sesbania aculeata green
manure in the nitrogen economy of rice-wheat cropping system. Plant Soil, 172, 123-129.
Sharma, S.N., Prasad, R., Singh, S. and Singh, P. 2000. On-farm trials of the eﬀect of introducing a summer
green manure of mungbean on the productivity of a rice-wheat cropping system. J. Agr. Sci.,
Cambridge, 134, 169-172.
Ⓒ ISERD

8

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Suriyakup, P., Polthanee, A., Pannangpethch, K., Katawatin, R. and Clermont-Dauphin, C. 2007a. Mungbean(Vigna radiate L.) residue and nitrogen rate affected growth and yield of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa
L.) in rainfed riceland. Asian J. Plant Sci., 6, 1158-1165.
Suriyakup, P., Polthanee, A., Pannangpethch, K., Katawatin, R. Mouret, J. C. and Clermont-Dauphin, C. 2007b.
Introducing mungbean as a preceding crop to enhance nitrogen uptake and yield of rainfed rice innortheast Thailand. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 58, 1059-1067.
Thawa, J. 2001. The policy of sustainable agriculture development. Kasetsart Univ. 2.1-2.15, Thailand.
Vitoon, P. 1994. Asian type organic farming. National Organic Agric. Res., Japan. 115-119.

Ⓒ ISERD

9