07.05.2015 Views

Effect of bacterial and cyanobacterial culture on growth, quality and ...

Effect of bacterial and cyanobacterial culture on growth, quality and ...

Effect of bacterial and cyanobacterial culture on growth, quality and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the 7 th Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong> Mushroom Biology <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mushroom Products (ICMBMP7) 2011<br />

percent in the third break. Protein c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treated mushrooms also increased with 3 to 5<br />

percent in three breaks compared to untreated mushrooms (Table 1).<br />

Table 1. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>bacterial</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>culture</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> yield, dry matter <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> protein c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mushroom<br />

First picking Sec<strong>on</strong>d picking Third picking<br />

Sample<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

C<strong>on</strong>trol 11.8 8.2 37 7.9 7.9 34 4.8 7.5 32<br />

Test 12.1 ns 8.7 * 40* 10 ** 8.5 * * 4.4 ns 8.2 * *<br />

39 **<br />

37 **<br />

Diff. 0.3 0.5 3.0 2.1 0.6 5.0 - 0.4 0.7 5.0<br />

* * s i g n i f i c a n c e < 1 % l e v e l , * s i g n i f i c a n c e < 5 % l e v e l , n s :<br />

n o t s i g n i f i c a n t<br />

Casing soil was irrigated with algal <str<strong>on</strong>g>culture</str<strong>on</strong>g> at the primordia formati<strong>on</strong> stage, before<br />

sec<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> third breaks. There was a significant difference in mushroom yield in three flushes<br />

treated with cyano<str<strong>on</strong>g>bacterial</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>culture</str<strong>on</strong>g> as compared to the c<strong>on</strong>trol. Mushroom yield was increased<br />

0.661 kg/m 2 in first, 2.2 kg/m 2 in sec<strong>on</strong>d flush <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.053 kg/m 2 in the third flush as compared to<br />

the c<strong>on</strong>trol. The result also showed that inoculati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> casing soil with cyanobacteria had a<br />

positive effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>quality</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mushroom. Dry matter c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mushrooms increased in the first<br />

flush. Dry matter was measured at 9.75 % in treated <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 8.35 % in untreated mushroom.<br />

However, the amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> dry matter <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> protein declined in sec<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> third flush as compared to<br />

the first flush. There was a slight difference in dry matter in treated <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> untreated mushroom in<br />

sec<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> third flushes. Additi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> algal <str<strong>on</strong>g>culture</str<strong>on</strong>g> had a positive effect <strong>on</strong> protein c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

mushroom. The amount protein was increased significantly in first flush, but there was a slight<br />

difference between treated <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol in sec<strong>on</strong>d flush. Whereas, in the third flush protein<br />

c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treated mushroom was less than c<strong>on</strong>trol (Table 2).<br />

Table 2. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> algal <str<strong>on</strong>g>culture</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> yield, dry matter <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> protein c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mushroom<br />

Sample First Flush Sec<strong>on</strong>d Flush Third Flush<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

Yield D.M Protein<br />

Kg/m 2 % %<br />

C<strong>on</strong>trol 12.59 8.35 48.1 7.58 8.3 45.1 2.75 7.40 41.1<br />

Test 13.2 * 9.75 * *<br />

51.9 **<br />

9.78 ** 8.6 *<br />

45.5 ns<br />

2.80 ns 7.50 ns<br />

39.1 ns<br />

Diff. 0.61 1.4 3.8 2.2 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.10 -2.0<br />

* * s i g n i f i c a n c e < 1 % l e v e l , * s i g n i f i c a n c e < 5 % l e v e l ,<br />

n s : n o t s i g n i f i c a n t<br />

Secti<strong>on</strong>:<br />

Waste c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong>, substrates <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> casing<br />

409

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!