Proximate composition

ABSTRACT

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.4 Proximate composition

maximum average number of flower (14.3) were detected in plants of FNSP treatment. In case of flowers the product composition, where plants gave highest results, showed the presence of Na, K and also sulfur and chlorine, which might affected the flowers positively (Kahlaoui et al., 2011; Ayes and Gusher, 2005; Terry and Ulrich, 1973: Kowalska 2004). Na-humate had also been reported to be good for flower numbers per plants (Maria, 1984). Hydrochloric acids and Sulfuric acid might release other minerals (Ishaq et al., 2002) which enhanced the flower number per plants (Melek et al., 2015).

Average Number of fruits week^-1plant^-1(Table-10) after fruit setting showed significant variation (P<0.05). It showed the average number of fruits per plant at different intervals, each of per week. After first week of flowering date the average number of fruits were ranged from 0.33 to 2.67. where the lowest average number of fruits was recorded in plants treated SP, CFS, CNS, CSP and CFNP while the highest average number of fruits were detected in treatment of FNS and CNP. In the second interval the lowest average number of fruits 0.33 was recorded in the plants grown in CSP while the maximum average number of fruits was found in plants treated with CNP which was 4.00. In the third interval maximum average number of fruits was found 6.00 in FNS treated plant while minimum average number of fruits was found in NS treated plant (1.33). Similarly the lowest average number of fruits in fourth interval the average number of fruits were maximum in plant treated with FNS (6.67) while the minimum average number of fruits were detected in plants of NS, CSP and FYM treatmentS (1.67). All the data was statistically significant (P<0.05). Sulfur and Nitrogen was present in the product where maximum result was declared, that might be the reason of higher number of fruits per plants. (Bielinski, 2010; Masome and Sepideh, 2014). Similar to other parameters, humic acid and the release of minerals by acids or bases (Ishaq et al., 2002) might be the cause of higher number of fruits per plant (Frias-Moreno 2014)

found in NS treated plant while the highest content was found in F treated plant.

Moisture content in stem the lowest value was 93.82% in CFP while highest value was found 95.81% in C treated plant. In leaves before harvested the moisture content lowest reading was 94.37% while highest value 95.77%. Moisture content of the leaves after harvest was in the range of 93.54% which was found in the treatment of CFN while the highest amount (95.41%) was detected in CFNS, which is the combination of four chemicals. Higher moisture might be due the effect of hydrochloric acid on product mineral leaching or might be due to humic acid in that pot released by hydrochloric acid (Sadia and Nikos 2009). Higher amount of chlorine might be another cause of higher moisture in the fruits (Lee et al., 2008).

Ash content (Table-12) was determined in the products and controls treated plants, which varied significantly (P<0.05). The average Ash content of root ranged from 2.98 to 3.99 %. The lower Ash content found in N treated plant while the highest content was found in FNS treated plant. Ash content in stem have found the lowest value of 4.37% in NS while highest value 5.01% was detected in C treated plant. In leaves before harvested the ash content have lowest reading of 3.17% while highest value 3.92% . Ash content of the leaves after harvest was in the range of 3.08% which was found in the treatment of NP while the highest amount (3.98%) was detected in N. Ash representing mineral matter of the substances and higher amount is guarantee of high mineral contents (Suarez et al., 2008). As the products contained most of the minerals in abundance along with humic acid content and having different pH, so this might be the reason of ash variability in plants (Arshad et al., 2014). The higher amount was detected in product containing S and K so the effect might be related to these minerals (Gary et al., 1998; Cerda et al., 1980; Kowalska2004; Javaria 2012).

Humic acid could also be reason behind higher ash content (Sadia and Nikos 2009).

Fertilizer effect on ash variation was also reported by (Stephen et al., 2014).

Crude fat content of the tomato plants applied with products and controls were presented in table -13. Crude fat varied significantly in different parts of tomato plants (P < 0.05). Fat content of plant parts after treatment with different combination of acids bases showed that roots contained fat content of 0.62 to 0.98%. The lowest content was present in the plant roots treated with FP and the highest one was observed in CFP treatment. Stem fat content ranged from 1.21 to 1.72%, the CF treatment contained the lower while the CNS plant stems had the high fat. The fat

content of leaves before harvest was 2.10 to 3.20%. The CFNP contained the lowest while the CP possessed the highest fat content. The fats of leaves after harvest showed a range of 1.88 to 2.91% where the lower content was present in N while The maximum amount was found in CFP. Crude fat variation might be due to humic acid and other carbon compounds (Oloyede et al., 2012). Nitrogen and Sulfur as present in the product, where highest amount was noticed, might have role in crude fat formation and enhancement (Ezra et al., 2011). Other minerals also might have played role in crude fat content of tomato plants. (Sodamade et al., 2013).

Table-11: Effect of wood coal products on % moisture content of tomato plant parts Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 96.71^abc 95.81^a 95.61^ab 94.62^bcdef 2. F 96.87^a 94.52ⁱ 95.27^efgh 93.79^efgh 3. N 96.74^abc 94.38^j 94.94^ijklmn 93.55^j 4. S 96.44^abcdefg 95.01^cdefgh 94.37^p 93.62^ij 5. P 96.35^bcdefghij 95.32^b 95.68^a 93.91^ghij 6. CF 95.99^ijkl 95.68^a 95.77^a 93.97^ghij 7. CN 96.01^hijkl 94.93^cdefgh 95.31^cdef 93.88^ghij 8. CS 96.82^a 94.82^fghi 94.87^klmn 94.09^fghij 9. CP 96.32^cdefghijk 95.02^cdefg 94.74^no 94.18^efghi 10. FN 96.48^abcdefg 93.92^k 95.68^a 94.29^cdefg 11. FS 96.23^defghijkl 94.84^fghi 95.61^ab 93.81^ghij 12. FP 96.66^abc 95.11^bcde 94.98^hijklm 93.77^ghij 13. NS 95.83^l 94.79^ghi 95.06^ghijk 93.89^ghij 14. NP 96.03^ghijkl 94.82^fghi 95.16^efghi 94.01^ghij 15. SP 95.91^kl 94.92^cdefgh 95.39^bcd 93.69^hij 16. CFN 95.98^ijkl 95.14^bcd 95.42^bc 93.54^j 17. CFS 96.23^defghijkl 94.88^efgh 95.61^ab 93.84^ghij 18. CFP 96.48^abcdef 93.82^k 95.38^cde 93.69^hij 19. FNS 96.76^ab 94.89^defgh 95.42^bc 94.18^efghi 20. FNP 96.69^abc 95.06^cdef 94.79^mno 94.29^cdefg 21. FSP 95.92^kl 95.13^bcde 94.98^hijklm 93.88^ghij 22. CNS 95.87^l 94.92^cdefgh 94.59^op 94.90^ab 23. CNP 96.04^ghijkl 93.98^k 94.88^klmn 94.27^defg 24. CSP 95.99^ijkl 94.79^ghi 95.03^hijkl 94.80^abcd 25. FSP 96.17^efghijkl 94.84^fghi 95.19^defgh 94.85^abc 26. NSP 96.42^abcdefgh 95.05^cdef 95.15^fghi 95.29^a 27. CFNS 96.57^abcde 94.97^cdefgh 94.87^klmn 95.41^a 28. CFNP 95.88^l 94.82^fghi 94.91^jklmn 94.99^ab 29. CFSP 95.94^jkl 95.15^bc 94.99^hijklm 94.66^bcde 30. CNSP 96.05^ghijkl 94.88^efgh 95.18^defgh 95.18^ab 31. FNSP 96.32^cdefghijk 95.11^bcde 95.09^fghijk 95.07^ab 32. CFNSP 96.76^ab 94.89^defgh 95.28^cdefg 94.69^bcde 33. N.P.K 95.89^l 94.76^hi 94.92^jklmn 94.91^ab 34. H.ACID 95.92^kl 94.82^fghi 94.87^klmn 94.98^ab 35. F.Y.M 96.08^fghijkl 95.13^bcde 94.81^lmno 95.28^a 36. W.COA

L

96.65^abcd 94.76^hi 95.13^fghij 95.13^ab 37. U. SOIL 96.37^bcdefghi 94.81^fghi 95.18^efgh 94.81^abcd Mean 96.28^a 94.88^c 95.14^b 94.37^d

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

Table - 12: Effect of wood coal products on % ash content of tomato plant parts

Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 3.46^hi 5.01^hi 3.64^bcdefgh 3.25^ghij

2. F 3.04^klmn 4.82^klmn 3.48^ghij 3.12^ij

3. N 2.98^o 4.79^o 3.92^a 3.98^a

4. S 3.25^jkl 4.63^jkl 3.67^bcdefg 3.67^bcde

5. P 3.71^cde 4.81^cde 3.28^klm 3.25^ghij

6. CF 3.68^cde 4.83^cde 3.42^hijkl 3.81^ab

7. CN 3.74^cde 4.89^cde 3.51^fghij 3.37^efghij

8. CS 3.79^bcd 4.93^bcd 3.59^cdefghi 3.41^defghi

9. CP 3.81^bc 4.65^bc 3.72^abcdef 3.68^abcd

10. FN 3.72^cde 4.39^cde 3.76^abcde 3.74^abc

11. FS 3.06^no 4.69^no 3.21^lm 3.19^hij

12. FP 3.38^ij 4.83^ij 3.35^jklm 3.28^ghij

13. NS 3.89^ab 4.37^ab 3.17^m 3.12^ij

14. NP 3.29^jk 4.76^jk 3.28^klm 3.08^j

15. SP 3.67^def 4.42^def 3.21^lm 3.28^ghij

16. CFN 3.47^hi 4.88^hi 3.48^ghijk 3.67^bcde

17. CFS 3.89^ab 4.67^ab 3.71^abcdef 3.52^bcdefg

18. CFP 3.92^ab 4.72^ab 3.56^defghij 3.91^ab

19. FNS 3.99^a 4.91^a 3.27^klm 3.67^bcde

20. FNP 3.53^fgh 4.85^fgh 3.21^lm 3.51^bcdef

21. FSP 3.62^efg 4.82^efg 3.62^bcdefgh 3.74^bcdef

22. CNS 3.97^a 4.64^a 3.81^abc 3.65^bcd

23. CNP 3.61^efg 4.67^efg 3.54^efghij 3.38^cdefgh 24. CSP 3.29^jk 4.88^jk 3.62^bcdefgh 3.21^ghij

25. FSP 3.13^lmn 4.91^lmn 3.28^klm 3.43^fghij

26. NSP 3.95^a 4.64^a 3.71^abcdef 3.56^cdefg

27. CFNS 3.65^cdef 4.52^cdef 3.56^cdefghij 3.27^fghij 28. CFNP 3.23^klm 4.69^klm 3.22^lm 3.38^defghij 29. CFSP 3.61^efg 4.54^efg 3.39^ijklm 3.65^bcde

30. CNSP 3.29^jk 4.88^jk 3.78^abcd 3.72^abc

31. FNSP 3.11^mno 4.81^mno 3.81^abc 3.81^ab

32. CFNSP 3.98^a 4.96^a 3.24^lm 3.34^fghij

33. N.P.K 3.95^a 4.69^a 3.51^fghij 3.72^abc

34. H.ACID 3.21^klm 4.84^klm 3.83^ab 3.45^cdefgh 35. F.Y.M 3.16^klmn 4.88^klmn 3.67^bcdefg 3.68^abcd 36. W.COAL 3.52^gh 4.62^gh 3.53^fghij 3.18^hij

37. U. SOIL 3.38^ij 4.80^ij 3.90^a 3.25^ghij

Mean 3.54b 4.75a 3.53b 3.48b

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

Table-13: Effect of wood coal products on % crude fat content of tomato plant parts Treatment

s Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 0.81^abcdefgh 1.39^fghi 2.90^abcdef 2.20^no

2. F 0.98^a 1.47^fg 2.40^def 2.51^cde

3.N 0.95^ab 1.68^ab 2.20^f 1.91^p

4.S 0.82^abcdefgh 1.36^ghijk 2.30^ef 2.76^b

5.P 0.92^abcd 1.24^ijk 2.70^bcdef 2.44^efg

6.CF 0.79^bcdefgh 1.21^k 2.40^def 2.56^cd

7.CN 0.81^abcdefgh 1.62^abcd 2.80^abcdef 1.97^p

8.CS 0.97^a 1.36^ghijk 3.10^ab 1.88^p

9.CP 0.82^abcdefgh 1.27^hijk 3.20^abc 2.31^hijklmn

10.FN 0.75^efghi 1.38^ghi 2.90^cdef 2.42^fgh

11.FS 0.71^ghi 1.24^ijk 2.60^cdef 2.36^fghij

12.FP 0.62ⁱ 1.36^ghijk 2.20^f 2.24^klmn

13.NS 0.84^abcdefgh 1.42^fgh 2.70^bcdef 2.56^cde

14.NP 0.72^fghi 1.60^abcde 2.50^cdef 2.33^ghijklm

15.SP 0.94^abc 1.51^cdefg 2.90^abcdef 2.47^def

16.CFN 0.87^abcdefg 1.22^jk 2.40^def 2.43^fg

17.CFS 0.92^abcd 1.28^hijk 2.20^f 2.67^bc

18.CFP 0.98^a 1.54^bcdef 2.50^cdef 2.91^a

19.FNS 0.82^abcdefgh 1.63^abcd 2.80^abcdef 1.89^p

20.FNP 0.86^abcdefg 1.42^fgh 2.40^def 2.36^fghij

21.FSP 0.75^efghi 1.68^ab 2.90^abcdef 2.61^c

22.CNS 0.96^ab 1.72^a 3.10^abcd 2.43^fg

23.CNP 0.81^abcdefgh 1.38^ghi 3.00^abcde 2.23^lmn

24.CSP 0.69^hi 1.45^efg 2.60^cdef 2.38^fghi

25.FSP 0.95^ab 1.36^ghijk 3.10^a 2.41^fgh

26.NSP 0.84^abcdefgh 1.42^fgh 2.50^cdef 2.34^ghijkl

27.CFNS 0.97^a 1.39^fghi 2.90^abcdef 2.18^mno

28.CFNP 0.79^bcdefgh 1.49^defg 2.10^cdef 2.25^jklmn

29.CFSP 0.76^defghi 1.51^cdefg 2.80^abcdef 2.35^ghijk

30.CNSP 0.85^abcdefgh 1.63^abcd 2.50^cdef 2.11^o

31.FNSP 0.78^cdefghi 1.27^hijk 2.40^def 2.26^jklmn

32.CFNSP 0.92^abcd 1.64^abcd 2.70^bcdef 2.43^fg

33.N.P.K 0.88^abcdef 1.38^ghi 2.20^f 2.28^ijklmn

34.H.ACID 0.94^abc 1.22^jk 2.90^abcdef 2.29^ijklmn

35.F.Y.M 0.91^abcde 1.65^abc 2.60^cdef 2.34^ghijkl

36.W.COAL 0.69^hi 1.37^ghij 2.90^abcdef 2.41^fgh

37.U. SOIL 0.94^abc 1.44^fg 2.40^def 2.56^cd Mean 0.85^d 1.44^c 2.64^a 2.35^b

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

Crude protein content of tomato plants applied with products and controls was showed in table -14. The protein content ranged in different parts as roots from 1.24%

to 1.39%, Stem from 0.36 to 0.94%, leaves before harvest from 1.18 to 1.38% and the leaves after harvest was found to contain protein ranged from 1.09 to 1.42%. In case of root the crude protein was minimum in FSP while the maximum amount was in SP.

The stem lower amount was observed in N while the highest was in NS. The lower amount of protein in leaves before harvest was found in N while highest was in CN treatment. The leaves after harvest lower value was observed in FYM and the highest in FS. The highest amount of crude protein in roots showed accumulation of protein in roots (Ramamoorthy et al., 2002) or that might be the effect of extra nitrogen in roots (Ali et al., 2012, Rafat and Rafiq, 2009). The results showed that not only nitrogen but other minerals were also necessary for crude protein content of the plants (Ezra et al., 2011). Na and P and humic acid could have role in crude protein content variation of the plants (Kahlaoui et al., 2011; Ayes and Gusher 2005).

Crude fiber content among different parts of the tomato plants applied with products and controls varied significantly (P<0.05) where fiber of the root ranged from 5.21 to 6.72% where the lowest value was present in CFP and the highest was in F. The stem contained fiber in the range of 6.89% in P to 7.67% in w.coal. Leaves before harvest were contained lower fiber content (4.16%) in CFP while maximum content (4.96%) in FS treatment. The crude fiber in leaves after harvest was ranged from 2.25 to 5.88%, where the minimum was present in FN and the highest was in CFS. High amount of crude fiber in tomato plants was also reported by (Sadia and Nikos 2009) who studied the effect of humic acid on tomato plants. The overall effect of products and controls on crude fiber content of tomato plants also was significant (P<0.05). Plants applied with controls contained crude fiber comparable to products treated plants. In crude fiber content the role of N and K was obvious from the products (Kowalska 2004), whereby high crude fiber was observed. Other factors of variation might be humic acid and minerals leached by acid or alkalis from the coal into solution form (Ishaq et al., 2002, Frias-Moreno 2014).

Table-14: Effect of wood coal products on % crude protein content of tomato plant parts

Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 1.32^abcde 0.69^ghi 1.21^ghi 1.16^jklm

2. F 1.27^bcde 0.74^def 1.36^abcd 1.13^lm

3. N 1.29^bcde 0.36^p 1.18ⁱ 1.21^hijkl

4. S 1.33^abcd 0.49^mn 1.24^efghi 1.38^abc

5. P 1.26^cde 0.53^lmn 1.31^abcdef 1.21^hijkl

6. CF 1.31^abcde 0.69^ghi 1.27^cdefghi 1.19^ijklm

7. CN 1.36^ab 0.49^mn 1.38^a 1.23^ghijk

8. CS 1.29^bcde 0.45^no 1.29^abcdefg 1.31^cdefg 9. CP 1.25^de 0.62^hij 1.31^abcdef 1.35^abcde 10. FN 1.32^bcde 0.65^hij 1.22^fghi 1.24^ghij 11. FS 1.36^ab 0.73^fgh 1.25^defghi 1.42^a 12. FP 1.29^bcde 0.84^cd 1.32^abcde 1.32^bcdefg

13. NS 1.26^cde 0.94^a 1.19^hi 1.41^ab

14. NP 1.33^abcd 0.82^de 1.26^defghi 1.39^abcd 15. SP 1.39^a 0.39^op 1.32^abcde 1.32^abcde 16. CFN 1.34^abc 0.47^no 1.37^ab 1.25^fghij 17. CFS 1.28^bcde 0.46^no 1.26^defghi 1.28^defgh 18. CFP 1.25^de 0.73^fgh 1.22^fghi 1.19^ijklm 19. FNS 1.27^cde 0.62^ijk 1.24^efghi 1.31^cdefg 20. FNP 1.26^cde 0.56^klm 1.31^abcdef 1.25^fghij 21. FSP 1.24^e 0.72^efg 1.37^ab 1.29^cdefgh 22. CNS 1.31^abcde 0.69^ghi 1.29^abcdefg 1.17^jklm 23. CNP 1.28^bcde 0.67^ghi 1.24^efghi 1.21^ghij 24. CSP 1.24^e 0.66^hij 1.31^abcdef 1.34^abcdef 25. FSP 1.29^bcde 0.52^lmn 1.36^abc 1.27^efghi 26. NSP 1.36^ab 0.81^def 1.37^ab 1.32^bcdefg 27. CFNS 1.33^abcde 0.93^ab 1.21^ghi 1.18^hijklm 28. CFNP 1.27^cde 0.84^cd 1.29^abcdefg 1.24^ghij 29. CFSP 1.36^ab 0.85^bcd 1.31^abcdef 1.28^efghi 30. CNSP 1.32^abcde 0.93^ab 1.24^efghi 1.36^abcde 31. FNSP 1.25^de 0.91^abc 1.29^abcdefg 1.21^hijkl 32. CFNSP 1.27^cde 0.58^jkl 1.33^abcde 1.17^jklm 33. N.P.K 1.31^abcde 0.45^no 1.24^efghi 1.13^lm 34. H.ACID 1.34^abc 0.53^lmn 1.28^bcdefgh 1.24^ghij 35. F.Y.M 1.28^bcde 0.49^mn 1.26^defghi 1.09^m 36. W.COA

L

1.32^abcde 0.81^def 1.25^defghi 1.14^klm

37. U. SOIL 1.29^bcde 0.93^ab 1.24^efghi 1.21^hijkl Mean 1.30^b 0.66^c 1.28^a 1.25^a

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

Table-15: Effect of wood coal products on % crude fiber content of tomato plant parts Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 6.20^bcdefg 7.32^fg 4.96^a 5.38^ghij

2. F 6.72^ab 7.61^bcd 4.42^fghijkl 4.97^o

3. N 5.95^hijkl 7.13^jk 4.86^abcd 4.92^o

4. S 5.48^op 7.21^ghij 4.38^ijklmno 5.16^klmn

5. P 6.11^defghij 6.89^m 4.87^abcd 5.28^hijklm

6. CF 5.79^lmn 7.67^a 4.68^bcdefg 5.12^lmno 7. CN 5.36^pq 7.32^fg 4.32^jklmno 4.98^no 8. CS 5.62^no 7.46^bcde 4.44^ghijklmn 5.67^bcde 9. CP 6.21^bcdef 7.54^bc 4.68^bcdefg 5.42^fghi 10. FN 6.33^bcde 7.38^ef 4.81^abcde 2.25^p 11. FS 5.94^hijkl 6.99^lm 4.96^a 5.16^klmn 12. FP 5.68^mno 6.90^m 4.38^ijklmno 5.29^hijklm 13. NS 6.12^defghij 7.05^kl 4.64^cdefghi 5.08^mno 14. NP 6.38^abc 7.17^hijk 4.91^ab 5.62^cdef 15. SP 6.15^cdefghi 7.38^ef 4.87^abcd 5.48^efgh 16. CFN 5.88^jklm 7.12^jk 4.68^bcdefg 5.72^abcd 17. CFS 5.94^hijkl 6.98^lm 4.29^klmno 5.88^ab 18. CFP 5.21^q 7.54^bc 4.16^o 5.69^abcde 19. FNS 5.79^lmn 7.14^jk 4.21^mno 5.43^fgh 20. FNP 5.88^jklm 7.27^fghi 4.56^efghij 5.62^cdef 21. FSP 5.81^klmn 7.56^abc 4.72^abcdef 5.44^fgh 22. CNS 5.12^q 7.45^cde 4.68^bcdefg 5.37^ghijk 23. CNP 5.97^fghijkl 7.58^ab 4.19^no 5.88^a 24. CSP 5.82^klmn 7.24^ghij 4.28^lmno 5.45^fgh 25. FSP 6.05^fghijk 7.32^fg 4.41^hijklmno 5.41^fgh 26. NSP 5.91^ijklm 7.18^hij 4.62^defghi 5.32^ghijk 27. CFNS 5.30^pq 7.58^jk 4.83^abcde 4.88^o 28. CFNP 6.41^ab 7.62^ab 4.88^abcd 5.27^hijklm 29. CFSP 6.62^a 7.22^ghij 4.44^ghijklmn 5.18^jklm 30. CNSP 5.99^fghijkl 7.39^def 4.59^efghi 5.29^hijklm 31. FNSP 5.91^ijklm 7.45^cde 4.67^bcdefgh 5.33^ghijkl 32. CFNSP 6.09^efghij 7.18^hij 4.90^abc 5.52^defg 33. N.P.K 6.13^cdefghij 7.15^ijk 4.62^defghi 5.76^abc 34. H.ACID 5.94^hijkl 7.31^fg 4.55^efghijk 5.17^jklmn 35. F.Y.M 6.17^bcdefgh 7.56^abc 4.82^abcde 5.29^hijklm 36. W.COA

L

6.36^bcd 7.67^a 4.65^bcdefgh 5.21^ijklm

37. U. SOIL 6.12^bcdefg 7.28^fgh 4.47^fghijklm 5.17^jklmn Mean 5.96^b 7.32^a 4.61^d 5.27^c

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

Table-16: Effect of wood coal products on % NFE content of tomato plant parts Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After 1. C 88.15^hijklm 85.59^klmno 87.29^opq 88.01^cd 2. F 87.99^hijkl 85.36^opq 88.34^defg 88.27^b 3. N 88.83^abcd 86.04^efg 87.84^ghijklm 87.98^cd 4. S 89.12^a 86.31^cd 88.41^bcd 87.03^qr 5. P 88.00^jklmn 86.53^ab 87.84^ghijklm 87.82^defg 6. CF 88.43^efgh 85.60^klmno 88.23^bcde 87.32^lmnop 7. CN 88.73^bcde 85.68^jklmn 87.99^efghij 88.45^b 8. CS 88.33^fghi 85.80^hijk 87.58^lmno 87.73^efgh 9. CP 87.91^lmno 85.92^fgh 87.09^q 87.24^opq 10. FN 87.88^lmno 86.20^cde 87.31^opq 90.35^a 11. FS 88.93^abc 86.35^bc 87.98^efghijk 87.87^cde 12. FP 89.03^ab 86.07^efg 88.75^a 87.87^cde 13. NS 87.89^lmno 86.22^cde 88.30^bcde 87.83^def 14. NP 88.28^ghijk 85.65^klmn 88.05^efgh 87.58^hijk 15. SP 87.85^mno 86.30^cd 87.70^ijklmn 87.45^jklmno 16. CFN 88.44^efgh 86.31^cd 88.07^efgh 86.93^r 17. CFS 87.97^klmn 86.61^a 88.54^ab 86.65^s 18. CFP 88.64^cdef 85.47^nop 88.56^ab 86.30^t 19. FNS 88.13^hijklm 85.70^ijklm 88.48^abc 87.70^efghi 20. FNP 88.47^efg 85.90^fghi 88.52^abc 87.26^nop 21. FSP 88.58^defg 85.22^qr 87.39^nopq 86.92^r 22. CNS 88.64^cdef 85.50^mnop 87.12^pq 87.38^klmno 23. CNP 88.33^fghi 85.70^ijklm 88.03^efghi 87.30^mnop 24. CSP 88.96^ab 85.77^hijkl 88.19^cdef 87.62^fghij 25. FSP 88.58^defg 85.89^fghij 87.85^ghijklm 87.48^ijklmn 26. NSP 87.94^lmno 85.95^fgh 87.80^hijklm 87.46^jklmno 27. CFNS 88.75^abcde 85.58^klmno 87.50^mnop 88.49^b 28. CFNP 88.30^ghij 85.36^pqr 88.51^abc 87.86^cde 29. CFSP 87.65^o 85.88^ghij 88.06^efgh 87.54^hijkl 30. CNSP 88.55^defg 85.17^r 87.89^fghijkl 87.52^hijklm 31. FNSP 88.95^abc 85.56^lmnop 87.83^ghijklm 87.39^klmno 32. CFNSP 87.74^no 85.64^klmn 87.83^ghijklm 87.54^hijkl 33. N.P.K 87.73^no 86.33^bc 88.43^abcd 87.11^pqr 34. H.ACID 88.57^defg 86.10^def 87.44^nop 87.85^cde 35. F.Y.M 88.48^efg 85.42^opq 87.65^klmn 87.60^ghijk 36. W.COA

L 88.11^ijklm 85.53^mnop 87.67^jklmn 88.06^c 37. U. SOIL 88.27^ghijk 85.55^mnop 87.99^efghij 87.81^defg Mean 88.36^a 85.83^d 87.95^b 87.64^c

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

The data of Nitrogen free extract (Table-16) showed significant variation (P<0.05) among the different parts of the treated plants. The nitrogen free extract of different parts showed that the root NFE ranged from 87.65 (CFSP) to 89.12% (S), in stem the NFE was found lowest 85.17 in CNSP to 86.61% in CFS. The NFE of leaves before harvest ranged from 87.09 to 88.75% while in Leaves after harvest the NFE was 86.30 to 90.35. The lowest values were found in CP and CFP and the highest was found in FP and FN treatments respectively. Other values fall in between these two extremities. NFE represented nitrogen free extract, i.e. total carbohydrates, which also could be depend on humic acid content (Hala et al., 2014; Zohreh et al., 2015) of the product and also acids and alkali leaching of the minerals or the mineral antagonism (Malvi 2011), which cause variation of the NFE of the plants grown in different products.

Carbon content (Table-17) of different parts of tomato plants treated with wood coal products and controls varied significantly (P < 0.05) that ranged from 80.20 (C) to 84.66% (CNSP) in root, in stem the carbon ranged from 91.56 (CFP) to 94.21% (Humic acid), in leaves before harvest the carbon content was from 90.69 (CFP) to 94.66% (CFNSP). The leaves after harvest found to contain carbon in the range of 91.69 % present in CN treatment while 94.69% in F treatment of the experiment. Carbon content actually representing total organic compounds like protein, fiber etc., variation of which could also be explained in terms of humic acid and mineral constituents, as for protein, fiber, fat etc. (Fredeen et al., 1989)

Table-17: Effect of wood coal products on % carbon content of tomato plant parts Treatments Root Stem L. Before L. After

1. C 80.20^s 91.93^q 92.46^no 93.61^no

2. F 82.23^jkl 93.88^e 93.12^hi 94.69^hi

3. N 80.79^r 92.75^ijk 91.97^p 93.81^p

4. S 80.98^qr 93.61^cde 93.33^ij 92.48^ij

5. P 81.45^p 92.42^op 92.89^l 93.42^l

6. CF 83.28^efgh 94.21^a 94.39^bc 92.88^bc

7. CN 82.46^klm 92.18^p 91.33^q 91.69^q

8. CS 84.21^ab 93.23^fg 91.89^p 92.24^p

9. CP 82.83^hijkl 92.46^no 92.24^o 93.11^o 10. FN 84.23^ab 94.02^ab 94.11^de 94.63^de 11. FS 81.39^pq 92.78^ijk 93.71^gh 93.81^gh 12. FP 82.11^mno 93.41^ef 93.98^ef 92.14^ef 13. NS 83.25^efgh 93.58^de 93.84^fg 91.81^fg 14. NP 82.39^lmn 91.72^qr 94.21^cde 92.69^cde 15. SP 81.98^no 93.46^ef 93.68^gh 92.45^gh 16. CFN 82.46^klm 92.45^mno 93.19^j 93.21^j 17. CFS 83.31^efg 93.49^e 93.14^jk 94.44^jk 18. CFP 84.11^bc 91.56^r 94.22^cd 93.69^cd 19. FNS 82.88^ghijk 93.23^fg 92.81^lm 94.60^lm 20. FNP 80.81^r 92.69^jklm 91.98^p 94.28^p 21. FSP 83.66^cde 93.54^e 90.69^r 91.98^r 22. CNS 84.01^bc 92.81^ij 92.48^no 91.70^no 23. CNP 82.25^mno 92.67^jklmn 92.84^lm 92.49^lm 24. CSP 82.93^fghij 93.84^bc 91.49^q 94.50^q 25. FSP 84.63^a 92.56^klmno 93.61^gh 93.87^gh 26. NSP 83.34^ef 92.71^ijkl 93.17^j 93.21^j 27. CFNS 84.26^ab 92.46^lmno 94.61^ab 94.68^ab 28. CFNP 82.78^ijkl 93.09^gh 94.28^cd 92.81^cd 29. CFSP 81.92^o 94.13^a 92.36^no 91.89^no 30. CNSP 84.66^a 92.45^mno 92.59^mn 93.62^mn 31. FNSP 82.57^jklm 92.94^hi 93.24^j 93.26^j 32. CFNSP 82.97^fghij 94.19^a 94.66^a 93.87^a 33. N.P.K 83.81^bcd 93.78^cd 92.91^kl 92.64^kl 34. H.ACID 82.47^klm 94.21^a 93.83^fg 93.24^fg 35. F.Y.M 83.21^efghi 91.87^q 92.84^lm 92.68^lm 36. W.COA

L 84.05^def 92.54^lmno 91.99^p 91.95^p

37. U. SOIL 81.21^pqr 91.92^q 90.87^r 93.43^r Mean 82.78^b 92.99^a 93.00^a 93.18^a

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

*wood coal + acid or base or their combination in 1:1

Table-18: Effect of wood coal products on chlorophyll (µg/g) content of tomato cultivar at various intervals

Treatments Day 0* Day 15 Day 30 Day 45

1. C 0.88^ghijkl 1.83^efghij 2.59^cde 4.30^efghij

2. F 0.95^fghijk 1.86^defghi 2.91^bcde 3.94^ijklmn

3. N 1.21^abcdef 2.03^bcdef 3.30^bcd 4.53^bcdefg

4. S 0.70^kl 2.03^bcdef 3.15^bcde 3.99^hijklm

5. P 0.93^fghijk 1.96^bcdefgh 3.25^bcde 4.05^ijklmn

6. CF 0.80^hijkl 1.87^defghi 2.52^de 3.30^qr 7. CN 0.84^ghijkl 1.92^cdefghi 3.25^bcde 4.55^bcdefg 8. CS 0.84^ghijkl 1.99^bcdefg 2.71^bcde 3.83^klmnop 9. CP 0.80^hijkl 2.05^bcdef 2.64^bcde 3.45^opqr 10. FN 1.02^bcdefghijk 1.64^ghij 3.31^bcd 4.20^fghijk 11. FS 1.30^abc 1.91^cdefghi 3.35^bc 4.63^abcdef 12. FP 0.98^defghijk 1.98^bcdefg 3.18^bcde 4.58^abcdef 13. NS 1.25^abcde 2.48^a 3.00^bcde 4.51^bcdefg 14. NP 0.90^fghijk 1.79^efghij 3.29^bcd 4.41^cdefgh 15. SP 1.32^ab 2.22^abcd 3.23^bcde 4.25^fghijk 16. CFN 1.07^abcdefghi 2.09^bcdef 3.21^bcde 4.48^cdefg 17. CFS 1.19^abcdef 1.97^bcdefgh 2.83^bcde 3.59^mnopqr 18. CFP 1.03^bcdefghij 2.11^bcdef 3.15^bcde 4.32^efghi

19. FNS 1.37^a 2.24^abc 3.42^b 4.21^fghijk

20. FNP 1.02^bcdefghijk 2.16^abcde 3.07^bcde 5.02^ab 21. FSP 1.31^ab 1.94^bcdefghi 2.86^bcde 4.49^bcdefg 22. CNS 1.28^abcd 2.16^abcde 2.92^bcde 4.35^efghi 23. CNP 0.78^ijkl 2.02^bcdef 2.65^bcde 4.95^ab 24. CSP 1.04^bcdefghij 1.84^efghij 2.95^bcde 4.72^abcde 25. FSP 0.74^jkl 1.72^fghij 2.93^bcde 3.38^pqr 26. NSP 1.01^bcdefghijk 1.91^cdefghi 3.20^bcde 3.70^lmnopq 27. CFNS 0.99^bcdefghijk 2.06^abcdef 2.78^bcde 3.54^mnopqr 28. CFNP 1.01^bcdefghijk 1.92^bcdefghi 2.67^bcde 4.84^abc 29. CFSP 0.92^fghijk 2.02^bcdef 4.79^a 3.53^mnopqr 30. CNSP 0.96^efghijk 1.87^defghi 2.62^bcde 4.17^fghijk 31. FNSP 1.13^abcdefg 2.29^ab 2.93^bcde 4.82^abcd 32. CFNSP 0.94^efghijk 1.75^fghij 2.87^bcde 5.5^a 33. N.P.K 0.99^cdefghijk 1.59^ij 2.60^bcde 4.37^defghi 34. H.ACID 1.09^abcdefgh 2.21^abcd 2.67^bcde 3.28^qr 35. F.Y.M 0.92^fghijk 1.61^hij 2.46^e 3.85^jklmno 36. W.COAL 1.03^bcdefghij 1.64^ghij 2.86^bcde 3.52^nopqr

37. U. SOIL 0.56^l 1.48^j 2.78^bcde 3.17^r

Mean 1.00^d 1.95^c 3.00^b 4.44^a

Treatment means in last column followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05) Intervals means in last row followed by same letters were not significantly different (α=0.05)

* day of transplantation

Key: Hydrochloric acid (C), Sulfuric acid (F), Nitric acid (N), Sodium hydroxide (S), Potassium hydroxide (P)

*wood coal + acid or base or their combination in 1:1