Abstract
This research was conducted in order to find out which sugarcane is better between GMP2 and Kidang Kencana as the raw material for bioethanol production by the application of organic and chemical fertilizer for the plant growth regulator. Four treatment with 3 replication was done that V1P1 was Kidang Kencana with organic fertilizer, V1P0 was Kidang Kencana wthout organic fertilizer, V2P1 was GMP2 with organic fertilizer and V2P0 was GMP2 without organic fertilizer. The application of green manure got better plant growth, total sugar and juice volume. GMP 2 seemed better than Kidang Kencana as the raw material for bioethanol production
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Green manure improved plant growth.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The application of green manure got better plant growth”
t0“Sugarcane Variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Green manure improved total sugar.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The application of green manure got better plant growth, total sugar and juice volume”
t0“Sugarcane Variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Green manure improved juice volume.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The application of green manure got better plant growth, total sugar and juice volume”
t0“Sugarcane Variety”
Claim · model-written summary
GMP 2 appeared better than Kidang Kencana as a bioethanol feedstock.
Verbatim
e0“GMP 2 seemed better than Kidang Kencana as the raw material for bioethanol production”
t0“Sugarcane Variety”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
90 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.