Development the Pineapple cv. Turiaçu with biofertilizer application aerobic in planting with and without mulching
Pineapple Turiaçu, Ananas comosus, plastic mulch, leaf litter.
Pineapple (Ananas comosus (L.) Merril), is grown in practically all Brazilian states, some states with prominence in the commercial production of this fruit, such as Pará, Paraíba and Minas Gerais who lead the ranking of the producing states of this crop agricultural. The state of Maranhão does not have outstanding production in pineapples, but the state has pineapple Turiaçu, a cultivar native to the region which is very promising and with characteristics that appeals to consumers of fresh fruit, however, without this devaluing it for industrial use. Nevertheless, the production of the pineapple Turiaçu, has been kept regionalized, mainly, in the municipality of origin of the cultivar, municipality of Turiaçu. Jointly, or because of this productive regionalization of cultivate Turiaçu, research related to this cultivation started a little over a decade ago and few of them are studying the condition of development of the Turiaçu outside the municipality of origin. Another issue is studies of the cultivar in organic production systems, there is a lack of information in this regard. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the development of cultivate Turiaçu under application of aerobic biofertilizer in comparison with fertilization with soluble chemical synthesis products, in crops in the presence and absence of plastic mulching plus litter. For that, the vegetative development was analyzed, the productive and health aspects of the pineapple were evaluated. The experimental design adopted was the Randomized Blocks (DBC) with eight treatments and four repetitions. The treatments were: (T1) applications of biofertilizer + plastic mulching + litter under plastic mulching; (T2) applications of biofertilizer + plastic mulching, without litter; (T3) applications of biofertilizer + litter mulching; (T4) application of the biofertilizer, without mulching; (T5) Plastic mulching + litter under plastic mulching, without biofertilizer; (T6) only litter mulching; (T7) Control: only with fertilization with an industrial source; and, (T8) Witness: without treatment or fertilization. For the evaluation of the development of the cultivation, the green mass (MF), dry mass (MS), length and base and center width (LB and LC) of sheet 'D' leaf were measured; analysis of the weight of the fruit with and without crown (PFCC and PFSC); evaluation of the size of the fruit with and without crown (TFCC and TFSC); mensuration of the diameter of the base and the apex of the fruit (DB and DA); analysis of the percentage of fruits with cracks in de bark and fasciation; evaluation of the index of natural flowering (FN) and tipping of plants (Tmb); analysis of ° Brix of fruits; verification of the incidence of fusariosis in the vegetative phase, in the fruit and seedlings; classification of fruits according to weight. Based on the analysis it is concluded that the treatments where the litter was placed, mainly T6 and T3, presented better results in relation to the weight and length of the fruits, as well as length, green mass, and dry mass of the leaf 'D'. The use of plastic mulching presented inferior results to the use of litter in the evaluation of PFCC and PFSC, MF and MS of leaf 'D', in addition to presenting a higher index of Tmb. The use of biofertilizer did not represent productive gains when comparing treatments with biofertilizer and treatments with biofertilizer and litterfall, for example. The use of chemical fertilizers did not provide outstanding production results, and T7 was among the treatments with the worst results in most variables of analysis of leaf 'D', weight, and size of fruits.