ISSN e:2007-4034 / ISSN print: 2007-4034

English | Español

### Vol. 26, issue 3 September - December 2020

ISSN: ppub: 1027-152X epub: 2007-4034

Scientific article

# Fertilization management in ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans and its impact on yield, nutritional quality and profitability index

http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2020.03.005

Rico-Alderete, Iván A. 1 ; Sánchez-Chávez, Esteban 2 ; Soto-Parra, Juan Manual 1 ; Antillón-Leyva, Rubén 1 ; Salas-Salazar, Nora A. 1 ; Ojeda-Barrios, Damaris L. 1 ; Flores-Córdova, María Antonia 1 *

• 1Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Facultad de Ciencias Agrotecnológicas. Escorza núm. 900, Col. Centro, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, C. P. 3100, MÉXICO.
• 2Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo A. C. Avenida Cuarta Sur núm. 3820, Fraccionamiento Vencedores del Desierto, Cd. Delicias, Chihuahua, C. P. 33089, MÉXICO.

Corresponding author: mariflor_556@hotmail.com, tel. 614 242 43 30.

Received: March 09, 2020; Accepted: August 08, 2020

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License view the permissions of this license

Funding:
KeywordsPhaseolus vulgaris; physicochemical; yield; Zn; Fe

## Introduction

In Mexico, the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is of great economic importance to the country, as it ranks second in the agri-food sector. In addition, it is a staple food in the diet of its population, mainly in low-income social strata (Rodríguez-Licea, García-Salazar, Rebollar-Rebollar, & Cruz-Contreras, 2010). This legume is important for its high content of proteins, fiber, calories, B vitamins and minerals, mainly calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium and phosphorus (Fernández-Valenciano & Sánchez-Chávez, 2017).

The deficiency of micronutrients such as iron and zinc is a public health problem that affects more than a third of the world’s population (Restrepo-Caro et al., 2016). Fe deficiency is the most important nutritional disorder in the world, since this element participates in oxidation-reduction processes, transports oxygen in enzymatic reactions linked to intracellular respiration and electron transport, catalyzes the formation of β-carotene into vitamin A, induces antibody synthesis and enhances immunity (Yin, Yuan, Liu, & Lin, 2012). Zn is ranked as the fifth highest risk factor for disease in developing countries. This element is an essential component of several enzymes (dehydrogenases, protease and peptidases); it participates in cellular respiration, in the maintenance of the cell membrane, and in the elimination of free radicals, as well as in the action of insulin in the synthesis and degradation of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids (Márquez-Quiroz et al., 2018).

Unfortunately, beans come to have low Zn content when soils are deficient in microelements. Hossein, Mohammad, Hemmatollah, and Mohammad (2008) note that beans are highly susceptible to Zn deficiency, and their mobility is affected when there is an increase in soil pH, which decreases their assimilation capacity. Zn acts directly on the cellular metabolism, as a stabilizer of the structure of proteins and nucleic acids; it also keeps photosystem II active, which is important since it is responsible for capturing light during the photosynthesis process, and is part of the enzymes that participate in the perception of biotic and abiotic stress. In this way, Zn stimulates both growth and productivity (Amezcua-Romero & Lara-Flores, 2017).

Recent studies have reported that Zn application has a positive effect on grain yield and its concentration in seeds, especially in soils deficient in this element (Hidoto, Taran, Worku, & Mohammed, 2017; Shivay, Prasad, & Pal, 2014). On the other hand, Khoshgoftarmanesh, Schulin, Chaney, Daneshbakhgn, and Afyuni (2010) report that there are Zn-deficiency tolerant bean cultivars that grow and perform well in deficient soil. However, not all soils have these characteristics. Moniruzzaman, Islam, and Hassan (2008) point out that beans can absorb sulfur in large amounts, and that it is necessary to maintain the nitrogen/sulfur ratio in the plant to produce protein; sulfur application between 10 and 20 kg·ha-1 can control its deficiency.

One strategy for reducing mineral deficiency problems in plants is fertilization management, which generates micronutrient-rich staple crops. In addition, it is a relatively economic, profitable, and sustainable agricultural technique that leads to nutritionally improved crops (Beintema, Gallego-Castillo, Londoño-Hernández, Restrepo-Manjarres, & Talsma 2018). These crops are a viable means for people in the low-income stratum to obtain sufficient nutrition. Such a strategy is practical, long-lasting, and cost-effective for increasing daily mineral intake in vulnerable populations (García-Bañuelos, Sida-Arreola, & Sánchez-Chávez, 2014), which makes this approach attractive in economic terms, compared to supplementation programs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the response in ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans to fertilization management, as well as its impact on yield, nutritional quality and profitability index.

## Plant matter

We used the ‘Pinto Centauro’ bean, which is a variety from a cross made by the National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock Research (INIFAP) − Durango between the ‘Pinto Mestizo’ and ‘Pinto Saltillo’ beans. ‘Pinto Centauro’ is an early-cycle bean, which makes it suitable for areas with low rainfall (350 to 480 mm). This variety has a larger bean (34 to 45 g·100 seeds-1), disease resistance and a testa that is tolerant to darkening, which prolongs its shelf life and increases its market price (Rosales-Serna, Ibarra-Pérez, & Cuéllar-Robles, 2012).

## Crop management

The ‘Pinto Centauro’ bean crop was established during the spring-summer 2017 growing season under rainfall conditions in the municipality of Cusihuiriachi, Chihuahua, Mexico, at the “San Pedro” Ranch (28° 14’ 22.075’’ NL and 106° 50’ 1.907’’ WL, at 1997 masl). Sowing took place on July 25, 2017, and harvesting on November 8, 2017. Sowing was carried out in furrows 0.30 m high and 0.8 m wide, with a distance of 0.15 m between plants and 0.20 m between furrows. At the time of sowing, a thorough fertilization was applied. During the evaluation period, an average maximum temperature of between 34.59 and 23.41 °C, a minimum of 16.56 and 2.45 °C, and rainfall of 108.44 mm were recorded (Table 1)..

Table 1. Reported temperature and rainfall during the production period (spring-summer 2017).

Month Maximum temperature (°C) Minimum temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm)
June 34.59 16.56 4.50
July 25.68 13.54 288.30
August 24.48 13.28 202.70
September 25.05 10.32 38.70
October 24.46 7.28 7.00
November 23.41 2.45 0.00
Data were obtained from the “Quinta Lupita” weather station, Regional Agricultural Union of Fruit Growers of the State of Chihuahua, Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua, Mexico.

## Soil analysis

Before planting, soil samples were collected at random for analysis at the Soil, Water and Foliar Analysis Laboratory of the Agro-Technological Sciences Faculty of the Autonomous University of Chihuahua (Table 2). The samples were air-dried in the shade, sieved with No. 5, 10 and 20 mesh, and stored in 1-L plastic cans. The laboratory determinations were grouped into four categories (properties) with their respective parameters. We determined soil pH (in 0.01 M CaCl2 with a potentiometer [model 410, Thermo Orion™, USA]), salinity properties (saturation percentage and pH in saturated paste), electrical conductivity (RD-B15, Beckman solubridge, USA), nitrate content (brucine and colorimetry), assimilable phosphorus (Olsen and Bray P1 [Bray & Kurtz, 1945; Olsen, Cole, Watanabe, & Dean, 1954]), potassium, magnesium (both by atomic absorption spectrophotometry) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Ca, Cu and Zn, in DTPA and atomic absorption spectrophotometry).

Table 2. Properties of the soil samples taken at a depth of 30 cm at "San Pedro" Ranch.

Property Value
pH (CaCl2 0.01M) 5.9
Electrical conductivity (ds·m-1) 0.06
Clay (%) 23.87
Silt (%) 18.9
Cation exchange capacity (mol·kg-1) 14.63
Organic matter (%) 0.92
Sand (%) 57.21
N-N03 (kg·ha-1) 56.25
Potassium (ppm) 375
Calcium (ppm) 512.5
Phosphorus (kg·ha-1) 18.50
Magnesium (ppm) 462
Copper (ppm) 0.78
Iron (ppm) 3.94
Manganese (ppm) 1.06
Zinc (ppm) 0.56

## Experimental design and treatments

A randomized complete block experimental design with three fertilization treatments and four replicates was used. The treatments were: control FM1 (N, P and K, with 41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively), fertilization FM2 (N, P, K, S and Zn, with 41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively) and fertilization FM3 (N, P, K, S and Zn, with 45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). A single fertilization was carried out manually.

## Sampling

The harvest was carried out on November 8, 2017, and bean seed samples were taken from each of the treatments under physiological maturity conditions. The samples were taken to the Food and Development Research Center laboratory of the Agro-Technological Sciences Faculty for analysis.

## Nutritional quality analysis

The physicochemical composition of the beans was determined in accordance with the methodology of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC, 2000), and in conformity with current Official Mexican Standards.

Seed weight. One hundred seeds were randomly taken from each treatment, weighed on an electronic scale (Velab™, USA) and the value recorded as g·100 seeds-1. The determination was made in triplicate.

Seed dimensions. These dimensions (length, width, and thickness) were determined with a Vernier caliper (122206, Surtek, USA). One hundred seeds were evaluated per treatment, and results were expressed in cm.

Seed color. Color parameters were measured with a Konica Minolta chroma meter (CR-400/410, Japan) (Mathias-Rettig & Ah-Hen, 2014). Measurements were made in triplicate.

Proteín. Crude protein content was determined using the Microkjeldahl total nitrogen quantification procedure. The result was expressed as a percentage.

Moisture. It was determined using the open capsule drying method. The result was expressed as a percentage.

Ash. It was determined using the methodology reported in Mexican standard NMX-F-066-S-1978. One g of sample was placed in a crucible and brought to constant weight in a muffle furnace (SNOL 1100 LHM01, SNOL, Lithuania). Two replicates were performed per treatment. Results obtained were expressed as a percentage.

Fats. The Goldfish method (NMX-F-427-1982) was used for this determination. The results were expressed as a percentage.

Fiber. Crude fiber content was determined according to Mexican standard NMX-F-90-S-1978, for which the defatted sample was used and by weight difference the percentage of fiber contained in each sample was determined.

Carbohydrates. Quantification of carbohydrates was carried out by parameter difference (calculated based on total parameters). The result was reported as a percentage.

Energy. The energy contained in each sample was measured from the sum of the calories contained in carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Values were expressed in Kcal.

## Nutritional quality analysis

Sulfur. The sulfur content was determined with a FLASH 2000 analyzer (Thermo Scientific™, USA), by placing 3 µg of sample and 9 µg of vanadium pentaoxide in a nickel capsule. Analyses were performed in triplicate and the result was expressed in ppm, which was compared with the value of a known standard (Reussi-Calvo, Echeverría, & Sainz-Rozas, 2008).

Fe, Zn, Na, Mg, Mn, K, Ca, Cu and Ni. To start the analysis of these minerals, a digestion was performed using the triacid mixture method (1 L of HNO3, 100 mL of HC1O4 and 25 mL of H2SO4). The concentration of the minerals was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (iCE™ 3500, Thermo Scientific™, USA). Results for micronutrients were expressed in ppm, and for macronutrients as a percent.

Phosphorus. P concentration was determined by the ammonium metavanadate (NH4VO3) method and by visible light spectrophotometry (Jenway®). Results were expressed as a percentage.

## Profitability index

An agronomic estimate of the inputs used was made, and the cost of production and income from the sale of the product were calculated to determine the profitability of the work. The profitability ratio (benefit/cost) was calculated according to the following formula:

P r o f i t a b i l i t y   b / c = N e t   p r o f i t T o t a l   c o s t

## Statistical Analysis

Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance and Tukey’s range test (P ≤ 0.05) using SAS Institute (2002) version 9.0 statistical software.

## Yield

Crop yield is the result of environment-genotype interaction and the influence of agronomic management, particularly fertilization management (Barrios-Ayala, Turrent-Fernández, Ariza-Flores, Otero-Sánchez, & Michel-Aceves, 2008). In the present study, significant differences were observed in the yield of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans due to the effect of fertilization. The FM3 treatment had a 46.26 % higher yield than the control (Figure 1).

Yield magnitude indicates the level of efficiency of a combination of factors influencing the harvest (Amezcua-Romero & Lara-Flores, 2017). In recent studies, significant increases in crop yield have been observed with the addition of NPK + SZn, with the application of S-Zn being of great relevance in boosting bean yield (Moniruzzaman et al., 2008). The addition of S-Zn in a fertilization program has a physiological and biochemical influence on plant processes, such as enzymatic activation, chlorophyll formation, electron transport and stomatal regulation, which positively impacts the growth, development and yield of the plant (Rahman et al., 2014).

The result obtained in this study was significant, since the average bean yield under rainfed conditions in Mexico is 1,500 kg·ha-1. Jiménez-Galindo and Acosta-Gallegos (2013) obtained yields of 1,484 to 1,192 kg·ha-1, with increases of 20.8 % in the Pinto Saltillo variety; a similar trend was reported by Salinas-Ramírez, Escalante-Estrada, Rodríguez-González, and Sosa-Montes (2013). Pérez-Trujillo and Galindo-González (2003) report that it is possible to obtain yields of 2,715 kg·ha-1 in irrigated systems and of 726 kg·ha-1 in rainfed systems, which is lower than the yields obtained in this study.

## Physical properties

Quality is the set of chemical and physical characteristics related to the nutritional value of beans (Mederos, 2006). The results obtained with fertilization management in the ‘Pinto Centauro’ bean crop in the physical variables showed a differential behavior in the three treatments tested (Table 3). FM3 showed a significant increase of 2.88 % in Hue, 20.85 % in weight and 11.59 % in length, compared to FM1. These parameters are related to quality. The increase in Hue is due to the content and distribution of pigments in the testa, which are determined by the amount of glycosides, anthocyanins and tannins. A change in the testa can be interpreted as an adaptive strategy to germinate under various environmental conditions (Tenorio-Galindo, Rodríguez-Trejo, & López-Ríos, 2008).

Table 3. Physical parameters of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in response to fertilization treatments.

Treatment Color 100-seed weight (g) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Length (cm)
L Chroma Hue
FM1 66.15 az 15.83 a 71.16 b 30.47 c 0.80 b 0.47 a 1.22 b
FM2 67.31 a 16.34 a 72.24 ab 34.54 b 0.81 b 0.49 a 1.28 b
FM3 67.66 a 16.69 a 73.27 a 38.54 a 0.89 a 0.51 a 1.38 a
FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05).

Seed quality is an indicator of bean conditions, since its commercial value is influenced by characteristics such as size, color and uniformity (Mederos, 2006). Bean width values were higher than those obtained by Urías-López, Álvarez-Bravo, Hernández-Fuentes, and Pérez-Barraza (2017), who report an average value of 0.74 mm. Large seeds are more accepted in the packaging industry, so producers and rural collectors prefer this type of bean and give it a higher value (Rosales-Serna et al., 2012).

## Chemical properties

The nutritional properties of beans are related to their high protein content (Ulloa, Rosas-Ulloa, Ramírez-Ramírez, & Ulloa-Rangel, 2011). The effect of fertilization management showed significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) among treatments. Results indicate that application of the FM3 treatment increased fiber content by 20.29 %, energy by 1.5 % and protein content by 8.35 % compared to FM1 (Table 4).

Table 4. Physicochemical composition of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in response to fertilization management.

Treatment Physical-chemical parameters (%) Energy (Kcal)
Ash Fat Moisture Fiber Carbohydrates Protein
FM1 4.70 az 1.05 c 11.16 c 2.67 b 59.34 a 17.87 c 324.62 b
FM2 4.80 a 1.22 b 11.84 b 3.31 a 60.65 a 18.36 b 326.62 b
FM3 4.92 a 1.28 a 12.14 a 3.35 a 61.13 a 19.50 a 329.48 a
FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05).

Velasco-González, San Martín-Martínez, Aguilar-Méndez, Pajarito-Ravelero, and Mora-Escobedo (2013) evaluated the physicochemical properties of ‘Villa’ bean in the INIFAP-Durango experimental field, and obtained an ash value of 4.63 %, which is lower than those obtained in this work. This is probably due to the different varieties and environmental conditions.

Barrios-Gómez and López-Castañeda (2007) note that moisture prevents the bean from becoming brittle and losing quality. In this sense, the FM3 treatment significantly increased (P ≥ 0.05) the percentage of moisture compared to the control. Odedeji and Oyelke (2011) report fiber values ranging from 0.65 to 5.10 %, the range in which the values obtained in this study are found (Table 4). As for carbohydrates, it can be seen that the values obtained in this work are higher than those found by Fernández-Valenciano and Sánchez-Chávez (2017), with an average value of 39.02 %. Mollinedo-Patzi and Benavides-Calderón (2014) indicate that carbohydrates are a fundamental part of the diet, and in this study the energy obtained is within the required intake values.

Mederos (2006) points out that the increased protein in beans, due to fertilization management, is related to the ability of Zn to form proteins, so this mechanism is affected by the deficiency of this element in plants. Ulloa et al. (2001) indicate that, depending on the type of bean, the protein content ranges from 14 to 33 % under normal irrigation conditions. Salinas-Ramírez et al. (2013) obtained similar protein values (18.90 %) under rainfed conditions. The nutritional quality of the bean is mainly valued for its protein content, since beans are one of the main sources of protein in the diet, which is relevant in Mexico because there is a high level of malnutrition (Sangerman-Jarquín, Acosta-Gallego, Schwenstesius-de Rindermann, Damián-Huato, & Larqué-Saavedra, 2010).

## Nutritional content

Microelements such as Zn are essential for optimal plant growth. The results obtained for macro and micronutrients were significant (P ≥ 0.05) (Table 5). With the FM3 treatment, the beans showed an increase of 74 % in phosphorus, 9.45 % in magnesium, 16.30 % in iron and 39.77 % in Zn, compared to the control.

Table 5. Concentration of macronutrients in ‘Pinto Centauri’ beans in response to different fertilization management schemes.

Treatment Macronutrients (%) Micronutrients (ppm)
N P K Mg Ca Cu Ni Mn Fe Zn S
FM1 2.29 az 0.074 c 1.55 b 0.173 b 0.211 a 3.96 a 2.31 a 20.24 a 72.78 b 20.47 c 21.34 b
FM2 2.52 a 0.177 b 1.67 b 0.173 b 0.274 a 4.41 a 2.58 a 21.77 a 78.32 ab 28.97 b 22.82 b
FM3 2.59 a 0.289 a 1.73 a 0.183 a 0.299 a 4.77 a 2.74 a 22.10 a 86.96 a 33.99 a 23.88 a
FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05).

Beans obtained with the FM3 treatment showed significant statistical differences in Zn concentration compared to the other treatments. However, the values obtained were slightly lower (from 20.47 to 33.99 ppm) than those reported by Celmeli et al. (2018), who conducted a study in Turkey with 10 local varieties (obtaining values from 17.81 to 37.90 mg·kg-1) and some varieties from international companies (obtaining values from 25.03 to 35.1 mg·kg-1) under controlled greenhouse conditions. It is important to consider that the data in this work were obtained under rainfed conditions, and that the soil had a Zn content lower than 1 ppm. Another factor that may have influenced the results is the soil pH, since it was acidic and that hinders Zn assimilation.

Cakmak and Kutman (2017) note that Zn concentrations in the bean should be between 20 and 35 mg·kg-1, with an average value of 28 to 30 mg·kg-1. When beans are grown in Zn-deficient soils, concentrations of this element in the bean are <10 mg·kg-1. However, when the soil is rich in Zn, or is fertilized with Zn, the concentrations of this element in the bean are 20 mg·kg-1. Therefore, the results obtained in this study, considering that it is a rainfed crop, show an effect of fertilization management.

Estrada-Domínguez, Márquez-Quiroz, de la Cruz-Lázaro, Osorio-Osorio, and Sánchez-Chávez (2018) state that 61 mg·kg-1 are established as a critical level of Zn in plants to make it sufficient in human nutrition. The required Zn intake in the human diet is 11 mg per day, and cooked beans provide only 1.4 mg (Rodríguez-Castillo & Fernández-Rojas, 2003). This nutrient is essential in more than 300 enzymes, which are involved in all important biochemical reactions in the human body. Zn has a direct effect on growth, neurological development, behavior, and the immune system (López-de Romaña, Castillo, & Diazgranados, 2010).

The FM3 treatment resulted in an increase in phosphorus and iron content in the bean, reaching an average iron value of 89.99 ppm; this value is five times higher than the value of 50 ppm reported by Tofiño-Rivera, Pastrana-Vargas, Melo-Ríos, Beebe, and Tofiño-Rivera (2016). Some biofortification studies have been carried out to increase the iron content in bean, since it provides about 40 % of the iron in the diet of people who base their diet on this legume. However, it is estimated that only 20 % of the total iron present in the bean is assimilated, so its contribution is low, and if the iron content of the bean is poor, assimilation will be even lower (Mederos, 2006). García-Alanís et al. (2019) note that a person requires 8 mg of iron per day, and cooked beans provide only 1.36 mg·100 g-1. Some studies indicate that bioavailability is associated with iron content, suggesting that there is no simultaneous increase in substances that interfere with absorption, and that providing a higher iron concentration in bean varieties is an effective strategy (Welch, House, Beebe, & Cheng, 2000).

## Profitability index

The results obtained in the economic study, which determined the profitability of applying fertilization in a ‘Pinto Centauro’ bean crop, reveal that the best treatment was FM3, since it had a higher production value (profit) and a b/c yield of 4.6, improving the gross profit by 55 % (Table 6).

Table 6. Profitability and production costs of fertilization management in ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans.

Activities Treatment
FM1 FM2 FM3
Production costs ($MXN) 5,546.00 5,683.00 5,683.00 Cost of money (4.5 %)* 237.33 256.27 256.27 Total costs 5783.83 5,939.27 5,939.27 Yield (kg·ha-1) 1,200 1,757 2,233 Production value ($15.00 MXN·kg-1) 18,000.00 26,355.00 33,495.00
Net profit ($MXN) 12,216.17 20,415.73 27,555.72 b/c profitability 2.1 3.4 4.6 FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). *4.5 % was considered for five months of interest. The above results indicate a favorable response to fertilization management in ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in the agricultural fields of the Chihuahua region, Mexico. Ugalde-Acosta, Tosquy-Valle, López-Salinas, and Francisco-Nicolás (2011) carried out irrigation and mineral fertilization in beans, and obtained a b/c ratio of 1.80, with a gain of 20 cents per peso invested. In this study, the FM3 treatment allowed increasing the profit for the producer and recovering the investment cost. Fertilization management is a feasible alternative that can be used to increase the productivity of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in rainfed soils. The results suggest that fertilization management with FM3 treatment, in addition to increasing the nutritional content of the bean, is an alternative with higher income for the farmer, since it obtains higher yields and better quality beans. ## Conclusions Fertilization management with the FM3 treatment increased yield by 46.26 % compared to the control; in addition, protein increased by 8.35 %, phosphorus by 74 %, iron by 16.3 % and zinc by 39.77 %. The profitability index showed an increase of 4.6 %, with an improvement in quality and profit. Therefore, fertilization management can be a viable alternative to improve rainfed bean cultivation conditions in semi-arid regions of Mexico and the world, resulting in an increase in bean yield and nutritional value. ## Acknowledgments • The authors thank the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT - Mexico) for the support provided through the call for Attention to National Problems with project no. 1529 entitled "Biofortification of basic agricultural crops that represents the key to combating malnutrition and ensuring food security in Mexico", and the Mosaic Company for the donation of fertilizers. ## References Amezcua-Romero, J. C., & Lara-Flores, M. (2017). El zinc en las plantas. Ciencia, 68(3), 28-35. Retrieved from https://www.revistaciencia.amc.edu.mx/images/revista/68_3/PDF/zinc_plantas.pdf Barrios-Ayala, A., Turrent-Fernández, A., Ariza-Flores, R., Otero-Sánchez, M., & Michel-Aceves, A. (2008). Interacción genotipos x prácticas de manejo en el rendimiento de grano de híbridos de maíz. Agricultura Técnica en México, 34(1), 85-90. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0568-25172008000100010 Barrios-Gómez, E. D., & López-Castañeda, C. (2007). Temperatura base y tasa de extensión foliar en frijol. Agrociencia, 43(1), 29-35. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/302/30211438004.pdf Beintema, J. J., Gallego-Castillo, S., Londoño-Hernández, L. F., Restrepo-Manjarres, J. & Talsma, E. (2018). Scaling-up biofortified beans high in iron and zinc through the school-feeding program: A sensory acceptance study with schoolchildren from two departments in southwest Colombia. Food Science & Nutrition, 6(4), 1138-1145. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.632 Bray, R. H., & Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Determination of total organic and available form of phosphorus in soil. Soil Science, 59(1), 39-45. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/soilsci/Citation/1945/01000/Determination_of_Total,_Organic,_and_Available.6.aspx Cakmak, I., & Kutman, U. B. (2017). Agronomic biofortification of cereals with zinc: a review. European Journal of Soil Science , 69(1), 172-180. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12437 Celmeli, T., Sari, H., Canci, H., Dari, D., Adak, A., Eker, T., & Toker, C. (2018). The nutritional content of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces in comparison to modern varieties. Agronomy, 8(9), 166-175. doi: org/10.3390/agronomy8090166 Estrada-Domínguez, V., Márquez-Quiroz, C., de la Cruz-Lázaro, E., Osorio-Osorio, R., & Sánchez-Chávez, E. (2018). Biofortificación de frijol caupí (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) con zinc: efecto en el rendimiento y contenido mineral. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 20, 4149-4160. doi: 10.29312/remexca.v0i20.986 Fernández-Valenciano, A. F., & Sánchez-Chávez, E. (2017). Estudio de las propiedades fisicoquímicas y calidad nutricional en distintas variedades de frijol consumidas en México. Nova Scientia, 9(18), 133-148. doi: 10.21640/ns.v9i18.763 García-Alanís, K., Baéz-González, J. B., Gallardo-Rivera, C. T., García-Solano, N. F., Walle-Castro, A. V., Martínez-García, M. K., & Hernández-Cortés, N. A. (2019). Caracterización fisicoquímica y efecto de la cocción en propiedades nutricionales del frijol Vigna umbellata Thumb. Investigación y Desarrollo en Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, 4, 81-86. Retrieved from http://www.fcb.uanl.mx/IDCyTA/files/volume4/4/1/11.pdf García-Bañuelos, M. L., Sida-Arreola, J. P., & Sánchez-Chávez, E. (2014). Biofortification-promising approach to increasing the content of Iron and Zinc in staple food crops. Journal of Elementology, 19, 865-888. doi: 10.5601/jelem.2014.19.3.708 Hidoto, L., Taran, B., Worku, W., & Mohammed, H. (2017). Towards zinc biofortification in chickpea: performance of chickpea cultivars in response to soil zinc application. Agronomy, 7(1), 11-20. doi: 10.3390/agronomy7010011 Hossein, K. P., Mohammad, A. B., Hemmatollah, P., & Mohammad, A. S. (2008). Effects of Zn rates and application forms on protein and some micronutrients accumulation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11, 1042-1046. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2008.1042.1046 Jiménez-Galindo, J. & Acosta-Gallegos, J. (2013). Rendimiento de frijol común (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) y tépari (Phaseolus acutiolius A. Gray) bajo el método riego-sequía en Chihuahua. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas , 4(4), 557-567. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-09342013000400006 Khoshgoftarmanesh, A. H., Schulin, R., Chaney, R. L., Daneshbakhgn, B., & Afyuni, M. (2010). Micronutrient efficient cultivars for crop yield and nutritional quality in sustainable agriculture. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30, 83-107. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009017 López-de Romaña, D., Castillo, D. C., & Diazgranados, D. (2010). EL Zinc en la salud humana. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 37(2), 234-239. doi: 10.4067/S0717-75182010000200013 Márquez-Quiroz, C., de la Cruz-Lázaro, E., Osorio-Osorio, R., Sánchez-Chávez, E., Huijara-Vasconcelos, J. J., & Sida-Arreola, J. P. (2018). Zinc content and yield of biofortified cowpea beans. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas , 20, 4150-4160. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/remexca/v9nspe20/2007-0934-remexca-9-spe20-4175-en.pdf Mathias-Rettig, K., & Ah-Hen, K. (2014). El color en los alimentos un criterio de calidad medible. Agro Sur, 42(2), 39-48. doi: 10.4206/agrosur.2014.v42n2-07 Mederos, Y. (2006). Indicadores de la calidad en el grano de frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Cultivos Topicales, 27(3), 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1932/193215825009.pdf Mollinedo-Patzi, M. A., & Benavides-Calderón, G. L. (2014). Carbohidratos. Revista de Actualización Clínica Investiga, 41, 2133-2136. Retrieved from http://www.revistasbolivianas.org.bo/scielo.php?pid=S2304-37682014000200002&script=sci_arttext Moniruzzaman, M., Islam, M. R., & Hassan, J. (2008). Effect of N P K S Zn and B on yield attributes and yield of French bean in South Eastern Hilly region of Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture & Rural Development, 6(1), 75-82. doi: 10.3329/jard.v6i1.1660 NMX-F-066-S-1978. (1978). Norma Official Mexicana. Determinación de cenizas en alimentos. México: Dirección General de Normas. Retrieved from http://www.colpos.mx/bancodenormas/nmexicanas/NMX-F-066-S-1978.PDF NMX-F-427-1982. (1982). Norma Oficial Mexicana. Alimentos: Determinación de grasa (método de hidrólisis acida). México: Dirección General de Normas . Retrieved from http://www.colpos.mx/bancodenormas/nmexicanas/NMX-F-427-1982.PDF NOM-F-90-S-1978. (1978). Norma Oficial Mexicana. Determinación de fibra cruda en alimentos. México: Dirección General de Normas . Retrieved from http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4799842&fecha=27/03/1979 Odedeji, J. O., & Oyeleke, W. A. (2011). Proximate, physicochemical and organoleptic properties of whole and dehulled cowpea seed flour (Vigna unguiculata). Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10(12), 1175-1178. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=DJ2012071479 Olsen, R. S., Cole, V. C., Watanabe, F. S., & Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pérez-Trujillo, H., & Galindo-González, G. (2003). Situación socioeconómica de los productores de frijol de temporal en zacatecas. Terra Latinoamericana, 21(1), 137-147. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/573/57321116.pdf Rahman, I. U., Afzal, A., Iqbal, A., Ijaz, F., Sohail, S., Manan, S., & Afzal, M. (2014). Response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to basal applied and foliar feeding of different nutrients application. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 14(9), 851-854. doi: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2014.14.09.12400 Restrepo-Caro, C., Coronell, M. C., Arrollo, J., Martínez, G., Sánchez-Majana, L., & Sarmiento-Rubiano, L. A. (2016). La deficiencia de zinc: un problema global que afecta la salud y el desarrollo cognitivo. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, 66(3), 165-175. Retrieved from https://www.alanrevista.org/ediciones/2016/3/art-2/#:~:text=Actualmente%20se%20conoce%20que%20las,celular%20que%20conlleva%20a%20la Reussi-Calvo, N. I., Echeverría, H. E., & Sainz-Rozas, H. (2008). Comparación de métodos de determinación de nitrógeno y azufre en planta: implicancia en el diagnóstico de azufre en trigo. Ciencia Suelo, 26(2), 161-167. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317539382_Comparacion_de_metodos_de_determinacion_de_nitrogeno_y_azufre_en_planta_implicancia_en_el_diagnostico_de_azufre_en_trigo Rodríguez-Castillo, L., & Fernández-Rojas, X. E. (2003). Los frijoles (Phaseolus vulgaris): su aporte a la dieta del costarricense. Acta Médica Costarricense, 45(3), 120-125. Retrieved from https://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-60022003000300007 Rodríguez-Licea, G., García-Salazar, J. A., Rebollar-Rebollar, S., & Cruz-Contreras, A. C. (2010). Preferencias del consumidor de frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) en México: factores y características que influyen en la decisión de compra diferenciada por tipo y variedad. Paradigma Económico, 2(1), 121-145. Retrieved from http://economia.uaemex.mx/Publicaciones/Ano2_Num1/Gabriela%20Rodriguez.pdf Rosales-Serna, R., Ibarra-Pérez, F. J., & Cuéllar-Robles, E. I. (2012). Pinto Centauro, nueva variedad de frijol para el estado de Durango. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas , 3(7), 1467-1474. doi: 10.29312/remexca.v3i7.1354 Salinas-Ramírez, N., Escalante-Estrada, J. A. S., Rodríguez-González, M. T., & Sosa-Montes, E. (2013). Rendimiento, calidad nutrimental y rentabilidad de frijol ejotero de temporal en San Pablo Ixayoc, México. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura, 19(3), 333-242. doi: 10.5154/r.rchsh.2010.08.031 Sangerman-Jarquín, D. M., Acosta-Gallego, J. A., Schwenstesius-de Rindermann, R., Damián-Huato, M. A., & Larqué-Saavedra, B. S. (2010). Consideraciones e importancia social en torno al cultivo del frijol en el centro de México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas , 1(3) 363-380. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-09342010000300007 SAS Institute. (2002). Users guide version 9.0. Cary, N.Y.: Author. Shivay, Y. S., Prasad, R., & Pal, M. (2014). Genetic variability for Zinc use efficiency in chickpea as influenced by Zinc fertilization. International Journal of Bio-Resource & Stress Management, 5(1), 31-36. doi: 10.5958/j.0976-4038.5.1.005 Tenorio-Galindo, G., Rodríguez-Trejo, D. A., & López-Ríos, G. (2008). Effect of seed size and color on germination of Cecropia obtusifolia Bertol (Cecropiaceae). Agrociencia , 42(5), 585-593. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1405-31952008000500010&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en Tofiño-Rivera, A. P., Pastrana-Vargas, I. J., Melo-Ríos, A. E., Beebe, S., & Tofiño-Rivera, R. (2016). Rendimiento, estabilidad fenotípica y contenido de micronutrientes de fríjol biofortificado en el Caribe seco colombiano. Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, 17(3), 309-329. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=449946663001 Ugalde-Acosta, F. J., Tosquy-Valle, O. H., López-Salinas, E., & Francisco-Nicolás, N. (2011). Productividad y rentabilidad del cultivo de frijol con fertirriego en Veracruz, México. Agronomía Mesoamericana, 22(1), 29-36. Retrieved from http://www.mag.go.cr/rev_meso/v22n01_029.pdf Ulloa, J. A., Rosas-Ulloa, P., Ramírez-Ramírez, J. C., & Ulloa-Rangel, B. E. (2011). El frijol su importancia nutricional y como fuente de fitoquímicos. Revista Fuente, 3(8), 5-9. Retrieved from http://dspace.uan.mx:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/582 Urías-López, M. A., Álvarez-Bravo, A., Hernández-Fuentes, L. M., & Pérez-Barraza, M. H. (2017). Aportaciones científicas para la horticultura mexicana. México: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Retrieved from http://www.inifapcirpac.gob.mx/publicaciones_nuevas/Aportaciones%20cient%C3%ADficas%20para%20la%20horticultura%20Mexicana.pdf Velasco-González, O., San Martín-Martínez, E., Aguilar-Méndez, M., Pajarito-Ravelero, A., & Mora-Escobedo, R. (2013). Propiedades físicas y químicas del grano de diferentes variedades de frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Bioagro, 25(3), 161-166. Retrieved from http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1316-33612013000300002 Welch, R., House, W., Beebe, S., & Cheng, Z. (2000). Genetic selection for enhanced Bioavailable levels of iron in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(8), 3576-3580. doi: 10.1021/jf0000981 Yin, X., Yuan, L., Liu, Y., & Lin, Z. (2012). Phytoremediation and biofortification: two sides of one coin. In: Yin, X., & Yuan, L. (Eds.), Phytoremediation and Biofortification (pp. 1-6). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1439-7 ### Figures: ### Tables: Table 1. Reported temperature and rainfall during the production period (spring-summer 2017). Month Maximum temperature (°C) Minimum temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm) June 34.59 16.56 4.50 July 25.68 13.54 288.30 August 24.48 13.28 202.70 September 25.05 10.32 38.70 October 24.46 7.28 7.00 November 23.41 2.45 0.00 Data were obtained from the “Quinta Lupita” weather station, Regional Agricultural Union of Fruit Growers of the State of Chihuahua, Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua, Mexico. Table 2. Properties of the soil samples taken at a depth of 30 cm at "San Pedro" Ranch. Property Value pH (CaCl2 0.01M) 5.9 Electrical conductivity (ds·m-1) 0.06 Clay (%) 23.87 Silt (%) 18.9 Cation exchange capacity (mol·kg-1) 14.63 Organic matter (%) 0.92 Sand (%) 57.21 N-N03 (kg·ha-1) 56.25 Potassium (ppm) 375 Calcium (ppm) 512.5 Phosphorus (kg·ha-1) 18.50 Magnesium (ppm) 462 Copper (ppm) 0.78 Iron (ppm) 3.94 Manganese (ppm) 1.06 Zinc (ppm) 0.56 Table 3. Physical parameters of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in response to fertilization treatments. Treatment Color 100-seed weight (g) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Length (cm) L Chroma Hue FM1 66.15 az 15.83 a 71.16 b 30.47 c 0.80 b 0.47 a 1.22 b FM2 67.31 a 16.34 a 72.24 ab 34.54 b 0.81 b 0.49 a 1.28 b FM3 67.66 a 16.69 a 73.27 a 38.54 a 0.89 a 0.51 a 1.38 a FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05). Table 4. Physicochemical composition of ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans in response to fertilization management. Treatment Physical-chemical parameters (%) Energy (Kcal) Ash Fat Moisture Fiber Carbohydrates Protein FM1 4.70 az 1.05 c 11.16 c 2.67 b 59.34 a 17.87 c 324.62 b FM2 4.80 a 1.22 b 11.84 b 3.31 a 60.65 a 18.36 b 326.62 b FM3 4.92 a 1.28 a 12.14 a 3.35 a 61.13 a 19.50 a 329.48 a FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05). Table 5. Concentration of macronutrients in ‘Pinto Centauri’ beans in response to different fertilization management schemes. Treatment Macronutrients (%) Micronutrients (ppm) N P K Mg Ca Cu Ni Mn Fe Zn S FM1 2.29 az 0.074 c 1.55 b 0.173 b 0.211 a 3.96 a 2.31 a 20.24 a 72.78 b 20.47 c 21.34 b FM2 2.52 a 0.177 b 1.67 b 0.173 b 0.274 a 4.41 a 2.58 a 21.77 a 78.32 ab 28.97 b 22.82 b FM3 2.59 a 0.289 a 1.73 a 0.183 a 0.299 a 4.77 a 2.74 a 22.10 a 86.96 a 33.99 a 23.88 a FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). zMeans with the same letter within each column do not differ statistically (Tukey, P ≤ 0.05). Table 6. Profitability and production costs of fertilization management in ‘Pinto Centauro’ beans. Activities Treatment FM1 FM2 FM3 Production costs ($ MXN) 5,546.00 5,683.00 5,683.00
Cost of money (4.5 %)* 237.33 256.27 256.27
Total costs 5783.83 5,939.27 5,939.27
Yield (kg·ha-1) 1,200 1,757 2,233
Production value ($15.00 MXN·kg-1) 18,000.00 26,355.00 33,495.00 Net profit ($ MXN) 12,216.17 20,415.73 27,555.72
b/c profitability 2.1 3.4 4.6
FM1 = control with N, P and K (41, 46 and 22 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM2 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (41, 46, 22, 12 and 1 kg·ha-1, respectively); FM3 = fertilization with N, P, K, S and Zn (45, 60, 22, 22 and 1.5 kg·ha-1, respectively). *4.5 % was considered for five months of interest.