INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION

L/O/G/O

Seminar Incharge and Research Guide Dr. P. H. Vaidya

Course No:- SSAC-591

Presented By

Ms. Sahane Jyoti Annasaheb.

Reg. No. : 2014A/46ML Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry College of Agriculture, Latur.

Seminar on:INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION

3

Our population is growing @ 1.8 % per year and at this rate of population growth will be over 1.2 billion in 2020. To meet the full dietary need of the common person, and to relieve our stress on cereals, there is greater need of enhanced vegetable production. Up to 2020 the country’s vegetable demand would be around 135 million tonnes.To achieve target, it is important to integrate the various technologies right from production to post-harvest in vegetable production( Rai and Pandey, 2007).Since independence, vegetable production of our country has increased tremendously and thus, India is the second largest vegetable producer next to China, with a production of 133.74 million tonnes (Pandey and Kumar, 2007).

NEED TO ENHANCED VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION OF INM

5

INTRODUCTION Integrated Nutrient Management refers to

maintenance of soil fertility and the plant nutrient supply at an optimum level for sustaining the desired productivity through optimization of the benefits from all the possible sources of Organic, Inorganic & biological component in an integrated manner.

CONCEPT Regular supply for optimum crop growth and

higher productivity. Improvement and maintenance of soil fertility. Zero adverse impact on agro- ecosystem quality

by balanced fertilization.

WHAT IS INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ??

I. Soil source1. Appropriate crop variety2.Cultural practices3.Cropping system II. Inorganic source 1.Super granules 2.Coated urea 3.single super phosphate 4.Murate of potash 5.Micronutrient fertilizerIII. Organic source 1.FYM2.Poultry manure3.Neem cake4.Vermicompost5.Pressmud cake (PMC) IV. Biological source 1.Microbial inoculant

6

COMPONENTS OF INM

There is need soil fertility maintenance is very essential with achieving and maintaining high vegetable crop production over a period of time .

In increasing productivity of the soil for Vegetable production fertilizer is an important input.

Fertilizer can either be organic or inorganic. The use of inorganic fertilizers has drastically

declined due to the energy crisis, which has immensely affected most of the developing countries (Hack,1982).

The improper use of chemical fertilizer show nutritional imbalance in the soil , instability in productivity, hidden hunger and depletion of nutritional quality of the vegetable (Bairwa et al.2009).

7

Why integrated nutrient management????

8

Other side use of Organic fertilizers alone also cannot fulfill the crop nutrients requirement in vegetable crop production.

If there is applying rates that are too low can lead to nutrient deficiency and low yields.

On the other hand too high rate can lead to nitrate leaching, Phosphorus runoff and excessive vegetative growth of crops.

To alleviate that problem, “Integrated Nutrient Management system” is an option as it utilize available Organic & Inorganic nutrients with increase fertilizer use efficiencies and economically viable farming system.

9

1. Enhance the availability of applied as well as native soil nutrient.

2. Synchronizes the nutrient demand with the native supply from native and applied sources.

3. Provide balanced nutrition to the crops. 4. Improves and sustain the Physical, Chemical and

biological functioning of soil.5. Minimizes the deterioation of soil, water &

ecosystem by promoting carbon sequestration.6. Reducing nutrient losses to ground surface

water bodies and atmosphere.7. Minimize the antagonistic effects resulting

from hidden deficiency and nutrient imbalance.

ADVANTAGES OF INM

10

OBJECTIVES OF SEMINAR

1

• To know the impact of Integrated Nutrient Management on growth parameter of vegetable crop.

2

• To study the effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on yield and quality of vegetable crop.

3

• To know the influence of Integrated Nutrient Management on soil quality.

Effect of INM on growth attributes

Effect of P and S on growth parameters of cv. BARI Brinjal-8.

Treatments Fruit length (cm)

Fruit diameter(cm)

Fruit weight (g plant-1)

Yield(t/ha)

T1-P0S0 14.56 2.52 422.72 13.24T2-P0S15 19.95 4.06 698.70 21.00T3-P0S30 19.74 3.72 737.11 21.05T4-P30S0 19.41 3.77 742.89 21.77T5-P30S15 22.10 3.49 813.88 23.24T6-P30S30 21.90 3.40 889.21 26.71T7-P60S0 20.17 4.15 683.21 19.81T8-P60S15 21.59 4.19 930.00 27.79T9-P60S30 23.04 4.61 1069.15 31.22T10-P90S0 18.16 3.52 572.02 18.17T11-P90S15 19.22 3.76 674.09 19.50T12-P90S30 19.09 3.25 528.38 15.10SE± 0.693 0.202 63.612 1.517CV(%) 6.03 9.46 12.09 9.36

12Bangladesh Agriculture University, Mymnsingh. Hasan et al.(2012)

Table No. 1

Effect of INM on growth parameters of Tomato.

Treatments Plant height(cm)

No. of leaves per plant

Individual Fruit weight (g)

Yield (mt/ha)

T1- 20 mt /ha FYM 103.03 102.75 37.45 21.70

T2- ½ NPK +30mt/ha FYM 114.43 107.33 43.89 24.18

T3- 3/4 NPK +25mt/ha FYM 108.70 111.33 49.10 25.11

T4- 10mt/ha Vermicompost 104.30 104.50 40.10 22.07

T5- ½ NPK+15 mt /ha Vermicompost 114.60 111.33 49.41 25.29

T6- 3/4 NPK+12.5 mt /ha Vermicompost

110.70 109.33 45.87 24.22

T7- 16.66mt/ha FYM+8.33mt/haVermicompost +NPK

116.16 114.50 52.80 25.74

T8- RDF (100:80:60) 103.85 105.50 39.33 21.70

T9- Control 93.90 94.75 33.82 19.07

CD (0.05) 1.44 3.76 7.82 2.25

13Himalaya College of Agri. Sci. & Tech., Bhaktapur. Prativa and Bhattarai (2011)

Table No. 2

Effect of combine application of Organic and Inorganic sources of nutrients on growth of Chilli cultivation.

Treatments No. of branches/plant

No of fruits /plant

Fruit length(cm)

Dry fruit yield (q/ha)

T1-100 % RDF 23.34 35.13 10.75 7.58T2-100% RDF + panchagavya 30.38 38.86 11.32 8.02T3-75% RDN+25 % N through FYM+BF 26.56 39.36 11.92 8.43T4-50% RDN+50 % N through FYM +BF 30.82 45.12 11.76 9.30T5-75%RDN+25% N through FYM+ BF+ Panchagavya

27.06 40.34 11.54 8.68

T6-50%RDN+50% N through FYM +BF+ Panchagavya

33.98 49.86 12.30 10.34

T7-75% RDN+ 25% N through VC+BF 23.34 41.45 11.70 8.34T8-50%RDN+50% N through VC+BF 25.19 43.30 11.00 9.18T9-75%RDN+25% N through VC+BF+ Panchagavya

27.01 42.43 11.86 8.59

T10-50%RDN+50% N through VC +BF+ Panchagavya

32.89 45.64 11.52 9.65

SE± 2.107 2.244 0.932 0.413CD(0.05) 6.26 6.67 NS 1.23 14

University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad. Kondapa et al.(2009)

Table No. 3

Effect of different sources of nitrogen on growth of Brinjal cv. Jhuri.

Treatment Plant height(cm)

No. of Primary branches

Fruit weight (g)

Fruit yield (tonnes/ha)

T1-100% N 78.97 3.07 37.97 22.50T2-75% N+25% CM 78.42 3.22 39.38 23.69T3-75% N+25% PM 75.97 3.32 40.12 24.76T4-75% N+25 %NC 77.77 3.35 39.69 24.33T5-100% N+ BF 77.17 3.29 37.54 22.47T6-75% N+ BF 76.45 3.34 37.89 21.78

T7-50% N+BF 71.62 3.05 36.45 21.39T8-50% N+25%CM+BF 79.95 3.40 38.82 25.47T9-50% N+25% PM+ BF 82.17 3.62 40.95 27.51T10-50% N+25%NC+BF 81.38 3.40 40.20 25.65SE± 0.85 0.07 0.82 0.64CD at 5% 1.79 0.14 1.72 1.34

15

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, West Bengal. Jayalaxmi Devi, (2002) CM- Cow dung manure; NC- Neem cake PM- Poultry manure; BF- Azotobacter, Azospirillum

Table No. 4

Effect of INM on growth contributing parameters of Radish.

Treatment Root length(cm)

Shoot length(cm)

Root diameter(cm)

Yield(q/ha)

Rank

T1=NPK(60:30:50kg/ha) 29.33 38.73 3.57 470.0 VI

T2=Poultry Manure at 2.5 t/ha +NPK(30:30:50kg/ha)

30.87 38.53 3.76 555.0 II

T3=Poultry Manure at 5 t/ha 30.07 34.67 3.39 425.0 VII

T4=Vermicompost at 5 t/ha +NPK(30:30:50 kg/ha)

31.87 36.20 4.01 630.0 I

T5=FYM at20 t/ha 30.53 35.07 3.59 490.0 III

T6=Vermicompost at 10 t/ha 31.40 35.60 3.66 527.0 IV

T7=FYM at 10 t/ha + NPK(30:30:50kg/ha)

31.40 38.33 3.74 515.0 V

CD at 5% 3.57 4.38 0.67 76.5

16

University of Agri. Sci. and Tech. of Jammu. Sharma et al.(2012)

Table No. 5

Effect of Inorganic Fertilizers and Organic manures(FYM) on growth parameters of Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5.

17

Treatment Plant height (cm)

Fruit length(cm)

Average fruit yield(kg/ha)

T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK;FYM= 20t/ha) 40.99 5.95 430.48T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 42.63 6.10 446.49T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha),

45.14 6.40 464.76

T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha),

46.01 7.00 541.63

T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 48.14 7.26 556.16T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 49.79 7.75 572.27T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 51.44 7.97 655.89T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 53.25 8.05 670.26T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 55.65 8.30 686.39

T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 30.71 5.22 221.51CD (P<0.05) 0.76 0.10 18.85

Punjab Agricultural University, Malik et al.(2011)

Table No. 6

Effect of Organic and Inorganic nutrient treatments on yield and yield contributing parameters of Knol Khol. Treatment Whole

plant weight(g)

Leaf weight(g)

Knob weight(g)

Yield(q)

Rank

T1-NPK(100:50:40kg/ha) 522.93 341.16 181.77 302.0 VII

T2-FYM(20t/ha) 294.07 176.67 117.33 195.65

XI

T3-NPK(75:50:40kg/ha)+5.0t/ha FYM

512.00 263.79 248.21 413.62

II

T4-NPK(75:50:40kg/ha)+ soil treatment with Azatobactor

515.67 281.86 234.11 389.96

V

T5-NPK(50:50:40kg/ha)+10.0 t/ha FYM

377.33 226.78 150.56 250.97

IX

T6-NPK(50:50:40kg/ha)+ soil treatment with Azatobactor

326.00 211.00 115.00 191.65

XII

T7-NPK(100:50:40kg/ha)+seedling treatment with Azatobactor

641.33 378.06 263.27 438.62

I

18

Table No. 7

University of Agri. Sci. and Tech. of Jammu. Sharma et al.(2012)

Conti…..

Treatment Whole plant weight(g)

Leaf weight(g)

Knob weight(g)

Yield(q)

Rank

T8-FYM(20t/ha)+seedling treatment with Azatobactor

395.00 242.92 152.08 253.31

VIII

T9-NPK(75:50:40kg/ha)+5 t/ha FYM+ seedling treatment with Azatobactor

614.00 373.11 240.56 400.96

III

T10-NPK(75:50:40kg/ha)+ soil treatment with Azatobactor + seedling treatment with Azatobactor

604.33 368.77 235.56 392.63

IV

T11-NPK(50:50:40kg/ha)+10t/ha FYM+ seedling treatment with Azatobactor

481.33 332.22 149.11 248.31

X

T12-NPK(50:50:40kg/ha)+ soil treatment with Azatobactor + seedling treatment with Azatobactor

420.00 238.29 183.71 305.97

VI

Control 190.67 135.47 55.20 91.99CD(5%) 31.21 21.40 31.24 51.32 19University of Agri. Sci. and Tech. of Jammu. Sharma et al.(2012)

Effect of INM on quality & yield attributes

Effect of P and S on Quality parameters of cv. BARI Brinjal-8.

Treatments Vitamin C (mg 100-

1g) Protein content

(%) Yield (t/ha)

T1-P0S0 4.62 3.63 13.24T2-P0S15 10.29 4.97 21.00T3-P0S30 6062 5.26 21.05T4-P30S0 10.29 4.50 21.77T5-P30S15 10.29 6.38 23.24T6-P30S30 12.50 5.91 26.71T7-P60S0 8.82 6.14 19.81T8-P60S15 16.17 5.73 27.79T9-P60S30 13.29 7.43 31.22T10-P90S0 10.29 5.91 18.17T11-P90S15 9.56 4.56 19.50T12-P90S30 11.76 4.21 15.10SE± 1.017 0.05 1.51CV(%) 9.36 8.04 12.19

Bangladesh Agriculture University, Mymnsing. Hasan et al.(2012)

Table No. 8

21

Effect of organic manure along with inorganic fertilizers on quality parameters of Brinjal cv. Pant rituraj.

Treatments T.S.S.(0Brix)

Total Sugars (%)

Reducing sugars (%)

Vitamin C(mg/100g)

T1= Farm Yard Manure (FYM)(100%) 5.233 1.827 0.340 4.667T2= Vermicompost (100%) 4.967 1.283 0.223 3.333T3= Neem Cake (100%) 5.700 1.550 0.253 5.444T4= RDF (100%) 5.000 1.330 0.270 6.222T5= RDF+FYM (25%+75%) 5.100 1.823 0.260 4.333T6= RDF+FYM (75%+25%) 5.100 1.760 0.243 6.778T7= RDF + Vermicompost (25%+75%) 5.400 1.277 0.270 9.222T8= RDF + Vermicompost (75%+25%) 4.667 1.240 0.237 7.333T9=RDF + Neem cake (25%+75%) 7.000 2.627 0.470 22.778T10-= RDF +Neem cake (75%+25%) 5.000 2.333 0.300 11.000T11= Control 4.300 1.050 0.210 3.222S.E.± 0.105 0.156 0.008 0.523C.D.(P=0.05) 0.305 0.455 0.023 1.522

22Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow. kashyap et al. (2014)

Table No. 9

Effect of INM on quality of Capsicum cv. California wonder

Treatments Ascorbic acid (mg 100 g-

1)

TSS (˚Brix)

Yield (q/ha)

T1-Control 84.73 7.93 74.94

T2-Pig manure(20 t/ha) 118.67 8.60 151.73

T3-FYM(30 t/ha) 114.67 8.73 181.36

T4-Pourty manure (10t/ha) 108.33 9.07 182.96

T5- Vermicompost (5t/ha) 90.63 7.37 171.73

T6-100 % NPK 86.83 8.23 185.20

T7-50%NPK+50%Pig manure 120.57 8.40 189.38

T8-50% NPK + 50% FYM 123.17 8.50 195.18

T9-50% NPK +50% Poultry manure 130.50 9.43 232.59

T10-50% NPK+50% Vermicompost 92.93 7.79 175.93

SE± 1.63 0.11 1.08

CD (0.05%) 5.06 0.34 3.34

23Agriculture Science& Rural Dvelopment, Nagaland University. Chetri et al.(2012)

Table No. 10

Effect of Fertilizers and Organic manures (FYM) on quality parameters of Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5

Treatment Vitamin C content (mg 100g-1)

Chlorophyll content(mg 100g-1)

T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK;FYM= 20 t/ha) 155.78 507.50T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 166.13 522.75T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha), 163.98 538.27T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha), 173.34 612.58T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 180.08 626.50T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 189.42 647.16T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 210.77 700.33T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 225.74 712.69T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 243.34 732.66T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 103.80 407.55CD (P<0.05) 1.18 3.10

24 Punjab Agricultural University, Malik et al.(2011)

Table No. 11

Efficiency of various sources of nutrients on quality of Tomato Treatment T.S.S

.Vita.C (mg/100g)

Total sugars (%)

Reducing sugar(%)

Non reducing sugar(%)

T1=Control 3.63 22.58 3.42 2.07 1.06T2=FYM 100% 4.51 25.43 3.62 2.18 1.14

T3=FYM75%+ Urea 25% 4.34 23.72 3.83 2.56 1.01T4=FYM75%+Vermicompost 25%

4.25 24.47 3.60 2.32 0.92

T5=FYM75%+Neem cake25% 4.52 25.20 3.82 2.38 0.86T6=FYM50% +Vermicompost 50%

5.12 26.50 3.87 2.66 1.14

T7=FYM50%+Neem cake 50% 4.58 24.17 3.76 2.18 0.86

T8=Urea 50%+PSB 1kg/ha 4.72 23.43 3.49 2.56 0.90

T9=Urea50%+AZT 1kg/ha 4.46 24.47 3.82 2.18 0.87

SE(±) 0.12 0.586 0.074 0.058 0.099CD(p=0.05) 0.27 1.2 0.16 0.12 0.21

Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow. Pal et al.(2015)

Table No. 12

25

Effect of INM on soil quality

Effect of INM on NPK uptake, soil fertility status after harvest Capsicum cv. California wonder .

Treatments Nutrient uptake (kg/ha)

Available nutrient (kg/ha)

N P K N P2O5 K2O

T1-Control 83.52 14.40 96.10 291.82 19.42 148.01

T2-Pig manure(20 t/ha) 143.55

21.02 164.79 364.91 25.43 184.01

T3-FYM(30 t/ha) 185.64

25.71 142.71 294.98 23.64 169.45

T4-Pourty manure (10t/ha) 200.21

29.98 182.14 336.76 24.60 182.07

T5- Vermicompost (5t/ha) 168.23

22.03 178.38 318.01 21.04 177.10

T6-100 % NPK 183.00

28.92 176.70 297.98 22.77 151.79

T7-50%NPK+50%Pig manure 200.97

28.61 237.43 339.66 25.29 173.39

T8-50% NPK + 50% FYM 217.62

34.70 208.47 301.77 25.86 152.49

T9-50% NPK +50% Poultry manure

290.36

38.69 268.53 303.10 24.31 198.40

T10-50% NPK+50% Vermicompost

178.54

24.33 162.00 308.24 23.99 171.42

SE± 3.00 0.59 3.17 2.51 0.24 9.20

CD (0.05%) 9.31 1.82 9.84 7.77 0.74 28.53

Table No. 13

27 Nagaland University, Medziphema. Chetri et al.(2012)

Effect of Organic manure & Inorganic fertilizers on penetration resistance capacity of soil.

Treatment Penetration resistance (kg cm-2) At sowing

At harvest

T1- 100% NPK (RDF)+S, Zn, B 1.20 1.21T2-100% NPK (RDF)+Zn, B 1.23 1.25T3-100%NPK (RDF)+S,B 1.24 1.26T4-100% NPK (RDF)+S, Zn 1.26 1.27T5- T1+50% N through Glyricidia 0.64 0.75T6-T1+50% N through FYM 0.57 0.71T7-T1+50% N through Pressmud cake 0.75 0.80T8-T1+50% N through Wheat straw 0.54 0.66T9-only organic manure ( Glyricidia, FYM, PMC, WS 25%N through each)

0.48 0.59

T10-100% NPK (RDF) 1.18 0.20T11-150%NPK (RDF) +Zn, B 1.26 1.27T12-Control (no fertilizers & manures) 1.28 1.30

28Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani. Chalwade et al.(2006)

Table No. 14

Effect of Organic & Inorganic fertilizers on physical properties soil. Treatment Bulk density (g cm-

3) porosity (%)

At sowing

At harvest

At sowing

At harvest

T1- 100% NPK (RDF)+S, Zn, B 1.20 1.21 54.74 54.33T2-100% NPK (RDF)+Zn, B 1.20 1.21 54.71 54.33T3-100%NPK (RDF)+S,B 1.19 1.20 55.09 54.71T4-100% NPK(RDF)+S, Zn 1.19 1.21 55.09 55.33T5- T1+50% N through Glyricidia 1.18 1.18 55.47 55.47T6-T1+50% N through FYM 1.17 1.17 55.84 55.84T7-T1+50% N through Pressmud cake

1.18 1.18 55.47 55.47

T8-T1+50% N through Wheat straw 1.18 1.18 55.47 5.47T9-only organic manure (Glyricidia, FYM, PMC, WS 25% N through each)

1.17 1.17 55.84 55.84

T10-100% NPK(RDF) 1.19 1.21 55.09 54.33T11-150%NPK (RDF)+Zn, B 1.20 1.21 54.71 53.96T12-Control (no fertilizers & manures)

1.21 1.24 54.33 53.20

SE± 0.09 0.015 0.12 0.80CD at 5% 0.24 0. 041 0.33 2.28

Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani. Chalwade et al.(2006)

Table No.15

Effect of INM on physio-chemical properties of soil after harvest rabi Onion.

Treatments pH

EC (dsm-1)

Organic Carbon (%)

I year II year

I year

II year

T1= 50% NPK RDF +50% N through FYM + MN as per soil test (zn)

8.37 0.368 0.343 0.55 0.63

T2=1/3 N through each FYM,VC and NC 8.38 0.375 0.360 0.57 0.61

T3=T2+ Trap crop (Sannhemp) 8.42 0.365 0.340 0.56 0.62

T4=T2+ Agronomic practices the hand weeding and IPM technique for pest control

8.41 0.385 0.363 0.57 0.61

T5=50% N through FYM +Rhizobium /Azotobacter +PSB

8.44 0.378 0.350 0.54 0.60

T6= T2+Rhizobium /Azotobacter +PSB 8.41 0.378 0.373 0.56 0.61

T7= 100% NPK RDF 8.40 0.370 0.369 0.51 0.53

T8= Control (no fertilizer application ) 8.46 0.415 0.430 0.49 0.48

Initial 8.37 0.390 0.390 0.51 0.51SE± 0.02 0.010 0.014 0.02 0.01CD at 5% NS 0.028 0.042 0.05 0.05

30 Agronomy Department, MPKV. Rahuri. Khang et al.(2011)

MN= micronutrients ;NC= Neem cake; VC= Vermicompost; CD=Critical difference

Table No. 16

Effect of Inorganic fertilizers and Organic manures (FYM) on NPK contents of Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5

Treatment N content (%) in fruit

P content (%) in fruit

K content (%) in fruit

T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK; FYM= 20t/ha) 2.85 0.21 1.97

T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 2.97 0.25 2.02

T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha), 3.13 0.29 2.10

T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha),

3.63 0.32 2.45

T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 3.83 0.35 2.79

T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 3.99 0.38 2.96

T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 4.10 0.40 3.15

T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 4.25 0.43 3.41

T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 4.38 0.46 3.55

T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 1.30 0.13 1.12

CD (P<0.05) 0.08 0.016 0.20

31Punjab Agricultural University, Malik et al.(2011)

Table No. 17

Effect of INM on availability of micronutrient after Cabbage harvesting

Treatments Available soil micronutrients in Cabbage (mg/kg)

Fe Mn Zn Cu B MoT1-40%N + 5tFYM ha-1 in all crop 57.

349.0

16.7 3.8 2.3 0.07

T2-RDF + 10t FYM ha-1 in all crop 68.4

60.4

18.9 6.4 2.4 0.08

T3-150% RDF+10 FYM ha-1 in potato & cabbage 100%NK +125% P+10 t FYM ha in peas

68.6

60.7

18.9 6.6 2.4 0.08

T4-T2+ recom. Fe, Zn, B and Mo in all crops 79.3

71.1

20.1 8.1 2.7 0.09

T5-T4+ seed inoculation with Rhizobium in peas, T4+ P solubilizing bacteria in potato and cabbage

79.5

72.9

20.2 8.2 2.8 0.09

T6-50 % N+ recom.PK+ micronutrients + Rhizobium inoculation + P solubilizing bacteria in peas, 75% RDF + miconutrints + P solubilizing bacteria + Azotobactor in potato and cabbage.

79.2

71.0

20.1 8.2 2.7 0.09

CD(P=0.05) 6.0 3.8 1.0 1.3 0.11

NS32

Agriculture Research.& Extn. Center, Himachal Pradesh. Parmar D. K.(2009)

Recom. dose=Fe:Mn:Zn:Cu:B:Mo-2:5:15:3:1:0.5 kg/haRDF for pea: Potato: Cabbage=20:60:30;100:75:55;125:75:60 kg/ha.

Table No. 18

Effect of INM on availability of nutrient after harvest of Pea.

Treatment Available soil micronutrients in Pea (mg/kg)

Fe Zn B MoT1-40%N + 5tFYM ha-1 in all crop 48.4 8.0 2.7 0.0

8T2-RDF + 10t FYM ha-1 in all crop 59.7 12.5 2.9 0.1

0T3-150% RDF+10 FYM ha-1 in potato & cabbage 100%NK +125% P+10 t FYM ha in peas

59.8 12.7 3.0 0.10

T4-T2+ recom. Fe, Zn, B and Mo in all crops 66.6 15.5 3.2 0.11


66.9 15.6 3.1 0.11


66.5 15.3 3.1 0.11

CD(P=0.05) 5.3 2.0 NS NS

33


Recom. Dose= Fe:Mn:Zn:Cu:B:Mo-2:5:15:3:1:0.5 kg/haRDF for pea: Potato: Cabbage=20:60:30;100:75:55;125:75:60. kg/ha

Table No. 19

Effect of INM on availability of micronutrient after Potato harvesting

Treatments Available soil micronutrients in Potato (mg/kg)

Fe Mn Zn Cu B MoT1-40%N + 5tFYM ha-1 in all crop 62.

378.4

8.1 3.6 1.7 0.03

T2-RDF + 10t FYM ha-1 in all crop 72.8

84.7

11.5 5.9 1.8 0.04

T3-150% RDF+10 FYM ha-1 in potato & cabbage 100%NK +125% P+10 t FYM ha in peas

73.0

87.0

12.7 5.8 1.8 0.04

T4-T2+ recom. Fe, Zn, B and Mo in all crops 78.6

94.2

17.0 7.1 1.9 0.05


78.5

96.3

17.9 7.2 1.9 0.06


78.5

93.7

17.1 7.1 1.8 0.04

CD(P=0.05) 3.4 4.0 2.0 1.3 0.03

0.0134


Recom. dose=Fe:Mn:Zn:Cu:B:Mo-2:5:15:3:1:0.5 kg/haRDF for pea: Potato: Cabbage=20:60:30;100:75:55;125:75:60 kg/ha.

Table No. 20

CONCLUSION:-

Effect of biofertilizer in combination with INM gives highest plant height,

no. of branches per plant, No of fruits per plant, fruit weight (40.95 g) & Yield (27.51 t/ha) in brinjal. P & S @ 60:30 kg/ha in combination of organic

manure and inorganic fertilizers improves the quality parameters (TSS-16.17mg/100g) and (Protein -5.91%) in Brinjal.

The combine use of Organic and Inorganic nutrients which lead to increased uptake of NPK & Nutrient use efficiency.

INM help to maintain productivity, profitability & quality of Vegetable.

35

36

“THE WISE LIVE WITHOUT INJURING NATURE AS THE BEE DRINKS HONEY WITHOUT HARMING THE FLOWERS”

EAT HEALTHY

DREAM HEALTHY

LIVE HEALTHY

Thank you

INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION

Science

Transcript of INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION