1
Sumit Chaudhary Id No 38019
Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard
India and Oilseeds…
• India- the 5th largest producer of oilseeds in the world.• Contributes 7% of the global oilseed production.• Largest acreage under Sesame, Safflower and Castor in the world.• Largest exporter of Castor oil.• Among World’s largest consumer of edible oils.• Global rankings of India in terms of production II- Groundnut
III- Rapeseed-Mustard IV- Linseed
V- Soybean• National rankings in terms of production : I- Soybean
II- Rapeseed-Mustard III- Groundnut
2
3
Rapeseed & Mustard 2012-13 Statistics (DRMR, Bharatpur)
Production of R&M (World)
Acreage R&M(India) Production R&M (India)
Acreage R&M (World)
India 19.29 %
India 11.12 %
4
India Rapeseed & Mustard Statistics (DRMR, Bharatpur)
Strategies for Increasing Production of Rapeseed & Mustard
Area Expansion : Limited scope.High yielding varieties : Potential of the various species in
R&M group to be realized.GM varieties: Ambiguity about safe usage still prevails.Package and practices of nutrient management: Scope in
view of the deficiency of mineral nutrients due to intensive agriculture.
5
6
Trends in Fertilizer Response
7
Fertilizer response in R&M 1960 :14-15 kg seed yield/ kg NPK
applied 2010 : 4-5 kg seed yield/ kg NPK
applied Efficiency of fertilizers:
Nitrogen = 40-50%
Phosphorus= 15-20%
Sulphur = 10-12%
8Source: Singh, 2011
Emerging deficiencies of plant nutrients in relation toincreased food-grain production
INM : Concept and Role
9
The basic concept of INM is the maintenance and a possible increase in soil fertility for sustaining crop productivity through optimization of all the possible sources (organic and inorganic) of plant nutrients required for crop growth and quality in an integrated manner appropriate to the cropping systems and farming situations in its ecological possibilities.
The three main roles of INM , as defined by FAO 1998 , are
Maintain or enhance soil productivity through a balance use of fertilizers
combined with organic and biological sources of plant nutrients
Improve the stock of plant nutrients in the soils
Improve the efficiency of plant nutrients, thus, limiting losses in the environment.
10
COMPONENTS
Plant Sources
Mineral Fertilizer
Biological Sources
Manure Sources
Treatment Siliquae/plant
Seeds/siliqua Seed yield (q/ha)
Oil yield (q/ha)
RDF(80,17.2,33.2 kg/ha NPK)
188.2 11.9 13.32 4.91
RDF+FYM 10t/ha 254.9 14.1 16.92 6.99RDF+Borax@10kg/ha+ZnSO4 @20kg/ha
241.0 14.3 16.83 6.83
50 % RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha 197.4 12.2 14.78 5.6250 % RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha +ZnSO4 @20kg/ha
208.9 12.9 15.49 6.04
50%RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha +Borax@ 10kg/ha + ZnSO4 @20kg/ha.
253.4 14.1 16.68 6.85
CD(P=0.05) 24.7 1.0 0.37 0.26
Mandal & Sinha (2002)Coochbehar (WB) Sandy loam, pH=6.4 11
Effect of INM on yield attributes and yield of Indian Mustard
12
Treatments Seed Yield(t/ha)
Available nutrients in soil after harvest (kg/ha) N P K S
Control 1.15 150.0 9.0 125.0 16.0
FYM 5t/ha 1.39 158.0 10.1 134.0 17.050% RDF 1.58 162.0 10.5 135.0 16.250% RDF+ FYM 5t/ha
1.79 165.2 11.0 144.5 17.2
75% RDF 1.88 170.5 11.3 145.6 16.3
75 RDF+ FYM 5t/ha .
2.09 172.0 11.7 153.2 17.7
RDF* 2.00 175.0 12.0 155.0 16.5
CD(P=0.05) 0.20 4.5 0.5 9.5 0.4
Soil status after INM in Indian mustard
Agra(U.P) Sandy loam, pH=8.0 Chandel et al. (2013)*RDF=NPK @ 100:60:40 kg/ha
Treatment Siliquae / plant Seed yield (t/ha) S uptake kg/ha
2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07
Nutrient source RDF @ 80- 17.4- 33.3 kg NPK/ ha
Control 193 226 1.13 1.27 17.68 16.45
RDF(Fer.) 337 349 1.93 1.96 31.16 32.90
Rec. N (FYM) 263 393 1.68 2.23 24.13 37.10
½ RDF (Fer.) + 1/2 Rec. N (FYM)
358 406 2.13 2.30 32.68 38.94
CD(P=0.05) 19 13 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.60
Sulpuhr level (kg/ha) through Gypsum
0 280 339 1.57 1.76 22.86 27.35
40 295 348 1.86 2.12 29.97 35.34
CD(P=0.05) 12 6 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.89
New Delhi Sandy loam, pH=7.7 Rana and Thuan (2010)
Sulphur uptake by Indian mustard in relation to INM
13
Treatment Oil % Oil yield (t/ha)
SYI PE (kg/ha/day)
PFP (kg grain/ kg nutrient)
Organic sourceFallow –m (control) 42.4 0.57 0.36 8.6 -
Ses(GM)-m 41.6 0.79 0.54 12.3 7.9
Ses(GM)+m str *- m 40.9 0.89 0.63 14.1 7.1
CD(P=0.05) 0.4 0.04 0.04 1.1 NSFertility level(kg/ha)
N40P8.7K33.3 42.1 0.59 0.38 9.1 17.2
N40P17.4K33.3 42.0 0.70 0.46 10.8 18.4
N80P17.4K0 41.1 0.92 0.66 14.5 23.1
N80P17.4K33.3 41.3 0.97 0.67 15.2 18.0
CD(P=0.05) 0.9 0.04 0.05 1.4 2.8
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Clay loam, pH=8.1
Premi et al.(2012)
* str@ 2.5t/ha 14
Effect of INM on SYI, Production Efficiency and Partial Factor Productivity(5 yr.)
15
Treatment Br./plant Mean LAR (cm²/g)
Seed Y.(kg/ha)
T1, RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 10.7 44.0 1081T2, T1+FYM10 12.0 48.7 1210T3, T2+S40 13.1 50.8 1270T4, T3+Zn.25 14.3 54.6 1350T5, T4+ B.1 16.7 57.2 1432T6, T5+AZT 20.8 58.7 1526
T7, 50% RDF 8.5 39.6 966
T8,T7+FYM10+S40+Zn25+B1 14.0 51 1295T9,T8+AZT 15.3 54.6 1366T10,75%RDF 9.3 40.1 1021T11,T10+FYM10+S40+Zn25+B1 14.9 51.0 1282T12,T11+AZT 17.7 51.9 1433CD (P = 0.05) 4.2 15.8 267
Pantnagar Clay loam, pH=7.1 Shukla et al.(2002)
Effect of INM on morphological and physiological determinants of Indian mustard
16 Mode of action of Azospirillum / Azotobacter in promoting plant growth.
Treatment (OS) Pr. Br/pl Sec. Br/pl Siliquae/pl Seeds/ pod Seed y (q/ha)
FYM2.5 4.9 12.0 186 10.9 13.08FYM 5 5.3 12.9 194 10.8 14.55FYM2.5+AZT 5.3 13.4 191 11.6 13.59FYM5+AZT 5.8 13.8 201 11.0 15.38FYM2.5+AZS 5.3 13.5 193 12.3 13.98FYM5+AZS 6.0 13.9 204 12.3 15.79FYM2.5+AZS+AZT 5.7 13.6 199 12.7 14.46FYM5+AZS+AZT 6.2 14.2 210 12.9 15.81CD(P=0.05) 0.1 0.4 6 0.43 0.68In N (kg/ha) P2O5@ 40kg/ha0 4.93 12.6 177 10.63 10.1640 5.37 13.4 200 11.93 15.8180 5.87 13.6 207 12.40 16.79CD(P=0.05) 0.13 0.3 4 0.32 0.45
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Singh et al. (2014) Sandy loam 17
Impact of INM and Inorganics on Indian mustard
Treatment Siliquae/plant Seed yield (t/ha)
Oil yield (kg/ha)
Net ret.(x1000 Rs./ha)
Control 162.6 1.37 548 16.3AP* 175.8 1.48 597 18.4RDF* 259.6 2.39 982 34.8RDF+ AP 281.6 2.51 1034 37.275% RDF 218.0 2.02 822 27.875%RDF+ AP 256.8 2.28 935 33.250% RDF 197.8 1.72 701 22.450% RDF+ AP 230.8 2.12 867 30.5CD (P=0.05) 18.4 0.16 66
Kota (Rajasthan) Clay loam, pH=7.6 Meena et al.(2013) 18
INM influences on yield and economics of Indian mustard
*AP= Seed ino. with Aztobacter + PSB, RDF*= N80P17.5S60
Treatment Seed yield (t/ha)
Oil yield (kg/ha)
Protein yield (kg/ha)
N uptake by seed (kg/ha)
P uptake by seed (kg/ha)
Control 1.05 402 16.5 27.9 5.6
50% RDF 1.52 564 17.7 43.2 8.4
RDF (80 kg N+40 kg P2O5/ha)
1.78 647 19.3 55.2 10.4
40 kg N/ha + PSB 1.50 570 17.6 42.2 8.3
50% RDF + PSB + Proteus vulgaris.
1.75 654 18.8 52.8 10.1
CD (P=0.05) 0.21 52 0.9 6.5 1.3
New Delhi Sandy Loam, pH=7.1 Shivran and Giri (2006) 19
Yield and quality of Indian mustard as influenced by INM
Treatment Seed yield (kg/ha)
AV. N & P IN SOIL AFTER HARVEST (Kg/ha)
Net returns(Rs/ha)
N POrganic SourceFYM 2.5 1651 192.00 18.60 20128FYM 5+PSM 1930 201.33 20.58 25202FYM 5+Azos 1913 199.20 20.07 24853FYM 2.5 + PSM +Azos 1881 197.80 19.74 24584FYM 5+ PSM+Azos 1949 206.80 21.36 25547CD(P=0.05) 101 7.27 1.44N Level40 kg/ha 1914 200.40 20.36 2508680 kg/ha 2064 217.80 24.30 27494CD(P=0.05) 75 4.35 1.03
Varanasi (U.P) clay loam, pH=7.2 Singh and Singh (2013) 20
Effect of INM on seed yield, available soil nutrients and economics
P,K, each @40 kg/ha through SSP and MOP
Treatment Soil pH*(0-15 cm)
Soil EC * (dS/m)
Soil %* OC
Seed Yield (t/ha)
Control 7.79 0.11 0.34 1.01
RDF* 7.70 0.13 0.41 1.85
RDF +FYM 7.62 0.20 0.48 2.22
RDF +Sulphur free plot 7.72 0.13 0.40 1.44
100%NPK+ Azt. 7.68 0.14 0.42 1.95
100%NPK+Azt. +PSB 7.65 0.16 0.44 2.05
100% NPK + FYM + Azt.+PSB 7.54 0.23 0.52 2.35
150%NPK 7.69 0.18 0.42 2.04
75% NPK + FYM 10 t/ha 7.70 0.18 0.46 1.96
CD(P=0.05) 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.21
Gwalior (M.P) Sandy clay loam Khambalkar et al. (2012)
Effect of INM on soil properties & seed yield of Pearl millet – mustard crop rotation
21
RDF*= N+P2O5+K2O @ 80+40+20 - 100+60+40 1997: pH=7.78, %OC=0.36, EC=0.13 and *= After 13 years
Treatment Seed Yield(t/ha) Glu.Cont ( moles/g seed)2005-06 2006- 07 2005-06 2006- 07
T1,RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 1.33 1.53 104.2 98.4T2, T1+FYM(10) 1.44 1.66 107.3 100.9T3, T2+S(40) 1.56 1.82 117.2 107.4T4, T3+ZnS(25) 1.60 1.87 110.1 99.5T5, T4+ B(1) 1.64 1.91 105.0 95.2T6, T5+AZT 1.67 1.95 97.5 94.1T7, 75% RDF 1.21 1.40 114.1 106.1T8,T7+FYM(10) 1.31 1.52 116.3 109.3T9,T8+S(40) 1.45 1.69 128.2 111.2T10,T9+ZnS(25) 1.49 1.75 116.4 107.4T11,T10+B(1) 1.53 1.78 106.3 102.3T12,T11+AZT 1.57 1.82 103.2 101.0CD (P = 0.05) 0.23 0.29 9.2 8.5
Pantnagar Tripathi et al. (2010) Loam, pH=7.5 22
Seed meal quality of Indian mustard as influenced by INM
23
Seed meal quality of Ethiopian mustard as influenced by INMTreatment Seed Yield(kg/ha) Glu.C (µ moles/g
seed)
1998-99 1999-2000 1998-99
1999-2000
T1,RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 1980 1561 85.3 92.3
T2, T1+FYM.10 2160 1627 87.2 9.9
T3, T2+S40 2202 1850 93.6 106.8
T4, T3+Zn.25 2254 1970 85.2 102.8
T5, T4+ B.1 2349 2070 82.1 95.9
T6, T5+AZT 2367 2158 82.1 86.5
T7, 50% RDF 1791 978 113.9 111.4
T8,T7+FYM10+S.40+Zn.25+B.1 2041 1161 91.5 97.2
T9,T8+AZT 2105 1312 90.5 95.4
T10,75%RDF 1853 1376 92.0 103.9
T11,T10+FYM10+S.40+Zn.25+ B.1
2233 1558 88.3 93.9
T12,T11+AZT 2238 1578 87.1 90.9
CD (P = 0.05) 269 186 13.6 6.0Pantnagar Loam, pH=7.1 Kandpal et al. (2001)
Treatment Seed Yield (t/ha)
2005-06 2006-07
Glucosinolate content (µmoles/g
seed)2005-06 2006-07
B:C ratio
RDF 1.22 0.95 106.6 110.7 1.48RDF+FYM 1.36 1.06 109.0 117.5 1.44RDF+FYM + ZnSO4 1.54 1.16 106.5 113.4 1.59RDF+FYM+ ZnSO4+ Azoto
1.75 1.31 102.6 103.8 2.00
75% RDF + FYM 1.22 1.06 118.0 123.7 1.4375% RDF + FYM + ZnSO4
1.40 1.09 115.3 128.3 1.52
75% RDF + FYM+ ZnSO4 + Azoto .
1.58 1.28 108.9 109.0 1.90
CD(P=0.05) 0.09 0.10 17.0 7.2 0.10
Lakhaoti (U.P) sandy loam, pH=7.6 Pal and Singh (2011)
RDF=120 N, 17.6 P, 16.6 K, 40 S/ha .FYM@10 t/ha, ZnSO4 @25 kg/ha , Azoto 10g/kg seed
24
Effect of INM on seed yield, glucosinolate content and Economics
constraints faced in adoption of INM technology
Less availability of FYM Difficulties in growing green manure crops Non-availability of bio fertilizers Inadequate availability of water Non-availability of soil testing facilities Lack of knowledge and poor advisory services Non-availability of improved seeds Soil conditions Non-availability of credit facilities
25
Concluding Remarks
Use of INM stands out beneficial in a variety of ways . Besides improving the growth, yield & quality of the crop (Mustard), it also maintains sustainability of the system.
INM prove to be economical as well as eco-friendly.
26
27
Thank you
Top Related