effect of inm on fruit yield and quality

WELCOME

Effect of INM on fruit yield and quality of mango

Presented By

Yashpal SinghId. No. – 0902

Ph.D Horticulture DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE

SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

AND TECHNOLOGY, MEERUT (U.P.), 250110

HIGHLIGHTIntroductionIntegrated nutrient management (INM)Component of Integrated nutrient

managementUse of INM in mango crop (HDP)Future strategyConclusion

INTRODUCTION India is the second largest fruit producer after china. The total area under fruit is

5.55 million ha and production is 58.7 million tones. Which accounts for 11% of the total world fruit production.

In horticulture crop indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, pesticide and herbicides has adversely affected the soil fertility, biodiversity, ground water pollution and human health. There is sufficient evidence that the intensive agriculture system has also caused decline in vitamin and mineral contents on fresh fruit . Since mango are mostly consumed as fresh or partially cooked, they should be devoid of fertilizer and pesticide residue.

Proper and regular addition of non- farm organic wastes are utmost importance in maintaining the fertility and productivity of agriculture soil. On the other hand, appropriate inoculation of beneficial microorganism, can enhance the atmospheric nitrogen fixation, decompose organic wastes and crop residue, enhance nutrient cycling and produce bioactive compounds, such as vitamin, hormones and enzymes that stimulate plant growth.

Status Of Fruit Crops In India

Area 5.55 million ha (m.ha) Production -about 58.7 million tones 11% of world fruit production Meets only 46% of the needof the country Demand by 2025 AD -120 mt. The production expected 88 mt. Wide gap between demand and supply Warrants increase in production and productivity

Source: NHB – 2008-09

TREND OF FARMING

Before 1950, Natural farming practices

1960 – 2000, Industrial Farming

2000 – 2007, Organic natural farming

2008 – Forward, Organic Bio-Farming

Objectives of INMThe basic concept underling INM is maintaining and

possible improvement in soil fertility for sustained productivity on a long- term basis.

To over come the ill effect of continuous used of only INM.

Major source of plant nutrient are FYM, compost, green manure, biofertilizer and crop residue/ recycble wastes. Proper integration of one or more source will ensure optimum nutrient supply.

To maintain the productivity on sustainable basis without affective soil health.

To improve physical, chemical and biological properties of soil.

To make the soil health and provide balance nutrient.

WHAT IS INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ?

The integrated nutrient management refers to “a system which aim at improving and maintaining the soil fertility for sustaining increase crop productivity and involves the use of inorganic fertilizers in conjunction with organic manures/wastes with inputs through biological processes”

COMPONENT OF INM

Organic manureFYMCompostGreen manure Edible and non – edible cakes Biofertilizer VermicompostChemical fertilizer

Organic manure

Manure:- manure are the organic substances which improve fertility and physical properties of soil and when into the soil. Manure contain very less amount of nutrient. They are made up of animal remain and dead plants and contain more than one nutrient element.(1)Bulky organic manure(2) Concentrated organic manure

Advantage of manure

They improve soil physical properties like structure and water holding capacity.

To increase nutrient availability.

They prevent the loss of nutrient by leaching, erosion

Manures supply, plant nutrient including micro organism.

BIOFERTILIZERSBiofertilizers are the microorganism

which can bring about enrichment of soil nutrient either by fixing atmospheric nitrogen or by increasing and availability of other nutrient particularly phosphate

1. Bacterial Biofertilizers: Rhizobium species Azotobacter Azospirillsum Pseudomonas

Conti…

2: Fungal biofertilizers: some species are having a high efficiency in solubilising phosphate. such species are-

Aspergillus Penicellium Fusarium Condida Mycorrhiza3: Algae biofertilizers: Anabaena species Nostoc species Microcystis

BENEFITS OF BIO FERTILIZER

They are biodegradable.

They do not pollutes soil and water resources.

They are less expensive.

VERMICOMPOST

Vermicompost is a method of making compost with use of earthworm which generally live in the soil. Eat biomass and excrete it in digestible form.

Precautions:-1. Maintain the moisture at 50 -60% level in the pit.

2. Temperature between 25-280C.

3. Base material (FYM) should be partially decomposed

4. Proper aeration should be provided without distributing the worms.

Advantages of Vermicompost

Productive utilization of organic wastes materials as

agricultural wastes. Animal dropping, forest litter and

agro based industrial for production of Vermicompost.

It is store house of plant nutrients.

Vermicompost improve the physical, chemical and

biological properties of the soil and batter crop

productivity.

Vermicompost is becoming important alternative to

conventional compost and FYM sources for organic

farming.

It also control soil as well as environmental pollution.

It maintain the soil health.

ORGANIC vs CHEMICAL FERTILIZER

Chemical Fertilizer are fast acting but short live 3 to 4 months. They are more expensive. Concentrated and need small volume of Frequent application. It kills soil life.

Organic Fertilizer are slow acting but long lasting effect 3 to 5 years. Cheaper as farmers can make organic fertilizer from farm products and waste as compost and manure. Application is once or twice a year during land preparation. It builds soil life and soil nutrition.

Nutrient requirements of fruit crops

Fruit crops yield high & mine heavily the nutrients from the soils

Estimate of the nutrient requirement:Nutrient reserves in the treesSoil nutrient statusFertilizer recommendation requires leaf

analysis Crop residues

Mango

Needs regular fertilization for maintaining proper growth and heavy yield of crop every year.

82 to 88.5% of the active roots -300 cm.

Highest activity of rootsat 120 cm from the trunk,

Nutritional requirements depends-the type and nutrient status of the soil , age of the tree etc.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of organic manure, inorganic & bio-fertilizers on growth Parameters, fruit yield & quality in mango cv.- Amrapali.

To standardize the doses of organic manure, inorganic & bio-fertilizers for sustainable yield & quality of mango under HDP.

To minimize the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers resulted in various environmental & health hazards always socio- economic problems.

To reduce the cost of cultivation of mango.

TECHNICAL PROGRAMME A. Treatment = 14

T1 - 100 % RDF of NPK + FYM (recommended practice)

T2 - 100% NPK + 250g Azotobacter /plant/year. T3 – 100% NPK +250g PSB /plant/year.

T4 – 100% NPK +250g Azoto.+ 250g PSB /plant/year. T5 – 100% NPK + vermi-compost 20 kg /plant/year.

T6 - 100% NPK + vermi-compost 40kg /plant/year

T7– 75% NPK + vermi-compost 20 kg /plant/year.

T8 – 75% NPK + vermi-compost 40 kg /plant/year.

T9 - 75% NPK + vermi-compost 20 kg +250g Azotobacter.

T10 - 75% NPK + vermi-compost 40 kg + 250g Azotobacter.

T11 – 75% NPK + vermi-compost 20 kg + 250g PSB.

T12- 75% NPK + vermi-compost 40 kg + 250g PSB

T13- 75% NPK + vermi-compost 20kg + 250g Azoto.+ 250g PSB.

T14- 75% NPK + vermi-compost 40kg+ 250g Azoto.+ 250g PSB.

B. Lay out plan

Treatment- 14Replication- 3Total number of plant - 14 x 3 = 42.Design- Randomized block design ( R.B.D.) Location of the study; HRC , S.V.B.P.U. of A.&T, Meerut (U.P.).Duration of the study ; 2010-11 to 2011-12. Soil sample will be collected at a depth of 0-30cm.

C. Observations to be recorded1. Nutrient status (Before & after the

treatment) a. soil- Soil pH.Soil Nsoil P2O5.

soil K20.Organic carbon. b. Leaf -NP K

C. Fruit- (After the treatment)• N• P• K

2. Plant growth-a Height/spread.

3. Flowering. a. Date of panicle emergence b. No. of panicles/plant.4. Fruit set percentage 5. Yield contributing parameters a. Fruit yield /tree b. Fruit yield/ha. 6. Fruit quality parameters a. Fruit size b. Fruit weight c. Fruit acidity(%). d. Fruit TSS(ο Brix) e. Fruit firmness f. Fruit sugar

D. Time of application

a. 1st year experiment - FYM- Oct - 2010 PSB Oct.- 2010 Azotobacter Oct.- 2010 P & K Oct.- 2010 N - Jan- 2011 b. 2nd year experiment- FYM- Oct - 2011 PSB Oct.- 2011 Azotobacter Oct.-2011 P & K Oct.-2011 N - Jan-2012

Table.1: Fruit yield characters as influence by INM in mango cv.- Alphonso (mean of two years)

Treatments Fruit yield (kg/tree)

Fruit yield No./tree. av.

Fruit weight (g)

T1- farmer’s practice(50% RDF+ 10 kg FYM/tree)

29.35 157.90 197.27

T2- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM/ tree 34.69 174.85 204.83

T3- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree

40.04 193.60 204.80

T4- 50% RDF + Azospirillum (100 g /tree)+ ‘P’ solubalizer (100 g/tree)+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree

33.03 171.90 197.90

CD at (5%) 1.86 8.64 NS

RDF – 750-200-700 g NPK /tree Patel et. al. (2005)

Table.2: Fruit yield attributing characters as influence by INM in mango cv. Alphonso (mean of two years)

Fruit dimensions

Treatments Length (cm)

Circumference (cm)

T1- farmer’s practice(50% RDF+ 10 kg FYM/tree) 8.61 15.69

T2- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM/ tree 8.72 16.50

T3- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree 8.62 16.50

T4- 50% RDF + Azospirillum (100 g /tree)+ ‘P’ solubalizer (100 g/tree)+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree

8.60 16.12

CD at (5%) NS NS

RDF – 750-200-700 g NPK /tree Patel et. al. (2005)

Table.3: Effect of nitrogen and Azotobacter inoculation on leaf nutrient content (%) in Amrapali mango under high density planting

Treatment

T0

Nitrogen

A B

Phosphorus

A B

Potassium

A B

1.40 1.45 0.084 0.085 0.287 0.297

T1 1.61 1.62 0.091 0.092 0.296 0.328

T2 1.67 1.75 0.093 0.091 0.347 0.357

T3 1.62 1.70 0.089 0.089 0.307 0.320

T4 1.65 1.72 0.084 0.082 0.358 0.373

T5 1.46 1.54 0.087 0.086 0.317 0.137

T6 1.52 1.62 0.086 0.091 0.315 0.348

T7 1.48 1.61 0.086 0.089 0.308 0.312

T8 1.52 1.62 0.083 0.091 0.315 0.333

CD at 5% 0.112 0.110 0.002 0.003 0.021 0.012A= At flowering (March)B= At harvest (July)

Table.4: Effect of nitrogen, Azotobacter chroococum on vegetative growth in mango cv. Amrapali.

Treatment Increase in shoot length

(%)

Increase in plant height

(%)

Increase in E-W spread

(%)

Increase in N-S spread

(%)

Increase in

canopy volume

(%)

T0 Control 11.63 6.10 6.38 6.53 20.46

T1- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter (M-4)

17.36 8.55 8.36 9.22 28.69

T2- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter (CBD-15)

25.52 8.10 9.30 9.82 30.96

T3- 2/3 N (96 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 15.85 8.13 9.49 9.34 34.69

T4- 2/3N (96 g) +Azotobacter (CBD -15) 20.58 8.17 9.68 8.75 29.15

T5- 1/3N (48 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 15.33 7.93 9.60 7.88 27.70


T7- only Azotobacter (M-4) 13.19 6.76 7.39 8.34 24.45

T8- only Azotobacter (CBD- 15) 14.62 7.92 7.58 8.25 25.75

CD at 5% 1.58 NS NS NS NS

Source: Ahmad et .al .(2003)

Table.5: Effect of nitrogen, Azotobacter chroococum on fruit yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali.

Treatment Yield (kg/plant)

Fruit weight

(g)

TSS (%)

Total acidity

(%)

Ascorbic acid

(mg/100g pulp)

T0 Control 16.05 115.88 21.22 0.142 38.50

T1- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 21.34 132.25 23.13 0.139 39.79

T2- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter

(CBD-15)

23.89 136.16 23.19 0.103 44.89

T3- 2/3 N (96 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 21.31 130.38 23.24 0.103 44.40


T5- 1/3N (48 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 18.63 125.75 22.77 0.107 40.77


T7- only Azotobacter (M-4) 17.69 127.38 21.89 0.122 39.72

T8- only Azotobacter (CBD- 15) 18.36 129.38 22.58 0.104 41.86

CD at 5% 2.16 8.43 0.94 0.007 2.17

Source: Ahmad et. al (2003)

Table.6: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on keitte mango tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons

Treatment Fruit set/ panicle

Fruit drop

Fruit retention/ panicle

No. fruit/ tree

Yield (kg/tree)

The first season (2008)

Control 6.36 84.38 1.35 23 9.40

Yeast at 0.05% 8.52 80.98 1.38 25 10.00

Yeast at 0.1% 9.22 79.44 1.39 30 11.15

Yeast at 0.2% 9.38 79.37 1.48 32 12.43

Algae at 0.5% 9.63 76.41 1.52 35 14.00

Algae at 1.0% 10.22 76.33 1.64 36 14.43

Algae at 2.0% 10.85 75.66 1.85 38 16.65

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 10.89 75.51 1.89 40 18.26

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 11.07 75.37 3.03 42 19.00

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 11.18 74.54 3.72 45 20.36

Source: Elham et .al (2010)

Conti…. Treatment Fruit set/

panicle Fruit drop

Fruit retention/ panicle

No. fruit/ tree

Yield (kg/tree)

The second season (2009)

Control 8.29 86.39 3.02 27 13.33

Yeast at 0.05% 12.53 85.32 3.04 29 14.00

Yeast at 0.1% 13.18 83.30 3.06 33 15.51

Yeast at 0.2% 13.27 82.32 3.22 36 16.37

Algae at 0.5% 13.35 80.61 3.30 39 18.10

Algae at 1.0% 14.28 80.50 3.34 40 18.33

Algae at 2.0% 14.57 79.69 3.68 42 20.67

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 15.24 79.50 4.17 44 21.40

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 15.35 79.25 4.20 47 23.00

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 15.49 78.51 4.00 49 24.00

Source: Elham et.al (2010)

Table.7: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on some physical properties of keitte mango tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons

Treatment Fruit width (cm)

Fruit length (cm)

Pulp / fruit (%)

Seed weight (g)

Fruit weight (g)


Control 7.66 10.25 68.04 53.16 400

Yeast at 0.05% 8.05 11.00 75.05 52.23 500

Yeast at 0.1% 8.09 11.40 77.22 50.15 530

Yeast at 0.2% 8.19 12.29 78.60 49.31 560

Algae at 0.5% 8.24 12.44 80.29 48.43 600

Algae at 1.0% 8.43 12.65 80.02 46.36 625

Algae at 2.0% 8.60 13.00 83.21 45.56 650

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 9.32 13.20 84.48 43.36 675

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 9.47 13.36 85.59 41.46 750

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 10.57 14.76 88.33 40.46 800

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

Conti…..

Treatment Fruit width (cm)

Fruit length (cm)

Pulp / fruit (%)

Seed weight (g)

Fruit weight (g)


Control 7.78 12.00 70.01 54.59 500

Yeast at 0.05% 8.32 12.30 72.31 53.37 600

Yeast at 0.1% 8.55 13.13 77.04 51.50 633

Yeast at 0.2% 9.00 14.11 79.16 50.50 660

Algae at 0.5% 9.41 14.32 80.47 49.44 700

Algae at 1.0% 9.69 14.45 84.13 47.34 723

Algae at 2.0% 10.00 15.00 85.33 46.56 750

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 10.25 15.28 86.40 44.26 775

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 10.40 15.63 87.59 42.00 850

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 10.64 16.66 91.45 41.63 866


Table.8: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on fruit characters of keitte mango tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons

Treatment TSS (%) Acidity (%)

Total sugar (%)

Reducing sugar (%)

Vitamin C mg/100 g pulp


Control 17.06 0.35 11.00 5.10 34.50

Yeast at 0.05% 17.46 0.33 11.34 5.43 35.43

Yeast at 0.1% 18.10 0.32 12.10 5.65 35.60

Yeast at 0.2% 18.60 0.30 12.30 6.61 36.41

Algae at 0.5% 18.91 0.28 12.36 6.57 37.00

Algae at 1.0% 18.71 0.27 12.50 7.30 37.61

Algae at 2.0% 18.94 0.25 12.70 7.42 38.40

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 19.36 0.23 13.10 7.50 39.36

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 19.55 0.22 13.16 7.44 39.58

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 20.67 0.20 13.30 7.63 40.00


Conti…

Treatment TSS (%) Acidity (%)

Total sugar (%)

Reducing sugar (%)

Vitamin C mg/100 g pulp


Control 19.00 0.37 15.00 8.40 36.23

Yeast at 0.05% 19.41 0.35 15.26 8.50 36.36

Yeast at 0.1% 20.00 0.34 16.00 8.77 37.10

Yeast at 0.2% 20.52 0.32 16.20 9.76 37.23

Algae at 0.5% 20.68 0.30 16.63 10.23 38.13

Algae at 1.0% 21.48 0.29 16.38 10.33 38.60

Algae at 2.0% 21.55 0.27 16.57 11.03 39.50

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 21.74 0.26 17.00 11.43 40.33

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 21.84 0.24 17.33 11.48 42.00

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 22.78 0.22 17.30 12.19 44.00


Table.9: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on leaf minerals content of keitte mango tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons

Treatment N (%) P (%) K (%) Boron (ppm)


Control 1.030 0.061 0.480 42.00

Yeast at 0.05% 1.050 0.062 0.485 43.80

Yeast at 0.1% 1.070 0.063 0.490 55.70

Yeast at 0.2% 1.080 0.065 0.523 64.30

Algae at 0.5% 1.103 0.067 0.540 82.46

Algae at 1.0% 1.120 0.070 0.600 98.43

Algae at 2.0% 1.128 0.073 0.607 90.60

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 1.130 0.077 0.700 95.34

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 1.137 0.080 0.770 96.50

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 1.770 0.085 0.773 98.43

Conti……. Treatment N (%) P (%) K (%) Boron

(ppm)


Control 1.040 0.071 0.483 43.00

Yeast at 0.05% 1.080 0.072 0.487 46.90

Yeast at 0.1% 1.090 0.074 0.500 56.80

Yeast at 0.2% 1.100 0.076 0.634 65.40

Algae at 0.5% 1.203 0.078 0.650 83.65

Algae at 1.0% 1.220 0.081 0.700 87.52

Algae at 2.0% 1.229 0.084 0.708 91.70

Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 1.230 0.088 0.710 95.43

Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 1.237 0.091 0.740 97.60

Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 1.270 0.100 0.784 99.56


Future strategies

Nutritional research should not be miss the component of organic sources.There is need to develop various models pertaining to INM for the “transfer of technology” to the farming. Community is the different agro climate conditions.The degradation of soil/ soil pollution is the serious problem affecting productivity and agriculture sustainability. So scientific and technology over come this problem

Conclusion Although the balanced application of nutrient organic

sources have been found to increase the yields even higher. The INM through organic sources has resulted in multi- benefits in addition to maximum and stable yield with improve quality.

Judicious and efficient use of organic fertilizers improved soil ecology with less environmental pollution are some of the other benefit accruing from inclusion of INM

INM is the key to enhance the soil productivity and sustained it.

INM has potential particularly in developing counties cattle during is the main source in India.

The technique is cost effective and eco- friendly. INM not only aim at supplying plant nutrient in balanced

from and improving over all soil productivity, but also lower dependency on fossils fuels used in the manufacture to chemical fertilizers.

effect of inm on fruit yield and quality

Documents