IMPACT OF ORGANIC AMENDMENTS ON SOIL QUALITY, PLANT GROWTH AND

YIELD OF CROP

Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, ParbhaniCollege of Agriculture, Latur-413512

PREPARED BYCHETAN KUMAR C2015A/40MLDEPT. OF SSACCOA, LATUR

Research GuideDr. P.H.VAIDYAASSOCIATE PROFESSORDEPT. OF SSACCOA, LATUR

Master’s Seminar (SOILS 591)

What do you mean by organic amendments ?

• An organic amendment is any material of plant or animal origin that can be added to the soil to improve its physical, chemical and biological properties.

Objectives : To know the effect of application of organic amendments on Soil Quality. To Know the effect of application of organic amendments on plant growth and yield.

Organic soil amendments Farm Yard Manure

Compost

Municipal solid Waste Compost

Vermicompost

Sheep and Goat Manure

Poultry Manure

Green Manure

Concentrated Organic Manure( Bird guano, Fish guano, Fish manure,

Raw bonemeal, Steamed bonemeal, Blood meal)Etc…….

Schematic representation of the effect of organic amendments on soil properties by acting as a source of carbon and nitrogen.

Scotti et al.(2015)

Classification of organic amendments Organic manure

Bulky organic manure Concentrated organic manure

FYM CompostNight soil Sewage sludgeSheep and goat manurePoultry manurePig manure

Green manure Plant origin Animal originMeat bone meal Fish meal Bone meal blood meal

Non edible Pongamia, neem, castor,Cotton, linseed, mustard, mahuva

Edible Ground nut, sunflower,Safflower, soybean, sesamum

InsituCowpea Dhaincha Beersem

ExsituPongamia NeemGlyricidia

CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIC AMENDMENTS

1. Bulky organic manure (NPK %)

FYM0.52 : 0.33 : 0.38

VERMICOMPOST0.55 : 0.19 ; 1.74

PRESS MUD0.85 : 1.15 : 1.74

SEWAGE SLUDGE 3.0 :2.0 : 1 %

POULTRY MANURE1.0 : 1.4 :0.8

SHEEP AND GOAT MANURE0.65 :0.5: 0.03

PIG MANURE0.6 :0.5:0.2

CATTLE MANURE0.5: 0.3 0.9

BUFFALO MANURE0.7:0.4:0.4

Anon., 1997 Gaur et al., 1990

Sesbenia rostrata (24.90 t/ha)0.70 : 0.30: 0.50 %

Vigna sinensis (15.0 t/ha )0.50 : 0.40 : 0.60

Glyricidia maculata (3.0 t/ha )0.80 :0.10 :0.70

Green manures ( nutrient contribution % )

Crotolaria junicea (21.20 t/ha)0.50 :0.10: 0.40 %

Sesbania aculeata (20.20 t/ha)1.10:0.20:0.40 %

Pongamia pinneta (3 t/ha )0.2 :0.2 : 0.8

Anon ., 1997

2. Concentrated organic manures

Castor cake4.3 : 1.8 : 1.3 %

Neem cake 5.2 : 1.0 :1.4 %

Linseed cake 4.9 : 1.4 :1.3 %

Anon ., 1997

Bone meal3-4 :20-25 :0

Fish meal 4-10: 3-9: 0.3-1.5

3. Liquid manures

Cattle urine1.2 : traces : 0.75 %

Buffalo urine1.8 :0.3 :0.2 %

Panchayagvya0.24 : 0.032 : 0.056

Jeevmrutha2.13 :0.20 : 0.39

Beejamrutha1.75 : 0.26 : 0.38

Problems of soil which can be reclaimed by addition of organic ammendments -Salinity

Sodicity

Hard pan soil

Physically poor soil

Effect of organic ammendments in soil.(i) The decomposition of organic matter, evolution of CO2 and certain

organic acids.

(ii) Lowering of pH and the release of cations by solubilization of CaCO3 and

other soil minerals.

(iii) Replacement of exchangeable Na by Ca and Mg and thereby lowering the

ESP.

(iv) Physical properties like bulk density, porosity, void ratio, water

permeability and hydraulic conductivity are significantly improved.

(v) Increases soil aggregation and aggregate stability; increases the CEC

(the ability to attract and retain nutrients); and contributes N, P and

other nutrients.

Vital role of soil organic amendments

• Improve soil structure and aeration

• Increase water-holding capacity

• Increase availability of water to plants

• Reduce compaction and hardpan conditions

• Improve drainage

• Alkali soil reclamation

• Release of “locked” nutrients

• Better chemical incorporation

• Better root development

• Higher yields and quality

Table : 1. Effect of application of biogas poultry manure on some chemical properties of soil at harvest of maize.

Treatments PH EC (ds/m)

OC Available nutrients (kg/ha)

Micronutrients content (mg/kg)

N P2O5 K20 Fe

Mn Cu Zn

T1-State recommendation dose of fertilizers

8.19 0.09 0.51 200.55 33.51 193.39 15.89 56.19 2.00 3.38

T2- 50% N through biogas poultry manure

8.20 0.09 0.53 206.24 38.60 196.37 15.27 57.91 2.29 4.53

T3- 75% N through biogas poultry manure

8.25 0.09 0.55 217.32 39.65 219.15 17.48 60.56 2.30 4.75

T4- 100%N through biogas poultry manure

8.20 0.09 0.59 238.33 45.29 228.11 16.98 61.74 2.32 4.79

T5- 50% N through poultry manure

8.18 0.09 0.58 229.74 39.47 209.44 15.59 60.13 2.15 4.33

T6- 75% N through poultry manure

8.27 0.08 0.59 254.08 44.64 218.77 15.42 58.35 2.11 4.21

T7- 100%N through poultry manure

8.23 0.09 0.57 272.93 46.83 226.99 14.70 63.39 2.28 4.42

T8- Absolute control 8.25 0.09 0.58 196.54 29.09 178.56 17.00 55.33 2.01 3.64

SE (m)+ 0.03 0.004 0.03 11.25 1.72 6.59 1.02 2.93 0.07 0.13

CD at 5% - - - 34.44 5.26 20.17 - - 0.22 0.40

CV (%) 0.56 7.67 8.13 8.22 7.50 5.46 11.06 8.57 5.75 5.52Chandra Deepak, et al. (2009)

Table-2. Effect of different amendments on some chemical characteristics of soil after harvest of wheat.

Treatments Depth (cm) SAR ESP %

control0-15 15.6 17.915-30 15.1 17.430-60 14.8 17.0

Mean 15.2 17.4

FYM0-15 7.44 8.8515-30 8.24 9.8230-60 8.13 9.69

Mean 7.93 9.45

Compost0-15 8.06 9.6115-30 7.98 9.5130-60 8.53 10.2

Mean 8.19 9.76CD (P=0.05) 0.21 0.23

Abd Elrahman et al.(2012)

16

Table-3. Effect of inorganic fertilizers, organic manures and crop residues management on pH, electrical conductivity, organic carbon, and available N, P and K status of soil (0-0.15 m) in rice- wheat cropping system

Fertilizer management in rice

pH EC (dS m-1)

Organic C (g kg-1)

Available N (kg ha-1)

Available P (kg ha-1)

Available K (kg ha-1)

100% NPK 7.52 0.32 3.44 139 38.9 113

100% NPK 7.42 0.31 4.59 152 49.0 136

FYM+50% NPK 7.30 0.30 4.40 1.68 53.0 155

FYM+50% NPK 7.30 0.30 4.70 170 59.2 155

FYM+100% NPK 7.29 0.26 4.94 173 65.2 160

GM+50% NPK 7.31 0.30 4.59 166 52.3 148

GM+50% NPK 7.15 0.28 4.72 168 53.1 153

GM+100% NPK 7.22 0.29 4.87 173 57.8 157

LSD (P=0.05) 0.17 Ns 0.55 15 9.0 24

Initial status 7.6 0.36 3.70 119 25.0 123

Balwinder kumar, et al (2008)

Table-4. Influence of soil amendments and their methods of application on soil parameters in dry land crops.

parameters soil depth (cm)

Initial status Chemical fertilizer

FYM

Water holding capacity (%)

0-15 4.7 4.8 5.1

15-30 5.46 5.5 5.8

pH 0-15 6.0 6.1 6.3

15-30 6.2 6.3 6.3

EC (ds/m) 0-15 0.06 0.07 0.08

15-30 0.09 1.00 0.07

OC 0-15 0.51 0.50 0.54

15-30 0.53 0.52 0.56

Subbareddy et al.(2004)

Table-5. Effect of organic manures application on pH, EC, organic carbon and major nutrient status of post harvest soil in rice.

Treatments pH EC dsm1

OC% Available nutrient kg/ha

N P K

S1=Farm yard manure +composted poultry manure

7.77 0.67 0.74 295.2 17.3 592.9

S2=Farm yard manure +composted coir pith 7.78 0.66 0.74 277.8 16.8 583.0

S3=Farm yard manure + green leaf manure 7.71 0.65 0.78 289.7 17.5 626.3

S4=Composted poultry manure + composted coir pith

7.77 0.70 0.77 290.1 17.4 595.8

S5=Composted poultry manure +green leaf manure

7.65 0.64 0.79 301 .1 17.5 643.7

S6=Composted coir pith +green leaf manure 7.73 0.69 0.75 298.3 16.9 619.1

S7=Recommended NPK through fertilizers 7.70 0.65 0.68 270.4 16.7 615.8

Mean 7.73 0.66 0.75 288.9 17.1 610.9

SE d 0.02 0.01 0.01 5.08 0.11 3.08

CD (p=0.05) 0.03 0.03 0.02 10.48 10.22 6.35

Yadav and Christopher, (2004)

Table-6. Effect of organic manures application on secondary and micronutrient status of post harvest soil in rice crop.

Treatments Exchangeable cations (C mol (p+)kg-1

Total nutrients (ppm)

Ca Mg Na Fe Mn Zn Cu

S1=Farm yard manure +composted poultry manure

14.92 7.26 3.25 1858.5 291.1 27.19 29.40

S2=Farm yard manure +composted coir pith 11.72 6.92 2.92 1851.2 287.6 23.87 27.39

S3=Farm yard manure + green leaf manure 15.79 7.63 3.54 1883.1 356.0 27.69 33.24

S4=Composted poultry manure + composted coir pith

15.28 7.43 3.31 1864.4 324.9 24.32 26.17

S5=Composted poultry manure +green leaf manure

16.35 8.01 3.76 1893.1 400.2 30.54 39.04

S6=Composted coir pith +green leaf manure 14.32 7.16 3.26 1869.8 292.2 24.84 27.00

S7=Recommended NPK through fertilizers 12.96 6.76 2.97 1824.0 210.8 22.89 29.13

Mean 14.48 7.31 3.29 1863.4 309.0 25.91 30.19

SE d 1.07 0.04 0.05 5.11 12.78 0.35 0.48

CD (p=0.05) 2.21 0.08 0.10 10.55 26.39 0.73 0.99

Yadav and Christopher, (2004)

Treatments N P2O5 K2O

Control 150.85 13.15 223.85

RDF 208.85 30.29 308.35

75 N + 25 FYM 213.30 35.16 314.80

50 N + 50 FYM 215.65 35.95 315.90

25 N + 75 FYM 216.05 36.38 316.15

100 FYM 216.95 36.38 316.15

75 N + 25 Vermicompost 219.05 37.45 317.50

50 N + 50 Vermicompost 221..50 38.28 318.35

25 N + 75 Vermicompost 221.90 38.45 318.70

100 Vermicompost 222.20 32.67 318.95

75 N + 25 Poulty Manure 216.70 36.65 316.85

50 N + 50 Poulty Manure 219.15 37.52 317.85

25 N + 75 Poulty Manure 220.25 37.83 318.00

100 Poulty Manure 221.05 37.98 318.15

S.Ed.± 1.13 0.37 0.52

CD (P=0.05) 2.30 0.75 1.05

Table- 7. Effect of organic manures and Nitrogen levels on soil in maize-soyabean cropping system

Gopal Reddy et al. (1998)

Treatments 0 10 days 20 days 30 days 40days 50 days 60 daysMedium black calcareous soilControl 1.12 2.66 4.64 5.39 2.66 1.67 1.25

Soil + neem cake 1.63 21.34 25.35 28.66 22.66 20.66 19.33

Soil + Karanja cake 1.64 15.33 23.33 25.99 22.00 19.33 18.66

Soil + Pilu cake 1.61 15.99 21.33 23.00 20.67 17.99 16.66

Soil + Kusum cake 1.55 12.00 19.35 22.00 18.66 15.99 15.32

Soil + Pisa cake 1.45 9.33 17.33 19.33 15.33 14.00 12.67

Soil + Castor cake 1.41 8.66 15.99 17.99 23.23 22.00 20.00

Lateritic soilControl 1.24 2.51 4.65 5.95 2.76 1.95 1.33

Soil + neem cake 1.85 18.33 25.74 37.32 22.67 21.33 19.34

Soil + Karanja cake 1.70 16.67 21.11 28.32 21.95 20.25 19.76

Soil + Pilu cake 1.65 16.46 22.66 25.35 21.01 18.55 17.73

Soil + Kusum cake 1.5 12.58 20.61 22.85 19.91 17.71 16.52

Soil + Pisa cake 1.47 10.35 17.57 20.66 17.21 15.54 14.36

Soil + Castor cake 1.36 9.33 15.62 19.34 32.66 31.00 29.00

Korah and Shingte (1988)

Table 8. Content of ammonical N in soils treated with non edible oil cakes, mg/100g soil

Table-9. Effect of biogas poultry manure on yield of maize (q/ha).

Treatments Cob (q/ha) Seed (q/ha)

Stover (q/ha)

T1- State recommendation dose of fertilizers 38.19 20.47 34.11

T2- 50% N through biogas poultry manure 43.73 33.10 32.11

T3- 75% N through biogas poultry manure 42.81 32.67 38.32

T4- 100%N through biogas poultry manure 50.31 40.73 39.54

T5- 50% N through poultry manure 43.73 33.10 32.11

T6- 75% N through poultry manure 45.50 34.56 34.62

T7- 100%N through poultry manure 45.86 35.03 38.65

T8- Absolute control 34.52 25.21 29.29

SE (m)+ 1.38 0.64 1.76

CD at 5% 4.17 1.97 5.35

CV (%) 8.60 3.41 8.50

Chandra Deepak, et al. (2009)

Table-10. Effect of methods of application of farmyard manure on yields of dry land crops.

Treatments seed yield (kg/ha)

sorghum 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mean

FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 1301 778 4025 2558 2242 3950 2623 2497

FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 1268 730 4014 1413 1802 3138 2266 2090

RDF 1339 633 3628 1015 1519 2516 1988 1805

CD( P=0.05) NS NS 160 118 412 683 109 370

Pigeon peaFYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 486 610 2257 1443 861 427 474 937

FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 438 602 1899 1024 799 404 351 788

RDF 371 492 1650 929 616 346 232 662

CD( P=0.05) 62 95 270 114 NS 43 56 131

castorFYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 657 1162 1858 1534 2463 1693 1056 1492

FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 899 904 1658 1470 1837 1186 809 1252

RDF 876 484 1293 1097 1679 975 653 1008

CD( P=0.05) NS 152 183 160 480 363 199 222

sunflowerFYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 678 1853 1052 1463 1064 969 1147

FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 563 1675 691 1065 1267 860 1020

RDF 690 1695 641 853 636 750 878

CD( P=0.05) NS 136 157 146 245 60 190

Subbareddy et al.(2004)

Table-11. Grain yield and stover yield of sweet sorghum as influenced by FYM, sewage sludge and urban compost

Treatments Grain yield (q /ha)

Stover yield (t/ha )

Sewage sludge @ 5.3 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 32.71 12.06

Urban compost @ 11 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 36.52 13.03

FYM @ 14.7 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 20.82 8.15

Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 5,5 t/ha (50 kg/ha )

34.74 12.30

Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 8.2 t/ha (75 kg/ha)

26.60 10.67

Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + FYM @ 7.35 t/ha (50 kg/ha )

23.52 9.78

Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + FYM @ 11..02 t/ha (75 kg/ha )

21.20 8.93

RDF : 100:75: 40 Kg NPK /ha 29.11 11.25

control 14.80 7.07

SE (m) +_ 1.37 0.33

CD (P= 0.05) 4.12 1.00

Rukmangada reddy et al., (2007 )

Treatments Length of cob (cm)

Weight of cobs per plant (g)

Weight of 100 grains

(g)

No. of grains per

row

Grain yield

(t ha-1)

Stover yield

(t ha-1)

T1: RDF 24.80 120.86 30.03 39.00 5.84 14.77

T2: castor cake 20.30 112.06 26.66 34.90 5.71 14.53

T3: jatropha cake 21.40 113.23 26.00 34.30 5.75 14.58

T4: pongamia cake 22.83 114.46 25.63 35.40 5.80 14.72

T5: castor cake + fertilizer 24.36 117.70 28.36 38.00 5.89 14.95

T6: jatropha cake + fertilizer 23.63 116.70 26.93 37.60 5.86 14.81

T7: pongamia cake + fertilizer

27.00 122.86 31.33 39.50 5.93 14.99

T8: FYM 5 t ha-1 18.00 92.60 25.30 24.00 4.07 10.09

SEm ± 0.389 1.92 0.65 0.22 0.009 0.021

CD (P = 0.05) 1.33 2.95 1.72 1.018 0.207 0.031

Table 12. Effect of oil cakes application on yield parameters of maize

Udaya (2008)

Table-13. Effect of biogas poultry manure on fodder yield of cowpea (q/ha). Treatments Yield (q/ha)

T1- Recommended dose of fertilizers 34.8

T2- 50% N through biogas poultry manure 37.5

T3- 75% N through biogas poultry manure 37.1

T4- 100%N through biogas poultry manure 41.8

T5- 50% N through poultry manure 40.5

T6- 75% N through poultry manure 39.6

T7- 100%N through poultry manure 39.7

T8- Absolute control 31.9

Mean 37.9

SE (m)+ 1.23

CD (P=0.05) 3.56

Shanti et al., (2015)

Table-14. Effect of animal urine application and its dilution on germination and biomass production of fodder maize.

Gangaiah, et al., (2004)

Treatment Germination percentage

Biomass production (g/plant)

Green Dry

(urine : water dilution)

Buffalo urine

Cattle urine

Buffalo urine

Cattle urine

Buffalo urine

Cattle urine

Control (water alone )

100.0 100.0 2.54 2.54 0.676 0.676

1:1 (50:50ml) 82.5 75.0 1.78 1.61 0.124 0.377

1:3 (25:75ml) 87.5 87.5 2.23 2.12 0.514 0.486

1:9(10:90ml) 100.0 100.0 2.36 2.29 0.539 0.546

SE m+ 0.9 1.4 0.13 0.097 0.0025 0.0131

CD (P=0.05) 3.1 4.3 0.40 0.30 0.008 0.041

CV (%) 1.7 2.6 9.9 7.8 0.8 4.72

Table-15. Effect of animal shed washings on growth and fodder production of maize in field conditions

Treatment Plant height (cm)

Leaves per plant

Leaf: stem ratio

Fodder yield (tones /ha )Green dry

Control 144.2 11.0 0.54 31.2 7.12

100kg N 247.8 13.9 0.64 53.3 12.07

Animal shed washing 271.8 14.4 0.67 58.4 12.99

SE m + 4.90 0.18 0.01 0.85 0.17

CD ( P= 0.05) 14.16 0.52 0.03 2,54 0.50

CV ( %) 6.96 4.25 5.03 5.67 4.99

Gangaiah, et al., (2004)

Table-16. Growth parameters and dry matter accumulation in sweet sorghum as influenced by FYM, Sewage sludge and Urban compost

Treatments Plant height (cm)

Internodal (length )

Girth of the stem

(cm)

Dry matter ( g/plant )

Sewage sludge @ 5.3 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 227.0 22.82 1.79 119.86

Urban compost @ 11 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 234.3 24.09 1.86 123.46

FYM @ 14.7 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 210.8 21.97 1.70 106.48

Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 5,5 t/ha (50 kg/ha )

231.8 23.90 1.80 122.56

Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 8.2 t/ha (75 kg/ha)

221.7 23.47 1.76 116.41

Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + FYM @ 7.35 t/ha (50 kg/ha )

220.0 22.30 1.74 115.63

Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + FYM @ 11..02 t/ha (75 kg/ha )

218.7 22.20 1.72 113.07

RDF : 100:75: 40 Kg NPK /ha 226.5 22.66 1.79 117.97

control 205.6 19.30 1.55 99.97

SE (m) +_ 6.64 0.43 0.04 1.58

CD (P= 0.05) 20.8 1.29 0.12 4.01

Rukmangada reddy et al., (2007 )

CONCLUSION

Application of organic amendments improve the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil.

The application of urban compost @ 11t/ha resulted in higher yield and improved plant growth of sweet sorghum.

Application of organic manures significantly reduced the soil pH and increased the soil organic carbon content , which were higher than plots treated with recommended NPK through fertilizers in rice crop.

Available N , P and K, exchangeable Ca Mg, Na total Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu of soil after harvest of crop were significantly higher in organic manures applied field as compared to recommended NPK through fertilizers.

Organic amendments supply all the essential nutrients for plants growth.

This indicated that the application of organic amendments improves the soil quality, plant growth and yield of crop.

 

“ Feed the soil rather than feeding the plant….”

Thank you….