ravi final

Components of ecosystem

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi.

UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, BAGALKOT

Seminar - i

Organic farming in turmeric and ginger

Ravi, PujariUHS11PGM142Dept. of PMA.

Organic farming

“Organic farming is a system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, feed additives etc) and to the maximum extent feasible relay upon crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, on-farm organic waste, mineral grade rock additives and biological system of nutrient mobilization and plant protection”.

USDA study team

Biofertilizers

Organic farming

Pest management

Disease management

Crop rotation

Weed management

Commonly used microbes in Organic farming

Pseudomonas

AM fungi

Why organic farming ?

Soil is a medium Biological activity Living soil Use of inorganic fertilizers - eutrophication, increased

soil acidity, enhanced nitrate content in drinking water etc

Indiscriminate use of chemicals – reduced diversity, reduced soil fertility and hazards on health

Aims of organic farming

Food of high nutritional quality. Interact in a constructive and life enhancing way

with natural systems. Encourage and enhance biological cycles. Maintain long term fertility of soils. Use renewable on farm resources Work with materials which can be recycled. Minimize all forms of pollutants which may affect

the farm environment.

Turmeric

B.N : Curcuma longa L.

Family: Zingiberaceae

Order: Scitaminae

Active principle: Curcumin

Origin: South East Asia

The ancient and sacred spice of India

Condiment, dye and in cosmetics

- It is valued as a spice as well as a colourant.

Widely used in folk medicines and ayurvedic preparations.

India - Major production and export, monopoly in production.

Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu, and Bihar are the

important states producing turmeric.

Fig 1: Area share under major spices crops in India.Anon., 2011

China8%

Myanmar4%

Nigeria3%

Bangladesh3%

Others4%India

78%

Fig 2: World production scenario of turmeric in different countries. Anon., 2011

Andra Pradesh47%

Tamil Nadu21%

Karnataka11%

Orissa7%

West Bengal4%

Gu-jarat2%

Megha-laya2%

Kerala1%

Others5%

Fig 3: Production scenario of turmeric in different states. Anon., 2011

Traditional practices in turmeric cultivation Sundararaman et al., 2004

Seed rhizome selection

Pre-planting treatments

Land preparation

Mulching

Mixed cropping

Inter-cropping

Crop protection

Harvesting

Case studies

Response of bioregulants on nutrient uptake of turmeric cv. BSR 2

Sathish and Paramaguru, 2010, Coimbatore

Treatment details:

T1 = Panchagavya 2% foliar spray



T4 = Vermiwash 10% spray

T5 = Vermiwash 20% spray

T6 = Humic acid 0.05% foliar spray



T9 = Extended EM 1% foliar spray



T12 = 100% RDF

T13 = Control Treatments imposed after 1 month of sowing

Table 1: Response of Bioregulants on nutrient uptake of turmeric cv. BSR 2 Sathish and Paramaguru, 2010 , Coimbatore

Treatments Nitrogen %

Phosphorous %

Potassium %

Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha)

Phosphorous uptake

(kg/ha)

Potassium uptake (kg/ha)

T1 0.72 0.17 0.71 221.65 50.11 236.4T2 0.79 0.19 0.77 267.02 58.37 263.5T3 0.67 0.13 0.65 220.4 49.96 219.4T4 0.77 0.18 0.74 257.79 45.16 250.62T5 0.81 0.16 0.69 231.72 55.67 230.12T6 0.84 0.22 0.88 277.81 64.27 270.52T7 0.65 0.13 0.64 216.1 42.12 221.7T8 0.6 0.15 0.62 226.6 50.37 222.16T9 0.75 0.17 0.6 260.32 40.24 261.2T10 0.66 0.14 0.61 244.54 47.6 241.45T11 0.71 0.11 0.7 234.17 41.51 232.12T12 0.59 0.12 0.72 222.97 53.61 239.2T13 0.45 0.1 0.56 201.25 35.8 214.2

Mean 0.6785 0.1562 0.6831 237.1026 48.83 238.66CD (at5%) 0.0233 0.0081 0.0197 5.2664 1.8517 4.2085


Treatment details

SSP = Single Super Phosphate

MRP = Mussorie Rock Phosphate

RP = Rock Phosphate

GP = Gafsa Phosphate

Effect of different sources and combination of phosphates with FYM on P uptake in turmeric Srinivasan et al., 2000 , Calicut

Treatments P uptake in turmeric (kg/ha)

SSP 13.6 0

MRP+SSP 13.5 0

RP+SSP 15.70

GP+SSP 13.4 0

FYM+MRP 15.20

FYM+RP 16.50

FYM+GP 16.50

FYM+SSP 15.80

Check 7 .00

CD(P=0.05) 0.51

Table 2 : Effect of different sources and combination of phosphates with FYM on P uptake in turmeric

Srinivasan et al., 2000, Calicut

Effect of organic manures on growth, rhizome yield and quality attributes of turmeric

Kamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh

Treatment details:

T1 = Cowdung @ 15 t/ha

T2 = Poultry manure @ 7 t/ha

T3 = Mustard cake @ 2 t/ha

T4 = Neem cake @ 2 t/ha

T5 = Control

Treatments imposed 1 week before sowing

TreatmentsPlant height(cm)

No. of leaves

No. of tillers/plant

Leaf area(cm2)

Fresh wt of rhizomes (g/plant)

Dry wt of rhizome (g/plant)

T1 Cowdung (15 t/ha)

73.73 8.13 4.83 36.71 217.8 31.16

T2 Poultry manure (7 t/ha)

72.8 7.14 5.13 42.12 246.97 38.02

T3 Mustard

cake(2 t/ha)74.33 6.37 5.13 35.62 242.52 33.9

T4 Neem cake

(2 t/ha)79.3 8.67 5.4 44.09 256.21 40.35

Control 59.37 5.13 3.47 22.17 87.26 13.91

LSD(0.05) 7.474 0.644 0.767 1.02 1.701 1.017

Table 3 : Effect of organic manures on growth and rhizome yield attributes of turmericKamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh

Treatments Fresh rhizome yield (t/ha)

Curing (%) Cured rhizome yield (t/ha)

Curcumin content (%)

T1 Cowdung (15 t/ha) 21.17 19.21 4.36 3.31

T2 Poultry manure

(7 t/ha)27.30 19.01 5.18 3.5

T3 Mustard cake

(2 t/ha) 22.8 19.03 4.59 3.67

T4 Neem cake (2

t/ha)29.48

20.805.59 3.73

T5 (Control) 14.84 16.54 2.38 3.23

LSD(0.05) 0.473 0.309 0.206 0.061

Table 4 : Effect of organic manures on rhizome yield and quality attributes of turmeric

Kamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh

Effect of organic manure and biofertilizers on growth and yield of turmeric Madhuri et al., 2006,Nagpur

Treatment details:

T1 = FYM 10 t/ha

T2 = FYM 10 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T3 = FYM 10 t/ha + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T4 = FYM 10 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T5 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha

T6 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T7 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T8 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T9 = Azotobacter @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T10 = PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T11 = Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds

T12 =RDF(120:60:60 kg/ha)

T13 = Control

Treatments

Height of Plant

(cm)

No. of leaves /plant

Leaf area (cm2)

Girth of pseudoste

m (cm)

No. of tillers/pla

nt

Days required

for maturity

Fresh yield (q/ha)

B : C ratio

T1 99.7 10.33 1156.22 10.88 2.41 183.48 249.59 1.95:1

T2 103.02 10.75 1190.15 11.07 2.48 182.09 253.52 2.08:1

T3 100.64 10.52 1175.92 11.01 2.44 182.8 252.42 2.01:1

T4 106.59 10.87 1215.27 11.17 2.49 181.48 259.95 2.17:1

T5 91.8 9.81 1027.27 10.46 2.25 186.56 202.33 1.70:1

T6 95.36 9.83 1092.62 1.68 2.33 185.21 224.62 1.74:1

T7 94 9.57 1065.47 10.62 2.28 186.45 207.52 1.71:1

T8 97.39 9.96 1106.12 10.79 2.39 182.65 239.95 1.75:1

T9 88.61 9.05 975.63 11.06 2.29 187.19 189.99 1.61:1

T10 85.85 8.86 929.17 10.16 2.16 187.96 179.59 1.51:1

T11 90.28 9.29 1024.75 10.62 2.39 186.93 194.3 1.84:1

T12 108.96 10.97 1235.18 11.22 2.59 184.52 261.52 2.11:1

T13 83.55 8.64 877.56 10.07 2.08 188.35 174.47 1.40:1CD at

5% 5.16 0.26 39.23 0.24 0.21 2.12 10.54

Table 5: Effect of organic manure and biofertilizers on growth and yield of turmeric

Madhuri et al., 2006,Nagpur

Effect of Azospirillum, nutrient and FYM on growth and yield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Rajendra Sonia.

Singh, 2011, Muzaffarpur

Treatment details:

T1 = Inorganic N (100%) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha) + FYM (5 t/ ha)



T4 = FYM (5 t/ ha) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha)

T5 = FYM (5 t/ ha)

T6 = FYM (10 t/ ha) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha)

T7 = FYM (10 t/ ha)

T8 =RDF 180: 90: 90 Kg NPK/ ha

Treatment

Plant ht

cm

No.of tillers/plt

No.of leaves/ tiller

Yield per plot (kg)

Yield

t/ha

Cost : Benefit

T1 119.38 6.11 12.76 16.98 56.61 1:4.86

T2 117.21 5.33 12.46 15.59 51.97 1:5.27 T3 115.08 4.70 12.18 15.11 50.38 1:4.73 T4 109.51 3.91 11.87 13.42 44.74 1:4.24 T5 103.51 3.70 11.53 13.73 45.72 1:4.40 T6 112.00 4.83 12.16 15.03 50.11 1:4.66 T7 108.78 4.25 11.86 14.79 49.31 1:4.65 T8 103.93 3.90 11.66 12.60 42.00 1:4.11

C.D. @5% 4.95 0.59 1.80 1.29 4.32

Table 6: Effect of organic, inorganic and biofertilizer on growth and yield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Rajendra Sonia.

Singh, 2011, Muzaffarpur

200 days after planting 261 days after planting

TreatmentsPlant height (cm)

No. of leaves /plant

No .of tillers /plant

Leaf area cm2/plant

Yield (g/plant)

Maturity period

days

Shoot biomass (g/plant)

Yield(g/plant)

Control166 ±

7c20.8 ±

1.7a3.2 ± 0.4a

7447 ± 355c

52.0 ± 3.2c

240 68.2 ± 6.1c98.6 ± 10.1d

Chicken manure

175 ± 7b

20.8 ± 2.7a

3.2 ± 0.4a

9870 ± 1141b

71.6 ± 7.4b

25089.6 ± 11.2b

133.0 ± 15.1c

Goat manure

216 ± 8a

23.8 ± 3.5a

4.0 ± 0.9a

13971 ± 1223a

90.6 ± 9.4a

261110.8 ±

5.9a156.0 ±

9.6b

Cow manure

204 ± 13ab

21.6 ± 2.2a

3.6 ± 0.5a

13031 ± 556a

93.3 ± 7.1a

261112.6 ±

9.1a175.4 ±

7.8a

Table 7 : Effect of different kinds of farmyard manure on growth parameters, maturity and yield of turmeric

Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan

Table 8 : Chemical composition of chicken manure, goat manure and cow manure Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan

Manure type

Na mg/kg

manure

Kmg/kg

manure

Camg/kg

manure

Mgmg/kg

manure

Almg/kg

manure

Femg/kg

manure

Pmg/kg

manure

Smg/kg

manure

Chicken manure

2.38 21.13 1.12 1.41 0.00 0.05 2.86 3.57

Goat manure

0.51 25.01 0.41 0.60 0.01 0.01 1.35 1.12

Cow manure

1.54 7.31 0.42 0.25 0.00 0.02 1.04 1.34

Table 9 : Chemical composition of dark-red soil, red, gray soil

Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan

Soil typeK

mg/kg soil

Camg/kg

soil

Namg/kg

soilP

mg/kg soil

Femg/kg

soil

Dark-red soil 6.39 25.0 30.5 0.52 0.25

Red soil 10.32 15.80 55.90 0.76 0.26

Gray soil 42.89 204.20 102.40 4.60 0.16

Table 10 : Effect of farmyard manure on growth parameters and yield of turmeric cultivated in different soils Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan

Treatments Plant height (cm)

No.of leaves/plant

No.of tiller/plant

Shoot dry wt g/plant

Yield (dry) g/plant

Dark-red soil 141± 6bc 18.7 ± 2.6cd 2.5 ± 0.5b 41.2 ± 4.7b 39 ± 6d

Dark-red soil + manure

201 ± 5a 24.7 ± 3.1a 4.3 ± 0.4a 104.7 ± 5.5a 219 ± 16b

Red soil 130 ± 6c 16.2 ± 2.3d 2.3 ± 0.4b 27.8 ± 2.4c 26 ± 4d

Red soil + manure 150 ± 13b 23.2 ± 1.9ab 4.0 ± 0.6a 44.3 ± 3.6b 110 ± 14c

Gray soil 146 ± 10b 20.2 ± 2.7bc 2.7 ± 0.7b 40.7 ± 3.9b 39 ± 4d

Gray soil + manure 204 ± 12a 26.8 ± 4.1a 4.3 ± 0.7a 103.7 ± 6.8a 255 ± 18a

Manure – Cow manure

Biological control of rhizome rot disease of turmeric Surajit and Apurba, 2008, Nadia West Bengal

Treatment details:

T1 = (Recommended NPK) Control

T2 = (NPK + FYM)

T3 = (NPK+ Trichoderma viride + Pseudomonas fluorescence seed treatment )

T4 = (NPK+ Trichoderma viride + Pseudomonas fluorescence as as soil application @ 12.5 kg/ha and 25 kg/ha as basal and top dressing respectively)

T5 = (T2 + T3 )

T6 = (T2 + T4 )

T7 = (T2 + T3 + T4 )

T8 = ( T2 + Bacillus subtilis 1 ml/L of water)

Treatments Germination %

Disease incidence (%)%

reduction in rot over

control

Rhizome yield(kg/3m2 plot)

Projected yield

(ton/ha)First

observationSecond

observation

T1(Control) 91.11 17.50 19.78 -- 7.75 25.83

T2 88.88 15.72 16.67 15.72 8.33 27.77

T3 95.56 5.57 10.55 46.66 8.83 29.43

T4 93.33 7.23 8.69 56.07 8.75 29.17

T5 93.33 5.62 7.19 63.65 8.8 29.33

T6 95.56 7.23 7.23 63.45 9.00 30.00

T7 95.56 5.62 7.23 63.45 9.25 30.83

T8 91.11 15.58 17.5 11.53 8.2 27.33

CD @ 5% -- 4.72 4.48 -- 1.24 --

Table 11 : Biological control of rhizome rot disease of turmeric Surajit and Apurba, 2008, West Bengal

Nematode population (per g of root)

TreatmentsNo . of tillers

Height of plant (cm) Eggs Juveniles Females Total

Paccilomyces lilacinus 2.24 a 129.13 c 5.54 b 0 .00 b 0.46 b 6.00 b

Fusarium oxysporum 2.14 a 134.43 a 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b

Scopulariopsis sp 2.06 a 133.04 b 8.20 ab 1.45 b 1.60 ab 11.25 ab

Aspergillus sp 2.06 a 134.49 a 10.02 ab 6.07 ab 0.00 b 16.09 ab

Pochonia chlamydosporia 2.53 a 134.64 a 3.23 b 8.09 ab 0.00 b 11.32 ab

Control 2.38 a 118.35 d 158.59 a 61.66 a 6.93 a 227.18 a

Table 12: Evaluation of fungal biocontrol agents for suppression of root knot nematodes infesting turmeric

Santosh et al., 2008, Calicut

Effect of various biopesticides and biocides on leaf pest, Udaspes folus of turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu

Treatment details:

T1 = Metarhizium anisopliae

T2 = Beauveria bassiana

T3 = Trichoderma viride

T4 = Hirsutella citriformis

T5 = Nomuraea rileyi

T6 = Neem extract

T7 = Imidachloprid

T8 = Control

Table 13 : Effect of various biopesticides and biocides on mortality leaf pest, Udaspes folus of turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu

TreatmentII instar larva III instar larva

Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

T1( M a) 0.67±0.58c 3.33±0.58C 4.67±0.58c 1.67±0.58b 2±1d 4.7±0.58c

T2 (B b) 0.67±0.58d 2.33±0.58d 4.33±0.58c 1±1d 3.33±0.58f 4.33±1.15d

T3(T v) 0.33±0.58f 1.33±0.58f 2.67±0.58d 0.67±0.58de 2.33±0.58c 2.67±0.58e

T4(H c) 1.67±0.58b 4±0b 6.33±0.58b 1.33±0.58c 3.33±0.58b 7.67±0.58b

T5(N r) 0.33±0.58e 1.67±0.58e 2.67±0.58d 0.33±0.58b 2±0d 2.33±0.58e

T6 (Neem) 1±0e 1.67±0.58e 2.67±0.58d 1.33±0.58c 2±0d 4.33±0.58d

T7(Imida) 2.67±0.58a 6±1a 8.67±0.58a 3±0a 6.67±0.58a 9.67±0.58a

T8 Control 0±0f 1±1f 2.33±0.58e 0.33±0.58f 0±0e 1±1f

CD @ 5% 0.8 1.12 1.02 0.97 1 0.89

Table 14 : Effect of various fungal applications on various growth and yield characters in turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu

TreatmentPlant height

(cm)No. of leaves

affectedDisease

incidence(%)Fresh rhizome

Yield (g)

T1( M a) 131±1 3.67±0.58 37 420.71±1.43

T2 (B b) 127.33±0.76 3.67±0.58 37.5 340.84±4.37

T3(T v) 141.67±1.5 3.00±1 33.3 426.29±6.23

T4(H c) 137.33±2.1 2.67±0.58 22.2 428.86±3.25

T5(N r) 130.31±13 3.33±0.58 36.3 408.05±3.77

T6 (Neem) 124.67±2.1 3.67±1.58 50 375.99±12.04

T7(Imida) 135.33±1.1 2.33±0.58 38.4 370.75±11.62

T8 Control 128±20 6.33±0.58 41.60 339.47±9.82

CD @ 5% 4.03 1.29 -- 18.9

Table 15 : Formulation of natural insecticide against mortality rate of Panchaetothrips indicus in Curcuma longa L. of PTS and Erode varieties in lab conditions Arutselvi et al ., 2012, Tamil Nadu

VARIETY PTS ERODEconc 10% 15% 20% 10% 15% 20%

Azadiracta indica 21.67±1.5e 23±10e 26.33±0.6d 22.67±1.2d 20.67±1.2d 23±1d

Neem Kernel -Vitex negundo 25.33%±1.5f 25.67±1.2f 27.67±1.5e 23±1d 23.67±1.5e 25.33±0e

Chrysanthemumcinearifolium 21.67±1.5e 21.67±2.1d 25.67±1.5d 22.67±1.5d 22.67±1.5e 24.67±0.6de

Gloriosa superba 19.33±0.6d 21±1d 23±1c 18±1c 19.33±0.6d 22.33±0.6d

Aloe vera 10.33±1.5b 13.33±1.5b 19±1b 16.33±1.2c 15.67±2.1c 19.33±0.6e

Ocimum. tenuiflorum 12.67±2c 17.33±1.5c 19±1b 1.3±0.6a 12±0b 14.67±1.5b

Imidachloprid 29.33±0.6g 29±1g 29.33±1.2f 27±1e 26.67±1.5f 26.33±0.6f

Control 0.33±0.6a 3±1a 1.67±1.2a 2±1b 1.67±0.6a 1±0a

Ginger

Ginger

B.N : Zingiber officinale R.

Family: Zingiberaceae

Order: Scitaminae

Active principle: Zingerone / Gingerol

Origin: South East Asia

• Commerce - dried rhizome.• Marketed as raw ginger, dry ginger, bleached ginger, ginger oil,

oleoresin, beer, wine, squash etc. • Dry ginger has good demand abroad especially in the Middle

East markets.• India is the largest exporter of dry ginger.• Ginger is cultivated in almost all states in India.

• Major growing states are

Kerala, Orissa, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka.

Table 16: Area, production and productivity of ginger. Anon., 2011

Year Area (ha) Production (tons)Productivity

(tons/ ha)

2003 - 04 1,07,780 5,45,280 4.3

2004 - 05 1,14,730 6,47,160 4.6

2005 - 06 1,25,847 8,10,934 4.9

2006 - 07 1,29,014 7,21,539 5.3

2007 - 08 1,20,056 7,10,476 5.2

2008 - 09 1,38,479 7,95,028 5.8

2010 - 2011 1,49,576 8,25,635 5.9

Traditional practices in ginger cultivation Prakash et al., 2004

Selection of seed rhizome Sunning and tiringPre-sowing treatment Land preparation PlantingMixed crops Harvesting Drying

Treatment details:

T1 = FYM (10 t/ ha)

T2 = FYM (20 t/ ha)

T3 = Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)

T4 = Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (20 t/ ha)

T5 = N 30% + Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)



T8 = RDF ( NPK - 100:50:50 kg/ha )

Effect of Azospirillum and nutrient on yield, disease incidence and quality of ginger cv. Suprabha. Dash et al., 2008, Orissa

Table 17: Effect of Azospirillum and nutrient on yield, disease incidence and quality of ginger cv. Suprabha. Dash et al., 2008, Orissa

TreatmentFresh

rhizome yield (t/ ha)

Rhizome rot (%)

Essential oil (%)

Oleoresin (%) Benefit: Cost

T1 9.54 21 1.0 4.6 1.27

T2 10.47 17 1.2 4.8 1.37

T3 10.23 16 1.0 5.0 1.36

T4 11.04 14 1.2 5.2 1.44

T5 13.65 12 1.2 5.3 1.80

T6 15.12 13 1.0 5.4 1.97

T7 18.70 11 1.3 5.8 3.46

T8 17.30 18 1.3 5.2 3.44

C.D. @ 5% 1.35 1.05 0.09 NS

The effect of AM fungal isolates on the development and oleoresin production of micropropagated Zingiber officinale Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil

Treatment details: Ctl = Control Mix= Mix of all four isolates P= Phosphorous Sh= Scutellospora heterogamaGd= Gigaspora decipiensAk= Acaulospora koskeiEc= Entrophospora colombiana

Table 18 : The effect of AM fungal isolates on vegetative development of micropropagated Zingiber officinale (120 and 210 DAP) Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil

TreatmentsShoot height

(cm)Shoot dry

biomass (g)Shoot height

(cm)Shoot dry

biomass (g)

Control 3.38 ± 1.50 b 0.056 ± 0.02 bc 3.54 ± 1.36 c 0.061 ± 0.046 a

Phosphorus 8.18 ± 1.28 a 0.100 ± 0.019 a 7.90 ± 2.32 ab 0.085 ± 0.021 a

Mix 8.98 ± 13.6 a 0.092 ± 0.17 ab 9.22 ± 1.51 a 0.093 ± 0.038 a

Scutellospora heterogama 4.44 ± 1.60 b 0.054 ± 0.012 c 4.16 ± 1.17 c 0.048 ± 0.031 a

Gigaspora decipiens 6.10 ± 1.85 ab 0.080 ± 0.029 abc 5.46 ± 1.58 bc 0.061 ± 0.002 a

Acaulospora koskei 6.40 ± 2.48 ab 0.082 ± 0.020 abc 10.14 ± 2.35 a 0.092 ± 0.036 a

Entrophospora colombiana 6.46 ± 0.68 ab 0.070 ± 0.000 abc 5.56 ± 0.74 bc 0.071 ± 0.003 a

VAM – 10 ml / 400 ml plastic pot

Table 19: Spore numbers and percentage of mycorrhizal root colonization in micro propagated ginger inoculated with different AM Fungi. Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil

Treatments Mycorrhizal colonization (%) Spore numbers (in 30 g soil)

120 d 210 d 120 d 210 d

Mix 43.45 ± 21.30 a 23.40 ± 8.46 b 154 ± 37.42 a 260 ± 129.34 a

Scutellospora heterogama 14.76 ± 9.04 a 5.75 ± 1.30 b 105 ± 121.24 a 60 ± 49.58 a

Gigaspora decipiens 17.80 ± 10.00 b 58.95 ± 6.13 a 49 ± 32.22 a 53 ± 41.42 a

Acaulospora koskei 29.82 ± 12.47 a 28.42 ± 16.04 a 123 ± 90.76 a 298 ± 166.45 a

Entrophospora colombiana 26.50 ± 13.75 a 5.39 ± 3.85 a 25 ± 37.14 a 97 ± 136.02 a

Table 20: Rhizome fresh biomass and levels of oleoresin after 210 days of micro propagated ginger plants inoculated with different AM Fungi Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil

Treatments Fresh biomass (g)Yield of oleoresin

(%)

Control 0.1454 ± 0.2333 0.99

P (25 mg/ kg ) 0.3471 ± 0.1836 1.60

Mix 0.2730 ± 0.1994 1.02

Scutellospora heterogama 0.1000 ± 0.2040 1.48

Gigaspora decipiens 0.2166 ± 0.2113 1.02

Acaulospora koskei 0.3331 ± 0.2445 1.58

Entrophospora colombiana 0.1466 ± 0.1488 0.72

Fig 4: Effects of AM fungi and phosphorous fertilization on post vitro growth of micro propagated ginger

Rosilda et al., 2010, Brazil

C M P MP C M P MP

C = Control, M = Mycorrihizal, P = Phosphorous, MP = Mycorrihizal +Phosphorous

Table 21 : Shoot, root and rhizome biomass of micro propagated ginger after five months under distinct mycorrhizal and phosphorous treatments Rosilda et al., 2010, Brazil

Treatment Shoot wt (g/plt) Root wt (g/plt) Rhizome wt (g/plt)

Control 0.17 ± 0.07 b 0.03 ± 0.01 b 0.06 ± 0.08 b

Mycorrhiza 1.00 ± 0.13 a 0.20 ± 0.08 a 0.19 ± 0.07 a

P (25 mg/kg) 0.84 ± 0.17 a 0.22 ± 0.05 a 0.20 ± 0.07 a

MP 0.95 ± 0.13 a 0.20 ± 0.09 a 0.20 ± 0.02 a

Spore density – 416 spores/50 g soil)

chemical propertiers of Vermicompost and biogas slurry on oven dry basis Table 22 : Productivity of ginger influenced by Vermicompost and biogas

slurry as amendment in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan

Chemical propertiers

Vermicompost Biogas slurry

(EC = dS m -1) 1.8 6.7

pH 6.91 8.36

N (%) 1.8 1.6

P (%) 0.58 1.65

K (%) 0.71 0.60

Na (%) 0.09 0.23

Treatment details

T1 = Control

T2 = Vermicompost (VC-500 g/20 kg of soil)

T3 = Biogas slurry ( BS – 500 ml/20 kg of soil)

T4 = T2 + T3

Treatments induced after 3 and 7 months of sowing

Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan

Fig 5: Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan

1 - Incorporation in soil 2 - rhizome coating

Treatment

Yield

(kg - 3 X 1 m bed)Nematodes/g root

1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean

Control 3.83 b 2.46 c 3.98 c 13.49 b 35.31 b 24.40 b

P. chlamydosporia 5.90 a 5.29 a 5.83 a 2.88 a 1.01 a 1.95 a

T. harzianum 5.69 a 5.27 a 5.15 a 7.68 ab 6.26 ab 6.97 ab

F. oxysporoum 4.46 b 5.04 a 4.75 ab 37.55 ab 9.79 ab 23.67 b

Mean 4.97 4.77 15.4 13.09

Table 23 : Evaluation of fungal bioagents for suppression of root knot nematodes infesting in ginger Santosh et al., 2008, Calicut

Means are of four replications

Treatment details

T1 = Control

T2 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c for 10min

T3 = Seed treatment with Mancozeb (3gm L-1 for 30min)

T4 = Seed treatment with T. harzianum 20g L-1 water for 30min

T5 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c for 10min + T3

T6 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c+100gm T. harzianum in 1Kg neem cake at

sowing time

T7 = Application of neem cake 1Kg in soil at the time of sowing

T8 = Neem cake 1Kg + 100gm T. harzianum in 3Kg FYM mixed for 7 days before

sowing and watering regularly

Bio-intensive management of rhizome rot of ginger under field conditions Singh and Tomar, 2009, Chhattisgarh

Table 24: Bio-intensive management of rhizome rot of ginger under field conditions Singh and Tomar, 2009, Chhattisgarh

TreatmentsDisease incidence (%)

Pooled Disease incidence (%) Yield t ha-1 Pooled

Yield t /ha

2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07

T1 19.5 17.5 18.5 6.8 10.19 8.5

T2 20 18 19 6.3 10.9 8.6

T3 20.5 18 19.25 5.8 9 8.4

T4 22 20.5 21.25 5.5 11.05 8.3

T5 16.5 14.5 15.5 7.5 11.85 9.8

T6 8 5.5 6.75 8.2 15.87 12.03

T7 14 14 14 7.1 12.46 9.7

T8 6.5 4.5 5.5 9.8 17.08 13.4

CD(0.05%) 1.73 1.69 1.54 1.72 1.37 1.46

Treatment details:

T1 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L

T2 = Soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha

T3 = Mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2

T4 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha

T5 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2

T6 = Soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2

T7 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2

T8 = Control

Evaluation of biological management module packages against rhizome rot of ginger Savita and Prasad, 2009, Jharkhand

Table 25 : Evaluation of biological management module packages against rhizome rot of ginger Savita and Prasad, 2009, Jharkhand

Treatments Germination(%) Incidence (%) Disease control(%) Yield (q/ha)

T1 75 33.75 18.83 76.68

T2 71.25 38.33 7.82 74.4

T3 67.08 37.92 8.8 71.1

T4 75.83 29.58 28.86 87.41

T5 73.33 31.25 24.83 79.08

T6 71.25 37.08 10.82 76.24

T7 80 23.33 43.89 97.26

Control 62.92 41.58 - 69.2

SEm ± 2.53 1.86 3.17

CD (5%) NS 5.38 9.18

CV% 7.52 9.02 6.95

• Organic inputs are capable of replacing chemicals

from agriculture

• Organic farming safeguards soil and human health

• Helps in production of quality food

• It helps in maintaining the yields on long run

• Eco friendly, sustainable and residue free

THANK YOU

ravi final

Documents

foliar sprayt3

foliar sprayt2

foliar sprayt10

foliar sprayt11

foliar sprayt9

foliar sprayt7

foliar sprayt8

foliar sprayt4