seminar (pawan kumar nagar)
TRANSCRIPT
1Welcome….
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Major GuideDr. B. N. Satodiya
Principle & Unit OfficerSeth D. M. Polyt. in
Horticulture, Model farm, AAU, Vadodara
Co-GuideDr. H. L. Dadhuk
Associate ProfessorDepartment of Genetics &
Plant Breeding,B.A.C.A., A.A.U., Anand
Advance production technology of guava
SPEAKER Pawan Kumar NagarM.Sc. (Hort.) 3rd sem.
Fruit ScienceDepartment of
HorticultureBACA, AAU, Anand 2
Content
Propagation Planting Cultivars
Pruning/Rejuvenation
Crop regulation
Growth regulators/
Micro-nutrient
Post harvest management Conclusion Future
thrust
Irrigation
Manure &fertilizers
3
INTRODUCTION
4
5
INTRODUCTION Guava is also known as the “Apple of tropics” It is common fruits of the tropical and sub-tropical regions Guava is the fourth most important fruit of India It is precocious and prolific bearer, having good quality with
high nutritive value, medicinal attributes It is used both as fresh fruit and after processing by
preparation of jelly, toffee, candy, pulp, juice, jam, guava nectar etc.
It is rich source of Vitamin-C (299mg/100g)
5
Nutritive value of guava/100g fruitConstituents Range valueTotal sugars 5.0-10.25 g
Protein 0.9-1.40 gCrude Fat 0.10-0.70 gVitamin A 250 IUVitamin C 205-10 mg
Niacin 0.20-2.30 mgThiamine 0.06-0.20 mgRiboflavin 0.04-0.20 mgCalcium 10.50-31.80 mg
Phosphorus 21.00-39.60 mgIron 0.55-1.36 mg 6
Constituents Range valueTotal sugars 5.0-10.25 g
Protein 0.9-1.40 gCrude Fat 0.10-0.70 gVitamin A 250 IUVitamin C 299 mg
Niacin 0.20-2.30 mgThiamine 0.06-0.20 mgRiboflavin 0.04-0.20 mgCalcium 10.50-31.80 mg
Phosphorus 21.00-39.60 mgIron 0.55-1.36 mg
Nutritional value of Guava/100g fruit
6
Scenario of guava
Year 2014 – 2015
Guava Area(in’000 ha)
Production (in Lakh T)
Productivity(Mt/ha)
India 251.02 40.8 16.3
Gujarat 10.81 1.40 13.3
NHB, Database (2014-15)
7
Leading guava producing states
NHB, Database (2013-14)8
Production Statistics of guava
NHB, Database (2013-14)9
Guava
Various advanced techniques used in guava
Propagation
Planting
Manures and fertilizers
IrrigationPruning/
Rejuvenation Crop
regulation
Growth regulators/
Micro-nutrients
Post harvest managemen
t10
PROPAGATION T - budding Air layering Stooling/Mound layering
11
T - budding
12
Air layering
13
Stooling in guava
14
Table 1: Effect of time of budding on days taken for bud sprout and growth of budded plants of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Treatments Days taken for bud sprout Budding success (%) Shoot length (cm) Leaves/sprout
Mid April 27.3 34.0 5.4 4.7End April 25.6 51.3 8.3 7.3Mid May 23.8 79.3 10.2 8.0End May 22.3 88.0 11.2 10.3Mid June 18.0 93.3 14.9 12.7End June 18.3 91.3 14.9 12.7
Mid July 19.5 88.7 11.5 11.3
End July 21.3 83.0 10.0 9.0Mid August 22.5 65.3 7.1 6.7End August 29.9 58.3 59 4.3Mid September 33.3 40.0 3.9 1.7End September 36.7 19.3 1.3 1.5C.D. (P=0.05) 2.1 8.0 1.9 1.5
Ludhiana, (Punjab) Kumar et al. (2007)15
Table 2: Effect of IBA, NAA and its combination on rooting in stooled shoots of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments Rooted shoots
(%)
Number of
roots/shoot
Root length (cm) Survival (%)
IBA (5000 ppm) 93.33 37.07 6.72 41.17
IBA (7500 ppm) 96.67 46.93 8.45 75.00
IBA (10,000 ppm) 90.00 29.13 5.21 64.43
NAA (5000 ppm) 86.67 20.70 4.28 36.50
NAA (7500 ppm) 90.00 31.43 6.82 60.25
NAA (10,000 ppm) 93.33 45.10 7.32 64.25
IBA (5000 ppm) +NAA (5000 ppm) 90.00 22.30 4.37 52.32
IBA (7500 ppm)+NAA (5000 ppm) 93.33 31.43 5.22 70.00
IBA (10,000 ppm)+NAA (5000 ppm) 96.00 46.00 7.12 65.07
Control (Only lanoline paste) 40.00 7.03 2.73 10.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 9.96 11.16 1.02 11.28
Lal et al. (2007)Pantnagar, (Uttrakhand) 30 Days after stooling 16
Table 3: Effect of IBA concentration, time of layering and rooting media on root parameters of guava cv. Sardar
Factor Rooting (%) Primary roots Secondary roots Length of longest root (cm)
Root weight (g)
Fresh Dry
I0 (Control) 63.70 2.80 4.77 1.76 0.445 0.081
I1 (2000 ppm) 74.45 5.04 10.82 4.87 1.276 0.230
I2 (3000 ppm) 78.47 6.79 17.53 6.95 1.831 0.335
I3 (4000 ppm) 83.15 9.14 22.82 8.92 2.346 0.433
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.004 0.001
M1 (15 June) 71.94 4.99 12.04 4.53 1.280 0.231
M2 (15 July) 74.95 6.07 14.30 5.81 1.503 0.277
M3 (15 August) 77.94 6.77 15.61 6.53 1.641 0.302
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.41 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.006 0.001
SM 76.55 6.22 14.59 5.91 1.533 0.281
CP 73.34 5.67 13.37 5.34 1.416 0.259
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.36 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.005 0.001Rymbai and Reddy (2010)Hyderabad, (Telangana) CP = Coco peat, SM = Sphagnum moss 17
Table 4: Effect of rooting media on root parameters in air-layers of guava cv. Sardar
Rooting media
Rooting (%)
Primary roots Secondary
roots
Length of longest
root (cm)
Roots weight (g)
Establish-ment
(%)
Number of leaves
(60 DAT)Dry fresh
CP 80.00 9.60 19.20 9.336 2.45 0.45 77.50 8.00
SM 82.50 9.80 20.40 10.133 2.57 0.46 79.17 13.00
CP + SM 85.00 10.80 22.40 10.78 2.72 0.51 83.33 13.83
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.44 0.83 1.12 0.82 0.09 0.02 2.62 1.15
Hyderabad, (Telangana) Rymbai et al. (2012)
Note-75 Days after layering (CP= Coco peat, SM= Sphagnum moss)
18
Table 5: Effect of rooting media on rooting parameters of guava air layers cv. Sardar
Treatments Number of primary roots
Length of primary roots (cm)
Number of secondary roots
Number of leaves
Number of side shoots Survival (%)
T1 - Sphagnum moss 5.67 4.34 5.00 12.33 3.66 72.22
T2 - vermi-compost 4.67 2.35 2.67 1.89 1.22 22.22
T3 - Sawdust 5.00 3.11 3.33 3.44 1.33 27.77
T4 - Coco peat 8.17 4.77 6.67 10.00 3.55 66.66
T5 - Coir pith 4.00 2.33 2.00 1.66 1.02 22.11
T6 - Sphagnum moss + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.50 4.22 4.67 7.33 2.00 38.89
T7- Sawdust + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.00 2.72 3.67 2.88 1.05 22.11
T8 – Coco peat + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.33 3.88 4.33 1.89 1.55 27.66
T9 – Coir pith + vermi-compost (1:1) 4.33 2.39 2.67 1.89 1.27 22.22
T10 - Sawdust Sphagnum motss (1:1) 5.00 3.61 3.67 5.00 1.55 38.89
T11 – Coco peat + Sphagnum moss (1:1) 5.60 4.30 4.93 7.55 2.67 41.11
T12 – Coir pith + Sphagnum moss (1:1) 4.17 2.38 2.33 1.83 1.22 24.33
T13 – Sawdust + Coco peat (1:1) 4.67 2.66 4.67 3.55 1.55 33.33
T14 – Sawdust + Coir pith (1:1) 4.33 3.44 4.67 3.88 1.44 27.66
T15 – Coco peat + Coir pith (1:1) 5.33 2.83 4.33 4.33 2.11 33.33
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.94 0.97 1.89 3.47 1.50 16.96
Naik et al. (2016)Bagalkot, (Karnataka) 19
PLANTING
20
Table 6: Different spacing and density of plant/ha of guava
Planting system Spacing (m) Density of plant/ha
Low density 8 × 8 156
Medium density 6 × 6 277
High density 3 × 3 1,111
Ultra-high density 3 × 1.5 2,222
Meadow orcharding 2 × 1 5,000
Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Singh (2010)21
High Density Ultra High Density
Medow orchard
3 x 3 m 3 x 1.5 m
2 x 1 m22
Advantages of HDP
Increases yield
Improves fruit quality
Reduces labour cost resulting in low cost of production
Enables mechanization of fruit crop production
It facilitates more efficient use of fertilizers, water, solar radiation, fungicides, weedicides and pesticides
23
Table 7: Effect of different spacing on physico-chemical parameter of guava cv. Sardar
Spacing (m) Tree height (m) Tree spread (cm) Fruit breadth(cm)
Breadth
TSS(ºBrix)
N-W E-W
6 x 4 4.28 5.60 5.63 6.46 9.77
6 x 5 4.58 5.82 6.10 6.67 10.31
6 x 6 4.66 5.90 6.33 6.78 10.77
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.51
Bal and Dhaliwal (2003)Ludhiana, (Punjab) 24
Table 8: Effect of planting density on fruit and quality characters of guava cv. Sardar
Spacing (m x m) Fruit set (%) Yield/ha(q)
Vitamin-C (mg/100g pulp)
6 x 6 61.2 102.4 141.4
4 x 4 60.7 205.1 139.5
3 x 3 57.6 333.7 133.3
2.5 x 2.5 68.8 446.5 131.9
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.21 35.3 4.029
Kundu (2007)Ludhiana, (Punjab)25
Table 9: Effect of different spacing on yield and quality parameters of guava cv. Sardar
Treatment (m) Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/plant)
T1- (2.0 x 2.0 ) 77.50 1.32
T2- (2.0 x 1.5 ) 75.40 1.25
T3- (1.5 x 1.5 ) 71.20 1.12
T4- (2.0 x 1.0 ) 73.00 1.05
T5- (1.0 x 1.5) 68.05 0.86
C.D. (P=0.05) 5.6888 0.2027
Kumawat et al. (2014)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 26
CULTIVARS
4. Shweta 5. Lalit 6. Apple color
1. Arka Mridula 2. Arka Kiran 3. Arka Rashmi
27
Varietal Improvement
Less and soft seed content for edible purpose
Less pectin content for edible purpose
More pectin content for processing
High keeping quality
Uniform ripening
28
Table 10: Characteristics of fruit of newly developed hybrids of guava
Hybrids/CultivarsFruit weight (g) Fruit length (cm) Fruit diameter (cm)
RCGH-1 154.75 6.26 6.48
Allahabad Safeda 142.63 5.98 6.15
RCGH-7 135.22 6.24 6.42
L-49 151.68 6.25 6.45
RCGH-4 175.73 6.54 6.99
Lalit 131.11 6.08 6.30
C.D. (P= 0.05) 9.70 0.25 0.31
Deshmukh et al. (2013)Umiam, (Meghalaya) 29
Table 11: Biochemical characteristics of newly developed hybrids of guava
Hybrids/CultivarsTSS
(ºBrix)Acidity
(%)Ascorbic
acid (mg/100g)
Total Sugar (%)
Pectin (%)
RCGH-1 10.83 0.50 231.86 8.07 1.33
Allahabad Safeda 10.14 0.61 182.06 6.97 0.92
RCGH-7 10.39 0.51 205.26 8.05 1.31
L-49 10.16 0.5054 195.80 7.14 0.97
RCGH-4 9.87 0.56 186.68 6.42 0.82
Lalit 9.59 0.67 168.78 6.58 1.07
C.D. (P= 0.05) 0.29 0.12 27.86 0.49 0.09Deshmukh et al. (2013)Umiam, (Meghalaya) 30
MANURES & FERTILIZERS
31
For Spacing of 3.0 x 1.5 m (2,222 plants/ha); 3.0 x 3.0 m (1,111 plants/ha) and 6.0 x 3.0 m (555 plants/ha)Year Urea (g/plant) SSP (g/plant) MOP (g/plant)
1st 182 375 100
2nd 364 750 200
3rd 546 1125 300
4th 728 1500 400
5th & Above 910 1875 500
For Spacing of 2.0 x 1.0 m (5000 plants/ha)Year Urea (g/plant) SSP (g/plant) MOP (g/plant)
1st 90 185 50
2nd 180 370 100
3rd 270 555 150
4th 360 740 200
5th & Above 450 900 250
Nutrient requirement
Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Singh (2008)32
Table 12: Effect of foliar application of nutrients on physico-chemical characters of guava cv. Sardar
Nutrient Concentration (%) Fruit weight (g) Yield/tree (kg) TSS (ºBrix)
Ascorbic acid
(mg/100g)
Total sugar (%)
K2SO4 (0.5) 130 60.9 13.2 176 6.80
K2SO4 (1.0) 134 63.9 13.2 183 7.10
K2SO4 (1.5) 138 66.9 13.6 186 7.34ZnSO4 (0.5) 128 63.0 12.4 173 6.90ZnSO4 (1.0) 131 68.0 12.6 176 7.09ZnSO4 (1.5) 133 68.0 12.6 182 7.15H3BO3 (0.5) 135 68.0 12.5 177 7.04H3BO3 (1.0) 141 71.0 13.5 173 7.00H3BO3 (1.5) 141 73.0 13.9 185 7.37
Control 125 58.0 13.7 181 7.26
C.D. (P= 0.05) 05 5.1 0.3 10 0.35
Bhatia et al. (2001)Hisar, (Hariyana) 33
Table 13: Effect of N, Zn, and Mn on qualitative characteristics of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Treatment (g/plant) TSS (ºBrix) Acidity (%) Ascorbic acid(%)
Reducing sugar (%)
Non reducing sugar (%) Total sugar (%) Pectin (%)
N0 (0) 8.35 0.53 133.6 3.08 2.25 7.26 1.80
N1 (300) 9.96 0.48 159.1 3.53 2.60 7.82 1.87
N2 (600) 11.25 0.47 176.9 3.91 2.81 8.06 2.04
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 2.2 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07
Zn0 (0) 8.95 0.51 141.5 3.24 2.34 7.42 1.79
Zn1(300) 9.95 0.49 159.0 3.58 2.63 7.76 1.93
Zn2 (600) 10.65 0.48 169.1 3.77 2.69 7.96 2.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 2.2 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07
Mn0 (0) 9.09 0.51 143.5 3.27 2.41 7.49 1.79
Mn1 (300) 10.05 0.49 159.9 3.57 2.58 7.76 1.95
Mn2 (600) 10.35 0.48 166.1 3.67 2.66 7.85 1.98
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07
Lal and Sen (2001)Jobner, (Rajasthan) 34
Table 14: Influence of bio-fertilizers on physico-chemical properties of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments Fruit weight (g)
Fruit length (cm)
Fruit diameter (cm) TSS (°Brix) Vitamin- C
(mg/100g)
Azotobactor 136.30 3.93 4.35 9.68 129.0
Azospirillum 135.30 3.85 4.03 9.25 136.0
VAM 147.00 4.15 4.58 10.10 151.8
Microphos 139.80 4.00 4.45 9.58 147.5
Phosphobacterin 154.50 4.27 4.68 9.68 149.3
Control 128.50 3.25 3.68 9.30 140.0
C.D. (P=0.05) 8.80 0.18 0.40 0.18 5.04
Dey et al. (2005)Ranchi, (Jharkhand) 35
Table 15: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield parameters of guava cv. Hisar Safeda
Bhobia et al. (2006)Hisar, (Hariyana)
Treatments Fruit
Number of fruit/plant Yield (kg/plant)
Length (cm) Breadth(cm)
T1 (Control) 6.13 6.00 245 44
T2 (100% N through Urea ) 6.73 6.90 249 56
T3 (80 % N through Urea + 20% N through FYM) 7.30 7.40 259 63
T4 (60 % N through Urea + 40% N through FYM) 7.20 7.80 282 74
T5 (40 % N through Urea + 60% N through FYM) 7.60 8.00 300 85
T6 (20 % N through Urea + 80% N through FYM) 7.30 7.60 280 62
T7 (100% N through FYM) 6.46 6.38 288 58
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.32 0.36 12 8
36
Table 16: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on biochemical parameters of guava cv. Hisar Safeda
Bhobia et al. (2006)Hisar, (Hariyana)
Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Total sugar (%) Reducing sugar (%) Non reducing sugar (%)
T1 (Control) 10.2 8.10 4.25 3.85
T2 (100% N through Urea ) 10.2 8.53 4.63 3.95
T3 (80 % N through Urea + 20% N through FYM) 10.4 8.94 4.81 4.12
T4 (60 % N through Urea + 40% N through FYM) 10.8 9.46 5.14 4.32
T5 (40 % N through Urea + 60% N through FYM) 11.0 9.89 5.45 4.44
T6 (20 % N through Urea + 80% N through FYM) 10.6 9.23 5.05 4.18
T7 (100% N through FYM) 10.4 8.36 4.42 3.94
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.4 0.13 0.03 0.03
37
Table 17: Effect of organic treatments on yield and quality parameters of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Ram et al. (2007a)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh)
Treatments Fruit weight (g) Fruit diameter (cm) TSS
(%)
vermi-compost 5 kg 209.33 7.07 12.20
FYM- 20 kg + vermi-wash 126.66 6.15 11.06
FYM- 20 kg + BD-500 206.00 7.07 14.13
FYM- 20 kg + CPP-500 g 212.00 7.13 14.00
FYM- 20 kg + 250 g Azospirillum 128.66 5.91 13.40
FYM- 20 kg + 250 g Azotobactor 188.66 6.96 13.66
FYM- 10 kg + 5 Kg Ceil rich 145.22 6.22 16.20
NPK (350:200:350) g 170.00 6.70 13.53
C.D. (P=0.05) 75.55 0.83 3.03
CPP = Cow Pat Pit, BD-500 = Fermented cow dung 38
Table 18: Effect of different integrated nutrient treatments on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Ram et al. (2007b)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh)
Nutrient combination (g) Number of fruit/plant Yield (kg/plant) TSS (°Brix) Reducing sugar (%)
NPK (500:200:500) 845 120.71 12.50 3.25
NPK (250:100:250) + 5 kg neem cake 696 87.0 12.65 3.41
NPK (250:100:250) + 10kg FYM 592 84.50 12.47 3.12
NPK (250:100:250) + Sesbenia as green manure 698 99.80 12.21 2.35
NPK (250:100:250) + Azotobactor 700 112.00 12.25 3.54
NPK (250:100:250) + Azospirillum 985 135.45 12.25 3.23
NPK (250:100:250) + 10 kg FYM +Azospirillum 854 132.45 12.50 3.50
NPK (250:100:250) + 10 kg FYM +Azotobactor 1200 150.25 13.50 3.58
NPK (500:100:500) 685 111.20 13.00 3.50
PK (100:250) + Azotobactor 878 128.50 12.50 3.20
PK (100:250) + Azotobactor 658 115.32 11.45 3.45
Control 560 80.50 11.25 3.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 290.12 98.35 1.00 0.20
39 Azotobactor and Azospirillum @ 250 g
Table 19: Effect of inorganic and bio-fertilizer on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Dutta et al. (2009)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)
Treatments Length of fruit (cm) Diameter of fruit (cm) Weight of fruit (g) Yield
(kg/plant)
T1 = 100%N + 100%P + Azospirillum 9.4 8.8 248.5 45.07
T2 =50%N + 100%P + Azospirillum 6.7 6.2 181.5 34.19
T3 = 100%N + 100%P + VAM 8.7 8.3 225.8 38.78
T4 = 100% N + 50%P + VAM 9.1 8.4 230.3 49.14
T5 = 100% N + 100%P + Azospirillum + VAM 9.5 8.9 255.0 51.26
T6 = 50%N + 50%P + Azospirillum + VAM 7.1 6.6 190.8 40.14
T7 = 100%N + 100%P 8.5 8.1 220.5 50.29
T8 = 50% N + 50%P 6.4 6.0 162.0 36.94
T9 (Control) 6.3 5.9 142.1 23.42
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.15 0.22 7.47 2.700
40 100% N = 260 g N, 100% P = 320 g P, Azospirillum and VAM @ 30 g/plant
Table 20: Effect of NPK on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Kumar et al. (2009)Bhubaneswar, (Orissa)
Treatments (g) Number of fruit/ tree Yield (kg/tree) Fruit size (cm) TSS (°Brix)
N1- 300 340.90 35.45 7.06 x 6.88 12.49
N2- 600 380.55 38.12 7.28 x 7.06 12.57
N3- 900 406.86 42.61 7.46 x 7.08 12.72
C.D. (P=0.05) 35.67 4.35 - NS
P1- 300 355.74 34.78 7.21 x 6.94 12.49
P2- 600 396.11 36.97 7.32 x 7.03 12.62
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS - NS
K1- 300 342.76 36.90 7.15 x 7.02 12.44
K2- 600 377.62 41.75 7.33 x 7.13 12.63
K3- 900 412.42 45.45 7.39 x 7.18 12.88
C.D. (P=0.05) 35.67 4.35 - 0.35
Control 293.63 25.25 6.30 x 6.20 12.38
41
Table 21: Effect of FYM, Urea and Azotobactor on yield and yield parameters of guava cv. Sardar
Treatment Yield (kg/plant) Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Fruit weight (g)
T1 – 100% N through FYM 24.74 7.73 7.44 153.65
T2 - 75% N through FYM + 25% N through Inorganic fertilizer 26.30 7.80 7.47 156.66
T3 - 50% N through FYM + 50% N through In-organic fertilizer 34.16 7.97 7.60 176.60
T4 - 25% N through FYM + 75% N through Inorganic fertilizer 36.61 8.16 7.72 188.40
T5 - 100% N through Inorganic fertilizer 32.97 7.87 7.52 170.91
T6 – Azotobactor 22.30 7.56 7.20 137.96
T7 –Azotobactor + T1 29.55 7.80 7.49 169.05
T8 –Azotobactor + T2 35.05 7.98 7.64 187.06
T9 – Azotobactor +T3 38.70 8.27 7.80 197.40
T10 – Azotobactor + T4 41.14 8.39 7.94 244.24
T11 – Azotobactor +T5 38.95 8.32 7.86 239.00
T12 - Absolute 18.86 7.34 7.15 128.17
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.27 0.13 0.12 1.33
Jammu, (Jammu & Kashmir) Sharma et al. (2013)42 Azotobactor 200 g/plant
Table 22: Effect of FYM, Urea and Azotobactor on biochemical parameters of guava cv. Sardar
Treatment TSS (°Brix) Total sugar (%) Reducing sugar (%) Non- Reducing sugar (%)
T1 – 100% N through FYM 11.89 7.59 4.46 2.98
T2 - 75% N through FYM + 25% N through Inorganic fertilizer 12.43 7.75 4.50 3.08
T3 - 50% N through FYM + 50% N through Inorganic fertilizer 12.62 8.08 4.66 3.25
T4 - 25% N through FYM + 75% N through Inorganic fertilizer 12.49 7.90 4.61 3.13
T5 - 100% N through Inorganic fertilizer 12.35 7.76 4.53 3.07
T6 – Azotobactor 11.73 7.42 4.32 2.77
T7 –Azotobactor + T1 12.12 7.65 4.52 2.97
T8 –Azotobactor + T2 12.67 8.20 4.73 3.30
T9 – Azotobactor + T3 12.95 8.61 4.83 3.58
T10 – Azotobactor + T4 12.86 8.55 4.81 3.56
T11 – Azotobactor + T5 12.70 8.24 4.75 3.31
T12 - Absolute 11.58 7.10 4.23 2.73
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.07
Jammu, (Jammu & Kashmir) Sharma et al. (2013)43 Azotobactor 200 g/plant
IRRIGATION
44
Table 23: Effect of irrigation/fertigation levels on yield and yield parameters of guava cv. Shweta
Treatments (g) Fruit weight (g) Pulp weight (g) Pulp: Seed ratio Yield (kg/plant)
I0 -(Basin) 147.63 123.05 23.53 5.29
I1 -(50%) 135.26 112.74 21.62 5.21
I2 -(75%) 160.67 135.09 24.97 5.82
I3 -(100%) 163.71 138.17 25.01 5.87
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.186 5.181 0.734 0.217
F0- (NPK 60:20:40) 150.25 125.75 23.84 5.12
F1- (NPK 30:10:10) 134.79 112.79 21.61 5.10
F2 - (NPK45:20:20) 159.79 134.15 24.73 5.96
F3 -(NPK 60:30:30) 162.43 136.37 24.95 6.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.186 5.181 0.734 0.217
Ramniwas et al. (2012)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 45 Irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE)
Conti….Treatments Fruit weight (g) Pulp weight (g) Pulp: Seed ratio Yield (kg/plant)
I0F0 (Basin) + (NPK 60:20:40) 151.00 125.78 23.99 5.08
I0F1 (Basin) + (NPK 30:10:10) 135.00 112.46 21.75 5.05
I0F2 (Basin) + (NPK 45:20:20) 151.67 126.49 24.15 5.48
I0F3 (Basin) + (NPK 60:30:30) 152.83 127.46 24.21 5.57
I1F0 (50%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 135.67 113.01 21.68 5.00
I1F1 (50%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 132.33 110.23 21.35 5.09
I1F2 (50%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 136.00 113.42 21.69 5.41
I1F3 (50%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 137..06 114.31 21.75 5.34
I2F0 (75%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 155.00 129.74 24.69 5.22
I2F1 (75%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 135.83 113.69 21.74 5.16
I2F2 (75%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 174.17 147.00 26.62 6.56
I2F3 (75%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 177.67 149.95 26.83 6.53
I3F0 (100%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 159.33 134.38 24.99 5.18
I3F1 (100%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 136.00 114.78 21.60 5.10
I3F2 (100%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 177.33 149.67 26.44 6.40
I3F3 (100%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 182.17 153.75 27.02 6.59
C.D. (P=0.05) 12.371 10.362 1.467 0.434Ramniwas et al. (2012)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 46 Irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE)
PRUNING/REJUVENATION
47
Rejuvenation
48
Table 24: Effect of pruning intensity on sprouting and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Pruning intensity
Days to new sprouting
Number of fruits/shoot
Fruit length (cm)
Fruit breadth
(cm)
Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/tree)
15 cm 9.8 3.0 6.1 5.9 137.6 104.7
30 cm 8.8 3.8 7.0 6.6 168.0 131.0
60 cm 8.0 4.0 6.8 6.5 164.2 131.8
Control 12.6 2.8 5.6 5.4 125.6 81.1
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 14.5 37.5
Hisar, (Haryana) Mohammed et al (2006)Pruning from top portion in May 49
Table-25: Effect of time of pruning on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Time of pruning Number of fruits/plant) Yield (kg/plant)
March 275.25 71.58
April 290.00 78.28
May 94.25 26.38
June 29.75 6.98
July 17.75 3.70
Control (Unpruned) 196.5 37.33
C.D. (P=0.05 48.424 12.363
Basu et al. (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal) 50 Pruning in year 2003
Table 26: Effect of various pruning treatment on crop regulation of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Treatments Yield (kg/tree) TSS (ºBrix)
T1 - (Heading back of current season shoot) 100.91 8.85
T2 - (Total pruning of bearing portion of current season shoot) 104.98 9.12
T3 -( Half Heading back of terminal branches to half length) 29.74 8.87
T4 - (Control no pruning) 7.78 7.45
C.D. (P=0.05) 36.03 0.77
Bahadurgarh, (Punjab) Singh et al (2007)51 Pruning at first week of May
Table-27: Effect of pruning on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Sardar under ultra high density planting system (1 x 2m)
Treatments Fruit weight (g) Yield (t/ha)
T1 - (No pruning) 108.25 19.06
T2 - (80% pruning in May) 122.32 22.56
T3 - (60% pruning in May) 119.45 20.58
T4 - (80% pruning in October) 129.94 12.11
T5 - (60% pruning in October) 130.01 9.25
T7 - (pruning three times in a year) 110.60 23.26
C.D. (P=0.05) 9.04 3.06
Mehta et al. (2012)Ranchi, (Jharkhand) 52 Thrice pruning at March, May, and October
Table-28: Influence of pruning intensity on yield parameters of guava cv. Sardar
Treatment(Pruning intensity) Duration of flowering (Days) Number of fruits Yield (kg/tree)
0-node 41 258.0 31.0
2- node 38.5 284.0 36.4
4- node 37 308.0 40.0
6- node 34 456.5 59.5
8- node 32 349.5 46.5
10- node 30.9 304.5 46.1
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.16 8.36 1.95
Singh (2012)Muktsar, (Punjab) 53 Regular pruning in first week of march from top portion
Table 29: Effect of various pruning intensity on fruit quality of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments (cm) Fruit diameter (cm)
Fruit weight (g)
Yield(kg/tree)
TSS (ºBrix)
Total Sugar (%)
No Pruning (0) 5.89 221.3 5.98 8.43 7.56
Light (7.10) 6.15 245.6 8.70 9.08 8.73
Moderate (5.86) 6.45 298.1 9.60 9.82 8.81
Severe (4.81) 7.15 300.2 11.66 10.1 9.12
Mean 6.41 266.30 8.99 9.36 8.56
Basar, (Arunachal Pradesh) Bhagwati et al (2015)54 Pruning at first week of May
CROP REGULATION
55
Crop regulationSr. No.
Bahar Flowering Fruiting Quality
1. Ambe Feb. –March July – Sept. Watery, Poor
2. Mrig June – July Nov. - Jan. Excellent
3. Hast October Feb. - April Good, Yield Low
3 Crop/year (Maharashtra and Tamilnadu)In North India Mrig Bahar is preferredIn South India Hast Bahar is preferredIn Gujarat Mrig Bahar is preferred
56
Table 30: Effect of foliar application of chemicals for maximizing yield and fruit quality of guava
TreatmentsAllahabad Safeda Sardar
Yield (kg/plant) Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/plant) Fruit weight (g)
Urea (10%) 18.5 116.3 10.6 151.9
Urea (20%) 22.4 111.1 7.5 134.5
NAA (100 ppm) 24.3 108.2 11.4 145.7
NAA (200 ppm) 28.1 113.0 22.9 146.5
2,4-D (40 ppm) 27.6 109.1 9.4 143.1
2,4-D (60 ppm) 28.0 109.1 15.0 147.8
KI (1%) 27.3 115.3 17.8 161.2
KI (2%) 16.3 110.5 10.9 154.2
Control, 13.5 112.7 5.0 146.2
C.D. (P=0.05) 8.69 NS 3.29 19.7
Das et al. (2007)Ranchi, (Jharkhand)
Spray twice (mid-April and first week of May) @ 3 ltr/plant/spray
57
Table 31: Effect of NAA, flower bud thinning and pruning on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments Number of flower bud /branch
Number of fruit set /branch Yield (kg/tree)
T1- NAA @ 600ppm 38.00 30.75 65.00
T2- NAA @ 800ppm 42.00 32.25 84.00
T3- Flower bud thinning 30.00 24.50 76.00
T4- One leaf pair pruning 43.00 36.00 88.00
T5- Two leaf pair pruning 33.00 27.25 61.00
T6- Control 3.50 2.77 4.50
C.D. (P=0.05) 7.94 5.42 8.27Pantnagar, (Uttrakhand) Tiwari and Lal (2007)58Spray at 1st week of May
Growth regulators/Micro-nutrients
59
Table 32: Effect of growth regulators on physico-chemical attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Growth regulator (ppm) Fruit weight(g) Yield/tree (kg) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) Total sugar (%)
NAA @ 20 132 64.6 188 6.70
NAA @ 40 142 68.0 189 6.76
NAA @ 60 143 71.0 191 6.80
Mean 139 67.8 189 6.75
GA3 @ 50 138 61.0 178 6.61
GA3 @ 100 140 66.0 178 6.71
GA3 @ 150 142 68.0 180 6.72
Mean 140 65.0 179 6.68
Ethrel @ 50 119 47.4 175 7.08
Ethrel @ 100 117 46.2 173 7.05
Ethrel @ 150 116 46.0 174 7.05
Mean 117 46.5 174 7.04
Control 124 58.0 165 6.21
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.5 4.7 10 0.38
Hisar, (Haryana) Yadav et al (2001)Spray at 9th November (15 yr old) 60
Table 33: Effect of nutrients and plant growth regulators on physico-chemical composition of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments Reducing sugar (%) TSS (°Brix) Total sugar (%)
T1 Urea 4.25 10.20 6.94
T2 K2SO4 4.32 10.85 7.25
T3 Zinc 4.30 10.35 7.18
T4 NAA 4.30 10.55 7.21
T5 GA3 3.48 9.75 6.42
T6 Urea + K2SO4 3.89 9.25 6.74
T7 Urea + Zinc 3.92 9.40 6.78
T8 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc 3.90 9.80 6.82
T9 Urea + NAA 3.95 10.40 7.00
T10 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA 3.90 3.90 6.92
T11 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA + Zinc 3.99 10.60 7.18
T12 Urea + GA3 3.12 9.75 6.00
T13 Urea + K2SO4 + GA3 3.37 9.85 5.99
T14 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc + GA3 3.42 9.90 6.12
T15 Control 3.32 8.55 5.95
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.17 1.52 0.75
Dutta and Banik (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)Urea= 1%, K2SO4=1%, Zinc=0.1%, GA3=50ppm, NAA=50ppm 1st spray at flowering, 2nd at fruit setting and 3rd at 3 week after fruit setting.
61
Conti….Treatments Yield (kg/plant) Acidity (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
T1 Urea 52.12 0.44 124.43
T2 K2SO4 44.39 0.49 128.19
T3 Zinc 47.27 0.48 128.54
T4 NAA 45.28 0.39 134.44
T5 GA3 42.37 0.49 128.22
T6 Urea + K2SO4 54.12 0.46 129.10
T7 Urea + Zinc 53.74 0.52 121.00
T8 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc 54.22 0.43 125.16
T9 Urea + NAA 54.00 0.42 125.00
T10 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA 54.42 0.48 125.12
T11 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA + Zinc 59.28 0.39 135.42
T12 Urea + GA3 54.22 0.42 127.10
T13 Urea + K2SO4 + GA3 54.38 0.48 129.42
T14 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc + GA3 54.85 0.59 119.10
T15 Control 43.25 0.62 118.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 9.25 0.11 6.92
Dutta and Banik (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)Urea= 1%, K2SO4=1%, Zinc=0.1%, GA3=50ppm, NAA=50ppm 1st spray at flowering, 2nd at fruit setting and 3rd at 3 week after fruit setting
62
Table-34: Effect of pre-harvest application of micro-nutrient for maximizing yield and fruit quality of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda
Treatments TSS (°Brix) Reducing sugar (%) Total sugar (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
Zinc Sulphate (0.2%) 11.12 4.60 7.88 218.20
Zinc Sulphate (0.4%) 11.52 4.70 8.34 223.61
Calcium nitrate(1.0%) 11.32 4.44 7.75 210.88
Calcium nitrate(2.0%) 10.64 4.39 7.49 207.03
Borax (0.2%) 10.04 4.21 6.99 197.31
Borax (0.4%) 10.40 4.31 7.24 203.99
Control 9.64 4.03 5.98 182.10
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.174 0.065 0.072 1.337
Singh et al. (2007)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Spray at 20 days before harvest @ 5 ltr/tree 63
Table 35: Effect of pre-harvest application of nutrient and growth regulators on physico-chemical attributes of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments Fruit weight (g) TSS (ºBrix) vitamin-C (mg/100g) Total Sugar (%)
KNO3 (0.5%) 131.5 10.4 140.5 7.38
KNO3 (1.0%) 133.3 10.7 145.8 7.55
KNO3 (1.5%) 135.4 10.8 148.6 7.80
SADH (20 ppm) 124.1 10.2 136.4 7.31
SADH (30 ppm) 124.8 10.2 135.9 7.33
SADH (40 ppm) 126.1 10.3 138.1 7.33
Ethephon 300 ppm 120.2 10.8 142.3 7.65
Ethephon 400 ppm 120.8 11.1 149.8 7.98
Ethephon 500 ppm 118.6 11.0 146.8 7.54
Control 122.7 10.1 135.2 7.29
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.6 0.5 9.8 0.3
Ludhiana, (Punjab) Gill and Bal (2010)Spray at first week of December (5 yr old) 64
Post Harvest Management
65
Table 36: Effect of different doses of gamma radiation and chemicals on chemical composition of guava fruits
Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Acidity (%) Vitamin-C (mg/100g)
Reducing sugar (%)
Non-reducing (%)
Total sugar (%)
Marketable fruits (%)
Control 12.8 0.14 192.6 4.3 4.0 8.3 8.00
50 Gy 13.0 0.12 199.2 4.3 4.0 8.3 53.84
100 Gy 13.6 0.12 204.8 5.0 4.6 9.6 57.14
200 Gy 12.8 0.24 203.2 4.8 4.3 9.1 24.0
300 Gy 13.6 0.25 201.6 4.3 4.0 8.3 2.66
1 KGy 12.3 0.25 190.6 4.4 4.2 8.6 0.00
2 KGy 12.6 0.24 178.9 4.0 4.0 8.0 0.00
3 KGy 11.3 0.24 164.0 3.9 3.4 7.3 0.00
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.84 0.2 24.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 -
Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh) Baghel et al. (2005)Observation recorded at 12 Days after storage 66
Table 37: Effect of pre-harvest application of calcium compounds on bio-chemical composition of guava cv. Sardar
Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Reducing sugar (%) Pectin (%) Shelf-life (Days)
CaCl2 0.5% 11.60 2.82 0.30 8.67
CaCl2 1.0% 11.57 3.07 0.37 9.00
Ca(NO3) 2 0.5% 12.90 3.24 0.47 10.00
Ca(NO3) 2 1.0% 13.03 3.55 0.51 11.67
CaSO4 0.5% 11.53 2.15 0.30 7.33
CaSO4 1.0% 11.60 2.23 0.30 7.67
Control 9.77 1.80 0.21 7.00
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.66 0.22 0.023 1.80
Hyderabad, (Andhra Pradesh) Jayachandran et al. (2005)
Spray at 15 days before harvest (15 year old) and observation recorded at 9th day after storage67
Table 38: Effect of different doses of gamma radiation on chemical composition of guava fruits
Treatments PLW (%) Marketable fruit retained (%) TSS (ºBrix) vitamin-C
(mg/100g) Total sugar (%)
Control 27.7 13.3 13.1 190.0 7.2
50Gy 29.1 36.6 14.0 195.3 8.1
100Gy 24.7 53.3 14.3 201.3 9.4
200Gy 28.8 26.6 11.3 176.3 6.9
250Gy 29.6 20.0 11.1 165.6 6.1
CC-250ppm 24.4 50.0 15.2 194.0 8.6
CC-500ppm 22.9 60.0 15.8 201.0 9.0
CC-750ppm 24.0 40.0 14.7 192.6 9.0
MH-250ppm 24.8 30.0 14.8 200.3 9.2
MH-500ppm 25.9 43.3 15.4 201.7 9.4
MH-750ppm 29.7 23.3 14.2 187.7 9.4
Mustard oil 17.3 60.0 15.1 193.0 9.3
Coconut oil 7.1 100.0 16.1 195.0 10.0
Liquid paraffin 14.1 83.4 15.1 194.7 9.4
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.28 - 0.47 4.07 0.46
Pandey et al. (2010)Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh) 68Observation recorded at 12 Days after storage
ConclusionPropagation Air layering with treatment of IBA @ 4000 ppm with combination of
rooting media Coco peat/Sphagnum moss found better for rooting
Planting HDP at 2.5 x 2.5 or 2.0 x 2.0 m gave more yield with better quality fruits
Manures and fertilizers Integrated nutrient management produce the highest yield with better quality fruits
Irrigation Irrigation 100 % IW/CPE with NPK (60:30:30 g) combination found better for quality characters
Pruning/Rejuvenation Pruning intensity 60 cm and April is as time of pruning found better for quality production
Crop regulation One leaf pair pruning and spraying of KI @ 1 % or NAA @ 200 ppm produce highest yield
Growth regulators/micro-nutrients Spraying of NAA @ 60 ppm, urea @ 1%, K2SO4 @ 1%, GA3 @ 50ppm, ethephon @ 400 ppm and ZnSO4 @ 0.4 % found better for quality parameters
Post-harvest management Spraying of Ca(NO3) 2 1.0% and fruit treatment with 100 Gy, Coconut oil found better for increasing shelf-life and fruit quality
69
Future thrust Crop Improvement- Need to develop variety having less and soft seed as well as
seedless cultivar Need to develop High yielding, early bearing having good
quality, high keeping quality and insect-pest and disease resistant varieties
Need to develop dwarfing rootstock for high density planting Crop production- Need to Standardization of training and pruning practices for
HDP Post-harvest technology- Need to Standardization of packaging techniques and Post
harvest techniques70
for Your Attention
Your right is to work only,
but never with its fruits;
let not the fruits of actions
be your motive,nor let your attachment
be to inaction
--The Great Geeta