This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 13:30Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compost Science & UtilizationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Vermicompost and Fertilizer Application: Effect onProductivity and Profitability of Baby Corn (Zea MaysL.) and Soil HealthRavi Chandra Sharmaa & Pabitra Banika

a Agricultural and Ecological Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, IndiaPublished online: 05 May 2014.

To cite this article: Ravi Chandra Sharma & Pabitra Banik (2014) Vermicompost and Fertilizer Application: Effect onProductivity and Profitability of Baby Corn (Zea Mays L.) and Soil Health, Compost Science & Utilization, 22:2, 83-92, DOI:10.1080/1065657X.2014.895456

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2014.895456

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Compost Science & Utilization, 22:83–92, 2014Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1065-657X print / 2326-2397 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1065657X.2014.895456

Vermicompost and Fertilizer Application: Effecton Productivity and Profitability of Baby Corn

(Zea Mays L.) and Soil Health

Ravi Chandra Sharma and Pabitra Banik

Agricultural and Ecological Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India

ABSTRACT. Earthworm digested wastes (vermicompost) are being produced in increasing quantitiesto make farming sustainable. A study was carried out for two consecutive years (2007–09) at theAgricultural Experimental Farm of Indian Statistical Institute, Giridih, India on sandy loam soil infactorial randomized block design with three replications. Baby corn (cv. Early Composite) was grownwithout vermicompost (V0) or with vermicompost (V1: @ 10 Mg ha−1) in combination with threerecommended doses of fertilizers [F1: 50%, F2: 100% (N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1) and F3:150% RDF] besides an absolute control (F0: no-NPK) to assess their effect on baby corn productivityand soil health. Vermicompost applied plots recorded considerably higher cob (0.717 Mg ha−1) andgreen fodder (17.58 Mg ha−1) yield. Among the fertilizers, baby corn grown with F3 yielded maximumcob (0.759 Mg ha−1) and green fodder (18.46 Mg ha−1). Vermicompost application built-up soil nutrientlike nitrogen (145 kg ha−1), phosphorus (16 kg ha−1), potassium (190 kg ha−1), organic carbon (0.78%),and enhanced cation exchange capacity (12.19 Cmol+ kg−1), microbial [basal soil respiration, microbialbiomass carbon, microbial quotient, and metabolic quotient] and enzyme activities (urease and acidphosphatase). However, microbial and enzyme activities were minimum with F3. Vermicompost and F2

treatments were most remunerative. Use of vermicompost not only reduces the requirement of chemicalfertilizers but also supplements important all essential nutrients to increase crop yield besides improvingthe soil properties and processes.

INTRODUCTION

At the present, food and nutritional security,environmental safety, and the energy crisis arethe issues of major concern for the global agri-culture. Growth of food grain production, whichhas to maintain in consonance with populationgrowth, is necessary. The long-term sustainabil-ity of agricultural productivity and environmen-tal safety are being questioned due to yieldstagnation, depleting soil organic carbon, lowfertility status, nutrient mining, and imbalanced

Correspondence to: Ravi Sharma, Agricultural and Ecological Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute,203 B T Road, Kolkata 700 108, India. E-mail: ravi.iari@gmail.com

fertilizer use, which leads to poor soil health.Decline in soil organic carbon (SOC) pool mul-tiplies the nutrient deficiencies (Swarup 2008).Moreover, the tropical soils are inherently poorin fertility and organic carbon (Swarup 2008).Hence, SOC management is one of the fore-most challenges concerning resource manage-ment for agricultural systems in the tropics (Lal2004).

To make farming sustainable, there is need forre-thinking, planning, and management in orderto face the emerging challenges, such as nutrient

83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

84 Sharma and Banik

mining, multi-nutrient deficiency, and decliningfactor productivity. Of late, there has been seri-ous concern about the long-term adverse effectof continuous and indiscriminate use of agro-chemicals, particularly fertilizers on degradationof soil health and environment (Bejbaruaha et al.2013). Use of organic manure not only reducesthe requirement of chemical fertilizers but alsosupplements important all essential nutrients tothe plants besides improving the soil proper-ties and processes (Purakayastha et al. 2008).Besides farmyard manure (FYM), recently ver-micompost has attracted the attention of bothresearchers and farmers due to its immense pro-duction potential and efficient utilization of farmresidues (Banik and Sharma 2009). Organic ma-nures are important but their use alone cannotsolve the world food crisis. Thus, the sustain-ability in crop production and soil health canbe achieved through integrated nutrient manage-ment (Dawe et al. 2003). The dynamics of SOCare similar in different cropping systems, but itssignificance for specific soil properties or cropproductivity varies considerably with differenttypes of soils (Friedel 2000).

Corn (Zea mays L.), ‘queen of cereals’ is aversatile crop and is used widely as food, feed,and fodder. Baby corn is an unfertilized im-mature young cob of corn harvested just be-fore or after two to three days of silk emer-gence. Improved production technology for babycorn can help to fetch a higher economic return(4–5 times) and a quality product as compared tograin corn. Also, early harvest of corn for babycorn gives nutritious green fodder for livestock.Thus, there is an immense scope of growing cornas baby corn to improve socio-economic statusof the poor farmers, and this has vast poten-tial to generate employment opportunities in therural areas as a small-scale enterprise. Informa-tion on how to sustain the productivity of babycorn and soil health of lateritic soils is mea-ger. Hence, the study was designed to (a) assessthe productivity of baby corn under vermicom-post and fertilizers application, (b) estimate theimpact of vermicompost and fertilizers regimeson soil health, and (c) find out profitability ofbaby corn under vermicompost and fertilizersapplication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site

The experiments were conducted at Agricul-tural Experimental Farm of Indian Statistical In-stitute, Giridih (at 24◦ 11′ 41′′ N, 86◦ 18′ 01′′E and 303 m), situated in the eastern plateauregion of India. The soil of the study area waswell drained sandy loam (Alfisols) with a pH of6.2 (1:2.5 soil and water suspension); electricalconductivity of 0.31 dSm−1 (1:5 soil and wa-ter suspension); organic carbon level of 0.59%;and available N, P, and K were 124.2, 14.9, and159.7 kg ha−1, respectively. Giridih has a sub-tropical humid climate with a mean annual rain-fall of about 1349 mm, of which 82% occurswithin the monsoon period (June to September).The mean maximum temperature is generallyrecorded in the month of June (40–45◦C) andminimum temperature in January (2–5◦C). Rel-ative humidity ranges from 78%–95%. Annualpotential evapo-transpiration (PET) is 1293 mm.

Experimental design

Baby corn (cv. Early Composite 1) was growneither without vermicompost (V0) or with ver-micompost (V1: @ 10 Mg ha−1) in combinationwith three recommended doses of fertilizers (F1:50%, F2: 100%, and F3: 150% RDF) besidesan absolute control (F0: no-NPK) in factorialrandomized block design with three replications(plot size 5 m × 6 m). The second experimentwas repeated on the same field without disturb-ing the field layout. The recommended dose ofN:P2O5:K2O (150:60:60 kg ha−1) was appliedthrough urea (46-0-0), single supper phosphate(0-16-0), and muriate of potash (0-0-60), re-spectively. As per treatment, vermicompost con-tained 1.75% N, 0.75% P2O5, and 0.86% K2O,which was applied and incorporated in soil dur-ing the last ploughing. Overnight water-soakedseeds of baby corn were sown at a depth of4–6 cm below the soil surface and at a spac-ing of 60 × 10 cm (row × plant). The cropreceived two weedings and two life-saving ir-rigations. Crop seeds were sown on November30 and December 9 and baby cobs were finally

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

BABY CORN PRODUCTIVITY AND SOIL HEALTH 85

hand-plucked (6–7 times) on February 17 andMarch 1 in the years of 2007–2008 and2008–2009, respectively.

Soil sampling and analytical analysis

Soil samples were collected from each plotafter the harvest of rainy season crops froma depth of 0–20 cm with the help of ascrew auger. These samples were air dried inthe shade and sieved (2 mm mesh). Biologicalparameters were estimated from fresh soil andall results were expressed based on a moisture-free basis. Moisture content was determined bygravimetric method. Soil organic carbon was an-alyzed by the wet oxidation method (Walkleyand Black 1934). Available soil N was estimatedby alkaline potassium permanganate (Subbiahand Asija 1956), P by sodium bicarbonate (Olsenet al. 1954), and K by ammonium acetate (Han-way and Heidel 1952) method. Cation exchangecapacity (CEC) was determined by saturatingsoil complex with 1N NaOAC solution (pH 8.2).The excess sodium ions and displaced cationswere removed by repeated washing with ethanol.The adsorbed sodium was then replaced by 1NNH4OAC (pH 7) and displaced sodium was de-termined with the help of a flame photometer(Thomas 1982). Urease and acid phosphate ac-tivity were determined following the proceduresdescribed by Tabatabai and Bremner (1972) andTabatabai and Bremner (1969), respectively. Thecarbon dioxide evolution (trapped in NaOH)method was adopted for basal soil respiration(BSR) (Alef 1995). Microbial biomass carbon(MBC) was determined using the chloroformfumigation and extraction method (Joergensen1995). The MBC was calculated by dividingthe difference in C content between the fumi-gated and un-fumigated sample by 0.38 to ac-count for the incomplete C extraction. Metabolicquotient is the ratio of BSR to MBC. Micro-bial quotient is the ratio of MBC to soil organiccarbon.

Statistical analysis

Collected data were subjected to statisticalanalysis in randomized block design (Cochranand Cox 1992). Before proceeding with the

pooled analysis, homogeneity of error meansquares of each year was tested by using Hart-ley’s test. Interaction between year and treatmentwas not statistically significant. Least significantdifference (LSD) was worked out where varianceratio (F test) was significant and presented/testedat a 5% level of significance.

RESULTS

Dehusked cob and green fodder yield

Baby corn grown with vermicompost pro-duced significantly higher cob (0.717 Mg ha−1)and green fodder (17.581 Mg ha−1) in compar-ison to without vermicompost (table 1). Amongfertilizers, yields increased remarkably with in-creasing the percentages of RDF. Cob (0.759Mg ha−1) and fodder (18.464 Mg ha−1) yieldsof baby corn recorded maximum with 150%RDF, being statistically similar to 100% RDF.However, the lowest cob (0.523 Mg ha−1) aswell as fodder (13.953 Mg ha−1) production wasrecorded in absolute control plots. Vermicom-post applied with fertilizers performed better interms of biomass production than vermicompostalone.

Nutrient uptake

Baby corn accumulated significantly higherN (62 kg ha−1), P (10 kg ha−1), and K (75 kgha−1) when it was grown with vermicompostthan grown without vermicompost (table 2). Nu-trients (NPK) uptake was significantly increasedwith an increase in doses of fertilizers. The N(68 kg ha−1), P (11 kg ha−1), and K (84 kgha−1) were recorded maximum with 150% RDFwhile minimum N (49 kg ha−1), P (7 kg ha−1),and K (62 kg ha−1) with absolute control. Com-bined application of vermicompost and fertil-izer led to higher nutrients (NPK) uptake thanalone.

Soil physico-chemical properties

Vermicompost amended plots enhanced N(145 kg ha−1), P (16 kg ha−1), and K (190 kgha−1) content in soil notably (table 3). Amongfertilizers, application of 150% RDF built-up

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

86 Sharma and Banik

TABLE 1. Effect of vermicompost and fertilizer application on baby corn cob and green fodder yield

Baby corn dehusked cob yield (Mg ha−1) Green fodder yield (Mg ha−1)

2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09

Treatment V0 V1 Mean V0 V1 Mean V0 V1 Mean V0 V1 Mean

FertilizerF0: absolute control 0.470 0.570 0.520 0.463 0.587 0.525 12.836 14.573 13.705 13.236 15.165 14.201F1: 50% RDF 0.533 0.667 0.600 0.553 0.697 0.625 14.374 16.076 15.225 14.863 16.705 15.784F2: RDF 0.657 0.780 0.719 0.697 0.807 0.752 15.761 18.578 17.170 15.911 19.563 17.737F3: 150% RDF 0.683 0.797 0.740 0.723 0.833 0.778 16.843 19.696 18.270 17.095 20.220 18.658Mean 0.586 0.703 0.645 0.609 0.731 0.670 14.954 17.231 16.093 15.276 17.913 16.595

VC Fertilizer Fertilizer × VC VC Fertilizer Fertilizer × VC

2007SEm ± 0.008 0.017 0.034 0.176 0.353 0.706LDS (p = 0.05) 0.018 0.036 0.071 0.374 0.748 1.497

2008SEm ± 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.189 0.379 0.758LDS (p = 0.05) 0.021 0.042 0.085 0.401 0.803 1.606

Note: V0 = without vermicompost; V1 = with vermicompost (@ 10 Mg ha−1); VC = vermicompost; RDF = recommended dose of fertilizer(N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1).

soil fertility [available N (150 kg ha−1), P (17 kgha−1), and K (195 kg ha−1)] at the most in com-parison to the others. On the contrary, lowest soilfertility was recorded with control plots. Com-bined use of vermicompost and fertilizers regis-

tered higher values of soil NPK than their soleapplication. A similar trend was also noticed inthe case of soil organic carbon (SOC) and cationexchange capacity (CEC) due to vermicompostand fertilizers application (table 3).

TABLE 2. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium uptake by baby corn as influenced byvermicompost and fertilizers application

Nitrogen (kg ha−1) Phosphorus (kg ha−1) Potassium (kg ha−1)

Treatment 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09

V0F0 (control) 47.57 49.35 8.95 9.20 64.63 65.67V0F1(50% RDF) 53.92 56.73 10.13 10.43 72.97 74.68V0F2 (100% RDF) 64.98 66.68 11.41 11.60 83.70 85.67V0F3 (150% RDF) 73.95 78.22 12.87 13.02 89.40 92.70V1F0 (VC) 55.09 56.72 10.63 10.87 71.35 73.76V1F1(50% RDF) 63.15 64.93 11.31 11.59 82.22 84.23V1F2 (100% RDF) 73.69 76.58 12.59 13.18 95.36 97.73V1F3 (150% RDF) 86.42 88.44 14.46 14.80 102.51 107.55Vermicompost

SEm ± 0.73 0.79 0.12 0.18 0.85 0.76LSD (p = 0.05) 1.54 1.67 0.26 0.37 1.80 1.62

FertilizerSEm ± 1.46 1.58 0.25 0.35 1.70 1.53LSD (p = 0.05) 3.09 3.34 0.52 0.74 3.60 3.24

Fertilizers × VCSEm ± 2.91 3.15 0.49 0.70 3.40 3.06LSD (p = 0.05) 6.18 6.68 1.05 1.48 7.21 6.48

Note: VC = vermicompost (@ 10 Mg ha−1); RDF = recommended dose of fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

BABY CORN PRODUCTIVITY AND SOIL HEALTH 87

TABLE 3. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, organic carbon, and cation exchange capacity (CEC)after crop harvest as influenced by vermicompost and fertilizers application

Nitrogen (kgha−1)

Phosphorus (kgha−1)

Potassium (kgha−1)

Organic carbon(%) CEC (Cmol+ kg−1)

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008Treatment 08– 09– –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09

V0F0 (control) 115.62 119.56 12.53 12.95 156.68 176.41 0.59 0.54 10.26 10.21V0F1(50% RDF) 121.89 123.12 13.18 13.49 164.82 182.05 0.64 0.65 10.39 10.41V0F2 (100% RDF) 129.36 133.45 14.45 14.55 173.69 188.41 0.72 0.74 10.82 10.85V0F3 (150% RDF) 138.29 139.21 15.43 15.69 180.02 195.62 0.75 0.77 10.84 10.95V1F0 (VC) 128.14 132.00 13.26 13.80 168.81 186.60 0.67 0.71 11.71 12.09V1F1(50% RDF) 135.45 140.10 14.30 14.80 176.38 194.05 0.73 0.75 11.98 12.15V1F2 (100% RDF) 148.46 152.90 16.28 16.80 188.21 202.37 0.81 0.83 12.26 12.40V1F3 (150% RDF) 158.10 163.12 18.62 18.14 197.90 207.73 0.84 0.86 12.31 12.61Vermicompost

SEm ± 0.95 1.23 0.18 0.20 1.55 1.12 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.15LSD (p = 0.05) 2.01 2.62 0.38 0.43 3.28 2.37 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.32

FertilizerSEm ± 1.90 2.47 0.36 0.41 3.09 2.23 0.02 0.02 0.36 0.30LSD (p = 0.05) 4.02 5.23 0.76 0.86 6.56 4.73 0.04 0.04 0.77 0.64

Fertilizers × VCSEm ± 3.79 4.94 0.72 0.81 6.19 4.47 0.03 0.04 0.73 0.61LSD (p = 0.05) 8.04 10.46 1.52 1.72 13.12 9.47 0.07 0.08 1.54 1.28

Note: VC = vermicompost (@ 10 Mg ha−1); RDF = recommended dose of fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1).

TABLE 4. Urease and acid phosphatase enzymes, basal soil respiration (BSR), microbial biomasscarbon (MBC), metabolic quotient, and microbial quotient after crop harvest as influenced by

vermicompost and fertilizers application

Urease (μgNH4

+-N g−1

hr−1)

Acidphosphatase(μg PNP g−1

hr−1)BSR (μg CO2

g−1 hr−1)MBC (μg C

g−1)

Metabolicquotient (mg

g−1)

Microbialquotient (mg

g−1)

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008Treatment –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09 –08 –09

V0F0 (control) 66.77 69.14 30.53 33.75 6.63 6.79 135.97 141.92 48.76 47.84 23.05 26.28V0F1(50% RDF) 51.96 52.04 24.12 26.74 5.20 5.27 126.60 128.17 41.07 41.12 19.78 19.72V0F2 (100% RDF) 42.75 45.93 21.63 23.71 4.74 4.77 108.17 112.20 43.82 42.51 15.02 15.16V0F3 (150% RDF) 31.59 34.84 18.34 19.61 3.59 3.83 95.05 101.45 37.77 37.75 12.67 13.18V1F0 (VC) 72.20 74.78 35.79 38.94 7.53 7.71 155.47 164.13 48.43 46.97 23.20 23.12V1F1(50% RDF) 56.58 60.76 30.60 32.25 6.66 6.74 139.51 144.87 47.74 46.52 19.11 19.32V1F2 (100% RDF) 46.82 48.71 27.86 28.80 5.46 5.87 115.96 122.78 47.09 47.81 14.32 14.79V1F3 (150% RDF) 34.90 39.77 21.29 22.21 4.49 4.97 106.46 108.89 42.18 45.64 12.67 12.66Vermicompost

SEm ± 0.81 0.80 0.45 0.48 0.10 0.09 1.36 1.32LSD (p = 0.05) 1.72 1.70 0.96 1.01 0.21 0.19 2.88 2.80

FertilizerSEm ± 1.62 1.60 0.90 0.95 0.19 0.18 2.72 2.64LSD (p = 0.05) 3.44 3.40 1.91 2.02 0.41 0.38 5.77 5.60

Fertilizers × VCSEm ± 3.25 3.21 1.81 1.91 0.39 0.35 5.44 5.28LSD (p = 0.05) 6.89 6.80 3.83 4.04 0.82 0.75 11.54 11.19

Note: VC = vermicompost (@ 10 Mg ha−1); RDF = recommended dose of fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

88 Sharma and Banik

Soil biochemical properties

Application of vermicompost and fertiliz-ers had significant influence on soil biochemi-cal properties (table 4). Vermicompost amendedplots had significantly higher biochemical activ-ities, such as basal soil respiration (BSR: 6.18 μgCO2 g−1 hr−1), microbial biomass carbon (MBC:132.26 μg C g−1), microbial quotient (46.69 mgg−1), metabolic quotient (17.07 mg g−1), and en-zyme activities [urease (54.31 μg NH4

+-N g−1

hr−1) and acid phosphatase (29.72 μg PNP g−1

hr−1)] as compared to no-vermicompost plots.Biochemical parameters responded negativelyto fertilizers. The lowest values of these pa-rameters were recorded with 150% RDF appli-cation. On the contrary, biochemical activitieswere highest with no-NPK application (controlplots).

Soil nutrient balance

Soil nutrient balance was remarkably influ-enced by the fertilizer and vermicompost appli-cation (figure 1). Results showed that apparentN loss was observed in all the treatments exceptcontrol, being maximum due to application of150% RDF with vermicompost (−276 kg ha−1).Unlike apparent N, actual N gain was noticed inall the treatments except 50% RDF applied with-out vermicompost (−1.70 kg ha−1). Expected Ngain was recorded maximum due to applicationof 150% RDF with vermicompost (437 kg ha−1).Expected and apparent P balance followed thesame trend as in the case of apparent N. Actual Pgain was noticed only with application of 100%RDF and 150% RDF with vermicompost. Ex-pected and actual K balance was positive in allthe treatments. However, apparent K loss wasobserved in the case of fertilizers’ treatmentsreceived vermicompost.

Economics

Cost of cultivation (Rs. 17874/-) was higherfor vermicompost applied plots than the otherone (table 5). However, benefit per rupees of in-vestment was higher in without vermicompostplots (i.e., 4.66). Application of 150% RDF wascostliest (Rs. 16477/-) as well as returned small-est amount of benefit (Rs. 59497/-) than the

others, even though the application of 100%RDF was economically most remunerative.

DISCUSSION

Dehusked cob and green fodder yield

Baby corn grown with vermicompost pro-duced higher cob and fodder, which mightbe due to the supply of essential macro- andmicro-nutrients over a prolonged period (Sreeni-vas et al. 2000) besides improving soil phys-ical (Hassink and Whitmore 1997), chemical(Melero et al., 2005), and biological (Powlson,1994) properties. Since the experimental site(acid lateritic soil) has poor soil fertility coupledwith higher nutrient losses through leaching andrunoff, and high P fixing capacity (Sharma andBanik 2012); therefore, higher cob and fodderyield was obtained with 150% RDF. Due to syn-chronized and balanced nutrient supply throughcombined application of organic and inorganicsources, it produced a higher cob and fodderyield (Kumar and Dhar 2010).

Nutrient uptake

Good physical condition of soil due to ver-micompost application leads to better root de-velopment, hence higher nutrient uptake (Ku-mar 2008). Slow but steady release of nutrientsthrough organic manure and quick availability ofnutrients from an inorganic source led to highernutrient uptake in the conjunctive treatments.Crop plants hoard maximum nutrients when nu-trients are supplied synchronizingly in a bal-anced proportion (Johnston et al. 2001; Jamwal2005).

Soil physico-chemical properties

Organic manures are known to release nutri-ents slowly for a longer period and have higherCEC than the soil. Vermicompost itself acts as aSOC reserve (Kay 1998) and vermicompost sup-plied plots had higher root dry biomass (Swarup2008). The SOC being a storage house of nu-trient coupled with higher CEC reduced the nu-trient losses by holding them for a prolongedperiod and increased nutrient use efficiency

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

BABY CORN PRODUCTIVITY AND SOIL HEALTH 89

FIGURE 1. Soil nutrient balance as influenced by the vermicompost and fertilizer application. RD= recommended dose of fertilizers; V0 = without vermicompost; and V1 = with vermicompost (@10 Mg ha−1). A: initial available soil fertility (kg/ha); B: nutrients added (kg/ha); C: nutrients uptake(kg/ha); D: residual soil fertility (kg/ha).

Expected nutrients balance (kg ha-1) = [(A + B) - C]

Actual gain/loss (kg ha-1) = [D - A]

Apparent gain/loss (kg ha-1) = [D - X]

0100200300400500V0F0 (control)

V0F1(50% RD)

V0F2 (100%RD)

V0F3 (150%RD)

V1F0 (VC)

V1F1(50% RD)

V1F2 (100%RD)

V1F3 (150%RD)

-8081624324048

V0F0 (control)

V0F1(50% RD)

V0F2 (100%RD)

V0F3 (150%RD)

V1F0 (VC)

V1F1(50% RD)

V1F2 (100%RD)

V1F3 (150%RD)

-300

-200

-100

0

100V0F0 (control)

V0F1(50% RD)

V0F2 (100%RD)

V0F3 (150%RD)

V1F0 (VC)

V1F1(50% RD)

V1F2 (100%RD)

V1F3 (150%RD)

N P K

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

90 Sharma and Banik

TABLE 5. Cultivation cost, gross return, net return, and benefit cost ratio as influenced byvermicompost and fertilizers application

Cultivation cost (Rs.ha−1)∗

Gross return (Rs.ha−1) Net return (Rs. ha−1) Benefit cost ratio

Treatment 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09

VermicompostV0: Without VC 10,072 11,281 58,843 61,703 48,771 50,422 4.84 4.47V1: With VC 16,987 18,761 70,025 73,721 53,038 54,960 3.12 2.93

FertilizersF0: Absolute control 10,072 11,281 58,843 61,703 48,771 50,422 4.84 4.47F1: 50% RDF 11,943 13,407 60,180 63,410 48,237 50,003 4.04 3.73F2: RDF 13,814 15,337 71,256 75,279 57,442 59,942 4.16 3.91F3: 150% RDF 15,685 17,269 73,816 78,131 58,131 60,862 3.71 3.5

∗One US$ = 62 INR (Rs.).Note: VC = vermicompost (@ 10 Mg ha−1); RDF = recommended dose of fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 150:60:60 kg ha−1). Price of input/output:Vermicompost is Rs. 650 and 700 Mg−1; baby corn cob is Rs. 80,000 and 82,000 Mg−1; and green fodder is Rs. 800 and 820 Mg−1 in2007–2008 and 2008–2009, respectively.

(Tiwari et al. 2004). Higher doses of fertilizerapplication (150% RDF) produced higher rootbiomass (data not presented) and thus higherSOC, CEC, and soil fertility (NPK). Similar re-sults were also reported by Johnston (1997) andJenkinson (1990). Improvement in soil prop-erties facilitated root development thus higherSOC, CEC, and soil fertility and nutrient balancewhere vermicompost and fertilizers were appliedin conjunction (Purakayastha et al. 2008).

Soil biochemical properties

Organic C is the basic source of energy forthe soil microbes, thus microbial (BSR, MBC,microbial quotient, and metabolic quotient) andenzyme activities (urease and acid phosphatase)were remarkably higher in vermicompost ap-plied plots. The results are in accordance withthe findings of Araujo et al. (2008) and Tu et al.(2006). The magnitude of changes in soil prop-erties generally regulates the quality and quan-tity of root exudates (Kuzyakov and Domanski2000). Root exudates enhance nutrients solubil-ity, diffusion potential, and uptake from soil pri-marily in low nutrient environments (Dakora andPhillips 2002); therefore, control plots exhibitedhigher biochemical activities than the plots thatreceived fertilizers. Soil enzymes are released inthe soil by both plant roots and soil microbes.Hence, enzyme activity is regulated by the func-

tion, activities, and union of these roots and mi-crobes (Dilkes et al. 2004).

Economics

Cultivation cost was higher for vermicompostdue to cost paid for vermicompost and for itsapplication. Economic returns (gross and net-return) were calculated higher for vermicom-post applied plots due to higher productivitybaby corn. High input cost made 150% RDFthe most costly but recorded higher economicreturns due to high production potential of babycorn.

CONCLUSION

Vermicompost application increased babycorn cobs and green fodder yield as well asbuilt up soil fertility in terms of NPK andSOC. Its application also enhanced overall soilquality parameters and soil health. Baby cornyield increased with increasing the RDF. Babycorn produced maximum baby cobs and greenfodder yield, but minimum biochemical soil ac-tivities were recorded with the application of150% RDF. Economic returns were higher forvermicompost application. Higher baby cornproductivity with greater soil health can beobtained by application of 100% RDF withvermicompost.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

BABY CORN PRODUCTIVITY AND SOIL HEALTH 91

REFERENCES

Alef, K. 1995. “Estimation of Soil Respiration.” In Methodsin Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, edited by K.Alef and P. Nannipieri, pp. 464–470. London: AcademicPress.

Araujo, A.S.F., V.B. Santos, and R.T.R. Monteiro. 2008.“Responses of Soil Microbial Biomass and Activity forPractices of Organic and Conventional Farming Sys-tems in Piauı State Brazil.” European Journal of SoilBiology 44: 225–230.

Banik, P., and R.C. Sharma. 2009. “Effect of Organic andInorganic Sources of Nutrients on the Winter Crops-Rice Based Cropping System in Sub-humid Tropicsof India.” Archive of Agronomy and Soil Science 55:285–294.

Bejbaruaha, R., R.C. Sharma, and P. Banik. 2013. “SplitApplication of Vermicompost to Rice (Oryza sativa L.):Its Effect on Productivity, Yield Component and N Dy-namics.” Organic Agriculture 3: 123–128.

Cochran, W.G., and G.M. Cox. 1992. Experimental De-signs. New York: Wiley.

Dakora, F.D., and D.A. Phillips. 2002. “Root Exudates asMediators of Mineral Acquisition in Low-Nutrient En-vironments.” Plant and Soil 245: 35–47.

Dawe, D., A. Dobermann, J.K. Ladha, R.L. Yadav, L.Bao, R.K. Gupta, P. Lal, G. Panaullah, O. Sariam, Y.Singh, A. Swarup, and Q.X. Zhen. 2003. “Do OrganicAmendments Improve Yield Trends and Profitabilityin Intensive Rice Systems?” Field Crops Research 83:191–213.

Dilkes, N.B., D.L. Jones, and J. Farrar. 2004. “TemporalDynamics of Carbon Partitioning and Rhizodepositionin Wheat.” Plant Physiology 134: 706–715.

Friedel, J.K. 2000. “The Effect of Farming System on La-bile Fractions of Organic Matter in Calcari-EpilepticRegosols.” Journal Plant Nutrient Soil Science 163:41–45.

Hanway, J.J., and H. Heidel. 1952. “Soil Analysis Methodsas Used in Iowa State College Soil Testing Laboratory.”Iowa Agriculture 27: 1–13.

Hassink, J., and A.P. Whitmore. 1997. “A Model of thePhysical Protection of Organic Matter in Soils.” SoilScience Society of America Journal 61: 131–139.

Jamwal, J.S. 2005. “Productivity and Economics of Maize(Zea mays)–Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Cropping Sys-tem under Integrated Nutrient Supply System in Rain-fed Areas of Jammu.” Indian Journal of Agronomy 50:110–112.

Jenkinson, D.S. 1990. “The Turnover of Organic Carbonand Nitrogen in Soil.” Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society of London 1255: 361–368.

Joergensen, R.G. 1995. “Microbial Biomass.” In Methodsin Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, edited by K.Alef and P. Nannipieri, pp. 382–386. London: AcademicPress.

Johnston, A.E. 1997. “The Value of Long-Term FieldExperiments in Agricultural, Ecological and Envi-ronmental Research.” Advances in Agronomy 59:291–333.

Johnston, A.E., K.W.T. Goulding, P.R. Poulton, andA. Chalmers. 2001. “Reducing Fertilizer Inputs: En-dangering Arable Soil Fertility?” In Proceeding No.487, p. 44. New York, UK: International FertiliserSociety.

Kay, B.D. 1998. “Soil Structure and Organic Carbon: AReview.” In Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle, editedby R. Lal., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and B.A. Stewart,pp. 169–197. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kumar, A. 2008. “Direct and Residual Effect of NutrientManagement in Maize (Zea mays L.)–Wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) Cropping System.” Indian Journal ofAgronomy 53: 37–41.

Kumar, A., and S. Dhar. 2010. “Evaluation of Organic andInorganic Sources of Nutrients in Maize (Zea mays) andTheir Residual Effect on Wheat (Triticum aestivum) un-der Different Fertility Levels.” Indian Journal of Agri-cultural Sciences 80: 351-356.

Kuzyakov, Y., and G. Domanski. 2000. “Carbon Input byPlants into the Soil—A Review.” Journal Plant Nutri-tion and Soil Science 163: 421–431.

Lal, R. 2004. “Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts onGlobal Climate Change and Food Security.” Science304: 1623–1627.

Melero, S., J.C.R. Porras, J.F. Herencia, and E. Madejon.2005. “Chemical and Biochemical Properties in a SiltyLoam Soil under Conventional and Organic Manage-ment.” Soil Tillage Research 90: 162–170.

Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe, and L.A. Dean.1954. “Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil byExtraction with Sodium Bicarbonate.” USDA CircularNo. 939. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Powlson, D.S. 1994. “The Soil Microbial Biomass: Before,Beyond and Back.” In Beyond the Biomass: Composi-tional and Functional Analysis of Soil Microbial Com-munities, edited by K. Ritz, J. Dighton, and K.E. Giller,p. 3.20. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Purakayastha, T.J., L. Rudrappa, D. Singh, A. Swarup, andS. Bhadraray. 2008. “Long-Term Impact of Fertilizerson Soil Organic Carbon Pools and Sequestration Ratesin Maize-Wheat-Cowpea Cropping System.” Geoderma144: 370–378.

Sharma, R.C., and P. Banik. 2012. “Effect of IntegratedNutrient Management on Baby Corn-Rice CroppingSystem: Economic Yield, System Productivity, Nutri-ent Use Efficiency and Soil Nutrient Balance.” IndianJournal of Agricultural Sciences 82: 220–224.

Sreenivas, C., S. Muralidhar, and M.S. Rao. 2000. “Ver-micompost, a Viable Component of IPNSS in NitrogenNutrition of Ridge Gourd.” Annals of Agricultural Re-search 21: 108–113.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4

92 Sharma and Banik

Subbiah, B.V., and G.L. Asija. 1956. “A Rapid Procedurefor Estimation of Available Nitrogen in Soil.” CurrentScience 25: 259–260.

Swarup, A. 2008. “Enhancing Carbon Sequestration Po-tential of Agricultural Soils for Sustainable Agricultureand Better Environment.” NAAS News 8: 1–5.

Tabatabai, M.A., and J.M. Bremner. 1969. “Use ofp-Nitrophenyl Phosphate for Assay of Soil Phos-phatase Activity.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1:301–307.

Tabatabai, M.A., and J.M. Bremner. 1972. “Assay of Ure-ase Activity in Soils.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry 4:479–487.

Thomas, G.W. 1982. “Exchangeable Cations.” In Methodsof Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and MicrobiologicalProperties, edited by A.L. Page, R.H. Miller, and D.R.

Keeney, pp. 159–166. Madison, WI: American Societyof Agronomy.

Tiwari, R.C., P.K. Sharma, and S.K. Khandelwal. 2004.“Effect of Green Manuring through Sesbania cannabinaand Sesbania rostrata and Nitrogen Application throughUrea to Maize (Zea mays)–Wheat (Triticum aestivum)Cropping System.” Indian Journal of Agronomy 49:15–21.

Tu, C., J.B. Ristaino, and S. Hu. 2006. “Soil MicrobialBiomass and Activity in Organic Tomato Farming Sys-tems: Effects of Organic Inputs and Straw Mulching.”Soil Biology Biochemistry 38: 247–255.

Walkley, A., and I.A. Black. 1934. “An Examination ofthe Degtjareff Method for Determining Soil OrganicMatter and Proposed Modification of the Chromic AcidTitration Method.” Soil Science 37: 29–38.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

07

Oct

ober

201

4