WELCOME

Effect of INM on fruit yield and quality of mango

Presented
By
Yashpal Singh
Id. No. – 0902
Ph.D Horticulture
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY, MEERUT (U.P.), 250110
 HIGHLIGHT
Introduction
Integrated nutrient management (INM)
Component of Integrated nutrient management
Use of INM in mango crop (HDP)
Future strategy
Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION
 India is the second largest fruit producer after china. The total area under fruit is
5.55 million ha and production is 58.7 million tones. Which accounts for 11% of the
total world fruit production.

 In horticulture crop indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, pesticide and

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

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

Area 5.55 million ha (m.ha)

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

Source: NHB – 2008-09

 TREND OF FARMING
Before 1950, Natural farming practices

1960 – 2000, Industrial Farming

2000 – 2007, Organic natural farming

2008 – Forward, Organic Bio-Farming

 Objectives of INM
 The basic concept underling INM is maintaining and possible
improvement in soil fertility for sustained productivity on a long-
term basis.
 To over come the ill effect of continuous used of only INM.

 Major source of plant nutrient are FYM, compost, green manure,

bio- fertilizer and crop residue/ recycble wastes. Proper
integration of one or more source will ensure optimum nutrient
supply.

 To maintain the productivity on sustainable basis without

affective soil health.

 To improve physical, chemical and biological properties of soil.

 To make the soil health and provide balance nutrient.

WHAT IS INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ?

The integrated nutrient management refers

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

Organic manure
FYM
Compost
Green manure
Edible and non – edible cakes
Biofertilizer
Vermicompost
Chemical fertilizer
 Organic manure
Manure:- manure are the organic
substances which improve fertility and physical
properties of soil and when into the soil.
Manure contain very less amount of nutrient.
They are made up of animal remain and dead
plants and contain more than one nutrient
element.
(1)Bulky organic manure
(2) Concentrated organic manure
 Advantage of manure
They improve soil physical properties like
structure and water holding capacity.

To increase nutrient availability.

They prevent the loss of nutrient by leaching,

erosion

Manures supply, plant nutrient including

micro organism.
 BIOFERTILIZERS
Biofertilizers are the microorganism which can
bring about enrichment of soil nutrient either
by fixing atmospheric nitrogen or by
increasing and availability of other nutrient
particularly phosphate
1. Bacterial Biofertilizers:
 Rhizobium species
 Azotobacter
 Azospirillsum
 Pseudomonas
 Conti…
2: Fungal biofertilizers: some species are having a high
efficiency in solubilising phosphate. such species
are-
 Aspergillus
 Penicellium
 Fusarium
 Condida
 Mycorrhiza
3: Algae biofertilizers:
 Anabaena species
 Nostoc species
 Microcystis
 BENEFITS OF BIO FERTILIZER

They are biodegradable.

They do not pollutes soil and water resources.

They are less expensive.

 VERMICOMPOST
Vermicompost is a method of making compost
with use of earthworm which generally live in
the soil. Eat biomass and excrete it in
digestible form.
Precautions:-
1. Maintain the moisture at 50 -60% level in the pit.
2. Temperature between 25-280C.
3. Base material (FYM) should be partially decomposed
4. Proper aeration should be provided without
distributing the worms.
 Advantages of Vermicompost
 Productive utilization of organic wastes materials as

agricultural wastes. Animal dropping, forest litter and agro

based industrial for production of Vermicompost.
 It is store house of plant nutrients.

 Vermicompost improve the physical, chemical and biological

properties of the soil and batter crop productivity.

 Vermicompost is becoming important alternative to

conventional compost and FYM sources for organic farming.

 It also control soil as well as environmental pollution.

 It maintain the soil health.

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

Organic Fertilizer are slow acting but long lasting

effect 3 to 5 years. Cheaper as farmers can make
organic fertilizer from farm products and waste as
compost and manure. Application is once or twice
a year during land preparation. It builds soil life
and soil nutrition.
 Nutrient requirements of fruit crops

Fruit crops yield high & mine heavily the

nutrients from the soils
Estimate of the nutrient requirement:
Nutrient reserves in the trees
Soil nutrient status
Fertilizer recommendation requires leaf analysis
Crop residues
 Mango

Needs regular fertilization for maintaining proper growth

and heavy yield of crop every year.

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

Highest activity of rootsat 120 cm from the trunk,

Nutritional requirements depends-the type and nutrient

status of the soil , age of the tree etc.
 OBJECTIVE
 To study the effect of organic manure, inorganic & bio-
fertilizers on growth Parameters, fruit yield & quality in
mango cv.- Amrapali.

 To standardize the doses of organic manure, inorganic

& bio-fertilizers for sustainable yield & quality of mango
under HDP.

 To minimize the indiscriminate use of chemical

fertilizers resulted in various environmental & health
hazards always socio- economic problems.

 To reduce the cost of cultivation of mango.

 TECHNICAL PROGRAMME
A. Treatment = 14

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

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

T3 – 100% NPK +250g PSB /plant/year.

T4 – 100% NPK +250g Azoto.+ 250g PSB /plant/year.

T5 – 100% NPK + vermi-compost 20 kg /plant/year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSB.
T14- 75% NPK + vermi-compost 40kg+ 250g Azoto.+ 250g
PSB.
  
B. Lay out plan

Treatment- 14
Replication- 3
Total number of plant - 14 x 3 = 42.
Design- Randomized block design ( R.B.D.)
Location of the study; HRC , S.V.B.P.U. of
A.&T, Meerut (U.P.).
Duration of the study ; 2010-11 to 2011-12.
Soil sample will be collected at a depth of 0-
30cm.
 C. Observations to be recorded
1. Nutrient status (Before & after the treatment)
a. soil-
Soil pH.
Soil N
soil P2O5.
soil K20.
Organic carbon.
b. Leaf -
N
P
K
C. Fruit- (After the treatment)
• N
• P
• K
2. Plant growth-
a Height/spread.
3. Flowering.
a. Date of panicle emergence
b. No. of panicles/plant.
4. Fruit set percentage
5. Yield contributing parameters
a. Fruit yield /tree
b. Fruit yield/ha.
6. Fruit quality parameters
a. Fruit size
b. Fruit weight
c. Fruit acidity(%).
d. Fruit TSS(ο Brix)
e. Fruit firmness
f. Fruit sugar
 D. Time of application
 a. 1st year experiment -
 FYM- Oct - 2010
 PSB Oct.- 2010
 Azotobacter Oct.- 2010
 P&K Oct.- 2010
 N- Jan- 2011
b. 2nd year experiment-
 FYM- Oct - 2011
 PSB Oct.- 2011
 Azotobacter Oct.-2011
 P&K Oct.-2011
 N- Jan-2012
Table.1: Fruit yield characters as influence by INM in mango cv.-
Alphonso (mean of two years)
Treatments Fruit Fruit Fruit
yield yield weight
No./tree. (g)
(kg/tree) av.

T1- farmer’s practice(50% RDF+ 10 kg 29.35 157.90 197.27

FYM/tree)
T2- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM/ tree 34.69 174.85 204.83
T3- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM+ 5 kg verm.com/ 40.04 193.60 204.80
tree

T4- 50% RDF + Azospirillum (100 g /tree)+ ‘P’ 33.03 171.90 197.90
solubalizer (100 g/tree)+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree
CD at (5%) 1.86 8.64 NS

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

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

Fruit dimensions
Treatments Length Circumferen
(cm) ce (cm)

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

T2- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM/ tree 8.72 16.50
T3- 75% RDF + 25 kg FYM+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree 8.62 16.50

T4- 50% RDF + Azospirillum (100 g /tree)+ ‘P’ 8.60 16.12

solubalizer (100 g/tree)+ 5 kg verm.com/ tree
CD at (5%) NS NS

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

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

Treatment Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

A B A B A B
T0 1.40 1.45 0.084 0.085 0.287 0.297

T1 1.61 1.62 0.091 0.092 0.296 0.328

T2 1.67 1.75 0.093 0.091 0.347 0.357
T3 1.62 1.70 0.089 0.089 0.307 0.320
T4 1.65 1.72 0.084 0.082 0.358 0.373
T5 1.46 1.54 0.087 0.086 0.317 0.137
T6 1.52 1.62 0.086 0.091 0.315 0.348
T7 1.48 1.61 0.086 0.089 0.308 0.312
T8 1.52 1.62 0.083 0.091 0.315 0.333
A= At flowering (March)
CD at 5% 0.112 0.110 0.002 0.003
B= 0.021(July)
At harvest 0.012
Table.4: Effect of nitrogen, Azotobacter chroococum on vegetative growth in
mango cv. Amrapali.

Treatment Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

in shoot in plant in E-W in N-S in
length height spread spread canopy
(%) (%) (%) (%) volume
(%)
T0 Control 11.63 6.10 6.38 6.53 20.46
T1- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter 17.36 8.55 8.36 9.22 28.69
(M-4)
T2- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter 25.52 8.10 9.30 9.82 30.96
(CBD-15)
T3- 2/3 N (96 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 15.85 8.13 9.49 9.34 34.69
T4- 2/3N (96 g) +Azotobacter (CBD -15) 20.58 8.17 9.68 8.75 29.15
T5- 1/3N (48 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 15.33 7.93 9.60 7.88 27.70
T6- 2/3N (48 g) +Azotobacter (CBD -15) 16.53 7.67 8.50 8.55 27.00
T7- only Azotobacter (M-4) 13.19 6.76 7.39 8.34 24.45
T8- only Azotobacter (CBD- 15) 14.62 7.92 7.58 8.25 25.75
CD at 5% 1.58 NS NS NS NS

Source: Ahmad et .al .(2003)

 Table.5: Effect of nitrogen, Azotobacter chroococum on fruit yield and quality of
mango cv. Amrapali.
Treatment Yield Fruit TSS Total Ascorbic
(kg/plant) weight (%) acidity acid
(mg/100g
(g) (%)
pulp)

T0 Control 16.05 115.88 21.22 0.142 38.50

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

T2- Full dose of N (145 g) +Azotobacter 23.89 136.16 23.19 0.103 44.89
(CBD-15)
T3- 2/3 N (96 g) +Azotobacter (M-4) 21.31 130.38 23.24 0.103 44.40

T4- 2/3N (96 g) +Azotobacter (CBD -15) 23.74 150.00 23.64 0.116 45.53

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

T6- 2/3N (48 g) +Azotobacter (CBD -15) 19.24 129.75 22.79 0.107 40.70

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

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

CD at 5% 2.16 8.43 0.94 0.007 2.17

Source: Ahmad et. al (2003)

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

Treatment Fruit set/ Fruit Fruit No. Yield

panicle drop retention/ fruit/ (kg/tree)
panicle tree
The first season (2008)
Control 6.36 84.38 1.35 23 9.40
Yeast at 0.05% 8.52 80.98 1.38 25 10.00
Yeast at 0.1% 9.22 79.44 1.39 30 11.15
Yeast at 0.2% 9.38 79.37 1.48 32 12.43
Algae at 0.5% 9.63 76.41 1.52 35 14.00
Algae at 1.0% 10.22 76.33 1.64 36 14.43
Algae at 2.0% 10.85 75.66 1.85 38 16.65
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 10.89 75.51 1.89 40 18.26
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 11.07 75.37 3.03 42 19.00
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 11.18 74.54 3.72 45 20.36

Source: Elham et .al (2010)

Conti….
Treatment Fruit set/ Fruit Fruit No. fruit/ Yield
panicle drop retention/ tree (kg/tree)
panicle

The second season (2009)

Control 8.29 86.39 3.02 27 13.33
Yeast at 0.05% 12.53 85.32 3.04 29 14.00
Yeast at 0.1% 13.18 83.30 3.06 33 15.51
Yeast at 0.2% 13.27 82.32 3.22 36 16.37
Algae at 0.5% 13.35 80.61 3.30 39 18.10
Algae at 1.0% 14.28 80.50 3.34 40 18.33
Algae at 2.0% 14.57 79.69 3.68 42 20.67
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 15.24 79.50 4.17 44 21.40
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 15.35 79.25 4.20 47 23.00
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 15.49 78.51 4.00 49 24.00

Source: Elham et.al (2010)

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

Treatment Fruit Fruit Pulp / Seed Fruit

width length fruit (%) weight weight
(cm) (cm) (g) (g)
The first season (2008)
Control 7.66 10.25 68.04 53.16 400
Yeast at 0.05% 8.05 11.00 75.05 52.23 500
Yeast at 0.1% 8.09 11.40 77.22 50.15 530
Yeast at 0.2% 8.19 12.29 78.60 49.31 560
Algae at 0.5% 8.24 12.44 80.29 48.43 600
Algae at 1.0% 8.43 12.65 80.02 46.36 625
Algae at 2.0% 8.60 13.00 83.21 45.56 650
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 9.32 13.20 84.48 43.36 675
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 9.47 13.36 85.59 41.46 750
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 10.57 14.76 88.33 40.46 800

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

Conti…..
Treatment Fruit Fruit Pulp / Seed Fruit
width length fruit (%) weight weight
(cm) (cm) (g) (g)

The second season (2009)

Control 7.78 12.00 70.01 54.59 500
Yeast at 0.05% 8.32 12.30 72.31 53.37 600
Yeast at 0.1% 8.55 13.13 77.04 51.50 633
Yeast at 0.2% 9.00 14.11 79.16 50.50 660
Algae at 0.5% 9.41 14.32 80.47 49.44 700
Algae at 1.0% 9.69 14.45 84.13 47.34 723
Algae at 2.0% 10.00 15.00 85.33 46.56 750
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 10.25 15.28 86.40 44.26 775
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 10.40 15.63 87.59 42.00 850
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 10.64 16.66 91.45 41.63 866

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

Table.8: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on fruit characters of keitte mango
tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons
Treatment TSS (%) Acidity Total Reducin Vitamin C
mg/100 g
(%) sugar (%) g sugar pulp
(%)
The first season (2008)
Control 17.06 0.35 11.00 5.10 34.50
Yeast at 0.05% 17.46 0.33 11.34 5.43 35.43
Yeast at 0.1% 18.10 0.32 12.10 5.65 35.60
Yeast at 0.2% 18.60 0.30 12.30 6.61 36.41
Algae at 0.5% 18.91 0.28 12.36 6.57 37.00
Algae at 1.0% 18.71 0.27 12.50 7.30 37.61
Algae at 2.0% 18.94 0.25 12.70 7.42 38.40
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 19.36 0.23 13.10 7.50 39.36
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 19.55 0.22 13.16 7.44 39.58
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 20.67 0.20 13.30 7.63 40.00

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

Conti…
Treatment TSS (%) Acidit Total Reducin Vitamin C
mg/100 g
y (%) sugar (%) g sugar pulp
(%)
The second season (2009)
Control 19.00 0.37 15.00 8.40 36.23
Yeast at 0.05% 19.41 0.35 15.26 8.50 36.36
Yeast at 0.1% 20.00 0.34 16.00 8.77 37.10
Yeast at 0.2% 20.52 0.32 16.20 9.76 37.23
Algae at 0.5% 20.68 0.30 16.63 10.23 38.13
Algae at 1.0% 21.48 0.29 16.38 10.33 38.60
Algae at 2.0% 21.55 0.27 16.57 11.03 39.50
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 21.74 0.26 17.00 11.43 40.33
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 21.84 0.24 17.33 11.48 42.00
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 22.78 0.22 17.30 12.19 44.00

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

 Table.9: Effect of algae and yeast extracts on leaf minerals content of keitte
mango tree during 2008 and 2009 seasons
Treatment N (%) P (%) K (%) Boron
(ppm)
The first season (2008)
Control 1.030 0.061 0.480 42.00
Yeast at 0.05% 1.050 0.062 0.485 43.80
Yeast at 0.1% 1.070 0.063 0.490 55.70
Yeast at 0.2% 1.080 0.065 0.523 64.30
Algae at 0.5% 1.103 0.067 0.540 82.46
Algae at 1.0% 1.120 0.070 0.600 98.43
Algae at 2.0% 1.128 0.073 0.607 90.60
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 1.130 0.077 0.700 95.34
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 1.137 0.080 0.770 96.50
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 1.770 0.085 0.773 98.43
Conti…….
Treatment N (%) P (%) K (%) Boron
(ppm)
The second season (2009)
Control 1.040 0.071 0.483 43.00
Yeast at 0.05% 1.080 0.072 0.487 46.90
Yeast at 0.1% 1.090 0.074 0.500 56.80
Yeast at 0.2% 1.100 0.076 0.634 65.40
Algae at 0.5% 1.203 0.078 0.650 83.65
Algae at 1.0% 1.220 0.081 0.700 87.52
Algae at 2.0% 1.229 0.084 0.708 91.70
Algae 0.5%+ Yeast 0.05% 1.230 0.088 0.710 95.43
Algae 1.0%+ Yeast 0.1% 1.237 0.091 0.740 97.60
Algae at 2.0%+ Yeast at 0.2% 1.270 0.100 0.784 99.56

Source: Elham et. al (2010)

 Future strategies
Nutritional research should not be miss the
component of organic sources.
There is need to develop various models
pertaining to INM for the “transfer of technology”
to the farming. Community is the different agro
climate conditions.
The degradation of soil/ soil pollution is the
serious problem affecting productivity and
agriculture sustainability. So scientific and
technology over come this problem
 Conclusion
 Although the balanced application of nutrient organic sources
have been found to increase the yields even higher. The INM
through organic sources has resulted in multi- benefits in addition
to maximum and stable yield with improve quality.
 Judicious and efficient use of organic fertilizers improved soil
ecology with less environmental pollution are some of the other
benefit accruing from inclusion of INM
 INM is the key to enhance the soil productivity and sustained it.
 INM has potential particularly in developing counties cattle
during is the main source in India.
 The technique is cost effective and eco- friendly.
 INM not only aim at supplying plant nutrient in balanced from
and improving over all soil productivity, but also lower
dependency on fossils fuels used in the manufacture to chemical
fertilizers.