ABOUT INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN MUSTARD

1. Sumit Chaudhary
Id No 38019
1

2. India and Oilseeds…
• India- the 5th largest producer of oilseeds in the world.
• Contributes 7% of the global oilseed production.
• Largest acreage under Sesame, Safflower and Castor in the world.
• Largest exporter of Castor oil.
• Among World’s largest consumer of edible oils.
• Global rankings of India in terms of production II- Groundnut
III- Rapeseed-Mustard
IV- Linseed
V- Soybean
• National rankings in terms of production : I- Soybean
II- Rapeseed-Mustard
III- Groundnut
2

3. 3
Rapeseed & Mustard 2012-13 Statistics (DRMR, Bharatpur)
India 11.12 %
Production of R&M (World)
India 19.29 %
Acreage R&M (World)
Acreage R&M(India) Production R&M (India)

4. 4
India Rapeseed & Mustard Statistics (DRMR, Bharatpur)

5. Strategies for Increasing Production of
Rapeseed & Mustard
 Area Expansion : Limited scope.
 High yielding varieties : Potential of the various species in
R&M group to be realized.
 GM varieties: Ambiguity about safe usage still prevails.
 Package and practices of nutrient management: Scope in
view of the deficiency of mineral nutrients due to intensive
agriculture.
5

6. Trends in Fertilizer Response
6

7. Fertilizer response in R&M
 1960 :14-15 kg seed yield/ kg NPK
applied
 2010 : 4-5 kg seed yield/ kg NPK
applied
 Efficiency of fertilizers:
Nitrogen = 40-50%
Phosphorus= 15-20%
Sulphur = 10-12%
7

8. Emerging deficiencies of plant nutrients in relation to
increased food-grain production
Source: Singh, 2011
8

9. INM : Concept and Role
The basic concept of INM is the maintenance and a
possible increase in soil fertility for sustaining crop
productivity through optimization of all the possible
sources (organic and inorganic) of plant nutrients required
for crop growth and quality in an integrated manner
appropriate to the cropping systems and farming situations
9
in its ecological possibilities.
The three main roles of INM , as defined by FAO 1998 , are
Maintain or enhance soil productivity through a balanced use of fertilizers
combined with organic and biological sources of plant nutrients
Improve the stock of plant nutrients in the soils
Improve the efficiency of plant nutrients limiting
the losses in the environment.

10. Mineral Fertilizer Biological Sources
Plant Sources
Manure Sources
10

11. Treatment Siliquae/plant Seeds/siliqua Seed yield
(q/ha)
Oil yield
(q/ha)
RDF(80,17.2,33.2 kg/ha
NPK)
188.2 11.9 13.32 4.91
RDF+FYM 10t/ha 254.9 14.1 16.92 6.99
RDF+Borax@10kg/ha+Zn
241.0 14.3 16.83 6.83
SO4 @20kg/ha
50 % RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha 197.4 12.2 14.78 5.62
50 % RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha
+ZnSO4 @20kg/ha
208.9 12.9 15.49 6.04
50%RDF+FYM@ 10t/ha
+Borax@ 10kg/ha +
ZnSO4 @20kg/ha.
253.4 14.1 16.68 6.85
CD(P=0.05) 24.7 1.0 0.37 0.26
Coochbehar (WB) Sandy loam, pH=6.4 Mandal & Sinha (2002)
11
Effect of INM on yield attributes and yield of Indian Mustard

12. 12
Soil status after INM in Indian mustard
Treatments Seed
Yield(t/ha)
Available nutrients in soil after harvest (kg/ha)
N P K S
Control 1.15 150.0 9.0 125.0 16.0
FYM 5t/ha 1.39 158.0 10.1 134.0 17.0
50% RDF 1.58 162.0 10.5 135.0 16.2
50% RDF+
1.79 165.2 11.0 144.5 17.2
FYM 5t/ha
75% RDF 1.88 170.5 11.3 145.6 16.3
75 RDF+
FYM 5t/ha .
2.09 172.0 11.7 153.2 17.7
RDF* 2.00 175.0 12.0 155.0 16.5
CD(P=0.05) 0.20 4.5 0.5 9.5 0.4
*RDF=NPK @ 100:60:40 kg/ha
Agra(U.P) Sandy loam, pH=8.0 Chandel et al. (2013)

13. Sulphur uptake by Indian mustard in relation to INM
Treatment Siliquae / plant Seed yield (t/ha) S uptake kg/ha
2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07
Nutrient source RDF @ 80- 17.4- 33.3 kg NPK/ ha
Control 193 226 1.13 1.27 17.68 16.45
RDF(Fer.) 337 349 1.93 1.96 31.16 32.90
Rec. N (FYM) 263 393 1.68 2.23 24.13 37.10
½ RDF (Fer.) + 1/2
358 406 2.13 2.30 32.68 38.94
Rec. N (FYM)
CD(P=0.05) 19 13 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.60
Sulpuhr level (kg/ha) through Gypsum
0 280 339 1.57 1.76 22.86 27.35
40 295 348 1.86 2.12 29.97 35.34
CD(P=0.05) 12 6 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.89
New Delhi Sandy loam, pH=7.7 Rana and Thuan (2010)
13

14. Effect of INM on SYI, Production Efficiency and Partial Factor Productivity(5 yr.)
Treatment Oil % Oil yield
(t/ha)
SYI PE
(kg/ha/day)
PFP (kg
grain/ kg
nutrient)
Organic source
Fallow –m (control) 42.4 0.57 0.36 8.6 -
Ses(GM)-m 41.6 0.79 0.54 12.3 7.9
Ses(GM)+m str *- m 40.9 0.89 0.63 14.1 7.1
CD(P=0.05) 0.4 0.04 0.04 1.1 NS
Fertility level(kg/ha)
N40P8.7K33.3 42.1 0.59 0.38 9.1 17.2
N40P17.4K33.3 42.0 0.70 0.46 10.8 18.4
N80P17.4K0 41.1 0.92 0.66 14.5 23.1
N80P17.4K33.3 41.3 0.97 0.67 15.2 18.0
CD(P=0.05) 0.9 0.04 0.05 1.4 2.8
* str@ 2.5t/ha 14
Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
Clay loam, pH=8.1
Premi et al.(2012)

15. 15
Effect of INM on morphological and physiological determinants of Indian mustard
Treatment Br./plant Mean LAR
(cm²/g)
Seed Y.(kg/ha)
T1, RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 10.7 44.0 1081
T2, T1+FYM10 12.0 48.7 1210
T3, T2+S40 13.1 50.8 1270
T4, T3+Zn.25 14.3 54.6 1350
T5, T4+ B.1 16.7 57.2 1432
T6, T5+AZT 20.8 58.7 1526
T7, 50% RDF 8.5 39.6 966
T8,T7+FYM10+S40+Zn25+B1 14.0 51 1295
T9,T8+AZT 15.3 54.6 1366
T10,75%RDF 9.3 40.1 1021
T11,T10+FYM10+S40+Zn25+B1 14.9 51.0 1282
T12,T11+AZT 17.7 51.9 1433
CD (P = 0.05) 4.2 15.8 267
Pantnagar Clay loam, pH=7.1 Shukla et al.(2002)

16. Mode of action of Azospirillum / Azotobacter in promoting plant growth. 16

17. Treatment (OS) Pr. Br/pl Sec. Br/pl Siliquae/pl Seeds/ pod Seed y (q/ha)
FYM2.5 4.9 12.0 186 10.9 13.08
FYM 5 5.3 12.9 194 10.8 14.55
FYM2.5+AZT 5.3 13.4 191 11.6 13.59
FYM5+AZT 5.8 13.8 201 11.0 15.38
FYM2.5+AZS 5.3 13.5 193 12.3 13.98
FYM5+AZS 6.0 13.9 204 12.3 15.79
FYM2.5+AZS+AZT 5.7 13.6 199 12.7 14.46
FYM5+AZS+AZT 6.2 14.2 210 12.9 15.81
CD(P=0.05) 0.1 0.4 6 0.43 0.68
In N (kg/ha) P2O5@ 40kg/ha
0 4.93 12.6 177 10.63 10.16
40 5.37 13.4 200 11.93 15.81
80 5.87 13.6 207 12.40 16.79
CD(P=0.05) 0.13 0.3 4 0.32 0.45
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Sandy loam Singh et al. (2014)
17
Impact of INM and Inorganics on Indian mustard

18. Treatment Siliquae/plant Seed yield
(t/ha)
Oil yield
(kg/ha)
Net ret.
(x1000 Rs./ha)
Control 162.6 1.37 548 16.3
AP* 175.8 1.48 597 18.4
RDF* 259.6 2.39 982 34.8
RDF+ AP 281.6 2.51 1034 37.2
75% RDF 218.0 2.02 822 27.8
75%RDF+ AP 256.8 2.28 935 33.2
50% RDF 197.8 1.72 701 22.4
50% RDF+ AP 230.8 2.12 867 30.5
CD (P=0.05) 18.4 0.16 66
Kota (Rajasthan) Clay loam, pH=7.6 Meena et al.(2013)
18
INM influences on yield and economics of Indian mustard
*AP= Seed ino. with Aztobacter + PSB, RDF*= N80P17.5S60

19. Yield and quality of Indian mustard as influenced by INM
Treatment Seed
yield
(t/ha)
Oil yield
(kg/ha)
Protein
yield
(kg/ha)
N uptake
by seed
(kg/ha)
P uptake
by seed
(kg/ha)
Control 1.05 402 16.5 27.9 5.6
50% RDF 1.52 564 17.7 43.2 8.4
RDF (80 kg N+40
kg P2O5/ha)
1.78 647 19.3 55.2 10.4
40 kg N/ha + PSB 1.50 570 17.6 42.2 8.3
50% RDF + PSB +
Proteus vulgaris.
1.75 654 18.8 52.8 10.1
CD (P=0.05) 0.21 52 0.9 6.5 1.3
New Delhi Sandy Loam, pH=7.1 Shivran and Giri (2006) 19

20. Effect of INM on seed yield, available soil nutrients and economics
Treatment Seed yield
(kg/ha)
AV. N & P IN SOIL AFTER
HARVEST (Kg/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
N P
Organic Source
FYM 2.5 1651 192.00 18.60 20128
FYM 5+PSM 1930 201.33 20.58 25202
FYM 5+Azos 1913 199.20 20.07 24853
FYM 2.5 + PSM +Azos 1881 197.80 19.74 24584
FYM 5+ PSM+Azos 1949 206.80 21.36 25547
CD(P=0.05) 101 7.27 1.44
N Level
40 kg/ha 1914 200.40 20.36 25086
80 kg/ha 2064 217.80 24.30 27494
CD(P=0.05) 75 4.35 1.03
P,K, each @40 kg/ha through SSP and MOP
Varanasi (U.P) clay loam, pH=7.2 Singh and Singh (2013) 20

21. Effect of INM on soil properties & seed yield of Pearl millet – mustard crop rotation
Treatment Soil pH*
(0-15 cm)
Soil EC *
(dS/m)
Soil %*
OC
Seed Yield
(t/ha)
Control 7.79 0.11 0.34 1.01
RDF* 7.70 0.13 0.41 1.85
RDF +FYM 7.62 0.20 0.48 2.22
RDF +Sulphur free plot 7.72 0.13 0.40 1.44
100%NPK+ Azt. 7.68 0.14 0.42 1.95
100%NPK+Azt. +PSB 7.65 0.16 0.44 2.05
100% NPK + FYM + Azt.+PSB 7.54 0.23 0.52 2.35
150%NPK 7.69 0.18 0.42 2.04
75% NPK + FYM 10 t/ha 7.70 0.18 0.46 1.96
CD(P=0.05) 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.21
Gwalior (M.P) Sandy clay loam Khambalkar et al. (2012)
21
RDF*= N+P2O5+K2O @ 80+40+20 - 100+60+40
1997: pH=7.78, %OC=0.36, EC=0.13 and *= After 13 years

22. Seed meal quality of Indian mustard as influenced by INM
Treatment Seed Yield(t/ha) Glu.Cont ( moles/g seed)
2005-06 2006- 07 2005-06 2006- 07
T1,RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 1.33 1.53 104.2 98.4
T2, T1+FYM(10) 1.44 1.66 107.3 100.9
T3, T2+S(40) 1.56 1.82 117.2 107.4
T4, T3+ZnS(25) 1.60 1.87 110.1 99.5
T5, T4+ B(1) 1.64 1.91 105.0 95.2
T6, T5+AZT 1.67 1.95 97.5 94.1
T7, 75% RDF 1.21 1.40 114.1 106.1
T8,T7+FYM(10) 1.31 1.52 116.3 109.3
T9,T8+S(40) 1.45 1.69 128.2 111.2
T10,T9+ZnS(25) 1.49 1.75 116.4 107.4
T11,T10+B(1) 1.53 1.78 106.3 102.3
T12,T11+AZT 1.57 1.82 103.2 101.0
CD (P = 0.05) 0.23 0.29 9.2 8.5
Pantnagar Loam, pH=7.5 Tripathi et al. (2010) 22

23. 23
Seed meal quality of Ethiopian mustard as influenced by INM
Treatment Seed Yield(kg/ha) Glu.C (μ moles/g seed)
1998-99 1999-2000 1998-99 1999-2000
T1,RDF (120-17.6-16.7) 1980 1561 85.3 92.3
T2, T1+FYM.10 2160 1627 87.2 9.9
T3, T2+S40 2202 1850 93.6 106.8
T4, T3+Zn.25 2254 1970 85.2 102.8
T5, T4+ B.1 2349 2070 82.1 95.9
T6, T5+AZT 2367 2158 82.1 86.5
T7, 50% RDF 1791 978 113.9 111.4
T8,T7+FYM10+S.40+Zn.25+B.1 2041 1161 91.5 97.2
T9,T8+AZT 2105 1312 90.5 95.4
T10,75%RDF 1853 1376 92.0 103.9
T11,T10+FYM10+S.40+Zn.25+
2233 1558 88.3 93.9
B.1
T12,T11+AZT 2238 1578 87.1 90.9
CD (P = 0.05) 269 186 13.6 6.0
Pantnagar Loam, pH=7.1 Kandpal et al. (2001)

24. Treatment Seed Yield (t/ha)
2005-06 2006-07
Glucosinolate content
(μmoles/g seed)
2005-06 2006-07
B:C ratio
RDF 1.22 0.95 106.6 110.7 1.48
RDF+FYM 1.36 1.06 109.0 117.5 1.44
RDF+FYM + ZnSO4 1.54 1.16 106.5 113.4 1.59
RDF+FYM+ ZnSO4+
1.75 1.31 102.6 103.8 2.00
Azoto
75% RDF + FYM 1.22 1.06 118.0 123.7 1.43
75% RDF + FYM +
1.40 1.09 115.3 128.3 1.52
ZnSO4
75% RDF + FYM+
ZnSO4 + Azoto .
1.58 1.28 108.9 109.0 1.90
CD(P=0.05) 0.09 0.10 17.0 7.2 0.10
RDF=120 N, 17.6 P, 16.6 K, 40 S/ha .
FYM@10 t/ha, ZnSO4 @25 kg/ha , Azoto 10g/kg seed
Lakhaoti (U.P) sandy loam, pH=7.6 Pal and Singh (2011)
24
Effect of INM on seed yield, glucosinolate content and Economics

25. constraints faced in adoption of INM technology
 Less availability of FYM
 Difficulties in growing green manure crops
 Non-availability of bio fertilizers
 Inadequate availability of water
 Non-availability of soil testing facilities
 Lack of knowledge and poor advisory services
 Non-availability of improved seeds
 Soil conditions
 Non-availability of credit facilities
25

26. Concluding Remarks
 Use of INM stands out beneficial in a variety of ways .
Besides improving the growth, yield & quality of the
crop (Mustard), it also maintains sustainability of the
system.
 INM prove to be economical as well as eco-friendly.
26

27. Thank you
27