Abstract image of a woman sitting on books and studying on a laptop

meena ppt

Download as PPT, PDF
S
shankar meena

This document summarizes a student's post-thesis seminar on the effects of integrated nutrient management on onion growth and yield. The student investigated 13 treatment combinations of organic manures, biofertilizers, and inorganic fertilizers. Key findings included that the combination of 40% recommended fertilizer dose, neem cake, vermicompost, and biofertilizers resulted in the highest onion bulb yield of 27.17 tons/hectare, as well as greatest growth parameters, physicochemical properties, and net returns. The study evaluated the effects of integrated nutrient management on onion variety N-53 in terms of growth, yield, quality, economics, and soil nutrient status.

1 of 26
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Department of Horticulture Rajasthan College of Agriculture Udaipur Post-thesis Seminar Name of Student : Major Advisor: Shankar Lal Meena Dr. H. L. Bairwa M.Sc.(Ag.) Horticulture Assistant Professor Department of Horticulture
TITLE Integrated Nutrient Management in onion (allium cepa L.) cv-N53 DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
INTRODUCTION DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
4 OBJECTIVES 1. To find out the most effective treatment combinations for growth, yield and quality of onion. 2. To evaluate the efficacy of organic manure in combination with biofertilizers and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of onion. 3. To evaluate the economic feasibility of different treatments.
DETAILS OF EXPERIMENT •Location : Horticulture Farm, RCA •Year : 2014-15 •Season : Rabi •Name of the Crop : Allium cepa L. •Variety : N-53 •Treatment combination : 13 •No. of replication : 3 •Experimental design : RBD •Plot size : 6 sq. m (3 X 2) •Total no. of plot : 39 DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
TREATMENT DETAILSDepartmentofHorticulture,RCA Treatment combination Notation 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) T1 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB (sole organic) T2 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) T3 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) T4 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) T5 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) T6 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) T7 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) T8 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) T9 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + Azotobacter + PSB T10 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + Azotobacter + PSB T11 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB T12 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB T
OBSERVATION RECORDED (A) Growth parameter 1.Plant height (cm) 2.No. of leaves / plant 3.Day taken to harvesting of bulbs 4.Bolting percent during crop harvest (If any) (B)Yield parameter 1.Bulb length (cm) 2.Bulb diameter (cm) 3.Fresh weight of bulb (g) individual 4.Bulb yield (kg / plot) (C)Physico-chemical parameter 1.TSS % 2.Protein content in bulb % 3.Carbohydrate% 4.Sugar % 5.Chlorophyll content in leaves 6.Loss in weight % during storage (at 10 DAH, 20 DAH, 30 DAH) 7.Uptake of nutrients by bulb 8.Dry matter content (%) 9.Vit.-C (D) Net returns and B:C ratio. (E) Soil Nutrient Status. 1. NPK status of soil before planting 2. NPK status of soil after harvesting of crop DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
Experiment Result
S.No Details of Treatments Plant height (cm) 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 18.82 28.39 40.02 48.58 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha) +VC (30q/ha) +AZ + PSB 15.78 26.01 36.00 46.04 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 16.15 26.20 39.71 46.55 4 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) 17.10 27.12 38.66 47.56 5 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) 16.56 26.12 37.64 47.18 6 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) 17.09 26.43 39.62 46.52 7 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) 17.42 26.75 37.13 47.06 8 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 17.89 27.94 39.82 48.51 9 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 15.80 26.61 37.44 47.41 10 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 16.55 26.43 36.80 46.32 11 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 15.84 26.03 36.33 46.22 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC(20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 19.24 29.71 41.94 50.58 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC(30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 18.98 29.68 41.84 50.08 SEm± 0.12 0.21 0.33 0.35 Table 4.1 : Effect of INM on plant height of onion cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments No. of leaves / plant 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 2.87 4.93 7.00 8.53 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha)+AZ + PSB (sole organic) 2.40 4.00 5.40 7.47 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.53 4.33 5.60 7.73 4 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) 2.47 4.53 6.20 8.73 5 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) 2.60 4.07 5.80 8.13 6 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) 2.80 4.87 6.20 8.40 7 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) 2.47 4.07 6.40 7.93 8 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 2.93 5.00 7.20 8.67 9 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.80 4.60 6.80 8.33 10 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.60 4.33 6.20 7.73 11 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.53 4.07 6.60 7.67 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 3.27 5.33 7.60 9.60 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.93 5.00 7.40 9.33 SEm± 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 Table 4.2 : Effect of INM on no. of leaves / plant of onion cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Crop maturity (days) Bolting percent at 90 days 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 145.78 4.33 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 145.35 2.55 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 140.28 3.56 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 143.18 3.37 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 145.14 2.84 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 143.74 3.52 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 145.16 3.32 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 140.56 2.67 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 142.07 3.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 140.25 3.40 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 145.25 4.10 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 138.45 2.25 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 139.18 2.35 SEm± 0.008 0.117 CD at 5% NS 0.351 Table 4.3 : Effect of INM on crop maturity and bolting of onion cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Bulb length (cm) Bulb diameter (cm) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 4.27 4.52 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 4.34 3.95 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 4.29 3.85 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 4.26 3.99 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 4.31 3.90 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 4.25 4.20 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 4.25 4.10 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 4.34 4.33 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 4.28 4.25 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 4.26 3.85 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 4.25 3.80 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 4.45 5.20 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 4.41 4.85 SEm± 0.130 CD at 5% NS Table 4.4 : Effect of INM on bulb length and bulb diameter of onion cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Weight of bulb (g) Yield per plot (kg) Yield per hectare (t) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 46.15 13.73 22.33 2 NC(6q/ha)+ VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 41.62 12.28 20.21 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 42.08 12.71 20.72 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 43.07 13.05 21.36 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 43.69 13.22 21.79 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 48.66 14.96 23.85 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 47.36 13.95 23.16 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 49.55 15.23 24.43 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 48.26 14.21 23.55 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 37.58 11.16 19.39 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 34.98 10.51 18.84 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 52.32 16.05 27.17 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 52.21 15.52 26.61 SEm± 1.68 0.340 0.788 CD at 5% Table 4.5 : Effect of INM on yield parameters of onion bulb cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments TSS (°Brix) in bulb Protein content (%) Carbohydr ate content (% ) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 12.70 5.09 7.36 2 NC(6q/ha)+ VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 12.03 4.84 6.98 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 11.44 4.40 6.90 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 12.03 5.00 7.46 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 12.07 5.07 7.71 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 12.78 5.05 7.62 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 12.52 5.17 7.45 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 13.12 5.43 8.25 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 12.97 5.15 8.09 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 11.14 4.27 7.03 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 10.85 4.23 6.85 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 15.19 6.10 8.82 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 13.48 5.74 8.32 SEm± 0.21 0.32 0.038 CD at 5% 0.61 0.92 0.110 Table 4.6 : Effect of INM on TSS, protein and Carbohydrate cotent of onion bulb cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Chlorophyll content of leaves at 90 DAP (mg/g/fresh wt.) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 0.66 11.33 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 0.58 10.72 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 0.56 10.83 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 0.64 11.54 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 0.60 11.32 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 0.66 11.61 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 0.70 11.48 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 0.70 12.09 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 0.62 12.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 0.57 11.02 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 0.55 10.60 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 0.76 13.01 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 0.73 12.98 SEm± 0.004 0.065 CD at 5% 0.013 0.189 Table 4.7 : Effect of INM on Chlorophyll content of leaves and Ascorbic acid content of onion bulb cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Dry matter content (%) Sugar content (%) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 14.79 5.93 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 13.68 5.47 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 13.83 5.50 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 14.65 5.77 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 14.75 5.86 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 14.32 5.97 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 14.41 5.87 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 14.92 6.05 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 14.94 6.33 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 13.58 5.48 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 13.56 5.36 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 16.39 6.70 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 15.32 6.48 SEm± 0.543 0.068 CD at 5% 1.586 0.197 Table 4.8 : Effect of INM on Dry matter and Sugar content of onion bulb cv-N53
S.No Details of Treatments Uptake of NPKS by the bulb in Kg ha-1 N P K S 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 209.38 36.36 279.84 178.48 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha)+VC (30q/ha) +AZ + PSB 151.04 40.72 250.64 156.25 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 158.00 38.50 235.43 145.28 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 184.96 37.37 260.85 176.84 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 192.21 38.35 284.73 184.50 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 213.35 43.41 297.84 193.07 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 195.65 42.50 277.54 185.49 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 226.71 46.42 291.37 204.40 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 224.70 43.40 268.92 193.79 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 150.16 31.53 241.80 145.28 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 137.35 30.77 231.66 132.00 12 60%RDF +NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 233.53 52.78 297.99 238.03 13 40%RDF + NC(9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 229.51 52.69 290.14 221.26 SEm± 10.21 1.20 23.09 12.88 CD at 5% 29.81 3.51 67.38 37.59 Table 4.9 : Effect of INM on uptake of NPKS of onion bulb cv-N53
S.No. Details of Treatments Loss in wt (%) during storage at days 10 DAH 20 DAH 30 DAH 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 2.81 4.36 6.12 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 2.68 4.19 5.88 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.67 4.23 5.83 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 2.70 4.25 6.00 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 2.69 4.25 6.04 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 2.76 4.22 6.04 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 2.66 4.23 5.95 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 2.73 4.35 6.00 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.66 4.12 6.00 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.71 4.28 5.93 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.76 4.33 6.04 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.58 4.10 5.78 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.61 4.18 5.83 SEm± 0.001 0.003 0.001 CD at 5% NS NS NS Table 4.10 : Effect of INM on loss in weight during storage of onion cv-N53
Treatment Details Available NPKS after harvesting (kg ha-1 ) N P K S 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 184.40 24.06 251.92 15.12 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha)+VC(30q/ha)+ AZ + PSB 184.98 24.12 248.89 12.98 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 185.34 23.91 247.66 12.82 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 185.68 24.87 250.91 13.53 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 189.23 25.39 251.83 13.41 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 185.97 25.19 254.59 14.64 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 188.32 25.60 255.65 13.57 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 191.58 26.01 258.92 14.07 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 194.68 27.00 260.27 14.18 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 183.16 22.74 246.54 14.01 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 181.88 22.41 245.04 13.98 12 60%RDF+NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 195.22 28.24 265.90 15.68 13 40%RDF + NC (9q/ha)+VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 194.26 27.28 264.26 15.49 Table 4.11 : Effect of INM on NPK status of soil after harvest of onion crop cv-N53
S.No. Details of Treatments Gross Returns (` ha-1 ) Net Returns (` ha-1 ) B:C Ratio 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 334950 264878 3.78 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 303150 221150 2.70 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 310800 229000 2.80 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 320400 244557 3.22 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 326850 248121 3.15 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 358200 284157 3.84 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 347400 271371 3.57 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 370350 288507 3.53 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 353250 265521 3.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 290850 224053 3.35 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 282600 216151 3.25 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 407550 325507 3.97 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 399150 311221 3.54 Table 4.12 : Effect of INM on net return (ha-1 ) and Benefit cost ratio of onion crop cv-N53
Plate 2 : onion bulb photograph
VIEW OF CROP
Genral view of Treatments
Pate : Onion plant with bulb
Conclusion On the basis of results obtained in the present investigation entitled “Integrated Nutrient Management in onion (alium cepa l.) Cv-N-53” it may be concluded that among the treatments used in experiment, treatment T12 (60 per cent recommended dose of NPKS + NC 6 q ha-1 + VC 20 q ha-1 + Azotobacter + PSB) was found best as cmpared to other treatment Further it was significantly superior in various growth, yield, and quality attributing characteristics like number leaves per plant, plant height, bulb length, bulb diametrs, weight, bulb yield t ha-1 , ascorbic acid content, drymatter content fruit volume and fruit diameter. As far as economics is concerned maximum net return 325507 rupees ha-1 and B:C ratio (3.97) were obtained in same treatment.
meena ppt

More Related Content

PPT
Introduction To Food Processing
Fauquier Horticulture
 
PPTX
You Are What You Eat Powerpoint All In One
blw58
 
PPTX
Asmita thesis writing
magareasmi
 
PDF
Research paper samples
williamholt4
 
DOCX
Research paper finished
Eka Prasetia
 
PPTX
Mathematical Process Standards
goldenj
 
PPT
Food processing
Dr. Sunil Kumar
 
PPTX
Synopsis Seminar ppt ndn cskhpkv palampur
navdeepsingh1760
 
Introduction To Food Processing
Fauquier Horticulture
 
You Are What You Eat Powerpoint All In One
blw58
 
Asmita thesis writing
magareasmi
 
Research paper samples
williamholt4
 
Research paper finished
Eka Prasetia
 
Mathematical Process Standards
goldenj
 
Food processing
Dr. Sunil Kumar
 
Synopsis Seminar ppt ndn cskhpkv palampur
navdeepsingh1760
 

Similar to meena ppt (20)

PDF
Pathak, s. and dutta, a. k. (2019)
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute
 
PPTX
INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION
Vasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
 
PDF
Growth, Yield and Economic Advantage of Onion (Allium cepa L.) Varieties in R...
AI Publications
 
PPTX
Screening onion varieties through organic farming condition
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute
 
PDF
Nutritional Status and Sufficiency Ranges of Nutrients Based on DRIS Method o...
Journal of Agriculture and Crops
 
PPTX
onion botanical description ,cultivation and physiological disorders.
Arvind Yadav
 
PPT
Onion_production [Autosaved].pptdfggdetf
pepperblack114
 
PDF
Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates and intra-row spacing on yield and yield ...
Premier Publishers
 
PPTX
Onion Final PPT.pptx
VimlendraSingh3
 
PPTX
Onion.pptx
BrajKishor22
 
PPTX
onionalh5054-190129114636.pptx
AkshayVerma444592
 
PPTX
KRISHNENDU SADHUKHAN 2021.pptx
KrishnenduSadhukhan3
 
PPTX
CROP IMPROVEMENT IN ONION (Allium cepa L.)
KrishnenduSadhukhan3
 
PPTX
Integrated nutrient management influence on crop yields in dryland agriculture
archana reddy
 
PPTX
ONION PPT
HARISH J
 
PPT
Studies on the Effect of Size and Portion of Bulbs on Seed yield of Onion cv....
SOUVICKBANIK1
 
PPT
Effect of pre-harvest treatments on post harvest bulb rotting, sprouting and ...
Aisha Kolhar
 
PPTX
ONION production technology pptx for agriculture students
THANJEELAFATHIMAKJ
 
PDF
Responsiveness of Cauliflower (Brassica oleraceae var. botrytis L.) to micron...
Open Access Research Paper
 
PDF
234662220 (1).pdf
ssuserc379df
 
Pathak, s. and dutta, a. k. (2019)
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute
 
INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION
Vasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
 
Growth, Yield and Economic Advantage of Onion (Allium cepa L.) Varieties in R...
AI Publications
 
Screening onion varieties through organic farming condition
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute
 
Nutritional Status and Sufficiency Ranges of Nutrients Based on DRIS Method o...
Journal of Agriculture and Crops
 
onion botanical description ,cultivation and physiological disorders.
Arvind Yadav
 
Onion_production [Autosaved].pptdfggdetf
pepperblack114
 
Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates and intra-row spacing on yield and yield ...
Premier Publishers
 
Onion Final PPT.pptx
VimlendraSingh3
 
Onion.pptx
BrajKishor22
 
onionalh5054-190129114636.pptx
AkshayVerma444592
 
KRISHNENDU SADHUKHAN 2021.pptx
KrishnenduSadhukhan3
 
CROP IMPROVEMENT IN ONION (Allium cepa L.)
KrishnenduSadhukhan3
 
Integrated nutrient management influence on crop yields in dryland agriculture
archana reddy
 
ONION PPT
HARISH J
 
Studies on the Effect of Size and Portion of Bulbs on Seed yield of Onion cv....
SOUVICKBANIK1
 
Effect of pre-harvest treatments on post harvest bulb rotting, sprouting and ...
Aisha Kolhar
 
ONION production technology pptx for agriculture students
THANJEELAFATHIMAKJ
 
Responsiveness of Cauliflower (Brassica oleraceae var. botrytis L.) to micron...
Open Access Research Paper
 
234662220 (1).pdf
ssuserc379df
 
Ad

meena ppt

  • 1. Department of Horticulture Rajasthan College of Agriculture Udaipur Post-thesis Seminar Name of Student : Major Advisor: Shankar Lal Meena Dr. H. L. Bairwa M.Sc.(Ag.) Horticulture Assistant Professor Department of Horticulture
  • 2. TITLE Integrated Nutrient Management in onion (allium cepa L.) cv-N53 DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
  • 4. 4 OBJECTIVES 1. To find out the most effective treatment combinations for growth, yield and quality of onion. 2. To evaluate the efficacy of organic manure in combination with biofertilizers and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of onion. 3. To evaluate the economic feasibility of different treatments.
  • 5. DETAILS OF EXPERIMENT •Location : Horticulture Farm, RCA •Year : 2014-15 •Season : Rabi •Name of the Crop : Allium cepa L. •Variety : N-53 •Treatment combination : 13 •No. of replication : 3 •Experimental design : RBD •Plot size : 6 sq. m (3 X 2) •Total no. of plot : 39 DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
  • 6. TREATMENT DETAILSDepartmentofHorticulture,RCA Treatment combination Notation 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) T1 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB (sole organic) T2 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) T3 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) T4 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) T5 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) T6 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) T7 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) T8 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) T9 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + Azotobacter + PSB T10 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + Azotobacter + PSB T11 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB T12 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + Azotobacter + PSB T
  • 7. OBSERVATION RECORDED (A) Growth parameter 1.Plant height (cm) 2.No. of leaves / plant 3.Day taken to harvesting of bulbs 4.Bolting percent during crop harvest (If any) (B)Yield parameter 1.Bulb length (cm) 2.Bulb diameter (cm) 3.Fresh weight of bulb (g) individual 4.Bulb yield (kg / plot) (C)Physico-chemical parameter 1.TSS % 2.Protein content in bulb % 3.Carbohydrate% 4.Sugar % 5.Chlorophyll content in leaves 6.Loss in weight % during storage (at 10 DAH, 20 DAH, 30 DAH) 7.Uptake of nutrients by bulb 8.Dry matter content (%) 9.Vit.-C (D) Net returns and B:C ratio. (E) Soil Nutrient Status. 1. NPK status of soil before planting 2. NPK status of soil after harvesting of crop DepartmentofHorticulture,RCA
  • 9. S.No Details of Treatments Plant height (cm) 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 18.82 28.39 40.02 48.58 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha) +VC (30q/ha) +AZ + PSB 15.78 26.01 36.00 46.04 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 16.15 26.20 39.71 46.55 4 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) 17.10 27.12 38.66 47.56 5 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) 16.56 26.12 37.64 47.18 6 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) 17.09 26.43 39.62 46.52 7 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) 17.42 26.75 37.13 47.06 8 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 17.89 27.94 39.82 48.51 9 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 15.80 26.61 37.44 47.41 10 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 16.55 26.43 36.80 46.32 11 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 15.84 26.03 36.33 46.22 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC(20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 19.24 29.71 41.94 50.58 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC(30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 18.98 29.68 41.84 50.08 SEm± 0.12 0.21 0.33 0.35 Table 4.1 : Effect of INM on plant height of onion cv-N53
  • 10. S.No Details of Treatments No. of leaves / plant 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 2.87 4.93 7.00 8.53 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha)+AZ + PSB (sole organic) 2.40 4.00 5.40 7.47 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.53 4.33 5.60 7.73 4 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) 2.47 4.53 6.20 8.73 5 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) 2.60 4.07 5.80 8.13 6 60% RDF of NPKS + VC (20q/ha) 2.80 4.87 6.20 8.40 7 40% RDF of NPKS + VC (30q/ha) 2.47 4.07 6.40 7.93 8 60% RDF of NPKS + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 2.93 5.00 7.20 8.67 9 40% RDF of NPKS + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.80 4.60 6.80 8.33 10 60% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.60 4.33 6.20 7.73 11 40% RDF of NP&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.53 4.07 6.60 7.67 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 3.27 5.33 7.60 9.60 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.93 5.00 7.40 9.33 SEm± 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 Table 4.2 : Effect of INM on no. of leaves / plant of onion cv-N53
  • 11. S.No Details of Treatments Crop maturity (days) Bolting percent at 90 days 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 145.78 4.33 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 145.35 2.55 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 140.28 3.56 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 143.18 3.37 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 145.14 2.84 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 143.74 3.52 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 145.16 3.32 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 140.56 2.67 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 142.07 3.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 140.25 3.40 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 145.25 4.10 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 138.45 2.25 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 139.18 2.35 SEm± 0.008 0.117 CD at 5% NS 0.351 Table 4.3 : Effect of INM on crop maturity and bolting of onion cv-N53
  • 12. S.No Details of Treatments Bulb length (cm) Bulb diameter (cm) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 4.27 4.52 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 4.34 3.95 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 4.29 3.85 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 4.26 3.99 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 4.31 3.90 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 4.25 4.20 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 4.25 4.10 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 4.34 4.33 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 4.28 4.25 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 4.26 3.85 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 4.25 3.80 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 4.45 5.20 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 4.41 4.85 SEm± 0.130 CD at 5% NS Table 4.4 : Effect of INM on bulb length and bulb diameter of onion cv-N53
  • 13. S.No Details of Treatments Weight of bulb (g) Yield per plot (kg) Yield per hectare (t) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 46.15 13.73 22.33 2 NC(6q/ha)+ VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 41.62 12.28 20.21 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 42.08 12.71 20.72 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 43.07 13.05 21.36 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 43.69 13.22 21.79 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 48.66 14.96 23.85 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 47.36 13.95 23.16 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 49.55 15.23 24.43 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 48.26 14.21 23.55 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 37.58 11.16 19.39 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 34.98 10.51 18.84 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 52.32 16.05 27.17 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 52.21 15.52 26.61 SEm± 1.68 0.340 0.788 CD at 5% Table 4.5 : Effect of INM on yield parameters of onion bulb cv-N53
  • 14. S.No Details of Treatments TSS (°Brix) in bulb Protein content (%) Carbohydr ate content (% ) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 12.70 5.09 7.36 2 NC(6q/ha)+ VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 12.03 4.84 6.98 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 11.44 4.40 6.90 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 12.03 5.00 7.46 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 12.07 5.07 7.71 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 12.78 5.05 7.62 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 12.52 5.17 7.45 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 13.12 5.43 8.25 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 12.97 5.15 8.09 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 11.14 4.27 7.03 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 10.85 4.23 6.85 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 15.19 6.10 8.82 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 13.48 5.74 8.32 SEm± 0.21 0.32 0.038 CD at 5% 0.61 0.92 0.110 Table 4.6 : Effect of INM on TSS, protein and Carbohydrate cotent of onion bulb cv-N53
  • 15. S.No Details of Treatments Chlorophyll content of leaves at 90 DAP (mg/g/fresh wt.) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 0.66 11.33 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 0.58 10.72 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 0.56 10.83 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 0.64 11.54 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 0.60 11.32 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 0.66 11.61 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 0.70 11.48 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 0.70 12.09 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 0.62 12.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 0.57 11.02 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 0.55 10.60 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 0.76 13.01 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 0.73 12.98 SEm± 0.004 0.065 CD at 5% 0.013 0.189 Table 4.7 : Effect of INM on Chlorophyll content of leaves and Ascorbic acid content of onion bulb cv-N53
  • 16. S.No Details of Treatments Dry matter content (%) Sugar content (%) 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 14.79 5.93 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 13.68 5.47 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 13.83 5.50 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 14.65 5.77 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 14.75 5.86 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 14.32 5.97 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 14.41 5.87 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 14.92 6.05 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 14.94 6.33 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 13.58 5.48 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 13.56 5.36 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 16.39 6.70 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 15.32 6.48 SEm± 0.543 0.068 CD at 5% 1.586 0.197 Table 4.8 : Effect of INM on Dry matter and Sugar content of onion bulb cv-N53
  • 17. S.No Details of Treatments Uptake of NPKS by the bulb in Kg ha-1 N P K S 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 209.38 36.36 279.84 178.48 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha)+VC (30q/ha) +AZ + PSB 151.04 40.72 250.64 156.25 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 158.00 38.50 235.43 145.28 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 184.96 37.37 260.85 176.84 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 192.21 38.35 284.73 184.50 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 213.35 43.41 297.84 193.07 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 195.65 42.50 277.54 185.49 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 226.71 46.42 291.37 204.40 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 224.70 43.40 268.92 193.79 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 150.16 31.53 241.80 145.28 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 137.35 30.77 231.66 132.00 12 60%RDF +NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 233.53 52.78 297.99 238.03 13 40%RDF + NC(9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 229.51 52.69 290.14 221.26 SEm± 10.21 1.20 23.09 12.88 CD at 5% 29.81 3.51 67.38 37.59 Table 4.9 : Effect of INM on uptake of NPKS of onion bulb cv-N53
  • 18. S.No. Details of Treatments Loss in wt (%) during storage at days 10 DAH 20 DAH 30 DAH 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 2.81 4.36 6.12 2 NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB (sole organic) 2.68 4.19 5.88 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.67 4.23 5.83 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 2.70 4.25 6.00 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 2.69 4.25 6.04 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 2.76 4.22 6.04 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 2.66 4.23 5.95 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 2.73 4.35 6.00 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 2.66 4.12 6.00 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.71 4.28 5.93 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 2.76 4.33 6.04 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.58 4.10 5.78 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 2.61 4.18 5.83 SEm± 0.001 0.003 0.001 CD at 5% NS NS NS Table 4.10 : Effect of INM on loss in weight during storage of onion cv-N53
  • 19. Treatment Details Available NPKS after harvesting (kg ha-1 ) N P K S 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 184.40 24.06 251.92 15.12 2 (sole organic)NC(6q/ha)+VC(30q/ha)+ AZ + PSB 184.98 24.12 248.89 12.98 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 185.34 23.91 247.66 12.82 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 185.68 24.87 250.91 13.53 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 189.23 25.39 251.83 13.41 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 185.97 25.19 254.59 14.64 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 188.32 25.60 255.65 13.57 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 191.58 26.01 258.92 14.07 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 194.68 27.00 260.27 14.18 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 183.16 22.74 246.54 14.01 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 181.88 22.41 245.04 13.98 12 60%RDF+NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 195.22 28.24 265.90 15.68 13 40%RDF + NC (9q/ha)+VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 194.26 27.28 264.26 15.49 Table 4.11 : Effect of INM on NPK status of soil after harvest of onion crop cv-N53
  • 20. S.No. Details of Treatments Gross Returns (` ha-1 ) Net Returns (` ha-1 ) B:C Ratio 1 100%RDF( NPKS 120:60:60:40 Kg/ ha-1 ) 334950 264878 3.78 2 (sole organic)NC (6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 303150 221150 2.70 3 NC(6q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 310800 229000 2.80 4 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) 320400 244557 3.22 5 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) 326850 248121 3.15 6 60% RDF + VC (20q/ha) 358200 284157 3.84 7 40% RDF + VC (30q/ha) 347400 271371 3.57 8 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) 370350 288507 3.53 9 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) 353250 265521 3.03 10 60% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 290850 224053 3.35 11 40% RDF (NP)&100%KS + AZ + PSB 282600 216151 3.25 12 60% RDF + NC(6q/ha) + VC (20q/ha) + AZ + PSB 407550 325507 3.97 13 40% RDF + NC (9q/ha) + VC (30q/ha) + AZ + PSB 399150 311221 3.54 Table 4.12 : Effect of INM on net return (ha-1 ) and Benefit cost ratio of onion crop cv-N53
  • 21. Plate 2 : onion bulb photograph
  • 23. Genral view of Treatments
  • 24. Pate : Onion plant with bulb
  • 25. Conclusion On the basis of results obtained in the present investigation entitled “Integrated Nutrient Management in onion (alium cepa l.) Cv-N-53” it may be concluded that among the treatments used in experiment, treatment T12 (60 per cent recommended dose of NPKS + NC 6 q ha-1 + VC 20 q ha-1 + Azotobacter + PSB) was found best as cmpared to other treatment Further it was significantly superior in various growth, yield, and quality attributing characteristics like number leaves per plant, plant height, bulb length, bulb diametrs, weight, bulb yield t ha-1 , ascorbic acid content, drymatter content fruit volume and fruit diameter. As far as economics is concerned maximum net return 325507 rupees ha-1 and B:C ratio (3.97) were obtained in same treatment.