NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS
Download as PPT, PDF2 likes2,833 views
The document discusses the challenges and strategies related to nutrient management in agriculture aimed at enhancing crop productivity while minimizing environmental impacts. Key issues include declining fertilizer response, stagnation in fertilizer production, and various nutrient deficiencies. It advocates for integrated nutrient management approaches that combine organic and inorganic sources to sustain soil health and agricultural viability.
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS
- 1. WEL-COME
- 2. Seminar on NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS Presentation by SWAMI YOGESHWAR PARMESHWAR (REG.NO. 2017A/118M) Research Guide Seminar In charge Dr. S. L. WAIKAR Dr. Syed Ismail Assistant Professor, Head, Submitted to DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRIL.CHEMISTRY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE V.N.M.K.V, PARBHANI 431402 (M.S.) 2018
- 3. Introduction The development of Plant Nutrient Management to increase the quantity of plant nutrients in farming systems and thus crop productivity is a major challenge for food security and rural development. The depletion of nutrient stocks in the soil is a major but often hidden form of land degradation. On the other hand, excessive application of nutrients or inefficient management means an economic loss to the farmer and can cause environmental problems, especially if large quantities of nutrients are lost from the soil-plant system into water or air. Increasing agricultural production by improving plant nutrition management, together with a better use of other production factors is thus a complex challenge.
- 4. Nutrient management implies managing all nutrient sources - fertilisers, organic manures, waste materials suitable for recycling nutrients, soil reserves, biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) and bio-fertilizers in such a way that yield is not knowingly increased while every effort is made to minimise losses of nutrients to environment.
- 5. Nutrient management: Involves using crop nutrients as efficiently as possible to improve productivity while protecting the environment. The key principle behind nutrient management is balancing soil nutrient inputs with crop requirements. Nutrient management concepts can be distinctly defined for two broad domains: (i) Nutrient Management Planning (ii) Site specific nutrient management
- 6. i. Nutrient Management Planning: Nutrient management is: knowing what you have, knowing what you need and managing wisely. Nutrient management plans must be site-specific. They are tailored to the soils, landscapes, and management of a particular farm. In fact, nutrient management planning is much like developing a cash-flow analysis using kilograms of N and P instead of rupees.
- 7. Steps of Nutrient Management Planning: (i) Obtain accurate soil information for each field or management unit. (ii) Estimate yield potential of each field (iii) Calculate plant nutrients required to achieve the yield potential. (iv) Determine the plant-available nutrients in manures or other organic amendments. (v) Estimate residual nutrient contributions forms fertilizers or manures applied in previous seasons. (vi) Apply animal manures and/or commercial fertilizers to supply nutrients when needed by the growing crops using best management practices. (vii) It is clear that nutrient management planning uses the same inflow versus outflow as cash flow analysis. Any later should be able to implement nutrient management planning.
- 8. ii)Site specific nutrient management: The SSNM helps in improving NUE as it provides an approach for feeding crops like rice, maize, wheat, etc. with nutrients as and when needed. The major benefit for farmers from improved nutrient management strategy is an increase in the profitability. The SSNM eliminates the wastage of fertilizers by preventing excessive rates of fertilization and by avoiding fertilizer application when the crop does not require nutrient inputs. It also ensures that N, P, and K are applied in the ratio required by the intended crop.
- 10. Nutrient Management: Challenges A. Declining fertilizer response and crop productivity B. Stagnation in fertilizer production C. Stagnating Food grain Productivity D. Macronutrient Deficiency E. Micronutrient Deficiency F. Multi micro-nutrient Deficiency G. Imbalances in Fertiliser Use H. Gap in Nutrient supply and Nutrient Removal I. Change in Land-Man Ratio
- 11. A. Declining fertilizer response and crop productivity: Table.1: Declining fertilizer response ratio in India during last four decades (Source: Rao et al.,(2015). Indian J. Fertilizes,Vol.11(4), 28-37) Period Fertilizer Response (kg grain per kg nutrient used) 1970-71 49.79 1980-81 24.49 1990-91 14.06 2000-01 9.98 2010-11 8.69
- 12. B. Stagnation in fertilizer production: The country will require about 45 Mt of nutrients to produce 300 Mt of food grains for around 1.4 billion population by 2025. Unfortunately, the fertilizer industry is not on the desired growth trajectory for quite sometime due to non-conducive policy environment for investments in the industry. The country had been importing increasing quantities of fertilizers to meet the demands, the figures being 7, 3 and 4.4 Mt of urea, phosphatic and potassic fertilizers, respectively for 2007-08.The existing gap between demand and supply of fertilizers is likely to grow further in the absence of any capacity enhancement. The import of fertilizers would, obviously, cause burden on the state exchequer. The inadequate supplies of fertilizers would lead to further mining of our soils.
- 13. C. Stagnating Food grain Productivity: Fig.1: Productivity growth rate (% per annum) of food grain production (Source: Rao et al.,(2015). Indian J. Fertilizers ,Vol.11(4),28-37)
- 14. D. Macronutrient Deficiency: (Source: Rao et al., (2015 ). Indian J. Fertilizes 11(4): 28-37) Available Nutrient Element Per cent deficiency in districts sampled (Total 500 Districts) During Period Of 1995-2008 Low (283 Districts) Medium (182 Districts) High (33 Districts) N 57% 36% 7% P 51% 40% 9% K 9% 42% 49%
- 15. E. Micronutrient Deficiency: Table.2: Deficiency status of available (DTPA-extractable) micronutrients and hot water soluble B (HWS-B) in soils of different states of India (Source: Shukla et al.,(2015).Indian J. Fertilizers.10(12) 94-112) State DTPA-extractable micronutrients Hot water soluble B No. of samples Percent samples deficient No. of samples Percent samples deficientZn Fe Cu Mn Andhra Pradesh 6723 22.3 16.8 1.0 1.7 3216 2.8 Assam 5216 25.5 0.0 3.8 0.0 5216 11.9 Bihar 7304 41.4 12.3 1.8 7.8 3597 33.3 Gujarat 5470 23.1 23.9 0.4 6.3 5470 17.9 Haryana 5673 15.3 21.6 5.2 6.1 5673 3.3 Himachal Pradesh 642 1.4 7.8 0.2 22.1 161 8.7 Jharkhand 443 20.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 443 56.0 Madhya Pradesh 7580 61.7 9.6 0.2 1.6 3330 2.4 Maharashtra 8278 54.0 21.5 0.2 3.8 489 54.8 Odisha 2349 22.7 1.8 0.3 1.1 2349 52.5 Punjab 2181 16.6 6.2 3.6 15.2 1083 17.5 Tamil Nadu 31080 65.5 10.6 13.0 7.9 31080 19.9 Telangana 4799 26.9 17.0 1.4 3.8 2776 16.1 Uttar Pradesh 4788 33.1 7.6 6.3 6.5 4323 16.2 Uttarakhand 2575 9.6 1.4 1.4 4.7 2575 7.0 West Bengal 2363 11.9 0.0 1.2 0.9 1849 46.9 All India 97464 43.0 12.1 5.4 5.5 73630 18.3
- 16. Fig:2 Macro and Micronutrient deficiencies in India in the Progressive expansion in occurrence of nutrient deficiencies: (Source: Rattan et al. ISSS Platinum Jubilee Symposium,249-265)
- 17. F. Multi micro-nutrient Deficiency: Table:3 Deficiency status of multi-micronutrients in soils of different states of India (Source: Shukla et al.,(2014). Indian J. Fertilizes,10(12) 94-112) State Two micronutrients Three micronutrients Zn+Fe Zn+Cu Zn+Mn Zn+B Zn+Fe+Mn Zn+Cu+Mn Zn+Fe+B Andhra Pradesh 6.40 0.40 0.61 0.81 0.16 0.03 0.16 Assam 0.00 1.50 0.00 4.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bihar 4.01 0.89 2.67 16.49 1.11 0.11 1.25 Gujarat 6.00 0.24 2.30 4.83 0.86 0.00 1.30 Haryana 6.38 2.22 1.80 0.74 0.85 0.37 0.46 Himachal Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jharkhand 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 Madhya Pradesh 7.56 0.12 1.35 1.50 0.59 0.01 0.24 Maharashtra 12.32 0.11 2.74 30.47 1.82 0.06 0.20 Odisha 0.34 0.17 0.26 12.22 0.04 0.00 0.17 Punjab 1.79 1.93 4.68 1.85 0.46 0.28 0.18 Tamil Nadu 8.45 10.69 6.00 13.50 1.71 2.12 1.38 Telangana 6.21 0.58 0.92 2.05 0.33 0.13 0.47 Uttar Pradesh 2.99 2.46 2.34 6.80 0.77 0.48 0.67 Uttarakhand 0.27 0.62 0.93 0.78 0.12 0.31 0.00 West Bengal 0.00 0.55 0.47 3.73 0.00 0.04 0.00 All India 6.29 3.97 3.04 8.86 1.01 0.76 0.86
- 18. G. Imbalances in Fertiliser Use: Table.4 Consumption ratio of fertilisers in India over time (Source: Rao et al., (2015). Indian J. Fertilizers,11(4);28-37) Year N:P2O5:K2O 1951-52 7.9:0.9:1 19961-62 8.9:2.2:1 1971-72 6.0:1.9:1 1981-82 6.0:1.9:1 1991-92 5.9:2.4:1 2001-02 6.8:2.6:1 2007-08 5.5:2.1:1 2008-09 4.6:2.0:1 2009-10 4.3:2.0:1 2010-11 4.7:2.3:1 2011-12 6.7:3.1:1 2012-13 8.2:3.2:1
- 19. Source: Fertilizer Association Of India 2015
- 20. H. Nutrient supply and Nutrient Removal: Fig: 3 Relationship of nutrient (N:P2O5: K2O) consumption, removal and gap (Source:Manna et al.(2013). Indian Jourl.of soil conservation:41(2):127-135)
- 21. I. Change in Land-Man Ratio: Table.5: Reducing land-man ratio in India over the years (Source: Rao et al., (2015). Indian J. Fertilizers,11(4);28-37) Year Land man ratio(Arable land and land under permanent crops/ Population) 1951-52 0.35 1961-62 0.32 1971-72 0.28 1981-82 0.24 1991-92 0.20 2001-02 0.16 2007-08 0.15 2010-11 0.14
- 22. The other possible causes of soil health decline are : 1. Physical degradation caused by soil erosion, compaction, crusting etc. 2. Chemical degradation caused by: • Wide nutrient gap between nutrient renewal and supply • High nutrient turn over in soil plant system coupled with low and imbalanced fertiliser use • Less use of secondary and micronutrients • Insufficient input of organic sources because of other competitive uses • Salinity and alkalinity in soils 3. Biological degradation due to organic matter depletion and loss of soil fauna and flora 4. Soil pollution from industrial wastes, excessive use of pesticides and heavy metal contamination.
- 23. Nutrient Management: Options A. Integrated Plant Nutrient System B. Nutrient Based Pricing And Subsidy C. Promoting: Fortified and Coated fertilizer Customized and Water soluble fertilizer Nanotechnology for slow release efficient fertilizers D. Utilizing indigenously available nutrient sources E. Enhancing availability of organic manure F. Use Of Bio-fertilizers G. Use of Vermicomposts H. Legumes in crop rotation I. Conservation Agriculture J. Managing Problem Soils through Soil Amendments K. Emerging Issues and Way Forward
- 24. A. Integrated Plant Nutrient System: The different components of integrated nutrient management possess great diversity in terms of chemical and physical properties and nutrient release patterns. Six basic principles of sustainable integrated nutrient management system laid out by Dennis Greenland (quoted by Meelu 1996) are: i. Nutrient removed must be returned to the soil ii. Organic carbon levels should be maintained and enhanced iii. Soil physical conditions should be maintained and upgraded iv. The build up of a biotic stress should be minimal v. The soil quality with respect to soil acidity/toxic elements build up must be sustained vi. Degradation of land due to soil erosion must be controlled.
- 25. These principles emerge when one compares a natural ecosystem with an agricultural ecosystem. An agricultural ecosystem differs from a natural one in that plant nutrients are constantly being removed and in that sources of plant nutrients outside the cropped area may be used to increase production. Three main components of an integrated nutrient management system are (FAO- Food And Agricultural Organization, Geneva 1998): i. Maintain or enhance soil productivity through a balanced use of mineral fertilizers combined with organic and biological sources of plant nutrients. ii. Improve the stock of plant nutrients in the soil. iii. Improve the efficiency of plant nutrients, tires limiting losses to the environment.
- 26. Table. 6.Effects of tillage, water regimes and integrated N management practices on soil biological properties in wheat cultivated under the contrasting agronomic practices. Treatments Soil respiration (mg CO2 (100g)-1 soil per h-1) Soil dehydrogenase activity (µg TPF g-1 soil per h-1) Microbial biomass carbon (µg g-1soil) Tillage (T) Conservation tillage 36.60 2.07 163.67 Conventional tillage 20.21 1.30 80.23 C.D. (0.05) 0.85 0.09 1.69 Water management (WM) 2-irrigation (Sub-optimal) 27.32 1.50 121.82 3-irrigation (Optimum) 30.96 1.85 136.61 5-irrigation (Supra-optimum) 26.95 1.71 107.82 C.D. (0.05) 1.04 0.11 2.08 Tillage × WM (T ×WM) * * * INM 1. Control 25.52 1.175 99.76 2. RDN through urea 30.96 1.955 115.41 3. 75% RDN through urea + 25% RDN through farmyard manure (FYM) 30.62 1.96 129.76 4. 75% RDN through urea + 25% RDN through green manure (GM) 25.86 1.33 107.82 5. 75% RDN through urea + 25%through Bio fertilizer 32.22 2.10 146.49 6. 75% RDN through urea + 25%RDN through sewage sludge 25.19 1.31 108.01 7. 50% RDN as FYM + 25%RDN through bio-fertilizer + 25% RDN through green manure 32.72 2.144 170.95 8. Blank plot 24.21 1.191 97.32 CD (0.05) T × INM * * * WM × INM * * * T ×WM × INM * * * (Source: Sharma et al.,(2011).Brazilian Journal of Microbiology,(2);531-542)
- 27. B. Nutrient Based Pricing And Subsidy : The subsidy on fertilizers should be fixed as per nutrient content and not product- wise. The urea being highly subsidized allowed more use of nitrogen relative to phosphorus and potassium - a cause of nutrient imbalance and deterioration of soil health. To promote balanced fertilization, the Government has recently taken historical policy decision on moving to the nutrient-based pricing and subsidy.
- 28. C. Promoting: a. Fortified and Coated fertilizer: The fertilizers should be fortified and coated with micro and secondary nutrients to correct their widespread deficiencies in Indian soils. b. Customized and Water soluble fertilizer: A host of customized fertilizers suitable for different soil and crop situations need to be promoted for precise nutrient applications. c. Nanotechnology for slow release efficient fertilizer: The nanotechnology offers immense opportunities in better nutrient management by offering slow release fertilizers (nano porous geolites) and soil quality and plant health monitoring systems (nano sensors). The new products and tools could enhance nutrient use efficiency which is still low for majority of the nutrients.
- 29. D. Utilizing indigenously available nutrient sources: We should utilize all indigenously available nutrient sources to reduce dependence on import of fertilizer raw materials/ intermediates and finished products. i. There are good reserves of low grade rock phosphate (160 Mt) and potassium-bearing mica in the country ii. The reserves uneconomic for exploitation as fertilizers, could be used for production of enriched manures containing P and K through composting iii. The low grade phosphate rock could also be used for direct application in acid soils.
- 30. E. Enhancing availability of organic manure: Organic Components/ Management Soil Properties Effects on Soil Properties FYM,vermi-composting, GreenManuring, Household waste and sewage sludge and Soil Organic Matter Physical Improve soil structure, porosity, moisture retention capacity etc. in the soil. Chemical Supply several macro and micro nutrients to the plants. Increase total nitrogen, organic matter in the soil which “is an important substrate of cationic exchange, is the warehouse of most of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur potentially available to plants Biological Soil Organic Matter is the main energy source for microorganisms and it increases the microbial population in the soil. Soil micro-organisms are the living part of the soil organic matter. Soil organic matter has a capacity to sink the atmospheric CO2 and thereby increase in the carbon content in the soil which further enhance the microbial biomass and elevate respiration. In general, organic fertilizer application improved nodule dry weight (DW), photosynthetic rates, N2 fixation, and N accumulation as well as N concentration in several crops. Household waste and sewage sludge helps to have the highest number of colony forming heterotrophic bacteria in the soil.
- 31. Crop Rotation Physical Architectural form of different root systems of several crops included in crop rotation and which influences the physical structure of soil. Chemical Crop rotations significantly increased soil pH, available phosphate, exchangeable K and Ca in soil. Biological Crop rotation decreases the incidence of soil-born pathogen by increasing soil chemical properties and soil microbial biomass. Mulching Physical It makes the soil softer, pulverized and humid that ultimately helps to maintain bulk density and porosity in the soil. It increases soil fertility, crop production and control soil erosion; residues become decomposed and add organic matter to the soil. Better absorption and less run off-of water in the field. Mulch materials improve soil physicochemical properties, suppress soil temperature, reduce evaporation and increase the soil moisture. Chemical The mulching materials become decomposed and add organic matter and other nutrients to the soil Biological Mulching helps to increase the population, species diversity and activity of macro fauna in the soil. It improves biological activities in the soil and after decomposition it adds nutrients to the soil. Continued.... (Source: Biswas et al.(2014),Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment:12:(3&4);237-243)
- 32. Figure. 4 Integration of different of organic practices for sustainability of soil health: (Source: Biswas et al.(2014), Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 12:(3&4),237-243)
- 33. F. Use Of Bio-fertilizers: Table.7 Different groups of bio-fertilizers (Source: Barman et al.(2017), Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci.,6(11);1177-1186) Sr. No. Groups Examples 1. Nitrogen (N2) fixing Bio-fertilizers I Free-living Azotobacter, Clostridium, Anabaena, Nostoc Ii Symbiotic Rhizobium, Frankia, Anabaena azollae Iii Associative Symbiotic Azospirillum 2. P-Solubilising Bio-fertilizers I Bacteria Bacillus megaterium var. phosphaticum, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas striata Ii Fungi Penicillium sp., Aspergillus awamori 3. P-Mobilizing Bio-fertilizers I Arbuscular mycorrhiza Glomus sp., Gigaspora sp., Acaulospora sp., Scutellospora sp., Sclerocystis sp. Ii Ectomycorrhiza Laccaria sp., Pisolithus sp., Boletus sp., Amanita sp. Iii Orchid mycorrhiza Rhizoctonia solani 4. Bio-fertilizers for Micro nutrients I Silicate and zinc solubilises Bacillus sp, Trichoderma viride 5. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria I Pseudomonas Pseudomonas fluorescens
- 34. Table.8 Year wise Bio-fertilizer production (in tonnes) Maharashtra: Source: Barman et al.(2017), Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci.,6(11);1177-1186 Year Bio fertilizer production in tones 2008-09 1249.87 2009-10 1861.33 2010-11 2924.00 2011-12 8743.69 2012-13 5897.91 2013-14 6218.607 2014-15 14847.397
- 35. G. Use of Vermicomposts: Table.9 Effect of Vermicomposts and NPK on the physical properties in post-harvest 75 days soil Source: Manivannan et al.(2009), J.Environmental Biol.,30(2);275-281 Physical Parameters Clay loam soil Sandy loam soil T1 T2 T3 T4 CD Value T1 T2 T3 T4 CD Value Pore space% 35.41 34.27 38.87 36.87 5.87 ⃰ 32.51 32.17 33.21 32.28 5.01 ⃰ Particle Density (Mgm-3) 1.69 1.62 1.39 1.44 1.12 ⃰ 1.68 1.61 1.43 1.56 1.02 ⃰ Bulk density (Mgm-3) 1.13 1.17 0.98 1.09 0.14 ⃰ 1.24 1.26 1.01 1.08 0.18 ⃰ WHC(%) 83.80 81.60 94.80 92.30 0.68 ⃰ 59.20 56.40 75.50 67.20 0.65 ⃰ CEC(coml. (p+)kg-1) 24.30 24.00 28.70 26.90 0.26 ⃰ 23.20 23.00 28.10 26.3 0.23 ⃰ T1 = Control (without application of inorganic fertilizer or manure), T2 = Recommended dose of NPK (20:80:40 kg ha-1), T3 = Recommended dose of Vermicomposts (5tonnes ha-1), T4 = Application of 50% Vermicomposts + 50% NPK, WHC =Water holding capacity, CEC= Cation exchange capacity
- 36. Table.10 Effect of Vermicomposts and NPK on the chemical properties in post-harvest 75 days soil: Source: Manivannan et al.(2009) J. Environ.Biol.,30(2);275-281 Chemical Parameters Clay loam soil Sandy loam soil T1 T2 T3 T4 CD values T1 T2 T3 T4 CD Values pH 7.15 7.19 7.08 7.11 0.02NS 7.14 7.18 6.97 7.09 0.03NS EC(dsm-1) 0.87 0.93 0.61 0.71 0.04 ⃰ 0.58 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.02NS OC(%) 0.23 0.22 8.52 3.71 0.12 2.00 0.21 9.42 5.06 1.18 ⃰ Available nutrients N(kg ha-1) 125 190 207 201 0.82 117 188 200 193 1.92 ⃰ P(kg ha-1) 11.21 13.1 16.8 15.3 0.31 8.5 9.0 14.1 12.2 0.38 ⃰ K(kg ha-1) 206 240 317 267 3.11 203 235 290 260 4.12 ⃰ Total nutrient Ca(%) 1.70 1.74 3.07 2.69 0.18 1.59 1.63 2.97 2.08 0.12 ⃰ Mg(%) 0.56 0.53 0.87 0.63 0.03NS 0.38 0.37 0.59 0.50 0.02NS Na(%) 0.07 0.06 0.17 0.11 0.02NS 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.03NS Fe(pap) 11.70 11.48 82.12 50.11 0.31 10.30 10.67 78.69 41.78 0.28* Mn(ppm) 11.9 11.4 97.6 86.7 2.12 9.5 9.1 96.5 79.5 2.61* Zn(ppm) 1.17 1.13 58.6 39.4 0.25 1.10 10.09 57.5 39.8 0.38* Cu(ppm) 1.50 1.61 20.8 15.6 0.28 0.94 0.97 20.6 15.2 0.33* T1 = Control (without application of inorganic fertilizer or manure), T2 = Recommended dose of NPK (20:80:40 kg ha-1), T3 = Recommended dose of Vermicomposts (5 tones ha-1), T4 = Application of 50% Vermicomposts + 50% NPK
- 37. Table.11 Effect of Vermicomposts and NPK on the biological properties in post-harvest 75 days soil: Source: Manivannan et al.(2009) J. Environ.Biol.,30(2);275-281 Biological Parameters Clay loam soil Sandy loam soil T1 T2 T3 T4 CD values T1 T2 T3 T4 CD Values Bacteria (CFU×106g-1) 42.6 40.1 50.4 54.1 1.08* 32.1 29.1 36.2 33.1 1.03* Fungi (CFU×104g-1) 40.1 32.1 42.1 41.0 0.49* 28.7 26.5 35.1 30.2 0.45* Actinomycetes (CFU×105g-1) 8.5 7.1 10.7 9.5 0.19* 6.3 6.0 7.5 6.9 0.15* Total Micro- bial population (CFU×106g-1) 43.8 41.1 51.8 46.5 2.12* 33.0 29.9 37.2 34.1 2.38 Microbial activity(5mlH/ 5g) 4.1 4.0 5.9 4.8 0.13* 3.1 3.0 4.6 4.1 0.09* T1 = Control (without application of inorganic fertilizer or manure), T2 = Recommended dose of NPK (20:80:40 kg ha-1), T3 = Recommended dose of Vermicomposts (5 tones ha-1), T4 = Application of 50% Vermicomposts + 50% NPK
- 38. H. Legumes in crop rotation: Table.12 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) estimates for India Source: Das et al.(2012) Outlook on Agriculture.,41;(4) Crop Area (m ha) N fixed (kg/ha) Annual fixation (million tonnes) Chickpea 6.09 40 0.24 Pigeon pea 3.38 100 0.34 Mung bean 0.09 60 0.19 Urdbean 3.25 30 0.10 Cow bean 0.50 80 0.002 Field pea 0.81 65 0.005 Lentil 1.39 40 0.006 Groundnut 6.40 150 0.96 Soybean 6.22 100 0.61 Total 34.28 - 2.47
- 39. Table.13 Root exudates and P- fraction dissolved: Source: Das et al.(2012) Outlook on Agriculture.,41;(4) Crop Acid exuded P fraction dissolved Chickpea Citric acid Calcium P Pigeon pea Piscidic acid Ferric P Lupinus albus Citric acid Ferric P Alfalfa 2-(3 S dihydroxy phenyl)- 5,6- di-hydrobenzofuran Ferric P Soybean Citric acid, malonic acid Calcium P
- 40. I. Conservation Agriculture: II. Table: 15 Some distinguishing features of conventional and conservation agriculture systems: Source:Baban et al.(2014) Inter.Journal on Soil and water conservation research.,2:(4);1-12 Conventional agriculture Conservation agriculture Cultivating land, using science and technology to dominate nature Least interference with natural processes Excessive mechanical tillage and soil erosion No-till or drastically reduced tillage (biological tillage) High wind and soil erosion Low wind and soil erosion Residue burning or removal (bare surface) Surface retention of residues (permanently covered) Water infiltration is low Infiltration rate of water is high Use of ex-situ FYM/composts Use of in-situ organics/composts Green manuring (incorporated) Brown manuring/cover crops (surface retention) Kills established weeds but also stimulates more weed seeds to germinate Weeds are a problem in the early stages of adoption but decrease with time Free-wheeling of farm machinery, increased soil compaction Controlled traffic, compaction in tramline, no compaction in crop area Mono cropping/culture, less efficient rotations Diversified and more efficient rotations Heavy reliance on manual labour, uncertainty of operations Mechanized operations, ensure timeliness of operations Poor adaptation to stresses, yield losses greater under stress conditions More resilience to stresses, yield losses are less under stress conditions Productivity gains in long-run are in declining order Productivity gains in long-run are in incremental order
- 41. Conclusion: Magnitude of Zn, B, Fe deficiencies in Indian soils is 49, 33 & 13% respectively, which is most critical to sustain soil health for micronutrients. The availability of ‘N’, P’ and ‘K’ restricted by ‘N’ loss by leaching and volatization,'P ' by fixation and ‘K’ by immobilization. Bio-fortification and use of Bio-fertilizers will help to improve both nano and micro-nutrients in soil. Bio-fertilizers have potential role in sustainable agriculture these can be used along with chemical fertilizers to enhance the soil fertility and crop yield.
- 42. Amelioration of problems soils and use of poor quality water in agriculture is very essential for accelerating the crop productivity with proper amendments for enhancing the soil health. Efficient recycling of nutrients from available organic residues, manures and composts can assist in narrowing the gap between nutrient removals by crops and insufficient nutrient replenishment. In crop production, all possible resource conservation measures need to be adopted depending on the availability of water, nutrients and agro-climatic limitations, including the concept of conservation agriculture.