INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
2.80 4.87 6.20 8.40
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
2.60 4.33 6.20 7.73
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
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
138.45 2.25
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
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
4.45 5.20
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
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
52.32 16.05 27.17
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
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
15.19 6.10 8.82
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
0.58 10.72
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
0.76 13.01
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
13.68 5.47
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
16.39 6.70
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
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
2.68 4.19 5.88
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
2.58 4.10 5.78
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
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
303150 221150 2.70
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
407550 325507 3.97
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

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.

INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management

INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management

Similar to INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management (20)

INM Effects on Onion Nutrient Management