An organic amendment is any material of plant or animal origin that can be added to the soil to improve its physical, chemical and biological properties.

2. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
College of Agriculture, Latur-413512
PREPARED BY
CHETAN KUMAR C
2015A/40ML
DEPT. OF SSAC
COA, LATUR
Research Guide
Dr. P.H.VAIDYA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPT. OF SSAC
COA, LATUR
Master’s Seminar (SOILS 591)

3. What do you mean by organic
amendments ?
• An organic amendment is any material of plant
or animal origin that can be added to the soil to
improve its physical, chemical and biological
properties.
Objectives :
 To know the effect of application of organic
amendments on Soil Quality.
 To Know the effect of application of organic
amendments on plant growth and yield.

4. Organic soil amendments
 Farm Yard Manure
 Compost
 Municipal solid Waste Compost
 Vermicompost
 Sheep and Goat Manure
 Poultry Manure
 Green Manure
 Concentrated Organic Manure( Bird guano, Fish guano, Fish
manure, Raw bonemeal, Steamed bonemeal, Blood meal)Etc…….

5. Schematic representation of the effect of organic amendments on soil
properties by acting as a source of carbon and nitrogen.
Scotti et al.(2015)

6. Classification of organic amendments
Organic manure
Bulky organic manure
Concentrated organic manure
FYM
Compost
Night soil
Sewage sludge
Sheep and goat
manure
Poultry manure
Pig manure
Green manure
Plant origin
Animal origin
Meat bone meal
Fish meal
Bone meal
blood meal
Non edible
Pongamia, neem, castor,
Cotton, linseed, mustard,
mahuva
Edible
Ground nut, sunflower,
Safflower, soybean,
sesamum
Insitu
Cowpea
Dhaincha
Beersem
Exsitu
Pongamia
Neem
Glyricidia

7. CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIC AMENDMENTS
1. Bulky organic manure (NPK %)
FYM
0.52 : 0.33 : 0.38
VERMICOMPOST
0.55 : 0.19 ; 1.74
PRESS MUD
0.85 : 1.15 : 1.74
SEWAGE SLUDGE
3.0 :2.0 : 1 %
POULTRY MANURE
1.0 : 1.4 :0.8
SHEEPAND GOAT MANURE
0.65 :0.5: 0.03
PIG MANURE
0.6 :0.5:0.2
CATTLE MANURE
0.5: 0.3 0.9
BUFFALO MANURE
0.7:0.4:0.4
Anon., 1997 Gaur et al., 1990

8. Sesbenia rostrata (24.90 t/ha)
0.70 : 0.30: 0.50 %
Vigna sinensis (15.0 t/ha )
0.50 : 0.40 : 0.60
Glyricidia maculata (3.0 t/ha )
0.80 :0.10 :0.70
Green manures ( nutrient contribution % )
Crotolaria junicea (21.20 t/ha)
0.50 :0.10: 0.40 %
Sesbania aculeata (20.20 t/ha)
1.10:0.20:0.40 %
Pongamia pinneta (3 t/ha )
0.2 :0.2 : 0.8
Anon ., 1997

9. 2. Concentrated organic manures
Castor cake
4.3 : 1.8 : 1.3 % Neem cake
5.2 : 1.0 :1.4 %
Linseed cake
4.9 : 1.4 :1.3 %
Anon ., 1997
Bone meal
3-4 :20-25 :0
Fish meal
4-10: 3-9: 0.3-1.5

10. 3. Liquid manures
Cattle urine
1.2 : traces : 0.75 %
Buffalo urine
1.8 :0.3 :0.2 %
Panchayagvya
0.24 : 0.032 : 0.056
Jeevmrutha
2.13 :0.20 : 0.39
Beejamrutha
1.75 : 0.26 : 0.38

11. Problems of soil which can be reclaimed by
addition of organic ammendments -
Salinity
Sodicity
Hard pan soil
Physically poor soil

12. Effect of organic ammendments in soil.
(i) The decomposition of organic matter, evolution of CO2 and certain
organic acids.
(ii) Lowering of pH and the release of cations by solubilization of
CaCO3 and other soil minerals.
(iii) Replacement of exchangeable Na by Ca and Mg and thereby lowering
the ESP.
(iv) Physical properties like bulk density, porosity, void ratio, water
permeability and hydraulic conductivity are significantly improved.
(v) Increases soil aggregation and aggregate stability; increases the CEC
(the ability to attract and retain nutrients); and contributes N, P and
other nutrients.

13. Vital role of soil organic amendments
• Improve soil structure and aeration
• Increase water-holding capacity
• Increase availability of water to plants
• Reduce compaction and hardpan conditions
• Improve drainage
• Alkali soil reclamation
• Release of “locked” nutrients
• Better chemical incorporation
• Better root development
• Higher yields and quality

14. Table : 1. Effect of application of biogas poultry manure on some chemical
properties of soil at harvest of maize.
Treatments PH EC
(ds/
m)
OC Available nutrients
(kg/ha)
Micronutrients content
(mg/kg)
N P2O5 K20 Fe Mn Cu Zn
T1-State recommendation dose
of fertilizers
8.19 0.09 0.51 200.55 33.51 193.39 15.89 56.19 2.00 3.38
T2- 50% N through biogas
poultry manure
8.20 0.09 0.53 206.24 38.60 196.37 15.27 57.91 2.29 4.53
T3- 75% N through biogas
poultry manure
8.25 0.09 0.55 217.32 39.65 219.15 17.48 60.56 2.30 4.75
T4- 100%N through biogas
poultry manure
8.20 0.09 0.59 238.33 45.29 228.11 16.98 61.74 2.32 4.79
T5- 50% N through poultry
manure
8.18 0.09 0.58 229.74 39.47 209.44 15.59 60.13 2.15 4.33
T6- 75% N through poultry
manure
8.27 0.08 0.59 254.08 44.64 218.77 15.42 58.35 2.11 4.21
T7- 100%N through poultry
manure
8.23 0.09 0.57 272.93 46.83 226.99 14.70 63.39 2.28 4.42
T8- Absolute control 8.25 0.09 0.58 196.54 29.09 178.56 17.00 55.33 2.01 3.64
SE (m)+ 0.03 0.004 0.03 11.25 1.72 6.59 1.02 2.93 0.07 0.13
CD at 5% - - - 34.44 5.26 20.17 - - 0.22 0.40
CV (%) 0.56 7.67 8.13 8.22 7.50 5.46 11.06 8.57 5.75 5.52
Chandra Deepak, et al. (2009)

15. Table-2. Effect of different amendments on some chemical
characteristics of soil after harvest of wheat.
Treatments Depth (cm) SAR ESP %
control
0-15 15.6 17.9
15-30 15.1 17.4
30-60 14.8 17.0
Mean 15.2 17.4
FYM
0-15 7.44 8.85
15-30 8.24 9.82
30-60 8.13 9.69
Mean 7.93 9.45
Compost
0-15 8.06 9.61
15-30 7.98 9.51
30-60 8.53 10.2
Mean 8.19 9.76
CD (P=0.05) 0.21 0.23
Abd Elrahman et al.(2012)

16. Table-3. Effect of inorganic fertilizers, organic manures and crop residues
management on pH, electrical conductivity, organic carbon, and available N, P and
K status of soil (0-0.15 m) in rice- wheat cropping system
Fertilizer management
in rice
pH EC
(dS m-1)
Organic C
(g kg-1)
Available N
(kg ha-1)
Available P
(kg ha-1)
Available K
(kg ha-1)
100% NPK 7.52 0.32 3.44 139 38.9 113
100% NPK 7.42 0.31 4.59 152 49.0 136
FYM+50% NPK 7.30 0.30 4.40 1.68 53.0 155
FYM+50% NPK 7.30 0.30 4.70 170 59.2 155
FYM+100% NPK 7.29 0.26 4.94 173 65.2 160
GM+50% NPK 7.31 0.30 4.59 166 52.3 148
GM+50% NPK 7.15 0.28 4.72 168 53.1 153
GM+100% NPK 7.22 0.29 4.87 173 57.8 157
LSD (P=0.05) 0.17 Ns 0.55 15 9.0 24
Initial status 7.6 0.36 3.70 119 25.0 123
16
Balwinder kumar, et al (2008)

17. Table-4. Influence of soil amendments and their methods of application on soil
parameters in dry land crops.
parameters soil depth
(cm)
Initial status Chemical
fertilizer
FYM
Water holding capacity
(%)
0-15 4.7 4.8 5.1
15-30 5.46 5.5 5.8
pH 0-15 6.0 6.1 6.3
15-30 6.2 6.3 6.3
EC (ds/m) 0-15 0.06 0.07 0.08
15-30 0.09 1.00 0.07
OC 0-15 0.51 0.50 0.54
15-30 0.53 0.52 0.56
Subbareddy et al.(2004)

18. Table-5. Effect of organic manures application on pH, EC, organic
carbon and major nutrient status of post harvest soil in rice.
Treatments pH EC
dsm1
OC% Available nutrient
kg/ha
N P K
S1=Farm yard manure +composted poultry
manure
7.77 0.67 0.74 295.2 17.3 592.9
S2=Farm yard manure +composted coir pith 7.78 0.66 0.74 277.8 16.8 583.0
S3=Farm yard manure + green leaf manure 7.71 0.65 0.78 289.7 17.5 626.3
S4=Composted poultry manure + composted coir
pith
7.77 0.70 0.77 290.1 17.4 595.8
S5=Composted poultry manure +green leaf
manure
7.65 0.64 0.79 301 .1 17.5 643.7
S6=Composted coir pith +green leaf manure 7.73 0.69 0.75 298.3 16.9 619.1
S7=Recommended NPK through fertilizers 7.70 0.65 0.68 270.4 16.7 615.8
Mean 7.73 0.66 0.75 288.9 17.1 610.9
SE d 0.02 0.01 0.01 5.08 0.11 3.08
CD (p=0.05) 0.03 0.03 0.02 10.48 10.22 6.35
Yadav and Christopher, (2004)

19. Table-6. Effect of organic manures application on secondary and
micronutrient status of post harvest soil in rice crop.
Treatments Exchangeable cations
(C mol (p+)kg-1
Total nutrients (ppm)
Ca Mg Na Fe Mn Zn Cu
S1=Farm yard manure +composted poultry
manure
14.92 7.26 3.25 1858.5 291.1 27.19 29.40
S2=Farm yard manure +composted coir pith 11.72 6.92 2.92 1851.2 287.6 23.87 27.39
S3=Farm yard manure + green leaf manure 15.79 7.63 3.54 1883.1 356.0 27.69 33.24
S4=Composted poultry manure + composted
coir pith
15.28 7.43 3.31 1864.4 324.9 24.32 26.17
S5=Composted poultry manure +green leaf
manure
16.35 8.01 3.76 1893.1 400.2 30.54 39.04
S6=Composted coir pith +green leaf manure 14.32 7.16 3.26 1869.8 292.2 24.84 27.00
S7=Recommended NPK through fertilizers 12.96 6.76 2.97 1824.0 210.8 22.89 29.13
Mean 14.48 7.31 3.29 1863.4 309.0 25.91 30.19
SE d 1.07 0.04 0.05 5.11 12.78 0.35 0.48
CD (p=0.05) 2.21 0.08 0.10 10.55 26.39 0.73 0.99
Yadav and Christopher, (2004)

20. Treatments N P2O5
K2O
Control 150.85 13.15 223.85
RDF 208.85 30.29 308.35
75 N + 25 FYM 213.30 35.16 314.80
50 N + 50 FYM 215.65 35.95 315.90
25 N + 75 FYM 216.05 36.38 316.15
100 FYM 216.95 36.38 316.15
75 N + 25 Vermicompost 219.05 37.45 317.50
50 N + 50 Vermicompost 221..50 38.28 318.35
25 N + 75 Vermicompost 221.90 38.45 318.70
100 Vermicompost 222.20 32.67 318.95
75 N + 25 Poulty Manure 216.70 36.65 316.85
50 N + 50 Poulty Manure 219.15 37.52 317.85
25 N + 75 Poulty Manure 220.25 37.83 318.00
100 Poulty Manure 221.05 37.98 318.15
S.Ed.± 1.13 0.37 0.52
CD (P=0.05) 2.30 0.75 1.05
Table- 7. Effect of organic manures and Nitrogen levels on soil in maize-soyabean
cropping system
Gopal Reddy et al. (1998)

21. Treatments 0 10 days 20 days 30 days 40days 50 days 60 days
Medium black calcareous soil
Control 1.12 2.66 4.64 5.39 2.66 1.67 1.25
Soil + neem cake 1.63 21.34 25.35 28.66 22.66 20.66 19.33
Soil + Karanja cake 1.64 15.33 23.33 25.99 22.00 19.33 18.66
Soil + Pilu cake 1.61 15.99 21.33 23.00 20.67 17.99 16.66
Soil + Kusum cake 1.55 12.00 19.35 22.00 18.66 15.99 15.32
Soil + Pisa cake 1.45 9.33 17.33 19.33 15.33 14.00 12.67
Soil + Castor cake 1.41 8.66 15.99 17.99 23.23 22.00 20.00
Lateritic soil
Control 1.24 2.51 4.65 5.95 2.76 1.95 1.33
Soil + neem cake 1.85 18.33 25.74 37.32 22.67 21.33 19.34
Soil + Karanja cake 1.70 16.67 21.11 28.32 21.95 20.25 19.76
Soil + Pilu cake 1.65 16.46 22.66 25.35 21.01 18.55 17.73
Soil + Kusum cake 1.5 12.58 20.61 22.85 19.91 17.71 16.52
Soil + Pisa cake 1.47 10.35 17.57 20.66 17.21 15.54 14.36
Soil + Castor cake 1.36 9.33 15.62 19.34 32.66 31.00 29.00
Korah and Shingte (1988)
Table 8. Content of ammonical N in soils treated with non edible oil cakes, mg/100g soil

22. Table-9. Effect of biogas poultry manure on yield of maize (q/ha).
Treatments Cob (q/ha) Seed
(q/ha)
Stover
(q/ha)
T1- State recommendation dose of fertilizers 38.19 20.47 34.11
T2- 50% N through biogas poultry manure 43.73 33.10 32.11
T3- 75% N through biogas poultry manure 42.81 32.67 38.32
T4- 100%N through biogas poultry manure 50.31 40.73 39.54
T5- 50% N through poultry manure 43.73 33.10 32.11
T6- 75% N through poultry manure 45.50 34.56 34.62
T7- 100%N through poultry manure 45.86 35.03 38.65
T8- Absolute control 34.52 25.21 29.29
SE (m)+ 1.38 0.64 1.76
CD at 5% 4.17 1.97 5.35
CV (%) 8.60 3.41 8.50
Chandra Deepak, et al. (2009)

23. Table-10. Effect of methods of application of farmyard manure on yields of dry land crops.
Treatments seed yield (kg/ha)
sorghum 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mean
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 1301 778 4025 2558 2242 3950 2623 2497
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 1268 730 4014 1413 1802 3138 2266 2090
RDF 1339 633 3628 1015 1519 2516 1988 1805
CD( P=0.05) NS NS 160 118 412 683 109 370
Pigeon pea
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 486 610 2257 1443 861 427 474 937
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 438 602 1899 1024 799 404 351 788
RDF 371 492 1650 929 616 346 232 662
CD( P=0.05) 62 95 270 114 NS 43 56 131
castor
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 657 1162 1858 1534 2463 1693 1056 1492
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 899 904 1658 1470 1837 1186 809 1252
RDF 876 484 1293 1097 1679 975 653 1008
CD( P=0.05) NS 152 183 160 480 363 199 222
sunflower
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) set rows 678 1853 1052 1463 1064 969 1147
FYM (10 tones/ha /year ) Non set rows 563 1675 691 1065 1267 860 1020
RDF 690 1695 641 853 636 750 878
CD( P=0.05) NS 136 157 146 245 60 190
Subbareddy et al.(2004)

24. Table-11. Grain yield and stover yield of sweet sorghum as influenced by FYM,
sewage sludge and urban compost
Treatments Grain yield
(q /ha)
Stover yield
(t/ha )
Sewage sludge @ 5.3 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 32.71 12.06
Urban compost @ 11 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 36.52 13.03
FYM @ 14.7 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 20.82 8.15
Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 5,5
t/ha (50 kg/ha )
34.74 12.30
Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + Urban compost @ 8.2
t/ha (75 kg/ha)
26.60 10.67
Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + FYM @ 7.35 t/ha (50
kg/ha )
23.52 9.78
Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + FYM @ 11..02 t/ha (75
kg/ha )
21.20 8.93
RDF : 100:75: 40 Kg NPK /ha 29.11 11.25
control 14.80 7.07
SE (m) +_ 1.37 0.33
CD (P= 0.05) 4.12 1.00
Rukmangada reddy et al., (2007 )

25. Treatments
Length of
cob (cm)
Weight of
cobs per
plant (g)
Weight of
100 grains
(g)
No. of
grains per
row
Grain
yield
(t ha-1)
Stover
yield
(t ha-1)
T1: RDF 24.80 120.86 30.03 39.00 5.84 14.77
T2: castor cake 20.30 112.06 26.66 34.90 5.71 14.53
T3: jatropha cake 21.40 113.23 26.00 34.30 5.75 14.58
T4: pongamia cake 22.83 114.46 25.63 35.40 5.80 14.72
T5: castor cake + fertilizer 24.36 117.70 28.36 38.00 5.89 14.95
T6: jatropha cake + fertilizer 23.63 116.70 26.93 37.60 5.86 14.81
T7: pongamia cake +
fertilizer
27.00 122.86 31.33 39.50 5.93 14.99
T8: FYM 5 t ha-1 18.00 92.60 25.30 24.00 4.07 10.09
SEm ± 0.389 1.92 0.65 0.22 0.009 0.021
CD (P = 0.05) 1.33 2.95 1.72 1.018 0.207 0.031
Table 12. Effect of oil cakes application on yield parameters of maize
Udaya (2008)

26. Table-13. Effect of biogas poultry manure on fodder yield of cowpea (q/ha).
Treatments Yield (q/ha)
T1- Recommended dose of fertilizers 34.8
T2- 50% N through biogas poultry manure 37.5
T3- 75% N through biogas poultry manure 37.1
T4- 100%N through biogas poultry manure 41.8
T5- 50% N through poultry manure 40.5
T6- 75% N through poultry manure 39.6
T7- 100%N through poultry manure 39.7
T8- Absolute control 31.9
Mean 37.9
SE (m)+ 1.23
CD (P=0.05) 3.56
Shanti et al., (2015)

27. Table-14. Effect of animal urine application and its dilution on
germination and biomass production of fodder maize.
Gangaiah, et al., (2004)
Treatment Germination
percentage
Biomass production (g/plant)
Green Dry
(urine : water
dilution)
Buffalo
urine
Cattle
urine
Buffalo
urine
Cattle
urine
Buffalo
urine
Cattle
urine
Control (water
alone )
100.0 100.0 2.54 2.54 0.676 0.676
1:1 (50:50ml) 82.5 75.0 1.78 1.61 0.124 0.377
1:3 (25:75ml) 87.5 87.5 2.23 2.12 0.514 0.486
1:9(10:90ml) 100.0 100.0 2.36 2.29 0.539 0.546
SE m+ 0.9 1.4 0.13 0.097 0.0025 0.0131
CD (P=0.05) 3.1 4.3 0.40 0.30 0.008 0.041
CV (%) 1.7 2.6 9.9 7.8 0.8 4.72

28. Table-15. Effect of animal shed washings on growth and fodder production of
maize in field conditions
Treatment Plant height
(cm)
Leaves per
plant
Leaf: stem
ratio
Fodder yield (tones /ha )
Green dry
Control 144.2 11.0 0.54 31.2 7.12
100kg N 247.8 13.9 0.64 53.3 12.07
Animal shed washing 271.8 14.4 0.67 58.4 12.99
SE m + 4.90 0.18 0.01 0.85 0.17
CD ( P= 0.05) 14.16 0.52 0.03 2,54 0.50
CV ( %) 6.96 4.25 5.03 5.67 4.99
Gangaiah, et al., (2004)

29. Table-16. Growth parameters and dry matter accumulation in sweet sorghum as
influenced by FYM, Sewage sludge and Urban compost
Treatments Plant height
(cm)
Internodal
(length )
Girth of
the stem
(cm)
Dry matter
( g/plant )
Sewage sludge @ 5.3 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 227.0 22.82 1.79 119.86
Urban compost @ 11 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 234.3 24.09 1.86 123.46
FYM @ 14.7 t/ha (equivalent to 100 kg N) 210.8 21.97 1.70 106.48
Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + Urban
compost @ 5,5 t/ha (50 kg/ha )
231.8 23.90 1.80 122.56
Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + Urban
compost @ 8.2 t/ha (75 kg/ha)
221.7 23.47 1.76 116.41
Sewage sludge @ 2.68 t/ha (50 kg N ) + FYM @
7.35 t/ha (50 kg/ha )
220.0 22.30 1.74 115.63
Sewage sludge @ 1.34 t/ha (25 kg N ) + FYM @
11..02 t/ha (75 kg/ha )
218.7 22.20 1.72 113.07
RDF : 100:75: 40 Kg NPK /ha 226.5 22.66 1.79 117.97
control 205.6 19.30 1.55 99.97
SE (m) +_ 6.64 0.43 0.04 1.58
CD (P= 0.05) 20.8 1.29 0.12 4.01
Rukmangada reddy et al., (2007 )

30. CONCLUSION
 Application of organic amendments improve the physical, chemical and
biological properties of soil.
 The application of urban compost @ 11t/ha resulted in higher yield and
improved plant growth of sweet sorghum.
 Application of organic manures significantly reduced the soil pH and
increased the soil organic carbon content , which were higher than plots
treated with recommended NPK through fertilizers in rice crop.
 Available N , P and K, exchangeable Ca Mg, Na total Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu of
soil after harvest of crop were significantly higher in organic manures applied
field as compared to recommended NPK through fertilizers.
 Organic amendments supply all the essential nutrients for plants growth.
 This indicated that the application of organic amendments improves the soil
quality, plant growth and yield of crop.

31. “ Feed the soil rather than feeding
the plant….”
Thank you….