Integrated Nutrient Management refers to the maintenance of soil fertility and of plant nutrient supply at an optimum level for sustaining the desired productivity through optimization of the benefits from all possible sources of organic, inorganic and biological components in an integrated manner Integrated nutrient management (INM) involves efficient and judicious use of all the major components of plant nutrient sources for sustaining soil fertility, health and productivity Integrated approach for plant nutrition is being advocated because single nutrient approach often reduces fertilizer use efficiency and consequently creates problem fertilizers can help in enhancing and maintaining stability in production with least degradation in chemical and physical properties of the soil. A healthy soil is a living, dynamic ecosystem that performs many vital functions. A healthy soil produces a healthy feed for consumption. Improved soil health often is indicated by improvement on physical, chemical and microbiological environment. Introduction of high yielding varieties, irrigation and use of high analysis fertilizer without proper soil tests, accelerated the mining of native soil nutrient resources. Under intensive cultivation without giving due consideration to nutrient requirement has resulted in decline in soil fertility and consequent productivity of crops Vegetables are rich source of energy and nutrition.

2. Research guide- Dr.A.L.Dhamak.
Seminar incharge-Dr.Syed Ismail.
Presented by
Waghmare Yogesh Ambadas
Reg.No. 2017A/119M
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural
Chemistry ; VNMKV,Parbhani.

3. INTRODUCTION
 Integrated Nutrient Management refers to the maintenance of
soil fertility and of plant nutrient supply at an optimum level
for sustaining the desired productivity through optimization of
the benefits from all possible sources of organic, inorganic and
biological components in an integrated manner
 Integrated nutrient management (INM) involves efficient and
judicious use of all the major components of plant nutrient
sources for sustaining soil fertility, health and productivity
 Integrated approach for plant nutrition is being advocated
because single nutrient approach often reduces fertilizer use
efficiency and consequently creates problem fertilizers can
help in enhancing and maintaining stability in production with
least degradation in chemical and physical properties of the
soil.

4.  A healthy soil is a living, dynamic ecosystem that performs
many vital functions.
 A healthy soil produces a healthy feed for consumption.
Improved soil health often is indicated by improvement on
physical, chemical and microbiological environment.
 Introduction of high yielding varieties, irrigation and use of
high analysis fertilizer without proper soil tests, accelerated the
mining of native soil nutrient resources.
 Under intensive cultivation without giving due consideration
to nutrient requirement has resulted in decline in soil fertility
and consequent productivity of crops
 Vegetables are rich source of energy and nutrition.

5.  It is known that in several parts of India, there are nutrient
deficiencies of N, P, K, S, and the micronutrients like Zn, Mn,
Fe and B in one or the other vegetable crops. Therefore, to
sustain or increase productivity of vegetable crops
management of nutritional disorders is of paramount
importance
 Increase in vegetable production has to come primarily from
land saving technologies such as use of high yielding input
responsive varieties, better nutrient management preferably
through integrated nutrient management (INM), use of modern
methods of irrigation etc. Now-a-days the role of organic
manures in vegetable production is being increasingly
recognized

6. NEED FOR ENHANCED VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION
 Our population is growing @ 1.13 % per year and at
this rate of population growth will be over 1.35
billion in 2020.(source – www.worldpopulationreview.com)
 To meet the full dietary need of the common person, and to
relieve our stress on cereals, there is greater need of enhanced
vegetable production.
 Upto 2020 the country’s vegetable demand would be around
135 million tonnes.(source – www.indiafoodsecurityportal.org)
 To achieve target, it is important to integrate the various
technologies right from production to harvest in vegetable
production.

7. INM in relation to soil properties
The increasing use of chemical fertilizers to increase the
production of food and fibre is causing concern for the
following reasons :
• Soils which receive plant nutrients only through chemical
fertilizers are showing declining productivity despite being
supplied with sufficient nutrients.
• The decline in productivity can be attributed to the
appearance of deficiency in Secondary and micronutrients.
• The physical condition of the soil is deteriorated as a result
of long-term use of chemical fertilizers, especially the
nitrogenous ones. It also aggravates the problem of poor
fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency (NUE).
• Excess nitrogen use leads to groundwater and
environmental pollution apart from destroying the ozone
layer through nitrous oxide production.

8. Goals of INM
• To maintain soil productivity
• To ensure productivity and sustainable agriculture
• To reduce expenditure and cost of purchased inputs by using
farm manure and crops residues etc.
• To utilize the potential benefits of green manures, leguminous
crops and biofertilizers.
• To prevent degradation of the environment.

9. Advantages of INM
• Enhances the availability of applied as well as native nutrients.
• Provides balanced nutrition to the crops.
• Minimizes the antagonistic effects resulting from hidden
deficiencies and nutrient imbalance.
• Improves and sustains the physical, chemical and biological
properties of soil.
• Minimizes the deterioration of soil, water and ecosystem by
promoting carbon sequestration.

10. Disadvantages of INM
• Non availability of FYM, biofertilizers, soil testing facilities and
water.
• High cost of chemical fertilizers.
• Difficulties in growing green manure crops.
• Lack of knowledge and poor advisory services
• Non availability of improved seeds and credit facilities.

11. I. Soil source
1.Appropriate crop variety
2.Cultural practices
3.Cropping system
II. Inorganic source
1.Super granules
2.Coated urea
3.single super phosphate
4.Murate of potash
5.Micronutrient fertilizer
III. Organic source
1.FYM
2.Poultry manure
3.Neem cake
4.Vermicompost
5.Pressmud cake (PMC)
IV. Biological source
1.Microbial inoculant
COMPONENTS OF INM

13. Manures
 Manures are the organic materials which improve soil
fertility when incorporate into the soil.
 They are made up of animal remains and dead plants
and contain more than one nutrient element.
 Concentration of nutrient in organic manure is low as
compared to chemical fertilizers.
Fertilizers
 It is a chemical substance which is manufactured
artificially.
 Fertilizer is rich source of nutrient and applied crop
protection to supply a particular nutrient in which
soil is deficient.

14. Advantages of manure
 They improve soil physical properties like
structure, water holding capacity, etc,.
 To increase nutrient availability.
 They prevent the loss of nutrients by leaching or
erosion.
 Manures supply plant nutrients including
micronutrients.

15. Benefits of green manuring
• Fit well in fallow period of 50-70 days.
• No extra land preparation.
• Improves soil organic matter.
• Increase the moister in soil
• Maintain the soil pH.
• Improve water holding capacity of soil.

16. Biofertilizers
• Biofertilizers are organisms which can bring about
enrichment of soil nutrients either by fixing
atmospheric nitrogen or by increasing the solubility
and availability of other nutrients, particularly
phosphate.
• The main source of Biofertilizers are Bacteria
(Rhizobium,Azospirillum), Fungi (Mycorrhiza),
Cynobacteria Anabaenas,

17. Classification of Biofertilizers
I) For Nitrogen
Rhizobium for legume crops.
Azotobacter l Azospirillum for non legume crops.
Acetobacter for sugarcane and sugarbeet.
Blue -Green Algae (BGA) and Azolla for low landpaddy.
2) For Phosphorous
with Rhizobium,Phosphatika for all crops to be applied
Azotobacter,
VAM(Vesicular - arbuscular mycorrhiza).
3) For Enriched Compost
Cellulolytic fungal culture.
Phosphotika and Azotobacter culture

18. Benefits of biofertilizer
• They are biodegradable.
• They do not Pollute soil and water resources.
• They are less expensive.
• Increase the grain yields by 10-40%.
• Improve texture, structure and water holding capacity
of soil.
• No adverse effect on plant growth and soil fertility.
• Replace 25-30% chemical fertilizers.

19. EFFECT OF INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ON
VEGETABLE CROP PRODUCTION

20. Effect of Inorganic Fertilizers and Organic manures(FYM) on growth
parameters of Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5
Treatment Plant height
(cm)
Fruit
length(cm)
Average fruit
yield(kg/ha)
T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK;FYM= 20t/ha) 40.99 5.95 430.48
T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 42.63 6.10 446.49
T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha), 45.14 6.40 464.76
T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha), 46.01 7.00 541.63
T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 48.14 7.26 556.16
T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 49.79 7.75 572.27
T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 51.44 7.97 655.89
T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 53.25 8.05 670.26
T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 55.65 8.30 686.39
T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 30.71 5.22 221.51
CD (P<0.05) 0.76 0.10 18.85
Source - Malik et al,(2011) J. of Agri. Tech. Vol. 7(4): 1037-1048.
Location - Sher-e-kashmir University of Agri.Sci. & Tech. of Kashmir.
Table 1.

21. Effect of organic manure along with inorganic fertilizers on quality
parameters of Brinjal cv. Pant rituraj
Treatments T.S.S.
(0Brix)
Total
Sugars (%)
Reducing
sugars (%)
Vitamin C
(mg/100g)
T1= Farm Yard Manure (FYM)(100%) 5.233 1.827 0.340 4.667
T2= Vermicompost (100%) 4.967 1.283 0.223 3.333
T3= Neem Cake (100%) 5.700 1.550 0.253 5.444
T4= RDF (100%) 5.000 1.330 0.270 6.222
T5= RDF+FYM (25%+75%) 5.100 1.823 0.260 4.333
T6= RDF+FYM (75%+25%) 5.100 1.760 0.243 6.778
T7= RDF + Vermicompost (25%+75%) 5.400 1.277 0.270 9.222
T8= RDF + Vermicompost (75%+25%) 4.667 1.240 0.237 7.333
T9=RDF + Neem cake (25%+75%) 7.000 2.627 0.470 22.778
T10-= RDF +Neem cake (75%+25%) 5.000 2.333 0.300 11.000
T11= Control 4.300 1.050 0.210 3.222
S.E.± 0.105 0.156 0.008 0.523
0.455C.D.(P=0.05) 0.305
Source - Kashyap et al , (2014) Int. J. Agric.Sci., 10 (1):305-308.
Location - Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow.
0.023 1.522
Table 2.

22. Effect of INM on quality of Capsicum cv. Californiawonder
Treatments Ascorbic acid
(mg 100/g)
TSS
(˚Brix)
Yield
(q/ha)
T1-Control 84.73 7.93 74.94
T2-Pig manure(20 t/ha) 118.67 8.60 151.73
T3-FYM(30 t/ha) 114.67 8.73 181.36
T4-Pourty manure (10t/ha) 108.33 9.07 182.96
T5- Vermicompost (5t/ha) 90.63 7.37 171.73
T6-100 % NPK 86.83 8.23 185.20
T7-50%NPK+50%Pig manure 120.57 8.40 189.38
T8-50% NPK + 50% FYM 123.17 8.50 195.18
T9-50% NPK +50% Poultry manure 130.50 9.43 232.59
T10-50% NPK+50% Vermicompost 92.93 7.79 175.93
SE± 1.63 0.11 1.08
0.34 3.34CD (0.05%) 5.06
Source - Chetri et al,(2012) J. Soils and Crops 29 (1) 44-48.
Location - Agriculture Science & Rural Dvelopment, Nagaland University.
Table 3.

23. Effect of Fertilizers and Organic manures (FYM) on quality parametersof
Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5
Treatment Vitamin C content
(mg 100g-1)
Chlorophyll content
(mg 100g-1)
T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK;FYM= 20 t/ha) 155.78 507.50
T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 166.13 522.75
T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha), 163.98 538.27
T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha), 173.34 612.58
T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 180.08 626.50
T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 189.42 647.16
T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 210.77 700.33
T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 225.74 712.69
T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 243.34 732.66
T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 103.80 407.55
CD (P<0.05) 1.18 3.10
Source - Malik et al,(2011) J. of Agri. Tech. Vol. 7(4): 1037-1048.
Location - Sher-e-kashmir University of Agri. Sci. & Tech. of Kashmir.
Table 4.

24. Effect of Inorganic fertilizers and Organic manures (FYM) on NPK
contents of Capsicum hybrid SH-SP-5
Treatment N content (%)
in fruit
P content
(%) in fruit
K content
(%) in fruit
T1- (90: 60:60 kg/ ha NPK; FYM= 20t/ha) 2.85 0.21 1.97
T2 - (90: 60:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 2.97 0.25 2.02
T3 -(90 :60: 60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 40 t/ha), 3.13 0.29 2.10
T4 -(120: 90:60 kg /ha NPK; FYM = 20 t/ha), 3.63 0.32 2.45
T5- (120 :90:60 k/ ha NPK;FYM = 30 t/ha), 3.83 0.35 2.79
T6 -(120:90:60 kg/ha; FYM = 40 t/ha), 3.99 0.38 2.96
T7 -150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 20 t/ha) 4.10 0.40 3.15
T8 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK; FYM = 30 t/ha) 4.25 0.43 3.41
T9 -(150:120:60 kg/ha NPK;FYM = 40 t/ha) 4.38 0.46 3.55
T10- (non chemical fertilizers or FYM]). 1.30 0.13 1.12
CD (P<0.05) 0.08 0.016 0.20
Source-Malik et al,(2011) J. of Agri. Tech. Vol. 7(4): 1037-1048.
Location-Sher-e-kashmir University of Agri.Sci. & Tech. of Kashmir.
Table 5.

25. Treatment Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha) Phosphorous uptake
(kg/ha)
Potassium uptake (kg/ha)
T1- Control 107.8 8.7 112
T2- 100% RDF 172.5 12.4 175
T3-Farmer’s practice†† 145.6 10.9 150
T4- Cowdung (CD) 6 t ha-1 +
70 % RDF
176.4 12.8 180
T5- Poultry manure (PM) 3 t
ha-1 + 70 % RDF
210.3 15.2 210
T6- CD 6 t ha-1 + rest
nutrients from RDF
188.7 14.8 190
T7- PM 3 t ha-1 + rest
nutrients from RDF
220.6 16.5 225
Table 6. Effect of INM on nutrient uptake by potato
Source - Md. Monirul Islam,(2013) Australian J. of Crop Sci., 7(9):1235-1241.
Location - Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang,
Selangor, Malaysia

26. Table 7. Effect of organic sources of nutrients on uptake of
nitrogen,phosphorous and potassium after harvest of chilli.
Treatment Nitrogen
kg/ha
Phosphors
kg/ha
potassium
kg/ha
T1 -NPK (80:40:50 kg ha–1) through chemical fertilizer 23.77 1.74 22.24
T2 -50 per cent RDF + 2.5 t ha–1 vemicompost 26.97 2.66 24.16
T3 -50 per cent RDF + 2.5 t ha–1 vermicompost + 2 sprays of Vermiwash
(1:2 treatment)
41.98 3.87 32.20
T4 -2.5 t ha–1 vermicompost + 2 sprays of cow urine + seeding treatment
with Azotobacter + PSB application (1:2)
19.30 1.43 18.22
T5-5 t ha–1 vermicompost + 2 sprays of Vermiwash (1:2 treatment) 27.84 2.51 25.32
T6 -5 t ha–1 vermicompost + 1 sprays of Vermiwash (1:2 treatment) + 1
spray of cow urine + organic booster i.e. fermented slurry.
31.57 3.28 27.82
T7 -5 t ha–1 vermicompost + 2 sprays of EM culture 26.47 2.30 24.31
Mean 28.26 2.54 24.89
SE+ 0.62 0.26 0.44
CD at 5% 1.91 0.82 1.37

27. Table 8. Nutrient uptake and yield as influenced by INM in cauliflower
Source - Meera Devi et al ,(2017) J. of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry ,6 (3):325-328.
Location - Dr. Y. S. Parmar Univ.of Horti. and Forestry,Nauni,Solan,Himachal Pradesh.
Treatment Nitrogen
uptake
Kg/ha
Phosphorous
uptake
Kg/ha
Potassium
uptake
Kg/ha
Curd yeild
q/ha
T1-Absolute control 42.01 6.89 31.92 210.055
T2-70% NPKM + 30% N through FYM and VC (50:50) 55.22 9.31 42.85 284.262
T3-T3 -80% NPKM + 20% N through FYM and VC (50:50) 64.57 9.91 51.43 329.250
T4-90% NPKM + 10% N through FYM and VC (50:50) 58.09 9.39 46.40 319.55
T5-100% NPK + FYM 51.84 9.14 39.49 267.873
T6-100% NPK + Vermicomposting, 53.19 9.21 40.03 274.688
T7-110% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content), 59.50 9.44 48.56 315.128
T8-120% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content) 63.47 9.88 50.42 310.477
T9-130% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content).
PGPR
63.62 9.89 50.77 309.825
CD(0.05) 1.87 0.40 1.00 14.32

28. Table 9. Microbial count and biomass as influenced by INM in cauliflower.
Source - Meera Devi et al ,(2017) J. of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry ,6 (3):325-328.
Location - Dr. Y. S. Parmar Univ.of Horti.and Forestry,Nauni,Solan,Himachal Pradesh.
Treatment Microbial
biomass
(mg MB-C
/100g soil)
Bacterial
COUNT (106
cfu/g Soil)
Fungal count
(104 cfu/g Soil)
Actinomycetes
count
(105 cfu/g Soil)
T1-Absolute control 96.31 167.10 3.05 3.12
T2-70% NPKM + 30% N through FYM and VC
(50:50)
108.79 197.03 3.97 4.87
T3-T3 -80% NPKM + 20% N through FYM and VC
(50:50)
120.26 218.62 4.92 4.96
T4-90% NPKM + 10% N through FYM and VC
(50:50)
109.29 202.70 4.39 4.92
T5-100% NPK + FYM 103.03 185.01 3.47 4.15
T6-100% NPK + Vermicomposting 105.73 193.50 3.75 4.31
T7-110% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N
content),
112.13 207.41 4.55 4.87
T8-120% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N
content)
118.78 216.59 4.84 4.91
T9-130% NPKM (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N
content). PGPR
118.58 216.85 4.64 4.92
CD(0.05) 2.63 4.94 0.38 0.48

29. Treatment details: Microbial activity (carbon dioxide evolution) as
influenced by INM
Treatment Treatment Details
T1 Absolute control
T2 70% NPK + 30% N through FYM and VC (50:50)
T3 80% NPK + 20% N through FYM and VC (50:50)
T4 90% NPK + 10% N through FYM and VC (50:50),
T5 100% NPK + FYM
T6 100% NPK + Vermicomposting,
T7 110% NPK (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content),
T8 120% NPK (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content),
T9 130% NPK (50:50 of FYM and VC as per N content). PGPR

30. 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 96 hours
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Figure 2. Microbial activity (Co2 evolution) as influenced by INM
Source- Meera Devi et al ,(2017) J. of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry ,6 (3):325-328.
Location-Dr.Y.S.Parmar Univ.of Horti.and Forestry,Nauni,Solan,Himachal Pradesh.

31. Treatments EC (dS/m) pH Bulk density
(g/cc)
Organic
carbon(%)
Avl.P
Kg/ha
Avl.K
Kg/ha
T1 - 100% RDN + FYM @ 20 t ha-1 0.24 7.53 1.36 0.44 46.5 244
T2 - 100% RDN + FYM @ 20 t ha-1+
Azotobactor + PSB
0.25 7.56 1.35 0.43 46.4 242
T3 - 100% RDN + vermicompost @ 10
t ha-1
0.26 7.66 1.35 0.46 48.0 229
T4- 100% RDN + vermicompost @ 10
t ha-1 + Azotobactor + PSB
0.26 7.61 1.34 0.46 48.7 224
T5- 100% RDN + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 0.29 7.75 1.36 0.40 45.7 239
T6- 100% RDN + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 +
Azotobactor + PSB
0.28 7.80 1.37 0.42 45.5 239
T7-75% RDN + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 0.23 7.63 1.37 0.41 45.4 231
T8- 75% RDN + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 +
Azotobactor + PSB
0.24 7.55 1.36 0.39 43.9 231
T9- 75% RDN + vermicompost @ 5 t
ha-1
0.23 7.58 1.35 0.41 46.7 230
T10- 75% RDN + vermicompost @ 5 t
ha-1 + Azotobactor + PSB
0
0.23 7.55 1.36 0.42 47.2 228
S.Em. ± 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.01 1.6 8.2
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.03 NS NS
C.V. % 12.1 3.61 2.0 4.48 7.0 7.0
Table 10. Effect of integrated nutrient management on physico-
chemical properties of soil in cabbage
Source - Chaudhary M.M. et al, (2018) International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, :10(9) 5931-5933.
Location - Department of Agronomy, B.A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388110, Gujarat, India

32. Treatments pH Organic
carbon
(mg/kg)
Avl. N
(kg/ha)
Avl. P
(kg/ha)
Avl. K
(kg/ha)
Avl. S
(kg/ha)
T1- 100% of recommended NPKS alone 8.16 7.7 159 25.0 512 10.0
T2- 100% RDF + 20 t FYM/ha 8.22 8.2 163 28.2 596 10.4
T3- 75% RDF + 15 t FYM/ha 8.19 8.0 160 26.8 567 8.5
T4- 75% RDF + 7.5 t PM/ha 8.25 8.8 162 24.2 572 14.2
T5- 75% RDF + 7.5 t VC/ha 8.27 7.2 164 27.2 548 12.1
T6- 75% RDF + 7.5 t FYM + 3.75 t PM/ha 8.04 8.2 150 2.5 616 11.6
T7- 75% RDF + 7.5 t FYM + 3.75 t VC/ha 7.85 8.1 154 27.8 613 17.7
T8- 75% RDF + 3.75 t PM + 3.75 t VC/ha 0.15 7.8 159 29.9 608 13.3
T9- 75% RDF + 5 t FYM + 2.5 t PM + 2.5 t VC/ha 8.17 8.4 155 29.4 579 13.1
LSD (p = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
CV (%) 2.67 7.15 5 23.5 12 67.1
Table 11. Effect of INM on soil available nutrient status (kg/ha) after
harvest of onion
Source- Lawande K. E. et al., (2015) Indian J. Hort.72(3):347-352
Location - ICAR-Directorate of Onion and Garlic Research, Rajgurunagar, Pune 410505, Maharashtra.

33. Source –Source- Vithwel et al. (2013), SAARC J. Agri., 11(2): 173-181.
Location – Department of Horticulture, SASRD, Nagaland University, Medziphema-797106, India
Treatments Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P
(kg/ha)
Available K
(kg/ha)
Organic
carbon
(%)
Soil pH
T1 Control 216.39 14.21 188.50 1.43 4.38
T2 FYM 20t ha-¹ 264.91 18.62 236.21 1.69 4.54
T3 Pig manure 15t ha-¹ 256.56 17.87 237.06 1.64 4.51
T4 Vermicompost 5t ha-¹ 266.16 16.82 230.21 1.59 4.48
T5 100% NPK ((80:40:40 kg ha-1) 314.92 19.59 250.42 1.60 4.42
T6 50% NPK + 50% FYM 301.84 18.60 238.90 1.77 4.59
T7 50% NPK + 50% Pig manure 297.36 18.45 233.65 1.76 4.55
T8 50% NPK + 50% Vermicompost 287.46 18.11 230.96 1.71 4.46
T9 50% NPK + 50% FYM + Biofertilizers 321.17 19.80 256.18 1.85 4.65
T10 50% NPK + 50% Pig manure + Biofertilizers 307.98 19.38 245.94 1.81 4.60
T11 50% NPK + 50% Vermicompost + Biofertilizers 306.49 19.09 241.32 1.74 4.56
SEm+ 3.70 0.29 3.46 0.03 0.01
CD (P=0.05) 11.13 0.90 10.40 0.11 0.05
Table 12. Effect of Integrated nutrient management on nutrient status of
soil after harvest of carrot.

34. Table 13. Effect of different organic manures and fertilizers on the soil chemical
composition after harvesting brinjal
Source – Saikumar, R. et al, (2017). Asian J. Soil Sci., 12 (1) : 151-156.
Location – Dep.of SSAC,College of Agriculture, Prof. Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural
University,Rajendranagar,Hydrabad,Telangana.
Treatments Organic Carbon (%) Available N (kg/ha) Available P (kg/ha) Available K (kg/ha)
T1-Control 0.40 183.0 23.0 213.3
T2-RDF 0.43 215.7 25.3 259.7
T3-UC @ 2.5 t/ha 0.45 201.7 26.5 232.3
T4-UC @ 5 t/ha 0.48 212.3 28.8 246.0
T5- SS @ 2.5 t/ha 0.49 225.0 28.6 256.0
T6-SS @ 5 t/ha 0.51 240.7 31.0 266.0
T7- PM @ 2.5 t/ha 0.49 236.3 29.8 259.0
T8- PM @ 5 t/ha 0.52 250.0 33.0 272.3
T9- UC @ 2.5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.47 234.0 28.5 264.0
T10- UC @ 5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.49 249.7 31.2 272.0
T11- SS @ 2.5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.51 259.0 30.6 266.0
T12- SS @ 5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.52 285.7 33.4 276.0
T13- PM @ 2.5 t/ha + RDF 0.51 272.7 31.0 269.0
T14- PM @ 5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.54 302.03 34.2 293.3
Mean 0.49 240.6 29.7 260.4
S.E.± 0.07 1.28 2.00 1.01
C.D.(P=0.05) NS 3.71 5.81 2.95

35. Table 14. Effect of INM on total NPK content of vine and available soil NPK after
harvest of Pumpkin.
Treatments Nutrient uptake (%) by
vine.
Final nutrient status after
harvest (kg/ha)
N P K N P K
T1 - T1-50:25:0 kg NPK (RDF) + FYM @25t/ha 3.88 0.37 0.23 186.76 21.15 335.32
T2 -T2-50:25:25 kg NPK + FYM@25t/ha 3.93 0.36 0.27 188.84 24.30 367.43
T3 -25:25:25 kg NPK + Seed treatment with Azotobacter @ 25
g/kg seed + FYM@25t/ha
4.03 0.35 0.24 178.13 24.24 364.08
T4 -T4-50:25:25 kg NPK + Seed treatment with PSB @ 25 g/kg
seed + FYM @ 25t/ha
4.23 0.42 0.39 190.23 27.97 386.81
T5 - T5-25:25:25 kg NPK +Seed treatment with Azotobacter
and PSB @ 25 g/kg seed + FYM@25t/ha
3.40 0.38 0.35 189.75 27.09 359.49
T6 -Seed treatment with Azotobacter and PSB @ 25 g/kg seed
+ FYM@25t/ha
3.32 0.41 0.29 172.75 27.68 362.08
T7 -Seed treatment with Azotobacter and PSB @ 25 g/kg seed
+ Vermicompost 2 t/ha + FYM@25t/ha
3.60 0.28 0.28 174.91 26.67 360.14
F - test Sign. Sign. Sign. Sign. Sign. Sign.
SE(m)± 0.049 0.02 0.01 2.14 1.20 1.54
C.D. at 5% 0.14 0.06 0.04 6.37 3.58 4.59
Source – Alekar AN et al., (2015) J. Horticulture, 2:2,1000136.
Location – Dep.of Hort.,PGI, DR.PDK Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra,India.

36. Table 15. Effect of INM on macro nutrient status of Tomato
Source – Pravita K C et al.,(2011) Nepal J. of Sci.and Tech.,(12) 23-28.
Location - Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Gaththaghar, Bhaktapur.
Treatments Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P
(kg/ha)
Available K
(kg/ha)
T1= 20 mt/ha. 323.30 71.00 174.90
T2 = 50% RDF + 30 mt/ha FYM . 350.80 88.70 193.60
T3 = 75% RDF + 25 mt/ha. 353.60 90.50 203.60
T4 = 10 mt/ha Vermicompost. 331.70 73.40 179.90
T5 = 50% RDF + 15 mt/ha Vermicompost 362.80 100.40 230.80
T6 = 75%RDF +12.5 mt/ha Vermicompost 352.80 96.40 216.30
T7 = 16.66 mt/ha FYM + 8.33 mt/ha Vermicompost +
RDF.
356.10 93.30 212.70
T8 = RDF (100: 80: 60 kg/ha) 340.00 89.30 184.10
T9 = Control 309.40 65.90 147.20
CD (0.05) 26.12 5.96 25.17

37. Table 16. Effect of INM on nutrient availability after harvest of potato.
Source – Pradip kumar et al.,(2017) Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 6(3): 1429-1436
Location - Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry NDUAT Kumarganj, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh,India.
Treatment Organic
carbon (%)
Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P
(kg/ha)
Available K
(kg/ha)
T1 – TGG @ 2.5 t/ha +100% RDF 0.56 148 18.5 148
T2 –TGG @ 3.75 t/ha +100% RDF 0.59 153 19.8 153
T3 –TGG @ 5 t/ha +100% RDF 0.60 160 22.0 160
T4 –TGG @ 2.5t/ha + 75% RDF 0.55 143 16.8 143
T5 –TGG @ 3.75t/ha + 75% RDF 0.58 148 18.5 148
T6 –TGG @ 5 t/ha + 75% RDF 0.60 155 19.4 155
T7 –FYM@ 12.5 t/ha + 100% RDF 0.54 148 18.9 148
T8 –FYM @ 25 t/ha + 100% RDF 0.58 156 21.2 156
T9 – 100% RDF(150:60:100 kg/ha) 0.49 134 17.2 134
T10 – Control 0.42 118 13.0 118
SEm± 0.01 3.17 0.62 3.17
CD at 0.05% 0.03 9.2 1.8 9.2

38. Table 17. Effect of INM practices on physico – chemical properties of soil used for the
cultivation of brinjal.
Source – Vinod kumar., (2016) Adv Plants Agric Res.;4(2):249‒256.
Location - Department of Zoology and Environmental Science, Gurukula Kangri University, India
Treatment N (mg/kg) P (mg/kg) K (mg/kg) Na (mg/kg) Ca (mg/kg) Mg (mg/kg)
T1 - Without nutrient (Control) 144.5 25.86 50.39 33.6 230.8 42.36
T2 – RDF=150:75:75 NPK kg/ha 160.88 28.67 54.67 44.85 240.39 46.37
T3 - Vermicompost @ 5t/ha 200.95 48.67 95.36 65.67 280.75 55.20
T4 - Farm yard manure (FYM) @
12.5 t/ha
240.64 44.67 85.70 56.34 265.80 52.39
T5 - 50 % RDF + Vermicompost @
5t /ha
266.84 70.34 120.14 75.64 292.36 159.67
T6 - 50 % RDF+SPC @ 5t/ha 254.5 54.20 115.64 63.52 267.64 126.30
T7 - 50 % RDF+FYM @ 12.5t/ha 260.97 55.62 123.84 64.18 276.34 130.84
T8 - 50 % RDF+SS @ 2t ha-1 244.64 51.37 125.85 68.30 270.85 125.60
F – calculated. 24.61 8.69 14.58 9.75 28.39 11.36
CD 10.63 5.14 9.6 4.34 12.34 7.88

39. Table 18. Effect of integrated nutrient management on fenugreek.
Source – Choudhary B R et al., (2001) Indian Journal of Agronomy, 56 (3): 189-195.
Location - S.K.N. College of Agriculture, RAU, Jobner , Rajasthan.
Treatment Organic carbon
(%)
N
(kg/ha)
P
(kg/ha)
K
(kg/ha)
T1 – Control 0.15 126.16 6.93 122.95
T2 - 100% RDN through FYM 0.23 135.29 7.18 127.69
T3 - 100% RDN through VC 0.22 136.63 7.35 128.09
T4 - 100% RDN through PM 0.22 137.47 7.40 128.40
T5 - 100% RDN through inorganic source 0.16 141.49 7.84 130.29
T6 - 50% RDN through FYM + 50% RDN
through inorganic source
0.19 141.73 7.93 130.81
T7 - 50% RDN through VC + 50% RDN
through inorganic source
0.18 142.10 7.96 130.91
T8 - 50% RDN through PM + 50% RDN
through inorganic source
0.25 142.21 8.02 131.11
SEm ± 0.01 3.35 0.06 0.37
CD (P=0.05) 0.03 3.81 0.17 1.05

40. Conclusion
 The combine use of organic and inorganic nutrients which lead to increased
uptake of NPK & Nutrient use efficiency.
 INM help to maintain productivity, profitability & quality of vegetables.
 Using poultry manure with inorganic source of fertilizer results maximum
vegetable production.
 By using 25% RDF along with 75% neem cake considerably increase the
vegetative growth, yield and quality of brinjal fruit.
 Application of 50% NPK + 50% FYM found best treatment in capsicum which
produced higher fruit yield.
 In interaction of inorganic and organic manure, 150:120:60 kg/ha NPK with
FYM 40 t/ha were found superior in vitamin-C and chlorophyll content in
sweet pepper.
 Use of vermicompost along with organic booster with a fermented mixture of
cow dung urine slurry (CDUS) is better for enhancing the yield of chilli crop
considerably.
 Use of 50% RDF with 2.5 t/ha vermicompost and 2 spray of vermiwash found
superior in chilli cultivation.
 The combined application of organic and chemical fertilizers with bacterial

41.  By addition of FYM and VC there is enhancement of nutrient availability (NPK)
which ultimately enhanced microbial activity.
 The balanced fertilization i.e., 100% NPK + FYM and biofertilizers enhanced the
bacterial count in the soil.
 The integrated application of 50% NPK + 50% FYM + biofertilizers found
optimum for getting maximum productivity of carrot without reducing fertility
status of soil.
 Application of organic manures such as FYM, vermicompost, crop residues
enhanced the soil available nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium as compared
to recommended dose of fertilizers
 The application of 50% NPK + 15 mt/ha vermicompost in tomato found more
available NPK nutrient status in soil.
 In cabbage an increase in organic carbon status of soil in vermicompost + RDN
along with biofertilizers treated plot is mainly due to increase in total microbial
population.

42. “THE WISE LIVEWITHOUT INJURING NATURE AS THEBEEDRINKS
HONEY WITHOUT HARMING THE FLOWERS”
EAT
HEALTHY
DREAM
HEALTHY
LIVE
HEALTHY