Nutrient budgets are becoming accepted tools to describe nutrient flows within cropping system and to assist in the planning of the rotational cropping and mixed farming system Depending on the farm management and the balance of inputs and outputs of nutrient N,P and K budgets have been shown to range from deficit to surplus in cropping system Budgets are the outcome of simple nutrient accounting process which details all the inputs and outputs to a given defined system over fixed period of time A soil surface nutrient budget accounts for all nutrients that enter the soil surface and leave the soil through crop uptake.

2. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth , Parbhani.
Department of SSAC,
College of Agriculture , Parbhani
Master seminar on
Soil Health And Nutrient Budgeting As Influenced By Different Cropping Sequences
Presented By
Mr. Pandit Pradip Ankush
Reg.No. 2018A/111M
Research Guide
Dr. S.T. Shirale
Assi. Prof. Department of SSAC
College Of Agriculture,Parbhani.
Seminar In-charge
Dr.Syed Ismail
Head Of Dept. SSAC
College Of Agriculture,Parbhani.

3. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• Introduction
• Soil health defination
• Healthy functioning of soil
• Soil health
• Soil properties interaction
• Characteristics of healthy soil
• Assessment of soil health
• Nutrient budgeting defination
• Importance of nutrient budgeting
• Factor affecting nutrient budgeting
• Case studies and conclusion

4. INTRODUCTION
• Soil health management in practice typically involves more
attention to rhizosphere process and building of soil organic
matter in relation to aggregate stability,water and nutrient
holding capacity and drainage and the capacity of soil to
support beneficial soil organism that improve nutrient
availability and suppress disease and other pest.
• The impact of continuous cropping on physical, chemical and
biological soil properties is needed to optimise the soil
condition necessary to enhance the cropping system
sustainability.
• The legume bases cropping pattern generally provides higher
content of soil microbial activity soil organic carbon and N .

5. • Nutrient budgets are becoming accepted tools to describe
nutrient flows within cropping system and to assist in the
planning of the rotational cropping and mixed farming
system
• Depending on the farm management and the balance of
inputs and outputs of nutrient N,P and K budgets have been
shown to range from deficit to surplus in cropping system
• Budgets are the outcome of simple nutrient accounting
process which details all the inputs and outputs to a given
defined system over fixed period of time
• A soil surface nutrient budget accounts for all nutrients that
enter the soil surface and leave the soil through crop uptake

6. SOIL HEALTH
Soil health, also referred to as soil quality, is
defined as the continued capacity of soil to function as
a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals,
and humans.

7. HEALTHY FUNCTIONING SOIL
 Produce food, fuel, fiber, and medicinal products
 Store, filter, and release water
 Provide resilience to environmental disturbances
 Resist diseases, pests, and pathogens
 Store and cycles carbon
 Store and cycle nutrients internally
 Maintain biodiversity

8. TO UNDERSTAND SOIL HEALTH WE MUST UNDERSTAND SOIL BIOLOGY
Nutrient
cycling
Aggregate
formation
N2 fixation
Plant
protection
Pathogen
suppression
Detoxify
pollutant
Atmospheric
composition
Decomposed
residues
Water filtration
Water
flow
Plant growth
enhancement
Soil
Health

9. Soil Properties Interaction
CHEMICAL
PHYSICAL
BIOLOGICAL
Soil health

10. Characteristics of a Healthy Soil
1. Good soil tilth
2. Sufficient depth
3. Sufficient but not excess supply of nutrients
4. Small population of plant pathogens and insect pests
5. Good soil drainage
6. Large population of beneficial organisms
7. Low weed pressure
8. Free of chemicals and toxins that may harm the crop
9. Resistant to degradation
10. Resilience when unfavorable conditions occur

11. 1. Good soil tilth
Soil tilth refers to the overall physical character of the soil in the context of its suitability for
crop production.
2.Sufficient depth
Sufficient depth refers to the extent of the soil profile to which roots are able to grow and
function. Shallow depth :- as a result of a compaction layer or past erosion is more.
3. Sufficient but not excess supply of nutrients
a) An adequate and accessible supply of nutrients :-
1) Optimal plant growth
2) Maintaining balanced cycling of nutrients
b) Excess nutrients can lead to :-
1) Leaching
2) Ground water pollution
4) Toxicity to plants and microbial communities

12. 4. Small population of plant pathogens and insect pests
In agricultural production systems, plant pathogens and pests can cause
diseases and damage to the crop.
In a healthy soil:-
population of these organisms is low and/or inactive.
In a unhealthy soil:-
population of these organisms is high and/or active.
This could result from
direct competition from other soil organisms for
1) Nutrients or niche 2) Habitats 3) Hyper parasitism

13. 5. Good soil drainage
Even after a heavy rain a healthy soil will :-
1) drain more rapidly – as result of good soil structure
2) an adequate distribution of different size pore spaces
3) retain adequate water for plant uptake.
6. Large population of beneficial organisms
A healthy soil will have a high and diverse population of beneficial
organisms to carry out these functions and thus help maintain a
healthy soil status.
Soil microbes are
1) functioning of the soil
2) help nutrient cycling
3) decomposition of organic matter
4) maintenance of soil structure
5) biological suppression of plant pests

14. 7. Low weed pressure
Weed pressure is a major constraint in crop production. Weeds compete with crops
for constraints
 Weeds compete with crops for water and nutrients that are essential for plant
growth.
 Weeds can interfere with stand establishment
 block sunlight,
 interfere with harvest and cultivation operations
8. Free of chemicals and toxins that may harm the crop
Healthy soils are either devoid of harmful chemicals and toxins or can detoxify
and/or bind such chemicals making them unavailable for plant uptake due to their
richness in stable organic matter and diverse microbial communities.
9. Resistant to degradation
A healthy, well aggregated soil is more resistant to adverse events including
erosion by wind and rain, extreme drought, vehicle compaction, etc

15. Sources://image.app.goo.gl/

16. • Establishing assessment of condition and health of our soil resources is a
vital to maintaining the sustainability of agriculture and civilization.
• In todays energy and technology intensive world the need for maintaining
the soil health of our soil resources is important.
• Target management practices to address soil constraints.
•
• Quantify soil improvement from implementing new or modifying current
soil management practices.
• Facilitate applied research - compare management practices to develop a
farm/field specific soil management program.
• Land evaluation – indication for soil health.
Assessment of soil health

17. Nutrient budgeting
 Nutrient budgeting is a technique used to quantify or predict nutrient
deficits or surpluses, either at a whole- farm or field scale , in an
attempt to determine fertilizer requirements .
 It can improve nutrient use efficiency and replace losses from
agriculture .

18. Nutrients Budgets
 Commonly used to evaluate the effects of nutrient
management on farm and field sustainability.
 Are the outcome of a simple accounting process that tracks
inputs and outputs to a given, defined system over a fixed
period of time.
 Useful when accounting for renewable resources in
production and processing as a way to avoid pollution and
waste.

19. Exchangeble
Nutrient Pool
in the soil
Nutrients in harvested
crop
Weathering of soil
minerals
Slowly
Replenished
Rapid
loss
Decomposition of crop residues
Balancing the Nutrient Budget
Source://images.app.goo.gl/

20. Importance Nutrient Budgeting
 An accurate nutrient budget is an important tool to provide an early indication
of potential problems arising from
1)A nutrient surplus (inputs >outputs), leading to an accumulation of nutrients
and increased risk of loss .
2)A deficit (outputs>inputs), depleting nutrient reserves and increasing the risk
of deficiencies and reduced crop yields.
 They also provide regulatory authorities with a readily determined , comparative
indicator of environmental impact over all nutrient budgets help insure that farming
practices are conducted in an efficient, economic and environmental sustainable
manner.

21. Factor affecting of nutrient budgeting
 Soil test
 This component is complementary to the budget and lets you know
what nutrients are already available to crops and helps you plan input
purchases.
 Yield history
 By examining the historical yields of crops take from specific fields, you
can calculate nutrient removal over time.
 Yield history may also help better predict the amount of uptake that will
occur with similar crops planted future.

22. Previous application
 Knowing what’s been applied to the field in years past will offer
insight into what may be already in the ground or what nutrients
may know longer be present
Water
 Consider what kind of water has been applied to the field. Does
irrigation water contain dissolved nutrients such has nitrogen (N),
sulfur (S), or chloride (CL).
 If so , it should be counted as input.

23. Case study
Table no 1 Effect of long term organic and inorganic fertilizer on soil pH, EC and organic
carbon under Maize-Wheat cropping system
Treatment Depth (cm)
pH EC (dsm-1) OC (g kg-1)
0-15 0-15 0-15
Control 7.74 0.16 2.8
100%N 7.21 0.17 3.5
100%NP 7.27 0.18 3.7
100%NPK 7.39 0.19 4.0
150%NPK 7.22 0.21 4.0
100%NPK+
FYM
7.19 0.19 5.3
CD (5%) 0.23 0.02 0.4
Source: Durani et al., 2017 International journal of Applied research 2017; 3(9):525-532
Location: Dept. of SSAC, N.M. Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujrat

24. Table no 2: Effect of organic nitrogen sources on soil health of rice based cropping system
Treatment
Bulk
density
(g/cc)
Porosity
(%)
Organic
Carbon
(%)
Soil pH Soil EC
(dS /m )
BacteriaActino-Fungi
(× 105) mycetes (× 104) (× 103)
Cropping sequence
Rice-Potato-Onion 1.37 35.33 0.51 7.28 0.34 59.18 31.48 30.18
Rice-Green pea-Onion 1.39 35.09 0.52 7.29 0.33 59.76 31.31 28.10
Rice-Potato-Cowpea 1.34 35.25 0.52 7.23 0.34 59.60 31.46 28.33
Rice- Green pea -Cowpea 1.30 35.39 0.53 7.17 0.33 60.16 31.33 29.83
Rice-Rajmash -Onion 1.34 34.99 0.52 7.27 0.34 58.14 31.18 28.07
Rice-Rajmash-Cowpea 1.34 35.28 0.53 7.26 0.34 59.98 31.00 27.56
Rice-Maize-Cowpea 1.31 35.25 0.51 7.28 0.34 59.85 30.78 24.98
SEm± 0.17 1.39 0.02 0.04 0.03 1.72 0.90 0.83
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Organic treatment
Control* 1.47 34.18 0.48 7.42 0.37 37.56 19.97 18.53
100% RDN through OM** 1.27 35.63 0.54 7.18 0.32 63.14 33.76 30.71
100% RDN through
OM+Bio***
1.29 35.86 0.54 7.17 0.31 77.88 40.02 35.13
SEm± 0.04 0.49 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.84 0.44 0.39
CD (P=0.05) 0.11 1.43 0.02 0.06 0.05 2.42 1.25 1.13
Initial value 1.44 36.38 0.50 7.4 0.35 46.10 24.37 25.19
Source: Yadav et al .,(2012) Indian J. of Agri. Sci.83 (2); 2012
Location: Institute of Agri.Sci. Banaras Hindu University UP

25. Table 3: Influence of different cropping sequences on soil
biological properties
Cropping pattern
Bacteria
(cfu x 10-6 ) g/soil
Fungi
(cfu x 10-4) g/soil
Actinimycetes
(cfu x 10-3) g/soil
Soil
dehydrogenase
activity mg
TPF/kg/24 hrs
CS I: maize-
cowpea (G)-radish
58 27 11 106.2
CS II: bhendi-
maize-sunflower
62 29 15 118.5
CS III: chillies-
maize- sunhemp
54 23 12 98.4
CS IV: cowpea (v)-
cotton-sunflower
53 27 13 96.5
CD (5%) 3 2 1 6.2
Initial 52 25 10 95.0
Source :Bama et al., (2017) International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(5):486-497
Location: Dept. of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore TN

26. TABLE 4: Effect of integrated nutrient management on chemical and biological properties of soil under the
Cotton Chickpea cropping sequence (pooled mean of 2006-08).
Location: Dept. ofAgronomy MPKV, Rahuri
Treatments
Chemical properties Biological properties
pH Electrical
conductivity
(dS m-1)
Organic carbon
(%)
Available
nutrients
N
(kg
P
ha-1)
K
Bacteria
(CFU 104g-1
soil)
Fungi
(CFU 103g1
soil)
Actinomycetes
(CFU 103 g-1
soil)
Main plot treatments
GRDF (10 t FYM/ ha + RDF) 7.97 0.26 0.69 92.5 18.89 293.6 36.40 33.50 58.30
75% RDF + 25 % RDN
through VC
8.05 0.28 0.55 117.0 26.40 309.7 30.70 24.40 49.80
50% RDF + 50 % RDN
through VC
8.02 0.27 0.63 112.7 17.19 301.9 32.40 27.60 51.60
25% RDF + 75 % RDN
through VC
8.00 0.28 0.64 103.8 15.31 299.2 34.70 28.30 53.40
% RDN through VC 8.00 0.26 0.69 103.7 14.48 297.6 36.10 30.40 55.70
RDF according to STCR
equation
8.04 0.32 0.49 108.7 23.48 293.0 24.60 25.10 47.20
Control 8.08 0.28 0.43 71.7 20.43 290.8 20.20 15.40 36.70
SEm+ 0.005 0.005 0.01 1.6 0.73 1.94 0.76 0.75 0.90
at 5 %
.
0.013 0.016 0.03 4.8 2.26 6.00 2.34 2.31 2.78
Sub plot treatments
Control 7.98 0.27 0.55 114.3 21.58 303.0 32.18 27.67 45.62
50% RDF 7.99 0.29 0.58 111.1 21.11 301.6 31.83 27.24 50.22
75% RDF 8.05 0.28 0.55 101.1 19.47 298.1 30.20 26.14 52.41
100% RDF 8.07 0.29 0.61 79.3 15.65 289.2 28.71 24.49 53.29
SEm+ 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.4 0.21 0.24 0.05 0.10 0.48
at 5 % 0.008 0.006 0.015 1.3 0.62 0.68 0.14 0.28 1.37
Initial status 8.01 0.28 0.52 168.33 13.46 467.33 17.7 22.6 30.6
Source : Gudadhe et al.,(2014) Indian Journal Agri. Research 49(3) 2015;207-214

27. Table-5 Long-term effect of organic manuring and inorganic fertilization on soil
carbon pools under soybean-safflower sequence
Treatment no. Treatment details Soil Organic Carbon (g kg-1) Water
Soluble
Carbon
(mg kg-1)
Labile
carbon
(mg kg-1)
T1 50%NPK 5.93 18.34 218
T2 100%NPK 6.21 20.77 234
T3 150%NPK 6.54 24.34 279
T4 100%NPK+ HW 6.39 20.59 215
T5 100%NPK+Zn 6.46 21.75 239
T6 100%NP 5.83 17.80 231
T7 100%N 5.60 16.73 216
T8 100%NPK+FYM 6.89 26.93 326
T9 100%NPK-S 5.67 19.00 231
T10 FYM 6.61 25.39 315
T11 Control 5.49 12.72 209
T12 Fallow 5.65 16.25 217
CD (P=0.05) 0.40 2.63 18.16
Source : Munde et al.,(2018) IJAS-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10,Issue 10, 2018
Location: Dept. of SSAC ,VNMKV Parbhani

28. Table 6 : Long-term effect of various treatments on chemical properties of
soil in sorghum–wheat system
Treatment OC
(g/kg)
Total N
(%)
pH EC
(dS/m)
T1, 50% NPK 4.32 0.0428 7.94 0.281
T2, 100% NPK 5.11 0.0483 7.85 0.314
T3, 150% NPK 5.93 0.0516 7.78 0.341
T4, 100% NPK(S free) 5.10 0.0479 7.85 0.293
T5, 100% NPK +2.5 kg Zn/ha 5.15 0.0492 7.83 0.324
T6, 100% NP 4.90 0.0461 7.87 0.311
T7, 100% N 4.29 0.0432 7.88 0.307
T8, 100% NPK + FYM @ 10 tonnes/ha 6.77 0.0594 7.75 0.336
T9,100% NPK +37.5 kg S/ha 5.21 0.0504 7.82 0.331
T10,FYM alone 10 tonnes/ha 6.01 0.0512 7.82 0.284
T11,75% NPK 4.64 0.0433 7.86 0.289
T12, control 2.81 0.0331 7.98 0.270
SEm (±) 0.13 0.002 0.07 0.014
CD (P=0.05) 0.38 0.005 0.042
Source : Katkar et al., (2011) IJAS 81(8) ; 734-9 August 2011
Location: Dr. PDKV, Akola

29. Table- 7: Dehydrogenase activity, TOC and carbon indices influenced
by organic manuring and inorganic fertilization under soybean-
safflower sequence
Tr.
No.
Treatment details Dehydrogenase
(µg g-1 soil
24 hr-1)
TOC (g kg-1) Carbon Pool
Index
(CPI)
Carbon Lability
Index
(CLI)
Carbon
Management
Index (CMI)
T1 50%NPK 33.74 14.89 1.15 1.04 1.19
T2 100%NPK 35.73 15.46 1.19 1.12 1.33
T3 150%NPK 47.08 16.87 1.30 1.34 1.74
T4 100%NPK+ HW 36.39 15.84 1.22 1.03 1.25
T5 100%NPK+Zn 37.99 16.39 1.26 1.14 1.43
T6 100%NP 34.59 14.69 1.13 1.11 1.25
T7 100%N 32.90 13.92 1.07 1.02 1.09
T8 100%NPK+FYM 50.21 18.76 1.44 1.56 2.24
T9 100%NPK-S 39.34 14.93 1.15 1.12 1.28
T10 FYM 45.59 18.41 1.42 1.46 2.07
T11 Control 30.00 12.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
T12 Fallow 31.86 13.85 1.07 1.04 1.11
CD at 5% 3.07 1.89
Source : Munde et al ., (2018) IJAS-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10,Issue 10, 2018
Location: Dept. of SSAC ,VNMKV, Parbhani

30. Table 8: Microbial population dynamic under rice based cropping system
Treatments Bacteria(CFU *10-5) Fungi(CFU *10-4) Actinomycetes
( CFU *10-5)
Rice establishment
techniques(Main Plot)
Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif
T1- Zero tillage 45.47 46.70 19.53 20.37 33.17 34.80
T2- Permanent bed 44.20 45.23 17.43 18.27 31.50 33.17
T3-Conventional Method 41.10 42.10 16.33 16.67 29.47 30.27
CD (P=0.05) 1.19 1.42 1.68 2.15 1.19 1.03
Cropping systems (Sub-plot)
S1- Rice-wheat 42.07 42.90 17.63 18.17 31.37 32.83
S2- Rice- maize 42.50 43.83 16.00 16.77 28.60 30.00
S3- Rice- Lentil 46.20 47.30 19.67 20.37 34.17 35.40
CD (P=0.05) 2.36 2.73 2.52 2.71 1.59 1.64
Source : Kumar et al.,(2016) Journal of Pure And Applied Microbiology, March 2017
Location: Dept. of SSAC, Bihar Agricultural university, Sabour Bhagalpur.

31. Table no.9: Effect of long term organic and inorganic fertilizer
application on soil available NPK on Maize-Wheat cropping system
Treatments
Depth cm
N P K
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
Control 93.3 88.1 13.7 12.4 67.2 59.9
100%N 109.2 96.5 16.9 14.1 66.5 78.0
100%NP 113.7 98.6 77.7 48.9 89.2 75.8
100%NPK 125.4 119.3 82.7 53.2 105.7 86.2
150%NPK 133.8 130.2 81.9 69.8 119.5 87.9
100%NPK+FYM 141.1 133.0 90.9 83.5 123.2 126.7
CD (5%) 4.5 6.9 5.1 24.3 28.4 5.8
Source: Durani et al .,(2017) International journal of Applied research 2017; 3(9):525-532
Location: Dept. of SSAC, N.M. Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujrat

32. Table no . 10: System level soil nitrogen budgeting for different
cropping sequences
Cropping sequences
Initial
(a)
1
Added
(b)
2
Nutrient
available for
crop (a+b) 3
Nutrient
Removal
(c) 4
Post
harvest
(Actual)
(d) 5
Post
harvest
(expected)
e= (3-4) 6
Nutrient
balance
( 5-6)
CSI-maize-cowpea(G)-
radish(0.20ha)
48 70.4 118.4 60.3 52.6 58.1 -5.5
CS II-bhendi-
maize+cowpea-sunflower
(0.20ha)
48 89.6 137.6 100.4 50.4 37.2 13.2
CS III :chillies-maize-
green manure (0.20ha)
48 84 132 78.7 50.4 53.3 -2.9
CS IV : cowpea (v)-cotton-
sunflower(0.25ha)
60 88.15 148.15 109.2 49.5 38.95 55.
Source: Bama et al.,(2017) International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(5):486-497
Location: Dept. of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore TN.

33. Table 11: System level soil phosphorus budgeting for different
cropping sequences
Cropping sequences Initial (a)
Added
(b)
Nutrient
available for
crop (a+b)
Nutrient
Removal
(c)
Post
harvest
(Actual)
(d)
Post
harvest
(expecte
d) e=
(a+b)-c
Nutrient
balance
( d-e)
CS I-maize-cowpea(G)-
radish(0.20ha)
37.6 60.7 64.46 16 3.68 48.46 -44.78
CSII -bhendi-maize +
cowpea-sunflower
(0.20ha)
37.6 67.8 71.56 28 4.24 43.56 -39.32
CS III :chillies-maize-
green manure (0.20ha)
37.6 38.9 42.66 25 2.94 17.66 -14.72
CS IV : cowpea (v)-cotton
sunflower(0.25ha) 47 68.9 73.6 31.7 3.875 41.9 -38.025
Source: Bama et al., (2017) International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(5):486-497
Location: Dept. of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore TN.

34. Table 12: System level soil potassium budgeting for different
cropping sequences
Cropping sequences
Initial
(a)
Added
(b)
Nutrient
available
for crop
(a+b)
Nutrient
Removal
(c)
Post
harvest
(Actual)
(d)
Post harvest
(expected)
e= (a+b)-c
Nutrient
balancce
( d-e)
CS I-maize-cowpea(G)-
radish(0.20ha)
144 48 192 49.8 142.8 142.2 0.6
CSII -bhendi-maize +
cowpea-sunflower
(0.20ha)
144 62.5 206.5 76.4 141.2 130.1 11.1
CS III :chillies-maize-
green manure
(0.20ha)
144 41 185 82.5 159 102.5 56.5
sCS IV : cowpea (v)-cotton
sunflower(0.25ha) 180 55.75 235.75 64.8 188 170.95 17.05
Source: Bama et al.,(2017) International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(5):486-497
Location: Dept. of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore TN.

35. Table 13. Effect of cropping system and organic treatment on fertility balance of
soil
Treatment Soil organic carbon (%) Soil available nitrogen
(kg/ha)
Soil available phosphorus
(kg/ha)
Soil available
potassium (kg/ha)
A B C A B C A B C A B C
Cropping sequence
Rice–potato–onion 0.50 0.51 0.01 185.5 185.8 0.3 20.4 19.9 -0.4 210.3 205.1 -5.2
Rice–green pea–onion 0.50 0.52 0.02 185.5 193.3 7.8 20.4 21.7 1.4 210.3 218.4 8.1
Rice–potato–cowpea 0.50 0.52 0.02 185.5 190.3 4.8 20.4 21.1 0.8 210.3 212.8 2.5
Rice–green pea–cowpea 0.50 0.53 0.03 185.5 192.6 7.1 20.4 21.6 1.2 210.3 216.6 6.3
Rice–rajma–onion 0.50 0.52 0.02 185.5 191.1 5.6 20.4 21.0 0.6 210.3 212.8 2.5
Rice–rajma–cowpea 0.50 0.53 0.03 185.5 192.8 7.3 20.4 22.0 1.7 210.3 220.5 10.2
Rice–maize–cowpea
Organic treatment
0.50 0.51 0.01 185.5 189.1 3.6 20.4 21.8 1.5 210.3 210.9 0.6
Control 0.50 0.48 -0.02 185.5 177.2 -8.3 20.4 19.7 -0.7 210.3 201.4 -9.0
100% RDN through OM 0.50 0.54 0.04 185.5 197.0 11.5 20.4 22.1 1.7 210.3 219.5 9.1
100% RDN through OM +
Biofertilizer
0.50 0.54 0.04 185.5 197.9 12.4 20.4 22.2 1.8 210.3 220.8 10.5
Source: Yadav et al.,(2012) Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 83(2);170-5 2018
Location: Institute of Agricultural Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi UP.

36. Table no. 14: Effect of different treatments on nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and
sulphur uptake by the system
Treatment Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) Nutrient available (kg/ha)
N P K S N P K S
Cropping sequence
Rice-Potato-Onion 183.10 32.30 141.86 26.63 185.79 19.94 205.13 18.86
Rice-Green pea-Onion 198.79 33.75 79.49 24.86 193.33 21.74 218.43 20.12
Rice-Potato-Cowpea 246.16 37.50 132.73 28.78 190.28 21.14 212.79 20.54
Rice- Green pea -Cowpea 251.60 36.66 67.22 24.41 192.58 21.58 216.62 20.80
Rice-Rajmash -Onion 219.17 37.68 84.32 28.48 191.11 20.98 212.79 20.15
Rice-Rajmash-Cowpea 276.31 42.23 70.64 29.34 192.75 22.01 220.48 20.38
Rice-Maize-Cowpea 387.67 64.01 157.50 39.41 189.14 21.80 210.87 20.29
SEm± 8.75 1.35 3.50 0.97 5.41 0.60 6.06 0.58
CD (P=0.05) 26.26 4.05 10.48 2.89 NS NS NS NS
Organic Treatment
Control* 141.15 22.97 65.58 16.05 177.23 19.70 201.35 18.16
100% RDN through OM** 292.74 47.17 118.96 33.63 196.98 22.06 219.46 21.07
100% RDN through OM+ Bio** 321.59 51.63 129.93 36.85 197.92 22.17 220.81 21.26
SEm± 4.10 0.65 1.61 0.45 2.48 0.28 2.77 0.26
CD (P=0.05) 11.80 1.90 4.64 1.30 7.13 0.80 7.98 0.76
Initial 185.50 20.35 210.32 19.28
Source :Yadav et al., (2018) Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 83(2);170-5 2018
Location: Institute of Agricultural Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi UP.

37. Table15: Soil parameters as influenced by various cropping system and organic
amendments after five cropping cycles
SOC∗ Available N Available P Available K Bulk density SMBC†
Treatments PH (g kg−1) (kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (Mg m−3) (μg g−1 dry
soil)
MWHC‡ (%)
A. Cropping systems
Maize + soybean
tomato
4.97 22.0 242.88 30.56 237.98 1.12 204.60 55.18
Maize + soybean–
potato
5.0 21.7 241.23 30.90 240.64 1.12 206.10 55.30
Maize + soybean–
French bean
5.01 22.0 244.77 31.61 241.88 1.14 207.30 52.97
SEm (±)
CD (p = 0.05 B.
Nutrient sources
0.04
NS
0.30
NS
1.58
NS
1.02
NS
1.32
NS
0.03
NS
0.09
NS
1.44
NS
FYM§ 5.06 23.3 251.47 33.81 245.29 1.14 215.73 58.74
Vermicompost 5.04 22.3 245.46 32.58 240.08 1.11 200.18 54.57
FYM + vermicompost 5.10 23.6 249.12 34.29 249.98 1.12 220.33 61.48
Control 4.79 18.7 225.68 23.40 225.32 1.18 186.34 43.13
Initial 4.80 18.0 235.61 19.19 202.10 1.19 194.5 42.90
SEm (±)
CD (p = 0.05)
0.06
0.17
0.30
1.00
2.20
6.56
0.68
2.04
1.53
4.54
0.03
NS
0.8
2.40
0.82
2.45
Source: Patel et al., (2014) Expl Agric.: page 1 of 22 C Cambridge University Press 2014
Location: ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam 793103, Meghalaya

38. Table 16 Long-term effects of various treatments on availability of macro and secondary
nutrients in soil in sorghum–wheat system
Treatment Available nutrients
Kg/ha Mg/kg
N P K S
T1 50% NPK 186 16.21 309 36.06
T2 100% NPK 280 30.96 388 44.13
T3 150 %NPK 305 32.98 431 58.08
T4 100% NPK (S free) 267 29.11 371 33.38
T5 100% NPK + 2.5 kg Zn /ha 282 29.07 386 48.61
T6 100% NP 260 29.83 339 40.54
T7 100% N 248 24.70 299 34.05
T8 100% NPK + FYM @10t/ha 313 37.08 460 63.39
T9 100%NPK + 37.5 kg S/ha 283 31.16 391 65.18
T10 FYM alone 10t /ha 253 28.81 338 31.58
T11 75% NPK 214 19.92 348 43.01
T12 Control 175 12.17 230 28.67
SEm (+-) 4.24 0.26 3.25 0.42
CD (P=0.05) 12 0.75 9 1.16
Source : Katkar et al., (2011) IJAS 81(8) ; 734-9 August 2011
Location: Dr. PDKV, Akola

39. Table 17. Nutrient uptake and soil fertility at final harvest (kg/ha) as influenced by organic and
inorganic sources of nutrients (2 year pooled data).
Treatment Nutrient Uptake (kg/ha) SOIL FERTILITY AT
FINAL HARVEST
OC (%)
MAIZE MUSTARD
N P K N P K N P K
Control 32.5 9.8 27.3 22.1 5.39 13.9 173.4 7.35 228.4 1.22
100%NPK(50:60:30
kg/ha)
82.5 17.5 75.4 30.3 7.56 23.7 187.4 9.4 245.6 1.30
100%NPK+Azolla
compost 2.5 t/ha
94.6 20.3 83.6 40.2 9.93 27.8 191.3 10.10 244.3 1.41
100%NPK+FYM
2.5 t/ha
92.8 19.6 81.8 39.8 9.56 28.2 189.2 9.83 247.3 1.45
50%NPK+Azolla
compost 5t/ha
91.7 19.4 82.3 41.8 10.8 30.2 193.7 10.63 247.8 1.52
50%NPK +FYM 5
t/ha
89.4 18.7 80.4 41.6 11.2 28.8 192.3 10.41 246.6 1.50
Azolla compost 5
t/ha +FYM 5t/ha
84.6 18.4 78.8 45.7 12.8 33.3 194.8 11.63 249.7 1.49
CD (P=0.05) 11.23 2.42 6.06 5.64 0.57 3.13 17.08 1.57 NS 0.10
Source: Das et al., (2009)IJAS 80(1);85-8,2010
Location: ICAR Research Complex For NEH Region,Umiam Meghalaya 793-103

40. Conclusion :
 Soil health is interaction of physical, chemical and biological properties of soil.
 Nutrient budgeting helps in prediction and quantifying deficits or surpluses of
nutrients in field.
 Long term use of organics and inorganics helps in improvement of soil organic
carbon content in soil under Maize-Wheat cropping system.
 Application of recommended dose of fertilizers along with organic manures and
biofertilizers improved physical properties( viz, porosity, bulk density) chemical
properties (viz, pH, EC) and biological properties (viz, bacteria, fungi and
actinomycete) in different cropping system.

41.  Integrated nutrient management to long term Soybean-Safflower cropping
system recorded higher soil organic carbon, different forms of organic
carbon and enzymatic activity similar results were also observed in
sorghum-wheat and maize- wheat cropping system.
 Integrated nutrient management in long term fertilizer experiments reported
in improvement in soil fertility.
 Pulse based cropping system cowpea-cotton-sunflower recorded highest
nitrogen balance.
 Higher K balance was observed in chilli-maize-green manure sequences
compared with (maize-cowpea-radish, bhendi-maize-cowpea-sunflower and
cowpea-cotton-sunflower cropping sequences.