Gives the entire information about the fertigation in cucurbits From Ananda Murthy H. C Msc (Hort) Vegetable Science

1. 1
Welcome

2. Water Scarcity
2

3. University of Horticultural and Sciences, Bagalkot
College of Horticulture, Bengaluru
Seminar – I
Effect of fertigation on growth, yield and fertilizer use efficiency
in cucurbits
3
Name of the Student : Ananda Murthy H.C
ID No. : UHS17PGM981
Degree Programme and Subject : Sr. M.Sc. (Hort.)
Vegetable Science
College : College of Horticulture,
Bengaluru.

4. Contents
1
• Introduction
2 • History
4 • Equipments and methods for fertilizer injection
5
• Future prospects
6
• Advantages and disadvantages of fertigation
7
• Case studies
8
• Conclusion
4

5. Introduction
What is Fertigation?
5

6. 6
Water soluble fertilizers can be effectively and
efficiently applied through irrigation systems is
called fertigation.
Reduced labour and higher fertilizer use efficiency
are the major benefits of fertigation.
The reason why fertigation become ‘state of art’ in
cultivation is that nutrient can be applied in the
correct dosage at the time appropriate for the
specific stage of plant growth.
(Hagin and Lowengart, 1996)

7. 7
Why do we need Fertigation?

8. 8

9. 9
Hanging
gardens
of
Babylon.
18th
century
-John
Woodward
of England
19th century-
Jean Baptiste
Boussingault
1950-60
In united states
increase in the
number of
glasshouses-
fertilizer tank
was came into
existence
1970-
liquid fertilizers
and low
discharge
Venturi
History
International Potash Institute

10. What is fertilizer use efficiency ?
10

11. 11
Nutrient Fertilizer use efficiency (%)
Soil application Fertigation
Nitrogen 30-50 95
Phosphorous 20 45
Potassium 50 80
Table -1:Fertilizer use efficiencies of various application
methods
Priya et al., 2017

12. Equipments and methods for fertilizer
injection
11

13. Three main groups of equipments used in drip system are :
 Ventury system
 Fertilizer tank
 Fertilizer pump
Fertigation equipments
13
Kafkafi et al., 2005

14. Ventury system
Creates partial vaccum and sucks the fertilizer solution into the
irrigation system
14
Kafkafi et al., 2005

15. 15

16. Fertilizer tank
16Kafkafi et al., 2005

17. 17

18. Fertilizer pump
18
Kafkafi et al., 2005

19. 19

20. Typical Methods used:
Drip Irrigation Systems
Sprinkler
Micro jets
Lateral move
Traveler gun
Solid set system
SprinklerDrip Irrigation 20

21. Micro jets Lateral move
Solid set system
Traveler gun
21

22. Suitability of Fertilizers For Fertigation
Hagin and Lowengart (1996) enumerated the
main properties relating to the suitability of the
fertilizer to the injection method as follows
Form Solubility
Interaction
between
fertilizers
in solution
Corrosivity
22
International potash institute(NCPAH) Ministry of agriculture, New Delhi

23. Solid fertilizer
mixtures Liquid fertilizer
solutions
Form of Fertilizers
23
(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi
1

24. Table 2: Nutrient (N-P2O5-K2O) content of common fertilizers
suitable for fertigation in their solid and saturated liquid forms
Nutrient Compound
Nutrient content in
(N: P2O5 : K2O)
Nitrogen N
Urea
Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Sulphate
46-0-0
34-0-0
21-0-0
Phosphorous P
Phosphoric Acid
Mono Ammonium Phosphate
Di Ammonium Phosphate
0-52-0
12-61-0
18-46-0
Potassium K
Potassium Chloride
Potassium Nitrate
Potassium Sulphate
Mono Potassium Phosphate
0-0-62
13-0-46
0-0-50
0-52-34
23(NCPAH) Ministry of agriculture ,New Delhi

25. Solubility
The quantity of fertilizer that can
be dissolved in unit quantity of
water is called the solubility.
The solubility is greatly affected
by the temperature variations.
Table 3. Fertilizers solubility and temperatures (g/100 g water)
Temperature KCl K2SO4 KNO3 NH4NO3
10°C 31 9 21 158
20°C 34 11 31 195
30°C 37 13 46 242
25(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi
2

26. Interaction between fertilizers in solution
Ammonium
sulphate with
chlorides
Calcium nitrate
with any
phosphates or
sulphates
Magnesium
sulphate with di-
or mono-
ammonium
phosphate
Phosphoric acid
with iron, zinc,
copper and
manganese
sulphates
• When preparing fertilizer solutions for fertigation, some fertilizers not be
mixed together
• The use of two fertilization tanks allows to separate the fertilizers that interact and
cause precipitation
Some fertilizers that should not mix are
26
(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi
3

27. Corrosivity
Kind of metal Ca(NO3)2 (NH4)2SO4 NH4NO3 Urea H3PO4 DAP
Galvanized iron 2 4 4 1 4 1
Sheet aluminium No 1 1 No 2 2
Stainless steel No No No No 1 No
Bronze 1 3 3 No 2 4
Brass 1 2 3 No 2 4
No = None; 1 = Slight; 2 = Moderate; 3 = Considerable; 4 = Severe
Table 4 : Corrosivity of fertilizers
Chemical reactions may occur between fertilizers and metal
parts in the irrigation and fertigation systems.
27
(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi
4

28. 28
Improve fertilizer use efficiency
Higher resource conservation
Optimization of nutrient balance by supplying the desired
and required quantity of fertilizers
Advantages

29. 29
Helps to meet the physiological needs of the crop at different
stages.
It helps in maintaining and improving the physical, chemical and
biological condition of soil.

30. 30
Ground water pollution
Highly economical and provides additional
returns due to increased yields

31. Fertilizer injection should not begin until all lines are filled with
water and drippers are working.
Knowledge of fertilizer compatibility while mixing is necessary.
Fertilizer should not be injected at the same time of injecting
pesticides.
Precautions to be taken during fertigation
31
(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi

32. 32
The time needed for fertigation should be less than time needed to
supply enough water to the field.
Do not over irrigate because this will leach some of the fertilizers
out of the root zone.

33. 33

34. Effect of fertigation levels on growth, quality and yield of polyhouse
cucumber
(Cucumis sativus)
Case study-1
Photo courtesy: https://img1.exportersindia.com/product_images/bc-full/2018/7/5398840 cucumber-1531997212-3950175.jpeg
34
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Agricultural
University, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
Sikarwar et al., 2016

35.  Location : NVP at Hi – Tech Horticulture Farm, Jawaharlal Nehru
Agricultural University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
 Variety : Cucumber ( Sandhya, F1 hybrid)
 Recommended dose: 150:70:160 kg N:P:K/ha.
 Year: During August to December, for two consecutive years
2014 and 2015
 Design: Factorial Randomized Block design (FRCBD)
 16 treatment combinations with 3 replications
35
Material and Methods
Objective: To find out the optimum fertigation level for polyhouse
cucumber in central Madhya Pradesh
Sikarwar et al., 2016

36. Table -5: Quantity of nutrient applied in different
treatments(kg/ha)
Fertilizers 60 %RDF 80% RDF 100 %RDF 120%RDF
Nitrogen(N) 90 120 150 180
Phosphorous(P) 42 56 70 84
Potassium(K) 96 128 160 192
Total (N+P+K) 228 304 380 456
Sikarwar et al., 2016
36

37. 37
Plant height
(cm)
Year 60
%RDF
80%
RDF
100
%RDF
120%
RDF
CD(0.05)
2014 345.8 363.4 422.3 440.7 49.95
2015 323.1 348.5 407.3 421.9 42.28
Pooled mean 334.5 356.0 414.8 431.3 S
Flower
apperance
(DAT)
2014 21.8 21.3 21.4 20.6 1.59
2015 21.4 21.5 20.8 22.2 2.00
Pooledmean 21.6 21.4 21.1 21.4 NS
Table -6: Plant height (at harvest) and flower appearance of cucumber as
influenced by fertigation levels inside NVP
Sikarwar et al., 2016
S- Significant , NS – Non Significant

38. Fruit
length
(cm)
Year
60 %
RDF
80%
RDF
100 %
RDF
120%
RDF
CD
(0.05)
2014 14.5 14.7 15.1 15.0 1.07
2015 14.4 14.6 15.0 14.9 0.99
Pooled mean 14.4 14.6 15.0 15.0 NS
Fruit girth
(cm)
2014 14.0 14.2 14.2 14.3 0.92
2015 14.2 14.6 14.4 14.5 0.84
Pooledmean 14.1 14.4 14.3 14.4 NS
Weight of 5
fruits(kg)
2014 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.07 0.05
2015 1.02 1.04 1.10 1.10 0.06
Pooled mean 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.08 S
Table -7: Length, girth and weight of cucumber fruits as influenced by
fertigation levels inside NVP
Sikarwar et al., 2016
38
S- Significant , NS – Non Significant

39. No of
fruits/plant
Year
60 %
RDF
80%
RDF
100 %
RDF
120%
RDF
CD
(0.05)
2014 8.27 11.01 13.64 12.90 1.53
2015 9.11 11.31 14.69 13.81 1.41
Pooled mean 8.69 11.16 14.17 13.36 S
Fruit
yield/plant
(kg)
2014 1.54 2.04 2.59 2.44 0.28
2015 1.67 2.16 2.86 2.73 0.26
Pooledmean 1.60 2.10 2.72 2.59 S
Fruit yield/ha
(tonnes)
2014 30.75 40.89 51.75 48.88 5.65
2015 33.31 43.26 57.10 54.55 5.09
Pooled mean 32.03 42.07 54.43 51.72 S
Table -8: No of fruits/plant, fruit yield/plant and fruit yield/ha of cucumber as
influenced by irrigation levels inside NVP
Sikarwar et al., 2016
39
S- Significant , NS – Non Significant

40. 40
 Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that,
the 150:70:160 kg per hectare application of N:P:K is the best
fertigation dose recommendation for polyhouse grown cucumber in
order to get higher yield and uniform fruit size for the agro-
climatic conditions of central Madhya Pradesh
Inference
Sikarwar et al., 2016

41. Effect of fertigation and mulching on growth, yield and yield
attributing characteristics of pointed gourd (Trichosanthes dioica
Roxb.) cv. Swarna Alaukik
Case study-2
Photocourtesy:https://img1.exportersindia.com/product_images/bc-full/2018/7/5398840/pointedgourd-1531997212- 3950175.jpeg
41
Precision Farming Development Centre, Horticulture Research Station (HRS),
Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT), Bhubaneswar
Nayak et al., 2018

42. 42
 To evaluate the effect of various levels of fertigation , and plastic
mulching on yield performance of pointed gourd cultivation under
drip-fertigation
Nayak et al., 2018
Objective:

43. 43
 Location : Precision Farming Development Centre, Horticulture Research
Station (HRS), Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT),
Bhubaneswar
 Variety : Pointed gourd Cv. Swarna Alaukik
 Recommended dose: 150:60:80 kg N:P:K/ha.
 Year : During 2016-2017
 Design: Factorial Randomized Block design (FRCBD)
 8 Treatments with 3 replications
Material and Methods
Nayak et al., 2018

44. 44
Details of Treatments
T1 Fertigation with 100% RDF
T2 Fertigation with 80% RDF
T3 Fertigation with 60% RDF
T4 Fertigation with 100% RDF + mulching
T5 Fertigation with 80% RDF + mulching
T6 Fertigation with 60% RDF + mulching
T7 Drip irrigation + RDF in soil application
T8 Irrigation in furrow without mulching + RDF in soil application
Nayak et al ., 2018

45. 45
Treatments
Vine
length
(cm)
No. of
leaves
No.of
primary
branche
s
Leaf
area
(cm2)
No. of
female
flowers
No. of
fruits
Fruit
yield
(q/ha)
T1 Fertigation with 100%RDF 386.1 203.73 7.47 27.47 110.7 83.47 133.87
T2 Fertigation with 80%RDF 360.4 198.1 7.33 23.01 100.2 82.27 130.83
T3 Fertigation with 60%RDF 305.9 191.47 6.53 20.07 93.1 71.53 123.22
T4
Fertigation with 100%RDF +
mulching
395.7 208.6 7.53 29.68 124.6 93.90 151.54
T5 Fertigation with 80%RDF + mulching 379.2 200.27 7.4 24.84 118.4 89.30 148.3
T6 Fertigation with 60%RDF + mulching 318.5 194.53 6.93 21.46 95.8 77.90 129.2
T7 Drip irrigation + RDF in soil application 252.3 180.47 6.3 18.06 90.4 70.40 116.42
T8
Irrigation in furrow without mulching +
RDF in soil application
205.7 154.89 5.9 15.28 64.3 48.30 95.28
Mean 325.4 191.50 6.9 22.48 99.6 77.13 128.58
SEm (±) 11.22 2.44 0.37 1.38 3.93 2.30 5.43
CD (0.05) 34.04 7.42 NS 4.20 11.94 7.00 16.47
CV 5.97 2.21 9.40 10.67 6.83 5.18 7.31a
Nayak et al ., 2018
Table 9: Effect of graded doses of fertigation and mulching on vine length, number of leaves per plant,
number of primary branches per plant, leaf area, number of female flowers, number of fruits
per plant and fruit yield of pointed gourd

46. 46
 It can be summed up that highest growth, yield and yield
attributing characters like vine length, number of leaves
per plant, number of female flowers, number of fruits per
plant etc of pointed gourd could be achieved by
application of 100% RDF(150:60:80 kg NPK/ha) through
fertigation and mulching
Inference
Nayak et al ., 2018

47. Yield performance and profitability of bitter gourd cultivation as
influenced by drip irrigation, fertigation and plastic mulching
Case study-3
Photo courtesy: https://img1.exportersindia.com/product_images/bc-full/2018/7/5398840/Bittergourd -1531997212-3950175.jpeg
47
ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CARD, Kolabhagom P.O, Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Kerala, India
Abraham et al., 2017

48. 48
 To evaluate the effect of various levels of irrigation, fertigation and
plastic mulching on yield performance and profitability of bitter gourd
cultivation under drip-fertigation
Abraham et al., 2017
Objective:

49. 49
 Location :Instructional farm of ICAR- Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
CARD, Kolabhagom P.O, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala
 Variety : Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) Cv. Preethi
 Recommended dose: 210:74:225 kg N:P:K/ha.
 Year :During the period September to December in 2014 and 2015
 Design: Randomized Block Design (RBD)
 18 treatments with 3 replications
Material and Methods
Abraham et al., 2017

50. 50
Crop growth
stage
No of
splits
Total quantity of fertilizers applied Total quantity of
nutrients supplied
19:19:19 13:0:45 Urea 12:61:0 N P K
Stage 1
(1 -20 days)
6 29.2 62.7 38.6 0 31.5 5.5 33.7
Stage 2
(21- 54 days)
12 29.2 137.7 83.5 9.1 63.0 11.1 67.5
Stage -3(55-
120 days)
22 53.6 251.4 153.3 16.7 115.5 20.4 123.8
Table -10: Total quantity of water soluble fertilizers used and quantity of nutrients
supplied through fertigation during each crop growth stage in kg/ha
Abraham et al., 2017

51. 51
Treatments Fruit
length
(cm)
Fruit
girth
(cm)
Fruit
weight
(cm)
Number
of
fruits/pla
nt
Number
of
harvests
Marketabl
e yield
(t/ha)
Unmark
etable
yield
(t/ha)
I1 22.52 21.50 215.69 20.93 10.06 18.88 1.42
I2 25.14 23.42 246.88 23.94 10.39 22.10 1.69
I3 25.78 23.90 253.23 24.47 10.89 22.73 1.79
CD(5%) 0.24 0.23 6.13 0.38 0.26 0.24 0.021
Table -11: Effect of drip irrigation levels on yield and yield attributing factors
in bitter gourd
Abraham et al., 2017
I1- irrigation at 60% Ep, I2- irrigation at 80% Ep and I3- irrigation at 100% Ep

52. 52
Treatments Fruit
length
(cm)
Fruit
girth
(cm)
Fruit
weight
(cm)
No. of
fruits/
plant
No.
of
harvests
Marketa
ble yield
(t/ha)
Unmark
etable
yield
(t/ha)
M1 23.01 21.69 221.26 21.56 10.15 19.63 1.49
M2 25.95 24.19 255.94 24.68 10.74 22.85 1.77
CD(5%) 0.2 0.19 5.01 0.31 0.21 0.20 0.017
Table -12: Effect of mulching levels on yield and yield attributing factors in
bitter gourd
Abraham et al., 2017
M1- without mulch, M2 – Mulching with Silver- Black plastic mulch of 30μ thickness

53. 53
Treatments Fruit
length
(cm)
Fruit
girth
(cm)
Fruit
weight
(cm)
No. of
fruits/
plant
No.
of
harvests
Mark
etable
yield
(t/ha)
Unmark
etable
yield
(t/ha)
F1 22.22 21.4 211.54 20.68 9.39 18.66 1.06
F2 25.15 23.5 248.06 23.74 10.56 22.32 1.73
F3 26.06 23.92 256.19 24.93 11.39 22.54 2.11
CD(5%) 0.24 0.23 6.13 0.38 0.26 0.24 0.02
Table -13: Effect of fertigation levels on yield and yield attributing factors in
bitter gourd
Abraham et al., 2017
F1 – 75% NPK dose, F2 – 100% NPK dose , F3 – 125% NPK dose

54. 54
Table -14: Interaction effect of Irrigation, mulching and fertigation levels on
yield and yield attributing factors in bitter gourd
Abraham et al., 2017

55. 55
 Application of irrigation at 100 % Ep, fertigation of 100%N, 50%P
and 100% K of NPK dose 210: 74: 225 kg/ha along with silver-
black plastic mulching can be recommended for bitter gourd
cultivation in the humid tropical region of Kerala
Inference
Abraham et al., 2017

56. Influence of various sources and levels of fertilizer applied through
fertigation on hybrid watermelon grown in rabi-summer
Case study-4
Photo courtesy: https://img1.exportersindia.com/product_images/bc-full/2018/7/5398840/Watermelon.1531997212-3950175.jpeg
56
Division of Vegetable Crops, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta
Lake Post, Bangalore - 560 089, India
Prabhakar et al., 2008
Journal of Horticultural Sciences

57. 57
 The present field experiment was set up to determine influence of
drip fertigation for supply of different fertilizer sources and levels on
growth, fruit yield and quality in watermelon
Prabhakar et al., 2008
Objective:

58. 58
 Location :Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta,
Bengaluru
 Variety : Watermelon hybrid “NS 295”
 Year : The experiment was conducted during rabi-summer seasons
of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
 Recommended dose: 100:100:100 kg N:P:K/ha
 Design: Randomized Block Design (RBD)
 7 treatments with 3 replications
Material and Methods
Prabhakar et al., 2008

59. 59
Table 15: Treatments imposed in the experiment
Treatment
Symbol Basal
dose
Top
dressing
(kg/Ha)
Fertigation
(kg/ha)
Level of
fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Fertilizer
type
Application dose and
method
Reccommend
ed
dose(100:100:
100
N:P2O5:K2O)
Conventional 100%NPK soil application T1 50:100:50 50:0:50 0:0:0
Conventional 50%NK fertigation T2 50:100:50 0 50:0:50
WSF 100%NPK fertigation T3 0:0:0 0 100:100:100
70% of
recommended
dose
(70:70:70
N:P2O5:K2O)
Conventional NK fertigation T4 0:70:0 0 70:0:70
WSF NK fertigation T5 0:70:0 0 70:0:70
Conventional NPK fertigation T6 0:0:0 0 70:70:70
WSF NPK fertigation T7 0:0:0 0
70:70:70
Prabhakar et al., 2008

60. 60
Treatment Vine length(cm) No. of branches per
plant
Leaf area index
06 - 07 07 - 08 06 - 07 07 - 08 06 - 07 07 - 08
T1 242.3 255.0 8.2 8.0 2.52 2.50
T2 281.1 273.0 9.3 8.3 2.54 2.52
T3 286.6 330.0 10.8 10.0 2.58 2.61
T4 235.3 286.0 10.7 8.6 2.49 2.55
T5 246.8 300.0 10.7 10.8 2.60 2.63
T6 277.3 305.0 10.9 9.8 2.56 2.62
T7 303.2 346.0 11.4 11.0 2.63 2.66
CD (P=0.05) 25.49 20.74 1.40 1.41 0.09 0.0872
Table 16: Growth of watermelon as influenced by fertigation treatments
Prabhakar et al., 2008

61. 61
Treatment No. of fruits per
plant
Fruit weight (kg) TSS(°Brix) Yield(t/ha)
06 - 07 07 - 08 06 - 07 07 - 08 06 - 07 07 - 08 06 - 07 07 - 08
T1 1.31 1.32 4.32 5.32 9.38 9.20 45.61 55.80
T2 1.30 1.25 4.89 5.75 9.63 9.24 48.91 59.81
T3 1.40 1.60 4.43 6.15 9.68 10.45 60.20 68.85
T4 1.33 1.43 4.68 5.95 9.75 9.56 53.49 63.34
T5 1.37 1.62 4.37 6.06 9.76 10.48 56.66 66.50
T6 1.42 1.51 4.69 5.77 9.83 10.46 56.70 65.50
T7 1.42 1.68 4.45 6.01 9.90 10.56 59.87 68.31
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.19 0.35 0.47 NS NS 7.72 3.46
Table 17: Effect of fertigation level on yield, yield attributes and quality in
watermelon
NS = Non - significant
Prabhakar et al., 2008

62. 62
Treatments
Average
yield
(t/ha)
Gross
investment
(Rs./ha)
Gross income
(Rs./ha)
Net income
(Rs./ha)
B:C
ratio
T1 50.70 77585 253500 175915 2.26
T2 54.36 77585 271800 194215 2.50
T3 64.52 104125 322600 218475 2.09
T4 58.41 75317 292050 216738 2.87
T5 61.58 98066 307900 209834 2.14
T6 61.10 75725 305500 229775 3.03
T7 64.09 93920 320450 226530 2.41
Table 18 : Economics of watermelon crop in relation to fertigation treatments
Prabhakar et al., 2008

63. 63
However, from the point of view of economics, 70% N:P:K
fertigation using conventional fertilizers is more profitable. Hence, it
is concluded that for better performance and profitability from hybrid
watermelon grown during rabi-summer, supply of 70% recommended
dose of NPK through fertigation using conventional fertilizers, is
appropriate
Inference
Prabhakar et al., 2008

64. 64
Initial investment is high due to adoption of micro irrigation
system and equipments
Non-availability of water soluble fertilizer and their high
recurring costs
 Toxic to human beings
Constraints

65. 65
Quantity of water used should be good and pH shouldn't be
more
 Clogging and corrosion

66. Clogging
 The following acids can be used: phosphoric, nitric, sulfuric and
hydrochloric
66(NCPAH) Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi

67. 1. Bangalore Irrigation and Landscapes, Bangalore
2. Jain Irrigation system Pvt. Ltd., M.H
3. Deejay Farm, Bangalore
4. Akshaya Fountains and Pools, Bangalore
5. Supreme Bore wells & Pumps, Hyderabad
6. Sri Laxmi pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
7. Netafin Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat
Companies engaged in production and installation of
fertigation units for Vegetable crops
67

68. Companies producing water soluble fertilizers in India
 Deepak Fertilizers, Bangalore
 Nagarjuna Fertilizers, Bangalore
 Coromandel International Fertilizers, Bangalore
 Aries Agro Limited, Mumbai
 The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi
 Hindalco Industries Limited, Bangalore
 Bhramhaputra valley Fertilizers corporation Ltd., Assam
 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Hyderabad 68

69. 6910/10/2018

70. 70
Conclusio
n....

71. 71