Soil is precious natural resource equally as important as water and air. The proper use of soil greatly determines the capability of a life-support system.The agriculture era has been changed from resource degrading to resource conserving technologies and practices which will enable help for increasing crop productivity besides maintaining soil health for future generations. Green revolution besides achieving food security, imposes several threats like deterioration of the soil organic carbon stock, decreasing factor productivity, imbalances in NPK and micronutrient use and disparity in fertilizer consumptions etc.

2. SEMINAR TOPIC
“INTEGRATED USE OF BIOINOCULANTS AND FERTILIZERS IN VEGETABLES FOR
SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION AND SOIL HEALTH MANAGEMENT”
Submitted by
Ms. SATWADHAR PRIYA PRABHAKAR
Reg. No. :2018A/114 M
Research Guide & Seminar Incharge
Dr. SYED ISMAIL
HEAD,
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry
VNMKV, Parbhani
Submitted to
DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PARBHANI
V.N.M.K.V, PARBHANI -431402 (M.S)
2019

3. INTRODUCTION
 India is the second largest producer of vegetables next to China
in the world.
 In India, it is grown in an area of 9.575 million hectares with
productivity of 17.7 t/ha which contributes 14% of the total
world production of vegetables.
 Major vegetable producing states : Among various states in
India, West Bengal, UP, Bihar, MP, Odisha, Gujarat and
Karnataka are major vegetable growing states.
 West Bengal, UP and MP are the leader vegetable producer
contributing nearly 40% of the total production of in the
country, among which West Bengal contributing about nearly
16% followed by UP 14% , MP 8.6%, Bihar 8.75%, Gujarat
7%, Maharashtra 6%, Odisha 6%, Karnataka 5%, TamilNadu
and others 3.4% in the total production.

4. Source : Horticultural statistics division, DAC&FW

5.  Vegetables are important constituents of Indian agriculture
and nutritional security due to their short duration, high yield,
nutritional richness, economic viability and ability to
generate on-farm and off-farm employment.
 Our country is blessed with diverse agro-climates with
distinct seasons, making it possible to grow wide array of
vegetables.
 In India, vegetables are valuable biological assets especially
genetic resources. They have been vividly described in the
Indian scriptures like ‘Vedas’ and ‘Ramayana’. India is rich
in biodiversity of vegetables and is the primary/secondary
center of origin of many vegetables.

6.  Soil is precious natural resource equally as important as
water and air.
 The proper use of soil greatly determines the capability of a
life-support system.
 The agriculture era has been changed from resource
degrading to resource conserving technologies and practices
which will enable help for increasing crop productivity
besides maintaining soil health for future generations.
 Green revolution besides achieving food security, imposes
several threats like deterioration of the soil organic carbon
stock, decreasing factor productivity, imbalances in NPK
and micronutrient use and disparity in fertilizer
consumptions etc.
Source:Kumar et al., (2019) Integrated Nutrient Management in Vegetable
Crops. Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

7.  The Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) provides an
excellent opportunity not only for sustainable soil but
enhancing crop productivity also.
 The INM is the maintenance or adjustment of soil fertility
and plant nutrient supply to an optimum level for sustaining
the desired crop production through optimization of the
benefits from all possible sources of plant nutrients in an
integrated manner
Source:Kumar et al., (2019) Integrated Nutrient Management in Vegetable
Crops. Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

8.  What is INM ?
 Integrated Nutrient Management is a practice where all sources
of nutrients namely organic, inorganic ( chemical fertilizer),
biofertilizer can be combined use for improving soil health, get
good quality yield and maintaining ecology and environment.
Concept of INM
 The major issue for the sustainable agricultural production will
be management of soil organic carbon and rational use of
organic inputs such as animal manure, crop residues, green
manure, sewage sludge and wastes known as integrated plant
resource management.
 However, since organic manure cannot meet the total nutrient
needs of modern agriculture, hence integrated use of nutrients
from fertilizers and organic sources will be the need of the
time.
Source : kumar et al., (2019) Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

9. Objectives of INM
 To maintain or enhance soil productivity through a balanced use of
mineral fertilizers combined with organic and biological sources of
plant nutrients.
 To improve the stock of plant nutrients in the soil.
 To improve the efficiency of plant nutrients, thus limiting losses to
the environment.
 To increase the availability of nutrients from all sources in the soil
during the growing seasons.
 To match the demand of nutrients by the crop and supply of nutrients
from all sources through the labile soil nutrient pool, both in space
(the rooting zone) and the time (the growing season
 To optimize the function of the soil biosphere with respect to
specified functions, such as the decomposition of organic matter
(mineralization), the control of the pathogenic organisms by their
natural enemies (predators), the biological formation of soil
structure, the decomposition of phyotoxic compounds etc.
Source : kumar et al., (2019) Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

10. Component of INM

11. Advantages of INM
Enhances the availability of applied as well as native soil
nutrients.
Synchronizes the nutrient demand of the crop with nutrient
supply from native and applied sources.
Provides balanced nutrition to crops and minimizes the
antagonistic effects resulting from hidden deficiencies and
nutrient imbalance.
Improves and sustains the physical, chemical and biological
functioning of soil.
Minimizes the deterioration of soil, water and ecosystem by
promoting carbon sequestration, reducing nutrient losses to
ground and surface water bodies and to atmosphere
Source : kumar et al., (2019) Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

12. 
Crop INM Option
Brinjal
(Solanum melongena)
Application of 50 kg nitrogen through urea along with 50 kg
nitrogen through poultry manure per hectare help in increasing
yield of brinjals and sustained soil health.
Tomato
(Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Incorporation of FYM @ 40 t per hectare with half dose of NPK
(75:30:30) kg per hectare substituted 50% of recommended dose
of fertilizer.
Chilli
(Capsicum annum)
At Dapoli (Maharashtra) FYM @ 10 t per hectare + 50%
recommended dose of fertilizers proved beneficial
Potato
(Solanum tuberosum)
Application of 75% recommended dose of fertilizer along with
incorporation of 20 t per hectare increased tuber yield of potato in
clay soils of Palampur.
Onion (Allium cepa)
At Wadura of Jammu and Kashmir application of 52.5 kg
nitrogen per hectare with use of azotobacter biofertilizer recorded
higher onion yield.
Source:Kumar et al., (2019) Integrated Nutrient Management in Vegetable
Crops. Biomolecule Reports. ISSN:2456-8759

13. Defination , importants and effect
of biofertilizers

14.  Biofertilizers are microorganisms which are capable of mobilizing nutrients
from nonusable form to usable form through biological process.
 cost-effective and inexpensive source of plant nutrients, improve crop
growth and help in sustainable crop production through maintenance of soil
productivity.
 Beneficial microorganism which on application to seed, root or soil
mobilize the availability of nutrients particularly by their biological activity.
 Use of biofertilizer is increasing day by day due to increase in the prices of
chemical fertilizers, its beneficial effect on soil health and increase in
productivity of the crop.
 Biofertilizers increase the growth of plants, enhancing the availability of
nutrients, releasing plant growth-stimulating hormones.
 Being one of the integrated components of agricultural production system,
the horticultural crops (fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, plantation crops,
etc.) are among the key contributors for economic development in the
country.

15. Figure. Effect of biofertilizer on soil properties

16. Source : Mrityunjoy Acharjee (2017) Study on the microbiological potential of biofertilizer
applied on Brassica oleracea (cauliflower). Stamford Journal of Microbiology.7 (1), 23-27

17. RESEARCH FINDINGS

18. Table 1. Effect of different INM treatments on plant height (cm) of cauliflower at different growth stages.
Tret
No.
Treatments Plant height (cm)
20 DAT 40 DAT 60 DAT
T1 100 % RDF ( 120:80:40 kg/ha ) 5.90 11.30 17.80
T2 100 % RDF + FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 5.95 12.00 21.40
T3 100 % RDF + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 7.20 11.60 20.00
T4 100 % RDF + FYM + Azotobacter 6.30 11.60 21.30
T5 100 % RDF + FYM + Azospirillum 5.60 10.60 18.50
T6 75 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 5.85 12.10 23.50
T7 75 % RDF +Azotobacter + Azospirillum 5.55 10.80 17.50
T8 75 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter 5.30 10.60 18.40
T9 75 % RDF +FYM + Azospirillum 5.10 9.60 17.50
T10 50 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 4.25 8.70 16.30
T11 50 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter 4.40 9.40 15.30
T12 50 % RDF +FYM +Azospirillum 5.25 9.70 16.60
T13 50 % RDF +Azotobacter + Azospirillum 4.55 9.40 16.30
T14 Control 4.25 8.60 14.90
S.Ed(±)
C.D. at 5 %
Source: Pawar Rohit (2013) Integrated nutrient management in cauliflower (Brassica oleracea
var. botrytis ) M.Sc. Thesis.VNMKV Parbhani.

19. Table 2. Effect of different INM treatments on yield parameters of cauliflower.
Tr.
No.
Treatments Yield /plot
(Kg)
Yiled / hectars
(q)
% increase /
decrease in yield
over RDF
T1 100 % RDF ( 120:80:40 kg/ha ) 12.14 124.94 ----
T2 100 % RDF + FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 17.10 175.92 40.80
T3 100 % RDF + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 16.64 162.13 29.77
T4 100 % RDF + FYM + Azotobacter 15.50 159.48 27.65
T5 100 % RDF + FYM + Azospirillum 15.82 160.80 28.70
T6 75 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 17.50 180.04 44.10
T7 75 % RDF +Azotobacter + Azospirillum 13.51 138.99 11.25
T8 75 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter 16.65 171.32 37.12
T9 75 % RDF +FYM + Azospirillum 14.15 145.52 16.47
T10 50 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum 12.08 124.23 -0.57
T11 50 % RDF +FYM + Azotobacter 9.87 101.51 -15.55
T12 50 % RDF +FYM +Azospirillum 10.44 107.43 -14.01
T13 50 % RDF +Azotobacter + Azospirillum 9.57 98.41 -21.23
T14 Control 6.22 64.07 -48.72
S.Ed(±) 1.37 5.31 ----
C.D. at 5 % 4.11 15.93 ----
Source: Pawar Rohit (2013) Integrated nutrient management in cauliflower (Brassica
oleracea var. botrytis ) M.Sc. Thesis.VNMKV Parbhani.

20. Tr
No. Treatment details
Organic
carbon (%)
Available
N (kg ha-1)
Available P
(kg ha-1)
Available K
(kg ha-1)
T1
RDF (50:50:50 kg NPK /ha + FYM @ 10 t /ha) 1.03 176.86 44.21 129.75
T2 75% RD of NPK + Vermicompost @ 1 t/ ha (mixed with
microbial consortium)
1.24 198.21 64.05 145.41
T3 50% RD of NPK + (mixed Vermicompost @2 t/ ha with
microbial consortium)
1.40 211.29 52.24 154.27
T4 75% RD of NPK + Microbial consortium as seed coat +
Vermicompost @ 1 t/ ha
1.21 194.53 52.24 143.20
T5 50% RD of NPK + Microbial consortium as seed coat +
Vermicompost @ 2 t /ha
1.36 206.93 61.60 153.41
T6 FYM @ 10 t/ ha (mixed with microbial consortium) 1.13 187.31 47.01 137.34
T7 Microbial consortium as seed coat + FYM @ 10 t /ha 1.11 182.78 46.73 135.43
S.E (±) 0.02 2.50 2.36 2.05
CD at 5% 0.05 5.45 5.13 4.46
Initial 0.91 168.52 40.77 110.09
Table 3. Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil parameters of okra
Source : Kumar et al.,(2017) Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield, and quality
of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L). Moench) Cv. Arka Anamika. International Journal of Chemical
Studies. 5 (5), 2001-2003

21. Tr.
No
Treatments Details Fruit yield
(q ha-1)
Fruit length
(cm)
No. fruits
plant-1
Fruit weight
plant-1
Dry matter
production
(q ha-1)
T1 Control 63.73 6.28 3.68 23.30 6.15
T2 RDF 69.13 11.42 5.12 58.68 10.49
T3 RDF + ZnSO4 (25 kg ha-1) 73.37 11.86 5.46 65.59 11.76
T4 RDF + ZnSO4 (25 kg ha-1) +Borax (5
kg ha-1)
113.33 12.08 8.13 96.89 15.58
T5 RDF + FYM (10 kg ha-1) 83.21 13.32 6.80 78.02 12.95
T6 RDF + FYM (10 kg ha-1) Azospirillum
(2 kg ha-1)
96.76 13.72 7.72 84.87 15.13
T7 RDF + Borax (5 kg ha-1) Azospirillum
(2 kg ha-1)
78.94 12.48 6.53 67.62 12.43
T8 RDF + ZnSO4 (25 kg ha-1) +Borax (5
kg ha-1) + FYM (10 kg ha-1)
121.02 14.22 8.57 111.64 16.02
T9 RDF + ZnSO4 (25 kg ha-1) +Borax (5
kg ha-1) + FYM (10 kg ha-1) +
Azospirillum (2 kg ha-1)
128.61 14.78 9.84 113.94 16.24
SEm ± 0.32 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.32
CD at 5% 1.18 0.52 0.84 0.32 1.18
Table 4 . Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield , yield attributing characters and
dry matters production of okra
Source : Salvi et al., (2014) Yield, dry matter, nutrient content and uptake by okra as influenced by
integrated nutrient management in coastal region of maharashtra. Journal of Farming Systems
Research & Development 20 (2) : 154-161

22. Tret
No.
Treatments Yield of tomato (t/ha)
T1 FYM 20 t/ha 35.48
T2 Vermicompost 5 t/ha 34.83
T3 FYM 10 t/ha + Vermicompost 2.5 t/ha 35.18
T4 FYM 10 t/ha + 50% NPK + Azotobactor 34.35
T5 Vermicompost 2.5 t/ha + 50% NPK + Azotobactor 33.56
T6 FYM 10 t/ha + Azotobactor 33.01
T7 Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Azotobactor 33.50
T8 FYM 10 t/ha + Vermicompost 2.5 t/ha+ Azotobactor 35.39
T9 FYM 15 t/ha + Azotobactor + 50% NPK 35.74
T10 Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Biofertilizer(Azotobactor) + 50%
NPK
35.20
T11 FYM 10 t/ha + Vermicompost 2.5 t/ha+ Azotobactor+
50% NPK
36.57
T12 RFD of NPK (100:60:80) 34.53
S.Em+ 0.14
C.D. (5%) 0.39
Table 5 . Yield of tomato as influenced by different fertility treatments
Source: Manish Tiwari(2015) “Effect of organic, inorganic and biofertilizers on growth and yield of
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) under protected condition”. M.Sc.Thesis,Jawaharlal Nehru
Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya College of Agriculture Rewa (M.P.)

23. Tret
No.
Treatment Details Available
N (kg ha-1)
Available
P (kg ha-1)
Available
K (kg ha-1)
Organic
C
Soil pH
T1 Control 240 6.3 170 1.85 4.7
T2 20 t FYM per ha 258 8.4 184 2.00 4.8
T3 15 t pig manure per ha 261 8.0 190 1.96 4.8
T4 5 t vermicompost per ha 266 7.7 178 1.90 4.8
T5 100% NPK (90:60:60 kg per ha ) 305 9.3 201 1.92 4.8
T6 50% NPK+ 50% FYM 270 11.3 210 1.89 4.8
T7 50%NPK+ pig manure 268 11.9 216 1.86 4.8
T8 50%NPK+50% vermicompost 285 10.4 208 1.63 4.8
T9 50% NPK+ 50% FYM + biofertilizer 290 14.5 228
2.10
4.9
T10 50%NPK+50%pigmanure+biofertilize
r
288 13.6 224 2.04 4.8
T11 50%NPK+50%vermicompost+
biofertilizer
284 13.5 220 2.02 4.8
T12 Burned soil + Wood Ash + 20 t FYM
Per ha
254 8.7 230 1.92 4.8
CD (P= 0.05) 11 0.7 1 0.07 NS
Table 6. Effect of integrated nutrient management on nutrient status of soil after harvest of crop
king chilli
Source:Vimera et al., (2012) Integrated Nutrient Management for Quality Production of King
Chilli ( Capsicum chinense Jackquin ) in an Acid Alfisol. Journal of the Indian society of soil
science ,60 (1), 45-49

24. No. Treatments N content (%) Total N uptake
(kg ha-1)Seed Straw
1 Control 2.41 0.783 95.93
2 Vermicompost 5 t alongwith Rhizobium + 40 kg N ha-
1
3.48 0.918 169.1
3 Vermicompost 5 t alongwith Rhizobium + 30 kg N ha-
1
3.45 0.915 163.28
4 Vermicompost 5 t alongwith Rhizobium + 20 kg N ha-
1
3.34 0.886 150.82
5 Rhizobium alongwith vermicompost 5 t ha-1 3.07 0.848 132.51
6 Rhizobium alongwith vermicompost 10 t ha-1 3.20 0.865 136.22
7 Vermicompost 5 t ha-1 3.02 0.845 124.57
8 Vermicompost 10 t ha-1 3.17 0.863 136.11
9 40 kg N ha-1 3.47 0.913 164.17
10 Rhizobium inoculation 2.81 0.800 108.42
11 SEM ± 1.21 0.001 3.75
12 CD at (5%) 0.36 0.004 11.14
13 CV (%) 6.65 2.293 4.17
Table 7. Effect of integrated nutrient management on N content and total N uptake by plant
Fenugreek
Source: Kumar et al.,(2012) Effect of integrated nutrient management on nutrient uptake, protein
content and yield of fenugreek. International Journal of Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences
Vol. 2 (1)

25. Tret
No.
Treatments Seed Yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw Yield
(kg ha-1)
2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
T1 100 % RDN through FYM 824 870 1557 2602
T2 100 % RDN through castor cake 917 859 1700 2621
T3 Rhizobium treatment 804 715 1200 2350
T4 PSB treatment 784 730 1383 2356
T5 Rhizobium + PSB 934 885 1433 2632
T6 50% RDN through FYM+ Rhizobium 1019 893 1817 2742
T7 50 % RDN through Caster cake + Rhizobium 1079 958 2133 2759
T8 50 % RDN through FYM + Rhizobium+ PSB 1119 1011 2100 2705
T9 50 % RDN through Caster cake + Rhizobium+
PSB
1212 1106 2217 2895
T10 Recommended dose of fertilizer 1058 606 2117 1736
Mean 975 863 1766 2539
S.Em + 61.44 46.67 101.42 173.33
CD 5 % 178.3 126.67 294.32 506.67
CV % 12.60 10.16 11.49 13.77
Table 8. Effect of different treatments on seed and straw yield of fenugreek (02 years)
Source : Malav et al.,(2018) Effect of Different Organic Sources on Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-
graecum L.) under Organic Farming Module. International Journal of Current Microbiology and
Applied Sciences, 7 (2): 17-25

26. Treatments
No. of
branches/
plant
Length of
fruit (cm)
Diameter of
fruit (cm)
No. of
Fruits/plant
Fruit
weight/plan
t (kg)
Fruit yield
(t/ha)
T₁ -
Cowdung
15.20 10.01 2.52 11.70 1.49 36.65
T₂ -
Mustard oil
cake
17.30 12.05 2.96 13.10 1.72 40.00
T₃ - Poultry
manure
18.50 13.42 3.09 14.40 1.88 42.00
T₄-
Chemical
fertilizer
16.67 11.03 2.77 12.20 1.53 39.50
T₅
- organic +
inorganic
20.10 14.11 4.30 15.20 1.97 45.50
CV(%) 4.65 3.01 6.76 4.94 9.14 4.75
Table 9. Effect of organic and chemical fertilizer on growth, yield and yield contributing
characters of brinjal.
Source: Ullah et al.,(2008) Effects of organic manures and chemical fertilizers on the yield of brinjal
and soil properties .Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 6(2): 271–276

27. Tret
No.
Treatments
Number of
fruits/ vine
Weight of
fruits per plot
(kg)
Fruit length
(cm)
Average
weight of
fruit(g)
Fruit Yield
(t/ha)
T₁ Absolute control 4.60 11.27 32.43 204.16 9.39
T₂
Recommended dose of fertilizer
(100:50:50 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ ha)
6.60 17.84 35.13 225.27 14.86
T₃
75 % RDN + 25% N through FYM + P
and K + Azotobacter
5.70 13.50 32.47 208.94 11.24
T₄
75 % RDN + 25% N through
vermicompost + P and K + Azotobacter
6.60 16.98 32.79 214.44 14.15
T₅
75 % RDN + 25% N through poultry
manure+ P and K + Azotobacter
6.67 17.40 38.58 217.33 14.48
T₆
50 % RDN + 50 % N through FYM + P
and K + Azotobacter
5.60 14.10 34.80 209.85 11.74
T₇
50 % RDN + 50 % N through
vermicompost + P and K + Azotobacter
7.10 19.49 39.08 228.75 16.24
T₈
50 % RDN + 50 % N through poultry
manure+ P and K + Azotobacter
7.23 19.96 39.27 230.10 16.64
Mean 6.26 16.32 35.57 217.35 13.59
S.E.± 0.047 0.330 0.229 0.678 0.273
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.143 1.000 0.694 2.056 0.828
Table 10. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and yield contributing
characters of ridge gourd
Source : Rathod et al., (2018) Growth, yield and quality of ridge gourd as influenced by
integrated nutrient management in coastal region of Maharashtra. International Journal of
Chemical Studies ; 6(5): 2357-2360

28. Treatments
Yield/plant
(g)
Fruit yield (kg/ha)
T₁ - Absolute control 358 1303
T₂ - 50%NPK 860 2760
T₃ - 50%NPK+Vermicompost 908 2937
T₄ - 50%NPK+Vermicomost+Biofertilizer 1258 3430
T₅ - 75%NPK 1215 3230
T₆ - 75%NPK+Vermicompost 1276 3396
T₇ - 75%NPK+Vermicompost+Biofertilizer 1420 3773
T₈ - 100%NPK 1261 3523
T₉ - 100%NPK+Vermicompost 1360 3683
T₁₀ - 100%NPK+Vermicompost+Biofertilizer 1514 4036
Mean 1146 3208
CD(0.05) 201.42 623.04
CV (%) 1024 11.32
Table 11. Influence of graded doses of inorganics integrated with Vermicompost and bio
fertilizers on yield of bitter gourd
Source : Vangapandu et al.,(2017) Influence of integrated nutrient management on yield, secondary
nutrients content and uptake of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L) International Journal of
Agriculture Sciences, , 9 (50), 4851-4853.

29. Treat No. Treatments Yield per plot(kg) Yield per ha(q)
% increase over the
control
T1 Control 2.17 36.22 -
T2 Azotobactor @ 10 kg/ha 2.90 48.34 33.46
T3 PSB @ 10 kg/ha 3.11 51.78 42.96
T4
Azotobactor + PSB each@10kg/ha 3.50 58.33 61.07
T5
Azotobactor + PSB as seed treatment 2.95 49.17 35.75
T6 Azotobactor @ 2lit/ha 2.95 49.17 35.75
T7 PSB @ 2lit/ha 2.93 48.78 34.68
T8
T8 Azotobactor+ PSB each @ 2lit/ha 3.80 63.34 74.87
T9 T9 Azotobactor @ 10 kg and PSB @
2lit/ha
3.50 58.33 61.07
T10 T10 Azotobactor @ 2lit + PSB @ 10
kg/ha
3.12 52.00 43.57
S.E.±
0.17 3.29
C.D.at 5%
0.50 9.77
Table 12. Influence of biofertilizers treatments on yield of spinach.
Source: Shinde, Kadam and Syed (2018) Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield of
Spinach (Beta vulgaris L.) International Journal of Chemical Studies 6(2): 524-527

30. Treat
No.
Treatments 15 Das 30 Das
T1 Control 11.96 16.55
T2 Azotobacter @ 10 kg/ha 15.33 19.66
T3 PSB @ 10 kg/ha 14.67 18.22
T4 Azotobacter + PSB each @ 10 kg/ha 16.33 21.44
T5 Azotobacter + PSB as seed treatment 14.78 20.89
T6 Azotobacter @ 2lit/ha 13.89 17.33
T7 PSB @ 2 lit/ha 13.11 17.11
T8 T8 Azotobacter + PSB each @ 2 lit/ha 20.55 26.66
T9 T9 Azotobacter @ 10 kg and PSB @ 2 lit/ha 17.00 22.00
T10 T10 Azotobacter @ 2 lit + PSB @ 10 kg/ha 15.88 20.33
S.E. ±
0.82 0.62
C.D. at 5%
2.43 1.86
Table 13. Influence of biofertilizers on height (cm) of spinach at various growth stages.
Source: Shinde, Kadam and Syed (2018) Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield of
Spinach (Beta vulgaris L.) International Journal of Chemical Studies; 6(2): 524-527

31. Treat No. Treatments Days required for maturity
T1
Control 29.67
T2
Azotobacter @ 10 kg/ha 29.67
T3
PSB @ 10 kg/ha 28.60
T4
Azotobacter + PSB each @ 10 kg/ha 30.67
T5
Azotobacter + PSB as seed treatment 29.33
T6
Azotobacter @ 2lit/ha 31.00
T7
PSB @ 2 lit/ha 30.33
T8
T8 Azotobacter + PSB each @ 2 lit/ha 28.12
T9
T9 Azotobacter @ 10 kg and PSB @ 2 lit/ha 28.32
T10
T10 Azotobacter @ 2 lit + PSB @ 10 kg/ha 29.67
S.E. ± 0.65
C.D. at 5% 1.93
Table 14. Days required for maturity of spinach as influenced by various treatments of
biofertilizers.
Source: Shinde, Kadam and Syed (2018) Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield of Spinach (Beta
vulgaris L.) International Journal of Chemical Studies 6(2): 524-527

32. Tret
No.
Treatments 15 Das 30 Das
T1
Control 6.33 8.66
T2
Azotobacter @ 10 kg/ha 7.22 10.89
T3
PSB @ 10 kg/ha 8.22 10.77
T4
Azotobacter + PSB each @ 10 kg/ha 6.78 16.55
T5
Azotobacter + PSB as seed treatment 7.89 10.22
T6
Azotobacter @ 2lit/ha 7.44 10.00
T7
PSB @ 2 lit/ha 6.44 8.89
T8
T8 Azotobacter + PSB each @ 2 lit/ha 9.88 19.33
T9
T9 Azotobacter @ 10 kg and PSB @ 2 lit/ha 8.22 10.44
T10
T10 Azotobacter @ 2 lit + PSB @ 10 kg/ha 6.66 10.22
S.E. ± 0.37 0.51
C.D. at 5% 1.09 1.52
Table 15. Number of leaves per plant of spinach as influenced by various treatments of
biofertilizers.
Source:Shinde, Kadam and Syed (2018) Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield of Spinach (Beta
vulgaris L.) International Journal of Chemical Studies 6(2): 524-527

33. SI
No
Treatments
Nutrients Uptake (kg/ha)
N P K Ca Mg S
1 Abs. Cont. 7.4 1.8 8.0 5.7 5.5 2.6
2 Bioinoculant 17.0 5.6 24.6 21.1 12.5 3.9
3 50% N 19.5 4.2 25.3 30.0 12.5 3.8
4 100% N 38.7 6.5 38.1 47.1 16.8 5.3
5 50% N+Bioinoculant 27.5 7.5 33.2 40.3 15.9 5.2
6 75%N + Bioinoculant 48.8 9.7 46.8 52.5 23.0 6.3
7 100% N+ Bioinoculant 49.9 9.0 47.8 53.8 25.8 6.7
CD (0.05) 10.0 1.8 6.7 5.7 5.5 2.1
Table 16. Nutrient uptake by Okra crop as influenced by fertilizer N and bio-inoculants
Source : Swain et al., (2003) Effect of Integrated Use of Bio-inoculants and fertilizer on Growth,
Yield and Nitrogen Economy of Okra. Journal of the Indian society of soil science,Vol. 51 (2) ,145-
150

34. Table 17. Influence of graded doses of inorganics integrated with vermicompost and bio
fertilizers on yield of bitter gourd
Treatment number Treatments Yield /
plant (g)
Fruit yield
( kg/ha )
T1 Absolute control 358 1303
T2 50% NPK 860 2760
T3 50% NPK + vermicompost 908 2937
T4 50% NPK + vermicompost + biofertilizer 1258 3430
T5 75% NPK 1215 3230
T6 75 % NPK + vermicompost 1276 3396
T7 75 % NPK + vermicompost + biofertilizer 1420 3773
T8 100 % NPK 1261 3523
T9 100 % NPK + vermicompost 1360 3683
T10 100 % NPK + vermicompost + biofertilizer 1514 4036
Mean 1146 3208
CD (0.05) 201.42 623.04
CV (%) 1024 11.32
Source: Thriveni et al., (2017) Influence of integrated nutrient management on yield, secondary
nutrients content and uptake of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) International Journal of
Agriculture Sciences, 9 (50), 4851-4853

35. Treatments Fruit yield (q/ha)
Absolute control 28.1
Bio-inoculants 48.3
50% N 56.0
100% N 68.9
50% N + Bio-inoculants 66.1
75% N + Bio-inoculants 76.7
100% N + Bio-inoculants 87.0
CD (0.05) 10.1
Table 18. Fruit yield (fresh) q/ha of okra crop as influenced by fertilizer N and bio-
inoculants
Source: Swain et al., (2003) Effect of Integrated Use of Bio-inoculants and
fertilizer on Growth, Yield and Nitrogen Economy of Okra. Journal of the Indian
Society of Soil Science.51(2),pp 145-150

36. CONCLUSION
 Integrated use of fertilizers and bio-inoculants maintain or enhance soil
productivity through use of mineral fertilizers combined with organic
and biological sources of plant nutrients.
 Organic, inorganic and bio fertilizer help in better vegetative growth,
seedling stands, improved yield and quality of vegetables.
 Application of biofertilizers influenced the growth, yield and quality of
spinach in general. The application of biofertilizers in liquid from
produced significantly superior results.
 Okra crop needs to be inoculated with bio-inoculants (Azotobacter and
Azospirillum) in conjuction with fertilizer nitrogen ( 75 to 100% of
recommended N dose) for higher yield, nutrients up-take and nitrogen
economy.