The document discusses organic nutrient management strategies in agriculture. It compares organic manures to inorganic fertilizers, noting organic manures improve soil health while fertilizers only provide nutrients. Organic sources like farm yard manure and compost are described along with their nutrient contents. Research findings show organic farming led to higher yields than inorganic in some crops and improved soil properties like organic carbon. Foliar sprays and topdressings of vermicompost were also found to increase yields and nutrient uptake in sorghum compared to chemical fertilizers alone.

1. ORGANIC NUTRIENT SYSTEM
DYANAMICS AND STRATEGIES
MASTER’S CREDIT SEMINAR ON
BY
M. SHRAVAN KUMAR REDDY
M.Sc. (AGRONOMY) – 2ND YEAR
RAM / 16-03
AGRON - 591

2.  Introduction
 Difference b/w organic manures and inorganic fertilizers
 Need for use of organic nutrient sources
 Organic sources – FYM, vermicompost, green manures ,
crop residues, cakes etc.,
 Nutrient content of each organic source , advantages and
disadvantages
 Constraints faced in using organic inputs
 Dynamics of nutrients – Forms , processes in soil , uptake ,
cycling of nutrients
 Conclusion
Contents

3.  Nutrient management with the use of organic sources like
organic matter , FYM, compost, vermicompost , manures ,
oilcakes , green manures etc. is called organic management.
 Inorganic nutrient management means supplying the
nutrients with the use of chemical fertilizers
 It is a production system which avoids or largely excludes the
use of synthetically compounded fertilizers, pesticides,
growth regulators, genetically modified organisms and
livestock food additives.
Lampkin (1990)
Introduction
Organic nutrient management :
Inorganic nutrient management :
Organic farming :
Source : A Hand book of Organic Farming Arun K .Sharma

4. Comparison between Organic manures and inorganic / Chemical
fertilizers
Organic manures Inorganic / Chemical
Prepared mostly from plant and animal debris These are inorganic industrial
products . Prepared from inorganic
substances
Supply all most all plant nutrients but these
are poor in plant food
Rich in plant food and it can
supply one are two plant nutrients
No definite composition Definite composition
Manures have residual effect on succeeding
crop
No residual effect for the
succeeding crops
Plants can not take the nutrients from soil just
after its application
Plants can take the nutrients from
fertilizers just after its application.
Manures improves soil structure , Water
holding capacity, Permeability, buffering
capacity of soils , drainage in the soil and
checks the soil erosion, leaching of nutrients
and evaporation loss from the soil.
Fertilizers have no such efffect on
the soil

5. Comparison between Organic manures and inorganic / Chemical
fertilizers
Organic manures Inorganic / Chemical
Manures increase the humus content of the soil. As
a result , soil becomes fertile. Humus helps the soil
to absorb and retain moisture. It can also help to
reduce soil acidity and alkalinity
Fertilizers do not produce the humus in
the soil
Increase the growth and activity of micro organism
in the soil
Slightly increase the growth and
activity of micro organism in the soil
Manures does not produce acidity or alkalinity in
the soil
Fertilizers produce acidity ( Ex :
Ammmonium sulphate , Urea) and
salinity and alkalinity
(Ex : Sodium nitrate) in the soil
Manures upon decomposition produce organic
acids which help to dissolve minerals such as P, K
and make them more available to growing plant
Fertilizers have no such effect
Need to be applied 15 to 30 days before planting /
sowing of the crop
P fert. – Basal , N, K fert- splits
Manures and fertilizers P.C DAS

6. To protect the long term fertility of the soil by
maintaining organic matter levels
To avoid all forms of pollution
To maintain good soil health, physical, chemical,
biological properties of the soil
To utilize all sources of organic nutrients like crop
residues , FYM, compost etc.
To produce quality food free from chemical residues
Need for use of organic inputs
Source : A Handbook of Organic Agriculture Arun K. Sharma

7. Table 1 Soil characteristics under different management practices
( after soybean ( JS – 335 ) crop harvest – Mean of 2 years )
J
Soil characteristics Organic Integrat
ed
In
organic
Initial Mean LSD
( p ≤
0.05 )
Organic C ( g kg-1) 11.3 7.1 5.4 5.31 7.9 0.39
Available N ( mg kg -1 ) 125.0 101.8 100.9 68.84 109.2 2.62
Available P ( mg kg -1 ) 49.7 35.2 16.5 12.77 33.8 13.29
Available K ( mg kg -1 ) 314.7 314.3 320.1 265.1
4
16.4 NS
Dehydrogenage activity
( micro grams TPF g -1 day -1 )
98.2 64.4 52.6 52.62 71.7 14.96
Alkaline phosphatase activity
(micro grams PNP g -1 2 hr -1 )
178.2 161.3 144.8 83.21 161.4 19.99
Clay soil,, Bhopal. Aher et al., (2015)
RDF : 30 – 26.2 – 16.6 NPK kg /ha

8. Table 2 :Crop productivity of soybean under
different management practices ( Mean of 2 years )
Parameter Organic Integrated In
organic
Mean LSD
(p ≤ 0.05 )
Seed yield ( kg ha -1 ) 601 498 426 508 30.86
Total biomass ( kg ha -1 ) 1927 1807 1587 1774 92.13
Harvest index ( % ) 31.19 27.56 26.84 28.53 3.06
Clay soil ,,Bhopal Aher et al., (2015)
RDF : 30 – 26.2 – 16.6 NPK kg /ha

9. Characters Organic
farming
Inorganic
farming
Dry pod weight ( g / plant) 19.05 18.17
No. of developed pods /plant 15.43 14.17
Total no. of pods /plant 17.93 17.50
Dry pod yield ( kg / ha ) 2348 2321
Kernel yield ( kg /ha ) 1833 1774
100 Kernel weight 42.24 43.51
Harvest index 0.358 0.323
Table 3. Dry pod yield and ancillary characters of groundnut ( JL – 24
)as influenced by different methods of farming during kharif season
under rainfed farming situations ( mean of 3 years )
Vertisols,UAS , Dharward Lokanath et al., ( 2010)
RDF : 25 -75 – 25 Kg NPK /ha

10. Characters Organic farming Inorganic farming
No. of capsule /plant 19.05 18.17
Capsule weight / plant ( g ) 15.43 14.17
Seed weight / plant ( g ) 17.93 17.50
Seed yield ( kg /ha ) 2348 2321
Treatments were imposed for preceding groundnut crop
Table 4.Seed yield and ancillary characters of safflower as
influenced by different methods of farming during succeeding rabi
season under rainfed farming situations
Vertisols,UAS , Dharward Lokanath et al., ( 2010)

11. Year
Kharif season Rabi season
Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic
2004 - 05 5.47 4.18 3.79 3.52
2005 – 06 5.37 4.59 3.74 3.10
2006 - 07 5.20 4.85 3.81 3.14
2007 - 09 5.33 5.23 3.76 3.27
2009 - 10 5.23 5.36 4.18 3.98
Surekha et al ( 2014 )
Table 5. Grain yield as influenced by nutritional sources in
paddy

12. Soil properties Inorganics Organics LSD
( p = 0.005 )
Physical BD ( Mg m-3) 1.48 1.30 0.07
SOC ( % ) 0.78 1.00 0.09
Chemical N ( kg ha -1 ) 239 256 16
P2O5 ( kg ha -1 ) 107 129 18
K20 ( kg ha -1 ) 469 567 45
Biological SR 0.196 0.232 0.024
Bg 140 162 20
AP 458 563 77
DH 1352 1623 32
Table 6. Soil quality parameters after 4 years under organic and conventional system
SR : Soil respiration ( mg Co2 / 24 hrs /g of soil )
Bg : Beta glucosidase ( micro g p- nitrophenol / g / h )
AP : Alkaline phosphatase ( micro g p- nitrophenol / g / h )
DH : Dehydrogenase( micro g triphenyl formazen/ g / 24 h)
Surekha et al ( 2014 )

13.  The physical composition of cattle manure is called
Farm Yard Manure, which consists of dung and urine
of cattle and the litter, a bedding material like hay,
straw used for cattle
1.Dung: The dung is a solid excreta voided by farm
animals, which represents the undigested and non-
digestible portion of the animal feed
2.Urine : The liquid excreta of farm animals
3.Litter : Litter is a variable mixture consisting of straw
, leaves , stems used as bedding material
FARM YARD MANURE (Cattle manure)
Constituents of FYM :::
SOURCE : SOIL FERTILITY AND FERTILIZERS S.L. TISDALE
BULKY ORGANIC MANURES

14. mainly depends on
1. Kind of animal
2. Age and condition of the individual animal
3. Quality and quantity of feed consumed
4. Kind of litter used
5. Collection of manure a) Byre system
b) Dry earth system
6. Storage of manure A) pit method.
B ) covered pit method.
C ) heap method.
Quality and composition of FYM
SOURCE :: Soil Fertility and fertilizers S.L.Tisdale

15. Type of
animal
Daily production (kg ) Nutrient content ( % )
Dung Urine Dung Urine
N P K N P K
Sheep / Goat 0.3 0.2 0.65 0.5 0.03 1.7 0.02 0.25
Pigs 2.0 2.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.10 0.50
Poultry 0.025 1.0 1.4 0.8
Cattle 5.0 3.3 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.75
Buffalo 6.20 3.80 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.20.3
Table 7 .Daily production of manures and their nutrient
contents
Guar et al ., 1990
CROP NUTRITION Principles and practices Rajendraprasad.

16. Type of manure
Nutrient content
( % )
REFERENCE
N P K
Farm yard manure 0.78 0.72 0.65 Chhonkar (1995)
Bio gas slurry 1.41 0.92 0.84 Chhonkar ( 1995 )
Vermicompost 1.2 022 0.48 Behera et al .,( 2006 )
Table 8. Nutrient content of FYM , Biogas slurry , Vermicompost
CROP NUTRITION Principles and practices Rajendraprasad.

17. Treatments Plant
height
( cm )
Grain
yield
(t ha-1)
Stover
yield
(t ha-1)
Top dressing of vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1 176 3.7 8.3
Top dressing of vermicompost @ 5 t ha-1 169 4.4 9.8
Foliar spray of vermiwash @ 1 % 170 2.5 5.8
Foliar spray of vermiwash @ 2 % 172 3.0 6.6
Foliar spray of humic acid @ 0.5 % 175 3.4 6.8
Foliar spray of humic acid @ 1 % 174 3.8 8.1
Foliar spray of fulvic acid @ 0.5% 175 4.2 8.6
Foliar spray of fulvic acid @ 1 % 176 5.8 9.9
Control (80:40:40 of NPK fertilizers) 156 2.4 5.7
S.E.m ± 3.3 0.31 0.41
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 7.0 0.7 0.9
Note :insitu Green manuring with sunnhemp and basal application of FYM @ 3 t ha -1 and neem cake @ 0.5 t ha -1 was
done commonly to all treatments except control
2.Top dressing of vermicompost and foliar spray of organic nutrient sources are done in two splits i.e at maximum
vegetative stage (40-45 DAS) and flowering stage (60-65 DAS).
Table 09. Plant height (cm) & yield of sorghum as influenced by different
organic nutrient sources
Sandy clay loam , Rajendranagar , TS Bharath et al., ( 2015 )

18. Treatments N uptake
(kg ha-1)
P uptake
(kg ha-1)
K uptake
(kg ha-1)
Stover grain Stover grain Stover grain
Top dressing of vermicompost @ 2.5 t
ha-1
66.1 39.7 13.31 8.31 61.25 19.8
Top dressing of vermicompost @ 5 t
ha-1
76.9 45.8 14.03 9.20 71.49 22.3
Foliar spray of vermiwash @ 1 % 48.2 26.9 8.41 5.18 42.93 12.6
Foliar spray of vermiwash @ 2 % 54.6 32.2 9.46 6.32 48.93 15.9
Foliar spray of humic acid @ 0.5 % 54.7 37.8 11.65 7.20 52.80 17.5
Foliar spray of humic acid @ 1 % 68.0 41.0 11.44 8.53 62.88 21.0
Foliar spray of fulvic acid @ 0.5% 73.1 44.9 14.16 9.65 67.22 22.2
Foliar spray of fulvic acid @ 1 % 81.5 60.3 17.77 13.92 78.68 33.2
Control (80:40:40 of NPK fertilizers) 50.9 26.7 10.08 5.84 45.33 14.3
S.E.m ± 2.7 2.20 0.09 0.58 2.42 1.1
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 8.2 6.7 2.73 1.76 7.32 3.32
Table 10. N,P AND K uptake (kg ha-1) of sorghum as influenced by different
organic nutrient sources
Sandy clay loam , Rajendranagar , TS Bharath et al., ( 2015 )

19. Table 11 .Effect of different organic treatments on the performance of
okra ( Arka anamica )
Treatment Plant
height
( cm)
Fruits /
plant
Yield
( t ha -1)
Crude
fibre
( % )
B : C
ratio
FYM @ 20 t ha -1 57.6 19.3 10.39 10.31 3.56
Vermicompost @ 5 t h a-1 52.9 11.0 8.65 13.40 2.96
Neem cake @ 2 t ha -1 53.6 15.6 9.13 13.00 3.42
Poultry manure @ 5 t ha -1 50.3 11.0 8.58 13.20 3.22
FYM @ 10 t ha -1 +
Vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha -1
55.3 13.7 9.81 11.44 3.36
FYM @ 10 t ha -1 + Neem
cake @ 2.5 t ha -1
55.9 15.7 9.46 14.86 3.54
FYM @ 10 t ha -1 + poultry
manure @ 2.5 t ha -1
54.8 15.0 9.26 14.56 3.37
Contd.

20. Table 12. Effect of different organic treatments on the performance of
okra ( Arka anamica )
Treatment Plant
height
( cm)
Fruits /
plant
Yield
( t ha -1)
Crude
fibre
( % )
B : C
ratio
Vermicompost @ 2.5 t h a-1 +
Neem cake 1 t h a-1
48.2 15.0 8.24 12.93 3.09
Vermicompost @ 2.5 t h a-1 +
Poultry manure 2.5 t h a-1
46.6 13.0 7.97 12.90 2.90
Neem cake 1 t h a-1 +
Poultry manure 2.5 t h a-1
45.5 12.0 7.56 12.40 2.93
Recommended dose of NPK 56.5 18.0 10.12 15.34 3.46
SEd 0.55 1.08 0.01
CD ( 5 % ) 1.14 2.25 0.01
Clay loam, Coimbathore, TNAU Premsekhar et al.,( 2009 )
RDF : 40 – 50 – 30 NPK kg /ha

21. 1) Adopt trench method as suggested by C.N.Acharya for
handling of dung and urine
2) Use of Gobar gas plant: 50 % of dung is made dung cakes
and burnt as fuel for cooking.
 The use of cow dung in gas plant produces a combustible
gas, methane used as fuel gas.
3) Adopting covered method of storing FYM :
4) Adoption of BYRE system in collection of FYM
5) Proper field management of FYM : During spreading of FYM
in the field in small heaps leads to loss of nutrients from it
.It is advisable to spread the FYM before ploughing .
6) Use of chemical preservatives :: Gypsum , Super phosphate
Ways to minimize these losses from FYM during
handling
SOURCE :: CROP NUTRITION Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

22. Table no 14 . Effect of organic manures on yield attributes
and yield of rice
Treatment Panicles /
m2
Grain yield
( kg /ha )
Straw yield
( kg /ha)
HI
( % )
60 kg ha-1 FYM - N 294 3739 5210 41.78
60 kg ha-1 Neem leaf - N 479 4127 5739 41.83
60 kg ha-1 Sheep manure - N 451 3914 5517 41.50
60 kg ha-1 Poultry manure - N 546 4405 5931 42.62
SE ± 14.2 120 147
CD ( P= 0.05 ) 49 415 509
Sandy clay loam,ARS , Sethampet, AP. Tejeswara Rao et al.,( 2013 )

23. Table 15 .Effect of organic manures on growth ,yield and seed quality parameters
of tomato ( PKM 1 )
Treatments Plant
height
( cm )
Fruit yield
/plant (
kg)
Germination
( % )
DMP
( mg / seedling )
FYM @ 25 t /ha 57.83 0.9 96.67 2.1
Poultry manure @ 7 t/ha 58.30 1.1 99.67 2.3
Vermicompost @ 6 t /ha 49.30 0.9 99.00 2.1
FYM @ 12.5 t/ha + P.M @
3.5 t /ha
57.73 1.0 99.67 2.2
FYM @ 12.5 t/ha + V.C@
3t /ha
56.40 0.9 99.33 2.0
PM @ 3.5 t/ha + VC @ 3 t
/ha
55.87 0.9 98.00 2.0
SEm 1.959 0.029 0.627 0.059
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 4.366 0.647 1.390 0.131
Periyakulam,Tamilnadu Geetharani et al., ( 2014 )

24. Treatment G.nut pod
yield (q /ha)
Bulb yield
(q /ha)
GEY
(q/ha)
50 % Rec. NPK + 50 % RDN as FYM 18.92 279.99 59.01
1/3 of rec. N ( FYM + V.C + Non edible oil
cake
17.09 248.49 52.76
T2 + Trap crop ( maize in kharif / marigold in
rabi )
17.15 250.71 53.06
T2 + Agronomic prac. for weed and pest
control
16.82 254.29 53.15
50 % N FYM + Bio fert for N + rock
phosphate + PSB culture
18.32 248.89 53.91
T2 + Bio fertilizer containing N and P carriers 17.39 243.33 52.42
100 % NPK as per RDF or as per soil test 16.96 249.93 52.55
SEm 0.36 5.37 0.99
CD ( at 5 % ) 1.02 15.23 2.80
Table 16 . Influence of different organic packages on g.nut ( GG 20 ) pod yield
& bulb yield & Grain equivalent yield
Black soil , Junaghad, Gujarath Anup Dabhi et al., ( 2003-04 to 2012- 13 )
RDF : For Groundnut 12.5 – 25 – 0 For Onion – 75 – 50 - 60

25. Treatments
Cost of
cultivation
( Rs/ha)
Net
returns
( Rs /ha )
B : C
50 % Rec. NPK + 50 % RDN as FYM 56509 108203 1.83
1/3 of rec. N ( FYM + V.C + Non edible oil cake 62595 83410 1.29
T2 + Trap crop ( maize in kharif / marigold in rabi ) 62824 84530 1.31
T2 + Agronomic prac. for weed and pest control 61932 86484 1.35
50 % N FYM + Bio fert for N + rock phosphate
+ PSB culture
57509 95436 1.58
T2 + Bio fertilizer containing N and P carriers 61607 84338 1.32
100 % NPK as per RDF or as per soil test 55446 92348 1.58
SEm 647 3137 0.05
CD ( at 5 % ) 1835 8892 0.15
Table 17 .Influence of different organic packages on g.nut pod yield & bulb yield
of onion& Grain equivalent yield
Black soil , Junaghad, Gujarath Anup Dabhi et al., ( 2003-04 to 2012- 13 )

26. Compost : Compost is a product of decomposition
of plant and animal wastes with various additives
Composting : Composting is a process of converting
organic matter in to manure in a short time by
accelerating fermentation process under controlled
conditions is called composting.
COMPOST
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

27. Vermicomposting :: is a method of making compost, with
the use of earthworms, which generally live, in soil eat
biomass and excrete it in digested form . This compost is
called as vermicompost
 Vermiculture :: means scientific method of breeding and
raising silkworms in controlled conditions.
 Vermitechnology ::is the combination of vermiculture
and vermicomposting.
 vermicompost contains organic carbon 9.15 to 17.98 % , N- 1.5 to
2.10 % P - 1.0 to 1.50 % K - 0.60 %
Vermicompost
technology
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

28. African earthworm
( Eudrillus euginiae )
Tiger worm or Red wrinkle
( Eisenia foetida )
Asian worms
( perinonyx ecavatus )

29. Treatment height
( cm )
Fresh
wt of
fruit (g)
Caroteno
id
( mg/ g )
Ascorbic
acid
(mg /g )
Protein
Control ( RDF : 120-240-120 kg/ha) 34.28 21.69 0.22 1.14 0.14
FYM @ 12.5 t /ha 36.24 29.56 0.23 1.35 0.17
Vermicompost @ 2.5 t /ha 38.01 30.86 0.26 1.48 0.18
Biofertilizer @ 2.5 kg /ha Azosp.+
2.5 kg /ha PSB)
38.40 32.10 0.24 1.28 0.16
FYM @ 12.5 t /ha +V. C @2.5 t /ha 38.92 36.39 0.27 1.52 0.22
FYM @ 12.5 t /ha +Biofertilizer @
2.5 kg /ha Azosp.+ 2.5 kg /ha PSB)
40.63 34.84 0.27 1.51 0.19
V. C @2.5 t /ha +Biofertilizer @ 2.5
kg /ha Azosp.+ 2.5 kg /ha PSB
44.42 35.08 0.29 1.45 0.27
FYM @ 12.5 t /ha +V.C @ 2.5 t/ha
+ Biofertilizer @ 2.5 kg /ha Azosp.+
2.5 kg /ha PSB)
46.28 37.86 0.31 1.62 0.25
SEd 0.87 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.01
CD @ 5 % 1.81 0.52 0.03 0.05 0.03
Table 18 . The effect of organics on plant height , fresh weight carotenoid, protein
and ascorbic acid content of chilli ( Surya mukhi )
SHIATS, Allahabad,U.P. Singh et al ., ( 2014 )

30. Treatments
( 100% RDN - 30kg ha-1 )
Plant
height
(cm) 90
DAS
Dry matter
production
( kg ha-1)
120 DAS
Leaf area
index 90
DAS
100% RDN through vermi compost 22.4 8084 3.19
100% RDN through farm yard manure 22.3 7545 3.17
100% RDN through VC prepared from mushroom spent
substrate.
22.6 8370 3.23
100% RDN through phosphorus enriched VC using rock
phosphate 3%.
23.6 8511 3.46
75% RDN through vermi compost. 22.4 7332 3.09
75% RDN through farm yard manure. 22.4 6584 3.05
75% RDN through using rock phosphate 3%. 21.9 7330 3.12
75% RDN through P enriched VC using rock phosphate 3%. 22.4 7449 3.16
Absolute control (no NPK and gypsum) 21.9 5507 3.01
Control (no NPK and gypsum @ 500 kgha-1 at flower initiation) 22.4 6556 3.03
SEm ± 0.3 117 0.05
CD (P=0.05) 0.8 347 0.16
Sandy clay loam, Rajendranagar, TS Ramakrishna et al ., ( 2016 )
Table 19. Growth parametres of groundnut (Bheema )as influence by organic
nutrient management, Rajendranagar

31. Treatments
( 100% RDN - 30kg ha-1 )
No of pods
plant -1
Pod yield
kg ha-1
Kernel
yield
( kg ha -1)
Oil yield
( kg ha-1)
T1- 100% RDN through vermi compost 17.2 4043 8083 1121
T2- 100% RDN through farm yard manure 13.9 3624 7545 954
T3- 100% RDN through vermi compost prepared
from mushroom spent substrate.
18.0 4209 8369 1243
T4- 100% RDN through phosphorus enriched vermi
compost using rock phosphate 3%.
18.9 4398 8511 1381
T5- 75% RDN through vermi compost. 14.8 3671 7329 987
T6- 75% RDN through farm yard manure. 13.0 3042 6584 784
T7- 75% RDN through vermi compost vermi compost
using rock phosphate 3%.
15.5 3739 7331 1048
T8- 75% RDN through phosphorus enriched vermi
compost using rock phosphate 3%.
17.2 3921 7445 1151
T9- Absolute control (no NPK and gypsum) 10.2 1965 5505 420
T10- Control (no NPK and gypsum @ 500 kgha-1 at
flower initiation)
12.2 2754 6356 644
SEm ± 0.6 181 181 28
CD (P=0.05) 1.9 538 538 83
Table 20. yield and yield attributes of of ground nut as influenced by organic
nutrient management
Sandy clay loam, Rajendranagar, TS Ramakrishna et al ., ( 2016 )

32. Treatments pH EC
( ds /m )
OC
( % )
Avail N
( kg /ha )
Avail P205
( kg /ha )
Avail K20
( kg /ha )
Initial 7.25 0.28 0.49 210 32.56 231
RDF alone 7.30 0.184 0.49 214 33.25 236
FYM @ 25 t /ha + RDF 7.22 0.142 0.55 226 38.12 251
PMC @ 12 t /ha + RDF 7.17 0.123 0.54 223 38.89 254
VC @ 2.5 t /ha + RDF 7.21 0.102 0.54 229 37.22 249
NADEF Compost @ 5
t/ha + RDF
7.22 0.114 0.52 218 37.10 248
Mean 7.22 0.133 0.52 222 36.91 247
CD ( 5% ) NS NS 0.074 19 3.11 22.11
CV ( 5 % ) 11.2 12.4 9.3 7.6 8.6 11.2
Table 21. Effect of different sources of organic manures on soil physico chemical
properties and nutrient status in post harvest soils of S.cane ( 93 A 145 )
Clay loam ,RARS , Anakapally,A.P Ramalaxmi et al.,(2011)
RDF : 112 – 100 – 120 NPK kg /ha

33. Treatments N uptake
( kg /ha )
P uptake
( kg /ha )
K uptake
( kg /ha )
RDF alone 288 50.62 310
FYM @ 25 t /ha + RDF 298 53.85 324
PMC @ 12 t /ha + RDF 296 54.11 322
VC @ 2.5 t /ha + RDF 301 53.00 326
NADEF Compost @ 5 t/ha + RDF 295 53.55 322
Mean 295 53.02 320
CD ( 5% ) 4.00 2.13 11
CV ( 5 % ) 8.6 9.5 7.6
Table 22. Effect of different sources of organic manures on NPK uptake (
kg/ha ) at grand growth phase of sugarcane plant ratoon system
Clay loam ,RARS , Anakapally,A.P Ramalaxmi et al.,(2011)
RDF : 112 – 100 – 120 NPK kg /ha

34. Treatments Plant
height
( cm )
Cob
weight
( gms)
Dry matter
production
( kg /ha )
Grain
yield
( kg /ha )
Control 164.2 208.7 7810.0 2096.0
Recommended dose of fertilizer 180.9 215.4 8348.0 3224.0
75 % RDF + 25 % V.C @ 5 t/ha 205.6 232.9 9488.0 4402.0
100 % V.C @ 5 t /ha 176.8 214.1 8192.0 2996.0
75 % RDF + 25 % Compost coir pith @ 10 t /ha 188.6 225.5 8769.0 3806.0
75 % RDF + 25 % Green leaf manure @ 10 t /ha 168.9 205.3 7985.0 2472.0
100% Green leaf manure @ 12.5 t /ha 183.9 221.6 8435.0 3513.0
100 % compost coir pith @ 10 t /ha 166.2 211.6 7902.0 2356.0
75 % RDF + 25 % Sewage sludege @ 2 t /ha 192.0 229.7 8969.0 4100.0
100 % sewage sludge @ 2 t /ha 174.6 209.8 7888.0 2642.0
SE 3.4558 1.5233 143.09 127.02
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 7.4128 3.2004 301.4 266.8
Table 23. Effect of organic sources on plant height ,cob weight , dry matter
production,grain yield of maize
Sandy clay loam, Madurai,T.,N. Sanjiv kumar et al., ( 2010 )

35.  Volume reduction of waste.
 Composting temperature kill pathogen, weed seeds and
seeds.
 Excellent soil conditioner
 Saleable product
 Redues the risk of pollution
 Pathogen reduction
 Reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers
 Promote higher yields of agricultural crops..
 Capture and destroy 99.6 percent of industrial volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) in contaminated air.
Advantages of composting
TNAU AGRI PORTAL

36.  The product is weighty and bulky, making it expensive
to transport.
 The nutrient value of compost is low compared with that
of chemical fertilizers
 nutrient composition of compost is highly variable
compared to chemical fertilizers
 heavy metals and other possible contaminants in compost,
 Long-term and/or heavy application of composts to
agricultural soils has been found to result in salt, nutrient,
or heavy metal accumulation and may adversely affect
plant growth, soil organisms, water quality, and animal
and human health
Drawbacks of using composts
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

37. Green manuring ::
The practice of ploughing or turning into the soil
undecomposed green plant tissue for the purpose of improving
the physical condition of the soil as well as fertility of the soil is
referred to as green manuring.
 The manure obtained by this method --- green manure.
 Ideally a green manure should be a fast growing, non –woody ,
short duration crop.
 1. Green manuring insitu
 2.Green leaf manuring
Green manures
Text book :: Manures and Fertilizers P.C.DAS
Types of green manuring :

38. Broadly 2 groups 1. Legume & 2. Non legume crops
1. Legume Green manuring crops : Dhaincha ( Sesbania
aculeata), Sunhemp ( Crotalaria juncea), Sesbania
(Sesbania speciosa ), Wild indigo ( Tephrosia purpurea )
2.Legume Green leaf manuring crops: Gliricidia maculata,
Cassia auriculata,Pongamia glabra
3. Non legume green manure crops : Sunflower, Mustard,
Wheat, Radhish, Carrot, Jowar, Maize.
4. Non legume green leaf manure crops : Calotrophis,
Adathoda , Thespesia
Text book :: Organic farming in India :: Problems and prospectus
U.Thappa,P.tripathy
Green manures

39. Summer sown catch crop : Before kharif crop
Ex: Crotalaria juncea , Sesbania aculeata, Phaseolus
trilobus
 Inter row sown crop :: After 6 – 8 weeks the GM is
buried
Ex: Dhaincha is cultivated with paddy , Sunhemp and
Cowpea with irrigated cotton and Maize
 Crops taken on bare fallow land : No main crop in
kharif season.
GM crop is sown and buried in kharif season.
Ex : Sunhemp , Dhaincha, Cowpea etc.
Source : Manures and Fertilizers P.C. Das
Methods of green manuring :

40. List of green manure crops with their nutrient composition
Green manure
crop
Green
manure yield
( t / ha )
Nutrient content
( % )
Nutrient contribution
( kg / ha )
N P2O5 K20 N P2O5 K20
Annual legumes
Sesbania rostrata 24.90 0.70 0.30 0.50 174.30 74.70 124.50
Cassia mimosoides 4.70 0.80 0.20 0.50 37.60 9.40 23.50
Crotalaria juncea 21.20 0.50 0.10 0.40 106.00 21.20 84.80
Cyamopsis
tetragonobola
20.00 0.90 0.30 0.60 180.00 60.00 120.00
Sesbania aculeata 20.20 1.10 0.20 0.40 222.00 40.40 80.80
Sesbania speciosa 7.80 0.70 0.10 0.60 54.60 80.00 46.80
Vigna ungiculata 10.00 0.70 0.10 0.50 70.00 10.00 50.00
Vigna radiata 7.70 0.60 0.10 0.50 46.20 7.70 38.50
Vigna trilobus 5.30 0.60 0.10 0.40 31.80 5.30 21.20
Vigna sinensis 15.00 0.50 0.40 0.60 5.00 60.00 90.00
Berseem 15.50 0.40 0.50 0.50 62.00 77.50 77.50
Dahama ( 2001)Sustainability through Organic farming

41. Green manure crop Green
manure
yield
( t / ha )
Nutrient content
( % )
Nutrient contribution
( kg / ha )
N P2O5 K20 N P2O5 K20
Perennial legumes
Cassia hirsutae 2.50 0.60 0.40 0.60 15.00 10.00 15.00
Desmodium
orvoides
1.40 0.80 0.20 0.90 11.20 2.80 12.60
Glyricidia maculata 3.00 0.80 0.10 0.70 24.00 3.00 21.00
Sesbania punctata 3.70 0.90 0.20 0.50 33.30 7.40 18.50
Pongamia pinnata 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.80 6.00 6.00 24.00
Dahama ( 2001)Sustainability through Organic farming
List of green manure crops with their nutrient composition

44. Name of the crop Names of Green manuring crops
Paddy ( Monocrop ) Crotalaria juncea, Aazolla sp., Tephrosia
purpurea, Indigofera tinctoria etc.
Paddy ( Double crop ) Sesbania aculeata, Phaseolus sp., Azolla sp.
Wheat Vigna radiata , etc.
Paddy - Wheat Sesbania aculeata etc.
Sugarcane Crotalaria juncea , Vigna sinensis, Vigna mungo ,
Sesbania aculeata , Trifolium alexandrium ,
Glycine hispida , etc.
Cotton Vigna mungo, Vigna radiata, Sesbania aculeata,
Crotalaria juncea , Trifolium alexandrium etc.,
Sorghum Crotalaria juncea , Leucaena leucocephala etc.
Text book : Manures and fertilizers P.C.DAS
List of plants used as Green manuring crops in different crop
cultivation

45.  Supply of organic matter
 Addition of nitrogen
 Nutrient and soil conservation
 Increases the biochemical activity
 Control of weeds
 Green manuring increases crop yield
 Under rainfed condition it is not possible
 The disease , insect pest and nematodes may come up due to
improper decomposition of green manure crops
 There is no scope under intensive agriculture
 It adds N but the cost of green manuring is more than
commercial nitrogenous fertilizers.
Text book : Manures and fertilizers P.C.DAS
Benefits of Green manuring
Disadvantages / Limitations of Green manuring

46. Treatments Height
( cm )
Yield
( Kg ha-1 )
Net returns
( Rs ha-1 )
B : C
0 % RDK ( Control ) 72.07 5008 80900 1.92
50 % RDK
( 40 kg k20 ha -1 )
74.37 5281 87803 2.06
100 % RDK
( 80 kg k20 ha -1 )
76.33 5433 93131 2.17
150 % RDK
( 120 kg k20 ha -1 )
77.60 5517 95016 2.20
GM ( dhaincha ) insitu only 78.33 5493 97590 2.27
GM + 40 kg k20 ha -1 80.53 5552 100124 2.31
GM + 80 kg k20 ha -1 81.20 5671 104337 2.39
GM + 120 kg k20 ha -1 84.30 5748 108076 2.44
SEm 1.23
CD at 5 % 3.77
CV % 2.73
Table 24.Plant height , yield and economics of rice as influenced by different
levels of potassium and Green manure
Sandy loam, Mahanandi, Kurnool, A.P Sujatha et al., ( 2016 )

47. CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT
 Crop residues are defined as the non – economical plant
parts that are left in the field after harvest and remains that
are generated from packing sheds or that are discarded during
crop prcessing.
There are two major components of crop residues available
 1. Harvest refuse :: that includes straw , stubbles , haulms
of diffferent crops
 2. The processed wastes :: like groundnut shell, oil cakes ,
rice husks, coir pith , and cobs of maize, sorghum
 It is estimated that approximately 500-550 Mt of crop residues are produced
per year in the country (MoA, 2012). Around 93.9 million tons (Mt) of wheat,
104.6 Mt of rice, 21.6 Mt of maize, 20.7 Mt of millets, 357.7 Mt of sugarcane,
8.1 Mt of fibre crops (jute, mesta, cotton), 17.2 Mt of pulses and 30.0 Mt of
oilseeds crops, in the year 2011-12 (MoA, 2012).
Sustainability through Organic Farming Mukund Joshi &Prabhakarashetty

48. Crop Nutrient content
( % on oven dry basis )
N P2O5 K20
Paddy 0.61 0.18 1.38
Wheat 0.48 0.16 1.18
Sorghum 0.52 0.23 1.34
Bajra 0.45 0.16 1.14
Maize 0.52 0.18 1.35
All pulses 1.29 0.36 1.64
Groundnut 1.60 0.23 1.37
Other oil seeds 0.80 0.21 0.93
Sugarcane 0.40 0.18 1.28
Crop residues – nutrient composition
Tandon ( 1995 )

49. Treatments
Total
biomass
production
( kg /ha )
Rice GEY
( kg /ha )
Gross
returns
( Rs / ha )
Net
returns
( Rs /ha )
B : C
Incorporation of crop residues ( RDF 120 – 80- 40 kg NPK /ha )
Incorporation of G.G crop
residues
14268 7135 54497 28623 2.09
Incorporation of cluster
bean crop residues
15381 7965 60860 34986 2.34
Incorporation of field bean
crop crop residues
17608 9718 74136 48262 2.86
Incorporation of cowpea
crop residues
16527 8909 67963 42089 2.61
SEm 319 148 688 515 0.06
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 782 364 1685 1262 0.14
Table 25 .Total biomass production , rice GEY and economics of rice groundnut
cropping sytem as influenced by residual effect crop residue incorporation.
Sandy clay loam, SVU,AP Radha kumari et al., ( 2010 )

50. Treatments
Total
biomass
production
( kg /ha )
Rice GEY
( kg /ha )
Gross
returns
( Rs / ha )
Net
returns
( Rs /ha )
B : C
Nirogen management practices ( RDF 120 – 80- 40 kg NPK /ha )
No nitrogen 13483 6383 49168 26219 2.14
100 % recommended
nitrogen through fertilizer
16947 8796 67641 41505 2.59
50 % recommended
nitrogen through fertilizer
+ 50 % through FYM
16851 9232 70473 43725 2.64
100 % RDN through FYM 16503 9232 70173 42512 2.53
SEm 452 210 973 729 0.08
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 934 434 2010 1508 0.17
Table 26. Total biomass production , rice GEY and economics of rice groundnut
cropping sytem as influenced by residual effect crop residue incorporation.
Sandy clay loam, SVU,AP Radha kumari et al., ( 2010 )

51. Treatments
No.of
productive
pods /plant
Pod yield
( kg /ha )
Rain WUE
( kg
/ha/mm)
Gross
returns
( Rs/ha )
Net
returns
( Rs/ha )
B : C
Control (RDF
)
18.1 1327 3.76 16452 11912 3.62
Tank silt 21.5 1645 4.66 20822 15232 3.72
FYM @ 10
t/ha
24.7 1854 5.25 23078 14457 2.67
Paddy husk@
10 t /ha
21.0 1509 4.27 18948 12408 2.89
Groundnut
shells @ 5 t
/ha
18.1 1225 3.47 15657 9617 2.58
Effect of various mulch materials on no. of productive pod /plant , pod yield
( kg /ha ) , Rain WUE, and economics of G.nut cultivation
Sandy loam soil , RARS, Palem, T S Goverdhan et al., ( 2016 )
RDF : 20 – 40 – 50 kg /ha

52. Advantages of using crop residues ::
They do not involve cost of transportation as in the
case of fertilizers and FYM.
Does not cost a crop / season as in case of green
manure crop
They are not purchased from outside and hence
they do not burden the farmers economically
No contamination by pollutants
Limitations of crop residues ::
The poor decomposition of residues.
Soil moisture requirements for decomposition.
Physical transformation of residues.
Pests and diseases – problem.
Sustainability through Organic Farming175 Mukund Joshi & Prabhakarashetty

53. SEWAGE: Sewage refers to the used up water from towns and
cities collected though a drainage system.
 It consists of solid and liquid excreta and liquid wastes from
kitchen and bath rooms. It also contains animal vegetable and
mineral matter in suspension, solution and colloidal state .It is
the mineral matter that makes the purification difficult.
SEWERAGE: Sewerage is the pipe system that carries the sewage
for disposal
SULLAGE: Is the water drained from the kitchens, bathrooms and
drainage water of the streets (open canal)
EFFLUENT: It is the clear supernatant liquid obtained after aeration
during sedimentation process in the septic tanks of the
activated sludge process . It is fit for irrigation and rich in N.
SLUDGE: Sludge is he sediment that settles down in the activated
sludge process .It is dark and powdery material with good
manurial value.
Sustainability through organic farming Mukund joshi & T.K.Prabhakarashetty

54. Type of waste
Chemical composition ( %)
SourceN P205 K20
Sewage water 60 ppm 25 ppm 40 ppm Guar et al.,
1990
Sewage sludge 3 2 1 Kansal,1992
Garbage 0.5 -- 0.3 Dahama,2001
Manurial contribution by urban wastes
Sustainability through organic farming Mukund joshi,, T.K.
Prabhakarashetty

55. Treatments Plant
height
(cm)
Fruit yield
(gm plant -1)
Ascorbic
acid
(mg/100)
Lycopene
content
(mg 100g -1)
20% of sewage sludge 48.23 128.9 24.2 3.96
40% of sewage sludge 54.40 135.1 28.1 5.16
60% of sewage sludge 56.36 143.8 33.4 5.83
80% of sewage sludge 59.23 164.9 36.3 8.23
100% of sewage sludge 66.33 184.2 25.4 7.83
RDF 49.96 131.6 28.3 5.70
Control (untreated) 30.50 117.8 21.6 3.36
CD at 5% 2.33 5.17 0.98 0.32
SEm ± 0.76 1.84 0.32 0.10
Table 27 Effect of sewage sludge on fruit yield and other and other fruit
parameters in tomato
Red soil ,Rajendranagar , TS Bhavya et al., ( 2014 )
RDF : 100-100-100 Kg ha-1

56. Table 28. Influence of organic manures and fertilizers on nutrient uptake, quality and yield in
cabbage ( Golden acre ) during rabi 2010, Rajedranagar.
Treatments
(RDF 100: 50: 50 kg ha-1 N,P and K)
Nutrient uptake
(kg ha-1)
Fruit quality
Yield
(t ha-1)N P K Protein
(%)
Ascorbic acid
(mg 100g-1)
Control 14.7 3.2 15.3 16.1 31.4 18.7
Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) 44.0 12.3 39.9 16.5 32.3 38.9
Farm yard manure (9.34 t ha-1) 30.8 9.1 32.1 17.1 34.1 34.3
Vermicompost 8.92 t ha-1 26.7 6.4 31.4 17.2 34.3 27.1
Poultry manure2.88 t ha-1 36.0 10.0 32.4 17.2 34.6 32.9
Neem cake 2.91 t ha-1 30.6 7.6 32.9 17.3 34.4 30.3
Farm yard manure 4.67 t ha-1 + Vermicompost 4.46 t
ha-1
26.2 8.2 31.6 17.7 35.2 31.9
Farm yard manure 4.67 t ha-1 + Poultry manure
1.44 t ha-1
38.8 11.8 35.1 18.0 35.4 35.2
Farm yard manure 4.67 t ha-1 + Neem cake 1.45 t ha-
1
33.3 7.8 33.9 17.8 35.1 32.9
Vermicompost 4.46 t ha-1 + Poultry manure 1.44 t
ha-1
30.3 9.5 28.7 17.8 34.6 29.1
Vermicompost 4.46 t ha-1 + Neem cake1.45 t ha-1 28.2 6.4 28.0 17.8 34.0 29.0
Poultry manure 1.44 t ha-1 + Neem cake 1.45 t ha-
1
37.2 10.5 36.1 18.1 34.8 37.9
Mean 31.4 8.6 31.4 17.4 34.3 31.5
S.E m± 2.23 0.64 1.65 0.08 0.10 1.56
CD (P ≤ 0.05) 6.53 1.86 4.85 0.22 0.28 4.56
Sandy clay loam , Rajendranagar ,TS Srinivasan et al., (2014)

57. Manure Nutrient composition
BONE MEAL : 1.0 to 2.0 per cent N
10-13 per cent P .
HORN MEAL : 14 per cent N.
BLOOD MEAL/ BLOOD
POWDER :
10-14 % N
MEAT MEAL : 7 %N , 1 to 5 % P and 3 to 10 %
K .
FISH MEAL ::: N – 4 to 10 % , P – 3 to 39 %
K - 0.3 to 1.5 %
GUANO N – 7 to 8 %
P – 11.0 – 14.0
K – 2.3 – 3.0
CONCENTRATED ORGANIC MANURES
SOURCE :: Manures and fertilizers P.C DAS

58. Table 29.Effect of different nutritional management treatments on growth
parameters, yield components, yield and harvest index of rice (Mean of two
years)
Treatments
RDF : 60 – 30 – 30 kg /ha
DMA@
90 DAT
( g/m2 )
Plant
height
( cm )
No. of
panicles
/m2
Grain
yield
( t /ha )
Straw
yield
( t /ha )
100 % RDF 690 98.61 307.4 3.36 4.51
75% RDF 613.2 90.34 287.6 2.97 4.07
50 % RDF 533.3 87.31 261.4 2.56 3.90
75 % RDF + FYM @10 t /ha 780.5 97.42 328.3 3.55 4.58
50 % RDF + FYM @ 10 t /ha 692.1 94.31 309.4 3.31 4.36
75 % RDF + WDFM @ 2 t /ha 798.6 97.85 337.5 3.60 4.53
50 % RDF + WDFM @2 t/ha 704.9 96.21 315.4 3.39 4.29
75 %RDF + Paddy straw @ 5 t /ha 727.5 95.34 311.2 3.37 4.67
50 % RDF + Paddy straw @ 5 t /ha 643.4 93.26 297.5 3.15 4.42
SEm 15.58 1.04 4.31 0.03 0.033
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 44.31 3.12 12.92 0.091 0.099
Silty clay loam ,Mohanpur, W.B Pal et al .,( 2010 )

59. Table 30. Effect of different nutritional management treatments on growth
parameters, yield components, yield and harvest index of rice (Mean of two years)
Treatments
RDF : 60 – 30 – 30 kg /ha
DMA@
90 DAT
(g/m2)
Plant
height
( cm )
No. of
panicles
/m2
Grain
yield
( t /ha
)
Increase in
yield (%)
over RDF
(100 % )
100 % RDF 689.5 92.7 285.6 3146 -
75% RDF 598.7 82.0 261.7 2938 -8.10
50 % RDF 507.1 76.8 243.0 2481 -28.10
75 % RDF + FYM @10 t /ha 729.5 86.9 289.1 3382 6.09
50 % RDF + FYM @ 10 t /ha 651.8 82.3 277.5 3149 -0.86
75 % RDF + WDFM @ 2 t /ha 797.7 89.6 309.1 3541 10.31
50 % RDF + WDFM @2 t/ha 699.4 84.5 281.8 3238 1.91
75 %RDF + Vermicompost@ 5 t /ha 779.7 88.9 297.5 3479 8.71
50 % RDF + Vermicompost @ 5t /ha 693.8 84.3 282.9 3181 0.16
SEm 14.87 0.96 4.12 29.8
C.D ( P = 0.05 ) 42.29 2.73 11.72 84.75
Silty clay loam ,Nandia , W.B Kundu et al .,( 2010 )

60. i)Edible oil cakes : Suitable for cattle and poultry feeding
and also as a manure /fertilizer but not economical
EX : Groundnut , Gingelly cakes etc.,
ii) Non –Edible oil cakes: Suitable for crop fertilization.
Ex : Castor cake ,neem cake etc.,
OIL CAKES
Source : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad
Oil cake Nutrient composition
( % )
N P K
Castor cake 4.3 1.8 1.3
Neem cake 5.2 1.0 1.4
Linseed cake 4.9 1.4 1.3

61. Table 31 .Effect of different organic manures on plant height, WUE
and yield attributes of turmeric
Treatments Pl.height
( cm )
WUE Yield
( t/ha )
Curcumin Oil
(%)
Protein
( % )
Control 76.0 1.65 19.36 5.02 1.88 7.28
FYM @ 18 t/ha 109.4 1.76 39.29 6.35 2.12 8.96
Poultry Manure @ 10 t
/ha
112.0 1.84 38.63 6.50 2.14 9.88
Pig manure @ 11 t /ha 97.9 1.71 30.83 6.40 2.02 9.81
Rabbit manure @ 11 t /ha 94.5 1.53 27.34 6.45 2.00 8.94
Neem shield @ 4.5 t /ha 90.2 1.96 28.99 6.7 2.08 8.75
100 % NPK 92.6 1.60 29.58 6.27 2.08 9.69
CD ( P= 0.05 ) 15.4 0.19 1.05 0.22 0.10 0.22
Acidic soil , Umiam , Meghalaya Sanwal et al.,(2007 )
RDF : 90 – 60 - 90

62. Treatments
Uptake ( kg /ha ) Grain yield
( q /ha )
Total yield
( q /ha )N P K
Control (no N ) 30.55 8.88 46.90 18.04 43.25
Azo seed
treatment
34.86 10.17 46.90 20.06 46.64
T3 --FYM @ 5 t
/ha
39.59 11.47 54.28 20.80 49.42
T 4 -FYM @ 10
t /ha
47.35 12.32 61.84 22.03 51.89
T 5 - PM @ 1 t
/ha
43.21 12.07 66.09 21.71 50.26
PM @ 2 t /ha 47.51 12.68 62.75 22.22 52.77
RDFN 54.85 13.63 66.55 25.99 58.78
Table 32. Nutrient uptake ,grain yield and total yield of rice in rice mesta
cropping system
Contd.

63. Treatments
Uptake ( kg /ha ) - Mean Grain
yield
( q /ha )
Total yield
(q /ha )
N P K
T3 + 75 % RDFN 58.47 15.81 73.22 27.09 62.24
T3 + 50% RDFN 51.69 14.00 77.65 24.48 57.41
T5+ 75 % RDFN 62.50 16.96 72.76 28.82 64.06
T5 + 50 % RDFN 53.58 14.11 81.34 25.05 58.15
T2+ 75 % RDFN 44.92 12.35 75.05 23.51 55.1
T2+ 50 % RDFN 40.89 12.10 63.94 22.51 53.03
Mean 22.76 46.92 12.78 59.08 52.92
Table 33. Nutrient uptake ,grain yield and total yield of rice in rice mesta
cropping system
Alfisols ,ARS, Ragolu ,Srikakulam, A .P. Sreelatha et al., ( 2006)
RDF : For Rice 80 – 60 – 60 NPK kg /ha

64.  Cow dung - 7 kg
 Cow ghee - 1 kg
Mix the above two ingredients thoroughly both in morning and evening
hours and keep it for 3 days
 Cow Urine - 10 liters
 Water - 10 liters
After 3 days mix cow urine and water and keep it for 15 days with regular mixing
both in morning and evening hours. After 15 days mix the following and
panchagavya will be ready after 30 days.
 Cow milk - 3 liters
 Cow curd - 2 liters
 Tender coconut water - 3 liters
 Jaggery - 3 kg
 Well ripened poovan banana – 12 nos.
Source : TNAU AGRI PORTAL
Panchagavya
Preparation :

65. Cow dung Cow urine Cow curd
Cow milkCow ghee Jaggery
Tender Coconut Water Well ripened Banana
Ingredients of Panchagavya

66. Chemical composition
pH 5.45
EC dSm2 10.22
Total N (ppm) 229
Total P (ppm) 209
Total K (ppm) 232
Sodium 90
Calcium 25
IAA (ppm) 8.5
GA (ppm) 3.5
Microbial Load
Fungi 38800/ml
Bacteria 1880000/ml
Lactobacillus 2260000/ml
Total anaerobes 10000/ml
Acid formers 360/ml
Methanogen 250/ml
SOURCE : TNAU AGRITECH PORTAL

67. Table 34. Growth , yield , Net returns and B : C ratio of cotton as influenced
by the application of panchakavya
Treatments
(RDF : 120 – 60 – 60. )
Plant
height
( cm )
Bolls
/plant
Kapas
yield
( kg /ha )
Net
returns
( Rs /ha)
B : C
RDF + Spray of KNO3 2 % at
flowering and boll development
stage
118 34.0 2920 33840 1.90
10 t /ha FYM + Spray of
panchakavya 3 % at square,flower
and boll development stage
98 24.6 1740 9380 1.32
10 t /ha FYM + Spray of
panchakavya 5 % at square,flower
and boll development stage
97 26.6 1920 13340 1.46
50% RDF + Spray of panchakavya
3 % at square,flower and boll
development stage
107 33.3 2520 25840 1.87
50 % RDF + Spray of
panchakavya 5% at square,flower
and boll development stage
106 31.6 2630 28260 1.95
Clayey ( Vertisols ) ,RARS, Guntur Narayana et al., ( 2009 )
Contd.

68. Table 35.Growth , yield , Net returns and B : C ratio of cotton as
influenced by the application of panchakavya
Treatments
(RDF : 120 – 60 – 60. )
Plant
height
( cm )
Bolls
/plant
Kapas
yield
( kg /ha )
Net
returns
( Rs /ha)
B : C
100% RDF + Spray of
panchakavya 5% at
square,flower and boll
development stage
118 37.3 3280 41160 2.32
50 % RDF + 10 t /ha FYM +
Three sprays of panchakavya @
3 %
120 35.6 2720 29140 1.95
50 % RDF + 10 t /ha FYM +
Three sprays of panchakavya @
3 %
117 35.6 2860 32220 2.04
SEm 5.4 1.89 170
CD ( P = 0.05 ) 16.4 5.7 510
Clayey ( Vertisols ) ,RARS, Guntur Narayana et al., ( 2009 )

69.  Dasagavya, is an organic preparation made from ten products in the
form of panchagavya and certain plant extracts The plant extracts
are prepared by separately soaking the foliage in cow urine in 1:1
ratio (1 kg chopped leaves in 1 litre cow urine) for ten days.
 The filtered extracts of all the plants are then added @ 1 litre each
to 5 litre of the panchagavya solution.
 The mixture is kept for 25 days and stirred well, meanwhile, to
ensure thorough mixing of panchagavya and the plant extracts.
Application :: foliar spray @ 3 % concentration
 Soaking of seeds or dipping the roots of seedlings in 3 % solution of
dasagavya for 20 mins. before planting enhances seed germn.and
root development
Uses: Nutrient source ,Controls pests like aphids, thrips, mites and
other sucking pests
 Controls diseases like leaf spot, leaf blight, powdery mildew etc.
DASAGAVYA
Source : TNAU AGRI PORTAL

70. Leucas aspera Datura metalLantana camera
Pongamia pinnataCalotrophis
DASAGAVYA
Vitex negundo
SOURCE : TNAU AGRIPORTAL

71. Azadirachta indica
jatropha curcas
DASAGAVYA
Adathoda vasica
SOURCE : TNAU AGRIPORTAL

72.  Ingredients: 5 liters buttermilk, 1 liter tender coconut, 1-2
coconuts, 500ml-1liter juice from waste fruit
Preparation:
 break the coconuts and collect the coconut water in a vessel.
 Add buttermilk to this and mix well.
 Grate the coconuts, add to the mixture, and let it soak.
 Or, mix grated coconut and fruit (if not in juice form), put the
mixture in a nylon mesh, tie it, and immerse it in the buttermilk
solution.
 This solution ferments well in seven days.
 The contents of the nylon bag could be reused a few times in
subsequent solutions by adding a small quantity of grated
coconut every time.
Usage: Mix ten liters water with 300-500 solution and spray.
Coconut-Buttermilk Solution
SOURCE : TNAU AGRI PORTAL

73.  Ingredients : 5 eggs, juice of 10 - 15 lemons, and 250
gms jaggery.
Preparation:
 Place the eggs in a jar and pour lemon juice in it until
the eggs are completely immersed.
 Keep it for 10 days with lid closed.
 After 10 days smash the eggs and prepare the solution.
 Add equal quantity of thick jaggery syrup to it and set
aside for 10 days.
 The solution will then be ready for spraying.
 Usage: Add 1 - 2 ml of this with 1 liter water for
spraying.
Egg Extract ( Egg Amino Acid)
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

74. (a) 10-50 kg cattle dung,
(b) 5-20 kg waste fruit,
(c) convenient quantity of all kinds of leaves that decay fast,
(d) intestines wastes from 1 cow or 2-4 goats,
(e) 5-10 liters panchakavya,
(f) 5-10 liters any of the buttermilk solutions,
(g) 5-10 liters concentrated amudham solution,
(j) 50-100 liters archaebacterial solution.
(k) Apart from these we use Bio fertilisers - Azospirillium,
Phospobactreria and Potash Bacteria each 200 gms
Fruit Gaudi
Ingredients:
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

75. (l) To control fungal diseases - Pseudomonas, Trichoderma viridi,
Trichoderma harzianum, Basilus subtillus - 200 gms each.
(m) To control nematodes - Paecilomyces 200 gms
(n) To control root grub - Beauveria brangniarti, Metarhizium - 200 gms
each.
Preparation:
 Mix the items from (a) to (j) in 200-500 liters water in a tank.
Allow it to ferment for a week.
 Add the beneficial microorganism listed from (k) to (n) as required
allow it to ferment for a day.
Usage: For annual crops like banana, sugarcane, turmeric 30 days
after planting use monthly once for 6 months.
 In the case of horticultural crops use every year from March to August
for 6 months.
 In the case of vegetable crops 30 days after sowing/planting at 15 days
interval use for 4 to 6 times according to the age of variety.
SOURCE :: TNAU AGRI PORTAL

76. Ingredients: 1 kg native fish, 1 kg jaggery.
Preparation:
 Remove the fish intestines and chop into fine pieces.
(Using intestines is not harmful but it smells bad).
 Powder the jaggery and add it.
 Add the two to broad-mouthed glass jar (best) or plastic
jar that is just the right size (not too big), cover the jar
with the lid (cap), tighten it, and mix it well by shaking the
jar.
 Don’t add water.
 In thirty days this will be fermented.
 Filter it using nylon mesh to get 300-500 ml solution
changed into honey-like syrup.
 This is a great nutrient for the plants.
Usage: Add 5 ml of this with one liter water
FISH EXTRACT

77. FISH EXTRACT

78. Lack of sufficient quantity of organic manure to meet the
requirements of crop
Lack of awareness in farmers about the advantages of
organic sources
Organic manures requires sufficient time for
decomposition
No quick response to organic manures application .
Preparation and proper application requires labour and
so cost .
Constraints in using organic nutrient sources

79. 1.To assess residual nutrient levels
2.To study the spatial variability of nutrients.
3.To measure the distribution of nutrients in the soil
profile.
Objectives of the nutrient dynamic study :
NUTRIENT DYNAMICS
Nutrient dynamics is broadly defined as the way
nutrients are taken up, retained, transferred, and cycled
over time and distance, in an ecosystem
SOURCE : Soil Fertility and Fertilizers S.L Tisdale et al

80.  Inorganic forms :include ammonium (NH4
+), nitrate (NO3
- ),
nitrite (NO2
- ), nitric oxide (NO) nitrous oxide (N2O) and
elemental N. NH4
+ , NO3
- and NO2
- are important in soil
fertility and represent 2 to 5 % of total N.
 2. Organic forms: occur as consolidated amino acids or
proteins, free amino acids, amino sugars and other
unidentified compounds like materials that result from the
reaction of NH4
+ with lignin, polymerisation of quinones and
nitrogen compounds, the condensation of sugars and
amines.
DYNAMICS OF NUTRIENTS
NITROGEN :
Forms of Nitrogen
SOURCE : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

81.  Plants absorb most of the N in the NH4 + and NO3 - forms.
 Nitrate is the dominant source as its concentration is higher than NH4
+
and it is free to move to the roots.
 Potatoes, sugarbeet, pine apple, prefer both the forms; tomatoes,
celery, bush beans, prefer NO3
- ,
 rice and blue berries prefer NH4
+
 MINERALIZATION :: is simply the conversion of organic nitrogen
to mineral form (NH4
+ , NO3
- , and NO2
- )
 If C:N ratio is narrow i.e., less than 20 (for legume residues),
mineralisation is the result.
1. Aminisation: Proteins→ R-NH2 + CO2 + Energy + other products.
2.Ammonification : R-NH2 + HOH→ NH3 + R – OH + Energy.
NH3 + H2O→ NH4
+ + OH –
3.Nitrification : 2 NH4
+ + 3 O2→ 2 NO2
- + 2 H2O + 4H+
2 NO2
- + O2 →2 NO3
–
 IMMOBILIZATION : Conversion of inorganic to organic form
N transformations in soil :
SOURCE : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

83. Inorganic P : higher than that of organic P in soils accounting
for 54 to 84%.
 The inorganic P can be further divided into
Soil solution P : P is absorbed by plants as (H2PO4
- ,HPO4
2-) released
from other forms of P or added P
Labile soil P : Slowly available P, Fe, Al and Mn phosphates in acid
soils and Ca, Mg phosphates in alkaline soils that are freshly
formed
Non labile P Very slowly avail P. precipitate of Fe, Al, Mn phosphates
aged and well crystallized Stable org. P compounds.
Phosphorus
Forms of P
SOURCE : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

84. Organic P:
 Inositol phosphate (2-9%): Phytin is the calcium
magnesium salt of phytic acid (Inositol phosphoric acid) with
an empirical formula (CH)6 (H2PO4)6. It is present in the soil
not exceeding 30-40 %
 Phospholipids are P containing fatty acids (1-2 %)
 Nucleic acids to the extent of 1-2 % of soil organic P.
Unidentified esters and phospho proteins.
SOURCE : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

86. Forms of soil potassium :
Potassium
Source : Manures and Fertilizers P.C Das

88. Sulphur forms
Forms of sulphur in soils :
1. Easily soluble sulphate : SO4
=
2. Adsorbed sulphate : containing large amounts of hydrous oxides of
Fe and Al. It can account for upto 1/3rd of total sulphur.
3. Sulfate coprecipiated with calcium carbonate
4. Sulfides : H2S
5. Elemental sulphur : S
 Organic form : It accounts for more than 90 %.
1. Mineralisation : takes place at or below C/S weight ratio of approximately
200 : 1.
2. Immobilisation :It takes place when ,C : S ratio of above 200 : 1 in the soil
Sulphur Transformations :
Source : Crop nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

90.  Mg is absorbed by plants from the soil solution as Mg+2.
On decomposition of primary minerals, Mg is released into soil
which may then be
1)Lost in the percolating water.
2) Absorbed by living organisms.
3) Adsorbed by surrounding clay colloids.
4) Reprecipitated as secondary mineral in arid regions
Forms of calcium in soils : Mineral particles : asbasic plagioclase like
anorthite, and basic rocks like basalt, gabbro, Calcium carbonate ,
Simple salt , Exchangeable calcium : Ca +2
Fate of released Mg :
Mg & Ca

91. Inorganic forms of micronutrients in soil
Element Major forms
Iron Oxides, sulphides and silicates.
Manganese Oxides, silicates and carbonates.
Zinc Sulphides, carbonates and silicates
Copper Sulphides, hydroxy carbonates and o Oxides
Boron Sulphides, oxides and molybdates.
Chlorine Chlorides
Cobalt Silicates
Organic forms of micronutrients in soil
organic matter is an important secondary source of some trace element.
They are held in complex combination with colloid complex.
SOURCE : Crop Nutrition Principles and Practices Rajendraprasad

92. Treatments OC
( % )
EC
(dSm-1)
Avail.N, P , K ( kg /ha )
N P205 K20
Initial 0.49 0.32 120.3 45.7 165.9
RDF (20-40-0 NPK kg ha-1) 0.52 0.21 130.75 43.52 174.45
FYM (2.5 t ha-1) 0.59 0.15 137.47 58.37 176.62
Vermicompost (1 t ha-1) 0.56 0.16 131.25 51.69 175.05
Vermicompost (2 t ha-1) 0.62 0.14 144.27 55.48 179.09
Poultry manure (1 t ha-1) 0.55 0.17 135.17 52.57 174.10
Poultry manure (2 t ha-1) 0.63 0.17 140.27 54.33 180.65
Neem cake (500 kg ha-1) 0.56 0.16 131.16 52.23 168.62
Castor cake (500 kg ha-1) 0.58 0.17 131.32 51.43 167.30
S.Em ± 0.02 0.01 4.10 1.57 4.40
C.D. at 5% 0.06 0.03 12.0 4.58 12.8
Table 36.Nutrient dynamics and soil chemical properties as influenced by
different organic treatments ( after harvest of cowpea )
Sandy clay loam, Anand , Gujarath Joshi et al., ( 2016)

93. Treatments Green pod
( kg /ha )
Stover yield
( kg /ha )
Net returns
( Rs /ha )
B: C
Control 4525 5297 66809 2.58
RDF (20-40-0 NPK kg ha-1) 6738 6860 109440 3.81
FYM (2.5 t ha-1) 5877 6202 92591 3.30
Vermicompost (1 t ha-1) 5511 5762 68222 2.21
Vermicompost (2 t ha-1) 6265 6748 93214 2.63
Poultry manure (1 t ha-1) 5538 5462 86809 3.25
Poultry manure (2 t ha-1) 5881 5708 93450 3.46
Neem cake (500 kg ha-1) 5120 5555 75008 2.49
Castor cake (500 kg ha-1) 5608 5419 81120 2.40
Table 37.Effect of organic manures on yield and economics of cowpea
sandy clay loam,Anand , Gujarath Joshi et al., ( 2016)

94. Table 38. Dynamics of soil nutrients ,yield under organically grown rainfed
pearl millet in vertisol
Treatments Organic C
( g /kg )
@ harvest
Avail.N
( kg/ha)
Avail. P
( kg /ha )
Avail K
( kg /ha )
Initial 6.1 186.12 16.90 352.46
Control 6.16 190.45 17.61 348.21
2.5 t /ha FYM 6.50 210.88 19.67 388.15
5 t /ha FYM 6.46 226.37 19.94 397.18
7.5 t /ha FYM 6.70 243.28 20.72 435.40
1 t /ha Vermicompost 6.36 194.85 18.42 364.38
2 t /ha Vermicompost 6.40 205.92 18.92 372.27
3 t /ha Vermicompost 6.50 209.63 19.19 387.12
2.5 t /ha FYM + 1 t /ha Vermicompost 6.60 237.83 20.43 421.48
CD ( P = 0.05 ) 0.19 2.51 0.22 1.57
Clay , Dhule , Maharastra Thakare et al .,( 2015 )

95. Table 39.Dynamics of soil nutrients ,yield under organically grown rainfed
pearl millet in vertisol
Treatments Grain yield
( q / ha )
Fodder yield
( q /ha )
B : C
ratio
Control 20.37 53.58 1.89
2.5 t /ha FYM 21.68 56.59 1.80
5 t /ha FYM 22.59 62.34 1.81
7.5 t /ha FYM 28.02 64.75 2.00
1 t /ha Vermicompost 20.94 60.31 1.82
2 t /ha Vermicompost 21.26 60.86 1.85
3 t /ha Vermicompost 24.99 62.99 1.70
2.5 t /ha FYM + 1 t /ha Vermicompost 27.21 63.30 2.09
SEm 1.38 0.78
CD ( P = 0.05 ) 4.18 2.37
Clay , Dhule , Maharastra Thakare et al .,( 2015 )

96. Treatments Without earthworms(mg/kg) With earthworms(mg/kg)
NO2
- N03
- NH4
+ PO4
-2 NO2
- N03
- NH4
+ PO4
-2
Soil alone
( 60.9 g )
0.499 17.51 0.416 1.0847 2.4218 19.54
3
5.27 3.623
Compost alone
( 41.57 g )
NA NA 1.405 23.713
3
0.9123 39.83 6.905 23.85
5
Soil + Compost @
60 :40
(60.9 g +20.78 g )
0.4969 71.755 1.0991 9.723 6.327 4.734 4.668 12.116
Soil + Compost @
80 : 20
(60.9 g +41.57g )
0.3235 102.49
2
1.506 11.85 0.816 28.01
2
0.728 7.843
Table 40.Nutrients dynamics in soil as affected by earthworms
and compost
Sandy loam , Narwich,U.k Srinithi et al ., ( 2010 )

97.  All these studies clearly reveals that application of organic
manures increases the availability of nutrients, nutrient uptake ,
soil physical , chemical and biological properties ,crop yields.
 Application of fertilizer may be good in the short-term for getting
maximum yield and net income to the farmers; but, in the long
run, to ensure sustainable crop production with good fruit quality,
and to maintain soil fertility and health use of organic sources for
supply of nutrients is essential.
 some reviews clearly suggest that integrating inorganic, organic
and bio-fertilizers are essential in realizing the higher growth,
yield and yield attributes of crops and for maintaining the soil
health by practicing intregrated manner (INM ) rather than sole
application of chemical fertilizers, which is doing by the most
farmers
Conclusion