Content uploaded by Pradeep Gopakkali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pradeep Gopakkali on Apr 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
627
Environment & Ecology 32 (2A) : 627—630, April—June 2014
Website : environmentandecology.com ISSN 0970-0420
Effect of Organic Production Practices on Yield and Soil Health
of Irrigated Maize (Zea mays L.) as Influenced by Various
Levels of FYM and Cattle Urine Application
Veeresha, Sharanappa, Pradeep Gopakkali
Received 20 December 2013 ; Accepted 22 January 2014 ; Published online 28 January 2014
Abstract An experiment was conducted during
kharif 2009 in sandy clay loam soil to study the yield
and soil health of irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) as
influenced by various levels of FYM and cattle urine
application. The investigation consisted of ten treat-
ments replicated thrice. Among the treatments appli-
cation of FYM 12.5 t/ha + cattle urine at 34300 l/ha
recorded significantly more number of seeds per cob
seeds per cob (423.5), test weight (24.5 g), number of
rows per cob (14.9), Grain yield (49.0 q/ha), Stover
yield (8.5 t/ha), soil organic carbon (0.58%), available
nitrogen (272.4 kg/ha), phosphorus (23.5 kg/ha), po-
tassium (199.9 kg/ha), soil microbial population viz.,
bacteria (47.0 × 10
5
cfu / g), fungi (34.6 × 10
4
cfu /g)
and actinomycetes (40.0 × 10
3
cfu / g) as compared to
control.
Keywords Grain yield, Test weight, Nitrogen, Bacte-
ria, Actinomycetes.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the important staple
Veeresha, Sharanappa, P. Gopakkali
1
*
1
*Senior Research Fellow
AICRP on Agrometeorology, North Block, UAS, GKVK,
Bangalore 560065, India
e-mail : g.pradeep76@gmail.com
*Correspondence
food crops of the world and ranks next only to wheat
and rice. It is considered as an economically impor-
tant cereal crop, major ingredient for food, feed and
other products. It is third most important cereal crop
in India occupying about 8.12 million ha producing
19.77 mt with an average productivity of 2.4 tones/ ha
during 2007/08 (1). Forty five per cent of the total
maize, produced in India is being used as human food
and 52 percent goes to feed industry (2). In India,
greater increase in food and feed production is ex-
pected to come from coarse cereals, primarily maize,
which have a comparative advantage in assured rain-
fall areas. The future of maize is now brighter than in
the past. Today, increasing the maize productivity,
production and utilization are not a matter of choice
but a necessity due to high population pressure.
Green revolution in India witnessed phenomenal
increase in fertilizer consumption and during 2000-01
it was 17.6 million tones NPK (3). India is not in a
position to spend huge foreign exchange towards
import of fertilizers. The present hike in the price of
chemical fertilizers has compelled the Indian farmers
to resort to imbalanced nutrition of crops and thus
reduction in crop yields. At this critical juncture there
is an urgent need to optimize nutrient recycling to
sustain crop production without affecting soil health
and protection of environment from pollution (4).
Keeping in this view the prospects, of organic farm-
ing has gained popularity in recent years not only in
India but also in Australia, USA, UK, Germany, South
Africa, China, Japan and other Asian countries like
Srilanka and Pakistan. Globally, organic agriculture is
628
practiced in over 24 million ha during 2005 (5). Gen-
eral acceptance of organic farming is not only due to
greater demand for pollution free food but also due to
natural advantage of organic farming in supporting
the sustainability in agriculture. In this aspect no sys-
tematic studies carried out to find out response of
irrigated maize to varying FYM and cattle urine.
Therefore, an attempt has been made to study the
effect of FYM and cattle urine on yield and soil health
of irrigated maize, in order to achieve sustainability in
production.
Materials and Methods
An experiment was conducted during kharif 2009 at
Agricultural Research Station, Kathalagere,
Davanagere Dist, Karnataka. The soil of the experi-
mental site was sandy loam clay with slightly acidic
in pH (5.5), medium in organic carbon (0.50%), me-
dium in available nitrogen (284.6 kg/ha), available
phosphorus (23.3 kg/ha), available potassium (198.5
kg/ha) and initial soil microbial population viz., bacte-
ria (35.0 × 10
5
cfu/g), fungi (12.0 × 10
4
cfu/g) and acti-
nomycetes (25.0 × 10
3
cfu/g). The experiment was laid
out in randomized complete block design with ten
treatments was replicated thrice. Recommended dose
of fertilizer (150 : 75 : 50 kg N, P
2
O
5
and K
2
O/ha, re-
spectively) was applied through chemical fertilizers.
N was applied in two split doses viz., 50 per cent as
basal and 50 per cent was top dressed on 30th day
after sowing with full dose of P and K as basal. The
fertilizer application was done in treatment (T
10
). The
manurial treatment, FYM was applied as basal dose
and cattle urine was applied in two splits. The nutri-
ent composition of FYM and cattle urine is given in
the Table 1. The seed of hybrid maize DEKALB-DK
984 was used for this experiment. The land was
ploughed once with mould board plough, soil was
brought to fine tilth by crushing the clods and har-
rowing two times, later the land was leveled with a
wooden plank. Plots were laid out by forming small
section bunds and individual plots were leveled. The
seeds were sown in field at a Shallow furrow of 5 cm
deep with 60 cm row spacing were opened with marker
and two seeds were dibbled at 30 cm apart in the
furrows. A week after emergence, seedlings were
thinned to maintain one healthy seedlings per spot.
Table 1. Nutrient composition of FYM and cattle arine.
FYM : Farm yard manure.
Parameters FYM Cattle urine
pH 8.1 7.6
EC (dsm
–1
) 0.16 45.4
OC (%) 10.71 2.5
N (%) 0.54 0.51
P (%) 0.29 0.02
K (%) 0.40 0.61
Table 2. Yield and yield parameters of maize as influences by various levels of FYM and cattle urine application.
Num-
ber
of
Number Test rows Grain Stover
of seeds weight per yield yield
Treatments per cob (g) cob (q/ha
–1
) (t ha
–1
)
T
1
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 24500 l ha
–1
375.4 21.8 12.9 23.2 6.0
T
2
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 29400 l ha
–1
378.5 22.0 13.2 25.2 6.2
T
3
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 34300 l ha
–1
382.4 22.1 13.5 27.7 6.5
T
4
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 24500 l ha
–1
395.3 22.2 13.9 32.3 7.2
T
5
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 29400 l ha
–1
398.3 22.3 14.1 33.5 7.4
T
6
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 34300 l ha
–1
402.0 22.7 14.3 34.5 7.7
T
7
: FYM 12.5 ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 24500 l ha
–1
410.4 23.0 14.5 39.3 7.9
T
8
: FYM 12.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 29400 l ha
–1
417.4 23.9 14.8 45.7 8.3
T
9
: FYM 12.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at 34300 l ha
–1
423.5 24.5 14.9 49.7 8.5
T
10
: FYM 10 t ha
-1
+ 150 : 75 : 50 kg NPK ha
–1
412.2 23.6 14.6 43.7 8.2
SEm± 4.2 0.9 0.1 3.4 2.1
CD at 5% 12.8 NS 0.4 10.2 6.4
629
Table 3. Soil quality parameters of maize as influences by various levels of FYM and cattle urine application. FYM : Farmyard
manure, NS : Non-significant, cfu : Colony forming unit.
Soil Microbial population
Soil available nutrients (cfu / g)
Orga-
nic Acti-
car- Nitro- P
2
O
5
K
2
O Bacte- nomy-
bon gen (kg/ (kg/ ria Fungi cetes
Treatments (%) (kg/ha) ha) ha) (×10
5
) (×10
4
) (×10
3
)
Initial soil status 0.50 268.5 22.7 198.5 35.0 12.0 25.0
T
1
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
24500 l ha
–1
0.52 289.7 30.6 210.5 37.0 18.5 28.3
T
2
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
29400 l ha
–1
0.52 288.4 29.1 208.6 38.6 21.3 29.6
T
3
: FYM 7.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
34300 l ha
–1
0.53 287.3 28.5 206.1 39.0 22.2 31.0
T
4
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
24500 l ha
–1
0.54 284.6 27.1 205.6 41.0 25.3 33.0
T
5
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
29400 l ha
–1
0.55 283.2 27.0 203.4 42.3 28.1 33.6
T
6
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine at
34300 l ha
–1
0.55 281.3 24.5 202.6 42.3 28.9 35.0
T
7
: FYM 12.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine
at 24500 l ha
–1
0.56 274.2 23.3 202.3 44.6 31.6 35.5
T
8
: FYM 12.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine
at 29400 l ha
–1
0.57 273.5 23.1 201.1 46.6 32.3 37.0
T
9
: FYM 12.5 t ha
–1
+ cattle urine
at 34300 l ha
–1
0.58 272.4 23.5 199.9 47.0 34.6 40.0
T
10
: FYM 10 t ha
–1
+ 150 : 75 : 50
kg NPK ha
–1
0.57 255.6 21.3 198.6 35.0 12.0 25.0
SEm± 0.03 2.98 2.60 3.03 0.8 1.0 2.8
CD at 5% NS 8.93 7.79 9.08 2.4 3.1 8.4
Final thinning was attended two weeks after the emer-
gence to maintain only one healthy seedling per hill.
The observation on yield parameters and soil quality
parameters were recorded and analyzed by the statis-
tical method adapted by Gomez and Gomez (6).
Results and Discussion
The result obtained from the present investigation is
presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Effect of FYM and cattle urine
application on yield and yield
parameters of maize
The results of the investigation showed that various
levels of FYM and cattle urine significantly influenced
the grain yield of maize. Application of FYM 12.5 t/ha
+ cattle urine at 34300 l/ha was found to be superior in
giving maximum grain yield (49.0 q/ha) and stover
yield (8.5 t/ha). However, it was on par with FYM 12.5
t/ha and cattle urine at 29400 l/ha and FYM at 10 t/ha
and 150 : 75 : 50 kg NPK / ha. The grain yield is di-
rectly influenced by cob weight, test weight, number
of grains per cob and grain weight per cob (Table 2).
The increase in grain yield and Stover yield may be
due to better translocation of photosynthate from
source to sink.
Application of FYM 12.5 t/ha + cattle urine at
34300 l/ha produces significantly higher number of
seeds per cob (423.5), test weight (24.5 g), number of
rows per cob (14.9), but it was on par with FYM 12.5 t/
ha and cattle urine at 29400 l/ha and FYM at 10 t/ha
and 150 : 75 : 50 kg NPK / ha (Table 2). The higher
grain and stover yield with higher levels of organic
manures application than other treatments can be at-
630
tributed to better expression of yield components,
which might be due to higher rate of nutrients release
with FYM and cattle urine i.e. 175 kg N equivalent
was used which resulted in superior components.
The above reasons were also supported by the pres-
ence of higher NPK content in shoot and grain due
to increased uptake of the nutrients released during
early growth stages which resulted in obtaining
higher economic yield as compared to control. These
results are in accordance with those obtained by Jha
et al. (7), Srinivasan (8) and Patil et al. (9) and Reddy
et al. (10).
Effect of FYM and cattle
urine application on
soil health
Application of FYM 12.5 t/ha + cattle urine at 34300 l/
ha recorded higher soil organic carbon (0.58%), avail-
able nitrogen (272.4 kg/ha), phosphorus (23.5 kg/ha),
potassium (199.9 kg/ha) and soil microbial popula-
tion viz., bacteria (47.0 × 10
5
cfu / g), fungi (34.6 × 10
4
cfu / g) and actinomycetes (40.0 × 10
3
cfu / g) as com-
pared to control. The soil pH was increased due to
application of cattle urine and FYM which might have
improved activity of beneficial micro-organisms. Ap-
plication of higher levels of organic manures might
have improved the activity of beneficial micro-organ-
isms due to increase in the fast decomposing organic
matter fraction as a consequence these was higher
availability of NPK in soil. These results are in accor-
dance with Naveen Kumar (11). Microbial popula-
tion in soil decreased with the application of recom-
mended dose of fertilizer (150 : 75 : 75 kg N : P
2
O
5
: K
2
O
ha
–1
) along with 25 tonnes of FYM / ha. This might be
due to the lower availability of organic matter and
unfavorable condition due to various kinds of losses
of applied nutrients viz., volatilization, leaching, fixa-
tion and through flood of water (12) and the less or-
References
1. Anonymous (2009) Single cross hybrid maize produc-
tion technology, 2009. Publ Directorate of Maize
Res, ICAR, New Delhi.
2. Singh NN, Pervez H (2002) ZAIDI. Changes in pri-
orities of maize research in India and relation to
CIMMYT regional activities. Maize Res in India, pp
561—570.
3. Anonymous (2003) Annual report. AICRP on dry
land agriculture, univ Agric Sci Bangalore 2003, pp
18—20.
4. Lee KE (1992) Earthworms, their ecology and rela-
tionship with soils and land use. Academic Press, Syd-
ney, pp 411.
5. Bhattacharya P, Chakraborty G (2005) Current status
of organic farming in India and other countries. Ind
J Fert 1 : 111—123.
6. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1983) Statistical procedure
for agricultural research. Wiley-Int Sci Publ New
York, UAS.
7. Jha SK, Tripathi RS, Malaiya S (2004) Influence of
integrated nutrient management practices on growth
and yield of scented rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ann Agric
Res New Series 25 : 159—161.
8. Srinivasan K (1992) Effect of amendment and zinc
level on the crop growth and yield of maize. Ind J
Agron 37 : 246—249.
9. Patil PN, Chalwade PB, Solanka AS, Kulkarni VK
(2003) Effect of fly ash and FYM on physico-che-
mical properties of Vertisols. J Soils and Crops 13 :
59—64.
10. Reddy Ramu Y, Reddy DS (2007) Effect of micronu-
trient management on growth, yield, quality and eco-
nomics of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Res
33 : 46—49.
11. Naveen Kumar AT (2009) Effect of FYM and bio
digested liquid manure on growth and yield of gro-
undnut under rainfed condition. MSc (Ag) thesis Univ
Agric Sci Bengaluru.
12. Balaji SK (1994) Effect of vermicompost on growth
and flower yield of China aster (Callistephus chinen-
sis). MSc (Ag) thesis. Univ Agric Sci, Dharwad.
13. Sharma M, Dixit BK (1987) Effect of nutrient app-
lication on rainfed soybean. J Ind Soc Soil Sci 35 :
452—455.
ganic matter build up in the soil which resulted in
lesser microbial activity (13).
