Manoj Agrawal NAU NAVSARI INM IN TOMATO

Welcome To: 

Welcome To Seminar Series 2011-12 1

Integrated Nutrient Management in Tomato: 

Integrated Nutrient Management in Tomato Major Guide Dr. S. N. Saravaiya Associate Prof. Dept. of Vegetable Science ASPEE College of Horticulture and Forestry, N.A.U., Navsari Minor Guide Dr. Y. N. Tandel Assistant Prof. Dept. of Fruit Science ASPEE College of Horticulture and Forestry, N.A.U., Navsari 2 Speaker Mr. Manoj Agrawal M.Sc. Horti. (Veg. Sci.)

Outline of Presentation: 

Outline of Presentation Present Scenario of Vegetables What is INM? Components of INM Key objectives of INM Description of Tomato Types of Tomato Plant based on Growth Habit Forms of Tomato Reviews of Research Work Inference 3

Present Scenario of Vegetable: 

Present Scenario of Vegetable 4

Major Vegetable Producing Countries of world: 

Major Vegetable Producing Countries of world Country Share % China 48 India 13 Turkey 3 USA 3 Italy, Egypt, Russia 2 Japan, Spain, Iran, Korea 1 5

Slide 6: 

In India Year Vegetables’ Area (million ha) Production (million tones) Productivity (MT/ha ) 2007-08 7.84 128.44 16.4 2008-09 7.98 129.07 16.2 2009-10 7.98 133.73 16.7 6 Year Tomato Area (million ha ) % share in total vegetable area Production (million tones) % share in total vegetable production Productivity (MT/ha) 2007-08 0.56 7.2 10.30 8.0 18.2 2008-09 0.59 7.5 11.14 8.6 18.6 2009-10 0.63 7.9 12.43 9.3 19.6 Source:- NHB, Database-2010

Slide 7: 

2009-10 I n Gujarat Area (ha) Production (tones) Productivity (t/ha) Vegetables 4.42 lakh 75 lakh 18 Tomato 38,802 978438 25.22 7

Production share of major vegetables in India (2009-10): 

Production share of major vegetables in India (2009-10) 8 Source:- NHB, Database-2010

% share of States in area of Vegetables (2009-10): 

% share of States in area of Vegetables (2009-10) 9 Source:- NHB, Database-2010

% Share of States in Vegetable Production (2009-10): 

% Share of States in Vegetable Production (2009-10) 10 Source:- NHB, Database-2010

Per capita requirement of Vegetables: 

Per capita requirement of Vegetables 11

Slide 12: 

12 India Gujarat

What is INM…???: 

What is INM…??? 13

Slide 14: 

Combination or combine use of two or more sources of plant nutrients… 14

Components of INM: 

Components of INM 15

Slide 16: 

Fertilizers Manures including FYM, compost & bulky manures Biofertilizers Crop residues and green manuring 16

Slide 17: 

17 Different Sources of Plant Nutrients

The key Objectives of INM: 

The key Objectives of INM To maintain or enhance soil productivity. To improve the stock of plant nutrients in the soil. To improve the efficiency of plant nutrients. To improve physical and chemical properties of the soil. 18

Description of Tomato (No. 1 Processing Vegetable): 

Description of Tomato (No. 1 Processing Vegetable) 19

Slide 20: 

Botanical Name Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Other names Wolf apple, Vilayati Baingan Order Polemoniales Family Solanaceae Origin Peru and Mexico Ch. No. (2n) 24 Type of fruit Berry Cluster of flower Truss Seed contains 24% oil 20

Slide 21: 

Mode of Reproduction Self Pollinated Acid Citric and Malic Red Colour Lycopene Alkaloid Tomatine Toxic compound Saponine 1 st hy. cv. (India) Karnataka Hybrid (by IAHS from Bangalore) Transgenic Varieties Flavr Savr, Endless Summer, Rosato Photoperiodism Day Neutral Photosynthetically C 3 Processed Items Paste, Puree, Syrup, Sauce, Ketchup, Juice etc. 21

Types of Tomato plants based on Growth Habit: 

Types of Tomato plants based on Growth Habit 22

Slide 23: 

Determinate 23

Slide 24: 

Indeterminate 24

Forms of Tomato: 

Forms of Tomato 25

Slide 26: 

Common tomato - Lycopersicon esculentum var. commune Cherry tomato - Lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiformae Pear shaped tomato - Lycopersicon esculentum var. pyriformae Potato leaved tomato - Lycopersicon esculentum var. grandifolium Erect and upright tomato - Lycopersicon esculentum var. validum 26

Reviews of Research Work: 

Reviews of Research Work 27

Table 1: Effect of Azotobacter inoculation on tomato. : 

Table 1: Effect of Azotobacter inoculation on tomato. Treat Plant spread (cm 2 ) at 60 days No. of leaves at 60 days Leaf area (cm 2 ) at 60 days Wt. of marketable fruits/plant (kg) Yield (t/ha) TSS ( 0 Brix) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) 60 kg N/ha 37.24 43.27 920.17 2.20 41.52 8.03 29.99 30 kg N/ha 34.69 34.69 879.92 1.74 32.00 7.33 26.31 30 kg N/ha+ Azotobacter root dip 40.81 40.81 930.94 2.23 48.09 8.46 32.91 S.Em. ± 0.114 0.90 2.12 0.02 0.651 0.072 0.335 C.D. at 5% 0.448 3.54 3.33 0.08 2.58 0.28 1.317 28 UAS, Dharwar (Karnataka) Kumarswamy and Madalageri (1990)

Slide 29: 

Table 2 : Growth, days to flowering and fruit set percentage as influenced by organic manures and their combination with FYM and NPK fertilizers in tomato. Treatments No. of Primary branches/plant Dry matter (g/plant) Days to 50% flowering % fruit set T 1 4.33 85.79 26.36 56.05 T 2 3.66 88.35 29.00 47.54 T 3 4.33 83.22 26.06 54.69 T 4 4.66 90.16 23.43 60.32 T 5 3.00 91.59 25.06 47.42 T 6 2.66 78.22 28.20 42.11 T 7 2.33 72.61 27.60 46.89 T 8 3.66 95.65 30.80 49.43 T 9 5.00 106.34 23.60 49.54 T 10 6.00 113.34 21.50 62.63 T 11 5.33 103.20 25.76 46.87 T 12 4.00 93.21 29.36 45.91 T 13 3.33 73.23 25.96 39.48 S.Em. ± 0.256 2.263 0.995 0.976 C.D. (P=0.05) 0.747 6.606 2.907 2.324 Agri. College, Bapatla (AP) Renuka and Sankar (2001) 29 T 10 FYM + Biogas slurry

Slide 30: 

Treatments Details T 1 FYM T 2 NPK T 3 Vermicompost T 4 Biogas slurry T 5 Neem Cake T 6 Azospirillum T 7 Phosphobacteria T 8 FYM + NPK T 9 FYM + Vermicompost T 10 FYM + Biogas slurry T 11 FYM + Neem Cake T 12 FYM + Azospirillum T 13 FYM + Phosphobacteria 30

Table 3: Fruit volume, number of fruits per plant, yield and post experimental soil characters as influenced by organic manures and their combination with FYM and NPK fertilizers in tomato. : 

Table 3: Fruit volume, number of fruits per plant, yield and post experimental soil characters as influenced by organic manures and their combination with FYM and NPK fertilizers in tomato. Treatments Fruit volume (cc) No. of fruits per plant Yield per ha. (tones) pH EC (dSm -1 ) Bd (g cc -1 ) T 1 13.66 12.32 29.03 8.06 0.29 1.26 T 2 10.66 12.47 18.44 8.10 0.41 1.46 T 3 25.66 14.63 25.59 7.96 0.22 1.23 T 4 26.33 17.17 33.59 7.43 0.18 1.18 T 5 14.66 15.62 27.92 7.53 0.25 1.35 T 6 14.33 13.63 38.62 8.06 0.27 1.22 T 7 13.66 10.72 13.07 8.26 0.37 1.50 T 8 15.00 16.82 32.37 7.93 0.32 1.47 T 9 27.33 15.00 35.81 8.00 0.23 1.21 T 10 30.33 17.81 47.66 7.90 0.17 1.24 T 11 19.33 18.64 38.92 7.83 0.15 1.29 T 12 17.66 14.00 33.74 8.03 0.21 1.21 T 13 16.66 14.81 23.62 8.16 0.26 1.40 S.Em.± 0.178 1.094 3.754 0.073 0.0104 0.027 C.D. (P=0.05) 3.104 3.194 10.95 0.213 0.03 0.078 31 Agri. College, Bapatla (AP) Renuka and Sankar (2001) T 10 FYM + Biogas slurry

Table 4: Effect of interaction between Azotobacter and nitrogen levels on fruit yield of tomato cv. “Yashwant”.: 

Table 4: Effect of interaction between Azotobacter and nitrogen levels on fruit yield of tomato cv. “ Yashwant ”. Treatment combination Fruit Yield (q/ha) 1995 1996 No Biofertilizer + 0 kg N 216.0 194.4 No Biofertilizer + 50 kg N 220.7 220.7 No Biofertilizer + 75 kg N 284.0 237.7 No Biofertilizer + 100 kg N 288.6 254.6 Azotobacter M 4 + 0 kg N 253.1 229.9 Azotobacter M 4 + 50 kg N 262.3 239.2 Azotobacter M 4 + 75 kg N 277.8 251.5 Azotobacter M 4 + 100 kg N 302.5 273.1 Natrin + 0 kg N 219.1 234.6 Natrin + 50 kg N 280.9 260.8 Natrin + 75 kg N 293.2 273.1 Natrin + 100 kg N 327.2 288.6 C.D. at 5% 8.9 8.3 32 DYSPUHF, Solan (H.P.) Sharma and Thakur (2001)

Table 5: Effect of bio-inoculants at different levels of nitrogen on growth and yield of Tomato cv. “Pusa Ruby”.: 

Table 5: Effect of bio-inoculants at different levels of nitrogen on growth and yield of Tomato cv. “Pusa Ruby”. Treatments Height of plant (cm) No. of branches Diameter of fruit (cm) No. of fruit/plant Yield (q/ha) 99-2000 2000-01 99-2000 2000-01 99-2000 2000-01 99-2000 2000-01 99-2000 2000-01 N 1 B 0 63.60 65.21 9.11 8.10 4.82 4.94 18.05 17.10 201.46 195.72 N 2 B 0 72.35 70.82 10.86 9.50 5.40 5.34 23.58 21.20 230.65 221.06 N 3 B 0 75.24 73.99 11.84 10.78 5.75 5.79 28.23 25.60 244.57 240.09 N 4 B 0 80.12 79.55 12.90 12.10 6.63 6.19 32.60 30.35 261.50 258.20 N 1 B 1 70.64 69.07 10.25 9.39 4.99 5.10 21.69 20.30 215.09 213.25 N 2 B 1 75.86 75.20 11.12 10.67 5.85 5.53 27.02 24.50 257.91 232.96 N 3 B 1 81.61 79.31 12.81 11.91 6.69 5.95 31.85 29.67 274.54 256.26 N 4 B 1 83.12 81.15 13.20 12.86 6.75 6.24 33.26 32.35 279.75 264.65 N 1 B 2 72.86 70.08 10.95 9.48 5.32 5.22 21.88 21.42 219.27 215.52 N 2 B 2 76.26 74.70 12.32 10.74 6.10 5.67 27.95 25.64 260.06 235.51 N 3 B 2 82.53 79.98 12.72 11.96 6.65 6.14 32.62 29.98 280.61 258.32 N 4 B 2 84.36 82.74 13.17 12.91 6.78 6.45 34.38 32.85 284.38 265.81 S.Em . ± 0.93 1.04 0.32 0.43 0.11 0.13 1.03 1.02 4.04 4.51 C.D. 5% 2.72 3.06 0.95 1.28 0.32 0.39 3.02 2.98 11.86 13.22 33 JNKVV, Jabalpur (M.P.) Sengupta et al. (2002) N4B2 Azospirillum + 120 kg N/ha N4B1 Azotobacter + 120 kg N/ha

Treatment details: 

Treatment details 34 Biofertilizers: B 0 = No Biofertilizer B 1 = Azotobacter B 2 = Azospirillum Nitrogen levels (kg/ha): N 1 = 0 N 2 = 40 N 3 = 80 N 4 = 120

Table 6: Effects of INM treatments on growth and yield parameters of tomato.: 

Table 6: Effects of INM treatments on growth and yield parameters of tomato . Treatments Plant height (cm) No. of primary branches/plant No. of fruit/plant Wt. of fruit / plant (kg) Fruit size (cm) 1999 - 2000 2000-2001 1999 - 2000 2000 - 2001 1999-2000 2000-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001 B 0 N 0 78.12 73.93 13.93 13.73 19.91 19.27 2.2 2.2 17.54 13.71 B 0 N 1 85.00 81.03 16.66 15.76 27.20 26.57 2.9 2.8 16.91 21.81 B 0 N 2 94.04 90.97 17.93 17.36 32.23 30.82 3.2 3.0 18.23 15.58 B 1 N 0 82.94 80.25 15.01 14.52 21.98 21.02 2.5 2.3 17.29 14.06 B 1 N 1 94.31 88.14 17.77 17.51 29.59 28.63 3.5 3.4 17.29 19.20 B 1 N 2 103.85 99.01 20.18 19.08 37.83 36.95 4.1 4.0 22.00 21.60 B 2 N 0 83.62 79.72 15.75 14.89 22.82 22.29 2.5 2.4 16.89 18.51 B 2 N 1 93.30 90.27 18.27 17.67 29.46 28.18 3.4 3.1 17.68 14.93 B 2 N 2 100.87 94.27 18.55 18.28 36.75 35.56 4.0 3.9 18.80 21.06 C.D. 5% NS NS 0.86 NS 1.35 1.22 0.14 0.15 0.002 0.001 35 IARI, New Delhi Gajbhiye et al. (2003) B 1 N 2 - Azotobacter + 150 kg N + 60 kg P + 60 kg K

Treatment details: 

Treatment details 36 Biofertilizers: B 0 = No Biofertilizer B 1 = Azotobacter B 2 = Phosphobacteria Chemical fertilizers (kg/ha): N 0 = Control N 1 =75 kg N + 30 kg P + 60 kg K N 2 =150 kg N + 60 kg P + 60 kg K

Table 7: Effect of INM components on the performance of tomato cv. “CO 3” (Mean data for 2 years). : 

Table 7: Effect of INM components on the performance of tomato cv. “CO 3” (Mean data for 2 years). Treatments Plant Height (cm) No. of Branches/ plant No. of Fruit /plant Fruit weight (g) TSS ( 0 Brix) Yield t/ha BCR T 1 63.2 7.72 31 32.57 4.37 41.55 3.56 T 2 72.6 8.8 33.7 35.63 4.45 43.85 3.76 T 3 70.4 8.59 32.3 34.23 4.4 41.53 3.51 T 4 59.2 7.95 27.1 30.13 4.36 35.19 3.02 T 5 63.9 7.02 25.8 28.63 4.41 31.6 2.67 T 6 64.1 7.25 26.8 28.67 4.35 31.9 2.73 T 7 70.5 7.43 27.8 30.1 4.41 37.08 3.13 T 8 64.2 7.17 26 29.43 4.34 31.49 2.7 T 9 65.8 7.07 26.9 29.37 4.41 33.93 2.83 SEd 1.47 0.19 0.62 0.53 0.24 0.57 - CD (5%) 3.12 0.4 1.32 1.11 NS 1.21 - 37 TNAU, Coimbatore Premsekhar and Rajashree (2009) T2 Azospirillum + 75% N + 100% PK

Slide 38: 

Treatments Details T1 Recommended NPK T2 Azospirillum + 75% N + 100% PK T3 Azospirillum + Recommended NPK T4 Azotobacter + 75% N + 100% PK T5 Azotobacter + Recommended NPK T6 PSB +75% P+100% NK T7 PSB + Recommended NPK T8 VAM+75% P+ 100% NK T9 VAM+ Recommended NPK 38

Slide 39: 

Treatment Days to first flowering Av. Fruit weight (g) No. of fruits per plant Yield (q/ha) TSS ( 0 B) N ( @ 100 kg/ha ) 34.0 47 28 385 4.82 P ( @ 75 kg/ha ) 37.0 49 25 364 4.88 K ( @55 kg/ha ) 35.5 47 25 350 4.92 Az * ( @ 113 kg ha -1 ) 37.0 50 25 371 4.72 PSB* ( @ 113 kg ha -1 ) 37.0 48 35 512 4.78 N+P 36.0 59 27 487 5.98 N+K 37.0 63 23 432 6.00 N+Az 37.5 56 25 422 6.02 N+PSB 35.0 61 24 433 5.92 P+K 36.0 56 27 448 5.88 P+Az 38.0 55 26 428 5.80 P+PSB 38.0 58 21 360 5.48 K+Az 37.0 49 32 467 5.40 K+PSB 36.0 47 29 405 5.42 Az+PSB 37.0 50 28 420 5.82 N+P+K 34.0 61 34 632 5.82 N+P+K+Az 32.7 57 39 662 5.98 N+P+K+PSB 32.0 62 38 717 6.02 N+P+K+Az+PSB 36.0 64 39 762 6.18 Control 33.2 48 23 339 4.42 C.D. at 5% 0.96 14.85 7.02 108 0.30 39 Table 8: Effect of inorganic and biofertilizers on yield and horticultural traits in tomato hybrid “ Naveen 2000”. DYSPUHF, Solan (HP) Shukla et al. (2009) * Az = Azotobacter, PSB= Phosphate solublizing bacteria

Table 9 : Fruit characters of tomato (hybrid cv. RTH-2) influenced by different treatments of INM.: 

Table 9 : Fruit characters of tomato (hybrid cv. RTH-2) influenced by different treatments of INM. Treatments Pericarp thickness (cm) TSS ( 0 Brix) Acidity (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) Lycopene content (mg/100g) T 1 0.83 4.63 0.53 45.63 3.78 T 2 0.73 4.10 0.38 30.16 4.68 T 3 0.92 4.23 0.47 26.29 3.54 T 4 0.87 4.40 0.58 27.07 3.36 T 5 0.83 4.10 0.51 27.84 4.26 T 6 0.87 4.66 0.60 31.71 4.36 T 7 0.77 4.20 0.45 27.07 3.48 T 8 0.83 4.23 0.42 22.43 3.82 T 9 0.70 4.33 0.51 25.52 3.60 T 10 0.80 4.53 0.40 34.80 3.86 T 11 0.87 4.23 0.34 31.71 3.30 S.Em.± 0.034 0.035 0.019 0.617 0.041 C.D. 5% 0.100 0.107 0.056 1.820 0.122 40 MPKV, Rahuri (MH) Gosavi et al. (2010)

Slide 41: 

Treatments Details T 1 FYM(75%N)+Cotton seed cake (25%N)+ Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 2 FYM(75%N) + Poultry manure (25%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 3 FYM(50%N) + Cotton seed cake (50%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 4 FYM(50%N) + Poultry manure (50%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 5 FYM(25%N)+Cotton seed cake (75%N)+ Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 6 FYM(25%N)+Poultry manure (75%N)+ Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash + Package T 7 Cotton seed cake (75%N)+Poultry manure (25%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash +Package T 8 Cotton seed cake (50%N)+Poultry manure (50%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash +Package T 9 Cotton seed cake (25%N)+Poultry manure (75%N) + Vermiphos + Sulphate of Potash +Package T 10 Inorganic fertilizers (N:P:K, 300:150:150 kg/ha ) T 11 Absolute control 41

Table 10: Combined mean performance of different characters for tomato cv. “Azad T-6” through biofertilizer.: 

Table 10: Combined mean performance of different characters for tomato cv. “Azad T-6” through biofertilizer. Treatments Mean performance of different character Plant height (cm) No. of branches /plant Days taken to flowering Days taken for maturity Fruit yield/plot (kg) No. of marketable fruits/plant T 0 45.30 12.50 56.93 38.26 6.40 60.56 T 1 50.40 14.39 58.27 40.30 6.16 62.00 T 2 50.82 14.38 59.26 40.35 6.23 66.76 T 3 51.39 16.36 59.21 39.33 6.30 66.33 T 4 50.32 14.16 60.26 39.20 7.20 67.56 T 5 52.79 14.68 60.63 41.00 7.33 67.70 T 6 53.13 16.16 61.90 40.43 7.70 70.58 T 7 57.33 20.25 61.66 41.20 8.16 89.33 T 8 58.10 21.21 63.26 43.20 7.06 83.60 T 9 58.54 21.36 62.66 42.33 7.13 83.56 C.D . at 5% 1.49 1.27 0.68 1.25 0.75 2.27 42 BBAU, Lucknow (U.P.) Meena et al. (2010) T 7 - N (100%) P,K + Azospirillum (20 ml) T 9 - N (50%) P,K + Azospirillum (40 ml)

Slide 43: 

Treatments Details T 0 Control T 1 N (100%) P,K + PSB (20 ml) T 2 N (75%) P,K + PSB (30 ml) T 3 N (50%) P,K + PSB (40 ml) T 4 N (100%) P,K + Azotobacter (20 ml) T 5 N (75%) P,K + Azotobacter (30 ml) T 6 N (50%) P,K + Azotobacter (40 ml) T 7 N (100%) P,K + Azospirillum (20 ml) T 8 N (75%) P,K + Azospirillum (30 ml) T 9 N (50%) P,K + Azospirillum (40 ml) 43

Slide 44: 

Table11: Effect of Bio- K and inorganic fertilizer on physical and quality parameters of Tomato fruits (cv. Parbhani Yashashri ). Treatments Shape index of fruit Juice % Peel % Seed wt. per fruit (g) TSS 0 B Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) T 1 0.879 37.15 9.52 0.70 4.86 25.47 T 2 0.893 40.11 9.55 0.60 4.90 27.56 T 3 0.911 53.55 10.50 0.76 5.20 30.20 T 4 0.847 52.78 10.11 0.74 5.18 29.65 T 5 0.863 45.01 9.64 0.66 5.00 28.86 T 6 0.877 35.08 9.47 0.72 4.64 24.32 T 7 0.875 33.13 9.25 0.62 4.46 24.17 T 8 0.851 51.84 10.05 0.77 5.12 24.12 T 9 0.815 49.94 4.67 0.68 5.02 28.97 T 10 0.842 50.56 9.83 0.72 5.07 29.16 T 11 0.887 42.73 9.59 0.58 4.64 29.96 T 12 0.899 32.04 9.21 0.23 3.88 23.50 T 13 0.899 30.53 9.14 0.19 3.60 22.20 S.Em .± 0.013 1.394 0.212 0.0514 0.087 1.013 C.D. (5%) 0.04 4.065 0.62 0.15 0.255 2.953 CARS, Ambajogai (MS) Pathan et al. (2010) 44 T 3 Bio-K 1ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 50% of K

Slide 45: 

Treatments Details T 1 Bio-K 1ml/l of water + RDF of NP and K T 2 Bio-K 1ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 75% of K T 3 Bio-K 1ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 50% of K T 4 Bio-K 1ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 25% of K T 5 Bio-K 2ml/l of water + RDF of NP and K T 6 Bio-K 2ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 75% of K T 7 Bio-K 2ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 50% of K T 8 Bio-K 2ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 25% of K T 9 Bio-K 3ml/l of water + RDF of NP and K T 10 Bio-K 3ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 75% of K T 11 Bio-K 3ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 50% of K T 12 Bio-K 3ml/l of water + RDF of NP and 25% of K T 13 Recommended dose of NP and K 45

Table 12: Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield parameters of tomato cv. “Pant T-3”.. : 

Table 12: Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield parameters of tomato cv. “Pant T-3”. . 46 IGKVV, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Patel Deepti et al. (2010) Treatments MEAN VALUES No. of fruit cluster/plant Fresh wt. of fruit (g) Dry wt. of fruit (g) Yield (q/ha) T 0 4.47 31.56 1.62 277.95 T 1 6.80 40.30 3.55 447.77 T 2 7.82 41.14 3.64 455.71 T 3 7.07 39.38 3.32 441.73 T 4 6.22 37.70 2.99 431.32 T 5 5.90 38.56 3.11 426.87 T 6 5.07 37.63 2.79 431.47 T 7 5.30 36.55 2.37 423.85 T 8 4.70 35.26 2.48 409.08 T 9 4.57 34.71 2.04 387.26 S.Em. ± 0.46 0.98 0.17 13.98 CD (P=0.05) 1.38 2.92 0.57 41.54 T 2 100% N from Organic sources (FYM + VC + NC + Azotobacter)

Slide 47: 

Treatments Details T 0 Control T 1 100% RDF T 2 100% N from Organic sources (FYM + VC + NC + Azotobacter ) T 3 50% N from FYM + 50% RDF T 4 25% N from FYM + 75% RDF T 5 50% N from Vermicompost (VC) + 50% RDF T 6 25 % N from VC + 75% RDF T 7 50% N from Neem Cake (NC) + 50% RDF T 8 25% N from NC + 75% RDF T 9 Azotobacter Biofertilizer + 75% RDF 47

Table 13: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on growth and quality parameter in tomato hybrid cv. “Kuber Geeta”.: 

Table 13: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on growth and quality parameter in tomato hybrid cv. “ Kuber Geeta ”. Treatments Plant height (cm) No. of Branches/plant Days to 50% flowering No. of locules/fruit Pericarp thickness (cm) T1 44.6 12.5 46.0 2.3 0.49 T2 46.4 12.7 41.0 2.1 0.46 T3 47.2 13.6 39.8 2.3 0.50 T4 52.8 16.5 38.3 2.4 0.56 T5 58.5 20.6 32.3 3.0 0.73 T6 49.6 18.8 36.3 2.6 0.60 T7 53.0 19.9 35.6 2.8 0.70 T8 50.1 17.1 37.0 2.6 0.60 T9 49.6 14.9 39.0 2.1 0.50 C.D. (5%) 3.4 1.8 2.5 0.6 0.05 48 SKUAST, Jammu (J&K) Sharma Neerja et al. (2010) T5 Azotobacter seedling dip + 75 % N+ Full PK+FYM

Slide 49: 

Treatments Details T1 FYM @ 20 t/ha T2 Poultry manure @ 5 t/ha T3 Full FYM + Full PM T4 75% N + full dose of P & K +PM+FYM T5 Azotobacter seedling dip + 75 % N+ Full PK+FYM T6 PSB seedling dip + 75 % N + Full PK+FYM T7 Azotobacter seedling dip + 75% N+ full PK+PM T8 PSB seedling dip +75 %N+ Full PK+PM T9 Full NPK@ 120:60:60 kg/ha 49

Slide 50: 

Treatments No. of fruits/plant Wt. of fruits/plant (kg) Girth of fruit (cm) Yield/ ha (q) BCR T 1 29.7 1.60 14.9 360.0 0.09 T 2 31.2 1.80 13.0 405.0 1.13 T 3 33.5 2.10 14.4 445.0 1.24 T 4 39.6 2.90 15.0 552.5 2.39 T 5 48.0 4.40 18.1 690.0 2.51 T 6 44.2 3.30 16.3 630.0 2.20 T 7 46.9 4.10 17.6 622.0 2.12 T 8 43.1 3.50 15.8 587.0 1.96 T 9 36.3 2.10 14.0 472.0 1.39 C.D. (P=0.05) 4.8 0.70 1.8 48.8 - 50 Table 14: Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield parameters in tomato hybrid cv. “ Kuber Geeta ”. SKUAST, Jammu (J&K) Sharma Neerja et al. (2010) T5 Azotobacter seedling dip + 75 % N+ Full PK+FYM

Table 15: Integrated Nutrient Management in Tomato cv. “Gujarat Tomato-1”.: 

Table 15: Integrated Nutrient Management in Tomato cv. “Gujarat Tomato-1”. Treatments Plant Height (cm) Fruit length (cm) Fruit girth (cm) No. of branches/ plant Fruit yield (q/ha) BCR T 1 70.2 6.0 12.9 3.4 184.60 2.23 T 2 71.1 6.5 14.1 3.5 211.58 2.45 T 3 71.6 6.5 13.7 4.0 218.88 2.52 T 4 69.2 6.0 13.4 3.8 206.87 2.47 T 5 70.4 6.2 13.6 3.7 181.85 1.12 T 6 71.2 6.5 13.7 3.5 216.08 2.50 T 7 66.4 6.1 13.2 3.4 204.28 2.32 T 8 68.2 6.5 13.4 3.6 217.77 2.51 T 9 73.7 6.6 13.2 3.8 225.66 1.34 T 10 72.6 6.8 13.8 3.7 227.19 1.32 T 11 72.0 6.8 13.0 3.6 216.08 2.52 T 12 75.4 7.0 13.4 3.5 228.62 2.55 T 13 74.0 7.1 14.1 3.5 230.58 2.51 T 14 81.2 7.2 14.4 3.5 253.38 1.48 T 15 76.0 7.0 13.9 3.3 227.08 2.65 T 16 78.9 7.5 15.1 3.6 233.91 2.59 T 17 81.8 7.2 14.5 3.8 253.17 2.70 T 18 74.9 7.6 15.1 4.2 278.14 1.62 CD at 5% 21.83 - 51 Junagarh, Gujarat Anon. (2011)

Slide 52: 

Treatments Details T 1 Recommended dose of NPK through chemical fertilizers (120:60:80 kg/ha) T 2 T 1 + S@ 25kg/ha T 3 T 1 + Zn (100 ppm ) T 4 T 1 + Boron (100 ppm ) T 5 T 1 + Mo (50 ppm ) T 6 T 1 + Fe (100 ppm ) T 7 T 1 + Cu (100 ppm ) T 8 T 1 + Mn (100 ppm ) T 9 T 1 + Mixture of all micronutrients T 10 T 1 + Mixture of all micronutrients + S @ 25 kg/ha T 11 FYM @ 20 t/ha T 12 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha T 13 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha + S @ 25 kg/ha T 14 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha + S @ 25 kg/ha + Mixture of all micronutrients T 15 T 1 +Azotobacter @ 5 kg/ha T 16 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha + Azotobacter @ 5 kg/ha T 17 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha + Azotobacter @ 5 kg/ha + S @ 25 kg/ha T 18 T 1 + FYM @ 20 t/ha + Azotobacter @ 5 kg/ha + S @ 25 kg/ha + Mixture of all micronutrients 52

Inference: 

Inference 53 Sole organic manure treatments fail to extend any significant impact on fruit yield of tomato. Combined application favourably increases the plant growth and quality attributes. INM system gives higher yield and a remunerative return. Also improve the soil physical and chemical properties. To reduce the cost on chemical fertilizers, integration of resources. Azotobacter seedling dip + 75%N (90 kg) + full PK (60:60) + FYM @ 20 t/ha and RDF (120:60:80 NPK) + FYM @ 20 t/ha + Azotobacter @ 5 kg/ha + S @ 25 kg/ha (effective treatments).

Slide 54: 

54 Thank YOU for listening ME

Slide 55: 

55