Integrated Nutrient Management refers to the maintenance of soil fertility and of plant nutrient supply at an optimum level for sustaining the desired productivity through optimization of the benefits from all possible sources of organic, inorganic and biological components in an integrated manner.

1. Welcome 1

2. Effect of integrated nutrient management
and mulching practices on performance of
Indian Mustard Crop.
Presented by :
Praveen Kumar
Id. No. 5318
M.Sc. Agronomy
Department Agronomy
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and
Technology, Meerut-250110 2

3. Outline of Seminar
 Introduction
 INM : Concept and its role
 Components of INM
 Mulching : Definition, types and its
advantages
 Research findings on mustard crop
 Conclusion 3

4. Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) belonging to the family
Cruciferae is one of the major oilseed crop with a high quality of edible
oil (37- 49%). Mustard is the 3rd important oilseed crop in the world after
soybean (Glycine max L.) and Ground nut (Arachis hypogea L.)oil.
Introduction
Area
(million ha )
Production
(million tonnes )
Productivity
(kg/ha)
World 35.95 71.49 1990
India 6.86 9.12 1331
Uttar Pradesh 0.77 0.98 1090
(Anonymous, 2020) 4

5. Integrated Nutrient Management
Concept and Its Role
Definition:
Integrated Nutrient Management refers to the
maintenance of soil fertility and of plant nutrient
supply at an optimum level for sustaining the
desired productivity through optimization of the
benefits from all possible sources of organic,
inorganic and biological components in an
integrated manner.
5

6. Concepts :
1.Regulated nutrient supply for optimum
crop growth and higher productivity.
2.Improvement and maintenance of soil
fertility.
3.Zero adverse impact on agro-ecosystem
quality by balanced fertilization of
organic manures, inorganic fertilizers and
bio-inoculants (biofertilizers).
6

7. The three main role of INM, as defined by
FAO 1998 –
1. Maintain or enhance soil productivity through
a balanced use of fertilizers combined with
organic and biological sources of plant
nutrients.
2.Improve the stock of plant nutrients in the
soils.
3.Improve the efficiency of plant nutrients
limiting the losses in the environment.
7

8. 8

9. 1. Enhances the availability of applied as well as native
soil nutrients.
2. Synchronizes the nutrient demand of the crop with
nutrient supply from native and applied sources.
3. Provides balanced nutrition to crops and minimizes the
antagonistic effects resulting from hidden deficiencies
and nutrient imbalance.
4. Improves and sustains the physical, chemical and
biological functioning of soil.
5. Minimizes the deterioration of soil, water and ecosystem
by promoting carbon sequestration, reducing nutrient
losses to ground and surface water bodies and to
atmosphere. 9
Advantages of Integrated Nutrient management

10. Common constraints encountered by the
farmers in adoption of INM technology are
as follows :
10
1. Lack of knowledge and poor advisory services.
2. Difficulties in growing green manuring crops.
3. Non-availability of FYM and composts.
4. Non-availability of soil testing facilities.
5. Non-availability of Bio-fertilizers.
6. High cost of chemical fertilizers.
7. Non-availability of improved seeds.

11. Mulching
Definition:
Mulch is a material placed on the soil surface to
maintain Soil moisture, reduce weed growth,
mitigate soil erosion and improve soil
conditions. Mulching is one of the simplest and
beneficial practices for soil and moisture
conservation. 11

12. Types of Mulching
 Surface mulching,
 Vertical mulching,
 Polythene mulching,
 Stubble mulching,
 Dust mulching
 Live vegetative barriers
 Straw mulching 12

13.  Mulching improves the soil structure and increases the
infiltration-capacity of the soil.
 Protects soil from erosion.
 Conserve moisture in soil thus saving the need for
frequent irrigation.
 Maintains a more even soil temperature.
 Prevents weed growth to check loss of soil nutrients.
 Crop residues act as a mulch and reduces soil
evaporation.
 Sorghum stalk spread over 40 cm depth with 15 cm wide
in the beds increased 20-30% crop yield .
 Coir waste can hold water five times as of its own weight.
 It enriches soil by adding organic matter and reduces
weed infestation.
Advantages of Mulching
13

14. Research Findings on Mustard
crop
14

15. Table 1. Yield and Economics of mustard influenced by
INM
15
S.
No.
Treatments Grain
yield
(q/ha)
Stover
yield (q/ha)
Biological
yield (q/ha)
Gross
income
(Rs/ha)
H.I
%
Net
profit
(RS/ha)
B:C
ratio
1. RDF (120:60:40:30NPK) 19.15 57.45 76.60 69419.00 25.00 34049.00 1.96
2. RDF+VC@2.0 t/ha 20.15 64.48 84.63 73447.00 23.80 33837.00 1.85
3. RDF+VC @3.0 t/ha 20.25 68.26 88.01 75820.00 23.31 34210.00 1.82
4. RDF+VC @5.0 t/ha 22.75 79.26 102.41 81575.00 21.83 35725.00 1.77
5. RDF+VC @2.0 t/ha+ FYM
@ 3.0 t/ha
20.95 71.23 92.18 76782.00 22.72 33812.00 1.78
6. RDF+VC @2.0 t/ha +FYM
@4.0 t/ha
21.05 73.46 94.51 77337.00 22.27 33367.00 1.75
7. RDFVC @ 2.0 t/ha +FYM
@5.0 t/ha
21.23 76.68 97.98 78491.00 21.73 33281.00 1.73
8. RDF+FYM @6.0 t/ha 20.03 61.68 81.91 72788.00 24.45 30938.00 1.73
SE (d) 0.71 4.65 6.06 1177.21 0.13 678.18 0.05
CD at (P= 0.05) 1.52 9.98 13.01 2531.55 0.29 1454.49 0.11
Singh et al. (2014)
C.S.A .U.A.T Kanpur RBD Design

16. Table 2. Effect of INM on Seed yield (Kg/ha), Oil content (%), Protein
content (%) and economics in Indian Mustard
16
Treatments
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Oil content (%) Protein content
(%)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
T1. 100% RDF (120:40:20 kg/ha NPK) 1430 38.6 20.42 15130 1.63
T2. RDF+2 t/ha FYM 1548 38.9 20.96 16154 1.57
T3. RDF+2 t/ha FYM+ S 40kg /ha 1694 39.2 21.52 18085 1.67
T4. RDF+2 t/ha FYM+ S 40kg /ha S+ ZnSO4
25kg/ha
1739 39.5 21.82 18548 1.66
T5. RDF+ 2 t/ha FYM +S 40 kg/ha + ZnSO4
25kg/ha+ B 1kg/ha
1772 39.7 21.98 18884 1.66
T6. RDF+ 2t/ha FYM+ S 40kg/ha+ ZnSO4
25kg/ha+B 1kg/ha + Azotobacter (Seed treat.)
1809 40.0 22.12 19506 1.71
T7. 75% RDF 1303 39.2 20.08 13484 1.54
T8. 75% RDF+ 2 t/ha FYM 1416 39.5 20.63 14414 1.48
T9. 75% RDF +2 t/ha FYM +S 40kg/ha 1570 39.9 21.28 16482 1.60
T10. 75% RDF+2t/ha FYM +S 40kg/ha +ZnSO4
25kg/ha
1622 40.1 21.39 17056 1.60
T11. 75% RDF+2 t/ha FYM +SS 40kg/ha +ZnSO4
25kg/ha +B 1kg/ha
1657 40.4 21.60 17425 1.61
T12. 75% RDF+ 2 t/ha FYM+ S 40kg/ha +ZnSO4
25kg/ha+ B 1kg/ha +Azotobacter (seed treat.)
1694 40.7 21.69 18056 1.66
LSD at (0.05) 220 0.5 1.1 - -
Tripathi et al. (2011)
G.B.P.U.A.T Pantnagar

17. Table 3. Effect of INM on yield and quality of Indian
mustard
17
Treatments Seed
yield
(t/ha)
Stover
yield
(t/ha)
Oil content
(%)
Oil yield
kg/(ha)
Protein
content in
seed(%)
Protein
content in
stover (%)
Protein yield
in seed
kg/ha
T1 Absolute control 0.87 3.27 37.2 322.9 13.2 2.53 114.9
T2 100% RDF 80:40:40:40 NPK&S 1.58 5.30 39.4 622.3 13.4 2.88 219.4
T3 RDF+ S 40kg/ha + 5 t/ha VC 1.67 5.53 39.6 664.0 14.2 2.98 238.7
T4 RDF+S 40 kg/ha +5 t/ha
VC+Azotobacter+PSB
1.72 5.86 39.8 683.7 14.2 3.25 243.5
T5 RDF+S 40kg/ha + 2 t/ha Poultry
manure
1.64 5.59 40.1 659.6 14.3 2.93 235.3
T6 RDF+S 40kg/ha+2 t/ha poultry
manure+Azotobacter+PSB
1.67 5.83 40.8 682.8 14.4 3.25 241.6
T7 75% RDF+S 40kg/ha 1.56 5.34 39.5 615.6 13.9 2.80 216.0
T8 75% RDF+S 40kg/ha+ 5 t/ha VC 1.70 5.92 39.7 676.5 14.4 3.25 245.1
T9 75% RDF+S 40kg/ha+5 t/ha
VC+Azotobacter+PSB
1.78 6.15 40.9 729.5 14.6 3.38 260.6
T10 75% RDF+S 40 kg/ha+2 t/ha
poultry manure
1.63 5.60 39.3 642.9 14.1 3.19 230.9
T11 75% RDF+S 40kg/ha+2 t/ha
poultrymanure+Azotobacter+PSB
1.66 5.64 39.6 656.2 14.2 3.19 235.3
SEm± 0.023 0.09 0.28 9.63 0.10 0.07 3.70
CD(0.05) 0.059 0.26 0.85 28.60 0.30 0.23 10.98
Chandan et al. (2019)
Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar

18. Table 4. Effect of INM on Seed yield, Stover yield, Harvest index,
Oil, Oil yield and economics of mustard crop
18
Treatments
Seed
yield
(q/ha)
Stover yield
(q /ha)
Harvest
index
(%)
Oil (%)
Oil
Yield
(q ha-1)
Total
cost
(Rs/ha)
Gross
Return
(Rs/ha)
Net
return
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
Stick Straw
Control 16.09 45.29 19.58 24.80 37.12 597.26 29958 47821 17863 1.59
100% N RDN 16.78 45.79 20.00 25.50 37.56 630.25 32099 52123 20024 1.62
75% NPK RDF 18.76 47.34 20.65 28.00 38.76 727.13 33344 56028 22684 1.68
75% NPK+FYM 19.29 49.38 21.66 27.15 40.38 778.93 33317 59968 26651 1.79
75% PK+FYM+PSB+S 21.48 51.34 23.28 28.78 43.09 925.57 33278 64090 30812 1.92
100%NPK 19.08 48.00 20.56 27.82 39.67 756.90 32839 56571 23732 1.72
100%NPK+FYM 20.87 50.56 22.13 28.71 41.09 857.54 32808 60846 28038 1.85
100%NPK+PSB+FY
M
21.15 51.64 22.87 28.38 42.23 893.16 33054 61802 28748 1.86
100%NPK+FYM+PS
B+S
22.02 51.70 23.45 29.30 44.23 973.94 33799 67003 33204 1.98
SE (d) 0.72 0.63 0.44 0.09 0.46 2.13 - - - -
CD(P=0.05) 1.52 1.23 0.91 0.19 0.93 4.31 - - - -
Maurya et al. (2019)
C.S.A.U.A.T Kanpur

19. Table 5. Effect of INM on yield attributes and yield of Indian
Mustard
Treatment Siliquae/plant Seeds/siliqua Seed yield
(q/ha)
Oil yield
(q/ha)
RDF(80,17.2,33.2kg/ha NPK) 188.2 11.9 13.32 4.91
RDF+FYM 10t/ha 254.9 14.1 16.92 6.99
RDF+Borax@10kg/ha+ZnSO4
@20kg/ha
241.0 14.3 16.83 6.83
50 % RDF+FYM@10t/ha 197.4 12.2 14.78 5.62
50%RDF+FYM@10t/ha+ZnS
O4@20kg/ha
208.9 12.9 15.49 6.04
50%RDF+FYM@10t/ha+Bora
x@10kg/ha+ZnSO4@20kg/ha.
253.4 14.1 16.68 6.85
CD(P=0.05) 24.7 1.0 0.37 0.26
Mandal & Sinha (2002)
Sandy loam, pH=6.4
Coochbehar (WB) 19

20. Table 6. Yield and quality of Indian mustard as influenced by
INM
Treatment
Seed yield
(t/ha)
Oil yield
(kg/ha)
Protein
yield
(kg/ha)
N uptake
by seed
(kg/ha)
P uptake
by seed
(kg/ha)
Control 1.05 402 16.5 27.9 5.6
50% RDF 1.52 564 17.7 43.2 8.4
RDF(80kgN+40kg
P2O5/ha)
1.78 647 19.3 55.2 10.4
40kgN/ha+PSB 1.50 570 17.6 42.2 8.3
50%
RDF+PSB+Proteus
vulgaris.
1.75 654 18.8 52.8 10.1
CD (P =0.05) 0.21 52 0.9 6.5 1.3
New Delhi Sandy loam, pH= 7.1 Shivran and Giri (2006)
20

21. Table 7. Effect of INM on seed yield, available soil nutrients and
economics
Treatment Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Av. N & P in Soil after Harvest
(kg/ha)
Net returns
(Rs./ha)
N P
Organic source
FYM 2.5 1651 192.00 18.60 20128
FYM 5+PSM 1930 201.33 20.58 25202
FYM 5+Azos 1913 199.20 20.07 24853
FYM
2.5+PSM+Azos
1881 197.80 19.74 24584
FYM
5+PSM+Azos
1949 206.80 21.36 25547
CD (P=0.05) 101 7.27 1.44
N Level
40 kg/ha 1914 200.40 20.36 25086
80 kg/ha 2064 217.80 24.30 27494
CD (P=0.05) 75 4.35 1.03
P,K, each @40 kg/ha through SSP and MOP
Varanasi (U.P) Clay loam, pH= 7.2 Singh and Singh (2013) 21

22. Table 8.Seed meal quality of Indian Mustard as influenced by
INM
Treatment
Seed yield (t/ha)
2005-06 2006-07
T1 RDF (120:17.6:16.7) 1.33 1.53
T2 T1+FYM (10) 1.44 1.66
T3 T2+S (40) 1.56 1.82
T4 T3+ZnS (25) 1.60 1.87
T5 T4+B(1) 1.64 1.91
T6 T5+AZT 1.67 1.95
T7 75% RDF 1.21 1.40
T8 T7+FYM (10) 1.31 1.52
T9 T8+S(40) 1.45 1.69
T10 T9+ZnS(25) 1.49 1.75
T11 T10+B(1) 1.53 1.78
T12 T11+AZT 1.57 1.82
CD (P = 0.05) 0.23 0.29
Pantnagar Loam, pH = 7.5 Tripathi et al. (2010) 22

23. Table 9. Sulphur Application in Indian mustard in relation to INM
Treatment
Siliquae/plant Seed yield (t/ha) S uptake kg/ha
2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2007-07 2005-06 2006-07
Nutrient source RDF @80-17.4-33.3 NPK kg/ha
Control 193 226 1.13 1.27 17.68 16.45
RDF(Fer.) 337 349 1.93 1.96 31.16 32.90
Rec. N (FYM) 263 393 1.68 2.23 24.13 37.10
1
2 RDF(Fer.) +
1
2 Rec. N(FYM)
358 406 2.13 2.30 32.68 38.94
CD (P=0.05) 19 13 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.60
Sulphur level (kg/ha) through Gypsum
0 280 339 1.57 1.76 22.86 27.35
40 295 348 1.86 2.12 29.97 35.34
CD (P=0.05 12 6 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.89
New Delhi Sandy loam, pH = 7.7 Rana and Thuan (2010) 23

24. Table 10. Effect of INM on oil content, oil yield, protein content &
protein yield in grain
S.
No.
Treatments Oil content
(%)
Oil yield
(kg/ha.)
Protein
content (%)
Protein
Yield (kg/ha)
T1 Control 38.37 566.11 16.18 238.65
T2 100% RDF (120:60:40:40), (NPKS, kg/ha) 39.15 753.92 16.93 325.56
T3 100% RDF + Bio-fertilizers(Azotobacter+PSB)
@7.5 kg/ha
39.31 779.38 17.00 336.94
T4 75% RDF +FYM @2.5 t/ha + ZnSO4 @10kg/ha 39.39 793.88 17.06 343.75
T5 75% RDF + Vermi-compost @0.62 t/ha +ZnSO4
@10 kg/ha
39.43 826.05 17.12 358.66
T6 75% RDF + FYM @ 2.5 t/ha + Bio-fertilizers 7.5
kg/ha
39.46 850.36 17.25 373.46
T7 75% RDF + Vermi-compost @ 0.62 t/ha + Bio-
fertilizers @ 7.5 kg/ha
39.57 906.15 17.35 397.315
T8 50% RDF + Vermi-compost @1.25 t/ha +
ZnSO4 @10 kg/ha
39.50 872.95 17.25 381.225
T9 50% RDF + FYM @5 t/ha +ZnSO4 @10 kg/ha 39.46 866.93 17.25 378.98
T10 50% RDF + FYM @2.5 t/ha + Vermi-compost
@ 0.62 t/ha +Bio-fertilizers @7.5 kg/ha
+ZnSO4 @ 10kg/ha
40.15 933.48 17.37 403.85
S.E. (d) ± 0.293 35.471 0.151 31.615
CD at 5% 0.617 74.547 0.318 66.419
Dubey et al. (2021)
C.S.A.U.A.T, Kanpur (U.P)
24

25. Treatments Seed
yield
q/ha
Stover yield q/ha Harvest index
(%)
2018-19 2019-20 2018-20 2018-19 2018-20 2019-20
T1 Control (NO NPK + NO Mulching) 10.05 10.41 31.59 32.23 24.13 24.41
T2 100% NPK + NO Mulching 14.72 15.96 37.93 40.75 27.95 28.14
T3 75% NPK + N-25% (FYM) + NO Mulching 15.17 16.42 40.66 41.25 27.31 28.47
T4 100% NPK+ S @40 kg + NO Mulching 16.22 18.42 42.30 43.23 27.71 29.87
T5 100% NPK+ ZnSO4 @25 kg + NO Mulching 15.22 17.02 41.31 42.76 26.92 28.47
T6 75% NPK+ N-25% (FYM) +S @40 kg + NO Mulching 18.89 19.77 47.17 49.08 28.59 28.71
T7 75% NPK+ N-25% (FYM) + ZnSO4 @25kg + NO Mulching 17.41 18.86 43.61 46.58 28.53 26.82
T8 T1 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 11.78 12.30 34.23 35.48 25.60 25.74
T9 T2 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 16.88 18.27 40.18 43.19 29.58 29.72
T10 T3 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 17.33 18.73 42.91 44.11 28.76 29.80
T11 T4 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 18.38 20.53 44.55 45.58 29.20 29.99
T12 T5 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 17.38 19.13 43.56 45.11 28.51 29.77
T13 T6 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 21.05 22.08 49.42 51.43 29.90 30.87
T14 T7 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 19.57 21.17 45.86 48.93 29.87 30.19
SE(m)± 0.73 .76 2.04 2.07 - -
CD at 5% 2.14 2.22 6.01 6.15 - -
Table 11. Effect of INM and mulching practices on seed yield (qha-1 ),
stover yield (qha-1 ) and harvest index (%) of mustard.
Kumarganj, Diwakar et al. (2021)
25

26. 26
Table 12. Effect of INM and mulching practices on economics of
mustard crop
Treatments Cost of cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross returns (Rs/ha) Net returns (Rs/ha) B:C ratio
2018-19 2019-20 2018-19 2019-20 2018-19 2019-20 2018-19 2019-20
T1- Control (NO NPK + NO Mulching) 26016 27441 42273 45868 16257 18427 0.62 0.67
T2- 100% NPK + NO Mulching 29596 31021 61900 70306 32304 39285 1.09 1.26
T3- 75% NPK + N-25% (FYM) + NO Mulching 31301 32726 63795 72331 32494 39605 1.03 1.21
T4- 100% NPK+ S @40 kg + NO Mulching 32396 33821 68209 81134 35913 47313 1.10 1.39
T5 -100% NPK+ ZnSO4 @25 kg + NO Mulching 31096 32521 64007 74974 32911 42453 1.05 1.30
T6 - 75% NPK+ N-25% (FYM) +S @40 kg + NO Mulching 34101 35526 79432 87086 45331 51560 1.32 1.45
T7 -75% NPK+ N-25% (FYM) + ZnSO4 @25kg +NO Mulching 32801 34226 73209 83077 40408 48851 1.23 1.42
T8- T1 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 31016 32411 49476 51731 18460 19320 0.59 0.59
T9-T2 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 34596 36021 70976 76820 36380 40799 1.05 1.13
T10 -T3 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 36301 37726 72872 78754 36571 41028 1.00 1.08
T11 - T4 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 37396 38821 77285 86317 39889 47496 1.06 1.22
T12 -T5 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 36096 37521 73083 80436 36987 42915 1.02 1.14
T13-T6 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 39101 40526 88509 92835 49408 52309 1.26 1.29
T14 -T7 + Mulching @5 t/ha-1 37801 39226 82286 89911 44485 50685 1.17 1.29
Diwakar et al. (2021)
Kumarganj,

27. 27
Table 13. Effect of tillage and organic mulches on content of N, P, K
& S in grain and stover of mustard.
Treatments
Nitrogen (%) Phosphorus (%) Potassium (%) Sulphur (%)
Grain Stover Grain Stover Grain Stover Grain Stover
Tillage
Conventional tillage 3.29 0.73 0.6 0.11 0.7 1.24 0.58 0.34
Reduce tillage 3.4 0.79 0.64 0.13 0.74 1.29 0.62 0.38
CD (0.05) 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03
Mulch
No mulch 3.15 0.7 0.57 0.08 0.67 1.17 0.55 0.32
Water hyacinth mulch 3.46 0.8 0.65 0.14 0.75 1.31 0.64 0.39
Paddy straw mulch 3.42 0.78 0.63 0.13 0.74 1.3 0.62 0.38
Legume straw mulch 3.35 0.77 0.62 0.12 0.72 1.27 0.61 0.37
CD (0.05) 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
BHU, Varanasi Singh et al. 2016

28. 28
Treatments
Nitrogen uptake
(kg ha-1)
Phosphorus
(kgha-1)
Potassium uptake
(kg ha-1)
Sulphur uptake
(mg kg-1)
Grain Stover Grain Stover Grain Stover Grain Stover
Tillage
Conventional tillage 40.97 34.12 7.47 5.1 8.73 57.69 7.27 16.02
Reduce tillage 46.76 38.38 8.77 6.19 10.14 62.51 8.6 18.36
CD (0.05) 2.43 1.29 0.47 1.27 0.84 3.77 0.04 1.47
Mulch
No mulch 36.31 30.42 6.58 3.64 7.7 51.15 6.33 13.76
Water hyacinth mulch 49.21 40 9.27 6.9 10.64 65.29 9.03 19.18
Paddy straw mulch 46.42 38.11 8.57 6.25 10.04 63.3 8.46 18.41
Legume straw mulch 43.51 36.47 8.06 5.81 9.36 60.67 7.91 17.4
CD (0.05) 2.31 1.11 0.5 0.7 0.49 1.31 0.46 0.75
Table 14. Effect of tillage and organic mulches on uptake of
N,P,K & S by grain and stover of mustard.
BHU, Varanasi Singh et al. 2016

29. Table 15. Effect of mulching and vermi-compost on yield attributes and
yields of mustard under maize (popcorn)-mustard cropping system
(Mean data of three years)
Treatment Siliquae/plant
(No.)
Seeds/siliqua
(No.)
1000
grain
weight (g)
Seed
yield
(t/ha)
Stover
yield
(t/ha)
Biological
yield
(t/ha)
Effect of mulching (A )
Control 128.50 11.75 2.86 0.65 1.45 2.10
Tree leaf mulch @
5 t/ha
163.92 15.42 3.10 1.05 2.53 3.58
Maize residue
mulch @ 5 t/ha
160.33 15.33 3.07 0.99 2.47 3.46
Rice residue mulch
@ 5 t/ha
155.75 14.83 3.04 0.96 2.26 3.22
SEm± 1.59 0.27 0.02 0.009 0.02 0.05
LSD (P=0.05) 5.07 0.87 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.15
29
Contd…….

30. Continued…
Treatment Siliquae/plant
(No.)
Seeds/siliqua
(No.)
1000
grain
weight (g)
Seed
yield
(t/ha)
Stover
yield
(t/ha)
Biological
yield
(t/ha)
Effect of Vermi-compost (VC) (B)
Control 134.06 12.56 2.88 0.71 1.69 2.40
VC @ 1 t/ha 156.63 14.50 3.04 0.99 2.28 3.27
VC @ 1.5 t/ha 165.69 15.94 3.13 1.05 2.56 3.61
SEm± 1.43 0.21 0.02 0.010 0.02 0.04
LSD (P=0.05) 4.18 0.60 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.12
Singh et al. (2018)
ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Tadong, Gangtok 30

31. Table 16. Effect of mulching and Vermi-compost on economics of
mustard under maize (popcorn)-mustard cropping system (Mean data
of three years)
Treatment
Cost of cultivation
(×1000/ha)
Gross returns
(×1000/ha)
Net returns
(×1000/ha)
NRPRI Energy
input
(GJ/ha)
Effect of mulching
Control 22.22 26.53 4.31 1.19 4.44
Tree leaf mulch @ 5 t/ha 22.56 42.42 19.86 1.87 6.84
Maize residue mulch @
5 t/ha
24.06 40.55 16.49 1.68 6.39
Rice residue mulch @ 5
t/ha
26.56 39.08 12.52 1.47 5.94
SEm± 0.38 0.38 0.01
LSD (P=0.05) 1.20 1.20 0.05
31
Contd…….

32. Treatment
Cost of cultivation
(×1000/ha)
Gross returns
(×1000/ha)
Net returns
(×1000/ha)
NRPRI Energy
input
(GJ/ha)
Effect of Vermi-compost (VC)
Control 19.52 28.73 9.22 1.47 5.15
VC @ 1 t/ha 24.77 40.06 15.29 1.62 6.05
VC @ 1.5 t/ha 27.27 42.64 15.38 1.57 6.50
SEm± - 0.41 0.41 0.02 -
LSD (P=0.05) - 1.19 1.19 0.05 -
Continued….
Singh et al. (2018)
ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Tadong, Gangtok 32

33. Table 17. Effect of tillage, mulching and INM practices on seed oil content
(%), Seed yield (kg/ha), Stover yield (kg/ha), and oil yield (kg/ha) of late
sown toria
Treatments Seed oil content
(%)
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Stover yield
(kg/ha)
Oil yield (kg/ha)
2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18
Tillage (P)
P1:
Conventional
tillage
34.03 33.87 679.17 587.19 1967.95 1754.06 231.22 198.96
P2: Reduced
tillage
34.11 33.97 740.45 632.12 2104.97 1866.94 252.69 214.77
SEm± 0.03 0.03 9.783 5.43 11.365 12.53 3.13 1.69
CD (P=0.05) NS NS 33.85 18.79 39.33 43.36 10.82 5.87
33
Contd…….

34. Treatments Seed oil content
(%)
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Stover yield
(kg/ha)
Oil yield (kg/ha)
2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18
Mulching (M)
M1:No
mulching
33.92 33.84 668.92 579.90 1939.86 1725.97 226.96 196.31
M2: mulching
with paddy
straw
34.22 33.99 750.69 639.41 2133.04 1895.03 256.95 217.42
SEm± 0.03 0.03 9.783 5.43 11.365 12.53 3.03 1.69
CD (P=0.05) 0.11 0.11 33.85 18.79 39.33 43.36 10.82 5.87
Continued…
34

35. Treatments Seed oil content
(%)
Seed yield (kg/ha) Stover yield (kg/ha) Oil yield (kg/ha)
2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18
Nutrient Management (N)
N1: 100% RDF 33.89 33.74 646.53 561.04 1892.01 1675.33 219.25 189.39
N2: 50% RDN
+ FYM
34.19 34.04 772.22 6542.36 2133.33 1904.17 264.06 222.07
N3: 50% RDN
+ VC
34.12 33.97 726.04 623.19 2084.65 1855.83 247.85 211.76
N4: 50% RDN
+ EC
34.07 33.92 694.44 602.01 2035.83 1806.67 236.66 204.25
SEm± 0.04 0.04 25.94 22.13 27.58 20.85 8.94 7.58
CD (P=0.05) 0.11 0.11 75.71 64.60 80.50 60.85 26.09 22.13
Continued..
Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam.
Mahanta nitumoni et al. (2019) 35

36. Conclusion
 The application of chemical fertilizer in combination
with organic manures and biofertilizers is the most
suitable INM module/practice for mustard crop.
 Apply of 75% NPK+N-25%(FYM)+S@40kg+mulching
@5 t/ha are reported that the highest seed yield
(22.08q/ha), stover yield (51.43q/ha), H.I (30.87%),
Gross return (Rs.92835), Net return (Rs.52309) and B:C
ratio 1.29 (Diwakar et al.,2021).
36

37. 37