<p>Consistent and indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers has caused serious damage to the soil and ecology. Also high yield of vegetable can not be realized only with use of organic and biological origin products. Therefore, a judicious combination strategy of using chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers may be helpful in increasing vegetable productivity. Such efforts will be effective not only in sustaining productivity and soil health but also in supplementing a part of chemical fertilizers requirement of the crops. Organic manures and biofertilizers offer as an alternative to chemical inputs and are being increasingly used in vegetables production today. Organic manures like FYM, pressmud and digested sludge are available in plenty in this locality and can be efficiently utilized for vegetable production. On the other hand, biofertilizers are cost effective and renewable source of plant nutrients to supplement the parts of chemical fertilizers. Biofertilizers are agriculturally important beneficial microorganisms, which have ability to mobilize the nutritionally important elements from non-usable to usable form through biological processes. They are known to increase yield in several vegetables, besides considerable saving of inorganic fertilizers (Olsen <italic>et al</italic>., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib005">5</xref>; Kumar <italic>et al</italic>., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib003">3</xref>). In view of the above, the present investigation was undertaken, to study the effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of cabbage.</p><p>A field experiment was carried out at IIVR, Varanasi during 2001–2002 and 2002–03. The treatments comprised of four different organic manures <italic>viz</italic>., FYM, pressmud, digested sludge and vermicompost in combination with three biofertilizers, namely, <italic>Azospirillum</italic>, VAM and Phosphate Solubilizing Microorganisms (PSM). Thus, a total of 13 treatments including control (recommended NPK only) were replicated thrice in factorial RBD arrangement. Digested sludge was procured from Dinapur Sewage Treatment Plant, Varanasi and pressmud from Aurai Sugar Industry, Bhadohi. All the biofertilizers were procured from Division of Microbiology, IARI, New Delhi. FYM, digested sludge and pressmud were applied @ 10 t/ha, whereas vermicompost was given @ 5 t/ha. The calculated equivalent available N, P and K were 120:75:100; 155:80:145 and 170:95:160 kg, respectively in 10 tones of FYM, Pressmud and Digested Sludge. Pressmud, in addition to NPK, also contain 110 kg of sulphur. All the treatments, including control received the recommended dose of NPK, i.e. 120:60:80 kg/ha. Five weeks old seedlings of were inoculated in thick slurry of <italic>Azospirillum</italic> and PSM, while VAM was applied as soil inoculant near the seedlings root.</p><p>The soil of experimental plot was loam (inceptisol) with pH 7.6, EC 0.42 dSm<sup>−1</sup>, organic carbon 0.42% and available N, P and K was 258, 26 and 320 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The planting of cabbage seedlings (cv. Varsha) were done at spacing 50 cm × 40 cm in 3 m × 2.5 m plots. All the doses of P and K were applied as basal dose during field preparation whereas half dose of N was applied at planting and rest of nitrogen was top dressed in two split doses, at 30 and 60 days after planting. The recommended agronomic practices were followed for maintenance of the crop. Yield and yield attributing parameters were measured by conventional methods at harvest. Data were analyzed following the standard statistical packages.</p><p>Significantly higher fresh weight of outer leaves were recorded under pressmud + VAM, pressmud + PSM, digested sludge (DS) + PSM and DS + <italic>Azospirillum</italic>, whereas significant improvement in number of inner leaves and head weight was observed when pressmud was applied in soil and seedlings were inoculated either with VAM (1,616.67 g) or PSM (1,566.67 g). A significant improvement in head weight was also noticed in plants supplied with digested sludge and seedlings inoculated with PSM (1,445 g). In the present investigation, no significant variations were observed in number of outer leaves (SEm ± 0.93) and head length (SEm ± 0.79 cm) though, head diameter was influenced significantly with use of organic manures and biofertilizers. The maximum head diameter was recorded under pressmud + VAM (15.5 cm) followed by pressmud + PSM (15.4 cm) and DS + PSM (15.0 cm). Similarly, a significantly higher head yield over control (491.33 q/ha) were registered with pressmud + VAM (602.67 q/ha), pressmud + PSM (587.40 q/ha) and under DS + PSM (570.80 q/ha) treatments. These treatments exhibited 22.6, 19.5 and 16% more head yield, respectively over control (recommended NPK only).</p><p>The significantly higher head weight, head diameter and yield in pressmud treated plot over control may be attributed due to the presence of sulphur in pressmud. The other organic manures treated plots although received equal or higher equivalent quantity of available N, P and K nutrients as compared to pressmud (10 t/ha), but because of low sulphur availability and imbalance in N: S, P: S and K: S the response to yield attributes were low. Under low sulphur condition due to less production of starch, the activity of starch phosphorylase decreases and higher accumulation of nitrate results in disturbed protein metabolism that in turn affects the enzyme activity. According to Hara <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">1</xref>) sulphur deficient cabbage plant contains less sugars, protein and non-protein N. Furthermore, improvement in yield characters of cabbage due to inoculation with either VAM or PSM in presense of pressmud may be because of the ability of VAM and PSM to solubilize and increase availability of inorganic phosphorus from insoluble or otherwise fixed P to soluble or readily plant available P (Hegde <italic>et al</italic>., 2; Verma and Mathur, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib007">7</xref>). Similarly, increase in head weight, head diameter and yield under DS + PSM inoculation might be due to better solubilization of insoluble or fixed P and better replenishment and uptake of soluble P by the plant. Improvement in growth and yield in several vegetables due to PSM and VAM inoculation were reported earlier by Mishustin and Navmova (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib004">4</xref>), Sunderarao and Sinha (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib006">6</xref>), Olsen <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib005">5</xref>) and Kumar <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib003">3</xref>). The other possible reason for improvement in yield attributes was due to higher equivalent available N, P and K nutrients in digested sludge in comparison to the other organic manures. <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on yield attributes of cabbage.</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th><th align="center">No. of outer leaves</th><th align="center">Fresh wt. of outer leaves (g)</th><th align="center">No. of inner leaves</th><th align="center">Head wt. (g)</th><th align="center">Head length (cm)</th><th align="center">Head diameter (cm)</th><th align="center">Head yield (q/ha)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td>FYM + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">365.00</td><td align="center">26.3</td><td align="center">1335.00</td><td align="center">14.2</td><td align="center">13.7</td><td align="center">519.80</td></tr><tr><td>FYM + VAM</td><td align="center">9.7</td><td align="center">336.00</td><td align="center">28.7</td><td align="center">1363.33</td><td align="center">15.3</td><td align="center">14.6</td><td align="center">515.67</td></tr><tr><td>FYM + PSM</td><td align="center">12.3</td><td align="center">406.67</td><td align="center">29.7</td><td align="center">14250.00</td><td align="center">15.5</td><td align="center">14.7</td><td align="center">534.60</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">12.0</td><td align="center">359.33</td><td align="center">29.3</td><td align="center">1413.00</td><td align="center">14.9</td><td align="center">14.4</td><td align="center">531.00</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + VAM</td><td align="center">13.3</td><td align="center">476.67</td><td align="center">31.7</td><td align="center">1616.67</td><td align="center">16.8</td><td align="center">15.5</td><td align="center">602.67</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + PSM</td><td align="center">12.7</td><td align="center">426.67</td><td align="center">31.0</td><td align="center">1566.67</td><td align="center">16.4</td><td align="center">15.4</td><td align="center">587.40</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">11.0</td><td align="center">346.00</td><td align="center">27.7</td><td align="center">1353.67</td><td align="center">14.8</td><td align="center">13.8</td><td align="center">514.80</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + VAM</td><td align="center">11.0</td><td align="center">325.67</td><td align="center">28.0</td><td align="center">1376.67</td><td align="center">14.6</td><td align="center">12.8</td><td align="center">513.00</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + PSM</td><td align="center">13.0</td><td align="center">458.33</td><td align="center">29.7</td><td align="center">1445.00</td><td align="center">15.9</td><td align="center">15.0</td><td align="center">570.80</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">12.7</td><td align="center">415.00</td><td align="center">29.0</td><td align="center">1416.67</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">14.5</td><td align="center">540.00</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + VAM</td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">343.33</td><td align="center">23.7</td><td align="center">1356.67</td><td align="center">16.7</td><td align="center">14.1</td><td align="center">514.20</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + PSM</td><td align="center">12.3</td><td align="center">355.00</td><td align="center">28.0</td><td align="center">1396.67</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">14.2</td><td align="center">518.40</td></tr><tr><td>Recommended NPK only (control)</td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">343.33</td><td align="center">26.0</td><td align="center">1333.33</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">13.3</td><td align="center">491.33</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References

IJH

Indian Journal of Horticulture

0972-8538

The Horticultural Society of India

ijh-61-3-026

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Response of cabbage to organic manures and biofertilizers

Bahadur

Anant

*Singh

Jagdish

Singh

K.P.

Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, 1 Gandhinagar, PO Box 5002, P.O. BHU, Varanasi 221 005

*Corresponding author's E-mail: absingh@sify.com

92004

613278279820032200462004

<p>Consistent and indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers has caused serious damage to the soil and ecology. Also high yield of vegetable can not be realized only with use of organic and biological origin products. Therefore, a judicious combination strategy of using chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers may be helpful in increasing vegetable productivity. Such efforts will be effective not only in sustaining productivity and soil health but also in supplementing a part of chemical fertilizers requirement of the crops. Organic manures and biofertilizers offer as an alternative to chemical inputs and are being increasingly used in vegetables production today. Organic manures like FYM, pressmud and digested sludge are available in plenty in this locality and can be efficiently utilized for vegetable production. On the other hand, biofertilizers are cost effective and renewable source of plant nutrients to supplement the parts of chemical fertilizers. Biofertilizers are agriculturally important beneficial microorganisms, which have ability to mobilize the nutritionally important elements from non-usable to usable form through biological processes. They are known to increase yield in several vegetables, besides considerable saving of inorganic fertilizers (Olsen <italic>et al</italic>., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib005">5</xref>; Kumar <italic>et al</italic>., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib003">3</xref>). In view of the above, the present investigation was undertaken, to study the effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of cabbage.</p><p>A field experiment was carried out at IIVR, Varanasi during 2001–2002 and 2002–03. The treatments comprised of four different organic manures <italic>viz</italic>., FYM, pressmud, digested sludge and vermicompost in combination with three biofertilizers, namely, <italic>Azospirillum</italic>, VAM and Phosphate Solubilizing Microorganisms (PSM). Thus, a total of 13 treatments including control (recommended NPK only) were replicated thrice in factorial RBD arrangement. Digested sludge was procured from Dinapur Sewage Treatment Plant, Varanasi and pressmud from Aurai Sugar Industry, Bhadohi. All the biofertilizers were procured from Division of Microbiology, IARI, New Delhi. FYM, digested sludge and pressmud were applied @ 10 t/ha, whereas vermicompost was given @ 5 t/ha. The calculated equivalent available N, P and K were 120:75:100; 155:80:145 and 170:95:160 kg, respectively in 10 tones of FYM, Pressmud and Digested Sludge. Pressmud, in addition to NPK, also contain 110 kg of sulphur. All the treatments, including control received the recommended dose of NPK, i.e. 120:60:80 kg/ha. Five weeks old seedlings of were inoculated in thick slurry of <italic>Azospirillum</italic> and PSM, while VAM was applied as soil inoculant near the seedlings root.</p><p>The soil of experimental plot was loam (inceptisol) with pH 7.6, EC 0.42 dSm<sup>−1</sup>, organic carbon 0.42% and available N, P and K was 258, 26 and 320 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The planting of cabbage seedlings (cv. Varsha) were done at spacing 50 cm × 40 cm in 3 m × 2.5 m plots. All the doses of P and K were applied as basal dose during field preparation whereas half dose of N was applied at planting and rest of nitrogen was top dressed in two split doses, at 30 and 60 days after planting. The recommended agronomic practices were followed for maintenance of the crop. Yield and yield attributing parameters were measured by conventional methods at harvest. Data were analyzed following the standard statistical packages.</p><p>Significantly higher fresh weight of outer leaves were recorded under pressmud + VAM, pressmud + PSM, digested sludge (DS) + PSM and DS + <italic>Azospirillum</italic>, whereas significant improvement in number of inner leaves and head weight was observed when pressmud was applied in soil and seedlings were inoculated either with VAM (1,616.67 g) or PSM (1,566.67 g). A significant improvement in head weight was also noticed in plants supplied with digested sludge and seedlings inoculated with PSM (1,445 g). In the present investigation, no significant variations were observed in number of outer leaves (SEm ± 0.93) and head length (SEm ± 0.79 cm) though, head diameter was influenced significantly with use of organic manures and biofertilizers. The maximum head diameter was recorded under pressmud + VAM (15.5 cm) followed by pressmud + PSM (15.4 cm) and DS + PSM (15.0 cm). Similarly, a significantly higher head yield over control (491.33 q/ha) were registered with pressmud + VAM (602.67 q/ha), pressmud + PSM (587.40 q/ha) and under DS + PSM (570.80 q/ha) treatments. These treatments exhibited 22.6, 19.5 and 16% more head yield, respectively over control (recommended NPK only).</p><p>The significantly higher head weight, head diameter and yield in pressmud treated plot over control may be attributed due to the presence of sulphur in pressmud. The other organic manures treated plots although received equal or higher equivalent quantity of available N, P and K nutrients as compared to pressmud (10 t/ha), but because of low sulphur availability and imbalance in N: S, P: S and K: S the response to yield attributes were low. Under low sulphur condition due to less production of starch, the activity of starch phosphorylase decreases and higher accumulation of nitrate results in disturbed protein metabolism that in turn affects the enzyme activity. According to Hara <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">1</xref>) sulphur deficient cabbage plant contains less sugars, protein and non-protein N. Furthermore, improvement in yield characters of cabbage due to inoculation with either VAM or PSM in presense of pressmud may be because of the ability of VAM and PSM to solubilize and increase availability of inorganic phosphorus from insoluble or otherwise fixed P to soluble or readily plant available P (Hegde <italic>et al</italic>., 2; Verma and Mathur, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib007">7</xref>). Similarly, increase in head weight, head diameter and yield under DS + PSM inoculation might be due to better solubilization of insoluble or fixed P and better replenishment and uptake of soluble P by the plant. Improvement in growth and yield in several vegetables due to PSM and VAM inoculation were reported earlier by Mishustin and Navmova (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib004">4</xref>), Sunderarao and Sinha (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib006">6</xref>), Olsen <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib005">5</xref>) and Kumar <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib003">3</xref>). The other possible reason for improvement in yield attributes was due to higher equivalent available N, P and K nutrients in digested sludge in comparison to the other organic manures. <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on yield attributes of cabbage.</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th><th align="center">No. of outer leaves</th><th align="center">Fresh wt. of outer leaves (g)</th><th align="center">No. of inner leaves</th><th align="center">Head wt. (g)</th><th align="center">Head length (cm)</th><th align="center">Head diameter (cm)</th><th align="center">Head yield (q/ha)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td>FYM + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">365.00</td><td align="center">26.3</td><td align="center">1335.00</td><td align="center">14.2</td><td align="center">13.7</td><td align="center">519.80</td></tr><tr><td>FYM + VAM</td><td align="center">9.7</td><td align="center">336.00</td><td align="center">28.7</td><td align="center">1363.33</td><td align="center">15.3</td><td align="center">14.6</td><td align="center">515.67</td></tr><tr><td>FYM + PSM</td><td align="center">12.3</td><td align="center">406.67</td><td align="center">29.7</td><td align="center">14250.00</td><td align="center">15.5</td><td align="center">14.7</td><td align="center">534.60</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">12.0</td><td align="center">359.33</td><td align="center">29.3</td><td align="center">1413.00</td><td align="center">14.9</td><td align="center">14.4</td><td align="center">531.00</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + VAM</td><td align="center">13.3</td><td align="center">476.67</td><td align="center">31.7</td><td align="center">1616.67</td><td align="center">16.8</td><td align="center">15.5</td><td align="center">602.67</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud + PSM</td><td align="center">12.7</td><td align="center">426.67</td><td align="center">31.0</td><td align="center">1566.67</td><td align="center">16.4</td><td align="center">15.4</td><td align="center">587.40</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">11.0</td><td align="center">346.00</td><td align="center">27.7</td><td align="center">1353.67</td><td align="center">14.8</td><td align="center">13.8</td><td align="center">514.80</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + VAM</td><td align="center">11.0</td><td align="center">325.67</td><td align="center">28.0</td><td align="center">1376.67</td><td align="center">14.6</td><td align="center">12.8</td><td align="center">513.00</td></tr><tr><td>Digested sludge + PSM</td><td align="center">13.0</td><td align="center">458.33</td><td align="center">29.7</td><td align="center">1445.00</td><td align="center">15.9</td><td align="center">15.0</td><td align="center">570.80</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + <italic>Azospirillum</italic></td><td align="center">12.7</td><td align="center">415.00</td><td align="center">29.0</td><td align="center">1416.67</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">14.5</td><td align="center">540.00</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + VAM</td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">343.33</td><td align="center">23.7</td><td align="center">1356.67</td><td align="center">16.7</td><td align="center">14.1</td><td align="center">514.20</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost + PSM</td><td align="center">12.3</td><td align="center">355.00</td><td align="center">28.0</td><td align="center">1396.67</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">14.2</td><td align="center">518.40</td></tr><tr><td>Recommended NPK only (control)</td><td align="center">10.7</td><td align="center">343.33</td><td align="center">26.0</td><td align="center">1333.33</td><td align="center">15.6</td><td align="center">13.3</td><td align="center">491.33</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References1

Hara

Sugimoto

Sonoda

1981. Nutritional relationship between nitrogen and sulphur in cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata). J. Japanese Soc. Hort. Sci. 50: 60–65.2

Hegde

D.M.

Dwivedi

B.S.

Sudhakarbabu

S.S.

1999. Biofertilizer for cereals production in India, A review. Indian J. agric. Sci. 69: 73–83.3

Kumar

Gupta

P.P.

Jalali

B.L.

2001. Impact of VA-Mycorrhiza, Azotobacter and Rhizobium on growth and nutrition of cowpea. J. Mycol. PI. Pathol. 31: 38–41.4

Mishustin

E.N.

Navmova

A.N.

1962. Bacterial fertilizers; their effectiveness and mode of action. Microbiol. 31: 442.5

Olsen

J.K.

Schaefer

J.T.

Edwards

D.G.

Galea

V.J.

Muller

L.M.

1996. Response of capsicum, sweet corn and tomato to inoculation with VAM. Australian J. Agric. Res. 47: 651–71.6

Sundararao

W.V.B.

Sinha

M.K.

1963. Phosphate dissolving microorganisms in the soil and rhizosphere. Indian J. agric. Sci. 3: 272–78.7

Verma

Mathur

R.S.

1989. Biological association between nitrogen fixing and phosphate solubilizing microorganisms. Curr. Sci. 58: 1099–1100.