Effect of Foliar Application of Liquid Organic Fertilizers on crop growth and quality

1

Welcome

Effect of Foliar Application of Liquid Organic Fertilizers on

crop growth and quality.

Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, ParbhaniCollege of Agriculture, Latur-413512

PREPARED BYSHRINIVAS P NEELAPPAGOUDRA2015A/49MLDEPT. OF SSACCOA, LATUR Research Guide

Dr. P.H.VAIDYAASSOCIATE PROFESSORDEPT. OF SSACCOA, LATUR

Master’s Seminar (SOILS 591)

http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://mkv2.mah.nic.in/maulogo.png&imgrefurl=http://mkv2.mah.nic.in/&usg=__C3DYW0BIPFv_SW0gx78CJsivy9s=&h=117&w=123&sz=13&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=feUO8hISSM4oyM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=89&ei=fj6OUePxI86BrQe494HQDg&prev=/search?q=logo+of+MKV+parbhani&hl=en-IN&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CCsQrQMwAA

3

Liquid organic fertilizersLiquid organic fertilizers: Nutrient rich material is soaked in water

for several days or weeks to undergo fermentation. Frequent stirring encourages microbial activity in liquid manures. The resulting liquid can either be used as a foliar fertilizer or applied to the soil.

Objectives: To understand the effect foliar application on growth and yield

of crop

To understand the effect foliar application on Quality

4

Liquid organic fertilizers

Panchagavya0.03-0.02-0.04

Water Hyacinth Pig weed red-root

Liquid FishCow urine Vermiwash

Sea weed extract Compost Tea

5

What was the need to go for foliar application of organic fertilizer

The crop removes large quantity of plant nutrients from soil removal of NPK nutrients at the present level of crop production has been estimated at 125 kg/ha/annum where as the annual addition is not more than 75 kg resulting in depletion of the nutrient reserve of soil.

The excessive reliance on chemical fertilizers and the negligence shown to the conservation and use of organic sources of nutrients have not only caused the exhaustion of soil of its nutrient reserves but also resulted in soil health problems not conducive to achieving consistent increase in agricultural production.

Now a days Liquid Organic fertilizer has largely remained in background of biodynamic farming cultivation.

The plant can absorb nutrients about 20 times fast through the leaves than applied through the soil.

6

Therefore, liquid organic fertilizer are helpful to overcome temporary nutrient shortages. In organic farming mainly used to stimulate growth during the season, nutrient uptake through the roots is hindered.

Application of organic manures cannot full fill the nutrient requirement of crops. Therefore, for additional supply of nutrients.

There is a need to develop enriched liquid organic fertilizer which can supply adequate nutrients as well as have insecticidal/ fungicidal property.

Liquid organic manure has long shelf life, easy to disperse in water and it is rapidly up taken by plants compared to solid organic fertilizer.

7

Why should we foliar feed?a. Main activity by leavesb. Direct influence on the yield

How do foliar sprayed nutrients penetrate plant tissue?1. Through trichomes2. Through cuticle3. Through stomata4. Translocation

8

A. Through Trichomes: They are hair like organs ( epidermal outgrowth ) from which nutrients penetrates. Importance of this pathway depends on;1. Trichomes rate and position2. Leaf age and its origin

B. Through stomata:There is a cuticle pore in cell walls between guard cells and subsidiary cells. From this site the nutrients are absorbed.

9

C. Translocation:After the ions have penetrated, transportation to different parts of plants starts and this is referred to as translocation.Done by;1. Cell to cell (apoplast movement)

2. Through vascular channels (symplast movement)

10

D. Through CuticleCations penetrate first as they are attracted to the negative charge of the tissue. They move according to the gradient difference. After few minutes the cations changes the electrical balance in the tissue and causes less negative and more positive. From this point anions start penetrating the tissue.

11

Benefits of foliar feeding: Supply nutrients in peak periods. Nutrient supply that roots can’t. Improves quality of harvest. minimizes nutrient loss.

12

Effective foliar feeding depends on, Spray solution ( pH, molecule type,

solution water tension, spray droplet size).

Environmental conditions ( humidity, temp, light).

Leaf characteristics ( leaf age, surface, disposition, shape, plant sps).

13

• Effect of Foliar Application of Liquid Organic Fertilizers on

crop growth and quality.

Research paperS

14

Table 1 :Effect of humic acid through vermicompost wash and NAA on growth and yield of chick pea

Treatments Plant height (cm) No.of branches/plant Leaf area/plant(dm2)

45DAS

65 DAS 85 DAS 45DAS

65 DAS 85 DAS 45DAS

65 DAS 85 DAS

T1- (control) 29.88 43.20 49.38 2.40 3.60 49.38 2.40 3.60 3.63

T 2-(25 ppm NAA) 30.28 44.20 50.20 2.45 3.67 50.20 2.45 3.67 3.69

T3-(50 ppm NAA) 37.70 46.60 51.90 2.67 3.95 51.90 2.67 3.95 3.97

T4- (300 ppm HA) 31.81 47.70 52.03 2.70 4.00 52.03 2.70 4.00 4.02

T5- (400 ppm HA) 32.20 49.50 53.91 2.73 4.17 53.91 2.73 4.17 4.21

T6-(500 ppm HA) 31.41 44.73 50.23 2.47 3.81 50.23 2.47 3.81 3.90

T7- (25 ppm NAA +300 ppm HA) 32.50 49.04 54.22 2.76 4.20 54.22 2.76 4.20 4.26

T8- (25 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA) 32.67 50.50 54.60 2.80 4.24 54.60 2.80 4.24 4.29

T9- (25 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA) 31.44 45.30 50.51 2.50 3.89 50.51 2.50 3.89 3.93

T10- (50 ppm NAA+300 ppm HA 32.71 50.80 54.90 2.85 4.31 54.90 2.85 4.30 4.36

T11-(50 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA) 31.82 50.91 55.22 2.93 4.60 55.22 2.93 4.60 4.65

T12-((50 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA) 31.60 46.00 51.70 2.53 3.93 51.70 2.53 3.93 3.97

SE(m) ± 0.589 1.370 1.318 0.09 0.14 1.318 0.09 0.14 0.12

CD @ 5 % 1.728 4.018 3.867 0.26 0.42 3.867 0.26 0.42 0.35

Kapase et al.,(2014)

15

Table 2 :Effect of humic acid through vermicompost wash and NAA on growth and yield of chick pea

treatment Total dry matter production/plant Yield contributing parameters

45 DAS 65 DAS 85 DAS No. of pod/plant

100 seed weight (g)

Seed yield/ha (q)

T1- (control) 0.75 1.42 2.00 39.69 22.00 17.22

T 2-(25 ppm NAA) 0.75 1.48 2.10 39.74 22.10 18.16

T3-(50 ppm NAA) 0.94 2.26 3.23 43.59 23.12 20.66

T4- (300 ppm HA) 0.96 2.35 3.35 44.50 23.48 21.09

T5- (400 ppm HA) 1.01 2.68 3.85 45.63 24.00 21.63

T6-(500 ppm HA) 0.82 1.58 2.20 40.10 22.32 18.19

T7- (25 ppm NAA +300 ppm HA) 1.03 2.95 4.24 46.40 24.65 21.99

T8- (25 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA) 1.11 3.20 4.60 46.75 24.80 22.16

T9- (25 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA) 0.86 1.78 2.50 40.77 22.55 19.33

T10- (50 ppm NAA+300 ppm HA 1.11 3.36 4.86 47.31 25.00 22.43

T11-(50 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA) 1.20 3.78 5.48 47.72 25.80 22.59

T12-((50 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA) 0.91 2.05 2.90 41.90 22.80 19.86

SE(m) ± 0.038 0.112 0.174 1.649 0.810 0.678

CD @ 5 % 0.112 0.330 0.511 4.836 2.376 1.990

Kapase et al.,(2014)

16

Table 3: Influence of foliar sprays of vermiwash and cow dung wash on yield of soybean

Treatment Number of pods/plant

Weight of pods/plant (g)

100 seed weight (g)

Seed yield /plot (kg)

Seed yield/ ha (q)

T1-control 42.2 9.95 8.37 0.527 19.19

T2-100 ppm cow dung wash

42.7 10.42 9.29 0.580 19.34


43.1 10.78 9.61 0.592 19.75


44.9 13.40 10.42 0.632 20.07

T5-100 ppm vermi wash 43.7 11.68 9.73 0.605 20.17

T6-150 ppm vermi wash 44.6 13.03 10.05 0.612 20.40

T7-200 ppm vermi wash 50.7 14.84 10.82 0.655 21.85

SE(m)± 0.323 0.061 0.114 0.007 0.008

CD @ 5 % 0.958 0.180 0.330 0.020 0.023

Shraddha et al.,(2007)

17

Table 4: Influence of foliar sprays of vermiwash and cow dung wash on quality parameter of soybean seed

Treatments Leaf nitrogen content % Protein content %

Oil content %

30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS

T1-control 2.012 2.257 0.732 34.32 16.64

T2-100 ppm cow dung wash 2.205 2.327 0.937 35.42 17.06



T5-100 ppm vermi wash 2.345 2.590 1.080 37.42 18.34

T6-150 ppm vermi wash 2.485 2.660 1.130 38.45 19.08

T7-200 ppm vermi wash 2.695 2.940 1.377 40.31 20.04

SE(m)± 0.022 0.022 0.015 0.111 0.220

CD @ 5 % 0.065 0.065 0.044 0.327 0.653

Shraddha et al.,(2007)

Table 5: Efficacy of vermicompost wash on growth and yield parameters of Ground nut Treatmen

t Plant height (cm)

No of branches

Leaf area dm2 Total dry matter plant/g

20 DAS 35 DAS 50 DAS 65 DAS 20 DAS 35 DAS 50 DAS 65 DAS T1-

control45.73 6.8 1.08 1.06 3.17 3.95 1.03 3.05 8.27 9.10

T2- 100 ppm VCT

47.66 7.32 1.10 1.63 3.63 4.25 1.04 3.16 8.33 9.58

T3-150 ppmVCT

47.93 7.33 1.11 1.79 4.05 4.32 1.08 3.45 8.46 10.57

T4-200 ppm VCT

48.66 7.37 1.11 1.81 4.21 4.40 1.09 3.62 48.49 10.93

T5-250 ppm VCT

48.73 7.52 1.12 1.82 4.24 4.44 1.10 3.65 8.53 11.00

T6-300 ppm VCT

48.83 7.76 1.13 1.83 4.25 4.51 1.11 3.78 8.77 11.24

T7-350 ppm VCT

51.53 7.93 1.14 2.11 4.36 5.16 1.10 4.66 9.78 13.26

T8-400 ppm VCT

53.16 8.43 1.16 2.17 4.57 5.66 1.09 4.93 10.43 14.38

T9-450 ppm VCT

50.73 7.86 1.12 2.08 4.32 4.73 1.07 4.44 9.33 12.60

T10-500 ppm VCT

49.00 7.83 1.10 1.97 4.26 4.57 1.10 3.82 9.16 11.56

SE (m)± 0.951 0.273 0.066 0.014 0.008 0.011 0.3060 0.0050 0.0052 0.0086

CD @ 5 % 2.772 0.796 - 0.043 0.024 0.033 - 0.015 0.0152 0.0250

Priyanka et al.,(2011)

Table 6 : Efficacy of vermicompost wash on and yield parameters of Ground nut Treatment No of

pod /plantWt. of 100 kernels (g)

Pod Yd. /plot (kg)

Pod Yd. /ha (q)

Harvest Index (%)

T1- control 17.05 68.66 1.627 22.59 24.55T2- 100 ppm VCT 17.20 71.66 1.753 22.34 25.32T3-150 ppm VCT 17.35 72.33 1.782 24.74 25.91T4-200 ppm VCT 17.43 73.33 1.788 25.83 26.07T5-250 ppm VCT 17.63 73.33 1.796 25.94 26.59T6-300 ppm VCT 18.20 74.00 1.809 25.12 27.53T7-350 ppm VCT 18.96 77.00 1.911 26.54 29.45T8-400 ppm VCT 19.73 80.66 2.003 27.81 30.87T9-450 ppm VCT 18.43 75.66 1.851 26.70 29.18

T10-500 ppm VCT 18.23 74.66 1.820 26.27 28.65SE (m)± 0.3599 0.989 0.00115 0.016669 0.421

CD @ 5 % 1.048 2.881 0.00337 0.04856 1.288


20

Table 7: Effectivity of foliar spray of vermicompost wash on quality parameters of ground nutTretment Leaf nitrogen content

(%)Leaf phosphorus content (%)

Leaf potassium content (%)

Leaf chlorophyll content (mg/g)

35 DAS

50 DAS

65DAS

35 DAS

50 DAS

65DAS

35 DAS

50 DAS

65 DAS

35 DAS

50 DAS

65 DAS

T1- (control) 3.66 5.08 2.96 0.217 0.235 0.227 1.22 1.40 1.24 2.13 2.15 2.02

T2 -(100 ppm) 3.75 5.20 3.29 0.222 0.236 0.230 1.34 1.44 1.27 2.49 2.51 2.05

T3-(150 ppm) 3.90 5.30 3.73 0.228 0.239 0.235 1.37 1.49 1.29 2.54 2.55 2.07

T4 -(200 ppm) 4.06 5.49 4.15 0.230 0.243 0.243 1.41 1.53 1.30 2.55 2.58 2.13

T5 -(250ppm) 4.20 5.60 4.13 0.233 0.247 0.247 1.46 1.55 1.34 2.59 2.62 2.22

T6-(300 ppm) 4.35 5.71 4.66 0.246 0.250 0.250 1.49 1.57 1.39 2.60 2.65 2.26

T7-(350 ppm) 4.00 5.80 4.30 0.264 0.271 0.271 1.58 1.67 1.45 2.67 2.73 2.38

T8 -(400 ppm) 4.22 5.95 5.20 0.278 0.285 0.285 1.65 1.74 1.49 2.91 3.01 2.77

T9 -(450 ppm) 4.54 5.37 4.50 0.257 0.263 0.263 1.55 1.62 1.44 2.77 2.84 2.67

T10- (500 ppm) 4.68 5.28 4.10 0.252 0.250 0.250 1.53 1.59 1.42 2.68 2.77 2.55

SE(m)± 0.139 0.094 0.159 0.0009

0.0007

0.0005

0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0007

0.0007

0.0006

CD @ 5% 0.407 0.275 0.465 0.0028

0.0022

0.0015

0.026 0.025 0.024 00020

0.0021

0.0017


21

Table 8: Effectivity of foliar spray of vermicompost wash on quality parameters and yield of ground nutTreatment Oil content (%) HSP bold kernel

recovery %Shelling (%) Ha/q

T1- (control) 45.05 85.33 70.62 22.59T2 -(100 ppm) 45.15 90.00 70.70 22.34T3-(150 ppm) 45.40 90.83 71.86 24.74T4 -(200 ppm) 45.70 91.33 71.98 25.83T5 -(250ppm) 45.90 92.00 72.17 25.94T6-(300 ppm) 46.01 92.66 72.27 25.12T7-(350 ppm) 46.20 95.00 74.29 26.54T8 -(400 ppm) 46.80 95.33 75.33 27.81T9 -(450 ppm) 46.65 94.00 72.78 26.70T10- (500 ppm) 46.35 93.33 72.79 26.27SE(m)± 0.033 0.8946 0.615 0.016669CD @ 5% 0.096 2.606 1.793 0.4856


22

Effect of foliar application with compost tea and filtrate biogas slurry liquid on yield of washington navel orange trees

Omar et al.(2012)

23


Omar et al.(2012)

Omar et al.(2012)


25


Omar et al.(2012)

26


Omar et al.(2012)

27

Effect of foliar application with compost tea and filtrate biogas slurry liquid on fruit quality of washington navel orange trees

Omar et al.(2012)

28


Omar et al.(2012)

29


Omar et al.(2012)

30


30

Omar et al.(2012)

Table 9: Influence of Foliar spray of cow urine and NAA on quality parameter of groundnut

Treatments Leaf Chlorophyll mg/g Leaf Nitrogen (%) Leaf Phosphorus (%) Leaf Potassium (%) Oil (%)

25 DAS

40 DAS

55 DAS

25 DAS

40 DAS

55 DAS

25 DAS

40 DAS

55 DAS

25 DAS

40 DAS

55 DAS

T1 - Control H2O 0.52 0.70 0.74 2.50 3.20 3.08 0.207 0.219 0.224 1.20 1.03 0.86 46.03

T2 – 4 % Cow Urine 0.88 0.88 0.92 2.70 3.80 3.47 0.209 0.223 0.229 1.21 1.04 0.90 46.09

T3 – 6 % Cow Urine 0.89 0.90 0.94 2.73 4.10 3.70 0.210 0.226 0.231 1.22 1.10 1.03 47.03

T4 – 8 % Cow Urine 0.90 0.92 0.97 2.80 4.27 3.83 0.211 0.230 0.239 1.23 1.11 1.08 47.23

T5 – 10 % Cow Urine 0.91 0.95 1.02 2.86 4.20 4.03 0.213 0.233 0.241 1.24 1.12 1.10 48.13

T6 – 50 ppm NAA 0.96 1.02 1.08 2.93 4.31 4.10 0.214 0.239 0.243 1.26 1.14 1.13 48.32

T7 – 4 % Cow Urine + 50 ppm NAA

1.41 1.82 1.91 3.47 5.47 4.63 0.219 0.296 0.300 1.36 1.23 1.20 52.20


1.31 1.41 1.46 3.23 4.73 4.60 0.217 0.280 0.285 1.35 1.18 1.17 50.03


1.27 1.33 1.38 3.10 4.53 4.33 0.216 0.259 0.281 1.28

1.16 1.15 49.13


1.04 1.12 1.16 3.03 4.50 4.23 0.215 0.246 0.250 1.27 1.15 1.14 48.62

SE (m) ± 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.073 0.060 0.04 0.001 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.034 0.004 0.0423

CD @ 5 % 0.014 0.023 0.014 0.218 0.178 0.126 0.002 0.024 0.021 0.027 0.102 0.012 1.257

Sujata et al.,(2008)

32

Table 10: Effect of foliar spray of cow urine and NAA on growth and yield of soybeanTreatment Height

(cm)Leaf area (dm2) Dry matter (g) No.

pods/plant

Seeds yield /plot (kg)

100 seed weight (g)

Seed yield /ha (q)

NAA levels 50 DAS 70DAS 50 DAS 70 DAS 1.466

H2O spray 30.02 6.22 9.37 5.10 13.74 33.47 1.670 8.69 15.28

50 ppm NAA 34.80 7.36 11.32 5.96 16.96 41.44 0.012 9.54 17.28

SE (m)± 0.29 0.57 0.11 0.05 0.23 0.29 0.035 0.06 0.12

CD @ 5 % 0.80 1.41 0.30 0.14 0.63 -- 0.16 0.36

Cow urine level

H2O spray 29.88 6.09 9.46 5.06 14.07 34.44 1.494 8.83 15.57

Cow urine 2% 32.00 6.71 10.19 5.42 14.70 36.50 1.528 8.98 15.92

Cow urine 4% 3.94 6.96 10.76 5.65 15.62 38.33 1.574 9.21 16.40

Cow urine 6% 34.83 7.39 10.98 5.98 17.02 40.55 1.675 9.43 17.45

SE(m)± 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.20 0.57 0.014 0.05 0.14

CD @ 5 % 0.86 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.56 1.58 0.039 0.15 0.41

Interaction

SE(m)± 0.41 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.14 0.60 0.016 0.08 0.17

CD @ 5 % -- -- 0.44 0.83 0.39 -- 0.045 -- 0.47

CV % 3.58 5.04 4.47 15.20 2.60 4.50 2.97 2.50 2.97

Deotale et al.,(2011)

33

Table 11: Effect of foliar spray of cow urine and NAA on quality parameters of soybeanTreatment N content in leaves % P content in leaves % K content in leaves % Protein

content in seeds (%)

Oil content in seeds (%)50 DAS 70 DAS 50 DAS 70 DAS 50 DAS 70 DAS

NAA levels

H2O spray 3.00 2.05 0.42 0.64 1.57 1.19 32.72 16.62

50 ppm NAA 3.24 2.42 0.50 0.76 1.81 1.31 36.72 18.57

SE (m)± 0.005 0.010 0.0027 0.006 0.017 0.003 0.09 0.05

CD @ 5 % 0.014 0.028 0.0076 0.017 0.047 0.008 0.26 0.15

Cow urine level

H2O spray 3.02 2.07 0.43 0.65 1.60 1.19 33.12 16.71

Cow urine 2% 3.03 2.18 0.45 0.68 1.65 1.23 34.24 17.42

Cow urine 4% 3.17 2.27 0.47 0.72 1.71 1.26 35.36 17.96

Cow urine 6% 3.23 2.40 0.49 0.75 1.79 1.31 36.20 18.30

SE(m)± 0.006 0.014 0.0038 0.007 0.012 0.005 0.13 0.09

CD @ 5 % 0.018 0.039 -- -- 0.034 0.015 -- 0.26

Interaction

SE(m)± 0.016 0.017 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.18 0.17

CD @ 5 % 0.044 -- -- -- 0.027 0.020 -- 0.47

CV % 1.47 2.19 3.19 4.07 1.68 1.65 1.47 2.97

Deotale et al.,(2011)

Table 12:influence of foliar spray humic acid through cowdung wash and NAA on growth and yield of Mustard

Treatments Plant height (cm) Leaf area/plant (dm2) Dry matter production/plant Deed yield/ha35

DAS45 DAS 65 DAS 85 DAS 35

DAS45 DAS

65 DAS

85 DAS 35 DAS

45 DAS

65 DAS

85 DAS

T1- (control) 38.15 120.86 131.09 132.22 1.45 2.51 7.18 4.46 1.69 3.64 24.09 49.01 7.73

T 2-(25 ppm NAA) 42.50 121.48 132.38 133.47 1.48 2.62 7.22 4.81 1.74 3.72 25.28 49.08 7.89

T3-(50 ppm NAA) 49.71 126.47 141.40 142.93 1.71 2.97 7.47 5.24 2.03 4.37 28.29 50.46 8.92

T4- (300 ppm HA) 52.20 134.53 147.68 151.42 1.80 3.14 7.54 5.39 2.09 4.61 30.83 50.59 9.13

T5- (400 ppm HA) 51.83 131.68 145.87 148.70 1.73 3.04 7.54 5.37 2.06 4.55 30.37 50.50 9.00

T6-(500 ppm HA) 45.12 123.89 137.13 138.67 1.60 2.68 7.27 4.91 1.92 4.05 27.73 50.03 8.26

T7- (25 ppm NAA +300 ppm HA)

56.97 138.85 152.17 155.29 1.94 3.57 7.89 5.82 2.21 5.05 32.78 51.58 10.11

T8- (25 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA)

54.63 137.54 151.02 153.53 1.84 3.34 7.65 5.46 2.12 4.78 31.43 50.75 9.50

T9- (25 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA)

48.52 124.73 139.43 141.81 1.62 2.89 7.36 5.13 1.97 4.25 28.05 50.37 8.65

T10- (50 ppm NAA+300 ppm HA

58.12 143.23 155.02 159.08 1.97 3.64 7.90 5.94 2.26 5.18 33.09 51.82 10.40

T11-(50 ppm NAA+400 ppm HA)

56.43 138.85 151.02 154.61 1.85 3.46 7.77 5.51 2.14 4.93 32.44 51.12 9.78

T12-((50 ppm NAA+500 ppm HA)

42.94 122.97 135.52 137.13 1.48 2.63 7.24 4.81 1.75 3.95 27.50 49.59 8.10

SE(m) ± 3.203 3.847 5.429 5.84 0.075

0.154

0.159 0.274 0.118 0.288

1.887 0.816 0.575

CD @ 5 % 9.395 11.284 15.923 17.15 0.296

0.451

0.468 0.804 0.345 0.844

5.535 2.392 1.688

Arsode et al.,(2014)

35

Table 13:Effect foliar application seaweed sap (K.alvarezii)on growth and yield of Tomato.

treatment

Plant height (cm)

Root length (cm)

Chlorophyll mg/100 g FW

No. of fruits/plant

Fruit yield t/ha

Polar diam. (cm)

Equatorial diam.(cm)

Control 90.60 9.10 0.73 13.58 23.68 4.44 42.21

2.5 % 104.00 11.40 0.85 18.54 31.35 5.08 44.89

5.0 % 121.80 13.20 1.12 23.78 38.09 5.86 52.26

7.5 % 109.00 10.80 0.96 21.72 35.12 5.29 48.24

10.0% 105.68 10.30 0.89 20.32 32.51 5.12 45.56

CD at 5% 10.23 1.35 0.03 2.16 4.68 0.61 2.88

Zopade et al.,(2011)

Zopade et al.,(2011)

Table 14:Effect foliar application seaweed sap (K.alvarezii) on quality of Tomato.

treatment

Ascorbic acid mg/100 g

Acidity

%

Total solid%

N%

P%

K%

Femg/kg

Cumg/kg

Znmg/kg

Mnmg/kg

Control 42.21 0.74 4.04 3.70 0.42 2.00 70.80 5.95 30.20 35.20

2.5 % 44.89 0.81 4.70 3.80 0.49 2.80 76.00 6.80 32.80 39.70

5.0 % 52.26 0.92 5.32 4.19 0.53 3.35 91.40 7.45 37.40 50.20

7.5 % 48.24 0.87 5.00 4.17 0.53 3.25 85.40 7.37 37.00 48.70

10.0% 45.56 0.82 4.78 4.10 0.52 3.20 83.40 7.22 35.90 48.20

CD at 5% 2.88 0.05 0.54 0.11 0.02 0.12 4.54 0.29 2.04 2.53

Rajastan college of agriculture, Udaipur

37

Table 15:Effect foliar application seaweed sap (K.alvarezii) growth and yield of Green gram seed .

Treatment No. of pods per plant

Wt. pods per plant, g

No. of seeds per pod

Seed yield per plant, g

100 seed wt, g

Control 27.67 18.53 9.50 13.65 4.72

5.0 % 31.83 22.21 9.57 15.94 4.49

10.0 % 36.33 24.12 9.87 17.76 4.83

15.0 % 34.83 23.50 9.73 17.24 4.56

CD at 5 % 4.321 4.075 0.204 2.889 0.169

Zodape et al.,2010

38

Table 16: Effect of foliar spray of seaweed extract on growth and yield of okraTreatment

Plant height

Fresh weight of 5 fruits(g)

Dry weight of 5 fruits (g)

Fresh weight of plant(g)

dry weight of plant(g)

No. fruits/net plot

Fruits yield/net plotkg

Fruit yield q/ha

Control 50.65 41.71 4.50 137.77 20.07 118.75 1.25 57.90

2.50% 52.10 57.39 5.94 140.70 22.67 163.25 1.51 69.75

5.00% 51.60 55.87 5.86 137.82 20.50 154.25 1.40 64.71

7.50% 52.02 52.58 5.86 139.85 21.65 147.00 1.33 61.38

10.00% 51.55 48.37 5.16 136.75 19.75 138.25 1.23 57.07

CD @5%

- 9.91 -- 1.75 0.54 11.60 0.10 4.49

Zodape et al.,2008

Zodape et al.,2008

Table 17:Effect of seaweed extract on nutritional quality of okra(per 100 g of edible portion)

Treatment

Carbo-hydrates, g

Proteins g

Dietary Fibre, g

P mg

K mg

Namg

Camg

Mgmg

Vit C mg

Control 5.82 1.07 0.90 58.75 79.00 6.22 57.75 39.25 10.75

2.50% 6.25 1.37 1.22 63.25 102.25 7.02 65.25 44.75 13.00

5.00% 6.07 1.25 1.10 62.50 100.50 6.97 61.25 41.25 12.75

7.50% 5.95 1.17 1.05 60.75 99.0 6.95 59.75 40.75 12.25

10.00% 5.87 1.12 1.00 60.25 98.25 6.80 59.90 39.75 11.75

CD@5%

-- -- 0.10 2.51 1.50 0.37 2.34 1.94 0.98

40

Table 18: Effect foliar application seaweed sap (K.alvarezii) growth and yield of wheat.

Treatments

No. of spikes/plot

Weight of spike/plot (g)

Grain yield/plot (g)

Spike length(cm)

Number of grains/spike

Total biomass (g)

Shoot biomass (g)

Root biomass (g)

100 grain weight (g)

Control 12.30 15.57 8.59 8.41 39.20 12.87 11.75 1.12 2.20

0.25 % 14.60 19.40 10.51 8.47 35.00 16.75 15.36 1.38 2.48

0.50 % 15.30 20.69 11.50 8.53 37.00 15.44 14.01 1.43 2.74

1.0 % 16.90 26.85 15.50 8.57 37.90 19.99 18.06 1.93 2.94

CD @ 1%

2.30 4.69 3.19 NS NS 2.99 2.73 0.40 0.12

CD @ 5%

1.71 3.47 2.36 NS NS 2.22 2.02 0.30 0.09

Zodape et al.,(2009)

41

Table 19: Effect of foliar application of Moringa leaf extract (MLE), zinc sulphate (ZnSo4) and potassium sulphate (k2so4) on yield of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin fruit.Treatment yield Marketable fruit Unmarketable fruit

Fruit weight(kg)

Fruit number(no)

number % number %

YEAR l

Control 54.67 327 231 70 96 29

3 % MLE 81.45 492 396 80 95 19

0.6% ZnSO4 67.99 476 369 77 107 22

0.25 % k2so4 72.38 484 385 79 99 20

3 % MLE+0.6% ZnSO4+0.25 % k2so4

81.66 531 444 83 87 16

LSD (P≤ 0.05) 9.04 38.58 28.9 8.47 NS 8.44

YEAR II

CONTROL 16.84 148.25 107 71.18 41.25 28.8

3 % MLE 32.09 280.75 247.75 88.31 33 11.68

3 % MLE+0.6% ZnSO4+0.25 % k2so4

32.09 266.25 233.25 87.72 33 12.27

LSD(P≤ 0.05) 5.96 46.77 39.97 6.31 NS 6.32

Nasir et al.,(2016) Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad , Pakistan

42

Table 19: Effect of foliar application of Moringa leaf extract (MLE), zinc sulphate (ZnSo4) and potassium sulphate (k2so4) on quality of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin fruit .

Treatment SSC (Brix) TA (%) SSC:TA (Ratio)

Vit. C(mg/100 g)

TS % NRS % RS%

YEAR l

Control 9.9 0.75 13.12 19.53 13.8 11.3 1.95

3 % MLE 10.62 0.75 14.26 21.09 13.5 11.1 1.77

0.6% ZnSO4 10.37 0.85 12.19 24.21 13.9 11.4 1.92

0.25 % k2so4 10.87 0.82 13.31 25.79 16.0 14.0 1.23

3 % MLE+0.6% ZnSO4+0.25 % k2so4

10.82 0.86 12.56 21.87 15.3 13.4 1.86

LSD (P≤ 0.05) 0.25 0.08 NS 3.96 1.7 1.5 NS

YEAR II

CONTROL 9.75 0.33 29.59 25.5 14.1 9.89 4.25

3 % MLE 10.62 0.36 29.45 32.7 15.3 10.24 5.08

3 % MLE+0.6% ZnSO4+0.25 % k2so4

10.32 0.45 22.93 38.5 15.5 10.37 5.12

LSD (P≤ 0.05) 3.4 0.04 NS 3.65 0.36 0.27 0.44

Nasir et al.,(2016)

43

Conclusion: Foliar spray of vermicompost wash @ 400 ppm which will

increases growth, yield and quality of Groundnut. Application of vermi wash @ 200 ppm significantly increased

number and dry weight of pods/plant, 100 seed weight, seed yield /ha of soybean

Foliar spray of @ 4-6 % cow urine + 50 ppm NAA increases the growth yield and quality of groundnut and soybean crop.

Foliar application of seaweed sap it enhances the growth and quality of tomato, green gram and wheat crop.

From the above however concluded that foliar application of liquid organic fertilizers improves the quality and yield of crop

44

THank you

“KRUSHITO NAASTI DURBHIKSHM”

Education

Effect of Foliar Application of Liquid Organic Fertilizers on crop growth and quality