Agronomy crop irrigation methods fertigation.ppt

Crop Fertigation

2. Agron. 901
Speaker : R. D. Bedse
Major Advisor: Dr. A. U. Amin
Minor Advisor: Dr. B. B. Patel
Date:-17/10 /2008

3. Contents….
INTRODUCTION
ADVANTAGES OF FERTIGATION
LIMITATIONS OF FERTIGATION
RESEARCH REVIEW
Castor
Cotton
Chickpea
Tomato
Chilli
Potato
Fennel
Red Chilli
CONCLUSION

4. Introduction
InIndiaaround88%waterisbeingusedinagriculturesector,
covering18millionhectare(26.03%)landunderirrigation(Singhet
al.,2000).Butliberalizationinindustrialpoliciesandincreasing
populationincreasedthedemandofwaterforindustrialaswellas
domesticpurposes,whichresultedinincreasedthepressureon
availabilityofwaterforagriculturesector.
Underlimitedscopeofareaexpansion,toboostupthe
productivityforfulfillthefood,clothetc.requirementofincreasing
population,irrigationandfertilizerarethemajorconstraintsandthey
arecostlyandscareunjudicioususeoffertilizerandirrigationunder
conventionalmethodgeneratetheair,waterandsoilpollutionaswell
asincreasedthecostofproductionalso.
Fertigationisarelativelynewtechniquewherefertilizerand
irrigationwaterareapplieddirectlyintotherootzoneoftheplants
throughdripirrigation.Itprovidesscopetoutilizefertilizerand
irrigationwaterresourceseffectively/efficientlyandalsoenhancesthe
productionandproductivityofthecrop.

5. Fertigation
Fertigation,amodernapproachofapplicationof
fertilizersthroughirrigationwater,offerspotentialfor
moreaccurateandtimelycropnutrition.Thereby
reducingthenutrientlosses,whichalsoinfluencesthe
weedmenace.Thus,fertigationoffergreatpromisefor
exploitingtheyieldpotentialoffieldcrops.

6. Fertilizer use efficiency
Fertilizeruseefficiencybycropsisknowntobeverylowdueto
solubility,thereleasepatternandtherateofabsorptionwhichaffect
theuptakeofnutrientsfromtheappliedfertilizers.Besides,thesoil
types,moistureavailabilityandagro-ecologicalconditionsinfluenced
theavailabilityortheefficientuptakeofnutrientsfromtheadded
fertilizers.Applicationoffertilizersthroughirrigation“water-
fertigation”offersanefficientmeansofeconomizingirrigationwater
ontheonehandandincreasingfertilizeruseefficiencyontheother
hand.Dripirrigationpermitsapplicationoffertilizersthrough
irrigationwaterdirectlyatthesiteofhighconcentrationofroot
activityandcauseforimprovingthefertilizeruseefficiencyincrop
production.

7. 1.Improved efficiency in fertilizer use.
2.High nutrient availability due to maintenance of soil moisture near field
capacity under drip irrigation.
3.Unlike in traditional system, there is no damage to root system while top
dressing of fertilizers.
4.Fertilizers could be applied as frequently as possible and at those stages
of growth where the demand is maximum.
5.Considerable saving of labour and energy in the application of fertilizers.
6.About 25-50% reduction in the quantity of fertilizer applied is possible
through fertigation specially in crops which require high dose of fertilizer
without affecting the growth and yield.
7.Eliminates guess work in fertilizer feed system and avoids serious
underfeed and overfeed rotations.
8.Use of slow release nitrogenous fertilizer under drip irrigation would
enhance the efficiency of fertilizers.
ADVANTAGES OF FERTIGATION

8. Limitations of fertigation
•Only soluble fertilizers are suitable
•High initial cost
•Chemical reactions of fertilizers, which can lead to
clogging
•Need skilled labour/ trained hands

9. Characteristics of fertilizers in fertigation
1.Must be completely soluble in water.
2.Must not reach with dissolved elements in water
especially calcium and magnesium salts.
3.Must not get leached down easily from the soil.
4.Should not change the pH of water leading to
precipitation and clogging.

10. NUTRIENT DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
Surface Method Drip Drip fertigation
Leaching Localize Uniform
FERTILIZER USE EFFICIENCY
Nutrients
Soil
application
Drip Drip fertigation
Nitrogen 30-50 65 95
Phosphorus 20 30 45
Potassium 50 60 80

11. Fertigation in Castor

12. Table 1 : Effect of different treatments on castor yield.
Treatments
Castor yield (t/ha)
Income
(Rs’000/ha)
Net profit
(Rs’000/ha)1996-971997-98Pooled
Irrigation
D1 (0.8 ADPEF) 4.2 3.7 4.0 58.0 31.0
D2 (1.0 ADPEF) 4.3 3.9 4.1 59.4 31.1
D3 (1.2 ADPEF) 4.9 4.0 4.4 68.8 34.2
D4 (Surface method) 3.9 3.5 3.7 53.7 31.0
CD at 5% 2.24 0.32 0.19 - -
C.V. % 7.5 11.7 9.56 - -
Fertilizer
F1 (50 Kg N/ha) 3.8 3.3 3.6 52.2 24.2
F2 (100 Kg N/ha) 4.3 3.8 4.1 59.4 30.4
F3 (150 Kg N/ha) 4.8 4.2 4.5 65.3 35.4
CD at 5% 0.32 0.22 0.22 - -
C.V. % 10.4 8.0 9.47 - -
Sardarkrushinagar GAU (1999)
RDF= 100:50:00 NPK kg/ha. 25% water saving, 36% higher yield

13. Table 2 : Yield of castor as influenced by different treatments.
Treatments
Yield (t/ha) Net
Income
(Rs/ha
WUE
(Kg/ha
mm)
Water
saving
%
1996-
97
1997-
98
pooled
T1: 0.4 CPEF + 100% RDF 6.35 3.25 4.80 33.37 11.40 38
T2: 0.4 CPEF + 80% RDF 6.96 4.48 5.72 44.86 13.59 38
T3: 0.4 CPEF + 60% RDF 6.90 5.28 6.09 49.75 14.46 38
T4: 0.4 CPEF + 40% RDF 8.43 6.10 7.26 64.36 17.27 38
T5: 0.6 CPEF + 100% RDF 7.43 3.72 5.58 42.63 10.33 21
T6: 0.6 CPEF + 80% RDF 7.79 4.32 6.06 48.84 11.22 21
T7: 0.6 CPEF + 60% RDF 8.02 5.06 6.54 55.05 12.11 21
T8: 0.6 CPEF + 40% RDF 8.10 5.65 6.87 58.46 12.72 21
T9: 0.8 CPEF + 100% RDF 7.17 4.22 5.69 43.81 8.64 3
T10: 0.8CPEF + 80% RDF 6.81 4.91 5.86 46.30 8.90 3
T11: 0.8CPEF +60% RDF 6.78 4.93 5.85 46.75 8.90 3
T12: 0.8CPEF + 40% RDF 8.36 5.05 6.71 57.40 10.20 3
T13: Control (surface irrigation, IW/CPE
ratio 1.0) + 100% RDF
6.64 4.34 5.49 54.41 8.07 -
S.Em.+ 0.65 0.55 0.41 - - -
Navasari GAU (1999)
CPEF-Cumulitative Plant Evaporation fraction, 38 % water saving, 32 % yield increase
RDF= 100:50:00 NPK kg/ha.

14. Table 3: Yield as influenced by different N levels through fertigation in castor
Treatment
Seed yield (kg/ha)
1995 1996 1997 Pooled
40 % N through drip 2435 2495 3466 2799
60 % N through drip 2659 2712 3677 3016
80 % N through drip 3013 3219 3825 3352
100 % N through drip 3239 3577 4160 3655
100 % N soil application
through drip (Traditional
method; 60 mm depth)
2592 2966 3749 3013
CD (0.05) 452 329 437 220
Drip : 0.8 PEF
SK Nagar (Gujarat) Patel et al.( 2003)
Cont……RDF= 100:50:00 NPK kg/ha.

15. Treatment Additional
Yield over
lower level
(kg/ha)
Additional
income over
lower level
(Rs/ha)
Additional
cost over
level
(Rs/ha)
Net income
over lower
level (Rs/ha)
Net ICBR
40 % N through
drip
- - - - -
60 % N through
drip
217 3146 185 2961 1:16.00
80 % N through
drip
553 8019 370 7649 1:20.67
100 % N
through drip
856 12412 555 11857 1:21.36
100 % N soil
application
through drip
(Traditional
method; 60 mm
depth)
214 3103 555 2548 1:04.59
Conti……..

16. FERTIGATION IN COTTON

17. Treatments Seed cotton
Yield
(kg ha
-1
)
Water
applied
(mm)
Water use
efficiency
(Kg ha
-1
cm
-1
)
Nitrogen
use
efficiency
(Kg seed
cotton kg
N-ha
-1
)
Yield
increase
over
control
T
1: Drip fertigation 50
kg ha
-1 1654 122 21.4 33.1
T
2: Drip fertigation 75
kg ha
-1 1897 122 24.2 25.3 4
T
3: Drip fertigation 100
kg ha
-1 2108 122 25.2 21.1 16
T
4: 100 kg N ha
-1
band
placement of
fertilizer &
alternate furrow
irrigation;
0.9 IW/CPE
1825 180 21.2 18.2
C.D. at 5 % 139 102 - - -
Parbhani (Maharashatra) Shelke et al.(1999)
Table 4 : Effect of different levels of N through drip and surface
on the yield of cotton (NHH 44)
Drip: 0.8 PEF,32% water saving, 7% higher yield, 25 Kg N/ha saving

18. Table 5: Effect of different levels of nitrogen through drip and band application
on the hybrid cotton
Treatments Weed density
(No. m2)
Weed dry weight
(gm
2
)
Seed cotton yield (kg
ha
-1
)
Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer
T
1: Drip fertigation
120 kg ha
-1
139 122 29.3 24.4 2700 2148
T
2: Drip fertigation
90 kg ha
-1
133 118 28.8 23.8 2682 1966
T
3: Drip fertigation
60 kg ha
-1
125 110 26.3 21.6 2488 1790
T
4: Drip band
application 120 kg
ha
-1
164 136 32.8 28.1 2598 1897
T5: Furrow band
application
208 156 37.7 37.7 2368 1711
C.D. at 5 % 8.5 6.3 22.2 1.91 100.5 101.4
Coimbatore Veeraputhiran and Kandasamy (2001)
10.8% winter higher yield, 15.0 % summer higher yield, 25 kg N/ha saving

19. FERTIGATION IN CHICKPEA

20. Table 6 : Effect of fertigation on growth, yield and water use efficiency in
chickpea
Treatments Plant height
(cm)
Plant spread
(cm)
No. of pods
plant
-1
Grain yield
(q ha
-1
)
Straw
yield
(q ha
-1
)
Water
saving
(%)
WUE
(Kg ha
-1
cm
-1
)
T
1: Surface
irrigation + RDSF
48.77 36.23 24.78 19.2518.80- 53.08
T
2: DI + RDSF (N
through drip)
50.52 38.54 27.55 20.0420.0851.33116.65
T
3: DI + 150 %
RDLF
58.22 42.40 37.4422.7122.3951.33130.55
T
4: DI + 125 %
RDLF
57.48 41.63 37.28 22.5321.9751.33129.00
T
5: DI + 100 %
RDLF
56.31 41.11 36.86 22.3621.7851.33127.57
T
6: DI + 75 %
RDLF
54.66 39.76 36.20 22.3021.6351.33126.61
T
7: DI + 50 %
RDLF
46.26 34.09 23.31 18.0217.9751.33104.24
C.D. at 5 % 0.80 1.37 2.81 0.30 2.39 -
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Deolankar and Berad (1999)
DI : Drip irrigation; 1.0 PEF , 25 % fertilizer saving, 11.7 % increase yield, 51.33% water saving
RDSF/RDLF : Recommended fertilizer dose (25 : 50 : 25) through solid or liquid from fertilizer

21. 19.25
20.04
22.71 22.53
22.36 22.3
18.02
18.8
20.08
22.39
21.97 21.78 21.63
17.97
0
5
10
15
20
25
T1(SI+RDSF) T2 (DI+RDSF) T3 (DI+150%
RDLF)
T4
(DI+125%RDLF)
T5 (DI+100%
RDLF)
T6
(DI+75%RDLF)
T6
(DI+75%RDLF)
Yield (q/ha)
Grain yield
Straw yield Figure 1 : Effect of fertigation on growth, yield and water use
efficiency in chickpea
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Deolankar and Berad (1999)

22. FERTIGATION IN TOMATO

23. Table 7 : Effect of fertigation on yield and nutrient uptake of tomato
cv.Dhanashree
Treatments
Fruit
yield (q
ha
-1
)
Total uptake (kg ha
-1
)
N P K
T
1:RecommendeddoseRD(120:60:60N,P
2O
5,K
2O
kgha
-1
)+straightfertilizer+surfaceirrigation
(60mmdepth)
660 125 25 225
T
2:100%RD+straightfertilizer+dripirrigation 858 164 36 295
T
3:75%RD+straightfertilizer+dripirrigation 677 136 24 226
T
4:50%RD+straightfertilizer+dripirrigation 410 80 14 144
T
5:100%RD+Liquidfertilizer(8:8:8)+drip
irrigation
948 211 45 335
T
6:75%RD+Liquidfertilizer(8:8:8)+dripirrigation 901 183 38 302
T
7:50%RD+Liquidfertilizer(8:8:8)+dripirrigation 672 125 22 216
S.Em+ 29 9 2 10
C.D. at 5 % 91 27 5 30
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Vasane et al.(1996)
49 % water saving, 44 % yield increase, 25 % fertilizer saving
Soil : Sandy clay loamRDF= 120:60:60 NPK kg/ha.

24. Figure 2 : Effect of fertigation on yield and nutrient uptake of tomato
cv.Dhanashree660
858
677
410
948
901
672
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
T0 R.R.+
SF+SI
T1 100%
R.R.+SF+DI
T2 75%
R.R.+SF+DI
T3 50%
R.R.+SF+DI
T4 100%
R.R.+LF+DI
T5 75%
R.R.+LF+DI
T6 50%
R.R.+LF+DI
Yield (q/ha)
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Vasane et al.(1996)
R.R. = Recommended rate (120:60:60 NPK kg/ha), SF = Straight fertilizer, DI =Drip irrigation
LF =Liquid fertilizer

25. Table 8 : Tomato fruit yield (t/ha) as influenced by various treatments.
Treatments
Fruit production (t/ha)
1994-951995-96Pooled
T
1:Normalplanting+100%RDF 65.4752.40 58.93
T
2:Normalplanting+80%RDF 65.9552.77 59.36
T
3:Normalplanting+60%RDF 68.4355.19 61.81
T
4:Normalplanting+40%RDF 63.0450.67 56.85
T
5:Pairedrowplanting+100%RDF 70.0056.06 63.03
T
6:Pairedrowplanting+80%RDF 71.8758.93 65.40
T
7:Pairedrowplanting+60%RDF 73.2260.02 66.62
T
8:Pairedrowplanting+40%RDF 67.3553.43 60.39
S.Em+ 2.11 1.83 1..31
CD at 5% 6.12 5.30 3.70
Navasari GAU (2001)
11-33 % yield increase, 23% water savingRDF= 250:125:125 NPK kg/ha.

26. Figure 3 : Tomato fruit yield (t/ha) as influenced by various treatments.58.93
59.36
61.81
56.85
63.03
65.4
66.62
60.39
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
T1 N.P.+100%RPFT2 N.P.+80%RPFT3 N.P.+60%RPFT4 N.P.+40%RPF T5
P.R.P+100%RDF
T6
P.R.P+80%RDF
T7
P.R.P+60%RDF
T8
P.R.P+40%RDF
Yield (t/ha)
Navasari GAU (2001)
N.P.= Normal planting, PRP= Paired row planting.

27. Treatments
Net
realization
Additional net
realization over
respective control
T
1:Normalplantig+100%RDF 113.6 28.0
T
2:Normalplantig+80%RDF 116.3 30.7
T
3:Normalplantig+60%RDF 125.9 40.3
T
4:Normalplantig+40%RDF 110.4 24.8
T
5:Pairedrowplanting+100%RDF 134.2 38.3
T
6:Pairedrowplanting+80%RDF 143.7 47.8
T
7:Pairedrowplanting+60%RDF
148.9 53.0
T
8:Pairedrowplanting+40%RDF 129.0 33.1
S.Em + 52.4 -
CD at 5% 148.1 -
Navasari GAU (2001)
Table 9 :-Net realization under various treatments of tomato (000 Rs/ha)
11-33 % yield increase, 23% water savingRDF= 250:125:125 NPK kg/ha.

28. FERTIGATION IN CHILLI

29. Table 10: Growth, yield and nutrient uptake in Chilli as influenced by
different treatment
Treatments
Plant
Height
(cm)
No. of
Branches
Plant
-1
Yield
(t ha
-1
)
Water use
efficiency
(Kg ha
-1
mm
-1
)
Total nutrient uptake (kg
ha
-1
)
N P K
T
1
: 100 % RD+SI
(50mm depth)
58.4 7.5 4.77 5.55 89.6 10.298.4
T
2
: 100 % RD+DI 61.2 8.2 5.04 11.47 101.5 11.7117.6
T
3
: 100 % NF + P and
K as band placement
60.1 7.3 4.85 11.02 94.3 10.4103.0
T
4
: 100 % RDFD 62.2 8.4 6.01 13.65 125.9 12.5126.3
T
5
: 70 % N and 80 % P
and K FD
61.8 8.3 5.57 12.54 118.4 11.7118.2
T
6
: 70 % RDFD 60.7 7.9 4.98 11.32 93.6 10.2103.7
T
7
: 50 % N and 80% P
and K FD
59.2 7.5 4.75 10.81 82.7 8.1 77.3
T
8
: 50 % N and 70% P
and K FD
58.8 7.2 4.67 10.61 75.4 7.1 80.4
S.Em + 0.759 0.154 0.148 0.024 3.73 0.722.57
C.D. at 5 % 2.3 0.468 0.44 0.072 11.33 2.197.81
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Tumbare and Bhoite (2002)
Sandy clay loam soil, pH 8.0
30 % N, 20% P and K saving, 51.16 % water saving
RDF=150:75:75 NPK kg/ha.

30. 4.775
5.047
4.852
6.01
5.578
4.981
4.759 4.672
5.55
11.47
11.02
13.65
12.54
11.32
10.81
10.61
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
T1 100%RD+SI T2 100%RD+DI T3 100%NF+P,K T4 100%RDFD T5
70%N+80%P,K+FD
T6 70%RDFD T7
50%N+80%P,K+FD
T8
50%N+70%P,K+FD
Yield
WUE F igure 4: Growth, yield and nutrient uptake in Chilli as influenced by different
treatment
Rahuri (Maharashatra) Tumbare and Bhoite (2002)
RD=Recommended dose, SI=Surface irrigation, DI=Drip irrigation, NF=Nitrogen through
fertilization, RDFD=Recommended dose of fertilizer through fertigation

31. Table 11 : Effect of irrigation, nitrogen levels on fruit yield of Chilli
(kg/ha)
Treatments
Fruit yield (Kg/ha)
WUE
Kg/mm
Saving water
over control
(%)
2003-04
2005-
06
Pooled
Dripirrigation
I1-0.6PEFdrip 1524814125 14687 22.12 40.71
I2-0.8 PEF drip 1617315729 15951 18.57 23.23
I3-1.0PEF drip 1712716611 16869 16.02 5.98
I4-1.0IW/CPEsurface1051011942 11226 10.02 -
S.Em+ 563 579 404
CDat5% 1800 1851 1200
Nitrogenlevels
N1-75%RDN 1371413277 13495
N2-100%RDN 1581615926 15870
S.Em+ 378 255 229
CDat5% 1086 731 645
Sardarkrushinagar SDAU (2007)
RDF=125:75:75 NPK kg/ha.

32. Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
fruits/plant
Fruit
weight/plant
(Kg)
Net
Profit
(Rs/ha)
C:B:R
Dripirrigation
I1-0.6PEFdrip
74.606 110.100 0.609 32013 1:1.77
I2-0.8 PEF drip 78.731 117.594 0.642 36690 1:1.85
I3-1.0PEF drip 82.356 125.431 0.706 39858 1:1.89
I4-1.0IW/CPE
surface
71.256 103.025 0.453 22128 1:1.65
S.Em.+ 0.970 0.478 0.025 - -
CDat5% 2.881 1.412 0.073 - -
Nitrogenlevels
N1-75%RDN 25.297 109.456 0.578 27516 1:1.69
N2-100%RDN 78.178 118.619 0.627 37820 1:1.91
S.Em.+ 0.599 0.739 0.014
CDat5% 1.687 2.080 0.04
Sardarkrushinagar SDAU (2007)
Table 12:-Yield attributes as influenced by various level of
irrigation and nitrogen on Chilli
RDF=125:75:75 NPK kg/ha.

33. Fertigation in Potato

34. Table 13 : Effect of drip fertigation on tuber yields, number, dry matter
content and input use
Treatments Total
yield
(q/ha)
Tuber
number
(Lack/ha)
Total DM
(q/ha)
Fertilizer use
efficiency
(q/kg NPK)
WUE
(q/ha
-mm)
T
0:NPK (control) 185 5.37 36 - 0.78
T
1:25% NPK fertigation 299 6.40 57 1.27 1.27
T
2: 50% NPK fertigation 381 7.04 72 1.09 1.62
T
3: 75% NPK fertigation 448 7.45 83 0.98 1.92
T
4: 100% NPK fertigation 463 7.89 84 0.78 1.97
T
5: 100% NPK to soil under
drip
370 7.46 71 0.52 1.57
T
6: 100% NPKto soil under
furrow
328 6.45 62 0.40 0.82
C.D. at 5 % 24 45 13 - -
Shimla CPRI (2002)
32-53 % yield increase, 50 % water saving
RDF=150:100:100 NPK kg/ha.

35. Figure 5: Effect of drip fertigation on tuber yields, number, dry matter
content and input use185
299
381
448
463
370
328
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
T0 NPK
(Control)
T1 25%NPK
Fertigation
T2 50%NPK
Fertigation
T3 75%NPK
Fertigation
T4
100%NPK
Fertigation
T5
100%NPK
to soil under
drip
T6
100%NPK
to soil under
furrow
Yield (q/ha)
Shimla CPRI (2002)

36. Table 14 : Benefit:cost ratio of double row potato planting with drip
irrigation/fertigation
Treatments yield
(q/ha)
Cultivation
cost (Rs/ha)
Gross return
(Rs/ha)
Net return
(RS/ha)
B:C ratio
T
1: 75% NPK
fertigation for paired
row Planting
371 42872 92750 49878 2.16
T
2: 75% NPK
fertigation for single
row Planting
388 47840 97000 49160 2.03
T
3: 100% NPK
fertigation for paired
row Planting
399 43938 99750 55812 2.27
T
4: 100% NPK
fertigation for single
row Planting
404 48906 101000 52094 2.06
T
5: furrow irrigation294 40171 73500 33329 1.83
C.D. at 5 % 26 - - - -
Meerut(UP) Singh et al. (2003)
Light textured soil , 25 % fertilizer saving
RDF 150:100:100 NPK Kg/ha

37. Table 15 : Effect of NPK fertigation and planting system on potato
production
Treatments
Grade-wise and Total Potato Yield (q/ha)
Large Medium SmallTotal yield
T
1 : 50% NPK DRS 52 177 28 257
T
2 : 50% NPK SRS 54 180 27 261
T
3 : 75% NPK DRS 63 195 22 280
T
4 : 75% NPK SRS 70 197 23 290
T
5 : 100% NPK DRS 85 225 22 332
T
6 : 100% NPK SRS 89 226 20 335
T
7 : supplemental irrigation 50 175 28 253
C.D. at 5 % 10 19 - 30
Shimla CPRI (2004)
SRS = Single row drip line, DRS = Raised bed double row system with single drip line
RDF-120:100:100 NPK kg/ha. 32.5 % yield increase, 50% fertilizer saving, 45 % water saving.
Soil-Acidic Brown hill soil

38. Figure 6: Effect of NPK fertigation and planting system on Potato
production52 54
63
70
85
89
50
177 180
195 197
225 226
175
257
261
280
290
332 335
253
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
T1
50%NPK
DRS
T2
50%NPK
SRS
T3
75%NPK
DRS
T4
75%NPK
SRS
T5
100%NPK
DRS
T6
100%NPK
SRS
T7 SI
Grade wise and total potato yield (kg/ha)
Large
Medium
Total yield
Shimla CPRI (2004)
SRS = Single row drip line, DRS = Raised bed double row system with single drip line
RDF-120:100:100 NPK kg/ha. 32.5 % yield increase, 50% fertilizer saving, 45 % water saving.

39. Table 16 : Effect of NPK fertigation and planting system on Potato
production under drip irrigation
Treatments
Grade-wise and Total Potato Yield(q/ha)
Large
(>75g)
Medium
(25-75g)
Small
(<25g)
Total Yield
(q/ha)
T
1 : 75% NPK for TPP 44 119 29 252
T
2 : 75% NPK for PRP 71 218 28 317
T
3 : 75% NPK for SRP 85 227 24 336
T
4 : 100% NPK for TPP 52 177 28 257
T
5 : 100% NPK for PRP 88 223 26 337
T
6 : 100% NPK for SRP 93 229 24 346
T
7 : Furrow irrigation (control)57 168 26 251
C.D. at 5 % 11 21 - 29
Shimla CPRI (2004)
TPP-Traditional potato planting with alternate drip laterals, PRP-Paired row planting,
SRP-Single row planting
Soil-Acidic Brown hill soil RDF-150:100:100 NPK kg/ha

40. Figure 7: Effect of NPK fertigation and planting system on potato
production252
317
336
257
337
346
251
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
T1 75%
NPK for
TPP
T2 75%
NPK for
PRP
T3 75%
NPK for
SRP
T4 100%
NPK for
TPP
T5 100%
NPK for
PRP
T6 100%
NPK for
SRP
T7 Control
Total Yield q/ha
Shimla CPRI (2004)
TPP-Traditional potato planting with alternate drip laterals,
PRP-Paired row planting, SRP-Single row planting

41. FERTIGATION IN FENNEL

42. Treatments 2005/06 2006/07 Mean
T1-0.6 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 1575 2225 1900
T2-0.6 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 1686 2212 1949
T3-0.6 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 1549 2101 1825
T4-0.8 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 1789 2549 2169
T5-0.8 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 2087 2762 2424
T6-0.8 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 1672 2277 1974
T7-1.0 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 1744 2475 2109
T8-1.0 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 1976 2591 2283
T9-1.0 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 1595 2289 1942
T10-Control (0.8 IW/ CPE ratio 50mm depth
+ RDF 100 + 60 kg NP/ha)
1664 2034 1850
SEm
CD at 5%
Sardarkrushinagar SDAU (2007)
Table 17:-Effect of different treatments on Fennel seed yield (Kg/ha)

43. FERTIGATION IN DRY RED
CHILLI

44. Treatments 2005/06 2006/07Mean
T1-0.6 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 2055 1949 2002
T2-0.6 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 1900 2059 1979
T3-0.6 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 1881 1835 1858
T4-0.8 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 2288 1979 2133
T5-0.8 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 2156 2121 2138
T6-0.8 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 2067 1837 1952
T7-1.0 ADPEF+ 100% RDN 2583 2161 2372
T8-1.0 ADPEF+ 80% RDN 2737 2454 2595
T9-1.0 ADPEF+ 60% RDN 2505 2091 2298
T10-Control (0.8 IW/ CPE ratio 50mm
depth + RDF 100 + 60 kg NP/ha)
1728 1600 1664
SEm - - -
CD at 5% 637 347 -
Sardarkrushinagar SDAU (2007)
Table 18: -Effect of different treatments on dry red Chilli yield (Kg/ha)

45. 2055
1900 1881
2288
2156
2067
2583
2737
2505
1728
1949
2059
1835
1979
2121
1837
2161
2454
2091
1600
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
T1 0.6
ADPEF+100%
RDN
T2 0.6
ADPEF+80%
RDN
T30.6
ADPEF+60%
RDN
T4 0.8
ADPEF+100%
RDN
T50.8
ADPEF80%
RDN
T60.8
ADPEF+60%
RDN
T71.0
ADPEF+100%
RDN
T81.0
ADPEF+80%
RDN
T91.0
ADPEF+60%
RDN
T0 Control (0.8
IW/CPE)
Yield (kg/ha)
2005-06
2006-07 Figure 8: -Effect of different treatments on dry red Chilli yield (Kg/ha)
Sardarkrushinagar SDAU (2007)

46. Conclusion
Innutshellfromaboveinformation,adoptionof
fertigationtechniquesinwidespacedfieldcropsreduced
weedpopulationanddrymatterproduction,increasedcrop
yieldwithgoodmoneteryreturn.Moreover,italsoreduced
bothcostlyandscareinputsi.e.fertilizerandirrigationwater
requirementbyincreasingfertilizerandwateruse
efficiencies.Infertigationuseofliquidfertilizerfoundmore
beneficialthansolidfertilizer.

47. Thank You