Optimizing soil fertility and profitability in mustard cultivation through integrated nutrient management

Introduction

In India, Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) is extremely important to agriculture, supporting the livelihoods of millions of farmers and accounting for roughly 28.6% of the country's oilseed production. Sustainable farming methods are crucial in Dehradun and other mustard-growing areas to support long-term soil health and farm profitability in addition to meeting the demand for edible oil. Concerns regarding nutrient imbalances, falling factor productivity, and soil degradation have been highlighted by the extensive use of chemical fertilizers in oilseed-based systems (Prasad et al., 2017) [15] . Therefore, increasing soil fertility through integrated methods is essential to guaranteeing environmental sustainability as well as crop productivity. A comprehensive strategy is provided by Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), which blends organic sources including FYM, vermicompost, and biofertilizers with inorganic fertilizers. These inputs enhance soil organic carbon, microbial activity, and nutrient cycling in addition to providing macro-and micronutrients (Kakraliya et al., 2017) [7] . In particular, vermicompost improves soil aeration, water-holding capacity, and microbial diversity, and FYM offers a source of nutrients that release gradually. The use of organic manures aids in restoring soil health and lessens the adverse impacts of ongoing chemical fertilizer application. The economic feasibility of growing mustard is influenced by nitrogen management techniques in addition to soil condition. Farmers frequently have to choose between cutting input costs and increasing yields.

By decreasing reliance on pricey chemical fertilizers and increasing nutrient-use efficiency, integrated techniques can increase cost-effectiveness and enhance the benefit-cost ratio. Assessing the financial benefits of various nutrient management techniques in addition to their effects on soil fertility yields important information for suggesting sustainable farming methods to farmers. In this context, the present study aims to assess the effect of integrated organic and inorganic fertilizer application on soil properties and economics of mustard production under Dehradun conditions, thereby addressing both sustainability and profitability aspects of mustard cultivation.

Review of literature 2.1. Effect of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties under Mustard Crop

Maintaining mustard productivity depends heavily on soil fertility and nutrient dynamics, and numerous studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of integrated nutrient management (INM) on soil characteristics. Applying 100% RDN using Panchgavya greatly increased soil nutrient content and uptake, as shown by Sharma et al. (2023) [16] . Higher NPK content (2.48, 0.63, and 0.99%, respectively) and uptake (46, 84, 11.86, and 18.72 kg ha -¹) were the results. Comparable to higher RDF-based treatments, Venkatesh et al. (2023) [21] found that the combined application of 75% STB NPK with FYM and a biofertilizer consortium improved the availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur throughout the crop cycle. The importance of organic sources in preserving soil fertility is further demonstrated by several investigations. 50% RDF in combination with FYM, vermicompost, biofertilizers, and ZnSO₄ increased grain and straw nutrient absorption, according to Dubey et al. (2019) [4] . Similarly, Ajnar and Namdeo (2021) [1] found that when 75% RDF was combined with sulphur, vermicompost, Azotobacter, and PSB, the highest levels of N, P, K, and S were found in the seed and stover. Vermicompost treatment increased N (1.52%), P (0.56%), and S (0.23%) in radish roots, according to Meena et al. (2023) [10] , suggesting that it has the capacity to enrich soil outside of mustard systems. Improvement of soil health is another focus of long-term INM studies. While Mujumder et al. (2017) [11] observed improved organic carbon and sulphur availability under FYM, sulphur, and zinc treatments, Tomar et al. (2018) [20] found that combining NPK with FYM and biofertilizers considerably boosted accessible soil N and P. In addition, Chesti et al. (2015) [3] verified that, in comparison to fertilizer alone, FYM plus NPK enhanced soil organic carbon and nutrient availability. All things considered, these results imply that the combined application of chemical fertilizers, organic manures, and biofertilizers improves soil organic matter, nutrient uptake, and total soil fertility, guaranteeing the long-term viability of mustard farming.

Economics of Mustard Crop under Integrated Nutrient Management

The economic viability of growing mustard is significantly impacted by fertilizer management techniques. Numerous studies have shown that INM increases profitability in addition to yield. According to Sharma et al. (2023) [16] , in Dehradun conditions, the highest gross return (₹1, 94, 636.6 ha -¹), net return (₹1, 61, 649.8 ha -¹), and B:C ratio (4.9) were obtained by applying FYM (5 t ha -¹) and vermiwash (5%) together. Similarly, 100% RDF yielded the highest net return (₹56, 582 ha -¹) and a B:C ratio of 2.66, according to Gora et al. (2022) [5] .

Research also shows that using organics and inorganics together yields higher financial returns than using just chemical fertilizers. According to Singh et al. (2018) [18] , the best net yield (₹29, 856 ha -¹) and B:C ratio (2.29), when combined with vermicompost, FYM, Azotobacter, and PSB, was obtained with 75% RDF. 100% NPK with FYM, PSB, and sulfur produced the highest gross return (₹67, 003 ha -¹) and the highest net return (₹33, 204 ha -¹), according to Maurya et al. (2019) [9] . Similarly, Singh and Singh (2014) reported that FYM, PSM, and Azospirillum treatments resulted in the highest gross return (₹39, 067 ha -¹) and net return (₹25, 547 ha -¹). Studies that focus on particular nutrients also show noteworthy trends in profitability. According to Agnihotri et al. (2021) [2] , hybrid 5222 with 120 kg N ha -¹ generated the highest B:C ratio (3.11), net return (₹50, 345 ha -¹), and gross return (₹74, 162 ha - ¹), but lower nitrogen levels led to smaller economic returns. Earlier research by Kumar et al. (2016) [8] demonstrated that combining NPK with vermicompost, sulfur, zinc, and boron greatly increased production, economic returns, and nutrient uptake. Overall, these studies highlight that INM practices not only sustain yields but also maximize profitability by reducing input costs and enhancing benefit-cost ratios, making them a viable strategy for mustard farmers.

Material and methods

The field experiment entitled "Impact of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizer on Growth and Yield of Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea L.) under Dehradun conditions" was conducted during the Rabi season of 2023-24 at the Research Farm of Agronomy Block, Agriculture Department, Jigyasa University (Formerly Himgiri Zee University), Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with nine treatments i.e., T1: 100% RDF @N:83.58g, P:75.12g, K:47.4g, T2:80% RDF @ N: 69.65g, P: 62.60g, K:32g + Vermicompost @9kg, T3:80% RDF @ N: 69.65g, P: 62.60g, K:32g + Biofertilizer (Azotobacter+ PSB@500 ml Kg-1 Seed), T4: 80% RDF @ N: 69.65g, P: 62.60g, K: 32g + Vermicompost @9kg + Biofertilizer (Azotobacter+ PSB@500 ml Kg -1 Seed), T5: 60% RDF@N:52.24g, P: 46.95, K:24g + [email protected] kg, T6: 60% RDF @ N: 52.24g, P: 46.95, K: 24g + Biofertilizer (Azotobacter+ PSB@ 500 ml Kg -1 Seed), T7: 60% RDF @N: 52.24g, P: 46.95, K: 24g + [email protected] kg + Biofertilizer (Azotobacter + PSB@ 500 ml Kg -1 Seed), T8 100% Vermicompost @20 Kg and T9:100% Biofertilizer (Azotobacter+ PSB@500 ml Kg-1 Seed) and three replications. The mustard variety HY-805 was sown on 20th October 2023 at a spacing of 45 cm × 10 cm, with a plot size of 3 m × 2 m. The recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) was 80:60:40 kg ha -¹ N:P:K, supplemented with vermicompost and biofertilizers (Azotobacter + PSB) as per treatment combinations. Standard agronomic practices were followed throughout the cropping period. Before planting and after harvest, representative soil samples from each plot were taken, ranging in depth from 0 to 15 cm. pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic carbon (OC), available nitrogen (N), available phosphorus (P), and available potassium (K) were measured using standard techniques after the samples were air-dried and sieved (2 mm) (Jackson, 1973; Subbiah & Asija, 1956; Olsen et al., 1954) [6,19,12] . The purpose of these investigations was to examine how integrated nutrient management techniques affected soil fertility. The following parameters were estimated for economic evaluation: Actual field operations, labor, and input expenses are used to calculate the cost of cultivation (₹ ha -¹). Based on stover yield at current local market rates and seed yield at Minimum Support Price (MSP), the gross return (₹ ha -¹) is calculated. After deducting the cultivation cost from the gross return, the net return (₹ ha -¹) is the result. The benefit-cost (B:C) ratio is computed by dividing net return by cultivation costs.

Results and Discussion

Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Properties (Table 1)

The post-harvest physico-chemical characteristics of the soil were greatly impacted by the application of various mixes of organic and inorganic fertilizers. pH of the soil The pH of the soil varied between treatments, ranging from 7.33 to 7.78. T4 (80% RDF + Vermicompost + Biofertilizer) had the lowest pH (7.33), indicating acidification brought on by microbial activity and the generation of organic acid. However, T1 (100% RDF) had the highest pH (7.78), which may be because chemical fertilizers are alkaline. Nonetheless, the pH fluctuation stayed within the neutral to slightly alkaline range, suggesting that there were no negative impacts on the health of the soil. Conductivity of electricity (EC) T1 had the greatest soil EC and T4 had the lowest, with a range of 1.13 to 1.61 dS m -¹. Lower salt accumulation may be the cause of the decreased EC with integrated and organic treatments, suggesting improved soil structure and a lower likelihood of salinization. Organic carbon (OC) Treatments with organic amendments showed a considerable increase in organic carbon content. T1 had the lowest OC (0.38%), while T4 had the highest OC (0.57%), followed by T8 (0.54%). Vermicompost and biofertilizers, which add organic matter and support microbial activity and long-term soil fertility, are responsible for this improvement. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Availability The range of accessible phosphorus and nitrogen was 6.63 to 13.50 kg ha -¹ and 85.33 to 154.05 kg ha -¹, respectively (Fig. 1.). The synergistic effect of integrated nutrient management (INM) on N and P mineralization and availability was demonstrated by the maximum values for both in T4. Through processes including N mineralization and native phosphorus solubilization, the increased microbial activity in organic and INM treatments probably improved nutrient availability and cycling. These results are consistent with findings of Panwar (2008) [13] and Patra et al. (2011) [14] , who reported that the use of organic inputs enhances nutrient release and microbial transformation processes in soil.

Economic Analysis of Mustard Cultivation

According to the economic analysis, maximizing profitability also benefited from integrated nutrient application (Table 2). The price of cultivation Because organic inputs are expensive, T8 (100% Vermicompost) had the highest cultivation cost (Rs. 54, 603 ha -¹). T9 (100% Biofertilizer) had the lowest (Rs. 32, 022 ha -¹), which is indicative of its inexpensive input cost. Net and Gross Returns Following T1 and T3, T4 had the highest net return (Rs. 84, 269 ha -¹) and gross return (Rs. 1, 28, 255 ha -¹). Despite its high cost, T8 had the lowest net return, demonstrating that applying vermicompost alone was not very cost-effective. Cost: Benefit (B:C) The ratio T4 had the highest B:C ratio (1.92), while T8 had the lowest (0.62). This proves unequivocally that integrated nutrient management is more costeffective than using only chemical or organic fertilizers. These results support those of Singh and Sinsinwar (2006) [17] and Kumar et al. (2011), who found that increased yield and input efficiency under integrated nutrient management led to increased profitability. The study unequivocally shows that applying 80% RDF along with vermicompost and biofertilizers (T4) increases soil fertility, nutrient availability, and yields the highest possible economic returns while growing mustard. Although it produced good results, the application of chemical fertilizers alone (T1) was not as effective as integrated techniques. Vermicompost (T8) and other solely organic inputs enhanced soil health but were not economical. For sustainable mustard production, integrated nutrient management is advised in order to maximize soil health and financial gain. Available N and P content in soil under the influence of organic and inorganic fertilizer

Summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of combined organic and inorganic fertilizer treatments on soil health and the profitability of growing mustard (Brassica juncea L.) in the agroclimatic conditions of Dehradun. Nine different nutrient management treatments were used in the study, including solitary applications of organic or bio inputs, combinations with vermicompost and biofertilizers (Azotobacter + PSB), and complete RDF (Recommended Dose of Fertilizer). Economic metrics like gross return, net return, and benefit-cost ratio were computed, and soil characteristics including pH, EC, organic carbon, and accessible NPK were measured both before and after harvest. The results showed that treatment T4 (80% RDF + vermicompost + biofertilizer) consistently performed better than the others, exhibiting the highest levels of nutrient availability and soil organic carbon (0.57%), as well as the highest economic returns. Although 100% RDF (T1) was successful in preserving yields, it resulted in decreased organic carbon and increased soil EC. Although sole vermicompost (T8) enhanced soil qualities, its high input costs made it unfeasible. Although it produced somewhat lower returns, the biofertilizer-only treatment (T9) was the most cost-effective in terms of inputs. According to the study's findings, integrated nutrient management-specifically, using 80% RDF in conjunction with organic amendments-is a practical way to produce mustard that is both economically profitable and sustainable for the soil.

Conclusion

The current study unequivocally shows that integrated nutrient management techniques, which combine vermicompost and biofertilizers (T4) with 80% of the prescribed fertilizer dose, greatly increase soil fertility, improve nutrient availability, and optimize financial returns in mustard farming. Chemical fertilizers by themselves can maintain yields, but over time, their usage alone may deteriorate soil health. On the other hand, whereas organic inputs alone enhance soil qualities, their high prices and reduced yields may make them unfeasible. As a result, integrated techniques provide mustard farmers in the Dehradun region with a viable and profitable strategy that promotes soil conservation and boosts profitability. In order to achieve long-term agricultural sustainability, it is imperative that such balanced nutrient management practices be adopted.

References

1. Ajnar A, Namdeo KN. Influence of integrated nutrient management on growth and nutrient uptake of mustard. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2021;10(2):1634-1637.
2. Agnihotri R, Yadav AK, Singh A, Meena RP. Effect of nitrogen levels and hybrid varieties on yield and economics of mustard. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2021;9(2):2623-2626.
3. Chesti MH, Sheikh AG, Sofi JA. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and soil health under mustard. Green Farming. 2015;6(6):1242-1244.
4. Dubey P, Dwivedi AK, Yadav A. Effect of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on productivity and nutrient uptake in mustard. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(3):2396-2404.
5. Gora D, Sharma N, Meena BL. Effect of nutrient management on productivity and economics of mustard under Dehradun conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2022;67(2):187-192.
6. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1973.
7. Kakraliya SK, Singh V, Sharma V. Integrated nutrient management in mustard: a review. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2017;9(18):4296-4299.
8. Kumar R, Kumar S, Meena MC. Integrated nutrient management in mustard: effect on yield and soil properties. Legume Research. 2016;39(1):92-96.
9. Maurya AK, Singh R, Chaturvedi M. Integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of mustard. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2019;21(1):86-90.
10. Meena NL, Yadav BD, Kumawat RN. Role of vermicompost on nutrient content in radish under organic farming. Asian Journal of Soil Science. 2023;18(1):43-48.
11. Mujumder PP, Mandal B, Bandyopadhyay KK. Soil quality improvement through integrated nutrient management in oilseed cropping systems. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2017;65(3):242-248.
12. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (USDA Circular No. 939). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture; 1954.
13. Panwar J. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and soil fertility under mustard-based cropping systems. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science. 2008;56(4):472-475.
14. Patra AK, Nayak D, Nayak BR. Soil nutrient dynamics in integrated nutrient management systems. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2011;13(1):103-112.
15. Prasad R, Babu S, Meena MC. Challenges of nutrient use and productivity in oilseed crops. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 2017;13(12):80-87.
16. Sharma K, Sharma R, Sengar RS. Effect of organic formulations on yield and soil fertility under mustard cultivation. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2023;15(3):478-483.
17. Singh R, Sinsinwar BS. Influence of integrated nutrient management on yield and economics of mustard. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2006;51(2):122-124.
18. Singh RK, Singh HP, Singh Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and profitability of mustard. Journal of Oilseeds Research. 2018;35(3):162-165.
19. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science. 1956;25:259260.
20. Tomar SS, Meena RK, Choudhary M. Integrated nutrient management and soil fertility under long-term trials. Environment and Ecology. 2018;36(2):502-506.
21. Venkatesh MS, Sreenivasa MN, Krishnamurthy R. Impact of integrated nutrient management on soil fertility in mustard. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2023;14(1):55-59.