Influence of drip fertigation and mulching on productivity and economics of turmeric cv. Pragati

Introduction

Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.), a perennial rhizomatous spice crop belonging to the family Zingiberaceae, is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia. It is a sterile triploid species (2n = 3x = 63) propagated through underground rhizomes and is popularly known as the "golden spice" owing to its culinary, medicinal, cosmetic and industrial importance. The rhizomes are widely used in traditional Indian systems of medicine (Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha), primarily due to the presence of curcumin (diferuloylmethane), which possesses antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antiviral, hypoglycaemic and anticancer properties (Julie, 2009). India is the world's largest producer, consumer and exporter of turmeric, contributing nearly 80% of global production (Chitdeshwari, 2019) [1] . As a long-duration and nutrient-exhaustive crop, turmeric requires an adequate and continuous supply of water and nutrients to achieve optimum growth, yield, and quality (Syed et al., 2010) [8] . Although split application of fertilizers has been recommended to improve nutrient use efficiency (Jagadeeswaran et al., 2004) [2] , drip fertigation offers a more precise and efficient method of delivering water and nutrients directly to the root zone. Similarly, mulching conserves soil moisture, regulates soil temperature, suppresses weeds and improves the soil environment. The integration of drip fertigation and mulching has been reported to enhance rhizome yield, nutrient and water use efficiencies, quality and economic returns, as reflected by higher benefit (B:C) ratios compared with conventional cultivation practices (Thiyagarajan et al., 2011; Kandiannan and Chandaragiri, 2008) [3,10] . Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of different fertigation levels and mulching practices on the economic profitability of turmeric.

Replications to evaluate the effect of fertigation and mulching on the yield and economics of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Pragati. The main plot treatments consisted of five fertigation treatments: F₁ -flood irrigation + 100% RDF through soil application, F₂ -drip irrigation + 100% RDF through soil application, F₃ -drip fertigation + 100% RDF, F₄ -drip fertigation + 75% RDF and F₅-drip fertigation + 50% RDF. The sub-plot treatments comprised M₁ -no mulch, M₂ -silver-black polyethylene mulch and M₃ -organic mulch. Cost of cultivation was calculated on a hectare basis using prevailing input and labour costs.

Results and Discussions

The economics of turmeric cultivation was significantly influenced by fertigation, mulching and their interaction (Table 1). The cost of cultivation ranged from ₹1,72,666 ha⁻¹ to ₹2,01,716 ha⁻¹, with the highest cost recorded in F3M2 (₹2,01,716 ha⁻¹), followed by F3M3 (₹2,00,216 ha⁻¹), whereas the lowest cost was observed in F5M1 (₹1,72,666 ha⁻¹). Rhizome yield varied from 20.51 to 29.85 t ha⁻¹, with the highest yield recorded in F3M3 (29.85 t ha⁻¹), followed by F3M2 (29.06 t ha⁻¹) and F4M3 (28.55 t ha⁻¹), while the lowest yield was obtained in F5M1 (20.51 t ha⁻¹). Corresponding to the higher yield, F3M3 recorded the maximum gross returns (₹10,44,750 ha⁻¹) and net returns (₹8,44,534 ha⁻¹), followed by F3M2 (₹10,17,100 and ₹8,15,384 ha⁻¹, respectively) and F4M3 (₹9,99,250 and ₹8,08,810 ha⁻¹, respectively). The lowest gross returns (₹7, 17,850 ha⁻¹) and net returns (₹5, 45,184 ha⁻¹) were recorded in F5M1. The B ratio ranged from 4.00 to 5.25, with the highest value recorded in F4M3 (5.25), followed closely by F3M3 (5.22) and F3M2/F4M2 (5.04), whereas the lowest B: C ratio was recorded in F1M1 (4.00). Among all the treatments, M3F3 (organic mulch + 100% RDF through drip fertigation) proved to be the most productive and profitable treatment, recording the highest rhizome yield, gross returns and net returns. The treatment also exhibited a high B: C ratio (5.22), indicating excellent economic viability. Although the maximum B: C ratio was recorded in M3F4 (5.25), the difference from M3F3 was marginal and may be attributed to the lower fertilizer input cost in M3F4. Hence, M3F3 can be considered the most suitable treatment for achieving higher turmeric productivity and profitability under the present experimental conditions.

Discussion

The improved economic performance observed under dripfertigated and mulched treatments may be attributed to efficient water and nutrient management, which enhanced turmeric productivity and profitability. Organic mulching likely conserved soil moisture, reduced evaporation losses and improved soil conditions, thereby promoting better crop growth and economic return. The beneficial effect of mulching on turmeric economics observed in the present study was in agreement with manhas et al. (2011) [5] , who reported higher yield and profitability under mulched conditions than under non-mulched treatments. Similarly, the enhanced economic returns recorded under drip fertigation were consistent with the findings of Santosh et al. (2022) [7] , who reported greater profitability in turmeric under drip irrigation combined with mulching.

The higher economic efficiency obtained under the reduced fertigation level suggested that moderate fertilizer input was sufficient to sustain productivity while lowering cultivation cost. In contrast, conventional irrigation without mulch and reduced fertilizer input under non-mulched conditions resulted in lower productivity and profitability. Overall, the findings demonstrated the economic advantage of integrating organic mulch with drip fertigation for sustainable turmeric cultivation under the present experimental conditions.

References

1. Chitdeshwari T. Response of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) to micronutrient fertilizer mixtures applied at various levels and methods on the growth, yield and quality of rhizomes. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(2):2361-2365.
2. Jagadeeswaran R, Arulmozhiselvan K, Govindaswamy M, Murugappan V. Studies on nitrogen use efficiency in turmeric using 15N tagged urea. J Nucl Agric Biol. 2004;33:69-76.
3. Jurenka JS. Anti-inflammatory properties of curcumin, a major constituent of Curcuma longa: a review of preclinical and clinical research. Altern Med Rev. 2009;14(2):141-153.
4. Kandiannan K, Chandaragiri KK. Influence of irrigation and mulching on growth, yield, water use International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research https://www.biochemjournal.com efficiency and economics of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). J Spices Aromat Crops. 2008;17(2):98-103.
5. Manhas SS, Gill BS, Kumar A. Effect of planting material, mulch and farmyard manure on growth, yield and economics of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). Indian J Agron. 2011;56(1):88-91.
6. Panse M, Sukhatme K. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research Publications; 1985. p.48-67.
7. Santosh DT, Reddy KM, Reddy MP, Reddy VR. Yield and quality response of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) under drip irrigation and plastic mulch. Res Crops. 2022;22(4):876-883.
8. Syed Sadarunnisa, Madhumathi C, Rao GS, Sreenivasulu B. Effect of fertigation on growth and yield of turmeric cv. Mydukur. J Hortic Sci. 2010;1:7880.
9. Tiwari KN, Mukesh K, Santosh DT, Vikash SK, Maji MK, Karan AK. Influence of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield of sapota (Achras zapota) and soil nutrients. Irrig Drain Syst Eng. 2014;3:1-8.
10. Thiyagarajan G, Veeraputhiran R, Chinnusamy C, Sanjiv Kumar V. Effect of drip fertigation levels and irrigation regimes on growth, yield, water use efficiency and economics of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). Agric Sci Dig. 2011;31(4):280-283.