Soil, nutrient, and water management

On-farm evaluation of site-specific nutrient management in irrigated rice

D.P. Biradar, Y.R. Aladakatti, and M.A. Basavanneppa Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580005, India Email: dpbiradar@yahoo.com

The use of external inputs has driven crop productivity gains in India, but, there is a need to focus on knowledge-intensive technologies and adoption of the same on individual farms or fields. In this context, the site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) approach constitutes an option: it focuses on balanced and crop need-based nutrient application (Johnston et al 2009). The dissemination of such technologies would go a long way in improving the productivity and profitability of farming. The Tungabhadra project (TBP) area in northern Karnataka is considered a rice bowl because of its extensive area and high productivity (4.8 t ha1) (Nagappa et al 2002). There is still a great potential to achieve higher productivity of crops in general and rice in particularin this region if the imbalance in the use of major nutrients and fertilizers is corrected on the basis of soil nutrient analysis. The SSNM, which aims to balance N, P, and K requirements, along with secondary and micronutrients, is essential for further improving rice crop yield and returns. Hence, an on-farm evaluation of balanced fertilization with a set yield level under SSNM was undertaken on 10 farmers fields. There were three treatments: SSNM, recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), and farmers fertilizer practice (FFP). The fields were located in the TBP area. The trial was laid out in five farmers fields in each year and the crop was sown during kharif (wet) season under canal irrigation. Soil samples from the selected plots were analyzed for N, P2O5, K2O and micronutrients Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu before sowing. The quantity of major nutrients to be applied under SSNM treatment was decided after considering soil test results, soil test rating for N, P2O5 and K2O (low, medium, and high) nutrient removal, and a set yield target (9.0 t ha1). Soil analysis showed that farmers fields in different locations had low available N (<280 kg ha1), medium P2O5 (2050 kg ha1), and high K2O (>336 kg ha1). As N status in all soil samples was low, the amount of N needed to attain the yield target was increased by 20%. No change was made with the P requirement as P content was in the medium range. For K, 20% of the required element to meet the yield target was reduced as K status was already within a high range. Zinc and iron levels in the soil were below critical limits and quantity was fixed based on existing recommendations. The levels of Mn and Cu were above critical limits so these nutrients were not added. The

2011, Vol. 36

International Rice Research Notes (0117-4185)

Soil, nutrient, and water management

computed amount of nutrients needed under SSNM for a target yield of 9.0 t ha1 was 215:100:215:5:5 kg ha of N:P2O5:K2O:Zn:Fe. With RDF, 150:75:75 kg ha1 of N:P2O5:K2O was used; with FFP, the required N, P2O5, and K2O were 113-166:50-108:21-139 kg ha1. Micronutrients in the form of ZnSO4 and FeSO4 at 25 kg ha1 were applied during sowing; vermicompost or farmyard manure, were mixed, depending on availability. The most popular genotype, BPT 5204, was used in all locations. The area under each treatment was 1,000 m2 and the crop was harvested separately and its yield recorded. The economic parameters under SSNM were defined considering the additional cost of inputs and corresponding additional yield obtained over RDF and FFP. The additional benefit from the investment made in SSNM over RDF and FFP in both years was expressed in terms of benefit-cost ratio (B:C). Yield data from different nutrient management practices were analyzed as two-factor ANOVA without replication. The mean rice yields in 2004-05 under SSNM, RDF, and FFP were significantly different: 8.5, 7.9, and 7.1 t ha1, respectively. The target yield of 9.0 t ha1 was attained in one location (9.2 t ha1). The yields under SSNM, RDF, and FFP fell within the respective ranges of 7.99.2, 7.38.2, and 6.77.6 t ha1 (Table 1). For 2005-06 under SSNM, RDF, and FFP, yields were 8.1, 7.1, and 6.3 t ha1, which significantly differed from each other. The target yield was achieved in two locations (9.1 and 9.5 t ha1) during 200506 under SSNM. SSNM yield ranged from 6.7 to 9.5; RDF, from 5.6 to 8.5; and FFP, from 5.1 to 7.2 t ha1. The magnitude of increase in yield due to SSNM over RDF was 8.9 and 15% during 2004-05 and 2005-06, respectively. There was a relatively higher advantage of SSNM over FFP, 19.7 and 28.4% during 2004-05 and 200506, respectively. The 2-year economic data also indicated an additional average net income of Rs 2384 and 4450 over RDF with a B:C of 1.98 and 2.5 under SSNM, whereas, over FFP, an additional Rs 6761 and 9140 with a B:C of 3.17 and 3.64 were observed (Table 2). These results support what Biradar et al (2006) found: that SSNM gives more substantial yield increases and greater economic gains than the recommended and commonly followed farmers fertilizer practices. Latha and Murugappan (2004), reporting from Tamil Nadu, India, also confirmed that balanced fertilization results in higher rice productivity compared with blanket recommendations. Therefore, balanced fertilization needs to be encouraged to realize higher yield and higher economic gain.

2011, Vol. 36

International Rice Research Notes (0117-4185)

Soil, nutrient, and water management

Table 1. Mean and range of rice yield under different nutrient management practices.
Rice yield (t ha ) Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) 2004-05 7.9 7.38.2 200506 7.1 5.68.5 Farmers fertilizer practice (FFP) CD (P = 0.05)
1

Mean Range Mean Range

8.5 7.99.2 8.1 6.79.5

7.1 6.77.6 6.3 5.17.2

0.61

0.55

2011, Vol. 36

International Rice Research Notes (0117-4185)

Soil, nutrient, and water management

Table 2. Yield improvement and economic advantage in irrigated rice due to site-specific nutrient management (SSNM).
Year Over recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) Yield (t ha ) 2004-05 2005-06 Mean 0.69 1.06 0.89
-1

Advantage of SSNM Over farmers fertilizer practice (FFP) Net income (Rs ha ) 2,384 4,450 3,417 1.98 2.50 2.24 1.41 1.80 1.61
1

Yield increase (%) 8.9 15.0 11.9

Gross income (Rs ha ) 4,830 7,420 6,125

1

Cost incurred (Rs ha ) 2,446 2,970 2,708

1

B:C

Yield (t ha )
1

Yield increase (%) 19.7 28.4 24.1

Gross income (Rs ha ) 9,870 12,600 11,235

1

Cost incurred (Rs ha ) 3,109 3,460 3,285

1

Net income (Rs ha1) 6,761 9,140 7,951

B:C

3.17 3.64 3.41

2011, Vol. 36

International Rice Research Notes (0117-4185)

Soil, nutrient, and water management

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada (now renamed International Plant Nutrition Institute) under its India Programme.

References
Biradar DP, Aladakatti, YR, Rao TN, Tiwari KN. 2006. Site-specific nutrient management for maximization of crop yields in northern Karnataka. Better Crops 90(3): 33-35. Johnston AM, Khurana HS, Majumdar K, Satyanarayana T. 2009. Site-specific nutrient management: concept, current research, and future challenges in Indian agriculture. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 57(1):1-10. Latha MR, Murugappan V. 2004. Fertilizer optimization in rice by eliminating hidden nutrient deficiencies. Int. Rice Res. Notes 29 (20):57-59. Nagappa, Dronavalli N, Biradar DP. 2002. Drum seeding of sprouted rice seed in a farmers field: an economic analysis. Int. Rice Res. Notes 27(1):54-55.

2011, Vol. 36

International Rice Research Notes (0117-4185)