KERALA PINEAPPLE MISSION File No: KPM/1/2014/28
ORGANIC VERSUS INORGANIC NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT OF PINEAPPLE VARIETIES FOR SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION
PROJECT REPORT (01.06.2015 - 31.05.2016)
Principal Investigator: Dr. P. P. Joy Professor & Head Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam P.O., Muvattupuzha Ernakulam- 686670
Project Associate: Anjana R.
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
PINEAPPLE RESEARCH STATION Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, Kerala Tel. & Fax: 0485-2260832, Mobile: 9446010905 Email:
[email protected],
[email protected] Web: http://prsvkm.kau.in
16.08.2016
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
3
PREFACE The Kerala Pineapple Mission research project entitled ‘Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production’ was sanctioned for implementation under the Principal Investigatorship of Dr. P. P. Joy, Professor and Head, Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam of Kerala Agricultural University for the first year of the project during 2015-2016 with a total financial outlay of ₹7 lakh as per order no. KPM/2014 dated 27.03.2015. The project commenced on 01.06.2015. The objective of the project was to evaluate critically organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production. Though the research project proposal for ₹ lakh as appro ed for the se o d ear progra e, it ould ot e take up as the fund release was not effected. Pineapple is a significant tropical fruit for its immense nutrition and economic value. During 2013-14, it had a state production of 75562 t from an area of 8002 ha with a productivity of 9.44 t/ha. More than 60% of the area is concentrated in Ernakulam district around Vazhakulam. Pineapple industry can bring about a much needed employment opportunity in the region with not only its cultivation but also with setting up of more processing and semi-processing units in the state. Crop production is a direct function of crop nutrition through organic, inorganic and/or integrated sources. Eco-friendly organic farming is gaining much significance and popularity. The state is slowly transforming to organic production for health and environmental security. In this study, the response of Pineapple varieties of similar (about 1 year) duration, namely, Mauritius, MD-2 and Amritha to organic, Inorganic and Integrated nutrient management along with a control of no nutrient addition based on NPK equivalents as per the KAU Package of Practices Recommendations was studied through field experimentation. The study showed that the main effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but not the interaction effect, with the organic treatment not showing any superiority over the inorganic and the integrated applications. Hence, cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. The marginal benefit: cost ratio indicated that the cultivation of Mauritius pineapple with inorganic fertilizers (₹3.82) seems to be economically most viable which is prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala. Recording of a lower average fruit weight and number of leaves per plant in this field experiment with Package of Practices recommended dose of organic manure and inorganic fertilisers at PRS, Vazhakulam indicates a relatively inadequate nutrition of the plant highlighting the need for more nutrition. This requires a review of the Package of Practices recommendation and suitable revision of fertiliser recommendation based on different multi-location field experiments with thorough scientific discussion among the crop scientists. Principal Investigator
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are deeply indebted to the Kerala Pineapple Mission for sanctioning the project, Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production to the Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam of Kerala Agricultural University and providing full financial assistance for the study. We are greatly indebted to the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Comptroller, Director of Research, Director of Extension and Director (Planning) of Kerala Agricultural University for providing all the administrative facilities, constant encouragement and guidance for the successful implementation of the project with regular monitoring. We are also thankful to the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station (Central Zone), Pattambi and all the Associate Directors of Research, Directorate of Research, Kerala Agricultural University for their untiring support, regular monitoring and constructive suggestions for the successful implementation of the project. We are indebted to M/S. Vazhakulam Agro and Fruit Processing Company Ltd., Nadukkara for giving all the facilities and help for the proper conduct of the field experiment on the leased land. We profusely thank all the staff of Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam who have contributed their might for the timely successful completion of the project.
Investigators
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
5
PROJECT LOCATION IN GOOGLE MAP
Cochin Harbour: 80 km Aluva Railway Station: 50 km Nedumbasseri Airport: 40 km Muvattupuzha: 10 km Thodupuzha: 10 km
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kerala Pineapple Mission project, Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production was successfully carried out at the Pineapple Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Vazhakulam during 2015-2017 and the research highlights are summarized here. The work summary of the project was depicted through phenology, growth, yield, quality and sensory analyses. In general, Amritha and Mauritius varieties recorded more or less similar duration for the various phenological events such as flowering, fruit formation and maturity, suckering and slip formation. Amritha took 270 days for flowering and 291 days for fruiting and 360 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 314 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 328 days after planting. Mauritius took 274 days for flowering and 290 days for fruiting and 364 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 324 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 329 days after planting. MD-2 had little longer duration taking 308 days for flowering and 330 days for fruit formation and 390 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 362 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 391 days after planting. Amritha exhibited better suckering and slip production (1.6/plant). Mauritius recorded slightly lower suckering (1.28/plant) and lower slip formation (0.31/plant). MD-2 recorded the lowest sucker production (0.11 suckers/plant) and it rarely produced slips. Nutrient application in general advanced the fruit harvest by about a week compared to the control. After ethephon application, Amritha flowered in 25 days, Mauritius in 32 days and MD-2 in 39 days. However, there was no significant difference in fruit maturity (118-123 days) with a mean of 121 days. With regard to growth characters, Mauritius and MD-2 were similar in plant height while Amritha was shorter. The number of leaves progressively increased from 20 at 3 months to 34 at 12 months. The varieties behaved similarly except for at 9 months when Amritha had 37 leaves while the other two around 31 leaves. There was no significant difference in canopy spread. Nutrient management also did not record any significant difference in plant growth characters. Mauritius and MD-2 varieties had almost similar fruit weight while Amritha had smaller fruits. Mauritius produced maximum fruit yield of 34.07 t/ha followed by MD-2 (30.83 t/ha) and Amritha produced least yield (26.98 t/ha). Nutrient applications by any means were statistically similar but significantly superior to the control treatment. Analysis of fruit components indicated that Amritha and Mauritius had higher pulp (62% and 61% respectively) mainly due to the smaller crown weight (12% and 14% respectively). MD-2 had least pulp weight of 57% due to higher crown weight (25%) even though the peel content was the least of 11%. Nutrient management exerted relatively lower effect on the fruit component distribution. The crown weight was maximum of 19% in control treatment compared to 16% to 17% in other treatments indicating that application of nutrients by any means contribute more to the actual fruit rather than the crown. Quality parameters like pH, non-reducing sugars and ascorbic acid content in the juice were significantly influenced by the varieties. Mauritius and Amritha had pH 3.62 each compared to a lower pH of 3.42 for MD-2. Amritha had maximum (9.91%) non reducing sugars followed by MD-2 (8.53%) and Mauritius (7.27%). The varieties expressed greater differences in ascorbic Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
7
acid content with MD-2 recording the highest value of 58.38% followed by Amritha (33.01%) and least in Mauritius (27.42%). Nutrient management significantly influenced the reducing and non-reducing sugar content but not the total sugar content. Reducing sugar content was almost similar for the control and integrated application (10.30% and 10.37% respectively) while organic and inorganic treatments recorded lower values (8.10% and 9.81% respectively). However the non-reducing sugar content was maximum of 11.88% in organic application and significantly lower in other treatments (6.22% to 8.77%). There was no significant difference in TSS and the mean value was 14.32ᴼBri . MD-2 had relatively better fruit colour and aroma while Mauritius had the best taste. Nutrient management did not influence the sensory parameters of the fruit. If the maximum productivity of pineapple is considered, the maximum yield is obtained for Mauritius receiving organic manure (37.89 t/ha). However, since the main effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but not the interaction effect, with organic treatment not showing any superiority over the inorganic and the integrated applications. Hence, cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrients application (organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. According to the economics of nutrient management the marginal benefit: cost ratio for cultivation of Mauritius pineapple with inorganic fertilizers (₹ .8 ) seems to be economically most viable which is most prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala. Recording of a lower average fruit weight and number of leaves per plant in this field experiment with Package of Practices recommended dose of organic manure and inorganic fertilisers at PRS, Vazhakulam indicates a relatively inadequate nutrition of the plant highlighting the need for more nutrition. This requires a review of the Package of Practices recommendation and suitable revision of fertiliser recommendation based on different multilocation field experiments with thorough scientific discussion among the crop scientists.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
8
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
CONTENTS Sl. No.
Page 3 4 5 6 9
Preface Acknowledgements Project location in google map Executive summary
I
PROJECT REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
II 1 2 3 a b c d e f 4 5 6 7 8 9
Title of the project Principal Investigator and Co-investigator Implementing institution Date of commencement Date of completion Objective of the project Achievements Summary highlights Financial details Procurement of equipment
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 12 13
INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Phenology Growth Yield Quality Sensory parameters Economics SUMMARY CONCLUSION ANNUAL ACCOUNTS STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE UTILIZATION CERTIFICATE ASSET TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
14 15 18 18 34 50 61 65 73 75 77 78 79 80 81
Scheme File Numbers KPM KAU, DoR KAU, Finance PRS, Vazhakulam
KPM/1/2014/28 R4/65231/13 EPB3/5256/15 PRS/R38/12
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
9
KERALA PINEAPPLE MISSION I. PROJECT REPORT 1. Title of the project: Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production 2. Principal Investigator and Co-investigator: Name & address of Principal Investigator: Dr. P. P. Joy Professor of Agronomy & Head Pineapple Research Station Kerala Agricultural University Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Kerala - 686670 Ph: 9446010905
Project Associate: 3. Implementing institution:
Anjana R. Pineapple Research Station Kerala Agricultural University Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Kerala- 686670, Ph: 0485 2260832 E-mail:
[email protected] URL: http://prsvkm.kau.in
4. Date of commencement: 01-06-2015 5. Date of completion: 31-05-2016 6. Objective of the project: To evaluate critically organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production 7. Achievement The study showed that the main effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but not the interaction effect, with the organic treatment not showing any superiority over the inorganic and the integrated applications. Hence, cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. The marginal benefit: cost ratio i di ated that the ulti atio of Mauritius pi eapple ith i orga i fertilizers ₹ .8 see s to be economically most viable which is prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala. 8. Summary highlights The work summary of the project was depicted through phenology, growth, yield, quality and sensory analyses. In general, Amritha and Mauritius varieties recorded more or less similar duration for the various phenological events such as flowering, fruit formation and maturity, suckering and slip formation. Amritha took 270 days for flowering and 291 days for fruiting and 360 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
10
Nutrient application in general advanced the fruit harvest by about a week compared to the control. After ethephon application, Amritha flowered in 25 days, Mauritius in 32 days and MD-2 in 39 days. However, there was no significant difference in fruit maturity (118-123 days) with a mean of 121 days. With regard to growth characters, Mauritius and MD-2 were similar in plant height while Amritha was shorter. The number of leaves progressively increased from 20 at 3 months to 34 at 12 months. The varieties behaved similarly except for at 9 months when Amritha had 37 leaves while the other two around 31 leaves. There was no significant difference in canopy spread. Nutrient management also did not record any significant difference in plant growth characters. Mauritius and MD-2 varieties had almost similar fruit weight while Amritha had smaller fruits. Mauritius produced maximum fruit yield of 34.07 t/ha followed by MD-2 (30.83 t/ha) and Amritha produced least yield (26.98 t/ha). Nutrient applications by any means were statistically similar but significantly superior to the control treatment. Analysis of fruit components indicated that Amritha and Mauritius had higher pulp (62% and 61% respectively). Mainly due to the smaller crown weight (12% and 14% respectively). MD-2 had least pulp weight of 57% due to higher crown weight (25%) even though the peel content was the least of 11%. Nutrient management exerted relatively lower effect on the fruit component distribution. The crown weight was maximum of 19% in control treatment compared to 16% to 17% in other treatment indicating that application of nutrients by any means contribute more to the actual fruit rather than the crown. Quality parameters like pH, non-reducing sugars and ascorbic acid content in the juice were significantly influenced by the varieties. Mauritius and Amritha had pH 3.62 each compared to a lower pH of 3.42 for MD-2. Amritha had maximum (9.91%) non reducing sugars followed by MD-2 (8.53%) and Mauritius (7.27%). The varieties expressed greater differences in ascorbic acid content with MD-2 recording the highest value of 58.38% followed by Amritha (33.01%) and least in Mauritius (27.42%). Nutrient management significantly influenced the reducing and non-reducing sugar content but not the total sugar content. Reducing sugar content was almost similar for the control and integrated application (10.30% and 10.37% respectively) while organic and inorganic treatment recorded lower values (8.10% and 9.81% respectively). However, the non-reducing sugar content was maximum of 11.88% in organic application and significantly lower in other treatments (6.22% to 8.77%). There was no significant difference in TSS and the mean value was 14.32ᴼBri . MD-2 had relatively better fruit colour and aroma while Mauritius had the best taste. Nutrient management did not influence the sensory parameters of the fruit. The study showed that the main effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but not the interaction effect, with the organic treatment not showing any superiority over the inorganic and the integrated applications. Hence, cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. The marginal benefit: cost ratio indicated that the ulti atio of Mauritius pi eapple ith i orga i fertilizers ₹ .8 see s to e e o o i all ost viable which is prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala. Recording of a lower average fruit weight and number of leaves per plant in this field experiment with Package of Practices recommended dose of organic manure and inorganic fertilisers at PRS, Vazhakulam indicates a relatively inadequate nutrition of the plant highlighting the need for more nutrition. This requires a review of the Package of Practices recommendation and suitable revision of Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
11
fertiliser recommendation based on different multi-location field experiments with thorough scientific discussion among the crop scientists.
9. Financial details: Table 1. Financial details (₹) No.
Budget Head 321-9271-
I
121-Salaries/Manpower costs
II
420- Equipment
III
Funds Expenditure Sanctioned
% of Total cost
2,16,000
2,16,000
30.86
70,000
70,000
10.00
142- Cost of labour
1,21,000
1,21,000
17.29
IV
210- RM
1,50,000
1,50,000
21.43
V
840- Other items
78,000
78,000
11.14
VI
Institutional charges
65,000
65,000
9.29
7,00,000
7,00,000
Total
100.00
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
10.
12
Procurement of equipment: Table 2. List of equipment procured Sl. No.
Name of Equipment
1 Air purifier
2
Laboratory glassware
Electronic 3 volume micropipette
Make/Model
Cost (₹)
Date of Remarks regarding Installation maintenance/breakdown
HIMEDIA/LA522
27,652
26/07/2016 Good working condition
Vensil
13,181
21/05/2016 Good working condition
Microlite
12,600
20/02/2016 Good working condition
4
Variable volume micropipette
Microlite/RBO 1000
4,725
20/02/2016 Good working condition
5
Variable volume micropipette
Microlite/RBO 5000
4,725
20/02/2016 Good working condition
6
Variable volume micropipette
Microlite/RBO 10000
4,725
20/02/2016 Good working condition
Bajaj kettle KTX/09#36242
2,200
25/05/2016 Good working condition
192
30/05/2016 Good working condition
7 Electric kettle
8 Pen drive
SanDisk Cruzer Blade4GB
TOTAL (₹)
70,000
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
13
II. DETAILED PROJECT REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION Pineapple is an important tropical fruit showing an increasing demand worldwide, over the years. World trade on fresh pineapple has shown 100% increase during the last one decade. Even though India is the sixth largest producer of pineapple in the world with a production of 14,15,400 tonnes from an area of 88,700 hectares, its share in the world market is 8%. The different Asian countries and the countries around the Indian Ocean are importing about two lakh tonnes of pineapple in a year, mostly coming from distant countries. This market can be exploited by Kerala if an earnest effort is made in the right direction. In Kerala, pineapple is grown mainly as an intercrop in rubber and coconut plantations, as pure crop in garden land and in converted paddy fields. Pineapple fruits are produced round the year in Kerala. During 2013-14, it had a state production of 75562 t from an area of 8002 ha with a productivity of 9.44 t/ha. More than 60% of the area is concentrated in Ernakulam district around Vazhakulam. Pineapple industry can bring about a much needed employment opportunity in the region with not only its cultivation but also with setting up of more processing and semi-processing units in the state. At present, pineapple cultivation in Kerala is generating employment of about 45 lakh man days among farmers, agricultural workers, people involved in loading, unloading, transporting, traders, retailers etc. By doubling the area under pineapple cultivation, an additional 45 lakhs work days per year can be created. The pineapple cultivation in Kerala is dependent on fresh fruit market, supplying most of its produce to outside Kerala. The Mauritius variety grown in Kerala is marketed in about 10 states in India including New Delhi. It is also exported to Gulf countries in limited quantities. It is possible to increase its marketing by exploring new markets and techniques and also by increase in quality and quantity of fruit produced. It is essential to explore the possibility for marine exports to reduce cost. Consumer preference and marketing strategies are to be taken into consideration. The annual value of pineapple produced in Kerala comes to about 350 crores which may be next to cardamom and coffee. But it is doubtful whether it is getting sufficient attention it deserves. There is immense potentiality of boosting pineapple production in Kerala. The region has all sets of climate and sufficient rainfall for growing pineapple very successfully. There is a great possibility of expanding its cultivation to the low and mid lands of the state on a commercial scale. Pineapple in processed form like concentrates and RTS has tremendous scope of market both at national and international level because of its unique and excellent flavour and aroma. Pineapple having numerous medicinal properties has great scope for domestic and export market. Pineapple industry can bring about a much needed employment opportunity in the region with not only its cultivation but also with setting up of more processing and semi-processing units in the state. A concentrated effort on the other hand is much needed in creating awareness, developing market linkages, setting up of semi processing and large scale processing units, post-harvest management, creation of proper infrastructures and logistics. Growing and marketing of export quality pineapple would play a big role in
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
14
poverty alleviation through income generation, employment creation and health improvement. The above strategies would certainly boost the pineapple cultivation in the state. The objective of the project was to evaluate critically organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Technical programme The research project encompasses the first year programme of a 3 year evaluation of organic versus inorganic nutrient management of Pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production. The response of Pineapple varieties of similar (about 1 year) duration, namely, Mauritius, MD-2 and Amritha to organic, Inorganic and Integrated nutrient management along with a control of no nutrient addition based on NPK equivalents as per the KAU Package of Practices Recommendations will be studied through field experimentation. Field Experiment Details Design: Factorial RBD Replications: 3 Treatments: 12 (3 Pineapple varieties x 4 Nutrient management) Factor 1 Variety (V): Mauritius (v1), Amritha (v2), MD-2 (v3) (Pineapple varieties of similar (about 1 year) duration Factor 2 Nutrient management (N): Control, Organic, Inorganic and Integrated Nutrient calculations based on KAU Package of Practices Recommendations FYM contains N:P2O5:K2O at 1:0.5:1 % Plant population: 40000 plants/ha 25 t/ha FYM gives N:P2O5:K2O at 250:125:250 kg/ha or 6.25:3.125:6.25 g/plant For 320:160:320 kg/ha N:P2O5:K2O we need to give FYM at 32 t/ha or 800 g/plant
Nutrient management KAU PoP Control (n1) Organic (n2) Inorganic (n3)
Integrated (PoP Recommendation) (n4)
Table 3. Nutrient management practices followed FYM FYM N:P2O5:K2O (t/ha) (g/plant) (kg/ha/yr) 25 625 320:160:320 0 0 0 25+32=57 625+800=1425 0 0 0 320:160:320 + 250:125:250 =570:285:570 25 625 320:160:320
N:P2O5:K2O (g/plant/yr) 8:4:8 0 0 8:4:8 + 6.25:3.125:6.25 =14.25:7.125:14.25 8:4:8
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
15
Major items of observations a) Phenological parameters: Time for sprouting of suckers and slips, flowering, fruiting, fruit maturity b) Growth parameters: Plant height, leaves/plant, suckers and slips/plant, etc c) Yield parameters: Weight of fruit, crown, peel, core, pulp, juice (if fruits are available) d) Quality parameters: TSS, pH, reducing, non-reducing and total sugar, ascorbic acid (if fruits are available) e) Economics of production
2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The suckers were used as the planting materials. Mauritius suckers were bought from the nearby farmer field, Amritha suckers were purchased from Pineapple Research Centre, Vellanikkara and MD-2 suckers were obtained from Pineapple Research Station (PRS) field at Vazhakulam. They were imposed with nutrient applications and studied the varietal characteristics especially in their phenology, growth, yield and quality parameters. The field evaluation was carried out in the experimental farm of Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam at Nadukkara. The land was cleared neatly, ploughed using JCB, stubbles and pebbles, stones etc. were removed. The land was well prepared for planting. The spacing for planting was marked using a plastic rope tied to a strong twig. The planting was done in 10 -15 cm deep pits in a triangular layout at 30 x 45 x 120 cm spacing. Basal application of nutrients was done. The control was devoid of any nutrient applications. For organic only (n2) 7.5 kg/plot cow dung powder, inorganic (n3) Rajphos 427.5 kg/plot and for integrated (n4) both cow dung powder 7.5 kg/plot and Rajphos 240 g/plot were applied during planting. The planting was done on 22-05-2015. Irrigation was done on non-rainy days. Nutrient application was bimonthly and the growth observations were carried out quarterly. Hilban 2.5 ml/l and Bavistin 2 g/l was applied in combination for control of mealy bugs and Phytophthora infestation. After two months of planting n2 – 2.4 kg/plot cow dung powder, n3- (urea: 93 g/plot + MoP 71.4 g/plot), n4- (urea: 52.2 g/plot + MoP 40 g/plot) were applied on varieties v1, v2 and v3 respectively. Earthing up was done after fertilizer application. The same dose of nutrients was applied bimonthly Ethephon mixture preparation till the sixth month and further on ninth month. (1000 plants) After seven months of planting when the plants reached approximately 40 leaves stage flower induction through ethephon was carried out. The components of ethephon mixture preparation are as shown in the figure 1. About 50 ml was taken from the preparation and poured on the central growing tip of the plant. The field was observed for raining and as no raining was observed for next 24 hours the application
Fig. 1. Ethephon preparation for pineapple
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
16
was considered to be effective. At 12 months of planting, fruit harvesting started. Pineapple growth parameters like plant height, number of leaves and canopy spread were recorded at three months interval. After ethephon application plants were observed for flower initiation. The date of flowering and fruiting was noted for each plant. Yield of pineapple from each plot was calculated. Quality and sensory analysis of the fruits were also carried out. All the data were statistically analyzed using EXCEL 2013 (Data Analysis: ANOVA Tool Pack: Two factor – without replication with suitable formula calculations for partitioning the treatment effects).
A
B
D
C Fig. 2. Progressive field clearing for planting
A
B
E
C
D Fig. 3. Field planting A. sorting of suckers B. suckers selected for planting C. basal application D. suckers treated with Hilban before planting E. planting suckers
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
A
B
F
E
G
H
L
K
17
C
D
I
J
Fig. 4. Field maintenance: A, B & C. Weeding practices D. Organic manure ready for applying E. Integrated fertilizer application F. Verifying nutrient impositions G. Organic manure application H. Chemical fertilizer application I. Earthing up after fertilizer treatment J. Field at 12 months of planting K & L. Field observations
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
18
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The results of the field study are presented here. a) PHENOLOGY The phenological events that were observed during the period was flowering, fruiting, fruit harvest, fruit maturity, slip sprouting and sucker sprouting. i. Flowering Flowering was observed when the flower head is seen as a red button at the central growing point of the plant. The flowering was induced through ethephon application in general. The flowering was noted from the date of planting to the date of flowering. It depicted the number of days required to flower for a plant from the date of planting. Ethephon application was carried out on 19-01-2016 for Mauritius and Amritha and on 15-02-2016 for MD-2. Flowering was also observed from the day of ethephon application to the day of flowering. It was observed as two different parameters as first flowering and last flowering. First Flowering from the day of planting The mean flowering days was observed as 281.17. v2n4 required only 263 days to flower. Late flowering was observed in v3n4 (309 days). It was the maximum days required for flowering. The other treatment flowering days were as follows; v2n2 (263.33), v2n1 (265), v2n3 (267), v1n4 (270.67), v1n3 (271), v1n2 (272.33), v1n1 (274.67), v2n2 (305), v3n3 (305.33) and v3n1 (307.67). Number of days to first flowering significantly varied with variety. On an average, among the varieties Amritha flowered after 265 days, Mauritius after 272 days and MD-2 after 307 days. Number of days to first flowering did not show any significant variation due to nutrient management. The earliest flowering occurred in Amritha receiving integrated application. Table 4. First flowering of different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 274.67 265.00 307.67 282.44 n2 272.33 263.33 305.00 280.22 n3 271.00 267.00 305.33 281.11 n4 270.67 263.00 309.00 280.89 Mean 272.17 264.58 306.75 281.17 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.475
1.392
Nutrition (N)
0.548
NS
Interaction (V x N) CV %
0.949 2.785 0.585
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Days to flowering from the day of planting (days)
V1
V2
19
V3
320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig.5. First flowering after planting for different pineapple varieties (days)
First Flowering from the day of ethephon application The days required to bloom from the day of ethephon application is significant as it gives the knowledge about the effectiveness in flower induction. The treatment which responds in minimum days flower early compared to others. v2n4 required only 21 days from the day of ethephon application giving the early flowering type followed by v2n2 (21 days) and v2n1 (23 days). In v3n4 flowering observed after 40 days which was the late flowering type followed by v3n1 (38 days) and v3n3 (37 days). All the other treatments fell in between. Number of days to first flowering from the day of ethephon application significantly varied with variety, Amritha taking the least number of days (22.58 days) and MD-2 taking maximum number of days (37.75 days). Mauritius took one month (30.17 days) for flowering after ethephon application. Number of days to first flowering from the day of ethephon application did not show any significant variation due to nutrient management. The earliest flowering after ethephon application occurred in Amritha receiving integrated application.
Table 5. First flowering of different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 32.67 23.00 38.33 31.33 n2 30.33 21.33 35.67 29.11 n3 29.00 25.00 36.67 30.22 n4 28.67 21.00 40.33 30.00 Mean 30.17 22.58 37.75 30.17 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.480
1.408
Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
0.554 NS 0.960 2.816 5.512
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
20
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Last Flowering from the day of planting The mean flowering days was observed as 285.17. v3n4 required 313 days to flower. Flowering was observed in 311 days in v3n1. The last flowering from the day of planting for other treatments were as follows; v2n4 (268), v2n2 (269), v2n3 (270), v2n1 (271), v1n2 (275) and v1n1, v1n3, v1n4 (276) and v3n2, v3n3 (308). On an average, among the varieties MD-2 flowered after 310 days, Mauritius after 276 days and Amritha after 270 days. Those observations indicated the maximum days each variety could take to flower from the day of planting. Analysis of variance indicated that last flowering significantly varied with the varieties. Nutrient management had no significant effect on the last flowering from the day of planting. The earliest last flowering occurred in Amritha receiving integrated application. Table 6. Last flowering of different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 276.00 271.00 310.67 285.89 n2 275.33 269.00 308.00 284.11 n3 276.33 270.33 308.00 284.89 n4 276.33 268.00 313.00 285.78 Mean 276.00 269.58 309.92 285.17 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.523
1.534
Nutrition (N)
0.604
NS
Interaction (Vx N) CV %
1.046 3.067 0.635
Days to last flowering from the day of planting (days)
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
V1
V2
V3
320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig.6. Last flowering after planting for different pineapple varieties (days)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
21
Last Flowering from the day of ethephon application The mean flowering days was observed as 30.17. v3n4 required 40 days to flower. Flowering was observed in v3n1 (38 days). The other treatment with last flowering days were as follows; v2n4 (21), v2n2 (21), v2n1 (23), v2n3 (25), v1n4 and v1n3 (29), v1n2 (30) and v1n1 (33). On an average, among the varieties MD-2 flowered after 38 days, Mauritius after 30 days and Amritha after 23 days from the day of ethephon application. Those observations indicated the maximum days each variety could take to flower from the day of flower induction. Analysis of variance indicated that the flowering observations were significant among the varieties and the treatments. Number of days to last flowering from the day of ethephon application significantly varied with variety, Amritha taking the least number of days (27.58 days) and MD-2 taking maximum number of days (40.92 days). Mauritius took 34 days for flowering after ethephon application. Number of days to last flowering from the day of ethephon application did not show any significant variation due to nutrient management. The earliest last flowering after ethephon application occurred in Amritha receiving integrated application.
Table 7. Last flowering of different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 34.00 29.00 41.67 34.89 n2 33.33 27.00 39.00 33.11 n3 34.33 28.33 39.00 33.89 n4 34.33 26.00 44.00 34.78 Mean 34.00 27.58 40.92 34.17 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.523
1.534
Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
0.604 NS 1.046 3.067 5.301
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2
ii. Fruiting Fruiting was observed from the day of fruitlet formation from the flowers of the plant from its base as evidenced by the onset of corolla withering from the base of the fruit. The day of fruiting was observed from the day of planting and also from the day of ethephon application. First Fruiting from the day of planting Fruiting was first observed in v1n4 (276 days) followed by v1n2 (281 days) and v1n3 (283 days). The late fruiting types were v3n4 (329 days) followed by v3n1 (328), v3n3 (325) and v3n2 (324). On an average
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
22
about 298 days required for the pineapple variety to come to fruit from the day of planting. Mauritius (284) was the early fruiting type followed by Amritha (285) and MD-2 (326). Variety significantly influenced the number of days to fruiting with Mauritius and Amritha varieties recording similar duration of 283.69 days and 284.97 day respectively. MD-2 variety took the longest duration of 326.39 days. Nutrient management significantly influenced the number of days to fruiting with the control treatment taking the longest duration of 303.04 days and other treatments recording significantly lower duration between 296 and 298 days. The first fruiting was occurred in Mauritius receiving integrated application. Table 8. First fruiting of different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 295.11 286.44 327.56 303.04 n2 280.72 283.44 324.16 296.11 n3 282.50 287.00 324.50 298.00 n4 276.44 283.00 329.33 296.26 Mean 283.69 284.97 326.39 298.35 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
1.139
3.340
Nutrition (N)
1.315
3.856
Interaction (V x N) CV %
2.277
6.679 1.32
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Days to fruiting from the day of planting (days)
V1
V2
V3
340.00 330.00 320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2 n3 Nutrient management
n4
Fig. 7. First Fruiting from the day of planting (days)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
23
First fruiting from the day of ethephon application The days required for fruiting was also calculated from the day of ethephon application. The variety and treatment with shortest days for fruiting was evolved. Among the treatments, v1n4 (34 days) observed to be early fruiting type. v3n4 (60 days) was the late fruiting type. Variety significantly influenced the number of days to fruiting from the day of ethephon application with Mauritius and Amritha varieties recording similar duration of 41.69 days and 42.97 days respectively. MD2 variety took the longest duration of 57.39 days. Nutrient management significantly influenced the number of days to fruiting from the day ethephon application with the control treatment taking the longest duration of 52.04 days and other treatments recording significantly lower duration between 45 and 47 days. The first fruiting after ethephon application occurred in Mauritius receiving integrated application. Table 9. First fruiting of different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 53.11 44.44 58.56 52.04 n2 38.72 41.44 55.16 45.11 n3 40.50 45.00 55.50 47.00 n4 34.44 41.00 60.33 45.26 Mean 41.69 42.97 57.39 47.35 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.139 3.340 Nutrition (N)
1.315
Interaction (V x N) CV %
2.277
3.856 6.679 8.33
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2 Last fruiting from the day of planting Last fruiting was significantly influenced by varieties. Among the varieties, MD-2 fruited after 334.17 days, Amritha after 296.67 days and Mauritius after 296.92 days. Nutrient management also significantly influenced last fruiting. Integrated management took the longest (310.33 days) which was significantly higher than any other treatment. The inorganic treatment took the shortest time for fruiting (308.33 days). Those observations indicated the maximum days each variety could take to fruit from the day of planting.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
24
Table 10. Last fruiting of different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 296.67 295.67 333.67 308.67 n2 295.67 296.67 336.67 309.67 n3 296.67 296.67 331.67 308.33 n4 298.67 297.67 334.67 310.33 Mean 296.92 296.67 334.17 309.25 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 0.151 0.442 Nutrition (N) 0.174 0.511 Interaction (V x N) 0.302 0.884 CV % 0.169 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Days to last fruiting from the day of planting (days)
V1
V2
V3
340.00 330.00 320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 8. Last fruiting from the day of planting (days)
Last fruiting from the day of ethephon application Last fruiting in each of the variety could explain the utmost time they take to fruit. Variety significantly influenced last fruiting with Mauritius and Amritha taking similar duration (55 days) and MD-2 taking the longest duration of 65 days. Nutrient management also significantly influenced last fruiting with inorganic treatment taking minimum time (57.33 days) which was on par with the control and significantly lower than other treatments. Integrated management took the longest duration (59.33 days).
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
25
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 11. Last fruiting of different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 54.67 53.67 64.67 57.67 n2 53.67 54.67 67.67 58.67 n3 54.67 54.67 62.67 57.33 n4 56.67 55.67 65.67 59.33 Mean 54.92 54.67 65.17 58.25 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 0.115 0.338 Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
0.133 0.230
0.390 0.675 0.69
Days to last fruiting from the day of ethephon application (days)
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2
V1
V2
V3
70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 9. Last fruiting in pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days)
iii. First fruit harvest Time of first fruit harvest described under two heads as from the day of planting and the day of ethephon application. First fruit harvest from the day of planting The first fruit harvest from planting was significantly influenced by variety alone with Amritha taking the least number of days (353.25 days) which was on par with Mauritius (358.42 days) but significantly lower to MD-2 (384.92 days).
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
26
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 12. First fruit harvest in different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties
v1
v2
v3
Mean
363.00 357.00 355.00 358.67 358.42
354.67 351.67 352.67 354.00 353.25
384.33 382.00 396.33 377.00 384.92
367.33 363.56 368.00 363.22 365.53
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
2.344
6.874
Nutrition (N)
2.706
NS
Interaction (V x N)
4.687
NS
n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Days to first harvest from the day of planting (days)
V1
V2
V3
340.00 330.00 320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 10. First fruit harvest from the day of planting (days)
First fruit harvest from the day of ethephon application The first fruit harvest from the day of ethephon application was not at all influenced by any of the treatment or their interaction and the mean number of days was 114.53.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
27
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 13. First fruit harvest in different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1
121.00
112.67
115.33
116.33
n2
115.00
109.67
113.00
112.56
n3
113.00
110.67
127.33
117.00
n4
116.67
112.00
108.00
112.22
Mean
116.42
111.25
115.92
114.53
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
2.344
NS
Nutrition (N)
2.706
NS
Interaction (V x N)
4.687
NS
CV%
7.08
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2 Last fruit harvest from the day of planting Last day of fruit harvest could describe how long be the period of harvest for a particular variety. The observations showed that the harvest period was extended up to 383 days on an average from the day of planting. The maximum duration was for MD-2 with 402 days which was significantly higher than the other two varieties namely Mauritius (376 days) and Amritha (371 days) which were on par. Nutrient management also significantly influenced the last fruit harvest from the day of planting. Organic treatment took the minimum number of days (377 days) which was on par with integrated treatment (379 days) but significantly lower than inorganic and the control treatments. Table 14. Last fruit harvest in different pineapple varieties from the day of planting (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 377.00 374.67 406.33 386.00 n2 375.00 369.00 387.00 377.00 n3 377.00 371.00 417.67 388.56 n4 373.00 369.00 395.00 379.00 Mean 375.50 370.92 401.50 382.64 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
2.244
6.582
Nutrition(N)
2.591
7.601
Interaction (V x N) CV% Date of planting: 22/05/2015
4.488
NS 2.03
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
28
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Last harvest from planting (days)
V1
V2
V3
340.00 330.00 320.00 310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00 250.00 240.00 n1
n2 n3 Nutrient management
n4
Fig. 11. Last fruit harves from the day of planting (days) Last fruit harvest from the day of ethephon application The observations showed that the harvest period was extended up to 132 days on an average from the day of flower induction. The varieties did not show any significant variation in this regard. Nutrient management significantly influenced the last fruit harvest from the day of ethephon application. Organic treatment took the minimum number of days (126 days) which was on par with integrated treatment (128 days) but significantly lower than inorganic and the control treatments. Table 15. Last fruit harvest in different pineapple varieties from the day of ethephon application (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
135.00 133.00 135.00 131.00 133.50
132.67 127.00 129.00 127.00 128.92
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
2.244
NS
Nutrition(N)
2.591
7.601
Interaction (V x N)
4.488
NS
137.33 118.00 148.67 126.00 132.50
135.00 126.00 137.56 128.00 131.64
5.91 Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2
iv. Mean fruit maturity after planting The maturity of the fruit was judged from the development of light yellow colour on the basal eyes of the fruit. It was calculated as the number of days from the day of planting to the day of harvest. Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
29
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
The mean fruit maturity was significantly influenced by variety alone with Amritha taking the least number of days (360.37 days) which was on par with Mauritius (364.32 days) but significantly lower to MD-2 (390.43 days).
Table 16. Mean fruit maturity after planting of different pineapple varieties (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 367.82 361.96 393.89 374.56 n2 364.53 357.70 383.89 368.71 n3 361.00 361.03 396.07 372.70 n4 363.92 360.79 387.86 370.86 Mean 364.32 360.37 390.43 371.70 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 2.434 7.140 Nutrition (N) 2.811 NS Interaction (V x N) 4.869 NS CV % 2.27 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Days to fruit maturity (days)
V1
V2
V3
400.00 390.00 380.00 370.00 360.00 350.00 340.00 330.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 12. Mean fruit maturity of different pineapple varieties (days)
v. Mean fruit maturity after ethephon application Mean fruit maturity after ethephon application was calculated as the number of days from the day of ethephon treatment to the day of harvest. It was not at all influenced by any of the treatment or their interaction and the mean number of days was 121.11.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
30
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 17. Mean fruit maturity after ethephon application of different pineapple varieties (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 126.21 120.34 124.89 123.81 n2 123.83 115.70 114.89 118.14 n3 120.82 119.03 127.07 122.31 n4 123.10 118.59 118.86 120.18 Mean 123.49 118.42 121.43 121.11 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 2.799 NS NS Nutrition (N) 2.424 Interaction (V x N) 4.848 NS CV % 6.93 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
vi. First sucker sprouting Times for sprouting of suckers were observed from the day of planting to the day the suckers were first observed. The first sucker sprouting was significantly influenced by variety alone with Amritha taking the least number of days (328.39 days) which was on par with Mauritius (329.10 days) but significantly lower to MD-2 (391.17 days). Nutrient management significantly influenced first suckering with organic treatment taking the minimum number of days (338.48 days). All other treatments took significantly longer duration for first suckering. The control treatment took the maximum number of days (358.22 days). Among the treatments, v1n3 (324 days) was the early sprouting followed by v1n2 (324 days) and v2n3 (325 days). The late sprouting were v3n1 (413 days) followed by v3n3 (411 days) and v3n4 (378 days). All the factors were statistically significant.
n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
Table 18. First sucker sprouting in different pineapple varieties (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 333.94 328.06 412.67 324.39 328.72 362.33 323.78 324.61 411.33 334.28 332.17 378.33 329.10 328.39 391.17 SEm CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
33.007
4.669
Nutrition (N)
38.113
5.391
Interaction (V x N)
66.013
9.337
CV%
Mean 358.22 338.48 353.24 348.26 349.55
1.58
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
31
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Days taken for sucker sprouting (days)
V1
V2
V3
450.00 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
nutrient management
Fig. 13. First sucker sprouting among the pineapple varieties (days)
vii. First slip sprouting The time for slip sprouting was observed from the day of planting to the day of first slip observed at the base of the fruit. Amritha sprouted early (314 days) when compared to Mauritius (324 days). The minimum time for slip sprouting was observed for v2n4 (312 days) followed by v1n4 (313 days) and v2n3 (313 days). The late sprouting was observed in v3n4 (362 days). In the case of MD-2 slip production was observed only in integrated treatment after 362 days. Slip sprouting was not observed in any other treatment. Table 19. First slip sprouting in different pineapple varieties (days) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 334.17 316.22 # 325.19 n2 324.11 314.50 # 319.31 n3 323.50 313.33 # 318.42 n4 313.00 311.72 361.67 328.80 Mean 323.69 313.94 361.67 322.93 Date of planting: 22/05/2015 # Slips not produced
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
32
Mauritius
Amritha
MD-2 Fig. 14. Various stages of fruit development in different pineapple varieties
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
33
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
PHENOLOGY HIGHLIGHTS Table 20. Phenology highlights for flowering and fruiting (days after planting) Variety
1st Last flowering flowering
Peak flowering
1st fruiting
Last fruiting
Peak fruiting
1st fruit harvest
Last fruit harvest
Mean fruit maturity
Mauritius
272.17
276.00
274.09
283.69
296.92
290.31
358.42
375.5
364.32
Amritha
264.58
269.58
267.08
284.97
296.67
290.82
353.25
370.92
360.37
MD-2
306.75
309.92
308.34
326.39
334.17
330.28
384.92
401.5
390.43
1.39
1.53
-
3.34
0.44
-
6.87
6.58
7.14
281.17
285.17
283.17
298.35
309.25
303.8
365.53
382.64
371.7
Nutrition
NS
NS
-
**
**
-
NS
*
NS
Interaction
**
*
-
**
**
-
NS
NS
NS
CD Mean
Date of planting: 22/05/2015 Table 21. Phenology highlights for flowering and fruiting (days after ethephon application) Variety
1st flowering
Last flowering
Peak flowering
1st fruiting
Last fruiting
Peak fruiting
Mauritius
30.17
34.00
32.09
41.69
54.92
48.31
116.42
133.5
123.49
Amritha
22.58
27.58
25.08
42.97
54.67
48.82
111.25
128.92
118.42
MD-2
37.75
40.92
39.34
57.39
65.17
61.28
115.92
132.5
121.43
CD
1.41
1.53
Mean
30.17
34.17
NS **
NS **
Nutrition Interaction
1st Last fruit Mean fruit fruit harvest maturity harvest
3.34
0.34
-
NS
NS
NS
58.25 **
52.80
114.53
131.64
121.11
-
47.35 **
-
NS
*
NS
-
**
**
-
NS
NS
NS
32.17
Date of ethephon application: 19/01/2016 (Mauritius and Amritha) and 15/02/2016 in MD-2
Table 22. Phenology highlights for suckering and slip formation Variety
1st suckering (days)
Total suckers/plant
1st slip formation (days)
Total slips/plant
Mauritius
329.10
1.28
323.69
0.31
Amritha MD-2
328.39 391.17
1.67
313.94
1.66
0.11
361.67
0.01
4.67
0.17
-
0.33
349.55
1.02
322.93
0.66
Nutrition
**
NS
-
NS
Interaction
**
NS
-
NS
CD Mean
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
34
In general, Amritha and Mauritius varieties recorded more or less similar duration for the various phenological events such as flowering, fruit formation and maturity, suckering and slip formation. Amritha took 270 days for flowering and 291 days for fruiting and 360 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 314 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 328 days after planting. Mauritius took 274 days for flowering and 290 days for fruiting and 364 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 324 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 329 days after planting. MD-2 had little longer duration taking 308 days for flowering and 330 days for fruit formation and 390 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 362 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 391 days after planting. Amritha exhibited better suckering and slip production (1.6/plant). Mauritius recorded slightly lower suckering (1.28/plant) and lower slip formation (0.31/plant). MD-2 recorded the lowest sucker production (0.11 suckers/plant) and it rarely produced slips. Nutrient application in general advanced the fruit harvest by about a week compared to the control. After ethephon application, Amritha flowered in 25 days, Mauritius in 32 days and MD-2 in 39 days. However, there was no significant difference in fruit maturity (118-123 days) with a mean of 121 days.
b)
GROWTH
Growth parameters such as plant height, number of leaves per plant and canopy spread for the twelve treatments were recorded every three months. The results are discussed below. i. Plant height The plant height of the different pineapple varieties was influenced significantly by variety alone. At three months of planting Mauritius had the maximum plant height of 62.57 cm which was on par with MD-2 (60.06 cm) but significantly superior to Amritha (50.36 cm). After three months, v1n4 with 66 cm had the maximum height. v2n2with 48.06 cm had the minimum height. Among the varieties, Mauritius (62.57 cm) showed maximum height followed by MD-2 (60.6 cm) and Amritha (50.36 cm). The plant height observed in other treatments were as follows; v2n3 (50.22), v2n4 (51.05), v2n1 (52.11), v3n3 (57.79), v3n4 (59.24), v1n2 (59.94), v1n1 (61.40), v3n2 (61.80), v1n1 (61.94), v1n3 (62.39).
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
35
Plant height after three months (cm)
Table 23. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after three months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 61.94 52.11 61.40 58.49 n2 59.94 48.06 61.80 56.60 n3 62.39 50.22 57.79 56.80 n4 66.00 51.05 59.24 58.76 Mean 62.57 50.36 60.06 57.66 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.299 3.811 Nutrition (N) 1.500 NS Interaction (V x N) 2.599 NS CV % 7.81 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
V1
70.00
V2
V3
60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 15. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after three months of planting (cm)
After six months of planting the plant height did not show any variations with any of the treatments or their interactions. On an average, the plant height was 69 cm. v2n3 showed maximum plant height of 75.44 cm. v3n1 with 64.20 cm observed with minimum height. Among the varieties maximum height was observed in Amritha (69.78 cm) followed by Mauritius (69.35 cm) and MD-2 (66.92cm).
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
36
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 24. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after six months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 65.33 64.89 64.20 64.81 n2 67.39 67.83 68.93 68.05 n3 73.67 75.44 70.02 73.04 n4 71.00 70.94 64.56 68.83 Mean 69.35 69.78 66.92 68.68 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.791 NS Nutrition (N) 2.068 NS Interaction NS 3.583 (V x N) CV % 9.04 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
Table 25. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after nine months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean 79.11 74.67 82.39 78.72 84.22 73.89 77.67 78.59 81.44 78.78 81.90 80.71 81.11 79.00 83.99 81.37
n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
81.47
76.58
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
1.465
4.296
Nutrition (N)
1.691
NS
Interaction (V x N)
2.930
NS
Plant height after nine months (cm)
CV % Date of planting: 22/05/2015
81.49
79.85
6.36
V1
V2
V3
86.00 84.00 82.00 80.00 78.00 76.00 74.00 72.00 70.00 68.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 16. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after nine months of planting (cm)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
37
The plant height of the different pineapple varieties was influenced significantly by variety alone. At nine months of planting Mauritius and MD-2 had similar plant height (81 cm) which was significantly superior to Amritha (76.58 cm). After nine months, v1n2 with 84.22 cm obtained maximum plant height. V2n1 with 73.89 cm observed to be the lowest. Table 26. Plant height of different pineapple varieties after 12 months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 79.56 76.61 83.04 79.74 n2 85.33 76.61 79.91 80.62 n3 84.67 80.78 84.02 83.15 n4 81.78 80.33 84.61 82.24 Mean 82.83 78.58 82.90 81.44 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.440 NS Nutrition (N) 1.663 NS NS Interaction 2.881 (V x N) CV%
6.13
Date of planting: 22/05/2015 After 12 months of planting the plant height did not show any variations with any of the treatments or their interactions. The average plant height was 81 cm. v1n3 showed maximum plant height of 84.67 cm. v2n1and v2n2 with 76.61 cm were observed with minimum height. ii.
No. of leaves
Number of leaves was noted by counting the number of fully functional leaves grown in a plant. The fully unopened young leaves and the basal withered and dried up leaves were not counted. After three months of planting the number of leaves did not show any variations with any of the treatments but their interaction was significant. After three months, v1n3 with 24 numbers of leaves was the maximum and v3n3 with 18 was the minimum number of leaves. Among the varieties MD-2 (20) observed to have lower number, followed by Amritha (20) and Mauritius (21). Treatments were found to be statistically significant. The maximum number of leaves was noted in Mauritius receiving inorganic treatment.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
38
Table 27. Number of leaves of different pineapple varieties after three months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties
v1
v2
v3
Mean
n1 n2 n3 n4
18.61 21.56 23.67 20.61
20.67 19.22 20.39 20.56
20.24 21.81 17.68 20.36
19.84 20.86 20.58 20.51
Mean
21.11 SEm
20.21 CD(0.05)
20.02
20.45
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
0.434 0.501
Interaction (V x N)
0.867
CV %
NS NS 2.543
7.345
Date of planting: 22/05/2015 At six months after planting, the number of leaves was significantly influenced by variety alone. MD-2 has the maximum number of leaves (27.28) followed by Amritha (25.74 cm) which were on par and significantly superior to Mauritius (22.99). v3n2 (30) had the maximum number of leaves. v1n1 (22) observed to have minimum number of leaves. Table 28. Number of leaves of different pineapple varieties after six months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 21.72 25.94 29.46 25.71 n2 24.17 24.83 30.44 26.48 n3 24.06 24.67 21.85 23.52 n4 22.00 27.50 27.38 25.63 Mean 22.99 25.74 27.28 25.33 SEm CD(0.05) 2.536 Variety (V) 1.729 Nutrition (N) 1.498 NS Interaction (V x N) CV % Date of planting: 22/05/2015
1.729
NS 11.823
At nine months after planting, all the treatments and their interaction significantly influenced the number of leaves. Amritha had the maximum number of leaves (37.28) which was significantly higher than that of the other two varieties which were on par. The integrated management recorded the maximum number of leaves of 34.59 which was on par with organic and inorganic treatments but significantly higher than the control (31.42). v2n4 (40.94) observed to have maximum number of leaves and v1n4 (29.56) had the minimum. Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
39
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
The maximum of 40.94 leaves/plant was observed in Amritha receiving integrated application followed by Amritha receiving organic treatment (38.33 leaves/plant).
Table 29. Number of leaves of different pineapple varieties after nine months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 31.06 32.33 30.86 31.42 n2 30.50 38.33 32.07 33.63 n3 29.72 37.50 30.67 32.63 n4 29.56 40.94 33.26 34.59 Mean 30.21 37.28 31.72 33.07 SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.648
1.902
Nutrition(N)
0.749
2.196
Interaction (V xN)
1.297
3.803 6.792
CV %
Number of leaves after nine months (no./plant)
Date of planting:
V1
V2
V3
45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient applications
Fig. 17. Number of leaves of different pineapple varieties after nine months of planting (no./plant)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
40
Table 30. Number of leaves of different pineapple varieties after 12 months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 n2 n3 n4
32.67 32.06 31.67 32.33
34.28 33.61 35.00 34.22
35.17 34.33 34.25 34.86
34.04 33.33 33.64 33.81
Mean
32.18
34.28
34.65
33.70
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.252
0.739
Nutrition (N)
0.291
NS
Interaction (V x N)
0.504
NS 2.590
CV % Date of planting: 22/05/2015
At 12 months after planting the number of leaves was significantly influenced by variety alone. Amritha and MD-2 varieties recorded similar number of leaves (34) but significantly higher than Mauritius (32.18). iii.
Canopy spread
Canopy spread, which is a measure of the photosynthetic surface area available, in a pineapple plant is the maximum spread of the plant that can be achieved during its growth. It was measured in cm. It was taken diagonally towards the tip of the lengthiest leaves. After three months, canopy spread was significantly influenced by variety alone. Mauritius had the maximum canopy spread of 84.39 cm which was on par with MD-2 (80.90 cm) but significantly higher than Amritha (77.53 cm). Table 31. Canopy spread of different pineapple varieties after three months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 84.39 77.17 81.48 81.01 n2 81.50 73.06 80.53 78.36 n3 85.39 77.22 80.71 81.11 n4 86.28 82.67 81.09 83.35 Mean 84.39 77.53 80.95 80.96 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.628 4.776 Nutrition (N) 1.880 NS Interaction (V x N) CV% Date of planting: 22/05/2015
3.256
NS 6.967
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
41
After six months after planting the canopy spread was not significantly influenced by any of the treatments or their interactions and the average canopy spread was 85.47 cm.
Table 32. Canopy spread of different pineapple varieties after six months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 86.44 81.06 87.83 85.11 n2 83.61 81.39 90.87 85.29 n3 91.44 91.72 81.06 88.08 n4 88.83 83.61 80.50 84.31 Mean 87.58 84.44 85.06 85.70 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 2.076 NS Nutrition (N) 2.397 NS NS Interaction (V x N) 4.151 CV%
8.39
Date of planting: 22/05/2015 After nine months after planting the canopy spread was not significantly influenced by any of the treatments or their interactions and the average canopy spread was 100.15 cm.
Table 33. Canopy spread of different pineapple varieties after nine months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 97.28 97.22 102.00 98.83 n2 100.83 97.78 93.75 97.45 n3 99.22 103.78 103.29 102.10 n4 101.72 102.72 102.26 102.23 Mean 99.76 100.38 100.32 100.15 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 1.473 NS Nutrient(N) 1.701 NS 2.947 NS Interaction (V x N) CV%
5.10 Date of planting: 22/05/2015
After 12 months after planting the canopy spread was significantly influenced by nutrient management alone. The inorganic treatment recorded the maximum canopy spread of 104.79 cm followed by
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
42
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
integrated application (102.66 cm) which were on par but significantly superior to organic and the control treatments.
Table 34. Canopy spread of different pineapple varieties after 12 months of planting (cm) Nutrients\Varieties
v1
v2
v3
Mean
n1 n2 n3 n4
97.56 101.17 100.78 102.00
98.00 99.06 105.72 102.89
101.89 96.47 107.86 103.08
99.15 98.90 104.79 102.66
Mean
100.38 SEm 1.368 1.580 2.737
101.42 CD(0.05) NS 4.634 NS
102.33
101.37
Variety (V) Nutrient (N) Interaction (V x N)
4.676
CV %
Canopy spread after 12 months (cm)
Date of planting: 22/05/2015
V1
110.00 108.00 106.00 104.00 102.00 100.00 98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 90.00 n1
n2
n3
V2
V3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 18. Canopy spread of different pineapple varieties after twelve months of planting (cm)
iv.
Number of slips per plant
The number of slips was observed after 12 months of planting when the fruits were ready to be harvested. The treatments which produce higher number of slips could be propagated extensively. The number of Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
43
slips per plant was significantly influenced by variety alone. Amritha recorded the maximum number of slips of 1.66 followed by Mauritius (0.31). Slip production was very rare in MD-2.
Table 35. Number of slips of different pineapple varieties after 12 months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 0.17 1.00 0.00 0.39 n2 0.36 1.89 0.00 0.75 n3 0.14 1.81 0.00 0.65 n4 0.58 1.94 0.06 0.86 Mean 0.31 1.66 0.01 0.66 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 0.113 0.331 Nutrition (N) 0.130 NS Interaction (V x N)
Amritha
0.226
NS
Mauritius
MD-2
Fig. 19. Slips production in pineapple varieties (Amritha > Mauritius > MD-2)
v. Number of suckers 11 months after planting The numbers of suckers before harvest were observed after 11 months of planting. The new suckers were counted when they develop at the base of the mother plant. Suckers were mostly used for propagation of a variety which requires the minimum time period for flowering and fruiting. The numbers of suckers was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. Amritha recorded maximum number of suckers per plant (0.93) followed by Mauritius (0.70) and MD-2 (0.05) which were all significantly different from one another. In the case of nutrient management inorganic application produced the maximum number of suckers (0.68) followed by organic and integrated applications which were all on par but significantly superior to the control treatment (0.33).
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
44
Table 36. Number of suckers of different pineapple varieties after 11 months of planting (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 0.47 0.53 0.00 0.33 n2 0.78 0.97 0.10 0.62 n3 0.75 1.28 0.00 0.68 n4 0.81 0.94 0.10 0.62 Mean 0.70 0.93 0.05 0.56 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 0.067 0.196 Nutrition (N) 0.077 0.226 Interaction (V x N)
0.134
NS
vi. Number of suckers 14 months after planting The number of suckers per plant was significantly influenced by variety alone at 14 months after planting. Amritha produced maximum number of suckers of 1.67 followed by Mauritius (1.28) and MD-2 (0.11) which were all significantly different from one another. Table 37. Number of suckers of different pineapple varieties after harvest (no./plant) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 1.08 1.50 0.09 0.89 n2 1.42 1.50 0.15 1.02 n3 1.42 1.83 0.04 1.10 n4 1.19 1.86 0.16 1.07 Mean 1.28 1.67 0.11 1.02 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 0.059 0.172 Nutrition (N) 0.068 NS Interaction (V x N)
0.117
NS
CV % 19.91 The sucker number increased after harvesting shooting up more vegetative growth.
Suckers
Amritha
Mauritius
MD-2
Fig. 20. Sucker production in pineapple varieties (Amritha>Mauritius>MD-2) Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
45
v1n1 3 months
6
0 months
12 months
9 months
3 months
6 months
v1n2
0 months
12 months
9 months
v1n3 3 monthsFig. Sucker
6 months
0 months
12 months
9 months
v1n4
3 monthsSuckers
6 months
0 monthsAmritha
12 months
9 months
Fig. 21. Growth responses in v1 (Mauritius) during the first year Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
46
v2n1 3 months
6 months
12 months
9 months
3 months
6 months
12 months
9 months
3 months
6 months
0 months
v2n2
0 months
v2n3
0 months
12 months
9 months
v2n4 3 months
6 months
12 months
9 months
0 months
Fig. 22. Growth responses of v2 (Amritha) during the 12 months
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
47
v3n1
3 months
6 months
0 months
12 months
9 months
v3n2
3 months
6 months
0 months
12 months
9 months
v3n3
3 months
6 months
0 months
12 months
9 months
v3n4
3 months
6 months
0 months
12 months
9 months
Fig. 23. Growth responses in MD-2 during the first year
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
0 months
48
3 months
12 months
6 months
9 months
Fig. 24. Field view of the plot during the year
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
49
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
GROWTH HIGHLIGHTS Table 38. Growth highlights Plant height (cm) Months
No. of leaves (nos.)
3
6
9
12
3
6
9
Mauritius
62.57
69.35
81.47
82.83
21.11
22.99
30.21
Amritha
50.36
69.78
76.58
78.58
20.21
25.74
MD-2
60.06
66.92
81.49
82.90
20.02
CD
3.81
NS
4.30
NS
n1
58.49
64.81
78.72
n2
56.60
68.05
n3
56.80
n4 CD
Canopy spread (cm) 12
3
6
9
12
32.18
84.39
87.58
99.76
100.38
37.28
34.28
77.53
84.44
100.38 101.42
27.28
31.72
34.65
80.95
85.06
100.32 102.33
NS
2.54
1.90
0.74
4.78
NS
NS
NS
79.74
19.84
25.71
31.42
34.04
81.01
85.11
98.83
99.15
78.59
80.62
20.86
26.48
33.63
33.33
78.36
85.29
97.45
98.90
73.04
80.71
83.15
20.58
23.52
32.63
33.64
81.11
88.08
102.10 104.79
58.76
68.83
81.37
82.24
20.51
25.63
34.59
33.81
83.35
84.31
102.23 102.66
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.20
NS
NS
NS
57.66
68.68
79.85
81.44
20.45
25.33
33.07
33.70
80.96
85.70
NS
NS
NS
NS
**
NS
*
NS
NS
NS
Variety
Nutrition
Mean Interaction
NS
4.63
100.15 101.37 NS
NS
With regard to growth characters, Mauritius and MD-2 were similar in plant height while Amritha was shorter. The number of leaves progressively increased from 20 at three months to 34 at 12 months. The varieties behaved similarly except for at nine months when Amritha had 37 leaves while the other two around 31 leaves. There was no significant difference in canopy spread. Nutrient management also did not record any significant difference in plant growth characters.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
50
b. YIELD Yield parameters included the fruit harvested and the characters of the single fruit. Fruit harvest i. Total fruit yield The fruits when matured were harvested and weight of the individual fruits was noted. From that total fruit yield per plot was derived. The fruit yield per plot was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. The variety Mauritius produced the maximum fruit yield with crown (11962.48 g/plot) followed by MD-2 (10818.85 g/plot) which were statistically on par and significantly higher to Amritha (9466.71 g/plot). With respect to nutrient management, organic application produced the maximum yield of 11463.48 g/plot followed by inorganic and integrated applications which were all on par but significantly superior to the control (9182.74 g/plot). Table 39. Total fruit weight of different pineapple varieties after one year of planting (g/plot) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 9970.67 8370.50 9207.07 9182.74 n2 13318.60 9106.50 11965.33 11463.48 n3 12476.33 10422.33 11053.67 11317.44 12084.33 9967.50 11049.33 11033.72 n4 Mean
11962.48
9466.71
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
SEm 390.518 450.932
CD(0.05) 1145.421 1322.619
Interaction (V x N)
781.037
NS
10818.85
10749.35
12.59
CV % Plot size: 1.8 m x 1.95 m= 3.51 m2
V1
V2
V3
Fruit weight (g)
14000.00 12000.00 10000.00 8000.00 6000.00 4000.00 2000.00 0.00 n1
n2 n3 Nutrient management
n4
Fig. 25. Total fruit production (g/plot)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
51
ii. Total number of fruits Total fruit number is the total number of fruits harvested per plot during the year. The total number of fruits harvested per plot was not significantly influenced by any of the treatments or their interactions.
Table 40. Total fruit number of different pineapple varieties after one year of planting (no./plot) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean 11.00 12.00 11.00 12.00 11.50 SEm
n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
10.67 10.67 11.33 11.00 10.92 CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.245
NS
Nutrition(N)
0.282
NS
Interaction (V x N)
0.489
NS
10.73 10.47 10.43 10.83 10.62
10.80 11.04 10.92 11.28 11.01
CV % 7.69 2 Plot size: 1.8 m x 1.95 m= 3.51 m , No. of plants/plot = 12 Fruit components Fruits harvested from the field were individually analyzed for the yield parameters like fruit weight with crown, crown weight, fruit weight without crown, peel weight, core weight, pulp weight juice weight and fruit size. i. Fruit weight with crown Table 41. Fruit weight with crown of different pineapple varieties (g) Nutrients\Varieties n1
v1
v2
v3
Mean
n2
894.88 1244.92
766.89 871.01
974.21 847.17
878.66 987.70
n3
1167.61
976.23
886.38
1010.07
n4 Mean
1207.44 1128.71
1015.33 907.37
1072.58 945.08
1098.45 993.72
Variety (V)
SEm 39.286
CD(0.05) 115.23
Nutrition (N)
45.363
133.06
Interaction (V x N)
78.572
NS
CV %
13.70
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
52
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Fruit wt. with crown (g)
V1
V2
V3
1400.00 1200.00 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 26. Fruit wt. with crown of different pineapple varieties (g/plant) The single fruit weight with crown was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. The maximum fruit weight with crown was recorded by Mauritius (1128.71 g) which was significantly higher than MD-2 (945.08 g) and Amritha (907.37 g) which were on par. With respect to nutrient management integrated application resulted in maximum fruit weight with crown of 1098.45 g which was on par with inorganic and organic applications but significantly superior to the control treatment (878.66 g). ii. Crown weight Crown of the fruit was removed from the fruit and weighed separately. The crown weight influences the total weight of the fruit. If the total fruit weight is increased because of crown weight it causes increase in fruit waste. Thus resulting in minimal consumption of the fruit. The crown weight was significantly influenced by variety alone with Amritha having the smallest crown of 105.62 g followed by Mauritius (157.72 g) and MD-2 (237.73 g) which were all significantly different from one another.
Table 42. Crown weight of different pineapple varieties (g) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 n1 148.50 107.98 247.38 n2 166.39 93.90 197.19 n3 147.00 117.83 245.76 n4 168.97 102.75 260.58 Mean 157.72 105.62 237.73 SEm CD(0.05) Variety (V) 6.253 18.339 Nutrition (N) 7.220 NS 12.505 NS Interaction (V x N) CV %
Mean 167.95 152.50 170.20 177.44 167.02
12.97 Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
53
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
iii. Fruit weight without crown The fruit weight without crown implies the major economic portion of the total fruit weight. The single fruit weight without crown was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. The maximum fruit weight without crown was recorded by Mauritius (971 g) which was significantly higher than MD-2 (707.36 g) and Amritha (801.75 g) which were on par. With respect to nutrient management integrated application resulted in maximum fruit weight without crown of 921.02 g which was on par with inorganic and organic applications but significantly superior to the control treatment (710.71 g).
Fruit wt. without crown (g)
V1
V2
V3
1200.00 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 27. Fruit wt. without crown for different pineapple varieties
Table 43. Fruit weight without crown of different pineapple varieties (g) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3
Mean
n1
746.38
658.91
726.83
710.71
n2 n3 n4
1078.53 1020.61 1038.47
777.11 858.40 912.58
649.97 640.62 812.00
835.20 839.88 921.02
Mean
971.00
801.75
707.36
826.70
SEm
CD(0.05)
36.354 41.978
106.628 123.124 NS
Variety (V) Nutrition(N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
72.708 15.23
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
54
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
iv. Peel weight Peel is the portion surrounding the edible pulp. If it is accounted less it causes less wastage and vice versa. The peel weight was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. MD-2 recorded minimum peel weight of 106.23 g and it was significantly lower than the other two varieties. Amritha had the next lower peel weight of 154.68 g and Mauritius had the maximum peel weight of 179.85 g which were on par with respect to nutrient management. The control treatment recorded minimum peel weight of 121.93 g which was on par with organic treatment. The maximum peel weight was recorded by inorganic application which was on par with integrated and organic treatments. Peel weight was maximum for n3 (162.04 g) followed by n4 (159.76 g) and n2 (143.94 g). Among the varieties Mauritius showed maximum peel weight (179.85 g) followed by Amritha (154.68 g) and MD-2 (106.23 g).
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N)
Table 44. Peel weight of different pineapple varieties (g) v1 v2 v3 141.75 122.91 101.13 192.28 156.50 83.06 215.39 174.80 95.93 169.97 164.50 144.81 179.85 154.68 106.23 SEm CD(0.05) 8.694 25.501 10.039 29.446 17.389 NS
Mean 121.93 143.94 162.04 159.76 146.92
20.50
CV %
V1
V2
V3
250.00
Peel wt. (g)
200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 28. Peel wt. of different pineapple varieties (g)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
55
v. Core weight Core is the centre portion of the fruit surrounded by the pulp. The large sized fruit with greater core weight can minimize the pulp content of the fruit. The core weight was significantly influenced by both variety and nutrient management. The pineapple varieties were significantly different from one another in core weight. MD-2 recorded the minimum core weight of 63.38 g followed by Amritha (78.38 g) and Mauritius recorded the maximum core weight of 98.89 g. With respect to nutrient management the control treatment recorded the minimum core weight of 66.03 g which was significantly lower than the other treatments which were all on par.
Table 45. Core weight of different pineapple varieties (g) v1 v2 v3
Nutrients\Varieties
Mean
n1 n2 n3 n4
74.25 112.03
68.01 73.11
55.83 57.83
66.03 80.99
107.56 101.72
85.80 86.58
64.59 75.25
85.98 87.85
Mean
98.89
78.38
63.38
80.21
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
SEm 3.870 4.469
Interaction (V x N)
7.741
CD(0.05) 11.352 13.108 NS 16.72
CV %
V1
V2
V3
120.00
Core wt. (g)
100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 29. Core wt. of different pineapple varieties (g)
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
56
vi. Pulp weight Pulp weight is the most edible portion of the fruit. With regard to pulp weight varietal variation alone was statistically significant. The variety Mauritius recorded the highest pulp weight which was significantly higher than the other two varieties which were on par. MD-2 recorded minimum pulp weight per fruit.
Table 46. Pulp weight of different pineapple varieties (g) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 520.08 460.84 567.33 n1
Mean 516.09
n2 n3 n4 Mean
598.73 595.73 665.26 593.95
Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N)
765.36 693.28 760.33 684.76 SEm 31.202 36.029 62.404
542.19 583.13 650.33 559.13 CD(0.05) 91.517 NS NS
488.64 510.77 585.11 537.96
18.20
CV % vii. Juice weight
Juice weight is the total juice obtained from the pulp of the fruit. With regard to juice weight varietal variation alone was statistically significant. The variety Mauritius recorded the highest juice weight (504.23 g) which was significantly higher than the other two varieties which were on par. Amritha recorded minimum juice weight of 389.78 g per fruit.
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
Table 47. Juice weight of different pineapple varieties (g) v1 v2 v3
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
357.08 580.19 542.83 536.81 504.23 SEm 28.518 32.929
Interaction (V x N)
57.035
CV %
327.10 393.15 422.90 415.96 389.78 CD(0.05) 83.645 NS NS
423.58 367.92 391.16 451.14 408.45
Mean 369.26 447.09 452.30 467.97 434.15
22.75 Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
viii.
Fruit size
The fruit size was measured by multiplying the maximum length by the maximum breadth of the fruit without crown. The length was measured from the base of the crown to the top of the stalk. The breadth measured was the maximum width observed for the fruit. With regard to fruit size varietal variation alone was statistically significant. The variety Mauritius recorded the highest fruit size of 169.64 cm2 followed by Amritha (145.45 cm2). MD-2 recorded minimum fruit size of 122.74 cm2 which was on par with Amritha.
Nutrients\Varieties
b
l
Fig. 30. Fruit size measurement taking maximum length (l) and maximum breadth (b)
Table 48. Fruit size of different pineapple varieties (cm2) v1 v2 v3
Mean
n1 n2 n3 n4
130.54
132.94
103.35
122.28
185.31 187.04 175.69
142.66 159.20 147.02
96.18 129.16 162.28
141.38 158.46 161.66
Mean
169.64
145.45
122.74
145.95
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
12.122 13.997
Interaction (V x N)
24.244
35.56 NS NS
CV %
57
28.77
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
58
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
YIELD HIGHLIGHTS
Variety
Plan Fruit ted ed nos. nos.
Table 49. Yield highlights Mean Yield/ha Fruit components (g) fruit wt. (t) Crown Peel Core Pulp (kg) wt. wt. wt. wt. 1.040 34.083 157.72 179.85 98.89 684.76
Yield/p lot (kg)
Total fruit wt.
Mauritius
12
11.50
11.963
Amritha
12
10.92
9.467
0.867
26.972
105.62
154.68
78.38
559.13
907.37
MD-2
12
10.62
10.819
1.019
30.823
237.73
106.23
63.38
537.96
945.08
-
NS
1.150
-
-
18.34
25.50
11.35
91.51
115.23
n1
12
10.80
9.183
0.850
26.162
167.95
121.93
66.03
516.09
878.66
n2
12
11.04
11.463
1.038
32.658
152.50
143.94
80.99
598.73
987.70
12
10.92
11.317
1.036
32.242
n3
170.20
162.04
85.98
595.73
1010.07
n4
12
11.28
11.033
0.978
31.433
177.44
159.76
87.85
665.26
1098.45
-
NS
1.320
-
-
NS
29.45
13.11
NS
133.06
12
11.01
10.749
146.92
80.21
593.95
993.72
NS
NS
30.624 -
167.02
-
0.976 -
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
CD
1128.71
Nutrition
CD Mean Interaction
Plot size: 1.8 m x 1.95 m= 3.51 m2
Crown wt. Core wt.
Peel wt. Pulp wt. 14%
Crown wt. Core wt.
16% 61%
Peel wt. Pulp wt. 12%
17% 62%
9%
Fig. 31. Mauritius fruit components
9%
Fig. 32. Amritha fruit components
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
59
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Crown wt. Core wt.
Crown wt. Core wt.
Peel wt. Pulp wt.
Peel wt. Pulp wt. 17%
25%
15% 11%
57%
60% 8%
7%
Fig. 34. Pineapple fruit components
Fig. 33. MD-2 fruit components
Crown wt.
Peel wt.
Core wt.
Pulp wt.
Crown wt. Core wt.
Peel wt. Pulp wt. 16%
19%
15%
14% 61%
59% 8% Fig. 35. Control effect on fruit components
8%
Fig. 36. Organic effect on fruit components
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
60
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Crown wt. Core wt.
Crown wt. Core wt.
Peel wt. Pulp wt. 17%
Peel wt. Pulp wt.
16%
15%
16%
59%
61% 8%
Fig. 37. Inorganic effect on fruit components
8%
Fig. 38. Integrated effect on fruit components
Mauritius and MD-2 varieties had almost similar fruit weight while Amritha had smaller fruits. Mauritius produced maximum fruit yield of 34.07 t/ha followed by MD-2 (30.83 t/ha) and Amritha produced least yield (26.98 t/ha). Nutrient applications by any means were statistically similar but significantly superior to the control treatment. Analysis of fruit components indicated that Amritha and Mauritius had higher pulp (62% and 61% respectively) mainly due to the smaller crown weight (12% and 14% respectively). MD-2 had least pulp weight of 57% due to higher crown weight (25%) even though the peel content was the least of 11%. Nutrient management exerted relatively lower effect on the fruit component distribution. The crown weight was maximum of 19% in control treatment compared to 16 to 17% in other treatment indicating that application of nutrients by any means contribute more to the actual fruit rather than the crown. If the maximum productivity of pineapple is considered, the maximum yield is obtained for Mauritius receiving organic manure (37.89 t/ha). However, since the main effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but not the interaction effect, with organic treatment not showing any superiority over the inorganic and the integrated applications. Hence cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (Organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. Recording of a lower average fruit weight and number of leaves per plant in this field experiment with Package of Practices recommended dose of organic manure and inorganic fertilisers at PRS, Vazhakulam indicates a relatively inadequate nutrition of the plant highlighting the need for more nutrition. This requires a review of the Package of Practices recommendation and suitable revision of fertiliser recommendation based on different multi-location field experiments with thorough scientific discussion among the crop scientists.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
61
d. QUALITY The characters analyzed included TSS, pH, reducing sugar, non-reducing sugar, total sugar, ascorbic acid and acidity. i. TSS The TSS of the fruit juice did not show any variation due to the treatments or their interactions and the average TSS was 14.32°Brix.
Nutrients\Varieties
Table 50. TSS of different pineapple varieties (°Brix) v1 v2 v3
Mean
n1 n2 n3 n4
13.25
14.20
14.80
14.08
14.56 14.65 14.51
14.34 15.10 14.91
13.66 13.83 14.01
14.19 14.53 14.48
Mean
14.64 CD(0.05) NS NS
14.08
14.32
Nutrition (N)
14.24 SEm 0.210 0.243
Interaction (V x N)
0.421
NS
Variety (V)
5.09
CV%
ii.
pH
The average pH obtained was 3.55. All the treatments showed pH between 3 and 3.7. The pH of the fruit juice significantly varied with variety alone. Mauritius and Amritha recorded the same pH value of 3.62
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
Table 51. pH of different pineapple varieties v1 v2 v3 3.55 3.69 3.43 3.68 3.54 3.49 3.64 3.59 3.38 3.60 3.64 3.36 3.62 3.62 3.42 SEm CD(0.05) 0.025 0.073 0.029 NS NS 0.050
Mean 3.56 3.57 3.54 3.53 3.55
2.42
which was significantly higher than MD-2 (3.42). Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
62
iii. Reducing sugars The reducing sugar content of the pineapple juice showed significant variation with nutrient management only. Reducing sugar was maximum of 10.37% in integrated application which was on par with the control and inorganic applications. The organic treatment recorded the minimum content of the reducing sugars of 8.10%. Table 52. Reducing sugars of different pineapple varieties (%) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 n1 11.15 8.39 11.35 n2 9.53 8.79 5.99 n3 11.37 9.51 8.55 n4 10.12 9.75 11.24 10.54 9.11 9.28 Mean SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
0.490 0.566
Interaction (V x N)
0.980
NS 1.659 NS
Mean 10.30 8.10 9.81 10.37 9.64
17.59
CV%
iv. Non reducing sugars The non-reducing sugar content of the juice significantly varied with the variety and nutrient management and their interaction. The non-reducing sugar content was maximum of 9.91% in Amritha which was on par with MD-2 (8.53%). Mauritius recorded the lowest content of 7.27%. Among the nutrient management treatment methods the organic application resulted in highest content of nonreducing sugar 11.88% which was significantly higher than the other treatments. The control treatment recorded the lowest non-reducing sugar content (6.22%). The non-reducing sugar content of the juice was maximum of 13.78% in MD-2 receiving organic treatment followed by Amritha receiving organic treatment (11.57%). Table 53. Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3
Non reducing sugars of different pineapple varieties (%) v1 v2 v3 4.90 9.72 4.03
Mean 6.22
n4
10.31 9.27 4.59
11.57 10.08 8.27
13.78 6.97 9.35
11.88 8.77 7.41
Mean
7.27
9.91
8.53
8.57
SEm
CD(0.05)
0.518 0.598 1.036
1.519 1.754 3.039
Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV%
20.94 Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
V1
V2
63
V3
Non reducing sugars (%)
16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 39. Non reducing sugars of different pineapple varieties (%)
v. Total sugars The total sugar content of the juice did not show any variation due to variety, nutrient management or their interaction.
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV%
vi.
Table 54. Total sugars of different pineapple varieties (%) v1 v2 v3 13.67 21.51 15.17 18.16 20.36 18.92 17.48 18.02 16.61 16.75 17.29 21.07 16.51 19.29 17.94 SEm CD(0.05) 0.842 NS 0.972 NS 1.683 NS
Mean 16.79 19.15 17.37 18.37 17.92
16.27
Ascorbic acid
The ascorbic acid content of pineapple juice showed significant variation due to variety. All the three varieties were significantly different from one another. MD-2 recorded the highest ascorbic acid content of 58.38 mg/100 g followed by Amritha (33.01 mg/100 g) and Mauritius recorded the lowest ascorbic acid content (27.42 mg/100 g). This indicates that Mauritius variety the sweetest and MD-2 variety with maximum ascorbic acid content may have the maximum antioxidant or free radical scavenging activity though it is less sweet than the other varieties. Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
64
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Table 55. Ascorbic acid of different pineapple varieties (mg/100 g) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 25.25 31.31 57.17 n1
Mean 37.91
n2
30.21
33.50
59.19
40.97
n3 n4
27.94
35.10
58.08
40.37
26.26 27.42
32.15 33.01
59.09 58.38
39.17 39.60
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
2.135 2.466
6.263 NS
Interaction (V x N)
4.271
NS
Mean
18.68
CV %
Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
V1
V2
V3
70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 40. Ascorbic acid of different pineapple varieties (mg/100 g) vii.
Acidity (%)
Acidity was not significantly influenced by any of the treatments or their interactions.
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV%
Table 56. Acidity of different pineapple varieties (%) v1 v2 v3 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.14 SEm CD(0.05) 0.007 NS 0.008 NS 0.013 NS
Mean 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14
16.90
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
65
QUALITY HIGHLIGHTS
Variety
Mauritius Amritha MD-2 CD Nutrition n1 n2 n3 n4 CD Mean Interaction
TSS ᴼBrix
pH
14.24 14.64 14.08 NS
3.62 3.62 3.42 0.07
14.08 14.19 14.53 14.48 NS 14.32 NS
3.56 3.57 3.54 3.53 NS 3.55 NS
Table 57. Quality highlights Reducing NonTotal sugars (%) reducing sugars sugars (%) (%) 10.54 7.27 16.51 9.11 9.91 19.29 9.28 8.53 17.94 NS 1.52 NS 10.30 8.10 9.81 10.37 1.66 9.64 NS
6.22 11.88 8.77 7.41 1.75 8.57 **
16.79 19.15 17.37 18.37 NS 17.92 NS
Ascorbic acid Acidity (mg/100g) (%) 27.42 33.01 58.38 6.26
0.14 0.13 0.14 NS
37.91 40.97 40.37 39.17 NS 39.60 NS
0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 NS 0.14 NS
Quality parameters like pH, non-reducing sugars and ascorbic acid content in the juice were significantly influenced by the varieties. Mauritius and Amritha had pH 3.62 each compared to a lower pH of 3.42 for MD-2. Amritha had maximum (9.91%) non reducing sugars followed by MD-2 (8.53%) and Mauritius (7.27%). The varieties expressed greater differences in ascorbic acid content with MD-2 recording the highest value of 58.38% followed by Amritha (33.01%) and least in Mauritius (27.42%). Nutrient management significantly influenced the reducing and non-reducing sugar content but not the total sugar content. Reducing sugar content was almost similar for the control and integrated application (10.3 and 10.37% respectively) while organic and inorganic treatment recorded lower values (8.1 and 9.81% respectively). However the non-reducing sugar content was maximum of 11.88% in organic application and significantly lower in other treatments (6.22 to 8.77%). There was no significant difference in TSS and the mean value was 14.32ᴼBrix.
e. SENSORY PARAMETERS The main sensory characters analyzed were fruit colour, smell, taste and overall acceptability. They decide the overall appeal of the fruit. Among them fruit colour, smell and taste were assessed by 9 point hedonic scale. The overall acceptability was obtained by taking an average of all the three other characters. The higher the score the more it is acceptable.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
66
i. Fruit colour The colour appeal showed significant variation due to variety only. The fruit colour of MD-2 variety was maximum accepted by the consumers with a score value of 7.66 which was significantly superior to the other two varieties which were on par.
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean
Table 58. Colour of different pineapple varieties (0-9) v1 v2 v3 6.83 7.11 8.58 7.11 7.17 7.22 7.08
6.78 6.75 7.11 6.94
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V) Nutrition (N)
0.172 0.199
0.505 NS
Interaction (V x N)
0.344
NS
7.19 7.01 7.20 7.23
8.25
CV % ii.
7.67 7.11 7.28 7.66
Mean 7.51
Fruit smell
The smell of the fruit was significantly influenced by the variety and the treatment interaction. MD-2 recorded maximum acceptability in terms of smell which was significantly superior to the other two varieties which were on par. MD-2 variety receiving the control treatment showed the maximum acceptability in terms of smell or aroma. The odour of v3n1 (8.75) was the most liked one followed by v3n2 (7.75). The scores for other treatment fell between 6 and 9. On average the smell of pineapple varieties was accounted as 6.81.
Nutrients\Varieties
Table 59. Smell of different pineapple varieties (0-9) v1 v2 v3
Mean
n1
5.94
6.67
8.75
7.12
n2 n3 n4 Mean
6.53 7.00 6.22
6.11 6.11 6.61
7.75 6.53 7.44
6.80 6.55 6.76
6.42 SEm
6.38 CD(0.05)
7.62
6.81
Variety (V)
0.190
0.558
Nutrition (N)
0.220
NS
Interaction (V x N)
0.381
1.116
CV%
9.69
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Score for fruit smell (0-9)
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
V1
V2
67
V3
10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
Fig. 41. Fruit smell for different pineapple varieties (0-9)
iii. Fruit taste The taste of the fruit varied significantly with variety and treatment interaction. The GI registered Vazhakulam Pineapple – Mauritius was most acceptable in terms of taste with a 9- point hedonic scale score of 7.28 which was followed by Amritha and MD-2 recorded the minimum acceptability in taste. All the varieties were significantly different from one another. Vazhakulam Pineapple which received inorganic treatment was the most acceptable in terms of taste with a score value of 8.00. The taste was liked very much for v1n3 (8.00) and slightly liked was v1n2 (7.33). All other scores ranged between 5 and 8. On average the taste for pineapple varieties was 6.59.
Nutrients\Varieties n1 n2 n3 n4 Mean Variety (V) Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N) CV %
Table 60. Taste of different pineapple varieties (0-9) v1 v2 v3 6.56 6.89 6.50 7.33 6.22 5.75 8.00 6.75 5.53 7.22 6.89 5.39 7.28 6.69 5.79 SEm CD(0.05) 0.168 0.194 0.337
Mean 6.65 6.44 6.76 6.50 6.59
0.494 NS 0.988 8.86
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
Score card for taste (0-9)
V1
V2
68
V3
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 n1
n2
n3
n4
Nutrient management
FIg. 42. Fruit taste of differnt pineapple varieties (0-9) iv. Overall Acceptability The overall acceptability was significantly influenced by only the interaction effect of variety and nutrient management. The overall acceptability was maximum (7.93) for MD-2 receiving control treatment followed by Vazhakulam Pineapple receiving inorganic treatment (7.39). Table 61.Overall Acceptability of different pineapple varieties (0-9) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3
Mean
n2
6.44 6.99
6.89 6.37
7.93 7.06
7.09 6.81
n3
7.39
6.54
6.39
6.77
n4
6.89
6.87
6.70
6.82
Mean
6.93
6.67
7.02
6.87
SEm
CD(0.05)
Variety (V)
0.136
NS
Nutrition (N) Interaction (V x N)
0.157 0.273
NS 0.800
n1
CV%
6.87
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
69
v1n1
v1n2
v1n3
v1n4 Fig. 43. Mauritius fruit sectioned and its juice
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
70
v2n1
v2n2
v2n3
v2n4 Fig. 44. Amritha fruit sectioned and its juice
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
71
v3n1
v3n2
v3n3
v3n4 Fig. 45. MD-2 fruit sectioned and its juice
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
72
SENSORY HIGHLIGHTS
Variety Mauritius Amritha MD-2 CD Nutrition n1 n2 n3 n4 CD Mean Interaction
Table 62. Sensory highlights (0-9) Fruit colour Fruit smell Fruit taste
Overall acceptability
7.08 6.94 7.66 0.51
6.42 6.38 7.62 0.56
7.28 6.69 5.79 0.49
6.93 6.67 7.02 NS
7.51 7.19 7.01 7.20 NS 7.23 NS
7.12 6.80 6.55 6.76 NS 6.81 *
6.65 6.44 6.76 6.50 NS 6.59 *
7.09 6.81 6.77 6.82 NS 6.87 **
MD-2 had relatively better fruit colour and aroma while Mauritius had the best taste. Nutrient management did not influence the sensory parameters of the fruit.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
73
f. ECONOMICS i. Standard calculation for the economics of pineapple cultivation in Kerala Variety: Mauritius Spacing: 30 x 45 x 120 cm No. of plants: 10000/acre, 25000/hectare Wage rate (₹): Men: 400/day, Woman: 300/day Table 63. Standard economics of pineapple cultivation in Kerala Sl. No.
ITEMS
EXPENSES PER ACRE (₹) Ist
A. LABOUR REQUIREMENT 1 Land preparation & planting
year
IInd
year
IIIrd
TOTAL
year
20000
(₹)
EXPENSES PER HECTARE (Rs.) Ist
year
20000
50000
IInd
year
IIIrd
year
TOTAL (₹)
50000
2
Manuring
7600
7600
7600
22800
19000
19000
19000
57000
3
Weeding
15000
12000
12000
39000
37500
30000
30000
97500
4
2000
2000
2000
6000
5000
5000
5000
15000
5
Plant protection Ethephon application& mulching
2400
3200
3200
8800
6000
8000
8000
22000
6
Harvesting & marketing
6000
7000
8000
21000
15000
17500
20000
52500
53000
31800
32800
117600
132500
79500
82000
294000
40000
100000
TOTAL B. INPUT COST
100000
1
Planting material
40000
2
Organic manure
10000
10000
10000
30000
25000
25000
25000
75000
3 4
Chemical fertilizers Plant protection chemicals
15600
15600
15600
46800
39000
39000
39000
117000
10000
5000
5000
20000
25000
12500
12500
50000
5
Tools, implements etc TOTAL
4000
4000
4000
12000
10000
10000
10000
30000
79600
34600
34600
148800
199000
86500
86500
372000
40000
40000
40000
120000
100000
100000
100000
300000
172600
106400
107400
386400
431500
266000
268500
966000
10000
10000
7000
27000
25000
25000
17500
67500
20
18
16
18
20
18
16
18
200000
180000
112000
492000
500000
450000
280000
1230000
10000
8000
18000
25000
20000
45000
C. LEASE AMOUNT TOTAL Lease TOTAL EXPENDITURE D. YIELD/INCOME 1
Fruit yield (kg)
2
Average price (₹/kg)
3
Income on fruit (₹)
4
Income from suckers (₹) TOTAL INCOME
200000
190000
120000
510000
500000
475000
300000
1275000
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
172600
106400
107400
386400
431500
266000
268500
966000
27400
83600
12600
123600
68500
209000
31500
309000
PROFIT/LOSS
These estimates are tentative only and subject to variation over place and time. ii. Marginal Benefit Cost ratio for different treatment combinations The marginal increase in cost and the marginal increase in yield along with the marginal benefit: cost ratio are presented in the table 64. The marginal benefit: cost ratio was the highest of ₹3.39 for inorganic treatment followed by integrated application (₹1.62) and least in organic treatment (₹ . 4 . It was the highest ₹3.82 benefit: cost ratio) in the treatment combination of Mauritius receiving inorganic Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
74
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
fertilizers which was much higher than the other treatments. Therefore, considering the marginal benefit: cost ratio, cultivation of Mauritius pineapple with inorganic fertilizers seems to be most economically viable which is most prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala.
Table 64. Benefit Cost calculation for different treatment combinations Sl. No.
Treatm ent combin ation
Yield/ Yield/ plot (kg) ha (t)
FY M (t/ ha/ yr.)
N:P:K (kg/ha/yr.
28.40
0
0
Fertiliz ers (kg) Urea: Rajpho s: MoP 0 0
1
v1n1
Plot size: 3.51 m2 9.97
2
v1n2
13.30
37.89
57
0
3
v1n3
12.48
35.56
0
570:285:57 0
4
v1n4
12.00
34.19
25
320:160:32 0
5
v2n1
8.37
23.85
0
0
6
v2n2
9.10
25.93
57
0
7
v2n3
10.42
29.69
0
570:285:57 0
8
v2n4
9.97
28.40
25
320:160:32 0
9
v3n1
9.20
26.21
0
10
v3n2
11.46
32.65
11
v3n3
11.32
12
v3n4
11.00
1239.1 3:1425 :950 695.65 :800:5 33.33 0
Marginal Cost increase ₹
0
Marginal yield increase over the control (kg)
Marginal Benefit ₹
0
0.00 189743.5 9
Marginal B:C ratio ₹
0.00
97111
9.49
37470
7.15
143019.9 4
3.82
63583
5.78
115669.5 2
1.82
0.00
0.00
0
0
1.95
97111
2.08
41595.44
0.43
37470
5.84
116809.1 2
3.12
63583
4.56
91168.09
1.43
0
0 1239.1 3:1425 :950 695.65 :800:5 33.33 0
0
0.00
57
0
0
97111
6.44
0.00 128774.9 3
32.25
0
570:285:57 0
37470
6.04
120797.7 2
3.22
31.34
25
320:160:32 0
63583
5.13
102564.1 0
1.61
1239.1 3:1425 :950 695.65 :800:5 33.33
0
1.33
marginal benefit: cost ratio was obtained by assuming a market price of ₹ /kg fruit
Table 65. The marginal benefit: cost ratio for different pineapple varieties with different nutrient management (₹) Nutrients\Varieties v1 v2 v3 Mean n1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n2 1.95 0.43 1.33 1.24 n3 3.82 3.12 3.22 3.39 n4 1.82 1.43 1.61 1.62 Mean 1.90 1.25 1.54 1.56
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
75
4. SUMMARY
In general, Amritha and Mauritius varieties recorded more or less similar duration for the various phenological events such as flowering, fruit formation and maturity, suckering and slip formation. Amritha took 270 days for flowering and 291 days for fruiting and 360 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 314 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 328 days after planting. Mauritius took 274 days for flowering and 290 days for fruiting and 364 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 324 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 329 days after planting. MD-2 had little longer duration taking 308 days for flowering and 330 days for fruit formation and 390 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Slip formation started from 362 days after planting. Sucker formation started from 391 days after planting. Amritha exhibited better suckering and slip production (1.6/plant). Mauritius recorded slightly lower suckering (1.28/plant) and lower slip formation (0.31/plant). MD-2 recorded the lowest sucker production (0.11 suckers/plant) and it rarely produced slips. Nutrient application in general advanced the fruit harvest by about a week compared to the control. After ethephon application, Amritha flowered in 25 days, Mauritius in 32 days and MD-2 in 39 days. However, there was no significant difference in fruit maturity (118-123 days) with a mean of 121 days. With regard to growth characters, Mauritius and MD-2 were similar in plant height while Amritha was shorter. The number of leaves progressively increased from 20 at 3 months to 34 at 12 months. The varieties behaved similarly except for at 9 months were Amritha had 37 leaves while the other two around 31 leaves. There was no significant difference in canopy spread. Nutrient management also did not record any significant difference in plant growth characters. Mauritius and MD-2 varieties had almost similar fruit weight while Amritha had smaller fruits. Mauritius produced maximum fruit yield of 34.07 t/ha followed by MD-2 (30.83 t/ha) and Amritha produced least yield (26.98 t/ha). Nutrient applications by any means were statistically similar but significantly superior to the control treatment. Analysis of fruit components indicated that Amritha and Mauritius had higher pulp (62% and 61% respectively). Mainly due to the smaller crown weight (12% and 14% respectively). MD-2 had least pulp weight of 57% due to higher crown weight (25%) even though the peel content was the least of 11%. Nutrient management exerted relatively lower effect on the fruit component distribution. The crown weight was maximum of 19% in control treatment compared to 16 to 17% in other treatment indicating that application of nutrients by any means contribute more to the actual fruit rather than the crown. If the maximum productivity of pineapple is considered, the maximum yield is obtained for Mauritius receiving organic manure (37.89 t/ha). However, since the mean effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but no interaction effect, with Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
orga ic treat e t does ’t sho
a
76
superiorit o er the i orga ic a d the i tegrated applicatio s.
Hence cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (Organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. Quality parameters like pH, non-reducing sugars and ascorbic acid content in the juice were significantly influenced by the varieties. Mauritius and Amritha had pH 3.62 each compared to a lower pH of 3.42 for MD-2. Amritha had maximum (9.91%) non reducing sugars followed by MD-2 (8.53%) and Mauritius (7.27%). The varieties expressed greater differences in ascorbic acid content with MD-2 recording the highest value of 58.38% followed by Amritha (33.01%) and least in Mauritius (27.42%). Nutrient management significantly influenced the reducing and non-reducing sugar content but not the total sugar content. Reducing sugar content was almost similar for the control and integrated application (10.3 and 10.37% respectively) while organic and inorganic treatment recorded lower values (8.1 and 9.81% respectively). However the non-reducing sugar content was maximum of 11.88% in organic application and significantly lower in other treatments (6.22 to 8.77%). There was no significant difference in TSS and the mean value was 14.32ᴼBri . MD-2 had relatively better fruit colour and aroma while Mauritius had the best taste. Nutrient management did not influence the sensory parameters of the fruit. The marginal benefit: cost ratio was highest in the treatment combination of Mauritius receiving i orga ic fertilizers (₹3.82 benefit: cost ratio) which was much higher than the other treatments. Therefore, considering the marginal benefit: cost ratio, cultivation of Mauritius pineapple with inorganic fertilizers seems to be most economically viable which is most prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
77
5. CONCLUSION
The Kerala Pineapple Mission project, Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production included the study on the varietal effects for different nutrient managements. For the experiment one year pineapple varieties like Mauritius, Amritha and MD-2 were selected for the study. The Mauritius suckers were procured from nearby farmers, Amritha from Pineapple Research Centre, Vellanikara and MD-2 suckers from the field of Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam. Organic, inorganic, integrated nutrient managements were imposed and compared with the control treatment. The one year evaluation of the nutrient effects were as follows. Amritha took 270 days for flowering and 291 days for fruiting and 360 days for fruit maturity from the date of planting. Nutrient application in general advanced the fruit harvest by about a week compared to the control. After ethephon application, Amritha flowered in 25 days, Mauritius in 32 days and MD-2 in 39 days. Mauritius produced maximum fruit yield of 34.07 t/ha followed by MD-2 (30.83 t/ha) and Amritha produced least yield (26.98 t/ha). Nutrient applications by any means were statistically similar but significantly superior to the control treatment. MD-2 had relatively better fruit colour and aroma while Mauritius had the best taste. The maximum yield is obtained for Mauritius receiving organic manure (37.89 t/ha). However, since the mean effect of both the variety and the nutrient management are statistically significant but no i teractio effect,
ith orga ic treat e t does ’t sho
a
superiorit o er the i orga ic a d the
integrated applications. Hence cultivation of Vazhakulam Pineapple (Mauritius) with any source of nutrient application (Organic, inorganic or integrated) is statistically on par and any differentiation is not scientifically justifiable. Considering the marginal benefit: cost ratio, cultivation of Mauritius pineapple with inorganic fertilizers (₹3.82) seems to be most economically viable which is most prevalently followed for pineapple cultivation in Kerala. Recording of a lower average fruit weight and number of leaves per plant in this field experiment with Package of Practices recommended dose of organic manure and inorganic fertilisers at PRS, Vazhakulam indicates a relatively inadequate nutrition of the plant highlighting the need for more nutrition. This requires a review of the Package of Practices recommendation and suitable revision of fertiliser recommendation based on different multi-location field experiments with thorough scientific discussion among the crop scientists.
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
78
6. ANNUAL ACCOUNTS 2015-17 Bill-var expenditure details for 2015 -16 (01.06.2015 - 31.03.2016) [321-31-9271] - EPB- Kerala Pineapple Mission Project 'organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable BR. No. Sl. No. 121 142 210 420 840 Total production Institutional charges 1 46/15-16 5000 5000 2 47/15-16 3998 3998 3 57/15-16 5000 5000 4 69/15-16 14250 14250 5 70/15-16 781 781 6 71/15-16 18000 18000 7 79/15-16 5000 5000 8 80/15-16 0 0 9 82/15-16 18000 18000 10 86/15-16 15000 15000 11 89/15-16 8221 8221 12 92/15-16 14938 14938 13 98/15-16 18000 18000 14 99/15-16 2400 2400 15 109/15-16 14130 14130 16 119/15-16 2740 2740 17 126/15-16 18000 18000 18 128/15-16 13860 13860 19 144/15-16 18000 18000 20 146/15-16 13200 13200 21 147/15-16 13980 13980 22 162/15-16 18000 18000 23 164/15-16 14910 14910 24 165/15-16 9690 9690 25 193/15-16 18000 18000 26 201/15-16 7200 7200 27 206/15-16 13315 13315 28 209/15-16 5000 5000 29 210/15-16 572 572 30 212/15-16 19965 19965 31 216/15-16 18000 18000 32 225/15-16 4400 4400 33 233/15-16 28383 28383 34 241/15-16 5816 5816 35 242/15-16 5800 5800 36 248/15-16 18000 18000 37 265/15-16 26775 26775 38 266/15-16 38503 38503 39 268/15-16 25540 25540 40 270/15-16 5583 5583 41 298/15-16 380 380 Allot e t ₹ 216000 121000 150000 70000 78000 65000 700000 Expe diture ₹ 162000 121000 134751 26775 61804 0 506330 Bala ce ₹ 54000 0 15249 43225 16196 65000 193670 Bill-var expenditure details for 2016 -17 (01.04.2016 - 31.05.2016) 42 03/16-17 18000 18000 43 11/16-17 18000 18000 44 20/16-17 4500 4500 45 26/16-17 9765 9765 46 27/16-17 9899 9899 47 29/16-17 1797 1797 48 30/16-17 2684 2684 49 31/16-17 2800 2800 50 34/16-17 2200 2200 51 36/16-17 13181 13181 52 37/16-17 18000 18000 53 38/16-17 192 192 54 39/16-17 27652 27652 Allotment (₹ 54000 0 15249 43225 16196 65000 193670 Expe diture ₹ 54000 0 15249 43225 16196 0 128670 Bala ce ₹ 0 0 0 0 0 65000 65000 Grand Total Total Allot e t ₹ 216000 121000 150000 70000 78000 65000 700000 Total Expe diture ₹ 216000 121000 150000 70000 78000 65000* 700000 Fi al Bala ce ₹ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Expenditure by KAU headquaters
Joy P. P. & Anjana R. 2016 Pineapple Research Station (Kerala Agricultural University), Vazhakulam-686 670, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala, Tel: 0485-2260832, 9446010905; Email:
[email protected], Website: http://prsvkm.kau.in
79
KERALA PINEAPPLE MISSION 7. Statement of Expenditure (For the project year from 01-06-2015 to 31-05-2016) Sl. Sanctioned Head of No. Expenditure
1 2 3 4 5 6
121- Salaries 420- Equipment 142- Cost of labour 210- Res. Material 840- Other items 100-31-9271-220 Total Sl. No.
Amount Expenditure Sanctioned Incurred (₹) (1st year 2015-16) (₹) 2,16,000 1,62,000 70,000 26,775 1,21,000 1,21,000 1,50,000 1,34,751 78,000 61,804 65,000 65,000 7,00,000 5,71,330
Sanctioned Head of Expenditure
1
Salary of project associate
2
Non recurring contingencies
3
Amount Expenditure Total Expenditure (₹) Sanctioned Incurred (₹) (1st year 2016-17) (₹) 54,000 54,000 2,16,000 43,225 43,225 70,000 0 0 1,21,000 15,249 15,249 1,50,000 16,196 16,196 78,000 0 0 65,000 1,28,670 1,28,670 7,00,000
Amount Sanctioned (₹)
Expenditure (₹)
2,16,000
2,16,000
70,000
70,000
Recurring contingencies
4,14,000
4,14,000
Total
7,00,000
7,00,000
Funds released so far: ₹7,00,000/Date of start of project: 01.06.2015 Signature of P.I. Date: 01.06.2016
Signature of the Head of Organization Date:
Signature of Comptroller Kerala Agricultural University Date:
80
KERALA PINEAPPLE MISSION Utilization Certificate (For the period from 01.06.2015-31.05.2016) 1. Title of the project/scheme
:
Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production
2. Name of the Institution
:
Pineapple Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala- 686670, Ph: 0485 2260832 E-mail:
[email protected] URL: http://prsvkm.kau.in
3. Name & address of Principal Investigator
: Dr. P. P Joy Professor of Agronomy & Head, Pineapple Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala - 686670 Ph: 9446010905 : ₹7,00,000/-
4. Total outlay of the project 5. Amount received during the project year
i. ii. iii.
₹7,00,000/-
Amount
Letter/Order No. Date 6. Total amount that was available for expenditure
KPM/2014 27.03.2015
(Excluding commitments) during the project year : ₹7,00,000/7. Actual expenditure (excluding commitments) Incurred during the project year
: ₹7,00,000/-
8. Balance amount available at the end of the project year: 0
CERTIFICATE Certified that out of ₹7,00,000/- of grant sanctioned during the project period 01.06.201531.05.2016 in favour of the Comptroller, KAU under this KPM order KPM/1/2014/28 dated 29.11.2014 and a sum of ₹7,00,000/- has been utilized for the purpose of the project for which it was sanctioned and that no balance is remaining unutilized at the end of the year.
Signature of P.I. Date: 01.06.2016
Signature of the Head of Organization
Signature of Comptroller Kerala Agricultural University
81
ASSET TRANSFER CERTIFICATE (As per order No.PRS/R 38/16 dt. 31.05.2016 ) Name of the Scheme: Kerala Pineapple Mission Project Organic versus inorganic nutrient management of pineapple varieties for safe and sustainable production Name of the Station: Pineapple Research Station, Vazhakulam-686670 List of NRC items/equipment Sl. No.
Name of Equipment
1 Air purifier
HIMEDIA/LA522
Cost (₹) Quantity Page No. of S.R. of the KPM project on Pineapple 27,652 1 147
2 Laboratory glassware Electronic 3 volume micropipette
Vensil
13,181
32
Microlite
12,600
1
21
D.S.R. 101
Make/Model
Page No. of the D.S.R./G.S.R. of the station to which the items are transferred D.S.R. 100
28,29,128,129 G.S.R. 66, 67, 68, 57, 69, 70, 61, 60, 71, 24, 25, 5
Variable 4 volume micropipette
Microlite/RBO 1000
4,725
1
22
D.S.R. 102
Variable 5 volume micropipette
Microlite/RBO 5000
4,725
1
22
D.S.R. 102
6 Variable volume 7 micropipette Electric kettle
Microlite/RBO 10000
4,725
1
22
D.S.R. 102
Bajaj kettle KTX/09#36242 SanDisk Cruzer Blade4GB
2,200
1
23
D.S.R. 103
192
1
145
D.S.R. 104
8 Pen drive
TOTAL (₹) 70,000 S.R.- Stock Register; D.S.R.- Dead Stock Register; G.S.R.- Glassware Stock Register
Certified that all NRC items purchased / created under the above scheme have been transferred to the Central Stock Register/SR. of the Station/Department as mentioned above.
Place: Vazhakulam Date: 01.06.2016
Name & Signature of P.I.: Dr. P.P. Joy
Counter sign of Head of Organization
