# Technical Bulletin On Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ajeet Kumar, A.K. Singh

► To cite this version:

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ajeet Kumar, A.K. Singh. Technical Bulletin On Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop. DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR-848125, INDIA. 2019, pp.1-31. [hal-04960904](https://hal.science/hal-04960904v1)

HAL Id: hal-04960904

https://hal.science/hal-04960904v1

Submitted on 21 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Technical Bulletin
On
Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop

सरसों की फसल में एकीकृत पोषक तत्व प्रबंधन

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Department of Soil Science
Tirhut College of Agriculture,
Dholi, Muzaffarpur-843 121

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University
Pusa (Samastipur)-Bihar

September-2019
Technical Bulletin No. SS-1/2019: Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop

Technical Bulletin, September, 2019

Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur-843 121,
RPCAU, Pusa (Samastipur), Bihar, India

Published by

Dr. A.K. Singh

Dean

Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi

RPCAU, Pusa (Samastipur), Bihar

Email: dean.tca@rpcau.ac.in

Year of publication: September, 2019

Copy right reserved

All rights reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced or transmitted in any form by print, microfilm or any other means without written permission of the Dean, TCA, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, RPCAU, Pusa (Samastipur), Bihar.

Authors: Conceptualized and written by

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH. Assistant Professor (Soil Science), TCA, Dholi, RPCAU, Pusa, Bihar.

AJEET KUMAR, Assistant Professor-cum-Scientist (Soil Science), SRI, RPCAU, Pusa, Bihar

Critically reviewed and edited: by

A. K. SINGH, Dean, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, RPCAU, Pusa, Bihar

Designed and Print: by

M. KUMAR, Janvi Prints, Dharmsala Chowk, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India

Citation

Singh, S.K., Kumar, A. and Singh, A.K (2019). Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop Technical Bulletin No. SS-1/2019. Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, RPCAU, Pusa (Samastipur)-Bihar, India, pp. 1-31.
Integrated Nutrient Management in Mustard Crop

सरसों की फसल में एकीकृत पोषक तत्व प्रबंधन

By

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

AJEET KUMAR

A.K. SINGH

Department of Soil Science
Tirhut College of Agriculture
Dholi, Muzaffarpur-843 121

DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
PUSA, SAMASTIPUR-848125, BIHAR, INDIA

September-2019
CONTENTS

<table><thead><tr><td>Sl. No.</td><td>PARTICULARS</td><td>PAGE</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Introduction</td><td>5-6</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Deficiency Symptoms, Essential Elements</td><td>6-8</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Integrated Nutrient Management, Principle of Integrated Nutrient Management, Component of Integrated Nutrient Management, Advantages of Integrated Nutrient Management</td><td>8-10</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Constraints of Integrated Nutrient Management</td><td>10-11</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Yield And Yield Attributes</td><td>11-14</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Nutrient Concentration and Uptake</td><td>14-15</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Soil Fertility Status under Integrated Nutrient Management Practices</td><td>15-27</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Summary and conclusion</td><td>27-28</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>References</td><td>28-31</td></tr></tbody></table>
**Introduction:**

Rapeseed-mustard are the major *Rabi* oilseed crops of India and stand next to groundnut in the oilseed economy. The contribution of rapeseed-mustard to the total oilseed production in India is 26.0 percent. Domestic production of edible oils meets only 50% of the total requirements, while rest is imported. The huge gap between the consumption and domestic production of edible oils can be filled up by either increasing the area under oilseed crops like rapeseed and mustard, sunflower and soybean or increasing production per unit area. To produce the additional quantity of oilseed, the only option to enhance productivity under limited resource conditions. The imbalanced and inadequate supply of fertilizers accompanied by restricted use of organic manures not only leads to limit the yield potential but soils also get deficient in the nutrients which deteriorate the soil health with decline in crop response (Anonymous, 2006). In order to bring the soil well supplied with all the essential plant nutrients, the organic manures being cheaper and eco-friendly could be alternative to fertilizers for improving both crop productivity and sustainability of the systems. Integration of vermicompost with fertilizers, not only supply macronutrients but also meet the requirement of micronutrients, besides improving soil health. Poultry manure is also a good source of organic matter and play a vital role in improving soil fertility and contains higher nitrogen and phosphorus (Zamil et al., 2004), showed better performance in producing seed yield of mustard. Integrated use of nutrient is very essential approach which is not only sustains high crop production over the years (Vermaet al. 2010; Prasad et al. 2010) but also improves soil health and ensures safer environment (VijayaSankarBabuet al. 2007; Pal and Pathak, 2016). Application of sulphur was reported to increase yield attributes and yield of Indian mustard (Patel et al. 2009, Kumar et al. 2011) and also increased S uptake (Sharma et al. 2009) as well as oil content (Kumar and Trivedi, 2012).Mustard oil is an important edible oils of northern and eastern parts of India and traditionally grown everywhere in the country. Mustard oil is the only cooking option available in many Indian households. Among the vegetable oils, mustard oil is one of the major single sources of essential fatty acids particularly in northern Indian diet. The major fatty acids of rapeseed-mustard oil are oleic, linoleic, linolenic, ecosenoic and erucic acid in oil of Indian mustard variety is quit high (Chauhanet al. 2007). Each gram of fats and oil supplies 9 kilocalories of energy, whereas, per gram of carbohydrate/ protein supplies about 4 kilocalories of energy (Alma et al. 2014). Fat and oils are also a source of essential fatty acids. Fats and oils are used to synthesize phospholipid, which are important components of active tissues viz. brain, nerves and liver of human beings and other animals. The fatty acid in oil is analyzed for health point of view in
country by gas chromatograph, an expensive and time consuming and destructive methods.
The objective of this study were examined the effect of integrated nutrient management on
yield, oil content and quality of Indian mustard.

An *element* is a pure chemical that contains only one type of atom.

A *compound* is a molecule that contains one or more elements.

Deficiency symptoms

Symptom: is any perceptible change in known structure, appearance or function. These
include: Yellowing (chlorosis); Death (necrosis); Lesions; Malformations; Malfunctions;
Reduced growth and yield

Essential Elements

■ The 17 elements required by plants are obtained from the soil, water and air.

■ Fourteen of these elements must be supplied by the soil.

- Six of the soil elements required by plants are needed in relatively large amounts and are usually added to the soil through fertilizer or lime. These are called macronutrients.

- The remaining 8 elements supplied by soil are required in very small amounts and are termed micronutrients.

Macronutrients

Macronutrients are needed in relatively large amounts by plants.

<table>
   <thead>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Element
     </td>
     <td>
      Symbol
     </td>
     <td>
      Source
     </td>
    </tr>
   </thead>
   <tbody>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Oxygen
     </td>
     <td>
      O
     </td>
     <td>
      Air/Water
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Hydrogen
     </td>
     <td>
      H
     </td>
     <td>
      Air/Water
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Carbon
     </td>
     <td>
      C
     </td>
     <td>
      Air/Water
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Nitrogen
     </td>
     <td>
      N
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Phosphorus
     </td>
     <td>
      P
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Sulfur
     </td>
     <td>
      S
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Potassium
     </td>
     <td>
      K
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Calcium
     </td>
     <td>
      Ca
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Magnesium
     </td>
     <td>
      Mg
     </td>
     <td>
      Soil
     </td>
    </tr>
   </tbody>
  </table>
## Macronutrients – Form Used By Plants

<table><thead><tr><td>Nutrient</td><td>Form Used</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Carbon</td><td>CO<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Oxygen</td><td>H<sub>2</sub>O</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogen</td><td>H<sub>2</sub>O</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrogen</td><td>NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup>, NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Phosphorus</td><td>H<sub>2</sub>PO<sub>4</sub><sup>-</sup> & HPO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Potassium</td><td>K<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Calcium</td><td>Ca<sup>++</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Magnesium</td><td>Mg<sup>2+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Sulfur</td><td>SO<sub>4</sub><sup>=</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

## Micronutrients

Micronutrients are needed in relatively small amounts by plants. They are usually supplied by fertilizers.

<table><thead><tr><td>Element</td><td>Symbol</td><td>Source</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Iron</td><td>Fe</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Manganese</td><td>Mn</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Boron</td><td>B</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Molybdenum</td><td>Mo</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Copper</td><td>Cu</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Zinc</td><td>Zn</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Chlorine</td><td>Cl</td><td>Soil</td></tr><tr><td>Nikel</td><td>Ni</td><td>Soil</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Micronutrients – Form Used By Plants

<table><thead><tr><td>Nutrient</td><td>Form Used</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Iron</td><td>Fe<sup>++</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Manganese</td><td>Mn<sup>2+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Boron</td><td>H<sub>2</sub>BO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Molybdenum</td><td>MoO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Copper</td><td>Cu<sup>2+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Zinc</td><td>Zn<sup>2+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Chlorine</td><td>Cl<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

In long term, continuous use of high analysis fertilizers under intensive cropping systems led degradation to soil health mainly because of excess mining of essential plant nutrients which necessitates relooking production system in terms of health for sustaining productivity and monitory returns. It has been evidenced that nutrient use efficiency declining continuously in spite of technological advancements under intensive system. The apparent impact of imbalanced application of inorganic fertilizers in intensive cropping system has been reflected in terms of emerging and spreading of multi-nutrients deficiency in soil. Therefore, a holistic approach of integrated nutrient management (INM) by the application of balanced nutrients amalgamated through inorganic and organic sources needs to be considered as a key for managing soil health and its sustainability to reverse the trend of yield decline and fiscal losses.

## Integrated Nutrient Management:

Integrated nutrient management is a practice where by combining all sources of nutrients, namely organic, inorganic (Chemical) and bio-fertilizers can be used for improving soil health, get good quality yield and maintained ecology and environment.

## Principle of INM

1. Maximise the use of organic material.

2. Ensure access to inorganic fertilizers and improve the efficiency of its use

3. Minimise the losses of the plant nutrients
## Component of INM

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Manure</th></tr><tr><th>Bulky organic manure</th><th>Concentrated organic manure</th><th>Green manures</th><th>Bio-fertilizers</th><th>Chemical fertilizers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FYM</td><td>Blood meal</td><td>In-situ green manures</td><td>Azotobactor</td><td>Urea</td></tr><tr><td>Compost</td><td>Oil cakes</td><td>Ex-situ green manures</td><td>Rhizobium</td><td>Ammonium sulphate</td></tr><tr><td>Night soil</td><td>Sunflower cake</td><td></td><td>PSM</td><td>DAP</td></tr><tr><td>Green manure</td><td>Groundnut cake</td><td></td><td>Azolla</td><td>SSP</td></tr><tr><td>Vermicompost</td><td>Neem cake</td><td></td><td>Azosprillum</td><td>Muriate of potash</td></tr><tr><td>Chicken manures</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Zinc sulphate</td></tr><tr><td>Pressmud</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## Sources of organic manure

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
## Advantages of INM

1. Enhance the availability of applied as well as native soil nutrients

2. Synchronizes the nutrient demand with the native supply from native and applied sources

3. Provide balanced nutrition to the crops

4. Improved and sustain the physical, chemical and biological functioning of soil.

5. Minimizes toxicants of the soil, water and ecosystem by promoting carbon sequestration.

6. Reducing nutrient losses to ground from surface water bodies and atmosphere.

7. Minimize the antagonistic effects resulting from hidden deficiency and nutrient imbalance.

## Common Constraints of Integrated Nutrient Management:

Common constraints encountered by the farmers in adoption of INM technology are as follows:

1. Non-availability of FYM.

2. Difficulties in growing green manure crops.

3. Non-availability of bio-fertilizers.

4. Non-availability of soil testing facilities.

5. High cost of chemical fertilizers.

6. Non-availability of water.

7. Lack of knowledge and poor advisory services.

Declining soil fertility is major constraints to crop production. Organic manures facilitate improve most of the physical, biological and chemical characteristics of soil, thus improving soil fertility. Nutrients (macro and micro) play an important role for increasing the yield of lentil through their effect on the plant itself and on the nitrogen fixing by symbiotic process (Sahuet al., 2017). However, balanced fertilization including manures can increase the yield of lentil. Integration of FYM with fertilizers, not only supply macronutrients but also meet the requirement of micronutrients, besides improving soil health. Poultry manure is also a good source of organic matter and play a vital role in improving soil fertility and contains higher nitrogen and phosphorus (Zamilet al. 2004).The N content as well as protein content of lentil seed were significantly influenced by integrated nutrient management (Akhtar et al., 2019). Integrated nutrient management is very essential which is not only sustains high crop production over the years (Vermaet al. 2010) but also improves soil health and check the environmental contaminants (Vijaya Sankar Babuet al. 2007; Pal and Pathak, 2016 ). Conjunctive use of manure along with chemical fertilizers reduces organic carbon depletions
and the gap between potential yield and actual yield is bridged to a large extent. Modern
nutrient management strategy has shifted its focus toward the concept of sustainability and
eco-friendliness. Integrated use of various soil fertility amendment inputs aims at alleviating
the limiting nutrients problem and improving their availability through interactions with the
mineral soil and reducing the P adsorption capacity of the soil.

India is the third largest producer of rapeseed-mustard (Piri *et al.* 2011) occupying 5.79 million hectares area with 6.31 million tonnes production, however, the average yield of rapeseed-mustard in India is only 1089 kg/ha (Directorate of Economic & Statistics, Gov., of India 2014-15). Rapeseed-mustard are the major Rabi oilseed crops of India and stand next to groundnut in the oilseed economy and contributing 20 percent of the total oilseed production in India. In Bihar, crop brassicas are most important edible oilseed group of crops with predominance of Indian mustard followed by toria and yellow sarson. Rape-seed and mustard having area in 0.09 million hectare with 0.09 million tonnes production, however the average yield is about 1057 kg ha⁻¹ in Bihar (Directorate of Economic & Statistics, Gov., of India 2014-15). Due to intensive cultivation and unbalanced and inadequate supply of fertilizers accompanied by restricted use of organic manures have made the soils not only deficient in the nutrients, but also deteriorated the soil health resulting in decline in crop response. In order to bring the soil well supplied with all the essential plant nutrients, the organic manures being cheaper and eco-friendly could be the alternative to fertilizers for improving both crop productivity and sustainability of the systems. Integrated use of vermicompost with fertilizers, not only supplies macronutrients but also meet the requirement of micronutrients and maintains physic-chemical properties of soil. Poultry manure which is also a good source of organic matter plays a vital role in improving soil fertility and as it contains higher nitrogen and phosphorus (Zamil *et al.* 2004), showed better performance in enhancing seed yield of mustard.

Integrated use of nutrient is very essential approach which not only sustains high crop
production over the years but also improves soil health and ensures safer environment (Pal
and Pathak, 2016). Sulphur is also important element which increases yield attributes
resultantly the yield of Indian mustard (Kumar *et al.* 2011) and also enhanced S uptake as
well as oil content (Kumar and Trivedi, 2012). The objective of this study was to examine the
effect of integrated nutrient management on yield, their attributing traits, nutrients uptake by
Indian mustard and soil properties.
Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Yield and Yield Attributes and Nutrient
Uptake by Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.).

Field experiment was conducted during winter (Rabi) season 2015-16 at research farm of Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur a campus of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar situated at 25.98ºN latitude and 85.60ºE longitude and 52.18 meter above mean sea level. Before sowing the Indian mustard crop, initial soil samples from experimental field were taken for assessment of physical and chemical properties. The experimental soil was sandy loam in texture, soil reaction (8.6) indicating alkaline in alkaline, EC 0.43 (dSm⁻¹), CaCO₃ 27.40% and medium in organic carbon (0.56%) and available nitrogen 162.0 kg ha⁻¹, available phosphorus 8.68 kg ha⁻¹, available potassium 96.40 kg ha⁻¹ and available sulphur 10.86 kg ha⁻¹, respectively. Experiment was laid out in randomized block design (RBD) comprising eleven treatments i.e. T₁-Absolute Control, T₂-100% RDF (N,P,K) @80:40:40+S@40kg ha⁻¹, T₃-100% RDF+ S @ 40kg ha⁻¹ + Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹, T₄-100% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost@5t ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, T₅-100% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹, T₆-100% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, T₇-75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹, T₈- 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost@5t ha⁻¹, T₉-75% RDF + S @ 40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost@5t ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, T₁₀-75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹+ Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹, T₁₁-75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB consisting of three replications. Test crop Indian mustard variety was Rajendra Suphlam using. For the study purpose, five plants were selected from each net plot to record growth and yield parameters. Grain and straw yields was recorded from the whole plot harvest. The N, P, K & S concentration in seed and stover was estimated as per the procedure described by Prasad *et al*. (2006) and their uptake was estimated by multiplying seed and stover yield with respect to nutrient content. The physicochemical properties and available nutrients in soil was determined by prescribed standard method given by Black (1965) and Jackson (1973). The data recorded for different parameters were statistically analysed Fisher Analysis of Variance technique (Fisher, 1950).

A field experiment was carried out during winter (Rabi) season 2015-16 at research
farm of Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur a campus of Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar situated at 25.98ºN latitude and 85.60ºE
longitude and 52.18 meter above mean sea level. The experimental soil was sandy loam in
texture, soil pH (8.6) indicating alkaline in reaction, EC 0.43 dSm⁻¹, CaCO₃ 274 g kg⁻¹,
organic carbon 5.6 g kg⁻¹ revealed medium in range and available Nitrogen 162 kg ha⁻¹,
Phosphorus 8.6 kg ha⁻¹, Potassium 96.4 kg ha⁻¹ and available Sulphur 10.8 kg ha⁻¹. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design (RBD) comprising eleven treatments i.e. T₁-Absolute Control, T₂-RDF(N,P,K)@80:40:40+40kg S ha⁻¹, T₃-RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹, T₄-RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, T₅-RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹, T₆-RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, T₇-75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹, T₈-75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹, T₉-75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter +PSB, T₁₀-75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹, T₁₁-75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB consisting of three replications. The mustard seeds were inoculated with Rhizobium and PSB as per treatments. The crop variety was Rajendra Suphlam used as a test crop. Oil content in grains of mustard was determined by using Soxhlet units according to A.O.A.C. (1995). Protein content was calculated by multiplying the total nitrogen content of seed by a factor (6.25). The oil and protein yield (kg ha⁻¹) was determined by seed (q ha⁻¹) was multiplied by oil and protein content (%) and divided by 100 to obtain oil and protein yield. The fatty acid composition were determined using oil samples for methyl esters preparation (IUPAC, 1979) with boron trifloride and it was quantified by GC 5765 Gas-Chromatograph (NUCON) equipped with Flame Ionization Detector (FID). Chromatograph separations were performed with a column 1/8'' x 2mtr. S.S, i.d 2mm, mess size 100-120. Pure nitrogen was used as a carrier gas at a flow rate 20 mL min⁻¹, an injector temperature 230°C, detector temp. 240°C and the column oven temperature were programmed: initial temp. 120°C and then heated at 5°C min⁻¹ to the final temperature 210°C, the total run time was 15 minutes. Peaks were identified on the integrator by retention time.

The free fatty acid was determined by directly titrating the oil in an alcoholic medium against standard potassium hydroxide/sodium hydroxide solution. The acid value was calculated by multiplying the percent fatty acid (as oleic) x 1.99.

## Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Yield attributes and yield

The data on yield and yield attributing parameters are shown in (Table 1). The effect of integrated nutrient management reflected no effect on length of siliqua and found statistically non-significant among treatments. The number of siliqua plant⁻¹ was significantly influenced by the integrated approach of organic and chemical fertilizers along with bio-fertilizers. T₉ reflected maximum (274.0) number of siliqua plant⁻¹ followed by T₄, T₈, T₆, T₃, T₅ & T₁₁ respectively. Number of siliqua plant⁻¹ was noticed higher particularly in those treatments where, integrated source of nutrients was applied with reduced RDF (saving 25% NPK). These results are in conformity with the finding of Pal *et al*. (2008) who obtained
increased value of no. of siliqua plant⁻¹ and yield of mustard with a complete INM package along with 100% of recommended dose of fertilizers. The significant highest no. of seeds siliqua⁻¹ (12.44) was recorded with the same treatment i.e. 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB (T₉) followed by T₁₁ i.e (75% RDF+S@40 kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@ 2t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB) which were highly significant amounting 27.33 & 21.27 percent superior. However, treatment applied through 100% RDF+S@40 kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB and 75% RDF+S@40 kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹ and 75% RDF+S@40kg/ha showed significant over absolute control and recommended dose of fertilizers. The use of 25% reduced quantity of NPK reflected better performance with regard to seeds siliqua⁻¹. Rundal *et al.* (2013) and Bhati *et al.* (2014) also found similar results where applied poultry manure along with inorganic fertilizers. Test weight of mustard seed was found maximum in treatment (T₆) followed by T₅ i.e. 100% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure@2t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB. The recommended dose of fertilizers combined with sulphur and organics provided opportunity for seeds to grow their full potential, with an obvious increase in 1000-seed weight as observed in the study. Sattar *et al.* (2011) reported that 1000-seed weight of mustard increased with increasing level of sulphur upto 60 kg ha⁻¹ corroborate with studied observations. Mustard seed and stover yield were found increased significantly in different treatment combinations over control and it was noticed that ranged from 866.80 (T₁) to 1782.24 kg ha⁻¹ (T₉) and 3268 (T₁) to 6150 kg ha⁻¹ (T₉) respectively depicted in Table-1. The maximum straw and seed yield was obtained in T₉ in comparison to RDF showed statistically at par of T₈, T₄ and T₅. The increment in seed yield obtained might be due to improvement in soil quality with the application of vermicompost and poultry manures and instant availability of nutrients from inorganic fertilizers reported by Saha *et al.* (2010). Similar trend was also found in case of stover yield depicted in Table-1. In the experiment, where applied twenty five percent reduced quantity of chemical fertilizers along with organics and microbial inoculants gave better results in terms of yield and yield attributing traits could also prove better sustainable integrated nutrients management option for farmers.

### Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Nutrient concentration and uptake

The concentration of nutrients in seed and stover in mustard was noticed increased with application of 100% and 75% RDF fertility level and its combination with organics and bio-fertilizers over control mentioned in Table-1. The maximum nitrogen content in seed and stover (2.34 & 0.54%) was found where, applied nutrients through 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB which also influenced the amount of protein in
seed. However, higher concentration of phosphorus (0.52% and 0.26%) was obtained with T₁₁. Potassium concentration in mustard seed was found statistically non-significant. However, maximum sulphur concentration in seed and stover (0.80 & 0.34 percent) was noticed where, applied 100% RDF+S @ 40 kg ha⁻¹+Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB which observed at par results with application of RDF+S @ 40 kg ha⁻¹+ Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB. In case of, nutrients utilization in seed and stover, maximum uptake of N, P, K and S in seed was found in treatment incorporated through 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost@5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB, however, it showed at par results of T₈ (75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹), T₄ (RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter + PSB). The study observed that the application of 100% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹ along with organic and bio-fertilizer registered more S uptake in seed in comparison to RDF.

## Soil fertility Status under Integrated Nutrient Management Practices

Soil pH and total soluble salts in soil after crop harvested was observed slightly decreased due to integrated use of organic sources compared to RDF. Among the treatments, minimum soil pH was obtained where, applied 75% RDF+S@40 kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹ at par of 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB. The pH tended to decrease might be due to application of sulphur along vermicompost and poultry manures, but the difference was occurred slightly (Yadav *et al.* 2010). Soluble salts (EC) concentrations in soil were noticed non-significant is given in Table-3. Percentage organic carbon in soil increased significantly with application of various treatments except control plot and it was ranged from 0.56 to 0.76 percent. The value of T₃ (0.72%), T₄ (0.76%), T₆ (0.73%) and T₁₁ (0.73%) showed statistically at par results with respect to organic matter content showed in Table-3. Pathak *et al.* (2015) also reported the integrated use of nutrients helps to increase the organic carbon while, bulk density was noticed low might be due to addition of vermicompost and poultry manure in treatments.

In case of CaCO₃ (%), little change was observed, where applied poultry manure as an input there might be few quantity of calcium added through poultry manure. Maximum water retention in soil (40.61%) was recorded in treatment i.e. 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB. Apart from this, other treatments also observed increased quantity of soil water holding capacity. Soil fertility was assessed by prescribed standard procedure, noticed increased quantity of available N, P, K and S with the approach of integrated nutrient management. Application of 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB (200.40 kg ha⁻¹ N) noticed higher available soil
nitrogen content, however, it was found more superior more superior than other treatments except T₁₁ which showed at par value. This results was obtained might be due to the combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers (Kulhare and Kauraw 2007). Available phosphorus in soil after crop harvesting was found at par value amongst the treatments. The greater availability of phosphorus was noticed in those plots which are treated with bio-fertilizers might be due to fast solubilising of phosphorus by PSB. The integrated approach of nutrients increased available potassium in soil than recommended dose of fertilizers (Shilpa et al. 2011). The variation in available sulphur content also differed significantly due to the use of different treatment combinations and the highest quantity (15.7 kg ha⁻¹) was obtained highly significant with T₉ which is at par of T₁₁.
<table><caption>Table: 1 Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and yield attributes of Indian mustard.</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>Length of siliqua (cm)</th><th>No. of siliqua plant<sup>-1</sup></th><th>No. of seeds siliqua<sup>-1</sup></th><th>1000 -seed weight (g)</th><th>Seed yield (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Stover yield (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub>=Absolute Control</td><td>4.37</td><td>168.67</td><td>10.22</td><td>4.78</td><td>866.80</td><td>3268</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub>=100% RDF(N,P,K) @ 80:40:40 + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.43</td><td>218.33</td><td>10.77</td><td>5.11</td><td>1578.35</td><td>5302</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.49</td><td>263.33</td><td>10.88</td><td>5.30</td><td>1675.34</td><td>5534</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>4.63</td><td>269.33</td><td>11.33</td><td>5.35</td><td>1716.45</td><td>5766</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.53</td><td>263.00</td><td>11.33</td><td>5.57</td><td>1643.68</td><td>5539</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>4.53</td><td>265.33</td><td>11.88</td><td>5.70</td><td>1673.45</td><td>5832</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.37</td><td>235.33</td><td>11.77</td><td>5.13</td><td>1556.60</td><td>5344</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.50</td><td>267.67</td><td>11.33</td><td>5.14</td><td>1704.56</td><td>5923</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>9</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>4.60</td><td>274.00</td><td>12.44</td><td>5.10</td><td>1782.24</td><td>6150</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>10</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.43</td><td>243.67</td><td>11.88</td><td>5.10</td><td>1634.46</td><td>5604</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>11</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>4.57</td><td>255.67</td><td>11.99</td><td>5.23</td><td>1658.34</td><td>5642</td></tr><tr><td>SEm<sub>±</sub></td><td>0.08</td><td>5.01</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.15</td><td>20.81</td><td>91.51</td></tr><tr><td>C.D (P=0.05)</td><td>NS</td><td>14.88</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.45</td><td>61.81</td><td>271.86</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table: 2 Effect of integrated nutrient management on N, P, K & S content (%) in seed & stover of Indian mustard</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatments</th><th colspan="2">N (%)</th><th colspan="2">P (%)</th><th colspan="2">K (%)</th><th colspan="2">S (%)</th></tr><tr><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub>=Absolute Control</td><td>2.12</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.83</td><td>1.34</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub>=100% RDF(N,P,K) @ 80:40:40 + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.23</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.85</td><td>1.47</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.28</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.88</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>2.27</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.87</td><td>1.45</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.29</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.85</td><td>1.46</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>2.31</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.86</td><td>1.48</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.22</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.83</td><td>1.45</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.30</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.85</td><td>1.47</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>9</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>2.34</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.85</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>10</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.26</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.88</td><td>1.47</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>11</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>2.27</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.85</td><td>1.46</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>C.D (P=0.05)</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>NS</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table: 3 Effect of integrated nutrient management on uptake of N, P, K & S (kg ha⁻¹) in seed and stover of Indian mustard.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatments</th><th colspan="2">N uptake<br>(kg ha⁻¹)</th><th colspan="2">P uptake<br>(kg ha⁻¹)</th><th colspan="2">K uptake<br>(kg ha⁻¹)</th><th colspan="2">S uptake<br>(kg ha⁻¹)</th></tr><tr><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th><th>Seed</th><th>Stover</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T₁=Absolute Control</td><td>18.39</td><td>13.05</td><td>3.27</td><td>5.57</td><td>7.19</td><td>43.83</td><td>4.40</td><td>9.14</td></tr><tr><td>T₂=100% RDF(N,P,K) @ 80:40:40 + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹</td><td>35.19</td><td>24.35</td><td>5.99</td><td>11.16</td><td>13.42</td><td>77.93</td><td>9.78</td><td>15.88</td></tr><tr><td>T₃=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹</td><td>38.19</td><td>26.59</td><td>6.54</td><td>12.20</td><td>14.74</td><td>82.44</td><td>10.73</td><td>17.18</td></tr><tr><td>T₄=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹ + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>38.97</td><td>29.96</td><td>7.20</td><td>14.37</td><td>14.93</td><td>83.60</td><td>12.86</td><td>18.43</td></tr><tr><td>T₅=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹</td><td>37.65</td><td>26.00</td><td>7.22</td><td>12.71</td><td>13.97</td><td>80.88</td><td>12.80</td><td>18.81</td></tr><tr><td>T₆=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹ + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>38.66</td><td>30.33</td><td>6.68</td><td>15.15</td><td>14.40</td><td>86.31</td><td>13.37</td><td>19.81</td></tr><tr><td>T₇=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹</td><td>34.55</td><td>24.06</td><td>6.61</td><td>11.72</td><td>12.89</td><td>77.52</td><td>11.20</td><td>17.05</td></tr><tr><td>T₈=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹</td><td>39.22</td><td>30.73</td><td>8.17</td><td>13.61</td><td>14.49</td><td>87.09</td><td>11.23</td><td>17.73</td></tr><tr><td>T₉=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Vermicompost @ 5t ha⁻¹ + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>41.70</td><td>33.18</td><td>8.90</td><td>15.32</td><td>15.15</td><td>91.64</td><td>12.29</td><td>17.15</td></tr><tr><td>T₁₀=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹</td><td>36.94</td><td>28.60</td><td>7.20</td><td>11.78</td><td>14.38</td><td>82.37</td><td>11.62</td><td>14.59</td></tr><tr><td>T₁₁=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha⁻¹ + Poultry manure @ 2t ha⁻¹ + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>37.65</td><td>29.93</td><td>8.77</td><td>14.68</td><td>14.09</td><td>82.36</td><td>11.45</td><td>18.07</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>C.D (P=0.05)</td><td>1.75</td><td>2.55</td><td>0.39</td><td>1.79</td><td>0.71</td><td>4.91</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.09</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table: 4 Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil physicochemical properties and nutrients availability</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatments</th><th rowspan="2">pH</th><th rowspan="2">EC (dSm<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th rowspan="2">O.C (%)</th><th rowspan="2">Bulk density (Mg m<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th rowspan="2">CaCO<sub>3</sub> (%)</th><th rowspan="2">WHC (%)</th><th colspan="4">Available nutrients (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>P</th><th>K</th><th>S</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub>=Absolute Control</td><td>8.59</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.56</td><td>1.34</td><td>27.25</td><td>37.50</td><td>168.0</td><td>9.7</td><td>98.3</td><td>10.5</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub>=100% RDF(N,P,K) @ 80:40:40 + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.54</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.33</td><td>26.80</td><td>37.89</td><td>178.6</td><td>10.8</td><td>106.7</td><td>14.5</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.46</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.3</td><td>28.48</td><td>39.64</td><td>186.1</td><td>13.6</td><td>111.2</td><td>13.7</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter + PSB</td><td>8.52</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.76</td><td>1.3</td><td>27.36</td><td>40.32</td><td>188.0</td><td>14.1</td><td>117.2</td><td>15.7</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.46</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.32</td><td>28.86</td><td>39.62</td><td>186.0</td><td>12.6</td><td>108.7</td><td>14.6</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub>=100% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>8.49</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.73</td><td>1.29</td><td>30.60</td><td>39.60</td><td>187.6</td><td>13.2</td><td>115.5</td><td>14.4</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.50</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.65</td><td>1.32</td><td>29.85</td><td>37.75</td><td>183.0</td><td>10.9</td><td>110.8</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.45</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.66</td><td>1.29</td><td>30.56</td><td>40.47</td><td>179.2</td><td>13.4</td><td>112.1</td><td>14.0</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>9</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Vermicompost @ 5t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>8.45</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.28</td><td>28.90</td><td>40.61</td><td>200.4</td><td>13.8</td><td>113.9</td><td>15.7</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>10</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>8.49</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.69</td><td>1.31</td><td>29.24</td><td>39.37</td><td>184.2</td><td>13.0</td><td>104.5</td><td>12.1</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>11</sub>=75% RDF + S@ 40 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> + Poultry manure @ 2t ha<sup>-1</sup> + Azotobacter +PSB</td><td>8.50</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.73</td><td>1.29</td><td>26.87</td><td>39.59</td><td>194.6</td><td>12.6</td><td>109.2</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>SEm<sub>±</sub></td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.38</td><td>1.37</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>C.D (P=0.05)</td><td>0.07</td><td>NS</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.04</td><td>1.38</td><td>1.12</td><td>4.06</td><td>0.74</td><td>1.54</td><td>0.38</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table: 5 Effect of integrated nutrient management on oil quality, protein content & protein yield in seed &stover of Indian mustard.</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>Seed yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Stover yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Oil content (%)</th><th>Oil yield (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Protein content in seed (%)</th><th>Protein content in stover (%)</th><th>Protein yield of seed (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Protein yield of stover (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub></td><td>0.87</td><td>3.27</td><td>37.23</td><td>322.94</td><td>13.25</td><td>2.53</td><td>114.94</td><td>82.91</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub></td><td>1.58</td><td>5.30</td><td>39.43</td><td>622.34</td><td>13.94</td><td>2.88</td><td>219.94</td><td>152.85</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub></td><td>1.67</td><td>5.53</td><td>39.63</td><td>664.02</td><td>14.25</td><td>2.98</td><td>238.71</td><td>165.05</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub></td><td>1.72</td><td>5.86</td><td>39.83</td><td>683.69</td><td>14.19</td><td>3.25</td><td>243.55</td><td>187.13</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub></td><td>1.64</td><td>5.59</td><td>40.13</td><td>659.62</td><td>14.31</td><td>2.93</td><td>235.32</td><td>162.38</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub></td><td>1.67</td><td>5.83</td><td>40.80</td><td>682.82</td><td>14.44</td><td>3.25</td><td>241.60</td><td>189.46</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub></td><td>1.56</td><td>5.34</td><td>39.54</td><td>615.64</td><td>13.88</td><td>2.80</td><td>215.98</td><td>149.53</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub></td><td>1.70</td><td>5.92</td><td>39.70</td><td>676.48</td><td>14.38</td><td>3.25</td><td>245.10</td><td>192.20</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>9</sub></td><td>1.78</td><td>6.15</td><td>40.93</td><td>729.47</td><td>14.63</td><td>3.38</td><td>260.65</td><td>208.16</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>10</sub></td><td>1.63</td><td>5.60</td><td>39.33</td><td>642.90</td><td>14.13</td><td>3.19</td><td>230.90</td><td>178.88</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>11</sub></td><td>1.66</td><td>5.64</td><td>39.57</td><td>656.17</td><td>14.19</td><td>3.19</td><td>235.28</td><td>180.27</td></tr><tr><td>SEm±</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.28</td><td>9.63</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.078</td><td>3.70</td><td>4.70</td></tr><tr><td>C.D (P=0.05)</td><td>0.059</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.85</td><td>28.60</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.23</td><td>10.98</td><td>13.80</td></tr></tbody></table>
The results obtained from the application of different treatment combinations had significantly influenced the seed and straw yield of mustard over control depicted in Table-1. The highest grain (1.78 t ha⁻¹) and stover yield (6.1t ha⁻¹) were recorded with application of 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter +PSB followed by (1.72 & 1.70t ha⁻¹) and (5.86 & 5.92t ha⁻¹) with 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹& RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter+PSB. The lowest quantity of grain (1.58 & 1.56 t ha⁻¹) and straw (5.30 & 5.34 t ha⁻¹) was noticed in treatment where applied RDF @80:40:40+40kg S ha⁻¹& 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹ except control plot. The supply of nutrients through integrated nutrient management received higher grain and straw yield in comparison to recommended dose of fertilizers indicated in Table-1.

The highest seed and straw yield was obtained where applied 25% reduced quantity of RDF with the treatment 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter +PSB also reported by Ahmed *et al.*, (1998). The increment in seed yield obtained might be due to improvement in soil quality with the application of vermicompost and poultry manures and instant availability of nutrients from inorganic fertilizers. The results corroborate with the finding of Sahaet al., (2010). Perusal of data (Table 1) revealed that the integrated nutrient management practices significantly influence the oil content and oil yield in mustard. It was observed that the oil content in mustard seed noticed significantly increased in each treatments over control and it found marked variations among treatments might be due to the application of sulphur fertilizer with organics and bio-fertilizers. Oil content in mustard grain ranged from 37.23 to 40.93 percent. The corresponding range of oil yield ranged from 322.94 to 729.47 kg ha⁻¹. The highest oil content (43.93%) and oil yield of mustard (729.47kg ha⁻¹) were noted with the application of 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter +PSB, which significantly at par with 40.80 & 40.13% oil content and 682.82 & 683.69 kg ha⁻¹ with RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB and RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹. Increase in oil content might be due to use of sulphur in balance nutrition of crop. The micro and micronutrients supplied through chemical fertilizers and organic manures helped in synthesis of fatty acid and their esterification by accelerating biochemical reactions in glyoxalate cycle. The similar results have been reported by Singh and Rai (2004), Shubhangi and Kachhave (2008) and Alamet al. (2009). Oil and protein content are most important quality traits of mustard crop.

Integrated nutrient management practices significantly affected protein content and protein yield of mustard seed and straw depicted in (Table 1). Application of nutrients through vermicomposting and poultry manures produced seed having significantly higher protein
content as compared to only use of recommended dose of fertilizers. The maximum protein
value in seed (14.63 %) and straw (3.38%) was recorded with the application of
75% RDF+S@40 kg ha⁻¹+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB proved more effective
than other treatments. The minimum quantity of protein content in seed (13.25%) and straw
(2.53%) was recorded with absolute control presented in (Table 1). The treatments like
Absolute control, RDF @80:40:40+40kg S ha⁻¹ and 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹ obtained less than
14 percentage protein concentration in mustard grain. Application of 75% RDF+S@40kg ha⁻¹
+Vermicompost @5t ha⁻¹+Azotobacter+PSB (T₀) accounted 4.94% and 5.40% increase in
comparison to applied as 100% RDF @ 80:40:40 (N,P,&K)+S@ 40kg ha⁻¹ and 75% RDF+
S@40kg ha⁻¹. Incorporation of nitrogen through chemical fertilizers or integrated use with
organics and bio-fertilizers significantly enhanced the protein content in seed. This finding is
closely associated with Alamet al., (2009) and Paliwal& Singh (2014). The similar trend was
also observed in case of protein yield of seed depicted in table-1. The protein yield in mustard
increased might be due to additional supply of nitrogen through organics along with the
chemical fertilizers. In respect of mustard oil quality assessment, free fatty acid is considered
as an important quality parameter where, low quantity of free fatty acid in edible oils
indicates generally good quality of oil of health point of view. The number of milligrams of
potassium hydroxide required to neutralize the free fatty acids present in one gram of fat is a
relative measure of rancidity as free fatty acids are normally formed during decomposition of
oil glycerides. The content of free fatty acid always is an increase in acidity with time during
transport and storage (Syamet al., 2009). Variations in free fatty acid content in percentage
of mustard oil as influenced by the effect of integrated use of nutrients with different
treatment combinations showed in Fig. 1. The International specifications for top grade edible
oils usually are set at 2% free fatty acids for human health purposes. The results indicated in
(Figure 1) that the effect of different treatment combinations on free fatty acid content ranged
from 1.28 to 1.59%, which did not crossed the permissible limit as mentioned in the
specification. The minimum value of free fatty acid (1.28%) was obtained with treatment
where, applied 100% RDF+S @40 kg ha⁻¹ +Poultry manure @2t ha⁻¹. Similar trend of results
was also observed in respect of acid value of mustard oil showed in Figure 1. The maximum
acid value (3.17%) was noticed with RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹+
Azotobacter+PSB whereas, the lowest acid value of fatty acids was noticed in RDF+40kg S
ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹.

The oil content from grains was extracted with non-polar solvent, esterified and fatty
acids profiles were determined with Gas liquid chromatography. The fatty acid was identified
by gas chromatograph, on the basis of comparison of retention time with a standard sample
and expressed of total fatty acid percentage to the oil.

Effect of integrated nutrient management on fatty acid composition (%) of mustard
seed oil is shown in Fig. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. The content of saturated fatty acids includes
palmitic, stearic acid and arachidic acid in mustard oil was ranged from 1.67 to 2.68, 0.34 to
0.92 and 0.56 to 1.12 percentages. The variations in quantity of saturated fatty acid were
noticed with different treatment combinations. Maximum saturated fatty acid content (3.44%)
was recorded in dose applied as75% RDF +40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹, however
minimum value (2.26%) was obtained with application of 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹. The
mustard oil is nutritionally good quality oil as because it has almost balance proportion of all
fatty acid composition. The mustard oil contained erucic acid as a major monounsaturated
fatty acid, followed by oleic, and eicosanoid acid. On the other hand, mustard oil contained
high amount of erucic acid ranged from 44.69 to 51.31 oleic acid percentage. The highest
amount of erucic acid (51.3%) was recorded with treatment RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry
manure ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter+PSB at par of RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹ showed in Fig.3. The erucic acid
was representing the large amount among fatty acid composition.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Effect of INM on free fatty acid and acid value (%).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Effect of INM on saturated fatty acid (%)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Effect of INM on monounsaturated fatty acid (%)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Effect of INM on unsaturated fatty acid (%)</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Figure 1: Effect of INM on free fatty acid and acid value (%).</caption>
Comparing to unsaturated fatty acid like, oleic acid also contained high concentration than eicosanoid acid and it was recorded wide differences in values ranges from 8.81 to 12.81%, where, highest value (12.81%) was recorded with RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹. The concentration of eicosanoid acid was ranged from 5.75 to 7.86 percentages with mean value 6.65 percentage. Mustard oil contains approximately 30 percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids in which linolenic acid found in appropriate amount ranges from 10.17 to 13.18% with mean value 11.88% showed in Fig. 4. The maximum quality of linoleic and linolenic acid was recorded in RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹, and RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB. Mustard oil not only contains acceptable amount of unsaturated fatty acid, but, due to low content of palmitic and stearic acid giving mustard oil the greater stability.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Effect of integrated nutrient management on fatty acid ratio (%)</figcaption></figure>

The higher yielding of SFA reduces the quality in health point of view and its excessive intake may be culprit of chronic disease. The data showed in Fig 5 revealed that about 68% MUFA were present in mustard oil. The range of monounsaturated fatty acid value was recorded approximately 65.46 to 68.52% in mustard seed oil showed in Fig 5. The essential fatty acid is an important component of fats and oil found in form of linoleic acid and linolenic acid considered as a poly unsaturated fatty acid which was ranged 26.85 to 30.85 percentage and the highest percentage was noticed with 75% RDF +40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹. Considering the proportion of fatty acid ratio, The highest ratio of SFA:MUFA was found in 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹ followed by, RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+2t poultry manure ha⁻¹, RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter + PSB, 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹ and 75% RDF+40kg S ha⁻¹+5t vermicompost ha⁻¹+ Azotobacter +PSB
respectively and rest of the treatments had less than 1:10 ratio. PUFA present in appropriate quantities in mustard seed oil is essential fatty acid (EFA) for human beings because it cannot be synthesized in humans, while SFA and MUFA are synthesized as well as obtained from the diet. The balance proportion of various fatty acids is essential for growth and development of human beings.

**Summary:**

Rapeseed-mustard is a vital Rabi oilseed crop in India, contributing 26% to the nation's total oilseed production. However, domestic production only meets 50% of demand, necessitating an increase in yield. Imbalanced fertilizer usage and limited organic manure have degraded soil health and crop productivity. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) aims to optimize nutrient application by combining organic, inorganic, and bio-fertilizers, ensuring higher yields and sustainable practices. INM seeks to maximize organic inputs, ensure efficient fertilizer use, minimize nutrient losses, and maintain ecological balance. Its components include:
**Organic Manures:** Farmyard manure, poultry manure, vermicompost, green manures, and oil cakes.
**Chemical Fertilizers:** Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur.
**Bio-fertilizers:** Azotobacter, phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB), and others.

**Advantages of INM:** it improves soil nutrient availability and fertility, Balances crop nutrition, reducing hidden deficiencies, Enhances soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, Minimizes environmental impacts and nutrient losses, Promotes sustainability by integrating organic and inorganic sources.

**Constraints:** Farmers face challenges such as unavailability of organic inputs (FYM, green manure), high fertilizer costs, lack of advisory services, and inadequate soil testing facilities.

**Effects on Yield and Quality:** A study at RPCAU, Bihar, evaluated various INM combinations on mustard. Treatments combining reduced doses of recommended fertilizers (75% RDF) with vermicompost, poultry manure, and bio-fertilizers showed superior results. The best-performing treatment (T9) with 75% RDF + vermicompost + sulphur + Azotobacter + PSB produced the highest seed yield (1.78 t/ha), stover yield (6.15 t/ha), and oil content (40.93%). INM significantly increased protein content (14.63%) and enhanced nutrient uptake (N, P, K, S) in seed and stover compared to control plots.

**Soil Fertility Improvements:** INM maintained soil pH and enhanced organic carbon (up to 0.76%), water holding capacity (40.61%), and nutrient availability (200.4 kg/ha N). Vermicompost and poultry manure improved soil texture and nutrient retention, ensuring long-term sustainability.
**Oil and Fatty Acid Composition:** Mustard oil quality improved with INM practices, achieving balanced proportions of saturated (2.26-3.44%), monounsaturated (65.46-68.52%), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (26.85-30.85%). Treatments involving sulphur and organic inputs supported better fatty acid profiles, ensuring high nutritional value.

**Conclusion:**

INM is a proven approach to enhance mustard yield and quality while improving soil health and sustainability. Combining organic manures, bio-fertilizers, and reduced chemical fertilizers ensures higher productivity, environmental safety, and better economic returns. Promoting INM adoption can significantly reduce dependency on imported edible oils and support sustainable agriculture practices

**References:**

Ahmad, A., Abraham, G., Gandotra, N., Abrol, Y.P. and Abdin, M.Z. (1998). Interactive effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth and yield of rape-seed-mustard (*Brassica juncea* L. Czern. and Coss. and *Brassica campestris* L.) genotypes. *Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science* **181**(4), 193-199.

Aktar, S; Quddus, M.A; Hossain3 M.A; ParvinAnd Sultana, M.N, (2019). Effect Of Integrated Nutrient Management On The Yield, Yield Attributes And Protein Content of Lentil. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 44(3): 525-536.

Alam, M.A., Siddiqua, A., Chowdhury, M.A.H. and Prodhan, M.Y. (2009). Nodulation, yield and quality of soybean as influenced by integrated nutrient management. *Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University* **7**(2): 229-234.

Alam, MM; Begum, F. and roy, p. (2014). Yield and yield attributes of rapseed-mustard(*Brassica sp.*) genotype grown under late shown condition. *Bangladesh Journal of Agriculture Research* **39**:313-336.

Bhati, A.S., Sharma, S.K. and Yadav, R.S. (2014) Yield and yield attributes of mustard as influenced by levels of potassium and its split application. *Indian Research Journal of Genetics & Biotechnology* **6**(3): 518-520.

Black, C.A. (1965) *Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I and II*. American Society of Agronomy Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Chauhan, JS.,Bhadauria, VPS., Singh, M., Singh, KH and Kumar, A.(2007). Quality characteristicsand their interrelationship in Indian rapsee-mustard (*Brassica sp.*) verities. *Indian Journal of Agriculture Science* **77**: 616-620.
Directorate of Economic & Statistics (2014-15). *Government of India*, New Delhi.

Ekpenyong, T.E. and Borchers (1980). The fatty acid composition of the oil of the winged bean (Phophocarpestetraonolobus. L). *Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society* **57**(5): 147-149.

Hun-TeikKhor (1985). Lipids and fatty acid composition of developing winged bean seeds.
*Phytochemistry* **24**(4): 856-857.

Jackson, M.L. (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi, Prentice Hall, 48–302.

Kulhare, P.S. and Kauraw, D.L. (2007) Effect of different levels and sources of sulphur on soil fertility after harvesting of soybean. *Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika* **22**(1): 41-46.

Kumar, R. and Trivedi, S. K. (2012) Effect of levels and sources of sulphur on yield, quality and nutrient uptake by mustard (Brassica juncea). *Progressive Agriculture–An International Journal* **12**: 69–73.

Kumar, S., Verma, S.K., Singh, T.K. and Singh, S. (2011) Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*. **81**, 145–149.

Pal, R.L., and Pathak, J. (2016). Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and economics of mustard *I. J. S. N.*, **2**, 255-261.

Paliwai, A. and Singh, J.P. (2014). Response of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) czernj. And cosson) to potassium with other nutrients on yield and quality. *The Bioscan* **9**(2), 649-652.

Patel, G.M., Patel, B.T., Dodia, I.N., Bhatt, V.K. and Bhatt, R.K. (2009) Effect of sources and levels of sulphur on yield, quality and nutrient uptake of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) varieties in loamy sand soil. *Journal of Soils and Crops* **19**, 30–35.

Pathak, D.V., Gaur, R.K., Yadav, P.K. and Yadav, S.S. (2015) Effect of green manuring and residue incorporation on soil properties and seed yield of rapeseed mustard.
*International Journal of Farm Sciences* **5**(4): 70-77.

Piri, I., Nike, M.M., Tavassoli, A., Rastegaripour, F. (2011) Effect of irrigation intervals and sulphur fertilizer on growth analyses and yield of *Brassica juncea*. *African Journal of Microbiology Research* **5**: 3640–3646.

Prasad, J., Karmakar, S., Kumar, R. and Mishra, B. (2010) Influence of integrated nutrient management on yield and soil properties in maize – wheat cropping system in an alfisol of Jharkhand. *Journal of the Indian Society of SoilScience* **58**(2), 200-204.
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y.S., Kumar, D. and Sharma, S.N (2006). Learning by doing exercises in soil fertility- A practical manual for soil fertility. Division of agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, P.68.

Rundala, S. R., Kumawat, B. L., Choudhary, G. L., Prajapat, K., Kumawat and Sita (2013)Performance of Indian mustard (Brassi.ca juncea) under integrated nutrient management. Crop Research 46(1-3): p115.

Saha, R., Mishra, V.K., Majumdar, B, Laxminarayan, K. and Ghosh, P. K. (2010) Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil physical properties and crop productivity under a maize-mustard cropping sequence in acidic soils of northeast India. *Communication of Soil Science and Plant Analysis* 41(2): 187-200.

Sahu, G; Chatterjee, N. and Ghosh, G. K. (2017). Integrated Nutrient Management In Lentil (Lens culinarisMedikus) In Red And Lateritic Soils Of West Bengal. *Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, (2017).Vol 6(4): 55-62.

Sattar, A., Cheema, M.A., Wahid, M.A., Saleem, M.F. and Hassan, M. (2011) Interactive effect of sulphur and nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of canola. *Crop Environment* 2: 32-37.

Sharma, A., Sharma, P., Brar, M.S. and Dhillon, N.S. (2009) Comparative response to Sulphur application in raya (Brassica juncea) and wheat (Triticumaestivum) grown on light textured alluvial soils. *Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science* 57, 62-65.

Shilpa, B. and Dongale, J.H. (2011) Soil fertility status as influenced by integrated nutrientmanagement in mustard - cowpea - rice cropping sequence in lateritic soils of Konkan.Asian-Journal-of-Soil-Science, 6(1): 33-38.

Shubhangi, J.D. and Kachhave, K.G. (2008). Effect of dual inoculation of rhizobium and PSB on yield, nutrient content, availability of nutrient contents and quality of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]: *An Asian Journal of Soil Science*2: 272-274.

Singh, R. and Rai, R.K. (2004). Yields attributes, yield and quality of soybean (Glycine max) as influenced by integrated nutrient management. *Indian Journal of Agronomy*49 (4): 271-274.

Syam, A.M., Yunus, R., Ghazi, T.I.M and Yaw, T.C.S. (2009). Methanolysis of Jatropha oil in the presence of potassium hydroxide catalyst.J. Applied Sci. 9, 3161-3165.

Verma, Gayatri, Mathur, A.K., Bhandari, S.C. and Kanthaliya, P.C. (2010) Long term effect of integrated nutrient management on properties of a typicHaplustept under maize-wheat cropping system. *Journal of theIndian Society of Soil Science.* 58 (3), 299-302.
Vijaya, Sankar, Babu, M., Mastan, Reddy, C., Subramanyam, A. and Balaguravaiah, D. (2007). Effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and yield of sugarcane. *Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science*. **55**, 161-166.

Yadav, H. K.; Thomus, T. & Khauria, V. (2010) Effect of different levels of sulphur and bio-fertilizers on the yield of Indian mustard (*Brassica juncea* L.) and soil properties, *Journal of Agricultural Physics* **10**: 61-65.

Zamil, Shawkat, Sheikh., Quadir, Forhad, Quazi., Dr. M.A.H., Choudhary and Wahid, Al, Adnan (2004) Effect of different animal manures on yield, quality and nutrient uptake by mustard. CV Agrani. *BRAC University Journal*. Vol. I, no. **2**, pg. 59-66.