International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(2): 310-316 P-ISSN: 2349–8528 E-ISSN: 2321–4902 IJCS 2017; 5(2): 310-316 © 2017 JEZS Received: 17-01-2017 Accepted: 18-02-2017 SS Tomar Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Adesh Singh Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Ashish Dwivedi Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Rahul Sharma Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India RK Naresh Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Effect of integrated nutrient management for sustainable production system of maize (Zea mays L.) in indo-gangetic plain zone of India SS Tomar, Adesh Singh, Ashish Dwivedi, Rahul Sharma, RK Naresh, Vineet Kumar, Saurabh Tyagi, Ankit Singh Yadav Siddhart N Rahul and Brajendra Pratap Singh Abstract To get more yield farmers tend to use excessive chemical fertilizers, while current energy crisis prevailing higher prices and lack of proper supply system of fertilizers and deterioration of soil health calls for more efficient nutrient management using conjunctive use of organic manure, inorganic fertilizers and biofertilizer to sustain yield levels and agro-eco-system. Therefore, a thrice replicated 2 year field trial was conducted during 2010 and 2011 by using F test. The results revealed that combination of 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB recoded higher mean growth attributes viz.,plant height (201.25 cm), dry weight/plant (267.25 g), LAI at 60 DAS (4.2), yield attributing component and yield viz., cob/plants (1.1), number of grain/cob (541.2) and test weight (245.05 g), grain yield (53.15 q/ha), quality parameters viz., protein content (8.38%) and protein yield (445.4kg/ha), total nutrients uptake and economics viz.,net return/ha (Rs 36073.5), B:C ratio (2.86), production efficiency (59.1 kg/day/ha) and economic efficiency (400.8 Rs/day/ha), besides achieved maximum nitrogen used efficiency as compared to rest of its counterparts Thus, study suggests that maize can be successfully grown under Indo-Gangetic plain zone on 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB and harvest maximum productivity and profitability besides, improving used efficiency of nitrogen. Keywords: INM, Indo-Gangetic Plain Zone, Maize, NiUE and Sustainable Production System Vineet Kumar Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Saurabh Tyagi Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Ankit Singh Yadav Department of Agriculture Extension and Communication, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut (U.P.) India Brajendra Pratap Singh Department of Agriculture Extension and Communication, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut (U.P.) India Siddhart N Rahul Department of Plant Pathology, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India Correspondence Ashish Dwivedi Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India 1. Introduction Utilization of indigenous sources of organics act as alternatives and/or supplements to chemical fertilizers and even help in increasing the productivity of the maize (Seshaiah, 2000) [17] . Worldwide maize is the top ranking cereal crop in potential grain productivity. By 2020 AD, the requirement of maize will be around 100 mt for various sector, of which the poultry sector alone demand 31 mt. It is a very difficult work for our researchers to increase the production of maize from the present level of 34 to 100 Mt (Seshaiah, 2000) [17]. Since inception of Green Revolution there has been a race for increasing cereal production by using synthetic chemical fertilizers in India. Over the years, India was able to increase food grain production by 5 times at the cost of Remarkable 322 times increase in fertilizer consumption staggering ‘net negative nutrient balance’ of 10 million tonnes has been reported in India which is anticipated to reach 15 million tonnes upto 2025. Considering high cost of fertilizers and their adverse implications on environmental due to their imbalanced use, fertilizer recommendations based on soil test values, residual effect and yield targets become highly important in India (Prasad, 2009) [15]. To get more yield farmers tend to use excessive chemical fertilizers, but decision on fertilizer use requires knowledge of the expected crop yield response to nutrient application, which is a function of crop nutrients need, supply of nutrients from soil as an indigenous source its inherent capacity to supply nutrients and the short and long term fate of fertilizer applied (Dobermann et al., 2003) [3]. The current energy crisis prevailing lack of proper supply system and higher prices of fertilizers, distortion of soil fertility and deterioration of soil health calls for more efficient nutrient management by using conjunctive use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers to sustain yield levels. An effective nutrient management is the one which involves site specific nutrient recommendations to crops. This includes timely application of fertilizers using appropriate methods and developing and practicing integrated plant nutrient supply system ~ 310 ~ International Journal of Chemical Studies using chemical fertilizers, organic manures, crop residues and biofertilizers and balanced fertilizer nutrient application (Satish et al., 2011) [16]. The treatments receiving both inorganic and organic fertilizers in Kharif season, followed by only inorganic fertilizers during summer season has improved the soil fertility, rice-maize grain and straw yield. The uptake pattern also followed the yield of both the crops. (Chandravanshi et al., 2014) [1]. Though, RDF alone can be reduced up to 85% by supplying nutrients through organics. (Manasa et al., 2015) [10]. Moreover, the values of all nitrogen use efficiency (NiUE) in Western Uttar Pradesh were much lower as compared to the global level. (Naresh et al., 2014) [11] . Therefore, the present study was planned to evaluate performance, productivity and used efficiency of nitrogen as influenced by integrated nutrient management in maize. 2. Matarials and method Experimental details and site description A field trial was carried out for two consecutive years during kharif 2010 and 2011 at crop research centre of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut (UP) satuated at a latitude of 29 o 40’ North and longitude of 77o 42’ East with an elevation of 237 meters above sea level. The mean maximum as well as minimum temperature of 410 to 450 was recorded in the month of June and minimum touches as low as 16.60 in October. The mean annual rainfall during crop growing period was 807 mm (7583% of which is received during July to September) and average relative humility varied between 67 to 85% throughout the both the years. The experimental trial was well drained, sandy loam in texture (46.2 % sand, 18.5 % silt and 17.3 % clay, hydrometer method) and slightly alkaline in reaction (pH 7.87, Glass electrode pH meter). It was medium in organic carbon available nitrogen and available phosphorus, whereas high in available potassium (0.576 and 0.578 %, 0.98 and 1.01 %, 224.8 and 226.2 kg/ha, 16.9 and 17.3 kg/ha and 250.4 and 249.0 kg/ha first and second years, respectively) with an electrical conductivity (1:2, soil: water suspension, Solbridge conductivity meter method) and Bulk density, Core sampler method of 1.61 dS/m and 1.41 Mg/m 3, respectively. All the soil properties were analyzed as per the standard procedures adopted by Jackson (1973) [6]. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with three replication. The maize crop was grown as per agronomic package of practice with a varieties of Kanchan with the spacing (rows) of 50 cm. The seeds of crop were placed manually in the furrows at a plant to plant distance of 20 cm with a seed rate of 20 kg/ha and sown on 25 July during 2010 and 2011, while harvested on 23 October 2010 and 24 October 2011, respectively. The 100 per cent NPK is characterized by 120 kg N, 60 kg P 2O5 and 40 kg K2O/ ha and FYM is applied @ 5 t/ha as per the treatments whereas, PSB is used as seed treatment @ 20 g/kg of seed. Two hand weedings were performed manually with the help of Khurpi for controlling weeds, first at 25 DAS and second at 45 DAS. The maize is highly sensitive to water excess and stress, therefore surface drains were opened just after sowing to ensure proper drainage. Moreover, Only 1 irrigation was applied at 60 DAS due to rains commensurate well with crop water requirement at critical stages. Data collection Various growth parameters viz., plant height (cm) and dry matter accumulation (g/plant) was recorded at maturity, leaf area index was calculated at 60 DAS and yield attributes were also measured at maturity stage. Grain yield was estimated by the obtained produce from net plot area, treatment wise and finally expressed at 14 % moisture from 15 m2, whereas production and economic efficiency was calculated as per the standard procedure used by Kumawat et al., (2012) [9]. Plant sampling and analysis The total uptake of N, P and K was determined by plants which were used for analyze the N, P and K content in plant. The plant samples were dried at 70 °C in a hot air oven. The dried samples were ground in a stainless steel Thomas Model 4 Wiley ® Mill. Further, the N content in plant was determined by digesting the plant samples in H2SO4, followed by analysis of total N by the Kjeldahl method (Page, 1982) [12] using a Kjeltec™ 8000 auto analyzer (FOSS Company, Denmark). Whereas, the P content in plant was resolute by the vanadomolybdo-phosphoric yellow colour method and the K content was determined in di-acid (HNO3 and HClO4) digests by the flame photometeric method (Page, 1982) [12]. The uptake of the nutrients (NPK) were calculated by multiplying the nutrient content (%) by their respective yield (kg/ha -1) and then divided by 100 to get the uptake in kg/ha-1. Finally the sum of grain and stover calculate total uptake. Nitrogen use efficiency The effectiveness of applied nitrogen is to be establish by this factor. The most important advantage of these index is that, it quantifies total economic output from any particular nutrient/, factor related to its utilization from all resources, including nutrients from applied inputs and native soil nutrients (Dobermann et al., 2002) [2]. The following expressions are used for determining nitrogen used efficiency: 1 Agronomic efficiency of applied nitrogen (AEN) AEN = kg grain yield increase per kg N applied (often used synonym: N use efficiency: AEN =Δ GY+N / FN Where, GY+N is the grain yield in a treatment with nitrogen application in kg ha-1. GY0N is the grain yield in a treatment without nitrogen application, and FN is the amount of fertilizer nitrogen applied, all in kg ha-1. 2 Recovery efficiency of applied nitrogen (REN) REN = kg nitrogen taken up per kg nitrogen applied: REN = UN+N – UN0N Where, UN+N is the total nitrogen uptake measured in above ground biomass at physiological maturity (kg ha-1) in a plots that received applied N at the rate of FN (kg ha-1). UN0N is the total N uptake without N addition. 3 Partial factor productivity (PFPN) PFPN = kg grain per kg nitrogen applied: PFPN = GY+N / FN Where, GY+N is the grain yield in kg ha-1 and FN is the amount of fertilizer nitrogen applied in kg ha-1. ~ 311 ~ International Journal of Chemical Studies 4 Physiological efficiency of applied nitrogen (PEN) PEN = kg grain yield increase per kg fertilizer nitrogen taken up: PEN = (GY+N – GY0N) / (UN+N – UN0N) Where, GY+N is the grain yield in a treatment with application in kg ha-1. GY0N is the grain yield in a treatment without application in kg ha-1. UN+N are the total N uptake in a treatment with application in kg ha-1. UN0N is the total N uptake in a treatment without application in kg ha-1. nitrogen nitrogen nitrogen nitrogen Economic study Benefit: cost ratio in terms of net return per rupee investment was calculated by using the following formula: B∶C= Net return(Rs/ha) Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha) Statistical analysis The data obtained were subjected to analyze statistically as outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The treatment differences were tested by using “F” test and critical differences (at 5 per cent probability). 3. Results and discussion Growth attributes Application of 100% NPK along with 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB produced significantly higher growth attributes viz., plant height (203.6 and 198.9 cm) and dry matter accumulation (265.1 and 269.4 g) during 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 1). Although plant height remained statistically on par with T2 to T6 and T9 during both the year, while dry matter accumulation also clashes with all treatments, except control during both the year. However, the magnitude was higher in second year for dry matter accumulation and first year for plant height. Moreover, lowest growth attributes were measured in control plot during 2010 and 2011, respectively.The results so obtained in performances probably due to nutrients were responsible for increased cell division, cell enlargement, growth, photosynthesis, and protein synthesis which are responsible for quantitative increase in plant growth. The results of present study are in agreement with the findings of several other investigators (Panwar, 2008 and Manasa et al., 2015) [13, 10] . Kumari et al. (2012) [8, 9] also reported more leaf area due to higher fertility and PSB inoculation. Yield attributes Treatments T3 to T6 and T10 recorded significantly similar and maximum cob/plant (1.1), while remaining other treatment also shown a similar values (1.0) including unfertilized plot (Table 1). Furthermore, number of grain per cob and test weight was seen higher under the treatments where FYM and both biofertilizer had to be used, however number of grain per cob remained on par to T 3 only, whereas test weight to T 3, T4 and T6 and significantly superior to rest of the level. Though, lowest yield attributes were measured in control plot during both the year.It might be due to better effect of inorganic and organic sources on the adequate nutrients supply for longer period, which will affects crop growth and photosynthetic activity. Similar results were found by Sharma et al. (2013) [18] and Kokani et al. (2014) [7]. Yields Yields were also varied significantly due to increment of fertility level and reached to maximum in T10 (100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB) (Table 2). Maximum grain, stover and biological yield were recorded under 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB which were 52.7 and 53.6 q/ha for grain, 75.6 and 73.6 q/ha for stover and 128.3 and 127.2 q/ha for biological yield, while stover yield were superior over rest of its counterparts. Moreover, application of 100% NPK + 5 t FYM were statistically on par to T 10 for grain and biological yield during both the year, whereas, grain yield were also remained statistically on par to T 6 and T9 and superior over rest of the treatments, as above unfertilized plot were also recorded lowest yield as compared to other treatments. Similar results were obtained by Kokani et al., (2014) [7] and Kumar et al. (2015) observed that incorporation of organic residues along with inorganic fertilizer significantly increased uptake of N, P and K by plants which facilitated the allocation and transfer of nutrient elements to the grains and straw. Harvest index Data depicted in Figure 1 revealed that application of 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB recorded maximum harvest index as compared to other treatments, while 75% NPK recorded lowest harvest index but it was much higher from unfertilized plot. More control recorded lowest harvest index during both the year of experimentation. Similar results were found by Sharma et al. (2013) [18]. Leaf area index Significantly maximum leaf area index (4.2) average pool of two year was noticed under 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB which was superior to control during both year and 75% NPK alone during previous year while remained on par to all other treatments (Table 1). Application of FYM and biofertilizer were not brought any changes in leaf area index. Moreover, lowest leaf area index was measured in control plot during both the year. The higher values of LAI might be associated with increased availability of nitrogen and phosphorus due to using Azotobactor and PSB and having balanced nutrition which played an important role in rapid cell division and elongation in meristmatic plant tissues. ~ 312 ~ Fig 1: Effect of different treatments on harvest index International Journal of Chemical Studies Nutrient Uptake Significantly higher removal of NPK were noticed under 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB which was superior to rest of its counterparts, except P uptake in 100% NPK + 5 t FYM. Although, the magnitudes of nutrient removal were higher in 2011 as against 2010 (Table 2). Moreover unfertilized plot removed least amount of Nitrogen (46.8 and 47.1 kg/ha), phosphorus (13.1 and 13.6 kg/ha) and potassium (71.1 and 71.6 kg/ha). Application of 75% NPK along with other parts were also shown lowest removal of NPK as against 100% NPK with either FYM or biofertilizer. Higher uptake of N P and K was may be due to favorable effect of incorporation of organic sources together with inorganic nutrients which was earlier reported by Sharma et al. (2013) [18]. Moreover, Decomposition of organic source is accompanied by the release of appreciable amount of Co2 which dissolve in water to form carbonic acid being capable of decomposition of certain primary minerals and release of nutrients, besides favors higher biomass production and nutrient uptake (Chandravanshi, 2014) [1]. Similar opinion was also put forward by Kumar et al. (2015). fertilizer (Naresh et al., 2014) [11]. For that, a computation of values present in Figure 1 revealed that the combination of organic, inorganic and biofertilizer (100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB) had got maximum average of two year nitrogen use efficiency viz., agronomic efficiency (32.7 kg/ha), partial factor productivity (44.29), recovery efficiency (72.5%) and physiological efficiency (37.6%). Moreover lower efficiency were recorded under control plot. This finding corroborates with the report by Naresh et al. (2014) [11] and Dwivedi et al. (2015) [4]. Quality attributes Significantly maximum protein content (8.35 and 8.41%) and protein yield (440.0 and 450.8 kg/ha) during 2010 and 2011, respectively were recorded under the treatments of 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB (Table 3) which was superior to rest of its counterparts for protein yields, while it remained on par to protein content from T 3 to T6. Moreover lowest protein content and protein yield were observed under the plot where no fertilizer was used. This may be ascribed to intense protein synthesis in plant and its efficient storage in the presence of abundant supply of available nutrients through biofertilizer and organics. The easy availability of nutrients leads to balanced C:N ratio which enhanced the vegetative growth of plant resulting in high photosynthetic activity. Which finally out yielded better protein content in plant and higher grain yield which in turn improved the protein yield. The results of present investigation corroborate with the findings of few previous studies (Pathak et al., 2002 and Sharma et al., 2013) [14, 18]. Production economics Computation of valued revealed that maximum net return (35508 and 36639 Rs/ha), B:C ratio (2.83 and 2.89) during 2010 and 2011, respectively as against other of its treatments were fetched under the treatments where 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB had applied (Table 3). This mainly due to maximum yield produced under this level which overcome the cost of FYM and biofertilizer and benefited more. Furthermore, production efficiency (58.6 and 59.6 kg/day/ha) and economic efficiency (394.5 and 407.1 Rs/day/ha) was also observed maximum under 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB. Although lower production economics were recorded under control plots. These findings lend support to the report of Shete et al. (2011) [19] and Dwivedi et al. (2015) [4]. Nitrogen use efficiency (NIUE) The values of all nitrogen use efficiency (NiUE) in India were lower as against global (Figure 2 and 3). Moreover, values of NIUE in the field experiment in western U. P. showed that, N is much more efficiently utilized in world as compared with western U. P. in India. Consequently, in western U. P., there is a considerable scope for increase efficiency of nitrogenous ~ 313 ~ Fig 2: Effect of different treatments on agronomic efficiency and physiological efficiency Fig 3: Effect of different treatments on partial factor productivity and recovery efficiency International Journal of Chemical Studies Table 1: Effect of different treatments on growth, LAI and yield attributes Plant height (cm) Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Control 100% NPK 100% NPK + 5 t FYM 100% NPK + Azotobactor 100% NPK + PSB 100% NPK + Azotobactor + PSB 75% NPK 75% NPK + 5 t FYM 75% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB S.Em.± C.D. (P=0.05) 2010 151.6 187.5 202.3 200.7 200.2 201.0 171.9 174.2 191.4 203.6 5.75 17.20 2011 146.3 182.7 196.8 193.1 195.7 194.5 174.6 178.3 186.4 198.9 5.25 15.65 Dry matter production (g/plant) 2010 2011 234.8 238.8 248.0 254.6 256.9 261.8 253.6 259.5 252.0 258.3 255.4 259.4 242.5 248.8 245.3 251.2 249.9 254.9 265.1 269.4 8.5 9.3 25.7 28.1 Leaf area index at 60 DAS 2010 2.0 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.2 3.5 3.6 4.0 0.21 0.62 2011 2.3 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.2 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.4 0.29 0.88 Cob/plant Number of grain/cob 2010 2011 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.009 0.008 0.027 0.024 2010 362.3 428.0 516.0 488.3 481.3 497.3 402.7 414.3 474.0 537.3 9.49 28.43 2011 368.8 435.9 521.4 495.2 487.6 504.6 410.6 421.5 483.9 545.1 10.2 30.7 Test weight (g) 2010 2011 217.2 219.3 229.4 233.5 237.4 241.2 236.5 239.3 232.3 236.8 236.5 240.6 226.5 231.8 228.7 233.5 231.5 236.7 243.9 246.2 0.67 0.61 1.96 1.85 Table 2: Effect of different treatments on yields and uptake of nutrients Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Control 100% NPK 100% NPK + 5 t FYM 100% NPK + Azotobactor 100% NPK + PSB 100% NPK + Azotobactor + PSB 75% NPK 75% NPK + 5 t FYM 75% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB S.Em.± C.D. (P=0.05) Grain yield (q/ha) Stover yield (q/ha) Biological yield (q/ha) 2010 13.6 44.7 49.7 47.9 47.3 48.8 40.7 42.9 45.1 52.7 1.50 4.50 2010 44.5 67.3 71.7 70.1 69.1 70.8 65.2 66.7 67.4 75.6 0.97 2.91 2010 58.1 112.0 121.4 118.0 116.4 119.6 105.9 109.6 112.5 128.3 2.47 7.41 2011 14.2 45.8 50.6 49.1 48.3 49.7 42.1 44.6 45.9 53.6 1.30 4.10 2011 43.7 66.5 70.2 69.1 67.5 58.4 63.8 65.3 64.7 73.6 1.30 4.10 2011 57.9 112.3 120.8 118.2 115.8 108.1 105.9 109.9 110.6 127.2 2.6 8.2 N 2010 46.8 106.5 121.2 115.9 114.9 117.6 95.2 99.9 106.9 133.7 2.76 8.27 Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) P K 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 47.1 13.1 13.6 71.1 71.6 107.3 25.1 25.5 109.8 110.4 121.6 28.8 29.3 117.1 117.9 116.7 26.9 27.3 114.3 114.8 115.5 26.9 27.4 112.0 113.6 118.4 27.9 28.2 115.7 116.2 96.0 22.0 22.1 95.6 96.1 101.2 23.3 23.4 101.7 102.3 107.4 25.5 25.6 111.2 111.6 134.3 32.2 32.4 128.7 129.4 2.81 1.26 1.25 3.51 3.57 8.44 3.76 3.75 10.53 10.71 Table 3: Effect of different treatments on quality and production economics Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Control 100% NPK 100% NPK + 5 t FYM 100% NPK + Azotobactor 100% NPK + PSB 100% NPK + Azotobactor + PSB Quality attributes Protein content (%) Protein yield (kg/ha) Net return (Rs/ha) 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 7.92 7.98 107.7 113.3 5549 6354 8.10 8.13 362.1 372.4 29543 30785 8.31 8.36 413.0 423.0 32913 34025 8.23 8.27 394.2 406.1 29311 30501 8.20 8.24 387.9 398.0 28757 29870 8.25 8.30 402.6 412.5 29790 31145 ~ 314 ~ Production economics B:C Ratio Production efficiency (kg/day/ha) Economic efficiency (Rs/day/ha) 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 0.68 0.72 15.1 15.8 61.7 70.6 2.60 0.65 49.7 50.9 328.3 342.1 2.65 2.72 55.2 56.2 365.7 378.1 2.56 2.61 53.2 54.6 325.7 338.9 2.51 2.57 52.6 53.7 319.5 331.9 2.59 2.66 54.2 55.2 331.0 346.1 International Journal of Chemical Studies T7 75% NPK T8 75% NPK + 5 t FYM T9 75% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB T10 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azo + PSB S.Em.± C.D. (P=0.05) 8.05 8.08 8.16 8.35 0.05 0.15 8.08 8.10 8.20 8.41 0.06 0.18 327.6 346.6 368.0 440.0 0.8 2.3 340.2 361.3 376.4 450.8 0.8 2.5 26257 28098 29861 35508 - 27789 29634 30712 36639 - ~ 315 ~ 2.56 2.49 2.62 2.83 - 2.62 2.57 2.66 2.89 - 45.2 47.7 50.1 58.6 1.7 5.0 46.8 49.6 51.0 59.6 1.4 4.6 291.7 312.2 331.8 394.5 - 308.8 329.3 341.2 407.1 - International Journal of Chemical Studies 4. Conclusion Based on two year field experimentation and with support of the previous works, it could be inferred that performance, productivity, profitability and used efficiency of nitrogen in maize was improved by combination of organic, inorganic and bioferilizer. Application of 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB was found to be more effective for improving performance, productivity, profitability and used efficiency of nitrogen in maize than all over rest of the treatments. Thus, study suggests that maize can be successfully grown under semi-arid conditions of Western Uttar Pradesh on 100% NPK + 5 t FYM+ Azotobactor + PSB and harvest maximum productivity and profitability besides, improving used efficiency of nitrogen. 5. References 1. Chandravanshi P, Chandrappa H, Hugar AY, Danaraddi Vijay S, Kumar NBT, Pasha A. Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil fertility and productivity for sustainable production in rice-maize cropping system under Bhadra command area of Karnataka Proceedings of National Conference on Harmony with Nature in Context of Environmental Issues and Challenges of the 21st Century, Special issue, The Ecoscan, 2014; 6:385-390. 2. Doberman A, Witt C, Dawe D, Abdulrachman S, Gines HC, Nagarajan R et al. Site- specific nutrient management for intensive rice cropping systems in Asia. Field Crops Researhc. 2002; 74:37-66. 3. Dobermann A, Witt C, Abdulrachman S, Gines HC, Nagrajan R, Son TT et al. Soil fertility and indigenous nutrient supply in irrigated rice domains of Asia. Agron. J. 2003; 95:913-923. 4. Dwivedi Ashish, Singh A, Tomar SS, Kumar S, Dev I, Kishore R, Singh P et al. Performance, Uptake and Use Efficiency of Nutrients in Maize (Zea mays L.) and Mashbean (Vigna mungo L.) alongwith Microbiological Properties under Intercropping System in Alluvial Soil of India J. Pure Appl. Microbio. 2015; 9(2):1233-1242. 5. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedure for Agricultural Research An international Rice Research Institute Book. John Willey and sons, 2nd edition. 1984, 329. 6. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1973. 7. Kokani JM, Shah KA, Tandel BM, Nayaka P. Growth, yield attributes and yield of summer blackgram (Vigna mungo l.) as influenced by FYM, phosphorus and sulphur. Proceedings of National Conference on Harmony with Nature in Context of Environmental Issues and Challenges of the 21st Century, Special issue, The Ecoscan, 2014; VI:429-433. 8. Kumari A, Singh ON, Kumar R. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, seed yield and economics of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) and soil fertility changes. J. Food Legumes. 2012; 25(2):121-124. 9. Kumawat N, Singh RP, Kumar R, Kumari A, Kumar P. Response of intercropping and integrated nutrition on production potential and profitability on rainfed pigeonpea. J. Agril. Sci. 2012; 4(7):154-162. 10. Manasa V, Hebsur NS, Malligawad LH, Shiva Kumar L, Ramakrishna B. Effect of water soluble fertilizers on uptake of major and micro nutrients by groundnut and post-harvest nutrient status in a vertisol of northern transition zone of Karnataka. The Ecoscan. 2015; 9(12):01-05. 11. Naresh RK, Tomar SS, Kumar D, Samsher Purushottam, Singh SP, Dwivedi Ashish et al. Experiences with Rice Grown on Permanent Raised Beds: Effect of Crop Establishment Techniques on Water Use, Productivity, Profitability and Soil Physical Properties. Rice Sci. 2014; 21(3):170-180. 12. Page AL. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, 1982. 13. Panwar AS. Effect of integrated nutrient management in maize (Zea mays) - mustard (Brassica campestris var. toria) cropping system in mid hills altitude. Indian J. Agricultural Sciences. 2008; 78(1):27-31. 14. Pathak SK, Singh SB, Singh SN. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economic in maize (Zeamays)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Ind. J. Agron. 2002; 47:325-332. 15. Prasad R. Efficient fertilizer use: the key to food security and better environment. J. Trop Agric, 2009; 47:(1)7-26. 16. Satish A, Govind Gowda V, Chandrappa H, Nagaraja K. Long term effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on productivity, soil fertility and uptake of nutrients in rice and maize cropping system. Int. J. Sci. Nat. 2011; 2:84-88. 17. Seshaiah MP. Sorghum grain in poultry feed. In: Proc. Intl. Consultation, Chandrasekaran, A. R. Bundyopadhyay and H.I. Hall (Eds.). ICRISAT, Andhra Pradesh, India, 2000; 18-19:240-241. 18. Sharma GD, Thakur R, Som R, Kauraw DL, Kulhare PS. Impact of intergated nutrient management on yield, nutrient uptake, protein conttent of wheat (Triticum astivum) and soil fertility in a typic Haplustert. The Bioscan. 2013; 8(4):1159-1164. 19. Shete PG, Thanki JD, Baviskar VS, Bhoye KP. Yield, nutrient uptake and economics of greengram as influenced by land configuration, inorganic fertilizers and FYM levels. Green Farming. 2011; 2(4):425-427. ~ 316 ~