Influence of nutrient sources and spray schedule on growth, dry matter accumulation, yield, quality and economics of hydroponic fodder maize

SANTOSH NAGAPPA NINGOJI; M N THIMMEGOWDA; B BORAIAH; M R ANAND; R KRISHNA MURTHY; N N ASHA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v90i10.111417

Authors

SANTOSH NAGAPPA NINGOJI University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka
M N THIMMEGOWDA College of Agriculture, VC Farm, Mandya, Karnataka
B BORAIAH University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065 India
M R ANAND University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065 India
R KRISHNA MURTHY University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065 India
N N ASHA University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i10.111417

Keywords:

Fodder maize, Foliar spray, Fresh fodder yield, Hydroponics, Nutrient source

Abstract

The experiment was conducted at AICRP for Dry Land Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru to study the influence of nutrient sources and spray schedule on growth, dry matter accumulation, yield, quality and economics of hydroponic fodder maize during 2017–18. The experiment was laid in Completely Randomized Design with factorial concept with three replications each using four different nutrient sources (urea @ 1%, MOP @ 1%, urea and MOP each @ 1% and 19:19:19 @ 1%) and two levels of spray schedules (one spray at 6 DAS and two sprays at 3 and 10 DAS) and no spray was taken as control. The results revealed that two sprays of urea and MOP each @ 1% at 3 and 10 DAS recorded significantly higher shoot length, root length, total dry matter accumulation, fodder yield and superior quality parameters, viz. crude protein, total carbohydrates and crude fibre. Higher returns (₹ 204/m2) and B : C ratio (2.41) were noticed with same treatment combinations and accounted for 17.22% higher fodder yield over control.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdul-Baki A A and Anderson J D. 1973. Vigour determination in soybean seed by multiple criteria. Crop Science 13: 630–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300060013x

AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA. Crompton H W and Harris L E. 1969. Applied Animal Nutrition (2). W.H. Freeman and Co., San Fransisco.

Gunasekaran S, Bandeswaran C and Valli C. 2017. Effect of different nutrient solutions on the biomass yield and nutritive value of low cost hydroponic maize. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 87(11): 1418–19.

Gomez K A and Gomez A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Edition, John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York, USA. pp. 234–237.

Hedge J E and Hofreiter B T. 1962. Carbohydrate Chemistry. (Eds) Whistler R L and Be Miller J N. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1–30.

Lorenz K. 1980. Cereal sprouts: composition, nutritive value, food applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 13(4): 353–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398009527295

Mutum L and Surve U S. 2017a. Biological parameter and quality factor (ADF, NDF) of hydroponics under the influence of foliar spray. International Journal of Botany Studies 2(6): 176–79.

Mutum L and Surve U S. 2017b. Biomass yield and water productivity of different hydroponic fodder crops. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phyto-Chemistry 6(5): 1297–1300.

Naik P K, Dhuri R B, Karunakaran M, Swain B K and Singh N P. 2014. Effect of feeding hydroponics maize fodder on digestibility of nutrients and milk production in lactating cows. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84(8): 880–83.

Naik P K, Swain B K and Singh N P. 2015, Review-production and utilization of hydroponics fodder. Indian Journal of Animal Nutition 32(1): 1–9.