Comparative Studies of Potassium Humate with Fertilizer and Vermicompost on Yield Attribute, Yield and Economies of Late Sown Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Comparative Studies of Potassium Humate with Fertilizer and Vermicompost on Yield Attribute, Yield and Economies of Late Sown Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Y.K. Singh¹ , Pawan Gangwar¹ , Bal veer Singh^*2 , Kaushal Kumar³ , , Durgesh Kumar Maurya² , Rahul Verma² , Harshit Gupta⁴

¹Department of Agronomy, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur 208002, Uttar Pradesh, India

²Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut – 250110 (U.P.) India

³Department of soil conservation and Water Management, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur 208002, Uttar Pradesh, India

⁴Department of Seed Science and Technology, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, 224 229 (U.P.), India

Corresponding Author Email: bvs955rajpoot@gmail.com; dryksingh1209@gmail.com

DOI : http://dx.doi. org/10.53709/CHE.2019.v01s12.0012

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

1. INTRODUCTION

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) has been described as the “king of cereals” and one of the most important staple food crop cultivated in at least 43 countries of the world. About 35 % of the world population directly or indirectly depends upon wheat for food and about 20 % of protein supply of the world comes from wheat alone. It is cultivated in almost all the states of India, but its extensive cultivation is confined to Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan and Gujarat [1]. Wheat is used mainly as a human food which is nutritious, concentrated, easily stored and transported, and easily processed into various types of food. Unlike any other plant-derived food, wheat contains gluten protein, which enables leavened dough to rise by forming minute gas cells that hold carbon dioxide during fermentation producing light textured bread. Wheat is grown in India exclusively in winter season as rabi crop. The northern region of the country (India) covers the major wheat growing area. The sowing of wheat begins as the fields get vacated by the previous kharif crops viz., rice, maize soybean etc.

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) entails the maintenance/adjustment of soil fertility to an optimum level for crop productivity to obtain the maximum benefit from all possible sources of plant nutrients i.e. organic as well as inorganic in an integrated manner [1]. Hence, use of renewable (organic) and non-renewable (inorganic) sources of energy is needed for agricultural production, which can minimize the dependence of crop production on commercial sources of energy. The importance of renewable sources of energy in promoting soil health and better plant nutrition has started receiving much attention at the global level in recent years. The supplementary and complimentary use of renewable and non-renewable sources not only helps in maintaining or improving the physico-chemical characteristics and fertility of soil, but also increases the crop yields by enhancing the efficiency of applied non-renewable sources [2]. Under such situation of national energy crises, the urgent need is to test easily available alternative sources of energy such as FYM, vermicompost, crop residues and green manuring for sustainable use of energy for crop production and soil health as well. Management of organic matter in soil is the heart of sustainable agriculture. An increase in soil organic matter content helps in reversing the degradation and often increases soil fertility and crop production [22]. Soil organic matter can be managed to release or conserve soil N to increase short term productivity or increase long-term conservation [3]. When organic manures are supplemented with nitrogen fertilizer under different management practices, it is difficult to predict nitrogen availability during the growing period of a crop. The knowledge of such availability is essential to ensure the release of adequate amount of nitrogen as well as to minimize its losses.

Potassium humate is the potassium salt of humic acid having 50 % humic and 12 % potassium which is highly soluble, 100% organic, non-toxic, eco-friendly chelating and soil fertility improving substance. It is used in agriculture as a fertilizer additive to increase the use efficiency of fertilizers especially nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizer inputs. Potassium humate fertilizer is a kind of highly effective organic potash because humic acid is a kind of biologically active agent which can improve soil potassium content, increase the potassium’s absorption rate and utilization of the crop and also improve the soil to promote crop growth, improve crop resistance inverse ability, improves the crop quality, protect agricultural ecological environment. Potassium humate can also be made into efficient multi-functional compound fertilizer by enrichment with urea, phosphate, potash and trace elements. Potassium humate can also play a vital role in improving soil structure, soil aggregation, water infiltration rate, aeration, soil tilth and workability, and reducing erosion and runoff losses of soil and releasing elements as available nutrients and providing the stimulus environment for microbial activity. It also helps in increasing root growth, root penetration and chlorophyll density, thus aiding in photosynthesis. It is substantially increasing proteins, fibers and sugars which help improve quality and yields [15].

2. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1 Experimental Site

The present investigation was conducted at Students Instructional Farm (SIF) at C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and technology, Kanpur (U.P.) during rabi season of 2016-17. The experimental farm falls under the Indo-gangetic alluvial tract of Central Uttar Pradesh.

2.2 Soil of Experimental Field

The soil of the experimental field was well leveled. The fertility status and textural class of the soil were judged by chemical, physical and mechanical analysis. For purpose, soil samples were taken randomly from 5 places of experimental plot from a depth of 15 cm. just before sowing and fertilizer application. The soil from these samples was mixed thoroughly and a representative soil sample was drawn and tested in which Available N was 170 (kg/ha), phosphorus 17.80 (kg/ha), potassium 165.0 kg/h Zinc 1.1 (mg ha^-1) with PH value of 7.5.

2.3 Crop Variety

Crop variety used for this study was Unnat Halna (K-9423) which is widely adaptable and having high yielding potential with double-gene dwarf variety which is most suited to late sown condition, fertilizers, irrigation, lodging resistant and mature in about 85-100 days after sowing.

2.4 Application of fertilizer

 Crop was fertilized uniformly at a rate of 120 kg N + 60 kg P₂O₅ + 40 kg K₂O. Half amount of Nitrogen together with full amount of Phosphorus, and Potash were applied as basal at the time of sowing. Remaining half dose of nitrogen was top dressed into two split doses at 32 (first irrigation) and 56 days after sowing (DAS). The nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium were supplied through urea, DAP, and murate of potash respectively.

2.5 Yield attributes

2.5.1 Spike length (cm)

The average length of spike was measured by taking length of three samples ears divided by 3. The length was measured from the base of the spike to the end of the terminal spike-lets in centimetre.

2.5.2 Number of spikelet/ear

Total numbers of spikelet’s of the three samples ears were conducted and the average no. of spikelet’s per ear was calculated by dividing the total with 3.

2.5.3 Number of grains/spikelet

 All total grains of three samples spikelet’s were counted, average value per spike were worked out.

2.5.4 Weight of spike (ear) (g)

Three spikes were selected and weighted with the help of electrical balance and average value was calculated.

2.5.4 Number of grain per spike (ear)

After threshing of 3 spikes grain were cleaned and counted then mean value was recorded.

2.5.5 Grain weight per spike (ear)

The weight of grains at 3 ears were obtained and was divided by 3 to have grain weight /ear.

2.5.6 1000 Grain Weight

One thousand grains from a composite sample of each plot was taken. The three samples in each plot is taken and weighed separately and recorded in grams.

2.6 Yields Studies

2.6.1 Biological yield (q/ha)

After sun drying the total produce in bundles from each net plot before threshing was weighed in kg and converted into quintal /ha by multiplying the appropriate conversion factor.

2.6.2 Grain Yield (q/ha)

After threshing winnowing and cleaning the grains from each net plot produce the grain yield was obtained by weighing grains in kg plot wise which was finally converted into quintal/ha by multiplying conversion factor.

2.6.3 Straw Yield (q/ha)

The straw yield worked out by subtracting the grain yield from the weight of harvested material (Biological Yield) per plot in kilograms. It was further converted into quintal per hectare by multiplying conversion factor.

2.6.4 Harvest Index (%):

The recovery of grain against total biological yield is termed as harvest index. This was expressed in percentage and calculated with the help of following formula as suggested by Singh and Staskofif (1971).

2.7 Economics

The study on the economics of treatments for this agronomical experiment was done to evaluate the economic value of each treatment. For this purpose, the cost of cultivation, gross income, net income and benefit cost ratio were worked out on hectare basis treatment wise. The details of these have been presented.

2.7.1 Cost of Cultivation (Rs./ha)

The cost of cultivation worked out treatment wise. The common cost of cultivation to all treatments was added to the respective additional cost involved in each treatment.

2.7.2 Gross income (Rs./ha)

The gross income was calculated plot wise. For this purpose grain yield was converted into rupees per hectare at prevailing market price of wheat grains and straw. The sum was used for statistical analysis.

 2.7.3 Net Income (Rs/ha)

For obtaining the net income, the cost of cultivation was reduced from the gross income of each treatment.

2.7.4 B: C Ratio

For the calculation of benefit cost ratio, the net return was divided with the cost of cultivation. The value obtained was considered as benefit cost ratio.

2.8 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was done with the help of window-based SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) Version 10.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL. The SPSS technique was used for the analysis of variance to define the statistical significance of the treatment effect at a 5 % probability level. Further, F- test and the significance of the difference between the treatments were examined by critical difference (CD) as described by (Gomez and Gomez 1984).

3. Result and Discussion

3.1 Yield attributes

3.1.1 Length of ear

It is apparent from the data given Table 1 indicate that the length of ear was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The maximum (9.57 cm) length of ear was recorded with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (9.28 cm) which was significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF was also obtained higher length of ear as compared 75% RDF and also ranked 3rd position within the treatments. The minimum length was observed in 75% RDF (8.33 cm) during the study period. Whereas, the potassium humate practices the length of ear was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained maximum (8.15cm) length of ear as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and 2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher length of ear as compared to control (7.12 cm) which was produced lowest length of ear with within the treatment. Maximum length of ears in residual may be due to adequate supply of nutrients throughout the crop growing period. These results are supported by other researchers (Kumar and Singh 2017) who reported longer spike by the application of mineral N.

3.1.2 Number of spikelet’s/ear

It is evident from the data given in Table 1 indicate the number of spikelet’s per ear was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the study period. The highest (19.25) number of spikelet’s ear was recorded with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha which was significantly superior over all the treatments. The treatments 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (18.67) and 100% RDF was also achieved higher number of spikelet’s per ear as well as significantly at par with each other. The lowest number of spikelet’s per ear was observed in 75% RDF (16.79) during the study period. Further perusal the data revealed that the number of spikelet’s per ear was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained maximum number of spikelet’s per ear as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and 2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher number of spikelet’s per ear as compared to control which was produced lowest number of spikelet’s per ear with within the treatment. The maximum length of residual spikelet’s/ear may be related to an appropriate supply of nutrients throughout the crop growth season. These findings are supported by [3] who reported prolonged spikes/ear by using mineral N.

3.1.3 Number of grains/ear

 It is clear from the data given Table 1 indicates the number of grains per ear was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the study period. The number of grains per ear was produced significantly highest (53.25) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha which was superior over all the treatments. The treatments 100% RDF (51.25) and 75% RDF+ VC @ 3.0 t/ha (48.25) were also achieved higher number of grains per ear and also placed with the rank of 2^nd and 3^rd position within the treatments. The minimum number of grains per ear was observed in 75% RDF (48.28) during the study period. Further perusal of the data it is revealed that the number of grains per ear was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained maximum number of grains per ear as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and 2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher number of grains per ear as compared to control which was produced lowest number of grains per ear within the treatment. Maximum number of grains/ear head in potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha may be due to higher length of ears with adequate supply of nutrients throughout the crop growth period. Significant improvement in grains count per spike of wheat has also been reported due to application of poultry manure by [3].

3.1.4 Weight of ear (g)

It is apparent from the data given in Table 1 indicates the weight of ear (g) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the crop period. The weight of ear was produced significantly highest (3.18 g) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha as compared to 75% RDF (2.23g) treatment. The treatment 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha was significantly at par with 75% RDF+ VC @ 3.0 t/ha (37.12). The treatment with 100% RDF (2.62g) were also achieved higher weight of ear and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest weight of ear was observed in 75% RDF (2.23g) during the study period. Further perusal of the data it is revealed that the weight of ear was increased with increasing the higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @ 3.0 kg/ha obtained the highest (2.64g) weight of ear as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and 2.0 kg/ha were recorded to significantly higher weight of ear as compared to control which was produced lowest weight of the ear with within the treatment.  Significant improvement in Weight of ear (g)of wheat has also been reported due to the application of poultry manure by [20].         

3.1.5 Grain weight per ear (g)

It is evident from the data given in Table 1 indicate the grain weight per ear (g) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The grain weight per ear was produced significantly highest (2.34g) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF+ VC @ 3.0 t/ha (2.23g) which was exhibited significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF (2.05g) were also achieved higher grain weight per ear and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest grain weight per ear was observed in 75% RDF (1.77g). Further, the data revealed that the grain weight per was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained highest (2.01g) grain weight per ear as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and potassium humate @ 2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher grain weight per ear as compared to control which was produced lowest grain weight per ear with within the treatment. Maximum number of grains/ear head in potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha may be due to higher length of ears with adequate supply of nutrients throughout the crop growth period. Significant improvement in grains count per spike of wheat has also been reported due to application of poultry manure by [13].

3.1.6 1000-grain weight (g)

It is perusal from the data given Table 1 indicate the 1000-grain weight (g) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The 1000-grain weight was produced significantly highest (40.28g) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (39.40g) which was exhibited significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF (39.20g) were also achieved a higher 1000-grain weight and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest 1000-grain weight was observed in 75% RDF (38.18g). Further, the data revealed that 1000-grain weight was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @ 3.0 kg/ha obtained highest (38.80g) 1000-grain weight as compared to control treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.0 kg/ha and potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher 1000-grain weight as compared to control which was produced the lowest (38.10g) 1000-grain weight with within the treatment. The weight of individual grains is governed by the grain growth supported by concurrent CO₂ assimilation during the grain filling phase rather than by the stored reservoir of carbohydrates during the vegetative phase. Thus, better nutrition of plants associated with increased fertilization helped in maintaining significantly better vegetative growth leading to greater interception of solar radiation by the crops and ultimately contributed towards the significant increase in number of filled grains [13]. These results corroborate the findings of [4] and [9].

3.2 Yield

Yield viz. biomass yield, grain yield and straw yield (q/ha) as well as harvest index (%) are recorded during 2018 and presented in Table 1 given below.

3.2.1 Biomass Yield

It is evident from the data given in Table 1 indicate the biomass yield (q/ha) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The biomass yield (q/ha) was produced significantly highest (94.06 q/ha) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (89.84 q/ha) which was superior over all the treatments. The treatment 100% RDF (77.57 q/ha) were also achieved higher biomass yield and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest biomass yield was observed in 75% RDF (74.10 q/ha). Further, the data revealed that biomass yield was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained the highest (74.80) biomass yield as compared to all the treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and Potassium humate (2.0 kg/ha) were recorded to significantly higher biomass yield and ranked with 2^nd and 3^rd position within the treatments. A similar finding also collaborates with [8].                                                                                                                  

3.2.2 Grain yield (q/ha)

It is apparent from the data given in Table 1 indicate the grain yield (q/ha) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The grain yield (q/ha) was produced significantly highest (44.34 q/ha) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (42.38 q/ha) which was superior over all the treatments and exhibited significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF (36.59 q/ha) were also achieved higher grain yield and also placed with the ranked with 3rd position within the treatments. The lowest grain yield was observed in 75% RDF (34.79 q/ha). Further, the data clearly showed that the grain yield was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate 3.0 kg/ha obtained highest (35.10 q/ha) grain yield as compared to all the treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and potassium humate @2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher grain yield and ranked with 2^nd and 3^rd position within the treatments. The grain yield was obtained lowest (33.50 q/ha) in control treatment. Higher grain yield may be due to proper nutrient supply Similar findings also given by [16].

3.2.3 Straw yield (q/ha)

It is evident from the data given in Table 1 indicate the straw yield (q/ha) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The straw yield (q/ha) was obtained significantly maximum (49.72 q/ha) with the application of 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha (47.46 q/ha) which was superior over all the treatments and exhibited significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF (40.98 q/ha) were also achieved higher straw yield and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest straw yield was observed in 75% RDF (39.31 q/ha) during the study period. Further, the data clearly showed that the straw yield was increased with increasing higher dose of the potassium humate. The doses of potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha obtained highest (39.70 q/ha) straw yield which was superior over all the treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and potassium humate @2.0 kg/ha were recorded significantly higher straw yield and ranked with 2^nd and 3^rd position within the treatments. The straw yield was obtained lowest (37.52 q/ha) in control treatment. Highest straw yield of wheat might be attributed to more plant height and number of tillers owing to the application of poultry manure which supplied essential nutrients throughout the crop growth period. These results of present studies supported the findings of [10].

3.2.4 Harvest index (%)

It is evident from the data given in Table 1 indicate the harvest index (%) was significantly influenced by potassium humate and fertilizer during the investigation period. The harvest index (%) was obtained significantly maximum (47.17%) with the application of 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha and 100% RDF with similar values which was superior over all the treatments and exhibited significantly at par with each other. The treatment 100% RDF+ VC @ 3.0 t/ha (47.14%) was also achieved higher harvest index (%) and also placed with the ranked with 3^rd position within the treatments. The lowest harvest index (%) was observed in 75% RDF (46.95 %) during the study period. Further, the data clearly showed that the control treatment obtained highest (47.20%) straw yield which was superior over all the treatments. The doses of potassium humate @ 2.5 kg/ha and potassium humate @ 2.0 kg/ha were obtained significantly higher harvest index (%) and ranked with 2^nd and 3^rd position within the treatments. The harvest index (%) was recorded lowest (46.93%) in Potassium humate (3.0 kg/ha). The results are in conformity with the findings of [12]. who reported that recommended doses of NPK and potassium humate increased the harvest index significantly over that of control treatment.

3.3 Economics

3.3.1 Total Cost of Cultivation (Rs/ha)

The total cost of cultivation (Rs ha^-1) of wheat as influenced by different treatments is presented in Table 2. The sources and levels of nutrients had significant influence on the cost of cultivation during the year of study. The plot treatment incurred same cost towards wheat production Rs 27188 ha^-1. Among the nutrient levels, application of 100% RDF + vermicompost @3.0 kg ha^-1 along with potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha incurred more variable cost towards wheat production Rs 23368.00. The lower cost of wheat production was incurred in control plot among the nutrient level. Furthermore, various treatment of Potassium humate (3.0 kg/ha) incurred more cost towards wheat production i.e. Rs 15034 ha^–¹ followed by Potassium humate (2.5 kg/ha) and Potassium humate (2.0 kg/ha) treatment. The lower cost of wheat production was incurred in control plot no potassium humate among the nutrient sources and nutrient level during the year. Similar findings were also reported by [14].

3.3.2 Gross return, net return (Rs/ha) and benefit: cost ratio

The data on gross return (Rs ha ¹), net returns (Rs ha) and B : C ratio as influenced by different treatments under investigation have been presented in Table 2. Data showed that among all the sources of nutrient management tried, the treatment F3 brought out the maximum gross return amounting to be Rs 73924 Rs ha¹, net return Rs 23368 Rs ha¹ with a B: C ratio of 1.46 during 2016-17 which was significantly higher than those obtained with other sources of nutrients. The minimum gross return, net gains and B : C were given by the crop without manures during the crop growing season. The minimum gross return, net gains and B : C were given by the crop without manures which might be due to the poor grain and stover yields. Similar findings were also reported by [14], [16] and [17].

                 Table 1 Effect of potassium humate with fertilizer and vermicompost on Leaf length, Number of spiklets/ ear, Number of grains/ear, Weight of ear, Biomass yield, Grain yield, Straw yield, Harvest Index of late sown wheat crop

Treatments	Leaf length (cm)	Number of spiklets/ ear	Number of grains/ear	Weight of ear (g)	Biomass yield (q/ha)	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)	Harvest Index (%)
100% RDF	8.59	17.94	51.25	2.62	77.57	36.59	40.98	47.17
75% RDF	8.33	16.79	47.28	2.23	74.10	34.79	39.31	46.95
100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha	9.57	19.25	53.25	3.18	94.06	44.34	49.72	47.14
75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha	9.28	18.67	48.25	3.06	89.84	42.38	47.46	47.17
Control (No potassium humate)	7.12	15.77	45.25	2.21	71.02	33.50	37.52	47.17
Potassium humate (3.0 kg/ha)	8.15	17.25	48.78	2.64	74.80	35.10	39.70	46.93
Potassium humate (2.5 kg/ha)	7.86	16.50	47.24	2.60	72.25	34.10	38.15	47.20
Potassium humate (2.0 kg/ha)	7.52	15.80	46.41	2.58	72.08	34.00	38.08	47.17
SE (d)	0.30	0.50	0.67	0.08	1.12	0.93	0.90	0.71
CD @ 5%	0.62	1.02	1.41	0.17	2.30	1.92	1.84	1.46

Table 2 Effect of potassium humate with fertilizer and vermicompost on economics of late sown wheat crop

Treatments	Total coast of cultivation ( Rs.)	Gross income (Rs.)	Net income (Rs.)	B:C ratio
100% RDF	44556	61924	17368	1.39
75% RDF	33304	39420	6116	1.18
100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha	50556	73924	23368	1.46
75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha	39304	51420	12116	1.31
Control (No potassium humate)	41442	55696	14254	1.31
Potassium humate (3.0 kg/ha)	42222	57256	15034	1.36
Potassium humate (2.5 kg/ha)	42094	57000	14906	1.35
Potassium humate (2.0 kg/ha)	41962	56736	14774	1.35

4. CONCLUSION

            In view of the foregoing facts, it remains no more obscure that nutrient management practices had a significant and profound effect on growth, development, yield attributes, yield, nutrient use efficiency, protein (content & yield), returns, nutrient content & uptake by the crops. Application of 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha and 100% RDF with similar values which was superior over all the treatments and exhibited significant growth of the crop and enhanced grain yield significantly. It can be concluded that the highest grain yield (44.34 q ha^–¹) was received with 100% RDF+ VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by (42.38 q ha^–¹) in 75% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha as well as potassium humate @ 3.0 kg/ha was also obtained higher yield as compared to control treatment. B: C ratio was also highest (1.46) in 100% RDF + VC @ 3.0 t/ha followed by 100% RDF (1.39) as well as potassium humate @3.0 kg/ha was obtained the highest benefit: cost ratio of (1.36).

Competing interest statement: The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Funding statement: Funding for this experiment was not provided by any institute or agency.

Data Availability: Data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request

REFERENCES

• Economic Survey of India. Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.
• ‘Integrated Nutrient Management for Sustainable Crop Production’. (The Haworth Press, Taylor and Francis Group: New York).
• Impact of seven years of organic farming on soil and produce quality and crop yields in eastern Himalayas, India. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 236, 142-153.
• Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 7(2), 23-27.
• Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63, 349–355.
• Demand and supply of cereals in India. International Food Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
•  Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John wiley & sons.
• Humic substances from vermicompost enhance urban lettuce production. Agronomy for sustainable development, 35(1), 225-232.
• Vermicompost as soil supplement to enhance growth, yield and quality of Triticum aestivum L.: a field study. International journal of Recycling of organic waste in Agriculture, 2(1), 1-7.
• Use of Bio-organic manures for wheat production in sandy loam soils. Indian Research Journal of Genetics and Biotechnology, 5(04), 274-277.
• Productivity and economics of wheat as influenced by inorganic and organic sources of nutrients. Annals of plant and soil Research, 14(1), 61-64.
• Effect of timing of vermicompost application and different level of NPK on growth, yield attributing characters and yield of rice in rice-wheat cropping system. International Journal of chemical studies, 5(5), 2034-2038.
• Efficacy of potassium humate and chemical fertilizers on yield and nutrient availability patterns in soil at different growth stages of rice. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48(3), 245-261.
• Productivity and soil fertility as effected by organic manures and inorganic fertilizers in greengram (Vigna radiata)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 55(1), 16-21.
• Sweet sorghum planting effects on stalk yield and sugar quality in semi‐arid tropical environment. Agronomy Journal, 105(5), 1458-1465.
• Effect of Potassium Humate and Potassium Silicate on Growth and Productivity of Wheat Plants Grown under Saline Conditions. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 8(11), 577-582.
• Integrated nutrient management in soybean (Glycine max)—wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 53(4), 273-278.
• Harvest index in cereals. Agronomy Journal.; 4:176-181.
• Effect Of Nitrogen And Phosphorus in Conjunction with Organic and Micronutrients on Yield and Nutrient Uptake by Maize-Wheat Cropping Sequences and Soil. Environment and Ecology, 27(1), 25-31.
• The wonders of earthworms & its vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with potential to replace destructive chemical fertilizers. Agricultural sciences, 1(02), 76.
• Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
• Significance of soil organic matter to soil quality and health. Magdoff, D. and Weil, R.R. (Eds.). Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press, pp. 1–45.