4.4.5.4 Copper The results <strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> DTPA-extractable copper (DTPA-Cu) c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong>s are presented <strong>in</strong> Table 22, 23, 24 and 25. The copper c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>in</strong> all the <strong>soil</strong>s was above the critical c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>. In cott<strong>on</strong> based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 22), <strong>on</strong> an average the copper c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>in</strong>creased from 0.36 ppm <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al farms to 0.44 ppm <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms <strong>in</strong> surface <strong>soil</strong> and from 0.32 to 0.39 ppm <strong>in</strong> subsurface <strong>soil</strong>, account<strong>in</strong>g for an <strong>in</strong>crease <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 22.22 and 21.90 per cent, respectively. Am<strong>on</strong>g the <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms, the <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C4 farm recorded highest <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent (31.20%). In kharif jowar based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 23), the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two <strong>soil</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dicated an <strong>in</strong>crease <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> from 0.49 to 0.62 ppm and 0.42 to 0.53 ppm <strong>in</strong> surface and subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s, respectively. The average <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> surface <strong>soil</strong> was 26.53 per cent and subsurface was 26.20 per cent. The <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> K 1 farmer recorded higher <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent (26.10%) than K2 farmer (23.91%). In rabi jowar based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 23), the <strong>soil</strong>s <strong>on</strong> an average, showed an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong> both surface and subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s (0.42 to 0.56 ppm and 0.34 to 0.40 ppm, respectively). The average <strong>in</strong>crease copper c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>in</strong> surface and subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s was 33.33 per cent and 17.64 per cent, respectively. Am<strong>on</strong>g the three <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms, the highest <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> DTPA-Cu c<strong>on</strong>tent was observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> R1 farmer (47.22%) and lowest <strong>in</strong>crease was <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> R3 farmer (14.70%). In sugarcane cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 24), a substantial <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> DTPA-extractable copper was observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> S3 and S2 farms due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> practice (30.10 and 29.30%, respectively) than the other two farms viz., S4 and S1 (20.06 and 11.90%, respectively). The overall average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sugarcane <strong>soil</strong>s under <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> was 0.49 ppm compared to 0.40 ppm <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s under c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> account<strong>in</strong>g for an <strong>in</strong>crease by 22.50 per cent. In v<strong>in</strong>eyard system (Table 25), the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> three <strong>soil</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dicated an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> from 0.40 to 0.48 ppm and 0.32 to 0.36 ppm <strong>in</strong> surface and subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s, respectively. The average <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>in</strong> surface <strong>soil</strong> was 20.00 per cent and subsurface was 12.50 per cent. The highest and lowest <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> copper c<strong>on</strong>tent was recorded <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> V3 farmer (25.00%) and V2 farmer (8.33%), respectively. 4.5 EFFECT OF ORGANIC FARMING ON SOIL BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES 4.5.1 Dehydrogenase activity The results <strong>on</strong> dehydrogenase activity, a measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total biological activity <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s under different cropp<strong>in</strong>g systems are presented <strong>in</strong> Table 26. All the <strong>soil</strong>s under <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> recorded an enhanced dehydrogenase activity over c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong> all the cropp<strong>in</strong>g systems studied. The results from cott<strong>on</strong> based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system showed that <strong>on</strong> an average, the dehydrogenase activity due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>creased from 10.82 to 18.30 g TPF per g per day <strong>in</strong> surface <strong>soil</strong> and 8.64 to 13.25 g TPF per g per day <strong>in</strong> subsurface <strong>soil</strong>. The <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C4 farmer showed highest <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> dehydrogenase activity (94.4%), followed by C3 farmer (61.30%), whereas lowest <strong>in</strong>crease was <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C 2 farmer (46.8%). The over all <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> dehydrogenase activity was from 9.73 g TPF per g per day <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> to 15.77 g TPF per g per day <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g>, account<strong>in</strong>g for an <strong>in</strong>crease by 62.10 per cent.
Table 26. Dehydrogenase activity (µg TPF/g/day) <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s under different cropp<strong>in</strong>g systems
- Page 1 and 2:
IMPACT OF FARMERS’ ORGANIC FARMIN
- Page 3 and 4:
Chapter No. I. INTRODUCTION CONTENT
- Page 5 and 6:
I. INTRODUCTION Organic manures, in
- Page 7 and 8:
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Organic ma
- Page 9 and 10:
Sharma et al. (2000) observed a sig
- Page 11 and 12:
2.3.1 pH and EC Application <strong
- Page 13 and 14:
Inclusion of <stro
- Page 15 and 16: 2.4.3 Available potassium FYM appli
- Page 17 and 18: Chandravanshi (1998) noticed that m
- Page 19 and 20: Sl. No. 1. Table 1. Particulars <st
- Page 21 and 22: 3.3.2.2 Electrical conductivity Ele
- Page 23 and 24: IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The result
- Page 25 and 26: Table 3. Quantity of</stron
- Page 27 and 28: Under sugarcane based cropping syst
- Page 29 and 30: Table 4 (Contd…..) Code Depth (cm
- Page 31 and 32: Table 5. Physical properties <stron
- Page 33 and 34: In sugarcane based cropping system
- Page 35 and 36: Table 8. Physical properties <stron
- Page 37 and 38: Table 9. Soil pH and EC values in d
- Page 39 and 40: Table 9 (Contd…..) Code Depth (cm
- Page 41 and 42: Table 11. Organic carbon and cation
- Page 43 and 44: Table 13. Organic carbon and cation
- Page 45 and 46: soils, respectively. The highest in
- Page 47 and 48: Table 14 (Contd…..) Code Depth (c
- Page 49 and 50: Table 15 (Contd…..) Code Depth (c
- Page 51 and 52: Table 16. Available potassium (kg K
- Page 53 and 54: Table 17. Available sulphur (kg S/h
- Page 55 and 56: In kharif jowar based cropping syst
- Page 57 and 58: Table 18. DTPA-extractable zinc and
- Page 59 and 60: Table 20. DTPA-extractable zinc and
- Page 61 and 62: In kharif jowar based cropping syst
- Page 63 and 64: Table 23. DTPA-extractable manganes
- Page 65: Table 25. DTPA-extractable manganes
- Page 69 and 70: In kharif jowar based cropping syst
- Page 71 and 72: 5.2 EFFECT OF ORGANIC FARMING ON PH
- Page 73 and 74: farmer under kharif jowar (10.90%),
- Page 75 and 76: consequent release of</stro
- Page 77 and 78: VII. REFERENCES ACHARYA, C. L., BIS
- Page 79 and 80: CHENKAI, 1993, Vetiver as a live bu
- Page 81 and 82: LAL, J. K., MISHRA, B. AND SARKAR,
- Page 83 and 84: RATHOD, V. E., SAGARE, B. N., RAVAN
- Page 85 and 86: TANDON, H. L. S., 1983, Fertilizer