Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
mung bean grain over the control (Table 9). In 2007, FYM, VC, and FYM
+ CR had no significant effect on the protein yield of mung bean, whereas
VC + CR, FYM + CR + B, and VC + CR + B were at par with FYM, VC,
and FYM + CR and increased the protein yield of mung bean over the con-
trol significantly. In 2008, FYM and VC had no significant effect on pro-
tein yield of mung bean, whereas FYM + CR, VC + CR, FYM + CR + B,
and VC + CR + B being at par and significantly increased the protein yield
of mung bean over the control. Dhaliwal et al. (2007) reported that the N
and protein contents of seed in mung bean were significantly higher with
both RFD (recommended fertilizer dose + residue incorporation over the
chemical fertilizer treatments, being statistically on par with each other).
TABLE 10:
Effect of treatments on economics (×10
3
Rs ha
−1
) of cultivation of mung bean
Gross return
Cost of cultivation
Net return
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
Organic materials and biofertilizers
Control
23.4
26.2
5.16
5.27
18.2
20.9
FYM
25.4
28.9
5.16
5.27
20.3
23.6
VC
26.2
30.1
5.16
5.27
21.0
24.8
FYM + CR
31.3
36.1
11.16
11.27
20.1
24.8
VC + CR
32.4
37.6
11.16
11.27
21.2
26.4
FYM + CR + B
33.0
38.3
11.34
11.45
21.7
26.9
VC + CR + B
34.1
39.2
11.34
11.45
22.8
27.8
SEM±
0.50
0.53
-
-
0.39
0.44
LSD (p = 0.05)
1.55
1.63
-
-
1.17
1.32
SEM±, standard error of the mean; LSD, least significant difference; Rs, Indian Rupees
(Rs 1 = $0.0224).
6.3.7 ECONOMICS
In both years, FYM and VC were at par and significantly (p = 0.05) in-
creased the gross income from mung bean over the control. Similarly,
FYM + CR and VC + CR being at par and significantly increased the gross
