Impaginato 81 1. Introduction Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is the most impor- tant tropical fruit and considered king of all the fruits in India. The fruits are a rich source of iron and vari- ous anti-oxidants. In addition, mango is a rich source of vitamin A, E and selenium, which help to protect against heart disease and other such related ali- ments. Nowadays, continuous use of chemical fertil- izer without organic manure causes problems of soil health and fruit quality. Fruit qualities are being dete- riorated through the use of chemical fertilizers (Huyskens-Keil and Schreiner, 2003). Organic farming is currently gaining gradual momentum worldwide with growing awareness of health and environmental issues in agriculture and consumers demanding the production of organic fruit, thus offering an attrac- tive source of rural income. Organic farming in India has attracted many farmers throughout the country and different fruit crops like banana, papaya, pineap- p l e a n d s a p o t a h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y t e s t e d . According to Neuhoff et al. (2011) working with oranges and Ilic et al. (2013) tomato, organically grown fruits are rich in various minerals such as P, K, Ca and Mg. Soil microbes were found to increase in organic systems compared to the conventional sys- tem of planting (Dutta and Kundu, 2011). However, the influence of organic, inorganic, and biofertilizer on growth characters and fruit quality of mango and soil properties are not well documented. Hence, a study was initiated to evaluate their effect on fruit quality and soil properties. 2. Materials and Methods T h e s t u d y w a s c o n d u c t e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y Research station, Gayeshpur, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, India on 11 years old tree of mango cv. Himsagar with 10×10 m spacing. The following eight treatments were imposed: V e r m i c o m p o s t a t 5 k g / p l a n t / y e a r , F Y M a t 1 0 k g / p l a n t / y e a r , i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r ( N P K a t 1000:500:1000 g/plant/year), 50% Vermicompost + Adv. Hort. Sci., 2016 30(2): 81-85 DOI: 10.13128/ahs-19133 Influence of organics, inorganic and biofertilizers on growth, fruit quality, and soil characters of Himsagar mango grown in new alluvial zone of West Bengal, India P. Dutta (*), K. Das, A. Patel Department of Fruits and Orchard Management, Faculty of Horticulture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, P.O. Mohanpur, 741252 Dt. Nadia, West Bengal, India. Key words: growth characters, Mangifera indica, quality, shelf life, soil microbial population. Abstract: A field study with organic manures, inorganic manures and biofertilizers alone and in combination was carried out on 11-year-old mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Himsagar spaced 10 m apart in a randomized block design at the University Research Station, Gayeshpur, BCKV, West Bengal, India. The objective was to determine their effect on growth, soil characters, and fruit quality of mango grown in a new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Respiration, physiologi- cal loss in weight (PLW) and shelf life at ambient room temperatures, and soil characters were also assessed. Results revealed that among the eight treatments, biofertiliser (Azotobacter + PSM) along with 50% inorganic fertilizer signifi- cantly increased the growth characters of mango trees. This treatment also increased the physico-chemical character of fruit while biofertilizers alone improved the fruit quality, viz. total soluble solids, total sugar and β-carotene. Fruits treat- ed with biofertilizers also had increased shelf life with lower PLW and respiration rate. Soil microbial population and other soil characters were improved by application of biofertilizer as well. It is concluded that biofertilizer application in mango gives better growth, fruit quality, and soil health. (*) Corresponding author: pallab_bckv@rediffmail.com Received for publication 9 August 2015 Accepted for publication 11 April 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2016 30(2): 81-85 82 50% inorganic fertilizer, 50% FYM+50% inorganic fer- tilizer, Biofertilizer (Azotobacter at 150 g/plant) + PSM at 100 g/plant), Biofertilizer + 50% inorganic fer- tilizer, and control (no treatment). Treatments were applied separately in split doses, once at fruit set and another at harvest The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design with three replications. Mature fruits were harvested and brought to the lab- oratory for physico-chemical analyses following all standard procedures as described by Ranganna (2000). Total soluble solids were determined using a hand refractometer (0-32°brix). Total soluble sugar content was analysed using Fehlings’ A and B solution, according to the method described by Ranganna (2000) and expressed as percentage. In this method, for inversion of room temperature an aliquot of clar- ied and diluted solution was transferred for a flask. 10 ml of HCl (1:1) was added and allowed to stand at room temperature for 24 hrs. The solution was then neutralized with concentrated NaOH solution and made to volume. An aliquot was taken and the total soluble sugars were determined as invert sugars using Fehling’s A and B solution. Titratable acidity (% malic acid) was estimated by titrating fruit juice (5 ml) to pH 8 against 0.1 M NaoH using phenolphtha- lene as indicator. Total carotenoids were estimated by the method described by Ranganna (2000). Five grams of fresh sample were taken, a few crystals of anhydrous sodium sulphate were added, and then crushed in 10 ml acetone with the help of a mortar and pestle. The supernatant was decanted into a beaker. The process was repeated twice or thrice and the combined supernatant was transferred to a sepa- rating funnel out on standing. Petroleum ether (10 to 15 ml) was added in the separating funnel and rinsed, the pigment was then transferred to the petroleum ether phase by diluting the acetone with water or water containing 5% sodium sulphate. The extraction of the acetone phase with a small volume of petroleum ether was repeated, if necessary, until no more colour was extracted. The lower layer was discarded and the upper layer was collected in a 100 ml volumetric flask. The petroleum ether extract was filtered through anhydrous Na2SO4 and the volume was made up to 100 ml with petroleum ether. The optical density was recorded at 452 nm using petro- leum ether as blank containing 3 ml acetone per 100 ml and expressed as µg 100 g-1 pulp. As carotenoids are light sensitive, all steps were performed under subdued light. Shelf life was determined at ambient room temperature (34±1°C). The CO2 evolution of fruits was determined by titration of residual Ba(OH)2 i n t h e s o l u t i o n w i t h s t a n d a r d i z e d N / 1 0 H C l a s described by Mitra et al. (1971). Growth characters such as plant height, plant spread, and trunk girth were measured after fruit harvest. Soil properties were recorded as per the standard procedure given by Black (1965). Soil microbial population was count- ed using the method described by Collin and Lyne (1985). Statistical analysis was carried out according to the standard procedures. 3. Results and Discussion Growth parameters Table 1 reveals that different nutrient treatments significantly increased plant height, canopy, spread, and trunk girth. Biofertilizer + half inorganic fertilizer gave maximum (6.72 m) plant height, canopy spread (6.37×6.92 m), and trunk girth (79.32 cm), followed by Vermicompost (2.5 kg/plant/year) + half chemical fertilizer (RDF-NPK at 1000:500:1000 g/plant/year); Treatments Plant height (m) Canopy spread Trunk girth (cm) (m) E-W N-S 1. Vermicompost (5 kg/plant) 5.99 5.49 5.12 69.72 2. FYM (10 kg/plant) 6.10 5.97 6.14 72.11 3. Inorganic fertilizer (NPK- 1000:500:1000 g/plant/yr.) 6.00 5.97 6.11 73.72 4. 50% Vermicompost + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.24 6.12 6.31 70.47 5. 50% FYM + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.11 6.00 6.09 73.15 6. Biofertilizer (Azotobacter @ 150g/plant + PSM @ 100 g/plant) 5.99 5.84 5.91 70.37 7. Biofertilizer + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.72 6.37 6.92 79.32 8. Control 5.97 5.82 5.90 71.41 SEM± 1.01 0.72 1.11 2.40 CD (P=0.05) 3.11 1.92 3.31 3.14 Table 1 - Growth characters of mango cv. Himsagar as influenced by inorganic and organic manures Dutta et al. - Organics, inorganic and biofertilizer influence on growth, quality and soil characters of Himsangar mango. 83 the lowest measurements for these three parame- ters were found in untreated control plants. Korwar et al. (2006) in Aonla and Shukla et al. (2009) in guava obtained similar results. These findings may be due to a better nutritional environment: application of organic matter improves soil health by improving t h e p h y s i c o - c h e m i c a l a n d b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s (Schnitizer, 1991) and biofertilizer was found to enhance the rate of mineralization and availability of the nutrients, further enhancing plant growth (Sahoo and Singh, 2005). Physico-chemical composition of fruit D i f f e r e n t n u t r i e n t t r e a t m e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved the physico-chemical composition of fruits (Table 2). Biofertilizer + half of inorganic fertilizer produced maximum fruit weight (285.15 g), yield (57.20 kg/plant), fruit length/breath (9.14/8.19 cm), followed by biofertlizer alone. Also with regard to fruits, control trees gave minimum results. Unlike the physical characters, the bio-chemical composition of fruits was more effected by biofertilizer alone. Biofertilizer (Azotobacter @ 150 g/plant + PSM @ 100 g/plant/year) gave maximum total soluble solids (19.80°brix, total sugar (16.00%) and β-carotene (6123 µg/100 g) with minimum (0.16%) acidity. Fruits treated with inorganic fertilizers showed minimum total solids (18.20°brix) and β-carotene (4792 µg/100 g) with maximum (0.31%) acidity. Results revealed that fruits grown under organic manure/biofertilizer had better fruit quality. The increase in physico- chemical parameters in fruits due to bio-fertilizer might be because of their role in nitrogen fixation, production of phytohormone-like substances and increased uptake of nitrogen as reported by Dutta and Kundu (2012). Furthermore, micro-organisms are an important component of soil environment (Arshad and Frankemberger, 1992). Thus, utilization of biofer- tilizer could be a better preposition for improving biological attributes of soil, which in turn may increase quality and productivity potential of various crops as reported by Allen et al. (2002). Soil nutrient status and soil bacterial population D i f f e r e n t n u t r i e n t t r e a t m e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the soil pH and soil organic carbon (Table 3). Biofertilizer alone gave maximum (6.70) soil pH while inorganic fertilizer-treated soil the minimum Table 2 - Fruit quality of Himsagar mango as influenced by inorganic and organic manures Treatments Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/plant) Fruit length/breadth (cm) TSS (°Brix) Total Sugar (%) Acidity (%) β Carotene (µg/100g) 1. Vermicompost (5 kg/plant) 250.00 50.95 8.40/7.29 18.70 16.12 0.14 5720 2. FYM (10 kg/plant) 151.42 50.35 8.31/7.31 18.90 15.91 0.17 5824 3. Inorganic fertilizer (NPK- 1000:500:1000 g/plant/yr) 248.43 51.75 8.00/7.44 18.20 15.33 0.31 4792 4. 50% Vermicompost + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 265.14 53.92 9.11/8.12 19.00 15.11 0.25 5012 5. 50% FYM + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 270.00 54.98 9.00/8.15 19.10 15.23 0.26 5170 6. Biofertilizer (Azotobacter @ 150 g/plant + PSM @ 100 g/plant) 270.40 54.12 8.99/85.16 19.80 16.00 0.16 6123 7. Biofertilizer + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 285.15 57.20 9.14/8.19 19.60 15.92 0.18 5814 8. Control 240.40 48.00 8.10/7.60 18.00 14.94 0.19 4914 SEM± 1.15 0.70 1.01/0.72 0.51 0.07 0.01 4.31 CD (P=0.05) 3.72 2.10 3.11/1.97 1.37 0.21 0.03 12.39 Treatments pH EC (1:2.5) (dSm-1) Bulk density (g/cc) OC (%) Soil microbial population (Bacteria) (cfug-1 soil) 1. Vermicompost (5 kg/plant) 6.57 0.263 1.21 0.90 1.6 × 106 2. FYM (10 kg/plant) 6.59 0.137 1.29 0.84 5.9× 106 3. Inorganic fertilizer (NPK- 1000:500:1000 g/plant/yr.) 6.00 0.171 1.49 0.61 4.3× 105 4. 50% Vermicompost + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.45 0.214 1.12 0.72 5.1× 106 5. 50% FYM + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.42 0.219 1.41 0.74 5.4× 106 6. Biofertilizer (Azotobacter @ 50 g/plant + PSM @ 100 g/plant) 6.70 0.198 1.31 0.78 8.3× 106 7. Biofertilizer + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 6.42 0.197 1.27 0.74 6.0× 106 8. Control 6.10 0.111 1.69 0.60 6.9× 105 SEM± 0.13 0.70 0.03 0.02 4.72 CD (P=0.05) 0.39 2.10 0.09 0.07 14.43 Table 3 - Soil characters as influenced by inorganic and organic manures Adv. Hort. Sci., 2016 30(2): 81-85 84 (6.00). Organic carbon content of soil also varied sig- nificantly. Vermicompost or FYM-treated soil gave maximum (0.90/0.84%) content of organic carbon, followed by biofertilizer-treated soil (0.78%). Soil organic carbon was at the lowest level in untreated control. The increase in organic carbon of soil may be due to the addition of organic matter through organ- ic manure or microbes and recycling of organic mate- rials in the form of crop residue, which brings the soil pH nearer to neutral and increases the nutrient avail- ability. Our results are in close conformity with earli- er findings (Dutta and Kundu, 2012). The effective conductivity (EC) of soil solution depends on the presence of soluble salts. The concentrations of these salts affect the growth and absorption of water. Different treatments significantly influenced the EC of soil. Application of Vermicompost led to the high- est EC (0.263 dSm-1) in this study, whereas the con- trol plot gave the lowest. This could be due to the fact that Vermicompost contains salts, mostly Cl and SO4, but not at toxic levels (Masciandaro et al., 1998). Bulk density varied due to different treat- ments, with the untreated control giving maximum bulk density (1.69 g/cc) of soil. The soil microbial population varied with the different treatments: the m a x i m u m ( 8 . 3 x 1 0 6 c f u g - 1 s o i l ) w a s f o u n d w i t h Biofertilizer (Azotobacter at 50 g/plant + PSM at 100 g/plant). Soil applied with biofertilizer showed more s o i l b a c t e r i a , w h e r e a s l e a s t w a s f o r m e d b y V e r m i c o m p o s t ( T a b l e 3 ) . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s w e r e obtained by Dutta et al. (2010) in litchi. PLW, shelf life and respiration of fruit Physiological loss in weight (PLW) of fruit varied significantly among the different treatments (Table 4). Untreated fruit had the highest (18.95%) PLW while the lowest was found with fruit grown in biofertilizer (11.31%). Fruits grown in biofertilizer showed maximum (10 days) shelf life with minimum respiration rate (109.72 mg/hr/kg fruit) during stor- age. Untreated control fruit recorded maximum res- piration and PLW with minimum shelf life (5 days). Improvement of shelf life due to application of biofertilizer was previously reported in mango (Dutta and Kundu, 2012). 4. Conclusions The present study reveals that application of organic and biofertilizer are more beneficial for qual- ity mango production and increase soil health. Therefore, this approach can be spread among grow- ers to improve the quality in mango orchards. References ALLEN M.F., JASPER D.A., ZAK J.C., 2002 - Microorganism, pp. 257-278. - In: PERROW M.R., and A.J. DAVY (eds.) Handbook of ecological restoration. Volune I. Principles of Restoration. Part 4. Manupulation of the biota. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 445. ARSHAD M., FRANKEMBERGER JR. W.T., 1992 - Microbial production of plant growth regulators, pp. 307-348. - In: MEETING F.B. Jr. (ed.) Soil microbial ecology. Application in agricultural and environmental manage- ment. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, USA. BLACK C.A., 1965 - Method of soil analysis. - Amer. Soc. of Agron. Inc. Publisher, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Vol. 9, Parts 1 & 2, pp. 1572. COLLIN C.H., LYNE P.M., 1985 - Microbiological methods. - Butterworth Co., London, UK, pp. 450. DUTTA P., KUNDU S., 2011 - Effect of organic manure and b i o f e r t i l i z e r s o n o r g a n i c p r o d u c t i o n o f m a n g o . - Treatment PLW (%) Shelf life (days) Respiration CO 2 evolution (mg/hr/kg fruit) 1. Vermicompost (5 kg/plant) 12.62 8 120.41 2. FYM (10 kg/plant) 12.44 9 118.32 3. Inorganic fertilizer (NPK- 1000:500:1000 g/plant/yr.) 17.92 6 170.41 4. 50% Vermicompost + 50 % Inorganic fertilizer 14.31 7 150.37 5. 50 % FYM + 50 % Inorganic fertilizer 14.45 2 159.37 6. Biofertilizer (Azotobacter @ 150 g/plant + PSM @ 100 g/plant) 11.31 10 109.72 7. Biofertilizer + 50% Inorganic fertilizer 13.00 8 122.14 8. Control 18.95 5 163.14 SEM± 1.10 0.61 4.11 CD (P=0.05) 3.42 1.82 12.12 Table 4 - PLW, shelf life and respiration of fruit at the end of storage life as affected by inorganic and organic manures Dutta et al. - Organics, inorganic and biofertilizer influence on growth, quality and soil characters of Himsangar mango. 85 Proceedings of the third scientific conference of ISO- FAR, 1: 475-478. DUTTA P., KUNDU S., 2012 - Effect of biofertilizers on nutri- ent status and fruit quality of Himsagar mango grown in new alluvial zones of West Bengal. - J. Crop Weed Sci., 8(1): 72-74. DUTTA P., KUNDU S., BISWAS S., 2010 - Integrated nutrient management in litchi cv. Bombai in new alluvgial zone of West Bengal. - Indian J. Hort., 67: 181-184. HUYSKENS-KEIL S., SCHREINER M., 2003 - Quality of fruit and vegetable. - J. Appl. Bot., 77: 147-151. I L I C Z . S . , K A P O U L A S N . , M I L E N K O V I C L . , 2 0 1 3 - Micronutrient composition and quality characteristics of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) from convention- al and organic production. - Indian J. Agric. Sci., 83: 651-655. KORWAR G.R., PRATIBHA G., RAVI V., PALANIKUMAR D., 2006 - Influence of organics and inorganics on growth, yield of aonla (Emblica officinalis) and soil quality in semi-arid tropics. - Indian J. Agric. Sci., 76: 457-461. M A S C I A N D A R O G . , C E C C A N T I B . , G A R C I A C . , 1 9 9 8 - Changes in soil biochemical and cracting properties induced by living much system. - Canadian J. Soil Sci., 77: 579-589. MITRA D., GUHA J., CHAUDHURI S.K., 1971 - Studies in Botany. - Vol, II, Moulik library, Kolkata, India. N E U H O F F D . , V L A T S C H K O V V . , R A I G O N D . , 2 0 1 1 - Comparison of the quality of conventionally and organi- cally grown oranges in Spain. - Proceedings of the third scientific conference of ISOFAR, pp. 487-490. RANGANNA S., 2000 - Manual of analysis of fruits and veg- etables Products. - Tata McGrow Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. 3rd Ed. New Delhi, India. SAHOO S.K., SINGH D.B., 2005 - Effect of different level of biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of strawberry (Fragania ananassa Duch) cv. Sweet Charley. - The Orissa J. Hort., 33: 82-85. SCHNITIZER M., 1991 - Soil organic matter in the next 75 years. - Soil Sci., 151: 41-59. SHUKLA A.K., SAROLIA D.K., BHAVANA K., KAUSHIK R.A., MAHAWER L.N., BAIRWA H.L., 2009 - Evaluation of Substrate dynamics for integrated nutrient manage- ment under high density planting of guava cv. Sardar. - Indian J. Hort., 66: 461-464.