Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the most
important tropical fruits of India. It is known as king of fruits.
It is the premier and choicest fruit of India. In Mango
production, India ranks first in the world with respect to
area (2.20 m.ha) and production (13.79 m.t) with productivity
of 6.3 t/ha (Indian horticulture Database, 2008). Mango
shares 38 % in area and 21.7% in production of total fruit
production of India and this offers bright prospects for
boosting the exports.

Chhattisgarh is one of the important mango growing
States of India. Most of the area of Chhattisgarh is rainfed
and has an immense potential to improve the mango
production. Under Chhattisgarh conditions, North Indian
varieties mature 15 to 20 days earlier, which results in better
market price. Most of the areas are under mango grown as
rainfed; it is therefore proposed to find out the optimum
water requirement under drip irrigation for mango and to
evaluate its effect on fruit yield & quality. Increasing demand
for highly efficient irrigation system calls for the use of drip
irrigation, which has also been found suitable under adverse
conditions of climate, soil and irrigation water (Singh et al.,
1989). Keeping the above in mind, the study was carried
out to understand the response of mango to drip irrigation
with and without polythene mulch.

Effect of drip irrigation and polythene mulch on the fruit yield and quality parameters
of mango (Mangifera indica L.)

 Hemant Kumar Panigrahi, Narendra Agrawal, R. Agrawal, Saket Dubey and S.P. Tiwari
Precision Farming Development Centre

Department of Horticulture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
 Raipur – 492 006,  India

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was carried out at Horticultural Research Farm, Precision Farming Development Centre,
Department of Horticulture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh during the year 2009-
2010 in Randomized Block Design with three replications and ten treatment combinations ( 100%, 80%, 60%, and
40% water through drip irrigation system with and without polythene mulch + Basin irrigation with and without
mulch). Fruits characters, yield and yield attributing parameter were higher under drip irrigation with 0.6 V volume
of water + polythene mulch (T8) and the same characters were lowest under control (Basin irrigation with V- volume
of water). Application of black plastic mulch with drip irrigation system can conserve moisture, check the growth of
weeds and improve the fruit yield and quality. Water use efficiency was higher under drip irrigation with 0.6 V volume
of water + polythene mulch and low under basin irrigation with V volume of water. The net income and benefit cost
ratio was also higher under the treatment T

8
 as compared to surface method of irrigation.

Key words: Mango, drip irrigation, mulching

Layout of Experiment

The study was a part of field experiment designed
to compare drip and conventional method of basin irrigation
at Precision Farming Development Centre, Department of
Horticulture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh during the year 2009-2010. The experiment
consisted of using treatments i.e., 100%, 80%, 60% and
40% of water (percentage in respect to water requirement
of crop) through drip irrigation system having with and
without plastic mulch (100 micron) and a control. The
distance between lateral-to-lateral was fixed as 10 m and
four emitters of different LPH in each plant is placed
according to recommended spacing of mango plants (10 m
row to row and plant to plant spacing). Experiment was
conducted on fifteen years old trees of mango cultivar
Dashehari. The treatments were replicated three times in
randomized block design. The soil of experimental field was
clay-loam which is locally known as Dorsa in the region in
which available N, P & K were 321.27, 30.83 and 200.02
kg/ha and soil pH was 7.31. The fertilizer doses of N: P: K
200:200:200 (g/tree/year) was applied through irrigation
water (fertigation) in two split doses whereas, for surface
irrigation system the fertilizer was sprayed after mixing with
water in two split doses. Standard cultural practices were

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 5 (2): 140-143, 2010

Short communication

Prinect Color Editor
Page is color controlled with Prinect Color Editor 4.0.70
Copyright 2008 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
http://www.heidelberg.com

You can view actual document colors and color spaces, with the free Color Editor (Viewer), a Plug-In from the Prinect PDF Toolbox. Please request a PDF Toolbox CD from your local Heidelberg office in order to install it on your computer.

Applied Color Management Settings:
Output Intent (Press Profile): ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc

RGB Image:
Profile: eciRGB.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

RGB Graphic:
Profile: RGB2CMYK.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Turn R=G=B (Tolerance 0.5%) Graphic into Gray: yes

Turn C=M=Y,K=0 (Tolerance 0.1%) Graphic into Gray: no
CMM for overprinting CMYK graphic: yes
Gray Image: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Gray Graphic: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Treat Calibrated RGB as Device RGB: no
Treat Calibrated Gray as Device Gray: yes
Remove embedded non-CMYK Profiles: no
Remove embedded CMYK Profiles: yes

Applied Miscellaneous Settings:
Colors to knockout: no
Gray to knockout: no
Pure black to overprint: no
Turn Overprint CMYK White to Knockout: yes
Turn Overprinting Device Gray to K: yes
CMYK Overprint mode: set to OPM1 if not set
Create "All" from 4x100% CMYK: yes
Delete "All" Colors: no
Convert "All" to K: no



141

also followed for mango cultivation. The observations on
yield and physico-chemical parameters of mango were
recorded to know the effect of drip irrigation and mulch.
The details of ten treatments are given below:

T
1
: Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water (control)

T
2
: Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water + polythene

mulch

T
3
: Drip irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water

T
4
: Drip irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water + polythene

mulch

T
5
: Drip irrigation with 0.8 V-volume of water

T
6
: Drip irrigation with 0.8 V-volume of water + polythene

mulch

T
7
: Drip irrigation with 0.6 V-volume of water

T
8
: Drip irrigation with 0.6 V-volume of water + polythene

mulch

T
9
: Drip irrigation with 0.4 V-volume of water

T
10

: Drip irrigation with 0.4 V-volume of water + polythene
mulch

Where V = Irrigation water requirement

Estimation of Emission Uniformity

Field emission uniformity takes into account the
uniformity of emitter discharge through the system. Keller
and Karmeli (1975) defined the emission uniformity as:

Average of lowest ¼ flow
Emission Uniformity = —————————— x 100

Average of all emitter flow

Estimation of Irrigation Water Requirement (V)

The depth of irrigation water for different treatments
was calculated depending on the potential evaporation.
Reference crop evapotranspiration (ET

0
) was calculated

using Modified Penman Method (Doorenbos, and Pruitt,
1977).  The crop co-efficient (Kc) for different growth
stages of mango was selected. The actual crop
evapotranspiration was estimated by multiplying the
reference crop evapotranspiration, crop co-efficient, area
under each plant and wetting fraction.

 The quantity of water to be applied was estimated
by using the following equation:

V = ETo x Kc x Ap – (Ap x Re)

Where,

V = Net depth of irrigation (litre/day/plant)

ETo = Reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day)

Kc = Crop co-efficient

Ap = A x W = Effective area to be irrigated (Sq.m)

A = Area allocated to each plant, 36 sqm apprx.

W = Wetting fraction (0.3-0.5 for fruit crop)

Re = Effective rainfall (mm/day).

  Drip irrigation was scheduled on alternate days;
hence total quantity of water delivered was cumulative water
requirement of two days minus effective rainfall (if rain
occurred). The duration of delivery of water to each
treatment was controlled with the help of gate valves provided
at the inlet of each lateral. In case of basin irrigation,
irrigation was scheduled at weekly interval. The cumulative
depth of water required for seven days was estimated and
supplied to each plant. The water (through surface method
of irrigation) was directly applied in the basin with the help
of PVC pipes.

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Benefit-cost analysis was carried out to determine
the economic feasibility of using the drip irrigation. The
interest rate and repair and maintenance cost of the system
were 12% and 1% per annum of the fixed cost respectively.
The useful life of drip system was considered to be 8 years.
The cost of cultivation includes expenses incurred in field
preparation, cost of grafted plants, fertilizer, weeding, crop
protection, irrigation water and harvesting charges. The
income from produce was estimated using prevailing average
market price as Rs. 2000 /quintal for drip irrigated with
polythene mulch, Rs. 1500/ quintal for drip irrigated without
mulch and Rs. 1200/ quintal for surface irrigated, the
difference in rates was due to better quality of produce found
through drip with mulch as compared to without mulch and
surface irrigation.  The benefit–cost ratio, from mango
cultivation over 1 ha was estimated. The data were analysed
statistically as per standard procedure.

Fruit yield and quality

           Data on yield with different irrigation
treatments are presented in Table –1. Drip irrigation with
60 % V-volume of water + mulch (T

8
) recorded the

maximum yield (59.92 q/ha) as compared to other treatments
and the yield was lowest in control (26.95 q/ha). The yield

Effect of drip irrigation and polythene mulch on mango

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 5 (2): 140-143, 2010

Prinect Color Editor
Page is color controlled with Prinect Color Editor 4.0.70
Copyright 2008 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
http://www.heidelberg.com

You can view actual document colors and color spaces, with the free Color Editor (Viewer), a Plug-In from the Prinect PDF Toolbox. Please request a PDF Toolbox CD from your local Heidelberg office in order to install it on your computer.

Applied Color Management Settings:
Output Intent (Press Profile): ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc

RGB Image:
Profile: eciRGB.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

RGB Graphic:
Profile: RGB2CMYK.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Turn R=G=B (Tolerance 0.5%) Graphic into Gray: yes

Turn C=M=Y,K=0 (Tolerance 0.1%) Graphic into Gray: no
CMM for overprinting CMYK graphic: yes
Gray Image: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Gray Graphic: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Treat Calibrated RGB as Device RGB: no
Treat Calibrated Gray as Device Gray: yes
Remove embedded non-CMYK Profiles: no
Remove embedded CMYK Profiles: yes

Applied Miscellaneous Settings:
Colors to knockout: no
Gray to knockout: no
Pure black to overprint: no
Turn Overprint CMYK White to Knockout: yes
Turn Overprinting Device Gray to K: yes
CMYK Overprint mode: set to OPM1 if not set
Create "All" from 4x100% CMYK: yes
Delete "All" Colors: no
Convert "All" to K: no



142

increase was 122.26% over control. This could be due to
the water stress the plant has to undergo before the next
irrigation. But in case of drip irrigation water is made available
in the root zone there by reducing the water stress pressure
directly near (Bankar et al, 1993).

The variation in water applied for different
treatments was due to the variation in pan evaporation and
rainfall pattern, as the quantity of water applied was based
on pan evaporation. It was observed from the Table-1, that
drip irrigation treatments with replenishing 60% of water
requirement or the depth of water (18.67cm) given to the
plant was optimum for the growth and fruit yield as compared
to the surface irrigation. Water required for drip irrigation
was lower than that of surface irrigation.

Water Use Efficiency

The irrigation water use efficiency for different
treatments was computed from fruit yield and water applied
(Table–1). The irrigation water use efficiency in drip irrigation
treatments with 0.6 V-volume of water with polythene mulch

was maximum (3.21 q/ha-cm) followed by drip irrigation
with 0.4 V (1.75 q/ha-cm), 0.6V (2.29 q/ha-cm) and 0.8 V
(1.65 q/ha-cm) volume of water. The water use efficiency
was lowest in control treatment (0.98 q/ha-cm). The
irrigation water use efficiencies of 60% water through drip
with black polythene mulch was nearly 3.27 times the water
use efficiencies of surface irrigation treatment. Srivastava
et al (1999) reported that with the highest water application
it recorded the lowest water use efficiency. The emission
uniformity was highest under drip irrigation with 0.6 V-
volume of water + polythene mulch (95.35%) and lowest in
basin irrigation with V-volume of water (85.10%).

Fruit quality attributes

The TSS, pulp and moisture content were highest
under drip irrigated treatment of 0.6 V volume of water
with black polythene mulch and lowest in control. But the
peel, stone and acidity were lowest in the same treatment
and highest in control, which is better in reference to quality
for any fruit crop. Patel and Patel (1998) reported that the
increase in yield was mainly because of better growth, bigger
size and more juice content in the fruits under drip-irrigated
plants. Similarly the weed control percentage was higher
under treatment T

8
 (90.20%) and lowest in control (13.67%).

Economic-Feasibility

Maximum net returns of Rs. 88,709/ha with B: C
ratio of 2.84 was recorded when mango crop were irrigated
with 0.6 V-volume of water through drip irrigation +
polythene mulch (Table–3). However, in drip irrigated
polythene mulch treatments T

4,
 T

6
 and T

10,
 the net returns

of Rs. 58,709/ha, Rs. 74,769/ha and Rs. 45,069/ha were
obtained with B: C ratio of 1.88, 2.40 and 1.45 respectively.
While in case of surface irrigation without mulch the net
return of Rs. 12,340/ha was lowest with B: C ratio of 0.61.

Table 1. Effect of irrigation levels on the yield and yield parameters of mango

Treatments Water Length of Breadth No. of Av. Fruit Yield (q/ha) Increase Water use Emission
applied  fruits  of fruits fruits/ Weight(g)  in yield (%) efficiency Uniformity(%)

(cm) (cm) (cm) plant (q/ha-cm)

T
1

27.50 6.81 4.53 194.31 138.70 26.95 - 0.98 85.10
T

2
27.28 6.95 4.95 222.67 142.15 31.65 17.43 1.16 85.25

T
3

26.32 6.98 4.04 360.27 125.68 45.27 67.99 1.72 87.24
T

4
25.67 8.71 5.13 293.14 153.25 44.92 66.60 1.75 90.25

T
5

23.95 7.07 4.68 278.71 146.12 40.72 51.12 1.70 90.80
T

6
23.12 8.82 5.24 328.53 161.18 52.95 96.47 2.29 93.12

T
7

23.32 8.01 4.90 239.30 148.19 35.46 31.53 1.52 92.72
T

8
18.67 8.89 5.82 366.17 163.65 59.92 122.26 3.21 95.35

T
9

25.70 8.14 4.45 225.23 141.55 31.88 18.27 1.24 91.43
T

1 0
23.09 8.04 4.85 262.08 145.39 38.10 41.37 1.65 93.40

CD at (P=0.05) 0.954 0.378 0.210 27.96 4.41 1.12 - 0.102 0.962

Table 2. Effect of irrigation levels on physico-chemical composition
of fruits

Treatments Pulp TSS Peel Stone Acidity Weed
(%) (Brix) (%) (%) (%) Control

(%)

T
1

64.25 17.50 19.25 20.32 0.268 13.67
T

2
65.98 19.50 14.68 19.31 0.210 54.35

T
3

67.98 18.50 12.98 19.04 0.230 34.56
T

4
70.33 20.25 14.08 19.00 0.209 65.39

T
5

68.24 19.98 14.70 19.10 0.228 29.62
T

6
71.58 22.65 13.10 15.32 0.190 85.98

T
7

67.95 21.05 13.02 17.06 0.223 32.10
T

8
72.60 23.35 12.95 14.38 0.178 90.20

T
9

64.00 18.98 15.68 16.50 0.216 30.73
T

1 0
61.72 20.98 15.68 15.54 0.226 68.32

CD at 1.42 0.840 0.903 0.945 NS 12.29
(P=0.05)

Hemant Kumar Panigrahi et al

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 5 (2): 140-143, 2010

Prinect Color Editor
Page is color controlled with Prinect Color Editor 4.0.70
Copyright 2008 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
http://www.heidelberg.com

You can view actual document colors and color spaces, with the free Color Editor (Viewer), a Plug-In from the Prinect PDF Toolbox. Please request a PDF Toolbox CD from your local Heidelberg office in order to install it on your computer.

Applied Color Management Settings:
Output Intent (Press Profile): ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc

RGB Image:
Profile: eciRGB.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

RGB Graphic:
Profile: RGB2CMYK.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Turn R=G=B (Tolerance 0.5%) Graphic into Gray: yes

Turn C=M=Y,K=0 (Tolerance 0.1%) Graphic into Gray: no
CMM for overprinting CMYK graphic: yes
Gray Image: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Gray Graphic: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Treat Calibrated RGB as Device RGB: no
Treat Calibrated Gray as Device Gray: yes
Remove embedded non-CMYK Profiles: no
Remove embedded CMYK Profiles: yes

Applied Miscellaneous Settings:
Colors to knockout: no
Gray to knockout: no
Pure black to overprint: no
Turn Overprint CMYK White to Knockout: yes
Turn Overprinting Device Gray to K: yes
CMYK Overprint mode: set to OPM1 if not set
Create "All" from 4x100% CMYK: yes
Delete "All" Colors: no
Convert "All" to K: no



143

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors are thankful to the National Committee on
the Use of Plasticulture Application in Horticulture
(NCPAH), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India for providing
the necessary funds to conduct this research.

REFERENCES

Banker, M.C., Mane, M.C., Khade, K.K. and Kanjle, S.T.
1993. Comparative performance of drip vs
conventional method of irrigation on banana. Procs.
All India Symposium on Sprinkler and drip
irrigation, 9-10 IEI: 89-92

Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W.O. 1977. Guidelines for
predicting crop water requirements. FAO, Irrigation
and Drainage, Paper no. 24, Rome, Italy

Keller, J. and Karmeli, D. 1975. Trickle irrigation design
Rain Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Company.
California, USA

Patel, N.M. and Patel, M.M. 1998. Water requirement of
pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv. Ganesh for
better yield under resources limited situations.
National Seminar on new horizons in production
and post harvest management of tropical and
subtropical fruits, Delhi, Dec. 8-9

Table 3. Cost analysis of mango

S.No. Particular/Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

1. Fixed costa. Cost of system - - 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
b. Life (yrs.) - - 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
c. Depreciation - - 3375 3375 3375 3375 3375 3375 3375 3375
d. Interest cost@ 12 % - - 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240

2. Operation coste. Repair - - 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700
& Maintenance @ 1 %

3. Total operational cost (Rs.) - - 9315 9315 9315 9315 9315 9315 9315 9315
4. a. Cost of mulching - 7816 - 7816 - 7816 - 7816 - 7816

b. Cost of cultivation 14,000+6,000* 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000
5.  Total cost of cultivation 20,000 21,816 23,315 31,131 23,315 31,131 23,315 31,131 23,315 31,131

(Rs.) 3+4(a+b)
6. Yield (q/ha) 26.95 31.65 45.27 44.92 40.72 52.95 35.46 59.92 31.88 38.10
7. Selling price (Rs./q.) 1200 1200 1500 2000 1500 2000 1500 2000 1500 2000
8. Income from produce (Rs.) 32,340 37,980 67,905 89,840 61,080 1,05900 53,190 1,19,840 47,820 76,200
9. Net Return (Rs.) 12,340 16,164 44,590 58,709 37,765 74,769 29,875 88,709 24,505 45,069
10. B: C Ratio 0.61 0.74 1.91 1.88 1.62 2.40 1.28 2.84 1.05 1.45

* In surface irrigation without mulch labour charges are extra for weeding, fertilizer application etc.

Singh, S.D. and Singh, 1978. Value of drip irrigation
compared with conventional irrigation for vegetable
production in hot and arid climate. Agron., 70 : 23-27

Singh, R.K., Sulieman, A.D. and Karim 1989. Movement
of salt and water under trickle irrigation and its field
evaluation. J. Agric. Engg., 26: 49-51

Sivanappan, R.K. 1993. Increased production and income
in banana crop through drip irrigation-a case study.
Technical Journal, All India Symp. on Spriakla and
drip irrigation IEI, 21 Jan: 105-106, 112

Srinivas, K. and Hedge, D.M. 1990. Drip irrigation studies
in Banana. Procs. XI International Congress. pp.
151-157

Subramanian, P., Krishnaswamy, S. and Devasagayam,
M.M. 1997. Studies on the evaluation of drip irrigation
in comparison with surface irrigation in coconut.
South Ind. Hort., 45: 255-58

Srivastava, P.K., Parikh, M.M., Sawani, N.G. and Raman,
S. 1999. Response of banana to drip irrigation,
mulches and irrigation scheduling in South Gujarat.
Agril. Engg. Today, 23 : 29-38

*Wolf, P.1982. Zwei Jahrzehnte Tropfbewasserungeiner
Zwishenbilanz, Zeitshrift far, Bewasserung-
swirtschaft, 17: 3-16

(MS Received 10 August 2010, Revised 22 December 2010)

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 5 (2): 140-143, 2010

Effect of drip irrigation and polythene mulch on mango

Prinect Color Editor
Page is color controlled with Prinect Color Editor 4.0.70
Copyright 2008 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
http://www.heidelberg.com

You can view actual document colors and color spaces, with the free Color Editor (Viewer), a Plug-In from the Prinect PDF Toolbox. Please request a PDF Toolbox CD from your local Heidelberg office in order to install it on your computer.

Applied Color Management Settings:
Output Intent (Press Profile): ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc

RGB Image:
Profile: eciRGB.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

RGB Graphic:
Profile: RGB2CMYK.icc
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent RGB/Lab Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Image:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Device Independent CMYK/Gray Graphic:
Rendering Intent: Perceptual
Black Point Compensation: no

Turn R=G=B (Tolerance 0.5%) Graphic into Gray: yes

Turn C=M=Y,K=0 (Tolerance 0.1%) Graphic into Gray: no
CMM for overprinting CMYK graphic: yes
Gray Image: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Gray Graphic: Apply CMYK Profile: no
Treat Calibrated RGB as Device RGB: no
Treat Calibrated Gray as Device Gray: yes
Remove embedded non-CMYK Profiles: no
Remove embedded CMYK Profiles: yes

Applied Miscellaneous Settings:
Colors to knockout: no
Gray to knockout: no
Pure black to overprint: no
Turn Overprint CMYK White to Knockout: yes
Turn Overprinting Device Gray to K: yes
CMYK Overprint mode: set to OPM1 if not set
Create "All" from 4x100% CMYK: yes
Delete "All" Colors: no
Convert "All" to K: no