{"id":1173,"date":"2015-03-25T09:05:42","date_gmt":"2015-03-25T09:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=1173"},"modified":"2020-04-25T10:44:19","modified_gmt":"2020-04-25T10:44:19","slug":"studies-on-the-impact-of-irrigation-of-distillery-spentwash-on-the-yields-of-tuberroot-medicinal-plants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol3no1\/studies-on-the-impact-of-irrigation-of-distillery-spentwash-on-the-yields-of-tuberroot-medicinal-plants\/","title":{"rendered":"Studies on the Impact of Irrigation of Distillery Spentwash on the Yields of Tuber\/Root Medicinal Plants"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Molasses (one of the important byproducts of sugar industry) is the chief source for the production of ethanol in distilleries by fermentation method. About 08 (eight) liters of wastewater is discharged for every liter of ethanol production in distilleries, known as raw spentwash (RSW), which is characterized by high biological oxygen demand (BOD: 5000-8000mg\/L) and chemical oxygen demand (COD: 25000-30000mg\/L))\u00a0 <\/sup>, undesirable color and foul smell (Joshi,1994). Discharge of raw spentwash into open land or near by water bodies is a serious problem since it results in a number of environmental, water and soil pollution including threat to plant and animal lives. The RSW is highly acidic and contains easily oxidisable organic matter with very high BOD and COD (Patil, 1987). Also, spentwash contains high organic nitrogen and nutrients (Ramadurai and Gearard, 1994). By installing biomethenation plant in distilleries, reduces the oxygen demand of RSW, the resulting spentwash is called primary treated spent wash (PTSW) and primary treatment to RSW increases the nitrogen (N), potassium (K), and phosphorous (P) contents and decreases the calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), chloride (Cl–<\/sup>), and sulphate (SO4<\/sub>2-<\/sup>) (Mahamod Haroon and Subhash Chandra Bose, 2004). The PTSW is rich in potassium (K), sulphur (S), nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) as well as easily biodegradable organic matter and its application to soil has been reported to increase yield of sugar cane (Zalawadia, 1997), rice (Devarajan and Oblisami, 1995), wheat and rice (Pathak et al., 1998), quality of groundnut (Singh et al., 2003) and physiological response of soybean (Ramana et al., 2000). Diluted spentwash could be used for irrigation purpose without adversely affecting soil fertility (Kaushik et al., 2005; Kuntal et al., 2004;Raverkar et al., 2000), seed germination and crop productivity (Ramana et al., 2001). The diluted spentwash irrigation improved the physical and chemical properties of the soil and further increased soil microflora (Devarajan, 1994; Kaushik et al, 2005; Kuntal et al., 2004). Twelve pre-sowing irrigations with the diluted spentwash\u00a0had no adverse effect on the germination of maize but improved the growth and yield (Singh and Raj Bahadur, 1998). Diluted spentwash increases the growth of shoot length, leaf number per plant, leaf area\u00a0and chlorophyll content of peas (Rani and Srivastava, 1990). Increased concentration of spentwash causes decreased seed germination, seedling growth and chlorophyll content in Sunflowers (Helianthus annuus<\/em>) and the spent wash could safely use for irrigation purpose at lower concentration (Rajendra, 1990; Ramana et al., 2001). The spent wash contained an excess of various forms of cations and anions, which are injurious to plant growth and these constituents should be reduced to beneficial level by diluting the spentwash, which can be used as a substitute for chemical fertilizer (Sahai et al., 1983). The spent wash could be used as a complement to mineral fertilizer to sugarcane (Chares, 1985). The spentwash contained N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S and thus valued as a fertilizer when applied to soil through irrigation with water (Samuel, 1986). The application of diluted spentwash increased the uptake of Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe) and Manganese (Mn) in maize and wheat as compared to control and the highest total uptake of these were found at lower dilution levels than at higher dilution levels (Pujar, 1995). Mineralizations of organic material as well as nutrients present in the spentwash were responsible for increased availability of plant nutrients. Diluted spentwash increase the uptake of nutrients, height, growth and yield of leaves vegetables (Chandraju et al., 2007; Basvaraju and Chandraju, 2008), nutrients of cabbage and mint leaf (Chandraju et al., 2008),<\/sup> nutrients of top vegetable (Basvaraju and Chandraju, 2008), pulses, condiments, root vegetables (Chandraju et al., 2008), and yields of condiments (Chandraju and Chidankumar, 2009). However, not much information is available on the influence of distillery spentwash irrigation on the yields of tuber\/root medicinal plants. Therefore, the present investigation was carried out to study the influence of different proportions of spentwash on the yields of tuber\/root medicinal plants.<\/p>\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Physico-chemical parameters and amount of nitrogen (N), potassium (K), phosphorous (P) and sulphur (S) present in the primary treated diluted spentwash (50% and 33%) were analyzed by standard methods (Manivasakam, 1987).<\/strong> The PTSW was used for irrigation with a dilution of 33% and 50%. A composite soil sample collected (at 25 cm depth) prior to spentwash irrigation was air-dried, powdered and analyzed for physico-chemical properties (Piper, 1996: Jackson, 1973: Walkeley and Black, 1934: Subbaiah and Asija, 1956: Black, 1965: Lindsay and Norvel, 1978).<\/p>\n

Tuber\/root medicinal plants selected for the present investigations were, Ginger (Zingiber officinale<\/em>) Radish (Raphanus sativus<\/em>) Turmeric (Curcuma longa) Onion (Allium cepa<\/em>) Garlic (Allium sativum).<\/em> The seeds\/ sets were sowed and irrigated (by applying 5-10mm\/cm2<\/sup> depends upon the climatic condition) with raw water (RW), 50% and 33% SW at the dosage of twice a week and rest of the period with raw water as required. Trials were conducted for three times and at the time maturity, plants were harvested and the yields were recorded by taking the average weight (Table- 4). \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Table 1: Chemical characteristics of distillery spentwash<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Chemical parameters<\/strong><\/td>\nPTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n50%PTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n33% PTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
pH<\/td>\n7.57<\/td>\n7.63<\/td>\n7.65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Electrical conductivitya<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n26400<\/td>\n17260<\/td>\n7620<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total solidsb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n47200<\/td>\n27230<\/td>\n21930<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total dissolved solidsb<\/td>\n37100<\/td>\n18000<\/td>\n12080<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total suspended solidsb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n10240<\/td>\n5380<\/td>\n4080<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Settleable solidsb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n9880<\/td>\n4150<\/td>\n2820<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CODb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n41250<\/td>\n19036<\/td>\n10948<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BODb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n16100<\/td>\n7718<\/td>\n4700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbonateb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\nNil<\/td>\nNil<\/td>\nNil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bicarbonateb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n12200<\/td>\n6500<\/td>\n3300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Phosphorousb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n40.5<\/td>\n22.44<\/td>\n17.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Potassiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n7500<\/td>\n4000<\/td>\n2700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Calciumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n900<\/td>\n590<\/td>\n370<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Magnesiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n1244.16<\/td>\n476.16<\/td>\n134.22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sulphurb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n70<\/td>\n30.2<\/td>\n17.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sodiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n520<\/td>\n300<\/td>\n280<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chloridesb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n6204<\/td>\n3512<\/td>\n3404<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ironb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n7.5<\/td>\n4.7<\/td>\n3.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Manganeseb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n980<\/td>\n495<\/td>\n288<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Zincb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n1.5<\/td>\n0.94<\/td>\n0.63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Copperb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n0.25<\/td>\n0.108<\/td>\n0.048<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cadmiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n0.005<\/td>\n0.003<\/td>\n0.002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Leadb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n0.16<\/td>\n0.09<\/td>\n0.06<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chromiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n0.05<\/td>\n0.026<\/td>\n0.012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nickelb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n0.09<\/td>\n0.045<\/td>\n0.025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ammonical Nitrogenb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n750.8<\/td>\n352.36<\/td>\n283.76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Charbohydratesc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n22.80<\/td>\n11.56<\/td>\n8.12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Units: a <\/strong>\u2013 \u03bcS, b \u2013 <\/strong>mg\/L, c<\/strong>– %, PTSW – Primary treated distillery spentwash\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 2: Amount of N, P, K and S (Nutrients) in distillery Spentwash<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Chemical parameters<\/strong><\/td>\nPTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n50% PTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n33%PT SW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ammonical Nitrogenb<\/sup><\/td>\n750.8<\/td>\n352.36<\/td>\n283.76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Phosphorousb<\/sup><\/td>\n40.5<\/td>\n22.44<\/td>\n17.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Potassiumb<\/sup><\/td>\n7500<\/td>\n4000<\/td>\n2700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sulphurb<\/sup><\/td>\n70<\/td>\n30.2<\/td>\n17.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Unit: b \u2013 <\/strong>mg\/L,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 PTSW – Primary treated distillery spentwash<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 3: Characteristics of experimental soil <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Parameters<\/strong><\/td>\nValues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coarse sandc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n9.85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fine sandc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n40.72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Slitc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n25.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Clayc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n23.66<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
pH (1:2 soln)<\/td>\n8.41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Electrical conductivitya<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n540<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Organic carbonc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n1.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Nitrogenb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n402<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Phosphorousb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n202<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Potassiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n113<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Calciumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n185<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Magnesiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n276<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Sodiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n115<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Sulphurb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n337<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA\u00a0 Ironb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n202<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA\u00a0 Manganeseb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n210<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA Copperb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA Zincb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Units: a <\/strong>\u2013 \u03bcS, b \u2013 <\/strong>mg\/L, c<\/strong>– %\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 4: Characteristics of experimental soil\u00a0<\/strong>(After harvest)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Parameters<\/strong><\/td>\nValues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coarse sandc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n9.69<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fine sandc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n41.13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Slitc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n25.95<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Clayc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n24.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
pH (1:2 soln)<\/td>\n8.27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Electrical conductivitya<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n544<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Organic carbonc<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n1.98<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Nitrogenb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n434<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Phosphorousb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n218<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Potassiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Calciumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n185<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Magnesiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n276<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exchangeable Sodiumb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n115<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Available Sulphurb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n337<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA\u00a0 Ironb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n212<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA\u00a0 Manganeseb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n210<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA Copperb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DTPA Zincb<\/sup><\/strong><\/td>\n60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Units: a <\/strong>\u2013 \u03bcS, b \u2013 <\/strong>mg\/L, c<\/strong>– %<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 5: Average weight of tuber\/root medicinal plants at different irrigation\u00a0<\/strong>(Average weight is taken from 25 plants)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Name of tuber\/root medicinal plants<\/strong><\/td>\nAverage weight\u00a0 (kg)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RW<\/strong><\/td>\n50% PTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n33%PTSW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ginger (Zingiber officinale<\/em>)<\/td>\n0.753 \u00b1 0.006<\/td>\n0.935 \u00b1 0.002<\/td>\n1.207 \u00b1 0.043<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Radish (Raphanus sativus<\/em>)<\/td>\n0.192 \u00b1 0.005<\/td>\n0.239 \u00b1 0.008<\/td>\n0.349 \u00b1 0.001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Turmeric (Curcuma longa)<\/td>\n0.589 \u00b1 0.016<\/td>\n0.712 \u00b1 0.003<\/td>\n0.922 \u00b1 0.028<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Onion (Allium cepa<\/em>)<\/td>\n0.106 \u00b1 0.002<\/td>\n0.136 \u00b1 0.001<\/td>\n0.174 \u00b1 0.002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Garlic (Allium sativum<\/em>)<\/em><\/td>\n0.070 \u00b1 0.001<\/td>\n0.085 \u00b1 0.002<\/td>\n0.119 \u00b1 0.002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

RW – Raw water:\u00a0 PTSW- Primary treated distillery spentwash<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\"Figure<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Yield of tuber\/root medicinal plants in raw water (RW), 50% PTSW, 33% PTSW<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Results and Discussion<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chemical composition of PTSW, 50% and 33% SW such as pH, electrical conductivity, total solids (TS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), settelable solids (SS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonates, bicarbonates, total phosphorous (P), total potassium (K), ammonical nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulphur (S), sodium (Na), chlorides (Cl), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni) were analyzed and tabulated (Table-1). Amount of N, P, K and S contents are presented in Table-2.<\/p>\n

Characteristics of experimental soils such as pH, electrical conductivity, the amount of organic carbon, available nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S) exchangeable calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), DTPA iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) were analyzed and tabulated (Table-3). It was found that the soil composition is fit for the cultivation of plants, because it fulfils all the requirements for the cultivation of plants.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The yields were very high in the case of 33% SW irrigation for all types of tuber\/root medicinal plants, and moderate in 50%, while comparatively poor in RW (Table-5). In our previous studies we also found 33% SW irrigation favors the growth, yield and nutrients in plants. This could be due to the maximum absorption of NPK by the plants at higher dilution (33%). In the case of 50% SW irrigation the yields were less, this could be due to more acidic nature than 33% SW. However, the percentage yield is maximum in the case of Radish (Raphanus sativus<\/em>) (81.77%) and minimum in case of Turmeric (Curcuma longa) (56.53%). [Garlic (Allium sativum)<\/em> (70.0%), Onion (Allium cepa<\/em>) (64%) and Ginger (Zingiber officinale<\/em>) (60.29%)].\u00a0 The soil was tested after the harvest of roots and tubers, shows there is enrich in the plant nutrients (N.P.K) in the soil and no adverse effect on other parameters (Table-4). \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was noticed that the yields of all the tuber\/root medicinal plants were maximum in the case of 33% and moderate in 50% SW and minimum in RW irrigations. In 33% SW irrigation the plants are able to absorb maximum amounts of nutrients both from the soil and the spent wash resulting good yields. This concludes that, the SW can be conveniently used for the cultivation of tuber\/root medicinal plants without external (either organic or inorganic) fertilizers. This minimizes the cost of cultivation and hence elevates the economy of the farmers.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgements<\/strong><\/p>\n

The authors R.N.S and G.N.S are thankful to The commissioner of collegiate education in Karnataka, India, for permission to carryout research and N.S.L.Koppa, Maddur Tq.Karnataka, for providing spentwash.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Amar, B. S, Ashish, K.B. and Sivakoti Ramana. 2003. Effect of distillery effluent on plant and Soil enzymatic activities and ground nut quality. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci.\u00a0 166, 345-347.<\/li>\n
  2. Basavaraju, H.C. and Chandraju S. 2008. Impact of distillery spentwash on the nutrients of\u00a0Leaves vegetables: An Investigation. Asian J. Chem. <\/em>20. (7): 5301-5310.<\/li>\n
  3. Black, C.A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis part 2, Agronomy monograph No.9,\u00a0Am.Soc.Agron.Madison. Wisconsin USA PP 15-72.<\/li>\n
  4. Basavaraju, H.C. and Chandraju, S. 2008. An Investigation of Impact of distillery\u00a0spentwash on the nutrients of Top Vegetables. Int. J. Agri. Sci. 4. (2): 691-696.<\/li>\n
  5. Chares, S. 1985. Vinasse in the fertilization of sugarcane. Sugarcane, 1:20.<\/li>\n
  6. Chandraju, S. and Basavaraju, H.C. 2007. Impact of distillery spentwash on seed\u00a0germination and growth of leaves Vegetables: An investigation. Sugar Journal m(SISSTA). 38: 20-50.<\/li>\n
  7. Chandraju, S. Basavaraju, H.C. and Chidankumar, C.S. 2008. Investigation of impact of\u00a0Irrigation of distillery spent wash on the growth, yield and nutrients of tuber\/root vegetable.\u00a0Chem.Env. Res. 17. (1&2): —– (In Press).\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n
  8. Chandraju, S. Basavaraju, H.C. and Chidankumar, C.S. 2008. Investigation of impact of\u00a0Irrigation of distillery spentwash on the nutrients of cabbage and mint leaf. Indian\u00a0Sugar.39, 19-28.<\/li>\n
  9. Chandraju, S. Basavaraju, H.C. and \u00a0Chidankumar, C.S. 2008. <\/strong>Investigation of impact of\u00a0Irrigation of distillery spentwash on the nutrients of pulses. Asian J. Chem. <\/em>\u00a020. (8):\u00a06342- 6348.<\/li>\n
  10. Chandraju, S. Basavaraju, H. C. and Chidankumar, C.S. 2008. Investigation of impact of\u00a0Irrigation of distillery spentwash on the nutrients of some condiments and root\u00a0vegetables. Chem.Env.Res. 17. (1&2): —– (In Press).<\/li>\n
  11. Chidankumar, C.S. and Chandraju, S. 2009. Impact of distillery spentwash Irrigation on the\u00a0yields of some condiments: An\u00a0 investigation, Sugar Tech, 11(3)\u00a0 303-306.<\/li>\n
  12. Deverajan, L. and Oblisami, G. 1995. Effect of distillery effluent on soil fertility status, yield\u00a0and quality of rice. Madras Agri. J. 82. 664-665.<\/li>\n
  13. Devarajan, L. Rajanan, G. Ramanathan, G. and Oblisami, G. 1994. Performance of field\u00a0crops under distillery effluent irrigations, Kisan world, 21: 48-50.<\/li>\n
  14. Joshi, H.C. Kalra, N. Chaudhary, A. and Deb, D.L. 1994. Environmental issues related with\u00a0distillery effluent utilization in agriculture in India, Asia Pac J Environ.\u00a0Develop, 1:92-103.<\/li>\n
  15. Jackson, M.L. 1973 Soil Chemical analysis practice Hall of India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi P 485.<\/li>\n
  16. Kaushik, K. Nisha, R. Jagjeeta, K. and Kaushik, C.P. 2005. Impact of long and short termm\u00a0irrigation of a sodic soil with distillery effluent in combination with bio-amendments.\u00a0Bioresource\u00a0 Technology, 96. 17. 1860-1866.<\/li>\n
  17. Kuntal, M.H. Ashish, K.B. Kalikinkar, B. and Misra, K. 2004. Effect of post-methanation\u00a0effluent on soil physical properties under a soybean-wheat system in a\u00a0vertisol. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci. 167. 5. 584-590.<\/li>\n
  18. Lindsay, W.L. and Norvel, W.A. 1978. Development of DTPA soil test for Zn, Fe, Mn &\u00a0Cu, Soil Sci. Soc. AM.J, 42:421-428.<\/li>\n
  19. Mohamed Haroon, A.R. and Subash Chandra Bose, M. 2004. Use of distillery spentwash\u00a0for alkali soil reclamation, treated distillery effluent for ferti irrigation of crops. Indian\u00a0Farm, March: 48- 51.<\/li>\n
  20. Manivasakam, N. 1987. Physico chemical examination of water sewage and industrial\u00a0effluent, Pragathi prakashan, Merut.<\/li>\n
  21. Patil, J.D. Arabatti, S.V. and Hapse, D.G. 1987. A review of some aspects of distillery\u00a0spentwash (vinase) utilization in sugar cane, Bartiya sugar May: 9-15.<\/li>\n
  22. Pathak, H. Joshi, H.C. Chaudhary, A. Chaudhary, R. Kalra, N. and Dwivedi, M.K. 1998.\u00a0Distillery effluent as soil amendment for wheat and rice. J. Indian Soc.Soil Sci. 46.155-157.<\/li>\n
  23. Pujar, S.S. 1995. Effect of distillery effluent irrigation on growth, yield and quality of crops.\u00a0M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.<\/li>\n
  24. Piper, C.S. 1966. Soil and plant analysis, Han\u2019s publication, Bombay.<\/li>\n
  25. Ramadurai, R. and Gerard, E.J. 1994. Distillery effluent and downstream products,\u00a0SISSTA,\u00a0 Sugar Journal. 20: 129-131.<\/li>\n
  26. Ramana, S. Biswas, A.K., Kundu, S. Saha, J.K. and Yadava, R.B.R. 2000. Physiological\u00a0response of Soybean (Glycine max L.) to foliar application of distillery effluent. Ann.\u00a0Plant Soil Res. 2, 1-6.<\/li>\n
  27. Raverkar, K.P. Ramana, S. Singh, A.B. Biswas, A.K. and Kundu, S. 2000. Impact of post\u00a0methanated spentwash (PMS) on the nursery raising, biological parameters of\u00a0Glyricidia sepum and biological activity of soil. Ann. Plant Res. 2(2), 161-168.<\/li>\n
  28. Ramana, S. Biswas, A.K., Kundu, S. Saha, J.K. and Yadava, R.B.R. 2001. Effect of\u00a0distillery effluent on seed germination in some vegetable crops. Bio-resource\u00a0Technology, 82. 3. 273-275.<\/li>\n
  29. Rani, R. Sri Vastava, M.M. 1990. Eco-siological response of Pisum sativum and citrus\u00a0maxima to distillery effluents. Intl.J. Eco. Environ. Sci., 16-23.<\/li>\n
  30. Rajendran, K. 1990. Effect of distillery effluent on the seed germination, seedling\u00a0growth, Chlorophyll content and mitosis in Helianthus Annuus-Indian Botanical\u00a0Contactor, 7:139-44.<\/li>\n
  31. Sahai, R. Jabeen, S. and Saxena, P.K. 1983. Effect of distillery waste on seed<\/li>\n
  32. germination, seedling growth and pigment content of rice. Indian J.Eco. 10:7-10.<\/li>\n
  33. Samuel, G. 1986. The use of alcohol distillery waste as a fertilizer, Proceedings of\u00a0International American Sugarcane Seminar. Pp.245-252.<\/li>\n
  34. Singh, Y. and Raj Bahadur. 1998. Effect of application of distillery effluent on maize<\/li>\n
  35. crop and soil properties. Indian. J. Agri.Sci., 68: 70-74.<\/li>\n
  36. Subbaiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available\u00a0nitrogen in soils, Curr.Sci. 25: 259-260.<\/li>\n
  37. Zalawadia, N.M. Raman, S. and Patil, R.G. 1997. Influence of diluted spentwash of\u00a0Sugar industries application on yield and nutrient uptake by sugarcane and changes in\u00a0soil properties. J. Indian Soc. Soil. Sci. 45, 767-769.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Molasses (one of the important byproducts of sugar industry) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol3no1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1173"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33083,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions\/33083"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}