FARMING RICE WITH DUCKS: THRUST ON RICE PRODUCTION AND WEED COMMUNITIES

T. GEETHA JEBARATHNAM K¹*
¹Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, 608002, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : geethakuttibai@gmail.com

Received : 24-04-2018     Accepted : 26-08-2018     Published : 15-09-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 17       Pages : 7067 - 7069
Int J Agr Sci 10.17 (2018):7067-7069

Keywords : Conoweeding, Rice production, Weed management
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, 608002, Tamil Nadu, India
Author Contribution : Sole Author

Field investigations were carried out in Annamalai University experimental farm for two consecutive years to trace the impact of duck integration in transplanted rice crop. The experiment was aimed at comparing the performance of duck integration in different modes viz duck herding in puddled fields, duck herding in transplanted fields, duck herding in transplanted and puddled fields. The field experiment was laid out in split plot design consisting of thrice sub treatments and replicated thrice. All the treatments involving various modes of duck integration resulted significantly in increased grain yield and straw yield and simultaneously decreased weed parameters. The interaction effects of duck herding. The interaction effects of duck herding in cropped and puddled condition coupled with conoweeding + one hand weeding suppressed total weed population recorded 5.77 per m2 and 5.67 per m2 during I and II season. Similarly duck integration had a positive impact recording 15.03 t ha-1 4.34 t ha-1 and 7.29 t ha-1 of crop DMP, grain yield and straw yield respectively during I season and crop DMP of 15.3 t ha-1, grain yield of 4.88 t ha-1 and straw yield of 7.58 t ha-1 during II season (duck integration, rice production, weed management).

1. Alejar A.S. and Aragones M. (1989) National Azolla Action programme (NAAD) Azolla; its culture, management and utilization in the Philippines. NAAP, Las Banos, Laguna, Philippines, 221-239.
2. Cagauan (1997) In: 8th Animale Science Congress, Chiba, Japan, 236-244.
3. Chelladurai (2011) M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis.
4. Hosseyni Kheshtimasjedi H. (2008) Journal of Livestock and Agro-Industry, 107, 18-19.
5. Ju hui et al (2008) Xueyuanpress.http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content china / zh/ press / reports / eco-farming.pdf
6. Liang K.M., Zhang J.E., Lin T.A., Quan G.M., Zhao B.L. (2012) Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 4(5),309-315.
7. Lopes A.R., Faria C., Fernandez A.P., Cepeda C.T., Manaya C.M. Nunes O.C. (2011) Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43,115-125.
8. Mohammadi M., Pirdashti Aghajani Mazandarani G.H., Mosavi Toghani S.Y. (2012) In: proceedings of congress of crop Science, Iran. Islamic Azad University Branch of Karaj,415-419.
9. Shekawat B.S., Yogeshwar Singh and Singh S.P. (2010) Indian J.Fert., 6(10),36-40.
10. Wangchengyuh (2001) Weed Tech., 15,628-635.
11. Zhang J.E., Ouyang Y., Huang Z.X., Quan G.M. (2011) Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 537-544.