Biofertiliser is a preparation of agriculturally useful microorganisms like nitrogen fixers, phosphorus solubilisers etc; and is one of the components of integrated nutrient management. The commercial production of biofertiliser was introduced in 1956 in India. With a production of 38000 t and with more than 150 commercial units engaged in it, biofertiliser usage is definitely looking up.
As per the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO), 1985, ‘biofertiliser’ is any product containing carrier based (solid or liquid) living microorganisms, which are agriculturally useful in terms of nitrogen fixation, phosphorous solubilisation or nutrient mobilisation, increasing the productivity of the soil and crop. Biofertilisers are also known as bioinoculant or microbial inoculant or cultures. On application, the microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, algae alone or in combination), help in fixing nitrogen, solubilising phosphorus etc., in addition to secreting growth promoting substances.
History
Biofertiliser was developed with the discovery ( H Hellriegel and H Wilfarth) of biological nitrogen fixation by legumes during 1886-88. Historically, the use of chemical fertiliser in agriculture was initiated in 1830-1840 by the utilisation of Chilean nitrate deposits. Thus experiments on both fertiliser and biofertiliser started about the same time—during the mid nineteenth century. Globally, the commercial history of biofertiliser began with the launch of the rhizobium ‘Nitragin’ by F Nobbe and L Hiltner in 1896. Consequently azotobacter (1902), azospirillum(1925), blue-green algae (1939), and phosphate solubilising biofertiliser (1956) were used on a commercial scale during the last phase of 20th century. Use of mycorrhizae as biofertiliser is recent development. First commercial production of rhizobium biofertiliser in India began in 1956 and by late 1960’s when soybean was introduced, large scale production began.
Classification and type
Biofertilisers are classified into four categories:
Nitrogen biofertiliser (N-BF)
■ Rhizobium – symbiotic BF with all legumes.
■ Azotobacter – non-symbiotic BF for cereals, vegetables, horticulutral crops.
■ Azospirillum – associative BF for millets, maize etc. (blue-green algae, azolla, gluconoacetobacter diazotrophicus are also N-BF, but is yet to be included in FCO)
Phosphorus biofertilisers (P-BF)
■ P-solubilisers – PSB (bacillus, pseudomonas etc, for all crops)
■ P-mobilisers – mycorrhizae (glomus, gigaspora etc. for all crops)
Potash biofertilisers – K-BF (microbes like B.mucilogenosus and F.aurantia for all crops).
Zinc solubilisers – Z- BF (Bacillus microbes are capable of zinc solubilisation).
Generally biofertilisers are available in a solid (using peat, lignite, charcoal etc. as a carrier), or in a liquid base (using broth involving additives like poly vinyl pyrolidon, gum, biosurfactants etc. or by promoting dormant cells/spores). Biofertilisers may be prepared from either single or multiple strains and experiments are also being conducted for formulating freeze dried, granular and polyacrylamide entrapped inoculant. At present, however, best production technology and packaging are yet to be obtained.
Biofertiliser Technology
The microorganisms present in biofertilisers are available in nature. Initially, these organisms are isolated from different sources such as the root nodule for rhizobium; soil for other microbes; etc., and developed in specific media. For example yeast extract manitol media is used for rhizobium, Jensen media is used for azotobacter, Dobernier media is used for azospirillum, etc. After needful growth these organisms are multiplied in liquid broth either in rotary shaker or in a fermentor. When organisms attain maximum population (108/109 per ml ) the broth containing specific microbe are mixed with the carrier.
Field Application
Biofertilisers can be applied in several ways. The first, seed treatment, is most common. The process includes preparation of paste or slurry by mixing 200g of biofertilisers with 400 ml water and pouring it on 10-15 kg seeds. Then the inoculated seeds are spread in shade for 10-15 minutes for drying after which they are sown immediately. The second technique, soil application, is by broadcasting the biofertiliser on or before sowing. The method includes preparation of 5-7 kg mixture of biofertiliser in 100-150 kg soil/compost and broadcasting the mixture over an acre (0.4 ha) of land.
The third technique involves seedling inoculation which includes preparation of a suspension of 1-2 kg of biofertilisers in 10-15 litres of water, then dipping the seedlings (obtained from 10-15 kg of seeds ) into the suspension for 20-30 minutes and transplanting the treated seedlings immediately.
Impact of Biofertilisers
The use of biofertilisers improves soil fertility status by increasing the organic matter, microbial biomass, and available nutrient status, particularly that of nitrogen and phosphorous. Under a central sector scheme (1983-2004) National Project on Development and Use of BioFertilisers (NPDB) 1050 field demonstrations were conducted on 53 crops in 25 states/union territories. The results of these trials show that biofertiliser application resulted in an increase of 11.4 per cent in crop yield on an average.
Table 2: Biofertiliser Products in India
Status of Biofertiliser in India
During 1990, the production of biofertiliser in India was 1000 tonnes, primarily for rhizobium. But during (2009-10), the total biofertiliser production reached 20,090 tonnes with PSB dominating the scene (Bhattacharyya P. et al., 2012, ‘Biofertiliser Handbook-research-production-application’, Fertiliser Development & Consultation Organisation) (Table 1). The estimated production for 2010-11 is 38,000 tonnes (Table 2). It has been also estimated that from 2002-03, when the average consumption of biofertiliser for the country was 64g/ha, it has today risen to nearly 90-100g/ha. It was also observed that the maximum capacity utilisation of biofertiliser is in the south zone at 88 per cent, while the east zone mapped the lowest capacity utilisation at about 33 per cent (ibid.).
Biofertiliser marketing
Initially, commercial production of biofertilisers was started in a few agricultural research institutes, agricultural universities, state agricultural departments and in the fertiliser cooperative sectors. Later, private fertiliser companies and non-governmental organisations were also involved in commercial production. At present, there are more than 150 biofertiliser companies engaged in production and sale of various products.
The channel of biofertiliser distribution in the Indian market consists of private, cooperatives, government institutions, wholesalers to retailers, dealers and distributors, agro industries, fertiliser companies etc., who primarily depend on ‘push sale’ rather than ‘pull sale’. Retail prices at which biofertilisers are sold generally range from Rs 40 to Rs 100/kg in case of carrier based products and from Rs 150 to Rs 400/litre for liquid biofertiliser.
Earlier, financial and technical assistance to different production units were provided under NPDB. Now the same scheme has been subsumed under National Project on Organic Farming (NPOF) and there is a provision for providing financial assistance for its production and promotion. Besides, there are other schemes such as the National Food Security Mission, Rashtriya Krishi Vikash Yojana, National Horticultural Mission which support and promote this input. Despite being reliable, eco friendly and sustainable, biofertilisers have not been accepted on a large scale by farmers. Some of the constraints are:
■ Biofertilisers do not show instant and dramatic response like the chemical fertilisers.
■ Poor quality of biofertilisers in many cases, has eroded the trust of the farmers. In fact under NPOF, 983 biofertiliser samples were tested in 2009 and 35.6 per cent were found to be sub-standard.
■ Lack of awareness among farmers about proper usage reduce its uptake.
■ Problems associated with shelf life and storage particularly during hot weather result in low efficacy. In fact, several abiotic (pH, temperature, acidity/alkalinity/salinity etc.) and biotic (competition with native strains, incompatibility with other microbes etc.) may influence the efficiency of biofertilisers.
■ Lack of timely supply of inoculants.
■ No advance placement on supply of biofertiliser by state agricultural departments indented under the different schemes.
Endnote
Microbes in the soil live, grow, perform specialised functions and die. In fact, the availability of nutrients depends mainly on soil-based microorganisms which are involved in nutrient transformation. Apart from N-fixer, P-solubiliser/mobiliser, K-solubiliser, there are several organisms that are involved in the transformation of sulphur, calcium, iron, manganese, zinc, molybdenum etc. Even the efficiency of urea, the most acceptable chemical N-fertiliser depends on the role of microbes that produce urease enzyme to convert it into ammonium salt which the plant readily absorbs. More importantly, the product should bear a quality standard under a strict regulatory mechanism. As the component of integrated nutrient management and newly inducted in the Fertiliser Control Order, it can supplement chemical fertilisers significantly. With further progress of the biofertiliser industry, we may hope that farmers will begin to rely on it as means to prosperity.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.