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
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.