Dr.

RAJENDRA PRASAD CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,

PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR

Post-graduate degree programme : M.Sc. (Ag)

Department : Soil Science

Name of the student : Pragnya Bhargabi Uttarasili

Major subject : Soil Science

Minor subject : Agronomy

Major advisor : Dr. Shankar Jha

Registration No. : M/SS/178/2021-22

Title of credit seminar : Bio Fertilizer: The Future Of Food Safety And Food Security

Introduction:

Plants are the primary producers of the environment and perform ecological food chain directly or indirectly.
Maximum percentage of human and animals are depend on the nutrition of plants. Since 1960 the world’s
population has doubled to six billion people and it is projected to increase to 8-9 billion people by coming
year future in 2040 (Vance etal.,2003). The modern agriculture played a vital role in meeting the food demands
for a burgeoning human population, which has also led to an escalating reliance on synthetic agrochemicals
like fertilizers and pesticides (Santos et al.,2012).Dense growing human population increasing demand for
food to survive on earth. Bio fertilizers are specific beneficial microorganisms that promote the growth of
plant crops. Eco-friendly converting the unavailable form of the nutrients into available form. They applied
through soil or seed that help crop plants to uptake of nutrients by their interactions in the rhizosphere.
Biological fertilizers enriches the soil of agricultural field with micro-nutrients and macro nutrients via
nitrogen fixation and phosphorus and potash solubilisation or mineralization and enhance plant growth-
regulating or growth-promoting substances, biodegradation of organic matter (OM) in the soil and production
of antibiotics (Sinha et al.,2014). Motsara et al (1995) had stated that bio fertilizers are solid and liquid based
preparations which contains microorganisms in a sufficient number which is benefited for growth and nutrition
of the plant. These are used in various form like single super phosphate, urea and different names of potash
such as in Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers (RCF), Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperation Limited (IFFCO).
Bio fertilizers like Rhizobium, Azotobacter, and Blue green algae (BGA) are in use since very long. These
microorganisms fix atmospheric nitrogen and supply it to plants. The bacterial biofertilizers contribute 20-30
kg N/ha/season. Rhizobium inoculants is used for leguminous crops. Azotobacter can be used with crops like
wheat, maize, millets, maize, sugarcane and wheat. Blue green algae belonging to genera Nostoc, Anabaena,
Tolypothrix and Aulosira fix atmospheric nitrogen and are used as inoculants for paddy crop grown both under
upland and low land conditions. However, the inoculants are most effective under low land rice cultivation
and contribute 20-30 kg N per ha per season with better quality of grains. Anabaena in association with water
fern contributes nitrogen upto 60 kg/ ha / season and also enriches soils with organic matter Adesemoye and
Kloepper (2009) also observed that fertilizers are not completely absorbed by the plant but also remain
accumulated in the soil which causes soil and water pollution. In the previous last five decades, the use of
NPK fertilizer has drastically increased. The International Fertilizer Industry Association reported that in 2006
the use of NPK fertilizers in China, India, and USA, consuming 50.15, 21.65, and 20.83 million tons,
respectively, compared with consumption in 1961 of 1.01, 0.42, and 7.88 million tons. An eco-friendly and
effective remedy for Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) are the supplements to chemical
fertilizers and also observed that these beneficial bacteria can exert a plant growth positively by direct
mechanisms such as nitrogen fixation, solubilisation of nutrients, production of growth regulators, etc., or by
indirect mechanisms such as stimulation of mycorrhizae development, competitive exclusion of pathogens or
the removal of phytotoxic substances (Lugtenberg and Kamilova, 2009). Synthetic fertilizers are
manufactured substances in industries composed of known quantities of macronutrient example as Nitrogen
(N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) etc and micronutrients such as boron (B), zinc (Z), Iron (Fe), Sulphur
(S) etc. and with their indiscriminate and imbalance use causes ground, air and water pollution by nitrate
leaching and surface water bodies pollution through eutrophication (Youssef and Eissa, 2014). The massive
application of fertilizers cause leaching, accumulation and run-off of nutrients especially Nitrogen and
Phosphorus, leading to degradation of the environment (Gyaneshwar et al., 2002). The consumption of bio
fertilizers is looking forward to increase in copious coming era. It is very necessary to increase the production
of bio fertilizers by lost-cost method. Use of bio fertilizers is being emphasized along with chemical fertilizers
and organic manure and this makes Integrated Nutrient Management (INM). Hence, bio fertilizers are live
products and require care in storage, transport, application and maintaining field condition. They are not
replacement of fertilizers but can supplement their requirement. For best results use both nitrogenous and
phosphatic bio fertilizers. State agriculture Universities, Government and non- government organizations are
engaging in the mass production of bio fertilizers. Recently many small and medium sectors are manufacturing
bio fertilizers.

Great attention has been paid to reduce the use of conventional chemical fertilizers harming living
beings through food chain supplements from the soil environment. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
alternative sustainable fertilizers to enhance soil sustainability and agriculture productivity. Biofertilizers are
the substance that contains microorganisms (bacteria, algae, and fungi) living or latent cells that can enrich
the soil quality with nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, organic matter, etc. They area cost effective,
biodegradable, and renewable source of plant nutrients/supplements to improve the soil-health properties.
Bio fertilizers emerge as an attractive alternative to chemical fertilizers and as a promising cost effective
technology for eco-friendly agriculture and a sustainable environment that holds microorganisms which
 enhance the soil nutrients’ solubility leading a raise in its fertility and stimulate crop growth and healthy food
safety. The commercial history of bio fertilizers began with the launch of ‘Nitragin’ by Nobbe and Hiltner,
a laboratory culture of Rhizobia in 1895, followed by the discovery of Azotobacter and then the blue green
algae (BGA) and a host of other micro-organisms. Azospirillum and Vesicular- Arbuscular Mycorrhizae
(VAM) are fairly new discoveries. In India the first study on legume Rhizobium symbiosis was conducted
by N. V. Joshi and the first commercial production started as early as 1956. However the Ministry of
Agriculture under the Ninth Plan initiated the real effort to popularize and promote the input with the setting
up of the National Project on Development and Use of Bio fertilizers (NPDB). Although biofertilizers have
been promoted as supplement or complement of chemical fertilizers, in reality they are two alternative means
of accessing plant nutrients. The strength of complementarity as against substitution between the two inputs
is open to empirical verification, but there is no denying that farmers and producers do perceive the
substitutability relation and believe that to an extent Bio fertilizers have various benefits. Besides accessing
nutrients, for current intake as well as residual, different bio fertilizers also provide growth-promoting factors
to plants and some have been successfully facilitating composting and effective recycling of solid wastes.
By controlling soil borne diseases and improving the soil health and soil properties these organisms help not
only in saving, but also in effectively utilising chemical fertilizers and result in higher yield rates (Bot and
Benites, 2005).

To attain production targets, the Govt. of India implemented a central sector scheme called National
Project on Development and use of Biofertilizers (NPDB) during the Ninth Plan for the production,
distribution and promotion of biofertilizers. A National Biofertilizers Development Centre was established at
Ghaziabad as a subordinate office of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation with six regional centres.
The coexistence of smaller new units with the larger ones of higher vintage has increased the variety in
industry as measured by the coefficient of variation (Ghosh, 2004). The share in distribution, however, has
been relatively more stable despite showing a slight declining trend in the last five years reportedly, however,
this is only partially valid as units with large distribution networks do distribute over larger areas. Public sector
fertilizer giant IFFCO is located in Phulpur in Uttar Pradesh, IFFCO’s MLN Farmers’ Training Institute
produces all strains of bio fertilizers and have distributed it in states other than the home state.
Agriculture is a very important sector in the world. The main function of agriculture is to supply food
to humans to ensure a stable and healthy ecosystem. Normally the food demand depends on dietary trends and
also to alleviate poverty issues. Agriculture potentially has become a new source for energy such as biodiesel,
biogas and bio-fuel which are derived from plants. Renewable energy resulting from plants able to reduce and
overcome most of the problems related to depletion of fossil fuel energy. In this study, biofertilizers are
reviewed and detailed information regarding their potential usage and limitations are also discussed. The
market demand for biofertilizer worldwide was also investigated especially for its potential in nourishing
economic growth. Food safety and security that are influenced by biofertilizers are also explained.
Global demand for agricultural products is increasing due to the increasing human population . There
are already about 7.9 billion people on the planet, and this number is expected to rise, with a projected growth
of almost 10 billion in the next 50 years . As the world’s population continues to increase, so does the demand
for food; hence, feeding the current vast population, which will certainly grow with time, is a significant task.
To meet the challenges of food scarcity caused by the rise in population, various agricultural alternatives such
as the use of chemical or synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides have been used to produce crops
with high yield within the shortest time possible and to protect them from insects and pest attack during and
after harvest. However, the use of these fertilizers and insecticides has raised much public concern about the
sustainability, safety, and security of the food supply . Studies have shown that there is a significant amount
of pesticide residue present in foodstuffs long after they are taken away from farms for human consumption ;
hence, the need for alternatives such as biofertilizer in ensuring food safety and security . Moreover, synthetic
fertilizers that consist of various nutrients such as nitrogen (N2), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulphur
may become harmful if used beyond the required amount . The harmful effects of these fertilizers include the
weakening of plant roots, the high rate of disease incidence, soil acidification, and eutrophication of ground
water and other water bodies. Nutrients such as nitrates leach to groundwater and cause “blue baby syndrome”,
also called “acquired methemoglobinemia”. The impact of these chemicals will not only affect the present but
also future generations. Therefore, there is need to search for eco-friendly approaches such as biofertilizers,
which play a major role in sustainable agriculture. Biofertilizers are microorganisms that support the growth
of plants by enhancing the nutrient supply to the host plant when given to seeds, plants, or the soil. They
colonize the rhizosphere or the inside of the plants. This entails the use of plant growth-promoting
microorganisms that participate in a variety of biotic activities in the soil ecosystem in order to make it
dynamic and sustainable for crop development. Biofertilizers are widely used to accelerate microbial activities
that increase the availability of nutrients that plants can easily absorb. They increase soil fertility by fixing
atmospheric N2 and solubilizing insoluble phosphates in the soil, resulting in plant growth-promoting
chemicals . These biofertilizers make use of the naturally available biological system of nutrient mobilization,
which greatly enhances soil fertility and, as a result, crop productivity. It has been reported that the biofertilizer
market is estimated to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.0% from 2015 to 2020 and is
expected to reach USD 1.88 billion by 2025. Because of strict regulations on the use of chemical fertilizers,
biofertilizers are the most widely used in Europe and Latin America .
The words “food security” and “food insecurity” are commonly used in discussions of global
conditions and prospects. Food security is defined as the availability and accessibility of safe and nutritious
food that fits the dietary requirements of a healthy and active lifestyle. Food insecurity occurs when people do
not have enough access to safe and nutritious food, and thus do not consume enough to live an active and
healthy life. This could be due to a lack of food, a lack of purchasing power, or inefficient use of resources at
the household level . Another factor that may be responsible for food insecurity may be the depletion of soil
nutrients resulting from continuous tillage and the use of chemical or synthetic fertilizers for continuous
agricultural production. This have made the soil lose its fertility, and most of the agricultural produce
consumed is not safe because of the chemical residues that are left in them. This review highlights the role of
biofertilizers in crop improvement and the production of safe and secure food, the mechanisms of
microorganisms in enhancing plant growth, and the various types of organisms used as plant growth-
promoting microorganisms.
With the past 50 years of Indian history, the chemical pesticides and fertilizers have played an
important role in increasing the agricultural productivity. But the large use of chemical fertilizers has negative
effects on human health. Indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides contributed in loss
of soil productivity along with addition of salts to the soil. In future, the requirement of different types of
chemical fertilizers will be less for soil improvement. It will lower the opportunities of water pollution along
with unsustainable difficulty on agricultural system. Stewart (1969) described that various microbiologists
(Beijerinck.,1901; Lipman.,1903) were pioneer in the isolation of Azotobacter spp., whereas scientist,
Winodgradsky isolated the basic strain of Eubacterium pasteurianum. After a long time, the invention of the
biological development in cyanobacteria was recognized. Subsequently then, analysis efforts in this fields
have gradually overstated resulting in the choice of various strains displaying many advantageous options
(Podile and Kishore 2007).
Abdul Halim (2009) also submitted that the role of these natural stimulants has an early history that
goes from generation to generation on small-scale manure production and generation of farmers. A particular
group of such fertilizers includes products in the form of microorganisms that promote bio-growth, called
biofertilizers, which are nitrogen-fixing, phosphate-solubilizing, or living or cellulolytic microorganisms.
They are used for the application of seeds, soil, or compost areas with the aim of increasing the number of
such microorganisms and to increase the availability of nutrients by accelerating some microbial process,
which is done by plants (Khosro and Yousef 2012). These biofertilizers play an important role as a major
component of integrated nutrient management in soil, which will be helpful for soil productivity and
sustainability. Biofertilizers may contain living microorganisms that, when applied to the seeds (seed
treatment) of plants, result in growth of the plant with improvement in hardness property along with increased
availability of nutrients to the host plant (Kour et al., 2020; Rana et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020). These
biofertilizers are ecologically renewable sources of plant nutrients, which may replace the costing of chemical
fertilizers effectively. Three important groups of microbes such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), plant
growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), and nitrogen-fixing rhizobia act as a biocontrol agents that are
extensively used globally (Podile and Kishore 2007).
In 1886, German scientists Hellerl and Wilfarth were responsible for the discovery of nitrogen
fixation, which stated that legumes with root nodules can use gaseous (molecular) nitrogen. Dutch
microbiologist Beijerinck, in the year 1998, isolated Azotobacter spp. Apart from this, Winodgradsky in
(1901) isolated the first strain of Clostridium pasteurianum (Thakur et al.,2014). Stewart (1969) reported that
nitrogen fixation was found much later in cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Podile and Kishore (2007)
reviewed that there has been a steady increase in research efforts in these areas, resulting in the selection of
several beneficial characteristics to many strains. The uses of fertilizers in fields for crop production showed
the adverse effects on soil health. Today, several fertilizers are made available for us which act may as growth
enhancer substance. Such kind of information about natural stimulators or microbial inoculums that passes
from one generation to another farmer generation includes the use of culture of small-scale production. Plant
growth enhancing microbes are known as biofertilizer or “microbial inoculants” (live and dormant microbes)
they are economical and feasible in nature. Biofertilizers can be applied to seed (as seed treatment), soil, and
composting areas with a purpose to encourage the number of microbes and to improve the reactions for
enhancing the supply of required plant materials which can be easily available to the plant (Khosro and Yousef
2012; Kaur et al., 2020; Kour et al., 2020). Use of such biofertilizers is mandatory part of integrated nutrient
management (INM) within soil but its role in productivity and property of soil is significant and indispensable.
With passage of time, chemical fertilizers are replaced by these biofertilizers as they are cost-effective because
of their eco-friendly approach and recycled supply of plant nutrients. Three primary teams of biocontrol are
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), nitrogen-fixing rhizobia (Franche et al. 2009) and plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR).

Bio fertilizers:

Bio fertilizers are ready-to-use live formulates of beneficial microorganisms that on application to seed, root
or soil mobilize and augment the availability of nutrients through their biological activity in particular, and
help build up micro-flora and soil health in general.19 They provide nutrients by working symbiotically with
plant roots or through solubilisation or mobilization of nutrients from soil or atmosphere. There are many
identified beneficial microorganisms, of which a few are commercially exploited as bio fertilizers. Bio
fertilizers are regulated through the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order (FCO) of 1985,
under the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, which was notified under the Essential
Commodities Act of 1955 in 2006. Biofertilizers are available in solid and liquid formulations in packets and
bottles that are supposed to be labelled as per the FCO. They are typically produced under controlled
conditions in manufacturing units as part of an industry that is more organized than the organic fertilizer
producing industry but less organized than the chemical fertilizer manufacturing industry.
As of now, 11 types of biofertilizers are approved. The first four biofertilizers- Azospirillum,
Azotobacter, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and Rhizobium—were approved in 2006. In 2010, mycorrhizal
biofertilizers and in 2012 Acetobacter were added to the list. Phosphate-solubilizing fungal biofertilizer was
the latest addition in 2019 (see Figure 1: Biofertilizers approved under Fertilizer Control Order). In addition
to bacterial and fungal biofertilizers, algal biofertilizers like blue green algae are also available in the market.
However, they are not approved under FCO.
State governments are responsible for overall implementation of FCO. They are responsible for
registering and authorizing manufactures, importers, dealers and distributors in line with specifications
provided in FCO. They are also responsible for quality control. Only biofertilizers that meet FCO’s quality
standards can be sold in the market. For wholesale distribution, a single licence is sufficient in one state.
However, for retail sales, separate licences are needed to sell in different districts in a state and every retail
sale point needs a licence. Authorization needs to be renewed after every five years in accordance with
provisions of FCO. State government- and municipality-owned retail sale points are exempted from the need
to obtain authorization letters to sell biofertilizers. At the Central level, National Centre of Organic Farming
(NCOF) and its seven Regional Centres of Organic Farming are involved in quality control. Before 2004,
NCOF was also involved in development of biofertilizers as the National Biofertilizer Development Centre.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’s flagship project “All India Network Project on Soil
Biodiversity-biofertilizers” has developed improved and efficient strains of biofertilizers specific to different
crops and soil types.

Fig: Bio fertilizers approved under Fertilizer Control Order.

Chemical Fertilizer Vs Bio fertilizer:

In 2019, India was the second highest producer and consumer of chemical fertilizers in the world.
In 2020–21, the chemical fertilizer consumption in India, excluding single super phosphate (SSP), was 62.98
million tonne, with a growth of more than 82.5 per cent since 2000–01. Per hectare fertilizer consumption for
2020–21 stands at 161 kg, with a growth of 75 per cent since 2000–01. In 2019–20, per hectare fertilizer
consumption in 12 states and Union territories was more than the national average of 133.4 kg. In decreasing
order of per hectare consumption, these states and Union territories are Bihar, Puducherry, Punjab, Haryana,
Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Delhi and Uttarakhand.
More than 50 per cent of the chemical fertilizers consumed in India are in the form of urea. Between 2000–01
and 2020–21, consumption of complex fertilizers grew by 163 per cent, consumption of diammonium
phosphate grew by 103 per cent, consumption of urea grew by 83 per cent, and consumption of muriate of
potassium grew by 92 per cent. Consumption of SSP grew by 25 per cent between 2000–01 and 2018–19.
Total subsidy on chemical fertilizers is steeply growing every year. In 2020–21, the annual subsidy bill was
Rs. 1,31,230 crore, which is more than 10 times the subsidy bill in 2001–02 (Rs. 12,908 crore). The subsidy
bill has grown sharply from 2019– 20, when it was Rs. 83,468 crore, partly due to rising international prices
leading to higher subsidies on imported fertilizers. The share of subsidy on imported fertilizers in the total
subsidy bill of chemical fertilizers was more than 25 per cent in that year. In 2020–21, the subsidy turned out
to be Rs 9,400 per hectare of net sown area, while it ranged between Rs 5,000 and Rs 6,000 during 2016–20.
In 2019–20, over two-thirds of the total subsidy was for urea and one-third was for phosphatic and potassic
fertilizers. For city compost, only a negligible 0.04 per cent of the total subsidy on fertilizers was provided.
City compost is an organic fertilizer on which market development assistance used to be given, which has
been discontinued from October 2021.
States and Union territories with higher consumption of chemical fertilizers (than the national per
hectare consumption of 133.4 kg in 2019–20) did not necessarily report a lesser number of soil samples
deficient in organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Similarly, states and Union territories with
lower per hectare consumption of chemical fertilizers (than the national average) did not necessarily report a
higher number of deficient soil samples. Many studies suggest that crops no longer respond to chemical
fertilizers as they used to. Chemical fertilizers have a deleterious effect on soil and crop productivity, and
deficiency of nutrients has become a yield-limiting factor even with application of recommended doses of
fertilizers.

Fig: Growth in annual fertilizer consumption in India between 2000–01 and 2020–21
After the introduction of chemical fertilizers in the last century, the farmers were glad of getting increased
yield in the agriculture in the beginning. But slowly chemical fertilizers started displaying their ill-effects such
as leaching out, and polluting water basins, destroying micro-organisms and friendly insects , making the crop
more susceptible to the attack of diseases, reducing the soil fertility and thus causing irresparable damage to
the overall system. Conway (2012) reported that at present, there are 7 billion approximately living in the
world and this number is undoubtedly expected to rise to approximately 8 billion around 2020. Sujanya and
Chandra (2011) observed that regardless, the enormous use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture making the
country self- dependent in providing large amount of food supply but concurrently damages the environment
to a great extent and causes harmful impacts on human or living beings. Hazardous chemical fertilizers cannot
be taken up by the plants, they start accumulating in the ground water and some these chemicals are also
responsible for causing eutrophication of water bodies and the indiscriminate uses of chemical fertilizers
shows great threat to nature by polluting water, air and soil. Chemical are adversely affect soil in terms of
depletion of water soil fertility, water holding capacity, increased salinity and disparity in nutrients of soil
(Savci,2012).Using diversified organisms , crop productivity had increased to an appreciable measure (ICAR
report, 2006-2007).
Because of their rapid proclamation of nutrients, inorganic fertilizers have the advantage of fast action
and are inexpensive. Therefore, these have developed exceedingly prevalent worldwide. Though, the results
showed that they have drawbacks that could not be ignored, so there has been a considerable study done on
the disadvantages of inorganic fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizers were useful to the soil producing contamination
because of their upsurge solubility in water, by which they could be leached profoundly hooked on
underground water into the soil unreachable for roots of a plant. Because of their deliberate release of nutrients,
biofertilizers have extensive long-lasting properties. The inclusive soil productiveness is augmented by the
use of enduring usage of biofertilizer, which corresponds to the accumulation of nutrients in the soil. Various
plant diseases, for example, Rhizoctonia root rot, pythium root rot, parasitic nematode, and chill wilt, could
be controlled by the use of biofertilizers. The soil particles are organized with each other and upsurge the
water retention capacity of the soil, whereas avoiding erosion, desertification by the use of biofertilizer, which
plays as a soil conditioner by the addition of organic matter to the soil. These extra adoptions of fertilizers
which are chemical in nature in agriculture are costly with negative effect chemical and physical properties of
soils (Aggani, 2013). Therefore, with the obvious harmful and serious consequences of the chemicals, Khan
et al. (2007) also described the introduction of many organic fertilizers that may stimulate the growth process
in the plant in a positive way.
Several Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) have been studied which can replace
chemical fertilizers. This includes a handful genera such as Bacillus, Clostridium, Arthrobacter, Azotobacter,
Hydrogenophga, Enterobacter, Azospirillium, Serratia, Burkholderia, etc. (Lugtenberg and Kamilova, 2009).
Biofertilizers are promoted to harvest available biological system of nutrient mobilization naturally which
enormously increases the fertility of the soil and crop yield ultimately (Pandey and Singh 2012). Prolongly,
all the adverse effective use of chemical fertilizers, organic farming has emerged as a potent alternative area
in terms of the growing demand of healthy supply of food , long term sustainability, and concerns regarding
environmental pollution (Reddy, 2013). Considering, recent efforts have been focused towards the production
of “nutrient-rich high-quality food” to ensure biosafety (Bhardwaj et al.,2014; Buragohain et al.,2017). The
additional advantages of biofertilizers include longer shelf life of microbial cells causing no adverse effect to
the ecosystem (Sahoo et al.,2014). A biofertilizer is a substance which contains microorganisms which when
applied to seeds , plants, or soil, colonizes the rhizosphere and promotes plant growth by increasing the supply
of nutrients to the plant (Vessey 2003; Bardi and Malusa,2012; Malsua and Vassiley 2014). Biofertilizers
improve soil fertility by fixing the atmospheric nitrogen and solubilizing insoluble phosphates and produce
plant growth – promoting substances in the soil (Mazid and Khan, 2015).
In 2020-21, total production of carrier-based solid biofertilizers in India was about 134,323 tonne. This marked
a growth of about 6,600 per cent from 1992–93, 435 per cent from 2008–09 and 83 per cent from 2018–19
In 2020–21, states in southern India produced about half of the carrier-based solid fertilizers produced in the
country, and states in the West Zone produced a little over one-fourth. About one-fifthwasproducedinnorthern
India and 3 per cent in eastern Indian states. Northeastern states produced less than 1 per cent.
Tamil Nadu was responsible for nearly half of the carrier-based fertilizer production in India in
2020–21. It was followed by Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana with about 14 per cent, 12 per
cent, 10 per cent and 6 percent share in the production respectively. Together these five states were responsible
for over 90 per cent of India’s carrier-based fertilizer production.

Fig: Growth in carrier-based solid biofertilizer production in india from 1992–93 to 2020–21

Fig: Zonal carrier-based solid biofertilizer production in 2020-21

India produced about 26,442 kilolitre (kl) of liquid biofertilizers in 2020–21. This marked a growth of 552 per
cent from the 4,055 kl of liquid biofertilizers production in 2014–15. States in the southern India produced
about half of India’s liquid biofertilizers, followed by states in the West Zone, which had a 40 per cent share.
Northern India produced 7.5 per cent of India’s liquid biofertilizers and eastern India produced about 3.4 per
cent. North-eastern states produced less than 1 per cent. With about 37 per cent share in the total production,
Karnataka leads the manufacture of liquid fertilizers in the country in 2020–21. It is followed by Gujarat with
over 31 per cent of the share. Maharashtra and Kerala, each produced about 8 per cent and Uttarakhand
produced about 4 per cent of the liquid fertilizers manufactured in India in 2020–21. Together these five states
manufactured about 88 per cent of the liquid biofertilizers produced in India in 2020–21.

Fig: Liquid biofertilizer production in india between 2014–15 and 2020– 21

Fig: Zonal liquid biofertilizer production in 2020–21

Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofertilizer:

There are several things that need to be considered in biofertilizer making such as microbes’ growth
profile, types and optimum condition of organism, and formulation of inoculum. The formulation of inoculum,
method of application and storage of the product are all critical to the success of a biological product. In
general, there are 6 major steps in making biofertilizer. These include choosing active organisms, isolation
and selection of target microbes, selection of method and carrier material, selection of propagation method,
prototype testing and large-scale testing. The most common benefits offered by biofertilizers are in terms of
environmentally friendly fertilizer, which does not give any harmful effect to the ecosystem. For example, the
mutual interaction between plants and microorganisms is advantageous for both sides. The plant got better
nitrogen assimilation, meanwhile microorganism got food from the plant via conversion of sugar to organic
acid. Practicing biofertilizer would improve soil fertility. Phosphorus solubilizes is carried out by a large
number of saprophytic bacteria and fungi acting on cautiously to soluble soil phosphates, mainly by chelation-
mediated mechanisms. Phosphate solubilizers microorganism’s secret organic acids and enzymes that act on
insoluble phosphates and convert it into soluble form, thus, proving P to plants [29]. Inorganic P is solubilized
by the action of organic and inorganic acids secreted by PSB in which hydroxyl and carboxyl groups of acids
chelate cations (Al, Fe, Ca) and decrease the pH in basic soils [30]. The PSB dissolves the soil P through
production of low molecular weight organic acids mainly gluconic and ketogluconic acids in addition to
lowering the pH of the rhizosphere. The pH of the rhizosphere is lowered through biotical production of proton
/ bicarbonate release (anion / cation balance) and gaseous (O2/CO2) exchanges. Phosphorus solubilization
ability of PSB has direct correlation with pH of the medium. In terms of the environment and economy, the
use of biofertilizers is thus desirable. However, chemical fertilizer is applicable to all crops, and not limited
to a particular group of crops such as the legumes. Currently, grain legumes are no longer produced in large
scale in Malaysia, and in rice producing areas of the country crop rotation of rice-legume-rice is not in practice,
since double cropping per year (or sometimes 5 times in 2 years) is adopted. There is also no long fallow
period between the rice planting seasons, thus rendering decomposing materials in the fields not readily
available for the immediate planting season.
Biofertilizers are often perceived to be more expensive than the chemical fertilizers. This is more so,
since the farmers and smallholders received fertilizers heavily subsidized by the government. Thus, only those
nursery and farm operators who appreciate the benefits of certain biofertilizers will use them. Another
perception on biofertilizer is that its effect on the crops is slow, compared to chemical fertilizers. Special care
such as storage, mixing with powders is also needed to handle microbial inocula so that they remain effective
for extended use. These inoculants, too, favour certain environments. Concerning microbial inoculants, while
some users realise their potential there is a difference of opinion on the effectiveness of microbial inoculants
available in the market.
Need of Bio fertilizers for Sustainable Management of Agroecosystem:

Non-ethical use of chemical fertilizer doses creating pollutions to our agroecosystem. Side by side
they have also reduced soil fertility and increased the soil toxicity. The current research is promoting more
development and application of commercial biofertilizers for the food security, human health, and
environmental sustainability (Malyan et al. 2020; Sharaff et al., 2020; Thakur et al., 2020). These plant
growth-promoting rhizo-bacteria shows more targeted activity, and their small quantity can be utilized in small
amounts; they multiply on their own, but are controlled by the plant as well as indigenous microbial
populations present in the soil. These microbial populations can be decomposed more rapidly than commercial
chemical pesticides (Rastegari et al., 2020; Tiwari et al., 2020). Reducing feedstock/fossil fuel (energy crisis)
rises fertilizer prices. In addition to the above, the long-term use of biofertilizers is inexpensive,
environmentally friendly, more effective, competitive, and accessible to marginal and small farmers without
chemical fertilizers. Biofertilizers that play an important role in organic agriculture, by mobilizing fastened
different nutrient (macro- and micronutrients) or converting the insoluble P into a plant-accessible form, play
an important role in sustaining long-lasting fertility and biodiversity by fixing atmospheric di-nitrogen (N =
N). Taking into account the price as well as the environmental impacts of chemical fertilizers, additional
dependence on chemical fertilizers is not a viable long-term approach because of the costs of building fertilizer
plants and maintaining production in both domestic and foreign exchange capital. This can be the viable
approach for farmers to improve the productivity per unit area by application of organic manures
(biofertilizers) and may even be used in integrated pest management systems.

Global Market Reports of Bio fertilizers:

The increase in requirement for natural goods is flourishing, not only because of the elevation in
meticulous clients but also due to growing earnings, alongside the enhanced agricultural application that
creates organic products more strong. Thus, the enhanced requirement of natural goods is reported globally
and resulted in the elevated organic agricultural practices. The agricultural field area of global organic farming
is elevated from 37.5 to 57.8 million hectares. This has promoted the requirement for biofertilizer food stuffs,
as these are natural and eco-friendly. Almost 28% of biofertilizers world market share belongs to North
America. Among this, the United States covers the highest shares that are more than half of shares of North
America. The market for biofertilizers has also increased in both United States and Canada because of its
natural and eco-friendly property. Still, Mexico is a budding market in North American biofertilizer taxonomy.
As a result, the diverse benefits of biofertilizers result to their extensive utilization and enhanced acceptance
and utilization in sustainable farming. The affirmative agricultural attitude in the country has increased the
market of bio-based foodstuffs in the area. In the future, North American area is estimated to maintain its
market, because of enhanced utilization of organic crop due to nutrition and demand of high quality food
values. The approximate existing requirement for biofertilizers is 18,500 tonnes per year in India, while
predictable manufacturing is approximately 10,000 tonnes per year. Furthermore, Government of India is
focusing on creating extra requirement by appropriate expansion and encouragement by frequently organizing
seminars on biofertilizers.
 Fig: Global presentation of biofertilizer market.

Fig: Year-wise demand and supply chart for bio fertilizers.

Instead of applying a smart plantation program to arable land, the organic fertilizer such as compost and urea
from animal manure, food or kitchen waste and agricultural waste can replace the basic function of chemical
fertilizer to boost crops production. Unfortunately, microbes in the urea or compost need proper condition to
react before feeding to the plant. Other than that, the quantity of microbes beyond organic fertilizer are
unknown, so it is difficult to predict the efficiency of organic products. Dissatisfaction with the efficiency of
organic fertilizer has contributed to innovation of biofertilizer in agriculture, which is generally safer, more
eco-friendly and advantageous for plant health and also soil fertility especially in arable land.
This figure illustrates the potential biofertilizer in the United States for 10 years from 2012 until 2022 for
different products such as Nitrogen fixing and Phosphate solubilizing products. Global biofertilizers market
size was estimated at USD 535.8 million in 2014. Excessive application of agrochemicals on crops leading to
soil contamination and other environmental hazards is expected to be the key market driver over the forecast
period. In addition to being an eco-friendly option, the product also helps to maintain soil and crop health.
These are produced using organic wastes such as struvite and compost acting as substitutes for chemical-based
fertilizers.
The EU “Common Agricultural Policy” promotes use of bio-based products along with organic
farming and provides up to 30 percent of the budget as direct green payment to farmers complying to
sustainable agricultural practices. Favourable regulatory scenario, especially in North America and Europe is
expected to be a key driving factor for biofertilizer industry growth over the next seven years. The government
of India introduced a national initiative as part of its five-year plan which aims at increasing biofertilizer
production, distribution and utilization thus favouring biofertilizers market growth. Low cost of these products
as compared to their synthetic counterparts is expected to propel demand over the next seven years. However,
lack of awareness among farmers particularly in emerging economies is expected to challenge industry growth
over the forecast period .Even though in Asia, many disadvantages of chemical fertilizer have been highlighted
but their consumption is high compared with other regions. Malaysia as an example practicing biofertilizer in
agriculture is not really accepted by plantations and smallholders because intensive labour is required. The
marketing strategy in biofertilizer products in Malaysia is through niche markets such as ornamentals,
vegetables, forestry due to scope limitation belong to particular biofertilizer, for example rhizobial inoculum
could only be applied to legumes, whether the grain legumes (such as groundnut, soybean, mung beans) or
the leguminous cover crops (Centrosema, Pueraria, Mucuna, Calopogonium). The Effectiveness or successful
symbiosis between the rhizobia and the legume roots will result in high efficiency at fixing atmospheric
nitrogen, and subsequently less dependence on chemical nitrogen fertilizer.
International Plant Nutrition Institute has revealed that the use of biofertilizers in Brazil is about 60-
70 K tons/year. In Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay of South America, also nearly 70% of 30 million
hectares of soybean crops were inoculated with Bradyrhizobium sps every year and are considered to be a
large soybean market. A difference of 7.5% yield was observed between inoculated and non-inoculated crops,
whereas Pseudomonas sps and Azospirillum brasilense are recommended for wheat and maize with an
expected increase in yield of 4%–9%. Although countries with advanced R&D and high-end technology like
Japan, Taiwan, and Korea are moving more forward toward biofertilizer and bio pesticide production, small
scale farmers due to literacy hurdles need to be educated on the comparative use of inorganic and organic
constituents (FFTC, 2007). Asian countries have opportunities for the development and commercialization of
bio alternatives contributing to food safety and environmental concerns. In India, more than 100,000 ha have
been occupied by organic farming (Sekhar et al., 2016) supported by nearly100 biofertilizer producers across
the country and are receiving special focus in horticulture, oilseed, and medicinal plant cultivation. In China,
167 million hectares have been cultivated with bio fertilizers, and over 300 producers are found all over.
However, inoculants other than rhizobium were not found to be efficient. The rhizobium biofertilizer in Japais
Mamezo, and in Taiwan, farmer’s economy was substantially increased (USD 27 million) from 1987 to 2006.
Vietnam farmers have been using Bio Gro for rice, which resulted in brighter, less disease-prone, clean and
stronger stems and increased grain yield.
Biofertilizer, Food Safety and Security:

Previously, the advantages and disadvantages of bio fertilizers to replace conventional chemical
fertilizer have been discussed. Considering their versatile performances and their aim to help the farmer and
community worldwide, there is a concern regarding food safety and security after application of biofertilizer.
In particular, it is understandable to use microorganisms and the interaction between plants and soil surface.
However, full risk of the main subject to respective crops is still scarce. Attempts have been made to fill the
knowledge gap and the guideline for each inoculants utilization also discussed. Nevertheless, the risk
associated with large scale agricultural or long term conditions for crops must be assessed properly. For
example, certain microbes that applied to the crop may possibly switch its behavior to parasite even for the
same crops. This phenomenon has been reported in 2006 by Kogel et al., Keswani et al., highlighted the
potential bacteria that might be harmful to humans. This includes Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus,
Serratia, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Enterobacter, Ochrobactrum, Klebsiella, Ralstonia and Bacillus,
respectively. This statement is in agreement with study by Eberl and Vandamme, which stated that
Burkholderia cepacia can work as PGP traits which include N2-fixation however it may possibly be pathogens
to humans. Another study by Mendes et al., Pseudomonas (i.e P. Fluorescens, P. Putida, P. Putrefaciencs, P.
Stutzeri and P. Oseudoalcaligenes) that has a great role as PGP potential is also known as possible pathogens
which cause respiratory problems to human. However, for current state, commercial biofertilizers is mostly
formulated their products with organisms like Actinorhizobium sp., Azospirillum sp., Azotobacter sp., and
Rhizobium sp., which has lowest risk to human health and has been declared as safe for application . Therefore,
it is important to have proper biosafety screening tests especially in clinical and great tools to assess the whole
genome sequencing, respectively. Another possible risk to the environment eco-systems is that introducing
the new microorganisms to the resident organism community may switch the resident microbial entirely. This
indirect situation might also affect root architecture as well as plant diversity and composition. For example,
A. Lipoferum isolated from maize has shifted the composition of the rhizosphere community at least within a
month. Trabelsi and Mhamdi reported that Azospirillum sp. can affect the rhizosphere community through N
dynamic effects which suggested that many factors are involved especially in N2-fixation. The same trend also
happened to commercial fungal biofertilizers. Applying foreign arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has
significantly affected resident AMF communities. From here, it shows that it is important to analyse the whole
function of microorganisms at the same time reducing the gap between the impact on ecosystems as well as
environmental health.
There is a direct correlation between population growth and food demand. As the global population
continues to rise, there is a need to scale up food production to meet the food demand of the population. In
addition, the arable land over time has lost its naturally endowed nutrients. Hence, alternative measures such
as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are used to fortify the soil and scale up the production rate. As efforts
are being made to meet this food demand and ensure food security, it is equally important to ensure food safety
for consumption. Food safety measures need to be put in place throughout the food production chain lines.
One of the fundamental measures is the use of bio fertilizers or plant growth promoters instead of chemical or
synthesized fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that poise several dangers to human and animal health. Bio
fertilizers competitively colonize plant root systems, which, in turn, enhance nutrient uptake, increase
productivity and crop yield, improve plants’ tolerance to stress and their resistance to pathogens, and improve
plant growth through mechanisms such as the mobilization of essential elements, nutrients, and plant growth
hormones. Bio fertilizers are cost-effective and eco-friendly in nature, and their continuous usage enhances
soil fertility. They also increase crop yield by up to about 10–40% by increasing protein contents, essential
amino acids, and vitamins, and by nitrogen fixation. This review therefore highlighted different types of
biofertilizers and the mechanisms by which they elicit their function to enhance crop yield to meet food
demand. In addition, the review also addressed the role of microorganisms in promoting plant growth and the
various organisms that are beneficial for enhancing plant growth. Food safety can be defined as the assurance
of the food quality that it will not cause any harm to the consumer when it is in the preparation or eating
process according to its intended use (FAO/WHO 1997). It has been estimated that 82 food-borne illness
outbreaks were associated with the consumption of fresh produce during 1996–2008. This time period was
linked with tomato-associated outbreaks accounting for 1,927 illnesses and three deaths. These tomato-
associated outbreaks were considered fatal. There are many factors that may play a role in the increased
incidence of food-borne illness outbreaks that implicate fresh produce, such as a population consisting of aged
plants, more complex supply and global trade, improved surveillance participating in the detection of food-
borne illness, improvement in the advances of epidemiological investigation, and upgrading to the latest
methods to detect pathogens. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy, 2014, advised that
tomatoes may be minimally processed for obtaining ready-to-eat products. These steps include initial selection
to final storage. The epidemiological source from the EU has identified one outbreak of Salmonella and one
of Norovirus associated with tomato consumption from 2007 to 2012, which were considered in the context
of the whole food chain. Available estimates of the Salmonella and Norovirus occurrence in tomatoes were
evaluated together for prevention of contamination with relevant microbiological criteria. It was concluded
that each farm habitat represents a unique collection of risk factors that can influence persistence of pathogens
in tomato production. The implementation of appropriate food safety management systems including good
agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices should be the most important objectives of a tomato
producer. According to Lairon (2009), food nutritional value, quality, and safety vary widely around the world.
Attaining these three goals is one of the major priorities for the near future.

Research Findings:
Table -1: Performance of Azolla biofertilizer in the demonstration trials conducted in farmer’s holdings
in rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu

No of trials season Variety Average grain yield(t/ha) % increase

conducted uninoculated inoculated over control

Coimbatore 97 Rabi IR 5.60 6.20 10.2

50/IR20
ADT36
Erode 124 Rabi ADT36/ 6.50 7.08 8.9
Entry 2
Salem 49 Rabi J 13 8.80 9.70 10.2
Thanjavur 47 Rabi IR 20 5.00 6.33 26.6
Tirunelveli and 30 Rabi IR50/ 6.51 7.40 13.7
Titicorin IR20

Azolla is a free-floating water fern, which in symbiotic association with the cyanobacterium -
Anabaena azollae contributes substantial amount of biologically fixed nitrogen to the rice crop. The nitrogen
fixing water fern, Azolla has been used as a biofertilizer for rice crop in India, China, Vietnam, Thailand,
Philippines, Korea, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma, Indonesia, Brazil and West Africa
(Kannaiyan, 1987). Azolla is used as biofertilizer for rice crop and it could contribute 40-60 kg N / ha per
crop (Kannaiyan, 1995). The important factor in using Azolla as a biofertilizer for rice crop is its quick
decomposition in soil and efficient availability of its nitrogen to rice plants (Kannaiyan, 1990). The results of
the demonstration trials conducted to test the performance of Azolla biofertilizer in the farmer's holdings in
rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu revealed that an additional grain yield of rice ranging from 8.9% to 26.6%
could be obtained due to application of azolla biofertilizer.
Table -2: Performance of BGA biofertilizer in the demonstration trials conducted in farmer’s holdings
in Rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu

Name of the No of trials season variety Average grain yield(t/ha) % increase

district conducted uninoculated inoculated over
control
Coimbatore 172 Kharif ADT 36 5.30 5.98 13.0
Erode 138 Kharif IR50/ 6.29 7.10 12.9
ADT36
Tirunelveli & 138 Kharif ASD16 6.00 6.57 9.5
Titicorin

The agronomic potential of Cyanobacterial N2 fixation in rice fields was first recognized in India
during 1939 by De who attributed the natural fertility of tropical rice fields to Na fixing blue green algae,
Singh (1961) and Venkataraman (1972) extensively studied the role of cyanobacteria in rice cultivation in
different rice growing areas of India, Inoculation of BGA is highly suitable during dry season. Application of
dried soil based blue-green algal flakes at the rate of 10 kg per ha is recommended for rice crop. At the time
of inoculation of BGA, 500 g of single super phosphate may be mixed with 10 kg of soil based BGA which
encourages better growth and establishment in rice field. A composite starter culture consisting of more than
one species or genera is more preferable, fast growing species, which can tolerate certain amount of
extremities, are more suitable than highly susceptible ones. The algal species should have a fair amount of
tolerance to agricultural chemicals such as pesticides and weedicides. The algal inoculant is to be applied 10
days after transplantation of rice crop. Continuous application of blue green algae to the rice fields for at least
4 consecutive seasons sustains the high crop yield at reduced levels of commercial nitrogen fertilizers input
in ensuing cropping seasons (Kannaiyan, 1993). The demonstration trials conducted to test the performance
of BGA biofertilizer in the farmer's holdings in rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu indicated the increase in
grain yield of rice to the tune of 9.5 to 13% over uninoculated control due to the application of BGA
biofertilizer.

Table -3: Effect of Azolla with different levels of nitrogen on the number of tillers, grain yield and straw
yield of rice
Field experiments were conducted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, sambalpur Odisha for four consecutive
seasons.The experiment was laid out in randomised block design with 7 treatments and 3 replications. Rice
variety MTU1001 was transplanted in the 5*3 m plots in 15*10 cm spacing. Phosphorous and potassium were
applied at 30 kg/ha as basal dressing. Nitrogen was applied at 3 equal split doses during transplanting time,
tillering stages and panicle initiation stage. Azolla was inoculated at 1000 kg/ha on 7 days after transplanting.
(DAT). The observations like number of tillers, grain yield and straw yield were recorded at the time of
harvest. The application of azolla increased the tillering capacity significantly over control. The application
of azolla increased the number of tillers with different levels of nitrogen.
 Level of nitrogen No of tillers Grain yield Straw yield
( kg/ha ) (q/ha ) (q/ha )

T : Control 8.4 31.5 54.7

0

T : Azolla alone 10.2 38.2 58.1

1

T : 30 Kg N 10.7 37.6 57.8

2

T : 30 Kg N+ Azolla 13.6 43.4 62.3

3

T : 60 Kg N 13.2 44.2 62.9

4

T : 60 Kg N+ Azolla 15.8 49.2 65.4

5

T : 90 Kg N 16.1 48.9 66.8

6

CD ( P = 0.05 ) 1.6 4.9 2.3

The percentage increase in number of tillers was higher in the azolla inoculated along with 60 kg N /ha gave
the result equal to plots where 90 kg/ha alone was applied. Application of azolla along with 60kg N/ha has
recorded the highest grain yield (49.2 q/h). With a 56.2 % increase over control. In the plots where azolla
inoculated @ 1000 kg/ha along with 30 kg N/ha the grain yield was 43.4 q/ha which was at par with the plot
inoculated with 60 kg N /ha alone (44.22 q/ha). Again in the same experiment, when azolla inoculated with
60 kg N /ha, the grain yield was equal to plots when 90 Kg N /ha alone was applied. The azolla inoculation
with different levels of nitrogen increases the straw yield significantly over uninoculated plots. The straw yield
was maximum with 90 kg N/ha. Without azolla (66.8/ha). Plots inoculated with 30 kg N /ha along with azolla
had recorded the same straw yield as that of the plots inoculated with 60 kg N/ha alone. Consecutive use of
azolla along with 60 kg N/ha resulted in highest beneficial effect, which was even more than 90 kg N /ha
treatment. From this expt. It was found that the use of azolla biofertilizer as a dual crop has contributed 30-40
kg N to rice crop.

Table -4: Inoculation effect of pulses on the yield of subsequent crops

Previous crop Yield of subsequent crop (Mg ha−1)

Inoculated Uninoculated Crop

Pigeon pea 2.46 2.08 Wheat

Chick pea 2.76 2.52 Rice

Black gram 2.16 2.08 Wheat

Lentil 2.56 2.26 Rice

N concentration in plant parts and grains may increase, or the benefits may be regarding residual N which will
benefit the succeeding crops by increasing yields as a result of enrichment of soil N due to N-fixation and its
conserving effect of legumes at some instances. V. radiata, V. unguiculata, V. mungo, and C.arietinum have
been reported to leave about 30–40 kg N/ha for the subsequent crop, and C. cajan were found to be an
exhaustive crop (Dudeja et al., 2011; Dhakal et al., 2015). Experimental evidence indicated that 10–15%
increase in the yield of pulse crops consequent to Rhizobium inoculation (Brahmaprakash et al., 2007).
Legume yields may not always be augmented by biofertilization. N concentration in plant parts and grains
may increase, or the benefits may be regarding residual N which will benefit the succeeding crops by
increasing yields as a result of enrichment of soil N due to N-fixation and its conserving effect of legumes at
some instances. V. radiata, V. unguiculata, V. mungo, and C. arietinum have been reported to leave about 30–
40 kg N/ha for the subsequent crop, and C. cajan were found to be an exhaustive crop (Dudeja et al. 2011;
Dhakal et al. 2015).

Table -5: Effect of dual inoculation of Glomus fasciculatum (VAM) and Rhizobium on the chlorophyll,
nitrogen and phosphorous contents of pigeon pea
The present study was carried out at the Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics of Assam
University, which is located in Silchar, Assam (India). Four treatments were performed in the present work as
followed:
1) Inoculation with Glomus fasciculatum alone.
2) Inoculation with Rhizobium alone.
3) Dual inoculation with Glomus fasciculatum and Rhizobium.
4) Un-inoculated plants considered as control.
Un-inoculated Plants (Control)
For control, sterilized seeds were grown in dark condition for 10 days and seedlings of uniform height were
transplanted into pots containing 2 Kg of mixture of sterilized soil and sand mixed in the ratio (1:1). The
treatment was replicated ten times (one seedling in each pot). The experiment was laid out in randomized
complete block (RCB) design. Plants were watered every day.
Determination of Chlorophyll Contents of Leaves
Three replicates at random from each treatment were selected for determination of chlorophyll content of
leaves. Chlorophyll content of leaves was determined after 120 days of inoculation of plants. Chlorophyll
contents were separated and estimated following the method as described by Sadasivan and Manickam, 1996.
Chlorophyll was extracted in 80% acetone and total chlorophyll contents were calculated with the formula

Where, A = Absorbance at specific wave length; V = Final volume of chlorophyll content in 80% acetone;
W = Fresh weight of the tissue extract.

Estimation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Contents

Three replicates at random from each treatment were selected for estimation of each of nitrogen and
phosphorrus. Dried plant materials were converted to ashes for estimation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus.
Nitrogen content of the plant ash was determined by alkaline permanganate method and phosphorus content
was determined by Spectrophotometric method.

Microbial Inoculants Chlorophyll content ( mg / g) N(%) P(%)

Uninoculated Control 2.47 3.04 0.98

Rhizobium 2.81 3.18 1.87

VAM 2.85 3.26 2.03

VAM + RHIZOBIUM 2.94 3.34 2.1

CD ( p = 0.05) 0.03 1.02 0.02

The results presented in the Table 5 revealed that chlorophyll contents in the treated plants were
higher than those in control. G. fasciculatum markedly improved the chlorophyll contents in the leaves of
pigeon pea. However, maximum chlorophyll contents were recorded in the plants dually inoculated with G.
fasciculatum and Rhizobium. VAM fungi have been shown to improve the chlorophyll contents on the leaves
of many plants. It is evident from the results of the present study that the efficacy of VAM fungi was influenced
by co inoculation with Rhizobium. Increase in the chlorophyll contents due to dual inoculation of VAM fungi
and Rhizobium might be attributed to increased rate of photosynthesis and transpiration or due to increased
growth.
The results clearly indicated that inoculation of the plants with both G. fasciculatum and Rhizobium
increased the nitrogen and phosphorus contents of pigeon pea. There was overall increase in nitrogen and
phosphorus contents in the treated plants as compared to control. However, maximum nitrogen and
phosphorus contents were recorded in the plants dually inoculated with G. fasciculatum and Rhizobium.
Inoculation of legumes with Rhizobium increase the nodulation of legumes causing more nitrogen fixation
and making it available for the plants and therefore, it is used as an alternative for urea to minimize the cost
of produce. One of the most significant effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on the host plant is the increase in
phosphorus uptake due to enhanced capacity to absorb more phosphorus from the soil which is otherwise
unavailable to the plants. AM fungi supported nitrogen fixation by providing legumes with phosphorus and
other immobile nutrients which are essential for nitrogen fixation the results of the present study indicated that
combined inoculation of G. fasciculatum and Rhizobium had a synergistic effect resulting in the improvement
of nitrogen and phosphorus. According to Bhattacharjee, and Sharma Summary of this experiment, dual
inoculation of G. fasciculatum and Rhizobium increased chlorophyll, nitrogen and phosphorus contents of
pigeon pea plant indicating that their combination may have a potential role to enhance the productivity of the
plant.

Table -6: Effect of treatments on plant height and some yield components of soybean
This experiment was conducted in “Los Palacios” Rice Research Station of spring, 2001, Soybean
seeds from G7-R-315 cv were selected to evaluate single and combined inoculations with Bradyrhizobium
japonicum ICA 8001 whereas Glomus fasciculatum strain with a minimal composition of 100 spores per grain
of soil and an application rate of 10 % seed weight. A randomized block design with six treatments and four
replications was used. The following treatments were evaluated:
T1: Absolute check (neither fertilized nor inoculated)
T2: (100-80-60) NPK
T3: (PK: 80-60) + Bradyrhizobium japonicum
T4: Bradyrhizobium japonicum
T5: Glomus fasciculatum
T6: Bradyrhizobium japonicum + Glomus fasciculatum
Urea, triple superphosphate and potassium chloride were respectively employed as NPK carriers and applied
as basal dressing by hand at seeding time. A seed-coating technology was used for seed inoculation and
coinoculation with biofertilizers. The following evaluations were performed:
1) Final plant height
2) Nodule number at flowering
3) Pod number per plant
4) Grain number per pod
5) 100-grain weight (g)
6) Crop yield (t/ha)

Treatments Plant height Nodule number Pod number per 100 Agricultural
(cm) plant grain yield ( t ha -1 )
weight
( g)

T1: Control 72.10 c 75 c 27.80 f 14.21 b 2.77 d

T2: ( 100-80-60 NPK ) 77.30 ab 103 b 49.70 c 15.80 a 3.85 b

T3: (PK -80-60) + BJ 78.10 a 118 a 52.30 b 15.90 a 4.06 ab

T4: BJ 75.23 b 92 b 45.20 d 14.90 b 3.29 c

T5: AM 73.77 c 80 c 33.10 c 14.38 b 3.02 c

 T6: BJ+ AM 78.70 a 120 a 59.10 a 16.04 a 4.22 a

CV 10.25 13.18 5.89 1.25 2.84

S. Em 0.52*** 5.21*** 2.68*** 0.24 0.09***

***

Soybean response to different fertilizer rates under these conditions is presented in Table 6 , which
also shows that plant height was slightly encouraged by both mineral fertilization and biofertilizers compared
to the absolute check (neither fertilized nor inoculated); there were significant differences among them. The
treatments T6 (combined inoculation with Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Glomus fasciculatum) and T3 (N
fertilizer was replaced by Bradyrhizobium japonicum) were notable. Concerning nodule number, the best
response was recorded in treatments T3 and T6, without significant differences between them. Despite that T4
(only Bradyrhizobium japonicum) differs statistically from the preceding treatments, there is an adequate
nodulation effect. With regard to yield components, pod number and 100-grain weight, there were significant
differences among treatments; T2 and T3 as well as the combined inoculation of strains in both variables were
notable for 100-grain weight. On the other hand, the treatments of either N fertilizer replaced by
Bradyrhizobium strain or the use of coinoculation reached remarkable crop yields, perhaps as a result of the
effect of microorganisms on roots, since root system grows thereby nutrient absorption enhances, which
implies a greater plant development. Soybean seed co inoculation with Bradyrhizobium japonicum and
Glomus fasciculatum was considered remarkable, as a way to satisfy biofertilizer demands, mainly nitrogen
and phosphorus, and achieve higher yields than those normally obtained under these experimental conditions.

Table – 7: Effect of INM module on uptake of nutrient by sugarcane

A field experiment to see the effect of split-application of organic manures along with chemical
fertilizers on Sugarcane crop productivity and quality was conducted during 2018 -19 at Crop Research Centre,
Pusa farm, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Bihar. The experimental site was situated on
the south-west bank of river Burhi Gandak in Samastipur district of Bihar. The RDF for sugarcane (150 kg N-
85 kg P2O5- 60 kg K2O /ha) was applied as per the treatment details outlined in table 7. Bio-compost and
Neem cake was applied in split doses as per treatment at planting and earthing up stages respectively in equally
split amount. Trichoderma was applied @ 500 g/t of trash in treatment T2. Azotobacter + PSB @ 4.0 kg /ha
each was applied with bio compost at Planting in row as per the treatments. All the other management was
followed as per the package and practices the least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% level was used for
testing the significant difference among the treatment means. RDF (150 kg N- 85 kg P2O5- 60 kg K2O /ha)
was applied as per treatment. The recommended dose of phosphorus and potassium was applied in all the
treatments except T7 and N was substituted as per treatment. Green gram was sown as intercrop and was
incorporated in soil at 60 DAP. Sugarcane trash inoculated with Trichoderma (@500 g/t of trash) was spread
between rows 55 DAP. Azotobacter + PSB @ 4.0 kg/ ha each was applied with BC at Planting (PL) in row.
The neem cake powder was applied at earting up stage at 120 DAP.
T1: 100% NPK- RDF (Control)
T2: 100% N as IF + Organic mulching with ST @ 6t ha-1+ Trichoderma
T3: 100% N as IF + green gram as intercrop inoculated with Rhiz.
T4: 25% N as IF + 75% N through organics+ NC+Azophos
T5: 50% N as IF + 50% N through organics + NC+Azophos
T6: 75% N as IF + 25% N through organics + NC+ Azophos
T7: 100% N through organics + NC + Azophos

RDF= Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (150 kg N- 85 kg P- 60 kg K), IF= Inorganic fertilizer, ST= Sugarcane
Trash, NC= Neem Cake, Azophos= Azotobacter + Phosphate solubilising Bacteria

Treatments Nutrient uptake (kg /ha)

N P K

T1 214.9 18.31 217.56

T2 235.6 20.44 238.46

T3 259.4 24.72 267.45

T4 213.2 19.98 215.81

T5 307.7 29.76 311.02

T6 292.1 27.89 295.35

T7 234.7 22.61 237.58

S. Em (±) 8.29 0.78 8.39

LSD (0.05) 25.56 2.40 25.86

The effects of integrated nutrient management module on uptake of N, P and K by sugarcane

plant have been presented in table 7. The uptake of nutrients by sugarcane plant has increased significantly
due to combined application of different organic + inorganic sources over control. The uptake of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium was significantly higher in treatment T5 receiving 50% N as inorganic + 50% N as
organic fertilizer (bio compost + neem cake) along with biofertilizers. The maximum N-uptake (307.7 kg ha-
1) was found in treatment T5 probably due to higher availability of N due to proper integration (50% inorganic
+ 50% organic) of nutrients. Further, application of Azotobacter enhanced N availability and its uptake. The
extent of increase of N-uptake over control for different treatments was 8.43, 8.78, 17.15, 26.42 and 30.16 per
cent for treatment T7, T2, T3, T6 and T5 respectively. The maximum P-uptake (29.76 kg/ha ) was found in
treatment T5 over control probably due to higher availability of phosphorus due to combined application of
inorganic along with organic nutrients. Further, application of phosphate solubilizing bacteria enhanced P-
availability and its uptake. Treatments T3 (24.72 kg/ ha), T5 (29.76 kg /ha), T6 (27.89 kg/ ha) and T7 (22.61
kg/ ha) were at par. The maximum K uptake (311.02 kg/ ha) was found in treatment T5 probably due to higher
availability of K due to proper integration (50% inorganic + 50% organic) of nutrients along with biofertilizers.
The higher availability might be due to release of fixed K from exchangeable sites by NH4 + (released during
mineralization of organic manures). Treatment T3 (262.45 kg/ ha), T5 (311.02 kg /ha) and T6 (295.35 kg /ha )
were at par with each other. K-uptake followed the order: T5>T6>T3>T2>T7>T1>T4.

Table -8: Influence of Rhizobium and VAM inoculation on N and P uptake and phosphatase activity of
soybean applied with different P sources
A pot culture experiment was conducted to study the influence of P fertilizer on the growth and
nutrient uptake of soybean (CO-1) inoculated with Rhizobium japonicum (SB101 ) and VAM fungus ( Glomus
fasciculatum@10g/pot). The RDF for N and K was applied through urea and MOP respectively.
Superphosphate or rock phosphate was applied to meet the P requirement @ 60 kg P2O5/ha ( 75% of
recommended level ).The experiment consisted of 12 treatments (4 inoculants * 3 P levels ) with 3 replication.
Acid and alkaline phosphatase activity was estimated by method of Plummer (1978).

Treatment N Uptake P Uptake Acid Alkaline

phosphatase phosphatase
( mg/pl ) ( mg/pl )
activity activity

T0: Control 350.64 27.44 1.03 0.46

T1: Rhizobium 381.16 32.06 1.03 0.47

T2: VAM 377.26 37.94 1.61 0.49

T3: Rhizobium + VAM 425.37 45.27 1.83 0.49

T4: Control+ SP 431.85 45.23 0.45 0.35

T5: Rhizobium + SP 490.96 53.83 0.49 0.35

T6: VAM + SP 523.3 70.61 0.67 0.37

 T7: Rhizobium + VAM +SP 663.3 72.02 0.94 0.38

T8: Control + RP 373.67 32.23 0.49 0.38

T9: Rhizobium +RP 419.5 38.16 0.49 0.43

T10: VAM + RP 440.88 41.22 1.12 0.46

T11: Rhizobium + VAM + RP 567.03 67.28 1.39 0.47

CD at 5% 12.15 5.11 0.22 NS

The plant receiving both the inoculants along with super phosphate registered maximum nutrient uptake
rather than individual inoculant applied plants. Dual inoculation enhanced the P uptake by 59% in
superphosphate and 64% in P unamended plants over uninoculated control. In RP application P uptake was
tremendously enhanced by dual inoculation. Acid phosphatase activity was significantly improved due to
inoculation of VAM and Rhizobium and it was maximum at zero P, rather than with P application. Not much
influence on alkaline phosphate was noticed. Dual inoculation was found to be superior than individual
inoculation of either of the inoculants in enhancing the nutrient uptake of soybean. The effect of super
phosphate application and rock phosphate application are of similar trend in growth of soybean. However
there are notable quantitative differences b/w the sources of P.

Table -9: Effect on soil fertility status of summer green gram treated with biofertilizer
An On-Farm Testing (OFT) was conducted during the summer seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 at
ten pre-selected locations in Muzaffarpur district. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design
(RBD). Each farmer was considered as a replication and ten farmers were selected, thereby the experiment
had ten replications. The current experiment was comprising three treatments i.e.
T0 -Farmers practice
T1- Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) i.e. N20-P40-K00 (kg/ha)
T2– RDF (N20-P40-K00) along with Rhizobium + Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB)
The packets of Rhizobium and PSB containing 200gm inoculums were obtained from the Department of Soil
Science, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar. Before sowing, soil
samples from each of the plots under trial were collected and analysed for available nitrogen by alkaline
potassium permanganate method (Subbiah and Asija, 1956), available phosphorus using 0.5 MNaHCO3
extractable colorimetric methods (Olsen et al., 1954) and available potassium by Jackson (1973) method.

Treatment Grain Yield (Kg/ha) Straw yield (Kg/ha)

 T0 711.00 1602.89

T1 890.20 1677.44

T2 999.40 1730.03

S.Em ± 14.94 8.55

CD (≤ 0.05) 44.39 25.40

The effect of seed treatment with bio-fertilizers on grain and straw yield was recorded after harvesting.
Application of N20-P40-K00 (kg/ha) along with Rhizobium + Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB)
significantly enhanced the grain yield and recorded the highest grain yield (999.40 kg /ha) as compared to
other experimental variables. The minimum grain yield of 711.00 kg/ha was obtained in the case of control
plot (T0).While the treatment T1 showed its statistical superiority over T0 in respect to grain and straw yield,
this might be due to the fact that green gram has utilized the artificial and natural resources available below
and above the ground very effectively thereby exhibiting better growth and yield parameters. However, the
marked increase in seed yield in treatment of T2 may be attributed to the increase in P availability by the
solubilization of phosphate-rich compounds. Several organic acids are secreted by PSB which may form
chelates resulting in the effective solubilization of phosphate assisting in higher nitrogen fixation, dry matter
accumulation, rapid plant growth, higher absorption and utilization of P and other plant nutrients and
ultimately leading to a positive resultant effect on growth and subsequently on yield and yield attributes.

Treatment Available nutrients (Kg ha-1)

Initial Post-harvest

N P K N P K

T0 284.00 18.25 234.50 284.50 18.50 235.00

T1 294.25 19.50 240.25 294.50 20.00 240.50

T2 294.50 19.75 245.00 313.25 22.15 245.50

 The two years pooled data of current trial showed that treatment N20-P40-K00 along with Rhizobium +
Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria (T2) has a net higher positive gain of available nitrogen and phosphorus as
compared to the other two treatments i.e., N20-P40-K00 (RDF) and farmers’ practice. Similar findings were
reported by Singh et al., (2020). Application of N20-P40-K00 along with Rhizobium + Phosphorus Solubilizing
Bacteria registered highest available nitrogen of 313.25 kg/ha, whereas the lowest value of 284.50 kg/ha was
recorded in the case of farmers’ practice. The maximum available phosphorus value of 22.15 kg/ha was
registered in the application of N20-P40-K00 along with bio-fertilizers followed by N20-P40-K00 (RDF) and the
lowest value of 18.50 kg/ha was observed in the farmers’ practice in post-harvest observation. It indicates
that uses of Rhizobium and Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria together in the present experiment were
cumulatively translated into a net gain of available nitrogen and phosphorus. Similar finding was reported by
Singh et al., 2019. The role of micro-organisms including PSB (Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria) in
solubilizing and mobilizing inorganic phosphate in soil and making them available to plants is crucial. The
PSBs convert the insoluble phosphate into soluble forms by acidification, chelation, exchange reaction and
production of gluconic acid.

Table-10: Effect of different treatments on grain and straw yield of rice

Field experiment was conducted to see the effects of bio –NPK consortium on growth, yield and
nutrient uptake by rice during kharif season of 2018 at Research station, Anand Agricultural University,
Thasra. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized block design, comprising of 12 treatment combination
of different levels of Fe and Zn with or without bio NPK consortium ( azotobacter species, azospirilum species
and bacillus species) with 3 replication. The soil of the experimental field was clay loam texture and had pH
1:2.5 7.86 and EC1:2.5 0.28 dS/m.
T1: Control
T2: RDF + 100% Zn
T3: RDF + 100 % Fe
T4: RDF + Bio NPK Consortium
T5: RDF + 100% Zn + Bio NPK Consortium
T6: RDF + 75 % Zn + Bio NPK Consortium
T7: RDF + 100% Fe + Bio NPK Consortium
T8: RDF + 75% Fe + Bio NPK Consortium
T9: RDF + 100% Zn + 100% Fe
T10: RDF + 100% Zn + 100% Fe + Bio NPK Consortium
T11: RDF + 75 % Zn +75% Fe
T12: RDF + 75 % Zn +75% Fe + Bio NPK Consortium
 Treatments Yield of rice ( t ha-1 )

Grain Straw

T1 4.89d 5.48 c

T2 5.00 cd 5.91 bc

T3 5.26 abcd 6.06 ab

T4 5.13 bcd 6.05 ab

T5 5.67 ab 6.25 ab

T6 5.52 abc 6.39 ab

T7 5.71 ab 6.40 ab

T8 5.66 ab 6.42 ab

T9 5.49 abc 6.44 ab

T10 5.33 abcd 6.52 ab

T11 5.38 abcd 6.51 ab

T12 5.82 a 6.63 a

S. Em ± 0.17 0.18

CD ( P = 0.05 ) Sig. Sig.

CV (%) 5.48 4.99

The different treatment significantly influenced the grain (5.82 ton/ha) and straw (6.63 ton/ha).Yield of rice-
the maximum grain and straw yield recorded under T12 was on par with T5, T6, T7, T8 and T9 in grain yield. In
case of straw yield it was statistically similar with all the treatment except T2. The results indicated that
application of either Zn or Fe along with bio NPK consortium or combined application of 100% Zn and Fe in
absence of bio NPK consortium found equally effective with 75% each of Zn and Fe along with bio NPK
consortium. Those application of 75% dose of either Zn and Fe along with bio NPK consortium or only 100%
dose of both Zn and Fe found beneficiary. The yield attributes like grain and straw yield of rice increased
significantly in T12 treatment. This might be due to the inoculation of N fixer, P solubiliser and PGPR increased
availability of nutrients to crop plant.
Limitations in promotion of biofertilizer
1. Resource constraints:
• The lack of suitable resource constraints/unavailability of suitable strains
• Ignorance of manufacturer on the quality of product
• No availability of quality resource/quality control methods
• Infrastructural constraints like space availability for establishment of laboratory, production, and
storage
• The lack of cold storage equipment for inoculum
2. Market constraints:
• The lack of farmers’ awareness/quality assurance and constraints on marketing
• Financial constraints related to banks
• Smaller production units suffer due to less returns on sale with respect to the loan payment
3. Production constraints:
• The lack of research and development for quality assurance and hence limited production
• Inability to meet the seasonal demand/requirement due to shortage of skilled personnel
4. Field constraints:
• Unfavourable environmental factors like soil and climatic factors, microbial factors, and population
• No immediate visual results as that of inorganic fertilizers
• The lack of awareness in cropping operations and short span of sowing/plantations in specific
locality
5. Technical constraints:
• Unauthenticated inoculum/microbes, mishandling techniques, and mutations
• The lack of awareness on the benefits of technology
• Problems in the adoption of technology due to different methods of inoculation
Conclusion

In conclusion, biofertilizer is a good practice for sustainable agriculture especially in plantations

compared to chemical fertilizer application. Their advantages had been highlighted to sustain our environment
and fix some eco-system issues such as deterioration of soil quality due to aggressive chemical fertilizing
program, contamination at underground water resources and also pollution issues to the water surface such as
at river, lake or ponds due to agriculture activity such as excessive nutrient contains to the river or pond.
Indirectly unbalancing aquatic eco-system due to limited oxygen content in the water, thus leading to fatality
to some aquatic animals such as fish.
Bio fertilizers have a good market opportunity, even though in certain countries the market is not
showing any positive response from farmers due to poor knowledge and skill in handling chemical fertilizer,
thus contributing to high costing for fertilizing programs. Therefore approaches such as providing training
centers are suitable to deliver knowledge and awareness among the farmer such as training programs for
upgrading skill and knowledge to handling and storage biofertilizer. Training centre also believed it was able
to solve some agriculture issues, especially plantation through consultation from the expert. A closed
relationship between farmers and research institutions and universities is able to promote better technologies
and management systems to the plantation program so that the advantage of some microorganisms that are
readily available can be utilized effectively. In terms of the waste management system, proper facilities are
needed for collecting agricultural waste such as manure and green waste, which is bio-degradable and easily
decomposed with nature. Instead of having great potential for composting fertilizer, manure and green waste
also can be processed to be carrier materials that are incorporated with microbial for producing biofertilizer.
So, effective sterilizing technology and facilities are required to kill some pathogenic microorganisms that are
harmful to desirable microorganisms for biofertilizers. Other than varied harvesting quantity and qualities of
product, over price fertilizing programs always become a nightmare to the farmer. Limited budget and funds
provided by the local government can be seen as one of the influence factors for selection of fertilizing
programs. A smallholder prefers to choose chemical fertilizer with the government budget due to fast and
consistency of harvesting product. Meanwhile, applying biofertilizer needs extra hidden costing to mastering
biofertilizer technologies, therefore adequate funds or incentive should be prepared to promote the biofertilizer
program. Moreover, a campaign related to the environmental, plantation and input sources are important to
create awareness among the community.
Bio fertilizers have a great role in increasing the crop production. They improves the soil health
status and cost is lower than other fertilizers. Relatively more effective than chemical fertilizers and has
significant effect in biomass production and grain productivity. Phosphorus is very important nutrient of plants
as it required in large quantity. Cost is lower of biofertilizers than the other fertilizers. They improves the soil
texture and do not allow the pathogens to flourish. Farmers can prepare the inoculum themselves. Biofertilizers
are effective under semi-arid condition. This concluded that biofertilizers are growth promoting biochemicals.
Hence, biofertilizers are non- polluting and provides sustainability to soil.
Indian Government and various State Governments are encouraging the usage of biofertilizers
through subsidies on sales, grants, and extension programs and with degrees of stress. Over time, farmers are
taking practical information related to technology based on the scientific realities of their fields. Thus, farmers
are being inspired to adopt the utilization of biofertilizers. The government of Asian countries has been
implementing the theme for the promotion of biofertilizers since underneath this theme, one national center-
NCOF, and six regional centers—RCOFs are established. The most frequent operations of those centers
include the promotion of bio-fertilizer through coaching, demonstration, and often providing an economic
culture for combining biofertilizers. The theme additionally aims for giving grants up to Rs. 40 large integers
per unit of a 150 tons per annum to line up biofertilizer manufacturing units. Since origination, the biofertilizer
production capability often, 525 tons, has been envisaged by putting in 83 biofertilizer production units. Out
of those units, 9 units are sanctioned by the Department of Fertilizers underneath their theme of providing
monetary help for the aim and 74 units are supported; 39 units are created by completely different
organizations and personal entrepreneurs with a production capability of seven, 975 tons per annum. The total
calculable current demand for biofertilizers in Asian countries is eighteen, 500 tons per annum, whereas
calculable production is concerning 10 tons per annum within the country. One of the most economical and
pollution-free ways of all energy is to use the flexibility of certain microorganisms such as bacteria, algae, and
fungi to modify the chemical element of the area, dissolve phosphorus, destroy organic materials or sulphur
within the soil. Once planted within the soil, they increase crop growth and yield, improve soil fertility, and
reduce pollution. Therefore, biofertilizers are inhabited by biological or active materials of bacteria, algae,
and fungi or microbe inoculants that are prepared to enrich the soil with chemical elements, phosphorus,
and organic matter.

References

Agarwal, S., Kumari, S., & Khan, S. (2021). Quality Control of Biofertilizers. Biofertilizers: Study and
Impact, 413-428.

Brahmaprakash, G. P., & Sahu, P. K. (2012). Biofertilizers for sustainability. Journal of the Indian Institute
of Science, 92(1), 37-62.

Chakraborty, T., & Akhtar, N. (2021). Biofertilizers: prospects and challenges for future. Biofertilizers: Study
and Impact, 575-590.

Dudeja, S. S., Singh, N. P., Sharma, P., Gupta, S. C., Chandra, R., Dhar, B., ... & Nagaraj, K. S. (2011).
Biofertilizer technology and pulse production. Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and biocontrol, 43-
63.

Gohil, N. B., Ramani, V. P., Kadivala, V. H., & Kacha, R. P. (2021). Effects of bio-npk consortium on growth,
yield and nutrient uptake by rice under clay loam textured soil. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil
Science, 69(2), 179-186.

Hernández, M., & Cuevas, F. (2003). The effect of inoculating with arbuscular Mycorrhiza and
Bradyrhizobium strains on soybean (Glycine max (L) Merrill) crop development. Cultivos
Tropicales, 24(2), 19-21.

Kannaiyan, S., Kumar, K., & Govindarajan, K. (2010). Biofertilizers Technology. Scientific Publishers.

Laranjo, M., Alexandre, A., & Oliveira, S. (2014). Legume growth-promoting rhizobia: an overview on the
Mesorhizobium genus. Microbiological research, 169(1), 2-17.

Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 413, answered on 30 November 2021. Pesticides And BioFertilizers, Ministry
Of Agriculture And Farmers’ Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare,
Government of India. Available at http://164.100.24.220/loksabhaquestions/annex/177/AU413.pdf,
as accessed on 18 December 2021.

Nath Bhowmik, S., & Das, A. (2018). Biofertilizers: a sustainable approach for pulse production. Legumes
for soil health and sustainable management, 445-485.

Ranjan, A., Jha, C. K., Kumar, N., Thakur, S. K., Singh, S., Kumar, V., & Majhi, M. (2020). Effect of split
application of organic manures and fertilizers on productivity, quality and economics of sugarcane
grown on calcareous entisol of Bihar. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 9(4), 1445-
1450.

Salleh, N. S., Lazim, N. A. M., & Muhamad, I. I. (2021). Biofertilizer in promoting sustainable agriculture
for food safety and security: A review. PERINTIS eJournal, 11(2), 117-129.
Saritha, M., & Tollamadugu, N. P. (2019). The status of research and application of biofertilizers and
biopesticides: global scenario. In Recent developments in applied microbiology and
biochemistry (pp. 195-207). Academic Press.

Singh, M., Singh, D., Gupta, A., Pandey, K. D., Singh, P. K., & Kumar, A. (2019). Plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria: application in biofertilizers and biocontrol of phytopathogens. In PGPR amelioration
in sustainable agriculture (pp. 41-66). Woodhead Publishing.

Srivastava, R. K. (2021). Biofertilizers application in agriculture: a viable option to chemical

fertilizers. Biofertilizers: Study and Impact, 393-411.

T. K. Chanda, Kuldeep Sati, Chanchal Soni, Rohit Chaturvedi 2019. Fertilizer Statistics 2018–19, the
Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi.

Umesha, S., Manukumar, H. M., & Chandrasekhar, B. (2018). Sustainable agriculture and food security.
In Biotechnology for sustainable agriculture (pp. 67-92). Woodhead Publishing.