Presentation by DR.Amitava Rakshit on building blocks for policy design to improve national capacities in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) across critical areas – Agriculture

Impact Assessment of Biopriming Interventions for

Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Agriculture

Amitava Rakshit TWAS Nxt Fellow

[email protected]

1 2

India is progressing

Are we going to grow green seedling from the pile of coins ?

Is there any real crisis???

India’s soil crisis: Land is weakening and withering

M Rajshekhar, ET Bureau Jul 12, 2011, 05.46am IST In his fields, Badhia Naval Singh, a farmer tilling 8 bighas of land in the Bagli tehsil in Madhya Pradesh, has been seeing something strange for a while now. Earlier, if he pulled out a tuft of grass, he would see earthworms . "Ab woh dikhna bandh ho gaye hain (they don't show up any longer)," says the 45-yearold .Also, he says, when he ploughed earlier, the soil would break into soft crumbs and fall along the long furrows the plough left behind. Now, the soil is harder and the plough uproots a succession of large clods — dheplas, in local parlance — from the earth. The changing nature of soils — for the worse — is a refrain with farmers in these parts, even across the country.Top of Form

Fixing the crisis in India's agricultural soils

ET Bureau May 18, 2012, 11.58AM ISTIs the government finally moving to address the burgeoning crisis in India's agricultural soils? On May 15, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar had told the Lok Sabha that due to excess use of fertilisers in Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, paddy cannot be grown any longer. He also said that so much urea is being used by farmers that it is affecting productivity. And that his ministry was planning to redirect India's fertiliser subsidy towards organic and balanced fertilisers.This is a welcome announcement. Last year, when scientists at Bhopal-based Indian Institute of Soil Sciences collated results from soil testing laboratories across the country, they found that nutrient-deficiencies were rife across India's farmlands. Large parts of the country are deficient in two or more critical nutrients. Areas like the Indo-Gangetic plains - Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar - which produce nearly 50 per cent of the nation's grains and feed about 40 per cent of the population - were seeing multiple deficiencies. This is over and above other worrying changes in agricultural soils, such as falling levels of soil organic carbon, rising salinisation, erosion of farmlands and falling numbers of soil fauna like earthworms and insects. All of which again suggests that our agricultural soils are changing in fundamental ways.

JULY 12, 2013India’s soil crisis

In his fields, Badhia Naval Singh , a farmer tilling 8 bighas of land in the Bagli tehsil in Madhya Pradesh, has been seeing something strange for a while now. Earlier, if he pulled out a tuft of grass, he would see earthworms . “Ab woh dikhna bandh ho gaye hain (they don’t show up any longer),” says the 45-year old .Also, he says, when he ploughed earlier, the soil would break into soft crumbs and fall along the long furrows the plough left behind. Now, the soil is harder and the plough uproots a succession of large clods – dheplas, in local parlance – from the earth. The changing nature of soils – for the worse – is a refrain with farmers in these parts, even across the country.

Soil health and support systems - Contradictions and missing links - Paper published in the Economic and Political Weekly July 25, 2013This paper published in the Economic and Political Weekly explores the contradictions in soil health management policies and its impact on farming and food production in India in the context of the declining vitality of Indian soils and the resultant threat to food security, which has already been accepted as a critical crisis for agricultural production in India. The paper informs that the indiscriminate usage of chemical fertilisers over several decades and complete neglect of ecological fertilisation have exacerbated this crisis. Policymakers have made promises to support ecological alternatives to address the crisis. However, these promises remain on paper and government policies continue to tread the path of chemical- intensive farming and have completely ignored soil health and neglected the importance of organic matter.

For example, the government has heavily subsidised chemical and synthetic fertilisers, particularly nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK). This mindless support has led to indiscriminate use of chemical fertilisers, especially nitrogenous fertilisers, which in turn, have led to widespread soil degradation and yield stagnation in the regions, which have adopted chemical-intensive agriculture.Of late there has been an acknowledgement of the soil health crisis and promises have been made to deal with the situation. However, the paper argues that investments continue to support a chemical fertiliser-based farming model. The paper argues that it is high time that the government makes investments to support a holistic ecological fertilisation programme and chalks out a plan to move away from the dependence on chemical fertilisers to ensure food security in the country.Ecological fertilisation is often neglected citing reasons such as non-availability of biomass and high labour costs associated with such practices. However, few resources have been invested thus far in evaluating species, in improving cultural practices, and in devising appropriate implements for growing and harnessing plant biomass for soil health improvement. The government investment must go into grass roots institution-building, research and incentive mechanisms to support ecological fertilisation in a holistic manner, argues the paper.

UNEP YEAR BOOK EMERGING ISSUES IN OUR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT 2012

Soils are of basic importance to the delivery of many interrelated ecosystem services

Supporting services:nutrient cycling, water release/retention, soil formation, habitat for biodiversity, exchange of gases with the atmosphere, degradation of complex materials

Regulating services:carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, water purification, natural attenuation of pollutants

Provisioning services:food and fibre production,water availability, platformfor construction

Cultural services:protection of archaeologicalremains, outdoor recreational pursuits, landscapes, supporting habitats

Becoming an International Agony

Projected Food Grain Production, Fertilizer Demand, likely Consumption and Gap

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003 2010 2025

Year

Nu

trie

nts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Fo

od

gra

in p

rod

uc

tio

n

Foodgrain production (Mt)NPK Demand (Mt)NPK Consumption (Mt)NPK Gap (Mt)

Where do we stand now?

Depleting soil organic matterImbalance in fertiliser useSpurious materialLack of vibrant vigilance on quality

controlDearth of Quick testing kitEmerging multi-nutrient

deficiencies particularly of secondary and micronutrients

Declining nutrient use efficiencyNegative soil nutrient balance

Plant Nutrient Balance System

INPUT

• Mineral fertilizers

• Organic manures

• Atmospheric deposition

• Biological nitrogen-fixation

• Sedimentation

OUTPUT

• Harvested crop parts

• Crop residues

• Leaching

• Gaseous losses

• Water erosion

System is Overloaded!

This becoming an Iraqi surface to air missile.

A BALANCE SHEET OF NPK IN INDIAN SOIL

Nutrients Addition Removal Balance

N 10923 9613 1310

P 4188 3702 486

K 1454 11657 -10203

NPK Total 16565 24971 -8406

Gross balance sheet (‘000 t)

FAI (2013)

NUTRIENT MINING

INEFFICIENT FARMING SYSTEM

N P K NPK Total

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Addition Removal Balance

Gro

ss b

alan

ce sh

eet (

‘000

t)

Year

??

Mo Mo

B B B B

Mn Mn Mn Mn Mn

S S S S S

K K K K K K

Zn Zn Zn Zn Zn Zn

P P P P P P

Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe

N N N N N N N N

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000201

0

202

5

Emerging Multi-Nutrient Deficiencies in Soils

NUTRIENT EFFICIENCY

(%)Nitrogen

30-50Phosphorus

15-20Potassium

70-80Sulphur <5

Zinc 2-5

Iron 1-2

Copper 1-2

Boron 2-3

Molybdenum 2-5

Another great concern is NUE

13.4

11

8.2

7

5.84.9

4.1 3.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Res

pon

se r

atio

(k

g gr

ain

/kg

NP

K)

Low Fertilizer Response - Irrigated Areas

Declining Fertilizer Response

(Rakshit et al.,2011)

Input Sector –A huge energy Intensive one

Input Usage(106

tonnes)

Subsidy(Rs.

billion)

Size of the industry

(Rs. billion)

Energy Involvem

ent(MJ kg-1)Indi

aGlobal

India

Global

India Global

Fertilizer

24.5 170 750 - 30 5000 78.2(N);17.5(P);13.8(

K)Pestici

de0.85 2.6 - - 180 2500 215(Harbic

ide), 238(Insecticide) and 92(Fungicide)

Bio pestici

de

0.25 25 - - 2 200 -

Bio fertilize

r

0.28 200 - - 4 180 0.01(liquid); 0.3(solid)

Input statistics in agriculture

Rakshit et al.,(Ed) 2015 Nutrient Use Efficiency: from Basics to Advances Springer Verlag, 385p

2 Bags of Urea Burning 100 liters of crude oil

How serious the issue is?

Price of oil per barrel (159 liters) = $ 164,000 USD

One single barrel of oil =energy equivalent of 23,000 human labor hours= 12 years (40 hours /week)

ALL INDIA DEMAND PROJECTION OF FERTILIZER NUTRIENTS DURING 12TH PLAN

(2012‐13 TO 2016‐17)

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

17585 18230 18834 19430 20035

29675 30763 31783 32788 33809

N P K Total

,00

0 T

ON

NES

Source-FAI(2013)

Nutrient Status – N P K

63

42

13

26

37

11

20

50

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

N P K

% d

efi

cie

nt

sam

ple

s

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Indian soils poor in N and P with 89 and 80 percent soil samples in low to medium category; relatively better in K with 50 percent samples only low to medium.

Nutrient Status –Micro and Secondary

41

49

33

13 12

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

S Zn B Mo Fe Mn Cu

% d

efi

cie

nt

sam

ple

s

S, Zn, B, Mo, Fe, Mn and Cu deficient to the tune of 41, 49, 33, 22, 12, 5 and 4 % respectively.

Subsidy in agricultural inputs w.r.t fertilizer

Year Total subsidy (Rs.in Crores)

2012‐2013 93076

2013‐2014 102107

2014‐2015 112014

2015‐2016 122882

2016‐2017 134805

Projected Subsidy

(GOI)- MCF Twelfth Plan

Rhizosphere manipulation is the missing link

Can we make a simple intervention without much dependence on non

renewable energy to savea reasonable amount of subsidy and to

improve NUE ???....

YES

ONE OF THE AVAILABLE

OPTIONS: SEED PRIMING

WHY PRIMING ADVOCACY?

• For better crop establishment – Increase plant growth– Increase rate of germination– Uniform growth of plants– Eliminates seed borne pathogens– Competence with weeds

• Increase NUE • and Improves WUE in several crops

INPUTS ARE BECOMING ENERGY INTENSIVE

OSMO PRIMING

MATRIX PRIMIN

G

HYDRO PRIMING

PRIMING OPTIONS

BIO PRIMING

Bio-priming is a process of biological seed treatment that refers combination of seed hydration and inoculation of seed with beneficial organism for the following good reasons on soil-plant-animal system

improved nutrient use efficiency, plant growthplant tolerance to stresshelp to reduce the environmental

pollution and increasing the agricultural

sustainability Source:IRRI- Rice Knowledge Bank

Who are the eligible candidates?

1.Trichoderma harzianum

2.Pseudomonas fluorescens

3.Pseudomonas aureofaciens strain AB254

4.Rhizobacteria strain

5.Agro bacterium rubi strain A 16

6.Pseudomonas putidastrain BA 8

7.Bacillus subtilis strain BA 142

8. Bacillus megaterium strain M 3

9. GliocladiumRakshit et al.,2014

Relevance output from the Research works

Biopriming using Trichoderma harzianum and its effect on plant health

Process of seed biopriming using normal seeds and its effect on plant health

Untreated control

Bioprimedseeds

(A) Roots of sweet corn treated with T-22 Planter Box or not treated(B) Soybean plants with roots grown from seeds either treated with T-22 or not. A 123% increase in yield was obtained in this trial as a consequence of treatment with T-22.(HARMAN,2000)

Differences in biomass of various treatments (a consortium, bTrichoderma harzianum, c Pseudomonas fluorescens, d Azospirillumbrasilense, e control) of biologically hardened tea plants (Thomas et al.,2010)

Availability of macro and micro nutrients in soil as influenced by the application of T. harzianum in

sugarcane Singh et al.,(2010)Nutrient -

unitTMC

applied soilControl (check)

Increase in nutrient

% Increase

N Kg ha-1 279.52 219.52 60.00 27.33

P Kg ha-1 75.88 45.96 29.92 65.10

K Kg ha-1 274.00 190.00 84.00 44.21

Cu - ppm 1.41 1.33 0.08 6.01

Fe - ppm 14.68 7.32 7.36 100.54

Mn - ppm 9.98 5.56 4.42 79.49

Zn - ppm 0.88 0.53 0.35 66.00

Organic – C (%)

0.56 0.36 0.20 55.55

Soil pH 7.32 7.82 -0.5 -6.39

Crop Bioagent Nutrient Use Efficiency Reference

Primary(N, P, K)

Secondary(Ca, Mg)

Micro(Cu, Fe, Zn,

Mn)

Rice(Oryza sativa)

Rice(Oryza sativa cvKRHI)

A. amazonense

T. harzianum BHU 105

N (3.5–18.5%)

N (11%)

Rodrigues et al.

(2008)

(Preetipriya and

Rakshit,2013)

Wheat (Triticum aestivum )

Wheat-rice and wheat- blackgram rotations

T.Harzianum BHU 105

Natural mycorrhiza consortium+ Pseudomonas fluorescens( strains R62 +

R81)

N(14%)

0.695 PUE [kg P grain kg-1 P

fertilizer]

(Meena and

Rakshit, 2015)

Mäder et al. (2011)

Maize (Zea mays) T. harzianum 8.8-9.76% N in root; 3.5% N in

shoot

Akladious et al.

(2012)Sugarcane (Sachrum

officinarum)Fluorescent Pseudomonas

strains R62 + R81,0.719 PUE [kg P

grain kg-1 P fertilizer]

Yadav et al. (2009)

Soybean (Glycine max)T

richoderma harzianum AS 19-2

N (15.8%) Zn (8.24%); Fe (57.82%)

Entesari et al. (2013)

Trichoderma virens As10-5 N (5.2%) Zn (21.6%); Fe (14.81)

Trichoderma atroviride As18-5

N (11%) Zn (+37.25%); Fe (+14.6%)

Biopriming mediated nutrient use efficiency

Rakshit et al.,(Ed) 2015 Nutrient Use Efficiency: from Basics to Advances Springer Verlag, 385p

Crop Bioagent Nutrient Use Efficiency Reference

Primary(N, P, K)

Secondary(Ca, Mg)

Micro(Cu, Fe, Zn,

Mn)Melon (Cucumis melo) T. harzianum N (27.03%), P (137.8% ); K (27.96% )

Martínez-Medina et al. (2011)

Glomus constrictum under reduced fertilization dosage.

N (11.05%); K (32.2%)

Glomus mosseae under reduced fertilization dosage.

N (31.05%); P (67.56%) and K (46.6%)

Glomus claroideum under reduced fertilization dosage

N (9.47%); P (27.02%); K (27.96%)

Glomus intraradices under reduced fertilization dosage

N (7.89%); P (21.62%); K (13.55%)

Trichoderma harzianum under conventional fertilization dosage.

N (20.6%); K (30%)

Glomus constrictum under conventional fertilization

K (30%)

Glomus mosseae under conventional fertilization

N (1.26%); K (29.16%)

Glomus claroideum under conventional fertilization

N (9.47%); P (27%); K (27.96%)

Glomus intraradices under conventional fertilization

N (7.89%); P (21.62%); K (13.56%)

Tea (Camellia sinensis) Trichoderma harzianum N (44%); P (50%); K (16%)

Thomas et al. (2010)

Azospirllum brasilense N (65%); P (25%); K (14%)

Pseudomonas fluorescens N (52%); P (67%); K (18%)

Biopriming mediated nutrient use efficiency

Treatments

Nitrogen uptake (mg/plant)

Alluvial soilRed soil

Black soil

Alluvial

soil

Red soil

Black soil

Alluvial soil

Red soil

Black soil

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DASControl N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha

0.56d 0.20c 0.36d 3.56c 0.28c 1.44d 12.44d 1.86c 3.70d

RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha

6.35a 2.65a 5.12a54.14

a23.66a 30.16a 87.43a 47.20a 55.43a

Biopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K

6.32a 2.64a 4.02a 53.30 22.74a 29.15a 87.37a 46.75a 55.38a

Biopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K

2.96b 1.56b 2.32b18.35

b10.79b 9.40b 29.04b 11.60b 16.43b

Biopriming with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K

1.44c 0.70c 1.12c 7.70c 4.10c 4.37c 20.34c 8.63bc 10.82c

Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU105 andgraded levels of N application on nitrogen uptake (mg/plant) at different growth stage of wheat

Treatments

Agronomic Use Efficiency (%)

Alluvial soil Red soil Black soil

RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha 45b 45b 31a

Biopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K 39b 52a 24b

Biopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K 40b 47ab 20c

Biopriming with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K 66a 52a 11d

Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105 and graded levels of N application on AUE (%) in wheat

Alluvial soil Red soil Black soil0

5

10

15

20

25

A

A

AB

B

B

A

C

CC

D

DD

EE

Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/haRDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/haBiopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: KBiopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K

Root

infe

ctio

n (

%)

Impact of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU105 and graded levels of N application on root infection (%) of wheat. Bars followed by a similar letter between treatments within a soil type are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level of significance according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test.

Alluvial soil

Red soil

Black soil

Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105and graded levels of N application on root infection (%) of wheat at 30 DAS.

(T1: Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha, T2: RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha,

T3: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K, T4: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K, T5: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K)

Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105 and graded levels of N application on available nitrogen (kg/ha) in rhizosphere of wheat at different growth stages

(T1: Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha, T2: RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha, T3: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K,

T4: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K, T5: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K, DAS-Days after Sowing)

Bio priming can do wonders

• Reduction in time between seed sowing and seedling emergence along with improved seedling vigour;

• Increase NUE & WUE;• Increased plant growth;• Competence with weeds;• Uniform growth of plants & rate

of germination;• Elimination of seed-borne

pathogens;• Extended temperature range at

which seed germinate.

Small is beautiful

Impact Assessment through Participatory Mode-Our experience • No adverse environmental impact is envisaged.• Increases the resilience of the poor through reduction of

cropping risk and allowing higher and more stable yields.• Although benefit: cost ratios for Bio priming were not

calculated for seed priming, marginal rates of return will be very high indeed because of the extra yield obtained without significant extra cost.

• On average, bio priming increased grain yield by 12% with a range from 6 to more than 24% depending on the cultivar, location and year. Bio priming also benefited the farmer with a monetary gain of Rs. 975/- to Rs. 2665/- over non-priming.

PRECAUTIONS

• Most of the bioprimed agents are available in liquid formulation; thus management of huge quantities of wet bioprimed seed becomes difficult especially under hot tropical climate.

• In temperate climate maintaining the temperature during priming is crucial.

Seed priming with biological agents have the potential to meet crop nutrient requirements and improve seedling emergence and crop stand establishment, yield, and grain micronutrient enrichment.

Seed biopriming seems pragmatic, inexpensive and an easy method for improving nutrient use efficiency especially by small landholders in developing countries like India.

An extra intervention with the existing technology of INM practice could make a huge difference in the intensive input/energy consuming system altogether leading to sustainable high yields saving a lot of energy for future use.

Final submission

Acknowledgement

Banaras Hindu University

MSc Students: Preetipriya, Sunita, Sinha