Neethu bft
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Neethu bft

on

  • 505 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
505
Views on SlideShare
505
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Neethu bft Presentation Transcript

  • 1. A comparative study of the efficacy of Biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer on Rice Neethu Kannan II yr Botany Dept. of Botany Mercy College, Palakkad
  • 2. Why Biofertilizers? Chemical fertilizers run into the following disadvantages  Not environmentally viable as the fertilizers are produced from non-renewable raw material.  Efficiency lesser than other alternative – nearly 60% lesser.  The issues of pollution is overwhelming.  Cost of chemical fertilizers are high.  Chemical fertilizers most effective with irrigated land but not dry lands.  Indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers deteriotes soil health.
  • 3. Objectives of the studyObjectives of the study  To compare efficiency of Azotobacter sp based biofertilizers with chemical fertilizer.  To study the biomass increase with respect to Morphological, Physiological and Anatomical variations.
  • 4. Biofertilizers Vs Chemical Fertilizers
  • 5. Biofertilizers Vs Chemical Fertilizers
  • 6. Increased productivity
  • 7. Date 11-12-07 Without adding any fertilizer (reference) By adding chemical fertilizer By adding biofertilizers length width length width length width 15cm 3.3mm 22cm 3.9mm 26cm 6mm 19-12-07 20cm 3.8mm 32.5cm 4mm 34cm 7mm 02-01-08 22cm 4.0mm 36cm 4.5mm 42cm 8.5mm 09-01-08 30cm 4.1mm 37cm 5mm 45cm 10mm 1-01-08 7 35cm 4.2mm 39cm 7mm 48cm 12mm Tabulation of Experimental results
  • 8. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lengthincm 11/12/2007 19-12-07 2/1/2008 9/1/2008 17-01-08 Date Comparison of Length of the plant Reference By adding Chemical fertilizer By adding Biofertilizer
  • 9. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 11/12/2007 19-12-07 2/1/2008 9/1/2008 17-01-08 By adding biofertilizer By adding chemical fertilizer Reference Comparison of Plant length Width in mm
  • 10. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 WidthinMillimeter 11/12/2007 19-12-07 2/1/2008 9/1/2008 17-01-08 Date Comparison of Width of the plant Reference By adding Chemical fertilizer By adding Biofertilizer
  • 11. 0 5 10 15 20 25 11/12/2007 19-12-07 2/1/2008 9/1/2008 17-01-08 Date Widthinmillimetre By adding biofertilizer By adding chemical fertilizer Reference Comparison of the Plant leaf width
  • 12. Comparison of weight of grains 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 1 Pots Weightingrams Reference By adding Chemical fertilizer By adding Biofertilizer
  • 13. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Reference By adding Chemical fertilizer By adding Biofertilizer Pots WeightofGrainsingrams Comparison of productivity
  • 14. Anatomical differences
  • 15. Conclusion • Significant increase in biomass production and grain productivity. • Relatively more effective than chemical fertilizers. • Hence can be concluded with further study that biofertilizer is a better alternative to chemical fertilizers. Supportive literature also confirms its environmental safeness (effective decomposition).