Bdai lecture i bd research
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Bdai lecture i bd research

on

  • 210 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
210
Views on SlideShare
210
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
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

Bdai lecture i bd research Bdai lecture i bd research Presentation Transcript

  • Lecture plan & Demonstration• 1. Recent trends in Biodynamic agriculture research• 2. Case studies on the influence of biodynamic agriculture practices on soil, seed, crop and human health• 3.Qulatitaive analysis of soil, manure and plant products through image forming chromatograms• 4. AAT for soil and manure (Quantitative determination of soil nutrients)
  • Recent trends on BD agriculture Dr.K.Perumal, (Deputy Director, R&D)research AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre Shri
  • Main ingredients of Biodynamic preparations.Field and Crop Spray Preparations Compost PreparationsPreparation Preparation Main Ingredient Main Ingredient Number Number 500 Cow Manure 502 Yarrow 501 Silica 503 Chamomile 508 Equisetum 504 Stinging Nettle 505 Oak bark 506 Dandelion buds 507 Valerian
  • How Might BD Preparations Work?• Primary modes of operation for BD preparations are: nutrient addition (primarily micronutrient), microbial inoculation, plant immunity stimulation, plant hormones, and microbial signaling.• BD preparations could change the plant or soil microbial community directly, through inoculation, or indirectly, by changing the habitat or by stimulating microbial growth.• A change or increase in microbial community could cause either detriments, such as disease, or benefits, such as increased availability of nutrients from the soil. General effects of soil inoculation. Figure credit: Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, Washington State University.
  • Influence of BD 501 on microbial signaling.• The community make-up and/or its activities can be affected by microbial signaling.• Microorganisms communicate with each other by several means, including through volatile or diffusible molecules• .• Individual microbes can release tiny amounts of hormones, signals, and other chemicals that may induce a change in the activities of neighboring microbes.• Antibiotics are a well-known example, and are produced by many soil and compost microbes to reduce the growth of other populations.• The chemistry and complexity of microbial signaling is a new frontier in microbiology.
  • Influence of BD Preparations on• disease inhibition BD preparations are gaining popularity and interest is for disease inhibition.• Preparations may suppress plant pathogenic organisms through competition, predation, antagonism of microbes in the preparations, or inhibitory compounds from the microorganisms.• Some materials can also induce “systemic resistance” in plants. This is similar to a plant vaccination or overall immune system stimulation.•• Typical plant responses to pathogenic attack such as production of chitinase (an enzyme that breaks down fungal cell walls) and thickening of plant defensive cell walls can be stimulated PRIOR to actual attack by a pathogen . Plant immunity stimulation after treatment with silica spray. Figure credit: Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, Washington State University
  • Testing BD on the Farm• The use of BD methods and preparations on thousands of farms suggests that there can be real benefits.• Successful use of any new material should be accompanied with on-farm experimentation and diligent record keeping
  • Area under cultivation of biodynamic AgricultureThere are more than 4200 BD farmsin 43 countries, the area of which,over 128,000 ha, is certifiedaccording to Demeter standards. http://www.demeter.net/
  • New Zealand Study directly comparing BD and Conventional farms was carried out in on 16 farms . BD farming practices for at least 8 years resulted in higher soil organic matter contents, increased quality of soil structure, increased microbial activity and higher numbers of earthworms. BD farms were financially as viable as their conventional counterparts. Droogers and Bouma compared BD and conventional soils on two neighboring farms, where each farming practice has been applied for at least 70 years. They found significant differences in soil organic matter (SOM) content and water availability in favor of BD soils.
  • Australia According to Ryan et al., there is a strong negative correlation between the levels of P (soil extractable and in pasture shoots) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization in white clover and rye grass. BD plants and soils contain less extractable P, but have higher levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization. Raupp also reports a higher density of roots Arbuscular mycorrhizal on plots treated with BD preparations. as fungi they have been proved to stimulate lateral colonization. root formation and thus increase potential root–mycorrhiza interaction points.
  • Northern Victoria and New South Wales (Animal husbandry) Burkitt et al. compared ten BD and CON dairy farms for 4 years. He suggested the use of certified inputs on BD farms to increase milk fat, protein and production levels, but did not give further details. This was the only published study found that dealt with farm animals and BD farming practices
  • Sweden Dr.Artur Grandstedt conducted biodynamic field trails from 1950 to 1980 nearby baltic sea The eight treatment which was named as K experiment Yields in K-experiment during 30 years showed a continues increases of the yields. After a ten years period was the yields in the biodynamic and conventional fertilized system on the same level. Organic carbon in the top soil 0-10 cm 1958- baltic sea 1989 in biodynamic trial shows 2.71 % of C.
  • HV I 2,35 2,31C % top soil 2,28 2,30 2,25 2,20 2,16 2,15 2,12 2,10 2,05 2,00 1,95 1991 1995 2000 2006
  • California BD wine grape production is also increasingly attracting attention, as some of the world’s prestigious wine producers have started to use BD practices in the past decade. Research followed suit and experimental results suggest that BD practices have an effect on wine grape canopy and chemistry, whereas no significant effects on soil fertility parameters were shown in a 6-year on-farm comparison trial between ORG and BD practices in an organic vineyard. Probst et al., however, measured significant differences in soil fertility between CON and BD soils on farms with a long history of BD (since 1981) and CON cultivation.
  • Egypt SEKEM’s companies enterprises like the institutes of education, vocational training, research centre and hospitalsScientific outcomes in biodynamic research Convert desert into oasis by following biodynamic methods As a direct result of biodynamic farming activities was the landmark achievement of the reduction in the use of synthetic pesticide in Egypt by over 90% from over 35000 tonnes per year to about 3000 tonnes. At the same time, the average yield of raw cotton was increased by almost 30% to 1200 kg per acre and fibre elasticity and overall quality was improved, compared to cotton grown by conventional method;
  • The Mekong Delta Of Vietnam• Yield and seed quality of modern and traditional soybean [Glycine max (l.) Merr.] under organic, biodynamic and chemical production practices.• The experiment revealed that seed yield from biodynamic, organic or chemical production practically the same and significantly higher by 50- 66% than that of the control• The biodynamic production practice improved soil properties especially in soil organic matter content and earthworm population• Biodynamic practices gave good seed qualities such as high storability and high protein
  • The main characteristics of long-term trials, which are based on sound scientific methods and include BD researchCountry Trial description Duration Crop rotation Referencesof trial of trial and fertilizationTherwil, In the DOK trial biodynamic, 1978–the Pfiffner and organic, conventional present FYM, composted FYM Ma¨der;Switzerland farmyard manure and with added BDpreparations Ma¨der et al.; conventional-mineral farming and MIN are used, depending on Fließbach etal. production system systems are compared with control plotsDarmstadt, With the MIN–ORG trial, 1980–the Same crop rotation and similar RauppGermany maintained at the Institute for present soil tillage are used in all Biodynamic Research, the treatments question of mineral versus Nitrogen (N) input levels are maintained at the same level, organic fertilizers is tackled whereas MIN, FYM and composted FYM with added BD preparations are used to supply N to the soilBonn, Effects of traditionally 1993–2001 Same 6-year crop rotation Zaller and Ko¨pkeGermany composted FYM against with similar land management two types of BD composted Techniques was used. FYM and FYM1 and a control plot composted FYM with added BD preparations were used were investigated as fertilizers at a rate of 30 t ha – 1
  • National and international research Institutes Germany: Nicolaas Busscher, Johannes Kahl,Gaby Mergardt and Angelika Ploeger Department of Organic Food Quality and Food Culture, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstrasse and Witzenhausen, Germany Denmark: Jens-Otto Andersen and Marianne Paulsen, Biodynamic Research Association Denmark. Netherlands: Machteld Huber and Paul Doesburg, Department of Healthcare and Nutrition, Louis Bolk Institute. Sweden: Eric - Biodynamic Research Institute Järna, Sweden UK: Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association www.biodynamic.org.uk Good Gardeners Association www.goodgardeners.org.uk McCarrison Society www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk Austria:CMC Austria www.landmanagement.net Vietnam: Lam Dong Tung, Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute, Can Tho, Vietnam India????MCRC doing work on quality testing of soil, manure and food samples through image forming techniques.
  • Case studies on biodynamic agriculture research• Properties of BD preparations• Influence of BD on Soil,• Influence of BD on Manure maturation• BD on Seed treatment and germination• BD management on Crop Growth• Crop yield• Quality of the products
  • Effect of biodynamic manure on soil properties Biodynamic farmers use ‘preparations’ to improve soil health and crop quality/ vitality Field sprays that are either made from cow manure and silica fermented in cow horns, or from special mixtures of cowmanure with concentrated applications of herbs (Koepf et al.1989).
  • Physical properties• An experiments were carried out during the year 1999, at Shivri farm of Uttar Pradesh, to explore the significance of biodyanmic preparation-500 (BD- 500) as compost inoculum in sodic soils.• Biodynamic management could be another promising technology that could be employed in bioremediation process of problematic soils. Ansari and Ismail(2008)
  • Chemical properties Soil organic matter content was found to be significantly higher on most of the biodynamic farms than on their conventional counterparts Compost-fertilized soils supported greater dehydrogenase activity, more soil respiration 19.0 mL CO2 g 21 soil h21 in biodynamic compost plot. Compost may supply an additional source of labile C and other nutrients to the soil for microbial growth and activity. (Carpenter-Boggs et al., 2000)
  • Biological properties Rupela, 2003 reported that the microbial population in BD preparations was found to be substantial where bacteria population (3.45 to 8.59 log10 g – 1 ). fungi was found in the preparations 502 and 506 (5.30 and 4.26 log10 g Bacillus - 1, respectively). Mader.et al., 2002 studied that difference in dehydrogenase, protease and phosphatase activities with respect to the farming systems in the biodynamic, organic and conventional agriculture long term comparison trial, where highest values were measured for the biodynamic system Trichoderma
  • Contd., Microbial biomass nitrogen also differed significantly and was highest in the biodynamic system with 59% more than that in the conventional farming. Furthermore, the microbial biomass carbon was 35% higher in the Biodynamic system, compared with the conventional farming. A plots receiving the biodynamic field sprays had more MinC than water- sprayed soils. There fore C is usually a good indicator of
  •  Earthworm population Contd., Pfiffner et al (1995) found more earthworms under organic than biodynamic management, and fewest in mineral-fertilized compost.or unfertilized plots. Carbon sequestration: In Switzerland, a long-term trial for a biodynamic system showed a stable carbon content, while a carbon loss of 15% in 21 years was measured for the compared conventional systems (Fliessbach, 2007)
  • Effect BD on crop managementA total of 1,443 colonies (rangingbetween 45 in BD500 to 527 in BD506)were observed from the nine samples,from that 67 isolates, 17 suppresseddisease causing fungi such as R.bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela etal 2003 from ICRISAT). Antagonistic
  • Effect on physiology and growth of crop plantTung and Fernandez, 2008found that the shoot biomass atpod filling stage of biodynamicswas higher by 24-28% and cropgrowth rate as well for the twodifferent soybean varieties
  • Effect on crop yieldRice crop: The grain yield and total milling yield was similar under organic and biodynamic methods (Garcia-Yzaguirre,et al., 2011).Wheat and maize:o Six years near Elkhorn with five different treatments. The BD+ system resulted in 403 to 605 kg /ha more wheat grain than did the organic systemo Five years of maize crop trials showed average yields of 5.58, 6.71,6.77, and 7.15 Mg/ha of grain for the conventional, organic, BD, and BD+ treatments, respectively. (Goldstein and Barber 2005).
  • Contd., Carpenter-Boggs et al. (2000) found no significant differences in yield of wheat and lentil in biodynamic and chemical system, although the yield of lentil per unit of plant biomass was higher in biodynamic. The experiment was conducted at Mekong Delta of Vietnam, revealed that seed yield of soybean from biodynamic, organic or chemical production practically the same and significantly higher by 50-66% than that of the control (Tung1 and Fernandez, 2007). In several studies biodynamic preparations have hormone-like effects on various crops (Stearn, 1976; Goldstein, 1979; Goldstein and Koepf, 1982; Fritz, et al., 1997) and they can increase root growth (Bachinger, 1996; Goldstein, 1986). In Germany the biodynamic sprays increased crop yields (cereals and vegetables) on years where yields were low (Raupp and Koenig, 1996)
  • Biological properties Rupela, 2003 reported that the microbial population in BD preparations was found to be substantial where bacteria population (3.45 to 8.59 log10 g – 1 ). fungi was found in the preparations 502 and 506 (5.30 and 4.26 log10 g - 1, respectively). Several bacterial and fungal strains showed a potential for suppressing fungal plant pathogens. Mader.et al., 2002 studied that difference in dehydrogenase, protease and phosphatase activities with respect to the farming systems in the biodynamic, organic and conventional agriculture long term comparison trial, where highest values were measured for the biodynamic system
  • Contd., Microbial biomass nitrogen also differed significantly and was highest in the biodynamic system with 59% more than that in the conventional farming. Furthermore, the microbial biomass carbon was 35% higher in the Biodynamic system, compared with the conventional farming. A plots receiving the biodynamic field sprays had more MinC than water- sprayed soils. There fore C is usually a good indicator of
  •  Earthworm population Pfiffner et al (1995) found more earthworms under organic than biodynamic management, and fewest in mineral-fertilized compost.or unfertilized plots. Carbon sequestration: In Switzerland, a long-term trial for a biodynamic system showed a stable carbon content, while a carbon loss of 15% in 21 years was measured for the compared conventional systems (Fliessbach, 2007)
  • Effect BD on crop managementA total of 1,443 colonies (ranging between 45 in BD500 to527 in BD506) were observed from the nine samples, fromthat 67 isolates, 17 suppressed disease causing fungi suchas R. bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela et al 2003 fromICRISAT).
  • Effect on physiology and growth ofcrop plant Tung and Fernandez, 2008 found that the shoot biomass at pod filling stage of biodynamics was higher by 24-28% and crop growth rate as well for the two different soybean varieties
  • Effect on crop yieldRice crop: The trials were set up in Pego-Oliva marshland in the year of 2005 to 2009. The grain yield and total milling yield was similar under organic and biodynamic methods (Garcia-Yzaguirre,et al., 2011).Wheat and maize:o Six years near Elkhorn with five different treatments. The BD+ system resulted in 403 to 605 kg /ha more wheat grain than did the organic systemo Five years of maize crop trials showed average yields of 5.58, 6.71,6.77, and 7.15 Mg/ha of grain for the conventional, organic, BD, and BD+ treatments, respectively.o Yields from the conventional plots lagged behind the organic and biodynamic plots throughout the experiment (Goldstein and Barber 2005).
  •  Carpenter-Boggs et al. (2000) found no significant differences in yield of wheat and lentil in biodynamic and chemical system, although the yield of lentil per unit of plant biomass was higher in biodynamic. The experiment was conducted at Mekong Delta of Vietnam, revealed that seed yield of soybean from biodynamic, organic or chemical production practically the same and significantly higher by 50-66% than that of the control (Tung1 and Fernandez, 2007). In several studies biodynamic preparations have hormone-like effects on various crops (Stearn, 1976; Goldstein, 1979; Goldstein and Koepf, 1982; Fritz, et al., 1997) and they can increase root growth (Bachinger, 1996; Goldstein, 1986). In Germany the biodynamic sprays increased crop yields (cereals and vegetables) on years where yields were low (Raupp and Koenig, 1996)
  • Biodynamic Research in India
  • ORGANIC, BIODYNAMIC MANURES AND THEIR EFFECT ON GROWTH ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED PLANTS in India
  • Biodynamic Agriculture Research ObjectivesCollection of organic-biodynamic manures and analysis for physical, chemical and microbiological parametersIsolation and identification of microbial populations in selected organic and biodynamic manuresProduction of subtilinEvaluation of partially purified subtilin and organic, biodynamic manures against certain selected plant pathogens at laboratory and field trialAssessment of Cow Pat Pit manure and other combinations of manures for the yield of bhindi under field trialAlternative materials for BD 500Alternative tropical herbs for BD preparations
  • Physicochemical properties of different organic and biodynamic manures Organic EC Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Manures pH Carbon (m.mohs) (%) (%) (%) (%) /dry wt BD 500 7.2 ± 0.1c 0.17 ± 0.01ab 1.63 ± 0.02b 1.11 ± 0.01b 2.53 ± 0.00c 24.55 ± 0.01d BD 502 5.3 ± 0.3b 0.26 ± 0.02ab 0.07 ± 0.00a 0.05 ± 0.00a 1.07 ± 0.01b 22.64± 0.03c BD 503 5.7 ± 0.2b 0.29 ± 0.01b 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.09 ± 0.00a 2.28 ± 0.00c 27.39 ± 0.00e BD 504 7.1 ± 0.3d 0.23 ± 0.01ab 0.5 ± 0.03a 0.06 ± 0.01a 1.06 ± 0.00b 28.36 ± 0.01ef BD 505 7.9 ± 0.4d 0.12 ± 0.02ab 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.01 ± 0.00a 0.07 ± 0.01a 16.87 ± 0.00b BD 506 6.1 ± 0.2c 0.29 ± 0.01ab 0.32 ± 0.02a 0.47 ± 0.02b 1.27 ± 0.00b 11.46 ± 0.01a BD 507 6.8 ± 0.2c 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.15 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.00a 1.26 ± 0.02b 26.94 ± 0.01e BD Compost 7.3 ± 0.1c 0.03 ± 0.01a 0.5 ± 0.01b 0.04 ± 0.01a 0.74 ± 0.01b 27.46 ± 0.00e CPP (MCRC) 8.0 ± 0.1d 0.11 ± 0.04ab 2.09 ± 0.01a 6.86 ± 0.00d 4.69 ± 0.00d 16.44 ± 0 00b Vermicompost 6.6 ± 0.1c 0.04 ± 0.01a 2.13 ± 0.04c 2.03 ± 0.00c 2.28 ± 0.02c 27.37 ± 0.00e * NADEP* 3.7 ± 0.2a 0.05 ± 0.01a 1.39 ± 0.00b 0.95 ± 0.00d 2.55 ± 0.02c 30.37 ± 0.00f Panchakavya* 3.7 ± 0.2a 0.40 ± 0.02ab 1.29 ± 0.00b 0.77 ± 0.01b 2.24 ± 0.01c 17.47 ± 0.01bResults represent mean ± SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at Ρ<0.05level.* Organic
  • Quantification of Plant Growth Regulators of different organic and biodynamic manures Auxin Cytokinin Abscisic acid GA3 Manures (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g)BD 500 21.7 ± 0.45a 3.0 ± 0.01b - -BD 502 9.7 ± 0.45b 7.0 ± 0.01a - -BD 503 7.9 ± 0.01b 3.9 ± 0.01b - -BD 504 8.4 ± 0.01b 5.7 ± 0.8a 18.7 ± 0.8a -BD 505 9.0 ± 0.01b 4.0 ± 0.01b 18.8 ± 0.8a -BD 506 3.3 ± 0.32b 5.7 ± 0.04b 18.7 ± 0.04a -BD 507 (2 ml) 6.5 ± 0.18b 6.0 ± 0.18a - -BD Compost 6.3 ± 0.8b 4.0 ± 0.01b - -CPP (MCRC) 28.7 ± 0.04a 7.7 ± 0.8a - 23.7 ± 0.04aVermicompost* 8.5 ± 0.24b 5.7 ± 0.01b - -NADEP* 21.7 ± 0.04a 5.5 ± 0.8b - - 10.5 ± 0.04b 4.0 ± 0.01b - -Panchakavya* Results represent mean ± SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly atΡ<0.05 level. Note: - undetectable * Organic
  • Occurrence and distribution of microbes in different organic and biodynamic manures CFU of Manures CFU of Azotobacter Azospirillum fungi Rhizobium bacteria x106 x106 x106 x106 x106 BD 500 4.1 ± 0.08a 0.3 ± 0.02c 0.2 ±0.00b 0.9 ±0.02a 3.1 ±0.01a BD 502 1.4 ± 0.08ab 0.3 ± 0.02c 0.1 ± 0.00b 0.3 ± 0.00b 1.3 ± 0.12b BD 503 3.9 ± 0.01a 1.3± 0.04b 0.1 ± 0.00b 0.8 ± 0.00ab 2.1 ± 0.08b BD 504 3.6 ± 0.08a 0.6 ± 0.08c - 0.2 ± 0.00b 2.9 ± 0.05a BD 505 0.8 ± 0.05b 1.4 ± 0.02b 0.3 ± 0.08b 0.3 ± 0.00b 0.8 ± 0.02b BD 506 3.8 ± 0.02a 0.9 ± 0.02b - 0.6 ± 0.02b 2.0 ± 0.01a BD 507 3.3 ± 0.18a 0.4 ± 0.02c 0.1 ± 0.00b 0.3 ± 0.02b 1.1 ± 0.02b BD Compost 2.8 ± 0.02b 2.5 ± 0.08a 0.1 ± 0.00b 0.6 ± 0.00b 3.1 ± 0.02a CPP (MCRC) 4.9 ± 0.02a 0.9 ± 0.02b 0.2 ± 0.00b 1.2 ± 0.02a 2.0 ± 0.01b Vermicompost* 2.9 ± 0.02b 2.7 ± 0.08a 0.9 ± 0.00b 0.3 ± 0.02b 1.6 ± 0.01b NADEP* 3.5 ± 0.18a 0.6 ± 0.04b 0.3 ± 0.00b 0.5 ± 0.02b 1.9 ± 0.01a Panchakavya* 3.9 ± 0.02a 0.9 ± 0.02b 0.2 ± 0.02b 0.5 ± 0.00b 2.1 ± 0.02aResults represent mean ± SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at Ρ<0.05 level.Note: - undetectable * Organic
  • Physicochemical and microbial parameters of biodynamic manures 90 35 a 80NPK, OC (%) / manure 30 70 b Humic acid (mg/g) manure 25 20 60 15 50 d 10 40 c 5 30 0 a b 20 CPP Leaves Peat Remuni C Old coco 10 remuni mold moss peat 0 CPP Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old coco Nitrogen Phosporus Potasium Organic carbon remuni peat 5 3 16 CFU bacteria (10 /g)manure 14 CFU fungi 10 /g manure 4.5 4 2.5 12 PGRs (µg/g)manure 3.5 2 3 10 6 3 2.5 1.5 8 2 1.5 1 6 1 0.5 4 0.5 0 0 2 CPP remuni Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old coco 0 peat CPP remuni Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old coco peat Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum Rhizobium Total CFU fungi Auxin Cytokinin
  • 6 protein content (µg/g)dry 5 4 3 2 1 0 a b c d e f g h i j k l Different organic and biodynamic manures Total protein content of different organic and biodynamic Protein content (µg/g) Subtilin production manures manure dry wt 6 1.2 5 1 (mg/g) 4 0.8 (a) BD 500 3 0.6 (b) BD 502 2 0.4 (c) BD 503 1 0.2 (d) BD 504 0 0 (e) BD 505 a b c d e f g h i j k l (f) BD 506 Different manures (g) BD 507 (h) BD compost Protein Subtilin (i) CPP (j) VermicompTotal protein and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in (k) NADEdifferent organic and biodynamic manure (l) Panchakavya
  • I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XIICircular paper chromatogram image analyses of different organic andbiodynamic manures I. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 500 II. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 502 III. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 503 IV. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 504 V. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 505 VI. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 506 VII. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 507 VIII. Circular paper chromatogram image of biodynamic compost IX. Circular paper chromatogram image of CPP (Cow Pat Pit) X. Circular paper chromatogram image of vermi compost XI. Circular paper chromatogram image of NADEP XII. Circular paper chromatogram image of panchakavya
  • Preparation of BD 500 1 4 2 5 3 61. Stuff cow Horn with cow dung 4 Staffing the mud horn with cow2 Place the cow horns in the pit dung3 Cow horn with fresh cow dung 5 Mud horn alternatives for cowand BD 500 harvested after 120 hornsdays of incubation 6 Placing the cow dung filled mud horns in pit
  • Chemical analysis of Cow hornCow horn Total Nitrogen Protein Major Amino acids (%) (%) (%)Raw 14 87.5 -Steamed 13.5 84.5 -Hydrolyz 12 75 Cysteine 1, ed Lysine 2.35 Methionine 0.47
  • BD500 MCRC Total Rhizobiu Azospirillu Azotobacte ActinomycetDays bacteria* Fungi* m* m* r* es* 0 7.2 5.5 2.1 1.9 2.7 6.3 15 17.7 7.8 4.5 3.8 3.5 7.7 30 21.1 9.7 5.9 5.7 4.6 9.5 45 29.9 10.5 7.3 6.3 6.9 10.6 60 32.2 11.6 10.3 9.5 7.2 12.2 75 38.8 13.3 12.7 10.6 8.4 13.4 90 42.2 16.1 15.4 12.4 10.3 16.3 105 39.9 12.4 10.2 9.1 8.7 15.1 120 36.6 8.7 7.9 7.8 7.6 13.8 * = X 106
  • Availability of Cow horns?Why cow horns alone for BD Preparations?
  • CPPM MANURE PREPARATION a b c d(a), (b), (c) and (d) covered with gunny bag
  • Four different biodynamic manure combinations of equal proportion ratio viz.,BDM I) - CPP + BD 500BDM II) - CPP + Herbals prepBDM III) - BD 500 + Herbals prepBDM IV) - HerbalsFive different manures were prepared as per the description given earlier by eliminating certain components:I) CPPM I - prepared with all components (control) viz., such as cow dung + egg shell + bore well soil + BD herbalsII) CPPM II - cow dung aloneIII) CPPM III - cow dung + egg shell + bore well soilIV) CPPM IV - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + bore well soilV) CPPM V - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + egg shellCow Pat Pit Manure samples were prepared by including all the components (control) and kept in different containers viz.,i) Mud potii) Plastic bath tubiii) Cement pot
  • Effect Of CPPM Manure Preparation at Different localitiesEffect containers on Preparation of CPPM manure
  • Different physicochemical parameters viz.,pHElectrical conductivity (EC) Muthuvel and Udayasoorian (1999)Moisture contentTemperatureBrick’s valueAvailable nitrogen (N) Subbiah et al. (1956)Phosphorous (P) Olsen (1954)Potassium (K) Jackson (1958)Organic carbon (OC) Walkley and Black (1934)Protein Lowry et al. (1951)Humic acid Welte et al. (1952)Plant Growth Regulators Unyayar et al. (1996).Subtilin Dimick et al., 1947Circular paper chromatogram image analysis (Pfeiffer, 1984)
  • NPK (%) manur Humic acid (mg/g) ma 7 90 6 80 5 70 60 4 50 3 40 2 30 1 20 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 (Days ) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 PGRs (µg/g) manure Nitrogen Phos phorous Potas s ium (Days) OC (%) manure 45 50 40 40 35 30 30 20 25 20 10 15 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 5 0 (Days) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Protein content (µ/g) manure (Days) /g) manure /g) manure 5 3 600 CFU bacteria (10 CFU fungi (10 4 2.5 500 2 6 3 400 3 dry wt 1.5 2 1 300 1 0.5 200 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 100 (Days ) 0 Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Azospirillum Rhizobium Total CFU fungi (Days)Subtilin production (mg/g) 1.2 1 0.8 manure 0.6 0.4 Physicochemical and microbial parameters of 0.2 CPPM I manure 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • Humic acid (mg/g) ma NPK (%) man 4.5 100 4 3.5 3 80 2.5 2 60 1.5 1 40 0.5 0 20 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 (Days ) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 PGRs (µg/g) manure Nitrogen Phos phorous Potas s ium (Days ) 35 25 OC (%) manure 30 20 25 15 20 10 5 15 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 5 0 (Days ) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 (Days) /g) manure /g) manure 4 2.5 CFU bacteria (10 3.5 CFU fungi (10 3 2 2.5 1.5 6 3 2 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterSubtilin production (mg/g) manure Azospirillum Rhizobium Total CFU fungi 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 Physicochemical and microbial 0.04 parameters of CPPM II manure 0.02 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • Humic acid (mg/g) man NPK (%) manure 120 3.5 3 100 2.5 2 80 1.5 60 1 0.5 40 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phos phorous Potas s ium ( Days) PGRs (µg/g) manure 30 25 20 OC (%) manure 25 15 20 10 15 5 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 5 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Protein content (µg/g) manure (Days ) CFU fungi/g ) manure /g) manure 4 2.5 180 3.5 160CFU bacteria (10 2 (10 3 140 2.5 1.56 3 120 dry wt 2 1.5 1 100 1 80 0.5 0.5 60 0 0 40 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 (Days ) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Subtilin production (mg/g) manure Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum Rhizobium (Days) Total CFU fungi 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 Physicochemical and microbial 0.08 0.06 parameters of CPPM III manure 0.04 0.02 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days )
  • NPK (%) manure Humic acid (mg/g) manur 4 120 3.5 3 100 2.5 2 80 1.5 60 1 0.5 40 0 20 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 (Days) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phos phorous Potas s ium (Days ) PGRs (µg/g) manure 45 OC (%) manure 40 15 35 10 30 25 5 20 15 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 5 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 (Days) /g) manure /g) manure Protein content (µg/g) manure 3 2 160 CFU bacteria (10 CFU bacteria (10 2.5 1.5 140 2 6 3 120 1.5 1 100 dry wt 1 0.5 80 0.5 60 0 0 40 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 (Days) 0 Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Azospirillum Rhizobium Total CFU fungi (Days)Subtilin production (mg/g) 0.2 0.15 Physicochemical and microbial manure 0.1 parameters of CPPM IV manure 0.05 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • NPK (%) manure 3.5 100 3 Humic acid (mg/g) manure 90 2.5 80 2 70 1.5 60 1 50 0.5 40 0 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 10 (Days ) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phos phorous Potass ium (Days) PGRs (µg/g) manure 35 15 OC (%) manure 30 25 10 20 5 15 10 0 5 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 Protein content (µg/g) manure dry wt (Days) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 (Days) /g) manure /g) manure 3 1.6 CFU bacteria (10 2.5 1.4 CFU fungi (10 1.2 150 2 1 6 3 1.5 0.8 0.6 100 1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0 0 50 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days ) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum RhizobiumSubtilin production (mg/g) manure Total CFU fungi (Days) 0.14 0.12 0.1 Physicochemical and microbial 0.08 0.06 parameters of CPPM V manure 0.04 0.02 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • Humic acid (mg/g) manureNPK, OC (%) manure 50 100 90 40 80 30 70 20 60 50 10 40 0 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 10 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Organic carbon PGRs (µg/g) manure (Days) CFU fungi /g) manure CFU bacteria (10 35 1.4 1.2 /g) 30 1.2 1 6 manure (10 25 1 0.8 20 0.8 3 0.6 0.6 15 0.4 0.4 10 0.2 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days ) Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Protein content (µg/g) manure dry Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Azospirillum Rhizobium Total CFU fungi 8 140 7 120 6 100 5 pH 80 4 wt 60 3 40 2 20 1 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Subtilin production (mg/g) manure (Days) (Days) 0.2 0.15 0.1 Physicochemical and microbial 0.05 parameters of mud pot CPPM manure 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • Humic acid (mg/g) man NPK, OC (%) m 60 100 50 80 40 30 60 20 10 40 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 0 (Days) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 PGRs (µg/g) manure Nitrogen Phosphorus Potas s ium Organic carbon (Days) /g manure CFU bacteria (10 1.5 2 /g) 30 CFU fungi 10 manure 6 25 1.5 1 20 3 1 15 0.5 10 0.5 5 0 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days ) (Days ) Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum Rhizobium Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Total CFU fungi Protein conent (µg/g) manure 7.4 200 7.3 180 7.2 160 7.1 140 7 dry wt 120 6.9 pH 100 6.8 80 6.7 60 6.6 40 6.5 20 6.4 0 6.3 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120Subtilin production (mg/g) manure (Days) (Days) 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 Physicochemical and microbial parameters 0.1 0.05 of plastic bath tub CPPM manure 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days )
  • Humic acid (mg/g) man 50 100 NPK, OC (%) ma 40 80 30 20 60 10 40 0 20 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phos prous Potass ium Organic carbon (Days) PGRs (µg/g) manure CFU bacteria manure /g manure 1.6 1 30 /g) (10 1.4 25 0.8 CFU fungi 10 1.2 20 1 0.6 6 15 3 0.8 10 0.6 0.4 5 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days ) Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Azospirillum RhizobiumSubtilin production (mg/g) manure Protein content (µg/g) manure dry wt Total CFU fungi 7.3 140 7.25 7.2 120 7.15 100 7.1 pH 80 7.05 60 7 6.95 40 6.9 20 6.85 0 6.8 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days) 0.2 0.15 0.1 Physicochemical and microbial 0.05 parameters of cement pot CPPM manure 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days)
  • a b c d e f g h i j k lCircular paper chromatogram image of CPPM manuresamples prepared in three different containers (a) 0th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (g) 30th day CPPM (cement tub) (b) 15th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (h) 45th day CPPM (cement tub) (c) 30th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (i) 0th day CPPM (Mud tub) (d) 45th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (j) 15th day CPPM (Mud tub) (e) 0th day CPPM (cement tub) (k) 30th day CPPM (Mud tub) (f) 15th day CPPM (cement tub) (l) 45th day CPPM (Mud tub)
  • Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC) 12 160 10NPK (%) manure 140 Humic acid (mg/g) manure 8 120 6 100 4 80 2 60 0 40 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 20 0 (Days) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium (Days) 45 2.5 1.4 40 PGRs (µg/g) manure 1.2 CFU bacteria (10 /g) 2 CFU fungi (10 /g) 35 6 1 3 30 manure manure 1.5 0.8 25 20 1 0.6 15 0.4 10 0.5 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days) Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum Rhizobium Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3 Total CFU fungi
  • Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC) 35 500 30 400 Protein content (µg/g) manure 25OC (%) manure 300 20 dry wt 15 200 10 100 5 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days) 0.35 7.6 7.4 0.3 7.2 Subtilin production (mg/g) 0.25 7 6.8 0.2 manure pH 6.6 0.15 6.4 6.2 0.1 6 5.8 0.05 5.6 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days)
  • Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi) 7 40 6 35 NPK (%) manure Humic acid (mg/g) manure 5 30 4 3 25 2 20 1 15 0 10 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 5 (Days) 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium (Days) CFU bacterium (10 manure 30 4.5 1.8 4 1.6 25 3.5 1.4 /g)PGRs (µg/g) manure /g) CFU fungi (10 3 1.2 3 manure 20 6 2.5 1 15 2 0.8 1.5 0.6 10 1 0.4 0.5 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days) Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter Azospirillum Rhizobium IAA Kinetin ABA GA3 Total CFU fungi
  • Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi) 35 160 30 140 Protein content (µg/g) manure 25 120 100OC (%) manure 20 dry wt 80 15 60 10 40 5 20 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days) 9 0.25 8 7 0.2 6 Subtilin production (mg/g) 0.15 5 manure pH 4 0.1 3 0.05 2 1 0 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 (Days) (Days)
  • 0th 15th 30th 45th 60th 75th 90thCircular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collectedat MCRC
  • 0th 15th 30th 45th 60th 75th 90th 105th 120thCircular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collected atVadakadampadi
  • Physicochemical parameters of three different commercial biodynamic manures Moisture Brick’s Humic acid EC OC P K pH content value N (%) (mg/g) ofManures (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) manureBD 500 A 8.17 0.16 20.0 3.8 15.14 0.046 3. 68 3.44 54.2 BD 500 7.44 0.32 44.4 3.4 16.40 0.092 6. 84 4.68 74.1 B CPP 8.46 0.18 25.0 2.9 19.10 0.098 8. 95 5.14 87.0 Values are mean of three replicates Occurrence and distribution of microbes in three different commercial biodynamic manures CFU of Azotobacter Azosprillum Rhizobium CFU of fungi Manures bacterium x106 x106 x106 x103 x106 BD 500 A 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 BD 500 B 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 CPP 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 Values are mean of three replicates
  • Circular paper chromatogram Circular paper chromatographicimages of BD 500 A manure sample images of BD 500 B manure sample Circular paper chromatogram images of CPP manure sample
  • Chromatographic analysis of three different commercial biodynamic manures S.No Manures Chromatogram zone Reporti) BD 500 A Inner zone [Minerals] Width [cm] 2.5 Rf value 0.35 Colour Light yellowish brown Pattern Radiating spikes projected outward Middle zone[Available C,N] C,N] Width [cm] 2.9 Rf value 0.41 Colour Light grey Pattern Radiating spikes projected outward Outer zone [Water soluble humus] Width [cm] 4.7 Rf value 0.67 Dark brown Colour Thick 56 radiating spikes projected outward Patternii) BD 500 B Inner zone [Minerals] Width [cm] 2.1 Rf value 0.3 Colour Light brown Pattern Radiating spikes projected outward Middle zone[Available C,N] Width [cm] 2.8 Rf value 0.4 Colour Light grey Pattern Radiating spikes projected outward Outer zone [Water soluble humus] humus] Width [cm] 4.8 Rf value 0.68 Thick brown Colour 60 radiating dark spikes projected outward Pattern
  • S.No Manures Chromatogram zone Reportiii) CPP Inner zone [Minerals] Width [cm] 2.5 Rf value 0.35 Colour Light yellowish brown Pattern radiating spikes projected outward Middle zone [Available C, N] Width [cm] 3.0 Rf value 0.42 Colour Light grey Pattern radiating spikes projected outward Outer zone [Water soluble humus] Width [cm] 4.9 Rf value 0.7 Dark brown Colour Thick 57 radiating spikes projected Pattern outward
  • a Efficacy of CPPM manure against Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus bEfficacy of CPPR (CPP Remuni) Japan manureagainst Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus
  • GROWTH AND SUBTILIN PRODUCTION OF 12 DIFFERENT ISOLATES OF Bacillus subtilis IN DIFFERENT MEDIAGrowth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in differentnatural mediaFive different natural media viz.,i) CPPM extractii) CPPM extract + 1% yeast extractiii) Partially extracted CPPM (CPPM was added with distilled water in a ratio of 1:1 w/viv) Spent wash effluent of sugar cane industry (E.I.D parry)v) Vermicompost medium
  • Growth at 660 nm Subtilin productio 1.2 1 0.8 (mg/ml) 1.15 0.6 1.1 0.4Growth and subtilin production of 1.05 0.2 1 0Bacillus subtilis isolates in nutrient 10 20 30 40 50 60 broth medium Incubation(h) BS1 Subtilin Subtilin production Subtilin production Growth at 660nm Growth at 660 nm 1.2 0.69 1.18 0.76 1.18 0.68 1.17 0.75 (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 1.16 0.67 1.16 0.74 1.14 0.66 1.15 0.73 1.12 0.65 1.14 0.72 1.1 0.64 1.13 0.71 1.08 0.63 1.12 0.7 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSIV Subtilin BSVII Subtilin Subtilin production Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm Growth at 660 nm 1.22 0.78 1.18 0.78 1.2 0.76 (mg/ml) 1.16 (mg/ml) 0.76 1.18 1.14 0.74 0.74 1.16 1.12 0.72 1.14 1.1 0.72 0.7 1.12 1.08 0.7 1.1 0.68 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSIX Subtilin BSXII Subtilin
  • Subtilin productio 1.4 1 Growth at 660 n 1.2 0.8 (mg/ml) 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 Growth and subtilin production 0.2 0.2 0 0of Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM 10 20 30 40 50 60 extract medium Incubation (h) BSI Subtilin Subtilin production Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm Growth at 660 nm 0.95 0.3 0.98 0.3 0.25 0.29 0.9 0.96 (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 0.2 0.94 0.28 0.85 0.15 0.27 0.92 0.1 0.26 0.8 0.9 0.25 0.05 0.88 0.24 0.75 0 0.86 0.23 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSII Subtilin BSIV Subtilin Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm 0.94 0.32 0.98 0.32 0.96 (mg/ml) 0.3 0.3 (mg/ml) 0.92 0.28 0.94 0.9 0.28 0.26 0.92 0.88 0.24 0.9 0.26 0.86 0.22 0.88 0.24 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation(h) Incubation (h) BSVII Subtilin BSVIII Subtilin
  • Growth at 660 n Subtilin production 1.18 0.8 Growth and subtilin production of 1.16 1.14 0.6 0.4Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM + 1.12 0.2 1% yeast extract medium 1.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Subtilin yield (mg/ml) BSII Subtilin Growth at 660 nm Growth at 660 nm Subtilin production 1.17 0.76 1.16 0.74 1.18 0.7 (mg/ml) 1.15 0.72 1.16 0.68 1.14 0.7 1.14 1.13 0.68 1.12 0.66 1.12 0.66 1.1 0.64 1.11 0.64 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (hrs) Incubation (h) BSIII Subtilin BSIV Subtilin Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm Subtilin production 1.2 0.78 Growth at 660 nm 1.17 0.71 0.7 (mg/ml) 1.16 1.18 0.76 (mg/ml) 1.15 0.69 1.16 0.74 0.68 1.14 0.67 1.14 0.72 1.13 0.66 1.12 0.65 1.12 0.7 1.11 0.64 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSVIII Subtilin BSXI Subtilin
  • Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in distillery extract medium Subtilin production 0.2 0.1 Subtilin production Growth at 660 nmGrowth at 660 nm 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.15 (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSII Subtilin BSIII Subtilin Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm 0.16 0.1 0.15 0.08 (mg/ml) 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) BSIX Subtilin
  • Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in vermicompost extract medium Subtilin production 0.46 0.25 Growth at 660nm 0.45 0.3 Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm 0.45 0.24 0.44 0.25 0.44 (mg/ml) 0.23 (mg/ml) 0.43 0.2 0.43 0.22 0.42 0.15 0.42 0.41 0.21 0.41 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.05 0.39 0.19 0.39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSIII Subtilin BSVII Subtilin Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm 0.48 0.27 Subtilin productionGrowth at 660 nm 0.47 0.25 0.46 0.24 0.47 0.26 0.45 0.46 (mg/ml) 0.23 (mg/ml) 0.25 0.44 0.45 0.22 0.24 0.43 0.44 0.21 0.43 0.23 0.42 0.2 0.42 0.22 0.41 0.4 0.19 0.41 0.21 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSIX Subtilin BSXII Subtilin
  • Subtilin produc Growth at 660 0.98 0.3 0.97 (mg/ml) 0.96 0.28 0.95 0.26 0.94 Growth and subtilin production of 0.93 0.24 Bacillus subtilis in partially CPPM 0.92 0.91 0.22 extract medium 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Subtilin production (mg/ml) BSIII Subtilin Subtilin production Growth at 660 nm Growth at 660 nm 0.98 0.29 0.96 0.28 0.28 0.96 (mg/ml) 0.95 0.27 0.27 0.94 0.26 0.94 0.26 0.93 0.25 0.25 0.92 0.92 0.24 0.24 0.91 0.23 0.23 0.9 0.9 0.22 0.89 0.22 0.88 0.21 0.88 0.21 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSIV Subtilin BSVII Subtilin Subtilin production production(mg/ml)Growth at 660 nm Growth at 660 nm 0.98 0.4 0.97 0.96 0.34 0.3 (mg/ml) 0.96 0.94 0.32 Subtilin 0.95 0.2 0.92 0.3 0.94 0.93 0.1 0.9 0.28 0.92 0.88 0.26 0.91 0 0.86 0.24 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSVIII Subtilin BSIX Subtilin
  • Extracellular protein content of 12 different isolates of Bacillus subtilis (BS I - BS XII)Protein content (ug/ml) Protein content (ug/ml) 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) Incubation (h) BSI BSII BSIII BSIV BSV BSVI BSVII BSVIII BSIX BSX 60 Protein content (ug/ml) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incubation (h) BSXI BSXII
  • Efficacy of Bacillus Subtilis (BS I) crude extract on test pathogens Control Staphylococcus aureus Micrococcus luteus
  • Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different carbon sources Inhibition zone Carbon sources OD at 660 nm (mm) diameter Sorbital 1.11 14.0 Mannitol 1.04 12.0 Glucose 1.07 15.0 Mannose 1.09 15.0 Fructose 0.87 18.0 Sucrose 0.89 15.0 Ribose 0.85 16.0 Raffinose 0.86 18.0 Galactose 1.28 26.0 Inositol 0.76 17.0 Lactose 0.96 17.0 Maltose 0.85 12.0 Xylose 0.98 18.0 Glycerol 0.83 17.0 Starch 0.87 14.0 Values are mean of three replicates
  • Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different N2 sources Inhibition OD at 660 Nitrogen sources zone (mm) nm diameter Potassium nitrate 1.08 9.0 Ammonium phosphate 1.05 12.0 Sodium nitrate 1.07 17.0 Ammonium sulphate 1.03 14.0 Ammonium nitrate 1.07 15.0 Peptone 1.21 31.0 L- Cystein 0.98 24.0 L- Threonine 0.97 14.0 L- Alanine 1.05 12.0 L- Leucin 0.95 13.0 L- phenylalanine 0.85 17.0 L- Asparagine 0.94 15.0 L- Proline 0.97 15.0 Values are mean of threereplicates
  • Efficacy of different solvent systems for the extract of antimicrobial substance from Bacillus subtilis BS I Zone of inhibition (mm diameter) Solvents Staphylococcus Micrococcus E. coli aureus luteus Chloroform - isopropanol 14.0 ± 0.02a 11.0 ± 0.02a 9.0 ± 0.01a Chloroform - methanol 17.0 ± 0.04a 13.0 ± 0.03a 9.0 ± 0.03a Hexane 4.0 ± 0.02 c 3.0 ± 0.01c 2.0 ± 0.01c Ether 5.0 ± 0.01b 4.0 ± 0.03c 3.0 ± 0.02c Chloroform 6.0 ± 0.02b 3.0 ± 0.01c 3.0 ± 0.01c Isopropanol 7.0 ± 0.03b 4.0 ± 0.02b 5.0 ± 0.02b Methanol 10.0 ± 0.02b 5.0 ± 0.01b 4.0 ± 0.02bResults represent mean ± SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at Ρ<0.05 level.
  • Fusarium oxysporum on Potato Dextrose Agar at 48 hA B C D EEffect of Bacillus subtilis BS I extract on different plantpathogens (A). F. oxysporum (B). R. Solani (C). M. grisea (D). R. Solanacearum (E). X. oryzae
  • Efficacy of different biodynamic manures and Bacillus subtilis BS I culture filtrate on selected Plants under laboratory and field trial Efficacy of organic and biodynamic manures on Allium cepa L. bulbs Hydroponic study A total of 12 organic and biodynamic manures: vermicompost, NADEP compost, panchakavya (ingredients of cow dung, urine, milk, curd and ghee) and Biodynamic (BD) compost and cow pat pit (CPP), cow horn manure (BD 500) and biodynamic herbal preparations viz, (BD 502 – BD 507) were used in the present study Onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) samples The biometric parameters like shoot length, number of sheath, root length and number of rootlets were recorded. In addition the root samples were subjected for cross sections and studied.
  • 3. Soil drench method15 days old tomato seedlings were transplanted to the experimental potscontained the micro conidia of 3 x 105/mL of Fusaruium oxysporum andinoculated 10 mL of Bacillus subtilis BS I of 6 x 106 CFU/mL, Ca. 5 cmaway from the stem.Diseased plants (pathogens only) with out treatment and healthy plants(control) were served as control.The above experiments were conducted for a period of 50 days aftertransplantation and the following parameters were recorded.In addition the length of shoot, root, fresh and dry weight of shoot and rootwere also recorded at the end of experiment.
  • Field trial studyHealthy seeds of bhindi (Arka Anamika variety) obtained from Tamil NaduAgricultural University (TNAU), Each plot covered an area of 6 m × 2.5 m.Six different experiments were performed for a period of 120 days.A total of eighteen plots were made. Each plot had four ridges and furrows.Forty plants were grown in each plot at an interval of 30 x 30 cm.Initially in each spot 2 seeds were sown and at the end of 7th day one healthyseedling was maintained.At every 15 days interval different parameters like, height of plant, number ofbranches, number of flowers and number of vegetables and weight wererecorded.A total of 29 pickings were made during the first month to fourth month ofexperimental periods.The yield of bhindi was recorded every month
  • Field experimental details/plotT1. Control - without organic/inorganic fertilizerT2. Recommended dose of fertilizers - 10 kg Farmyard Manure (FYM) applied only on initial day and 264 gm Urea + 97.5 gm single super phosphate (SSP) + 153 gm Murite of potash (MOP) applied on 0th and 60th day.T3. Farmyard Manure (FYM) - 10 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T4. Vermicompost - 3 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T5. Cow pat pit (CPP) of 10 g applied on 0th and 60th day.T6. FYM + Vermicompost + cow pat pit of 10 kg, 3 kg and 10 g respectively applied on 0th and 60th day 18 m T6 T3 T5 T5 T2 T6 1 T4 T1 T4 Field trial 5m T3 T4 T1 T2 T5 T3 T1 R1 T6 R2 T R23
  • Field trial on bhindi applied with differaent organic and biodynamic manures j T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of chemicalfertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM
  • Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures Epiblema 29 µm Parenchymatous cell Endodermis Pericycle Metaxylem a b Protoxylem Phloem 57.5 µm 48.5 µm c d 52.7 µm 50.2 µm e f (a) Root and Sheath growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 503 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 507 (f) Cross section of onion root treated under water without manures (control)
  • Biometric parameters of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures Root (30th day) Sheath (30th Day) Treatment Number of Length of fibrous Number of Length of Sheath fibrous roots roots Average 3 Sheath (Nos) (cm) (Nos) times (cm) BD 500 44.0 ± 0.18e 8.3 ± 0.01e 6.3 ± 0.08c 16.6 ± 0.12d BD 502 24.0 ± 0.01d 6.6 ± 0.04b 3.5 ± 0.5ab 7.6 ± 0.45c BD 503 25.0 ± 0.18 d 6.7 ± 0.18b - - BD 504 27.0 ± 0.01d 6.8 ± 0.02b 4.1 ± 0.18b 6.4 ± 0.18b BD 505 3.0 ± 0.00a 6.6 ± 0.80b - - BD 506 25.0 ± 0.8d 2.5 ± 0.80a - - BD 507 27.0 ± 0.01d 7.4 ± 0.04bc - - BD compost 1.0 ± 0.00a 6.5 ± 0.32b - - CPP (MCRC) 31.0 ± 0.00d 7.4 ± 0.04bc 23.0 ± 0.00d 18.6 ± 0.20d Vermicompost* 28.0 ± 0.01d 7.7 ± 0.80bc - - NADEP* 38.0 ± 0.01e 7.7 ± 0.80bc - - Panchakavya* 14.0 ± 0.00c 10.6 ± 0.80d 3.0 ± 0.00a 3.7 ± 0.12a Control - Water 8.0 ± 0.84b 4.5 ± 0.18ab - -
  • Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated withdifferent biodynamic manures Epiblema 29 µm Parenchymatous cell Endodermis Pericycle Protoxylem Metaxylem a b Phloem 57.5 µm 52.2 µm d c 53.4 µm 52.2 µm f e (a) Cumulative of organic manures on growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + BD 500 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + (502 - 507) (f) Cross section of onion root treated under BD500 + (502 - 507)
  • 52.2 µm a 50.2 µm b Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures(a) Cross section of onion root treated under BD (502 - 507)(b) Cross section of onion root treated under water (control)
  • Effect of different combinations of biodynamic manures of A. cepa L. Root Sheath (30th day) (30th Day) Treatment Average Average Average root Number of Number of sheath length number of length (cm) in root lets sheaths (Nos) (cm) in 3 roots (Nos) 3 times (Nos) timesCPP + BD 500 15.5 ± 0.5b 4.72 ± 0.12a 38.0 ± 0.02 bc - - CPP + BD 33.3 ± 0.5a 3.72 ± 0.02a 36.0 ± 0.02b 8.6 ± 0.5a 4.82 ± 0.32a (502 - 507)BD 500 + BD 16.0 ± 0.02b 5.34 ± 0.04a 41.0± 0.04d - - (502 - 507)BD (502 - 507) 18.0 ± 0.00 bc 5.78 ± 0.08a 39.0 ± 0.02c - - CPP + 15.7 ± 0.02b 5.29 ± 0.02b 35.0 ± 0.02b - -panchakavya* Control 25.5 ± 0.5c 12.6 ± 0.06b 19.0 ± 0.02a 2.3 ± 0.5b 3.68 ± 0.18a
  • Effect of CPPM manure on Allium cepa L. a b c d e f(a), (b) Manure amended soil 0th day(c), (d) 5th day(e), (f) 15th day g(g) 30th day
  • Effect of CPPM manures an garden soil on Allium cepa L. Sheath (30 th Root (30 th day) Day) Treatment Length of Number fibrous roots Number of Length of fibrous of Average 3 times Sheath (Nos) Sheath (cm) roots (Nos) (cm)BD 500 6.0 ± 0.11ab 15.0 ± 0.00b - -BD 500 + BD 15.0 ± 0.02b 21.0± 0.02a 4.0 ± 0.05b 6.0 ±0.05b502-507BD 500 + 19.0 ± 0.12 a 23.0 ± 0.11a 3.0± 0.02b 2.0± 0.02bCPPCPP 14.0 ± 0.00b 20.0 ± 0.01a 3.0 ± 0.01b 4 .0± 0.03bCPP + 24.0± 0.01a 24.0 ± 0.04a 20.0± 0.02a 26.0± 0.02aBD 502-507BD (502-507) 9.0 ± 0.00ab 14.0 ± 0.02b 18.0± 0.02a 24.0± 0.02aSoil 4.0± 0.03ab 11.0 ± 0.01b 5.0± 0.02b 12.0± 0.02b(Control)
  • Cross section of fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures amended soil 29 µm a 29.5 µm b 17.4 µm c ee 29.0 µm d 39.8 µm 17.4 µm f (a) Treated with BD 500, (b) Treated with BD 500+ BD (502- 507), (c) Treated with BD 500+ CPP, (d) Treated with CPP, (e) Treated with CPP+ BD (502-507), (f) Treated with BD (502 - 507), (g) Treated with soil control 37.4 µm g
  • Efficacy of CPPM on test certain plants on 20th day a b c d (a) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of green gram (b) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of cowpea (c) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of black gram (e) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of soybean
  • Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30 th Day) Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30 th Day) Sheath (average) Root (average) Plants Number of Length of Number of Length of Number of sheath (Nos) sheath roots roots rootlets (cm) (Nos) (cm) (Nos)Bhindi 7.0 ± 0.06ab 20.5 ± 0.06a 35.0 ± 0.00a 12.5 ± 0.00a 19.0 ± 0.06abBlack gram 7.0 ± 0.05ab 7.9 ± 0.06b 34.0 ± 0.04a 8.5 ± 0.01ab 27.0 ± 0.00aCow pea 8.0 ± 0.01ab 19.3 ± 0.00a 39.0 ± 0.00a 11.0 ± 0.00a 40.0 ± 0.05aGreen 3.0 ± 0.00b 5.2 ± 0.01b 7.0 ± 0.03b 10.0 ± 0.01a 9.0 ± 0.00bGreen gram 10.0 ± 0.01a 20.7 ± 0.00a 50.0 ± 0.00a 11.7 ± 0.00a 39.0 ± 0.04aLablab 7.0 ± 0.00ab 14.5 ± 0.04a 32.0 ± 0.06a 9.5 ± 0.06ab 16.0 ± 0.04abMaize 5.0 ± 0.01b 8.1 ± 0.00b 19.0 ± 0.00ab 9.8 ± 0.00ab 27.0 ± 0.03aSoybean 10.0 ± 0.01a 11.8 ± 0.04b 38.0 ± 0.02a 11.6 ± 0.05a 45.0 ± 0.07aResults represent mean ± SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at Ρ<0.05level.
  • Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on seed treatment of tomato Treatment Shoot length Root length Fresh wt of Fresh wt of Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of (cm) (cm) shoot (g) root (g) (g) root (g) 54.87±0.02 a 24.31±0.05 a 385.67±0.08 a 19.56±0.03 a 98.46±0.04 a 18.34±0.08 aSeedtreatmentControl 46.74±0.04 ab 19.38±0.03 b 278.95±0.04 ab 19.43±0.07 b 86.43±0.03 ab 16.49±0.02 b Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on root treatment of tomato Shoot length Root length Treatment (cm) (cm) Fresh wt of Fresh wt of Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of shoot (g) root (g) (g) root (g) 56.98±0.08 a 21.48±0.07 a 412.75±0.08 a 22.75±0.06 a 115.85±0.05 a 20.65±0.04 aRoot dip 46.74±0.04b 19.38±0.05 b 278.95±0.02 ab 19.43±0.03 b 86.43±0.04 ab 16.49±0.05 bControl
  • Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on soil drench of tomato Shoot length Root length Treatment (cm) (cm) Fresh wt of Fresh wt of Dry wt of Dry wt of root shoot (g) root (g) shoot (g) (g) 63.76±0.03 a 27.45±0.03 a 512.64±0.04 a 28.54±0.07 a 123.93±0.05 a 23.65±0.06 aSoil drench 46.74±0.04 ab 19.38±0.05 a 278.95±0.01 b 19.43±0.03 ab 86.43±0.05 ab 16.49±0.06 abControl
  • Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi 16 1 30 6 Plant length (cm)Plant length (cm) NB, NF, NV (No) NB, NF, NV (No) 14 25 5 0.8 12 20 4 10 0.6 8 15 3 6 0.4 10 2 4 5 1 0.2 2 0 0 0 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 th th Treatment 15 day Treatment 30 day PL NB NF NV PL NB NF NV 40 16 50 20 Plant length (cm) Plant length (cm) NB, NF, NV (No) NB, NF, NV (No) 35 14 30 12 40 15 25 10 30 20 8 10 15 6 20 10 4 10 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 th Treatment 45 th day Treatment 60 day PL NB NF NV PL NB NF NV T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables
  • Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi 80 30 80 35 Plant length (cm)Plant length (cm) 70 70 NB, NF, NV (No) NB, NF, NV (No) 25 30 60 60 25 50 20 50 20 40 15 40 15 30 30 10 10 20 20 10 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 th th Treatment 75 day Treatment 90 day PL NB NF NV PL NB NF NV 80 20 100 16Plant length (cm) 70 NB, NF, NV (No) 14 Plant length (cm) NB, NF, NV (No) 60 15 80 12 50 10 60 40 10 8 30 40 6 20 5 20 4 10 2 0 0 0 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 th Treatment 105 day th Treatment 120 day PL NB NF NV PL NB NF NV T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables
  • Effect of different organic and biodynamic manures on the yield of vegetables of bhindi Days Yield of bhindi (kg/plot) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T60 - 45 2.0±0.02b 2.6±0.01 b 3.0±0.02b 3.4±0.02b 4.0±0.03 b (1 picking) 4.65±0.02 b46 - 75(14 8.98±0.03 a 10.94±0.03 a 9.34±0.03 a 11.06±0.02 a 14.83±0.02 a 18.74±0.02 apickings)76 - 105 3.20±0.04b 4.24±0.03 b 3.84±0.01b 4.10±0.01 b 6.86±0.03b (7 pickings) 8.45±0.03b106 - 120 2.34±0.01b 1.83±0.02b 2.13±0.02 b 3.68±0.02 b 5.39±0.01 b (4 pickings) 1.25±0.02 bTotal 15.43±0.02 a 20.12±0.02 a 18.01±0.03 a 20.69±0.01 a 29.37±0.01 a 37.23±0.03 aT1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended Dose of Fertilizers (RDF), T3 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) T4 -Vermicompost T5 - Biodynamic Treatment (CPPM), T6 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) + Vermi compost +Biodynamic treatment (CPPM)
  • Cost benefit analysis of CPP manure preparation (per pit)Sl No Materials Quantity Source Cost (Rs) 1 Fresh cow dung 60 kg Farmer 100.00 2 Rock phosphate (Bore 100 g Easily available 10.00 well) 3 Crushed eggshell powder 100 g Easily available 10.00 (fine) 4 Bricks 60 nos/ @3.00 Manufacture 180.00 industry 5 BD herbal preparation (BD 3 g each and 30 ml Kurinji farm 225.00 502 – BD 507) BD 507 6 Gunny bag 2 Department store 30.00 7 Labour charges per pit 4 h/pit - 100.00 CPP making, - - weekly maintenance 60.00 charges (15 minutes for 16 weeks, 4 h) Total expenses 715. 00 Yield and sale value 25 - 30 kg Rs. 100/kg 2500.00 Profit in 120 days/plot 1222.00
  • SUMMARYA total 30 organic and biodynamic manure samples were chosen andinvestigated for different physicochemical and Microbiological parameters.Among them, the Cow Pat Pit remuni contained high amount of nutrients andmicrobial load when compared to the rest.The CPP manure contained high level of auxin 28.7 µg/g and maximumnumber of 4.9 x 106 CFU/gram of bacteria and 1.2 x 106 CFU/gram of fungi.The levels of nutrients in CPP manure sample were high than the rest ofsamples when subjected for circular paper chromatogram image analysis.The parameters viz., brick’s values, electrical conductivity, nitrogen,phosphorous, potassium, humic acid, PGRs, microbial occurrence anddistribution, subtilin production of the ten different CPP manures wereincreased up to 90th day and thereafter the values were decreased. The pH ofsamples varies during the study period.
  • The sample I contained maximum amount of 5.96% N, 5.9% of P4.25% of K, 37.2 µg/g of auxin, 9.77 µg/g of cytokinin, 23.4 µg/g of GA 3,471.3 µg/g of total protein and subtilin of 1.083 mg/g, as well as maximumnumber of 4.1 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria, 3.0 x 106 CFU/g of Azotobacter, 2.3 x106 CFU/g of Azosprillum, when compared to the other samples. The CPPM samples prepared in three different containers revealed thatthe manure sample collected from mud pot contained high amount of humicacid 87.9 mg/g, auxin 27.9 µg/g, gibberlic acid 9.6 µg/g and subtilin 0.165mg/g. The MCRC sample contained high amount of N of 8.23%, auxin 29.3µg/g, subtilin of 0.289 mg/g and 2.3 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria on 90th day The CPPM sample showed a predominant occurrence of Bacillussubtilis. A total of 12 isolates of Bacillus subtilis were isolated.
  • The isolates Bacillus subtilis BS I, BS II, BS IV, BS VII and BS VIIIinoculated in five different media revealed that the organisms grown in theCPPM manure extract amended broth showed maximum growth andsubtilin production.Among them B. subtilis BS I contained 0.946 mg/ml of subtilin and protein71.20 µg/ml.Based on the protein profile pattern of the isolates were segregated in tofour groups. The group D comprised of a maximum of 8 different Bacillussubtilis isolates.The culture filtrate of B. subtilis BS I obtained from the galactose amendedmedium showed high antifungal activity of inhibition zone of 26 mmdiameter against Fusarium oxysporum causing wilt disease of tomato.
  • • BD Herbal preparations- Temperate regioin.• Can we grow in tropical regions?• Can we find alternative herbs?
  • a b c d e f Preparation of 502 - 507 made from medicinal herbs (Source: Biodynamic Association of India - BDAI, Bangalore/Kodaikanal)(a) BD 502- Yarrow (Achillea millifolium) Bovine bladder Potassium (K) Sulphur (S) and trace elements(b) BD 503- Chamomile (Matricuria chamomilla) bovine intestine Calcium (Ca) and Nitrogen (N)(c) BD 504- Stinging Nettle (Urtica parviflora) Iron (Fe) and Magnesium (Mg)(d) BD 505- Oak (Quercus glauca) Sheep skull Calcium (Ca)(e) BD 506- Dandelion (Taraxicum officinalis) Bovine intestine Silica (Si)
  • Studies on efficacy of biodynamic manure with locally available biomass
  • Design Literature collection Preparation of BD Herbal preparation Preparation and BD500 manure using different comparative studies on vessels (Cow horn, Mud horn BD and Non BD compost Identification of and mud pot vessel) and dung analysis- alternative herb for and analysis-Physicochemical, Physicochemical, BD preparation biochemical and biochemical and microbiological microbiologicalAnalysis of BD preparation andcommercially available, alternativepreparation (periodical analysis- (BD502,BD504, BD505, BD506 and its alternative Studies on effect of BD and alternativepreparations) (BD503 and its alternative preparation on compost analysis-preparations,) Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological Field trial with BD and Consolidation and alternative compost, BD statistical analysis compost and BD500 of data
  • Biodynamic manure analysis Physico chemical A properties B Biochemical studies C Microbial Studies1 Moisture content 1 Alkaline phosphatase 1 Total Bacteria2 Temperature 2 Protease 2 Total fungi3 pH 3 Invertase 3 Rhizobium4 EC 4 Cellulase 4 Azotobacter5 Nitrogen 5 Phenolic compound 5 Azospirillum6 Phosphorus 6 Protein 6 Actinomycetes7 Potassium 7 Amino acids 7 VAM Phasphate8 Micronutrients 8 Fatty acids 8 solubiling microbes Organic carban and Nitrate ruducing9 organic matter 9 Humic acids 9 microbes Plant growth Sulphur reducing10 Organic fraction 10 regulators 10 microbes
  • Work doneBD 500 preparationHorn and Mud pot Were usedCow, goat, buffalo dung were usedBD 500 manure from David farms, Kurinji farms and Maharastra were analysis for comparation . The Kurinji farms BD500 showsmore nutrients and microbial activityIdentified alternative herbal plantBiodynamic compostBD compost prepared with and with out BD preparation Alternative herbs (Botanical and vernacular name)S.No BD Herb Name 1Yarrow Aerva lanata- Serupoolai -dried flower 2 Chamomile Tridax procumbens - Vettukayapoondu -flower 3Stinging Nettle Tragia involucrata - Senthatti - dried whole plant present 4Oak bark Casuarina sps - Bark 5Dandelion Spherenthus indicus - kottakaranthai – flower
  • Physico chemical properties of Regular and alternative BD preparation BD504 alternative BD 502 alternative BD505 alternative BD500 preparation compost
  • Food quality (Lecture II)• Biodynamic farm management practices reflect a desire to improve the healthiness of produce, which is believed to occur through harnessing biological processes and eliminating use of pesticides, herbicides, synthetic veterinary medicines and readily soluble fertilizers (Kirchmann, 1994).• The circular paper chromatographic analysis of soybean seeds grown from chemical production system gave weaker patterns than those from organic and biodynamic; this be inferred to be having lower protein organization and enzyme activity and thus contributory or translated to poorer storability of seeds that went under the same treatment (Tung and Fernandez, 2008).• Podolinsky (1990) reported that quality of product given biodynamics is superior and with very high life forces.