Bdai lecture i bd research

325 views
239 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
325
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bdai lecture i bd research

  1. 1. 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)
  2. 2. Recent trends on BD agriculture Dr.K.Perumal, (Deputy Director, R&D)research AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre Shri
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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.
  5. 5. 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.
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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/
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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.
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. 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;
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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).
  21. 21. 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)
  22. 22. 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)
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25.  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)
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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).
  29. 29. 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)
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32.  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)
  33. 33. 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).
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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).
  36. 36.  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)
  37. 37. Biodynamic Research in India
  38. 38. ORGANIC, BIODYNAMIC MANURES AND THEIR EFFECT ON GROWTH ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED PLANTS in India
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. Availability of Cow horns?Why cow horns alone for BD Preparations?
  50. 50. CPPM MANURE PREPARATION a b c d(a), (b), (c) and (d) covered with gunny bag
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. Effect Of CPPM Manure Preparation at Different localitiesEffect containers on Preparation of CPPM manure
  53. 53. 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)
  54. 54. 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)
  55. 55. 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)
  56. 56. 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 )
  57. 57. 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)

×