Neethu bft

686 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
686
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
111
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Neethu bft

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

×