secondary and micronutrient management in organic farming

1. Secondary and micronutrient
management in organic farming
Kommireddy Poojitha
Sr. M.Sc. (Agri.)
PALB 6192
Dpt. of Agronomy
welcome
2nd seminar on

2. Sequence of presentation
Introduction
Secondary and micronutrients and their
importance
Management practices in organic farming
Research papers
Conclusion
Future line of work

3. Organic farming
 Organic farming is a form of agriculture which excludes
the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, plant
growth regulators.
 Organic agriculture is a production system that
sustains health of soil, eco-system and people, by
relying on ecological process, bio diversity and natural
cycles adapted to local conditions rather than the use
of inputs with adverse effects (IFOAM).

4. Fig 1: Area under organic farming and number of organic produces
Source : FiBA–IFOAM survey, 2018
Fig 2: Export performance of organic
food products from India
Rajib Roychowdhury et al., 2013Total sales : 11925 t
25%
5%
6%
21%
10%
2%
1%
15%
3%
10% 2%
Sales (tonnes)
Tea
Coffee
Spices
Rice
Wheat
Pulses
Oil seeds
Fruits and vegetables
Cashew nut
Cotton
Herbal products

5. Secondary nutrients
 Calcium (Ca)
Involved in cell division and plays major role in
maintenance of membrane integrity.
 Magnesium (Mg)
Component of chlorophyll, ribosome's and a cofactor
for many enzymatic reactions.
 Sulfur (S)
Constituent of amino acids (cystein, methionine)
vitamins, lipoic acid and acetyl co-enzyme A.

6.  Zinc- constituent of several enzymes regulating various metabolic
reactions
 Iron- component of enzymes and involved in key metabolic
functions
 Manganese- involved in photolysis of water in photosynthesis
 Copper- acts as electron carrier in enzymes and associated with
redox reactions
 Boron- associated with translocation of sugars, starch, nitrogen
and phosphorus
 Molybdenum- associated with nitrogen fixation in legumes
 Chlorine- activator of enzyme involved in splitting of water
 Nickel- essential for regulating N metabolism, grain filling and
seed viability
Micronutrients

7. Table 1: Secondary and micronutrients range levels in plant and soil
Nutrients Plant Soil
Low Medium High
Calcium 0.1-1.0 (%) <2 Meq - >2 Meq
Magnesium 0.1-0.4 (%) <1 Meq - >1 Meq
Sulphur 0.1-0.3 (%) <10 ppm 10-15.6 ppm >15.6 ppm
Zinc (ppm) 20-100 <0.6 0.6-1.2 >1.2
Iron (ppm) 20-250 <4.5 4.5-9.0 >9.0
Manganese (ppm) 20-300 <3.5 3.5-7.0 >7.0
Copper (ppm) 2-20 <0.2 0.2-0.4 >0.4
Boron (ppm) 10-100 <0.5 0.5-1.0 >1.0
Molybdenum (ppm) 0.1-0.5 <0.2 0.2-0.4 >0.4
Chlorine (ppm) 2000-20000 - - -
Nickel (ppm) 0.1-0.2 - - -

8. Nutrient management practices in organic
farming
• Crop rotation
• Application of FYM
• Application of compost
• Application of green manures
• Application of crop residues
• Animal manures
• Oil cakes
• Liquid organic manures
• Biofertilizers
• Organically approved ammendments

9. Nutrient Composition
Total N 0.90 %
Total P2O5 0.63 %
Total K2O 0.98 %
Ca 2.3 %
Mg 0.92 %
S 0.44 %
Fe 803.6 ppm
Mn 1312 ppm
Zn 132.4 ppm
Cu 30.4 ppm
Naveen Kumar, 2009UAS, Bangalore
Table 2: Nutrient composition of FYM

10. Table 3: Composition of the FYM, green manures, crop residues and mineralized
sulfur as percentage of sulfur added to soil through various organic
amendments
Organic
material
S content
(%)
C:N
ratio
C:S
ratio
Amount of S
added (mg
(kg soil)-1)
% of added S mineralized
(16 weeks after incubation)
Vertisol Inceptisol
Farm yard
manure
0.282 10.5 88.6 28.2 67.3 63.5
Subabul 0.242 12.2 157.0 24.2 55.5 53.6
Gliricidia 0.191 12.1 178.0 19.1 55.1 50.3
Soyabean straw 0.097 34.9 371.1 9.7 -39.1 -20.9
Wheat straw 0.072 79.8 598.6 7.2 -109.0 -56.4
L.s.d. (P=0.05) 3.9 3.0
Kotha Sami Reddy et al., 2002Bhopal, India

11. Table 4: Physiochemical properties of vermicompost and
vermiwash
Parameter Vermicompost Vermiwash
pH 6.12 7.11
Calcium (ppm) 322.33 192.4
Magnesium (ppm) 137.33 102.53
Manganese (ppm) 0.69 0.40
Iron (ppm) 0.21 0.11
Copper (ppm) 0.09 0.05
Zinc (ppm) 1.13 0.43
Treatments Increase
in OC %
Increase in
Ca (ppm)
Increase in
Mg (ppm)
Increase in
Zn (ppm)
Fruit yield
(g/plant)
Control -0.07 -2.45 -0.39 -1.50 24.69
Cattle dung @ 100 g/plant 0.27 1.79 0.73 5.12 31.636
Chemical fertilizers -0.15 1.15 0.35 0.86 75.43
Vermiwash @ 100 ml/plant 0.14 3.40 0.64 6.73 30.36
Vermicompost @ 100 g/plant 0.64 4.07 0.90 10.24 59.04
Vermicompost and Vermiwash 0.73 5.00 1.00 15.62 69.11
Table 5: Soil chemical analysis after harvest and yield of okra
Abdullah and Kumar, 2010Nigeria
Compost
Vermicompost
Rural compost
City compost

12. Table 6: Mineral composition of eupatorium on dry weight basis
Green manuring
Nutrient Composition (%) Nutrient Composition (ppm)
N 3.18 Fe 190
P 0.38 Zn 14
K 3.4 Mn 180
Ca 1.05 Cu 1.6
Mg 0.56
De et al., 2008West bengal
Treatment Grain yield (kg ha-1) Straw yield (kg ha-1) B:C ratio
No eupatorium 5707 4650 2.8
Eupatorium @ 5t/ha 6120 5227 2.9
Eupatorium @ 10t/ha 6735 6206 3.18
Eupatorium @ 15t/ha 6915 6130 3.13
Eupatorium @ 20t/ha 6929 6862 3.08
C.D. at 5% 315 505 -
Table 7: Effect of different levels of eupatorium on grain, straw yield and B:C ratio of rice
Manjappa, 2014Sirsi, Karnataka
Chromolena odorata

13. Crop residues
Constituent (unit) Value Constituent (unit) Value
Organic carbon (%) 1.87 Sulphur (mg kg–1) 390.4
Nitrogen (%) 1.05 Iron (ppm) 500.3
Phosphorus (%) 0.11 Copper (ppm) 19.3
Potassium (%) 1.50 Zinc (ppm) 330.5
Calcium (mg kg–1) 470.3 Manganese (ppm) 115.6
Magnesium (mg kg–1) 320.0 Boron (ppm) 4.00
Table 8: Chemical properties of rice straw
Treatment Seed
yield (kg
ha-1)
OM
(%)
Nutrient content of soil after harvest (ppm)
Ca
(Meq)
Mg
(Meq)
S Fe Mn Cu B Mo Zn
Control 650 c 5.2 b 2.5 1.2 10 4.3 6.0 0.13 0.24 0.23 0.15
Ground rice straw
@1.25 t ha-1
1278 a 5.8 a 2.4 1.0 15.5 8.2 8.0 0.19 0.34 0.12 0.50
Ground rice straw
@2.5 t ha-1
976 b 6.0 a 2.6 1.1 16.7 7.4 7.6 0.18 0.28 0.13 0.31
Table 9: Yield of groundnut and post harvest nutrient concentration of soil as influenced by
rice straw
Abdul et al., 2016Nigeria

14. Crop Ca (%) Mg (%) S (%) Fe
(ppm)
Mn
(ppm)
Zn
(ppm)
Cu
(ppm)
B
(ppm)
Mo
(ppm)
Rice 1.2-1.4 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.4 70-150 150-500 18-50 8-25 6-7 -
Wheat 0.2-0.1 0.16-1.0 0.1-0.3 10-300 16-200 21-70 5-50 - -
Maize 0.3-0.7 0.15-0.45 0.15-0.5 50-250 20-300 20-60 5-20 5-25 -
Sorghum 0.3-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.3 65-100 10-190 15-30 2-7 1-10 -
Barley 0.3-1.2 0.15-0.5 0.15-0.4 40-250 25-100 15-70 5-25 - 0.1-0.2
Sugarcane 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.35 0.1-0.3 40-250 25-400 20-100 5-15 4-30 0.05-0.4
Soybean 0.36-2.0 0.26-1.0 0.21-0.4 51-350 21-100 21-50 10-30 21-55 0.1-0.5
Mustard 1.0-2.5 0.25-0.75 0.3-0.75 70-300 25-200 34-200 5-15 30-100 0.1-0.4
Table 10: Secondary and micronutrient content in different crops
Source : Micronutrient handbook by Tandon

15. Table 11: Effect of organic manure and gypsum on yield and nutrient uptake of
groundnut
Treatment Groundnut yield (q ha-1) Nutrient uptake (kg ha-1)
Pod Haulm Ca Mg S
Organic manure
Control 16.2 29.5 44.2 27.2 12.2
FYM 10 t ha-1 18.5 32.2 51.2 30.9 14.0
Poultry manure 5 t ha-1 18.1 32.0 51.5 30.5 13.7
CD (P=0.05) 0.73 1.17 1.78 1.13 0.42
Gypsum (250 kg ha-1)
Control 16.6 30.5 45.8 28.1 12.5
Full at sowing 18.1 31.6 50.1 30.2 13.6
Half at sowing + half at 35 DAS 18.1 31.6 50.9 30.4 13.8
CD (P=0.05) 0.51 0.78 1.27 0.82 0.30
Udaipur, India Rao and Shaktawat, 2005
Animal manures

16. Table 12: Nutrient composition of different types of poultry manure
Particulars Deep litter system (DLS) Cage system (CS)
C/N ratio 9.5-11.5 5.8-7.6
Ca (%) 0.9-1.10 0.80-1.00
Mg (%) 0.45-0.68 0.40-0.50
S (%) 0.47-0.78 0.54-0.97
Fe (ppm) 930-1380 970-1450
Zn (ppm) 90-308 370-390
Cu (ppm) 24-42 80-172
Mn (ppm) 210-380 370-590
Table 13: Effect of different poultry manures on protein and oil content of mustard
Treatments Protein content (%) Increase over control (%) Oil content (%) Increase over control (%)
Control 21.25 - 40.25 -
DLS-PM @10 t ha-1 22.42 5.22 41.41 2.80
DLS-PM @20 t ha-1 23.78 10.64 42.35 4.96
CS-PM @10 t ha-1 23.75 10.53 43.71 7.92
CS-PM @20 t ha-1 24.31 12.59 44.11 8.75
LSD (0.05) 1.43 2.69
Mohamed et al., 2010Coimbatore

17. Table 14: Composition of different cakes
RIOF, Hebbal Anon., 2010
Oil cakes
Constituents Castor cake Pongamia cake Jatropha cake
Fe (mg/g) 138.3 53.4 134.4
Mn (mg/g) 102.3 294.0 256.5
Zn (mg/g) 244.8 275.3 378.2
Cu (mg/g) 184.3 127.3 103.3
C:N ratio 9.4:1 10.4:1 12.5:1
OC % 48.84 46.72 50.65

18. Table 15: Chemical composition of Pongamia cake
Nutrients Content
Nitrogen (%) 4.28
Phosphorous (%) 0.40
Potassium (%) 0.74
Calcium (%) 0.25
Magnesium (%) 0.17
Sulphur (%) 1.89
Zinc (ppm) 59
Iron (ppm) 100
Copper (ppm) 22
Manganese (ppm) 74
Boron (ppm) 19
Fig 3: Cotton yield as influenced by application of pongamia cake
ICRISAT, Telangana Osman et al., 2009

19. Table 16. Nutrient status of different organic liquid manures
Parameter Panchagavya Beejamruth Jeevamruth
pH 6.82 8.20 7.07
EC (dsm-1) 1.88 5.50 3.40
Total Zinc (ppm) 1.27 2.96 4.29
Total Copper(ppm) 0.38 0.52 1.58
Total Iron(ppm) 29.71 15.35 282
Total manganese (ppm) 1.84 3.32 10.7
Nileemas & Sreenivasa, 2011UAS, Dharwad
Liquid organic manures
Jeevamrutha
Panchagavya
Beejamrutha
BDLM (Bio Digested Liquid Manure)
Vermiwash
Leaf extracts

20. Table 17: Effect of liquid organic manures on the yield parameters of tomato
Nileemas & Sreenivasa, 2011UAS, Dharwad
Treatments No.of
fruits/plant
Fruit weight
(g/plant)
RDF 11.12 167.23
Panchagavya only 16.12 216.60
Jeevamruth only 11.87 149.43
Beejamruth only 8.62 147.51
Beejamruth+Jeevamruth+Panchagavya 19.65 271.53
S.Em± 0.55 6.00
C.D.(p=0.05) 1.57 17.00
RDF : 150:100:60 kg NPK ha-1 and 25 t FYM ha-1
, Panchagavya (3%) @ 25, 70 & 100 DAS, m
Jeevamrutha @ 500 l ha-1

21. Table 18: Nutrient concentration in biodigested liquid manures of different green biomass
(locally available) and EBDLM
Anand, 2017ARS, Chintamani
Types of
BDLM
pH
EC
(dSm-1)
N
(%)
P
(%)
K
(%)
Ca
(%)
Mg
(%)
S
(%)
Fe
(ppm)
Zn
(ppm)
Cu
(ppm)
Mn
(ppm)
Parthenium 7.94 0.04 0.76 0.17 0.29 0.13 0.05 0.26 17.4 2.18 1.92 3.6
Lantana 7.23 0.04 0.83 0.20 0.31 0.09 0.06 0.28 14.3 1.91 1.41 2.59
Calatropis 6.41 0.15 0.87 0.23 0.35 0.07 0.03 0.31 22.3 1.99 1.84 4.78
Subabul 7.84 0.05 0.86 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.04 0.23 18.3 1.36 1.16 2.07
Glyricidia 6.45 0.06 0.98 0.22 0.36 0.07 0.05 0.32 19.4 1.92 1.96 3.96
Neem 7.11 0.08 0.61 0.24 0.32 0.08 0.05 0.25 18.5 2.06 2.58 3.98
Pongamia 7.91 0.27 0.81 0.22 0.26 0.09 0.04 0.27 22.4 1.80 2.45 3.83
Jatropha 7.10 0.04 1.04 0.25 0.38 0.08 0.05 0.31 24.5 1.87 1.76 2.19
EBDLM
(Pongamia)
8.10 0.26 1.29 0.39 0.57 0.17 0.08 0.35 28.7 3.68 3.66 7.74

22. Treatment Pod yield Haulm yield Harvest index
T1 : FYM 5 t + BLME to 10 kg N ha-1
683 956 0.42
T2 : FYM 5 t + BLME to 20 kg N ha-1
738 1033 0.42
T3 : FYM 5 t + BLME to 30 kg N ha-1
841 1178 0.42
T4 : FYM 7.5 t + BLME to 10 kg N ha-1
850 1190 0.41
T5 : FYM 7.5 t + BLME to 20 kg N ha-1
905 1267 0.42
T6 : FYM 7.5 t + BLME to 30 kg N ha-1
913 1278 0.42
T7 : FYM 10 t + BLME to 10 kg N ha-1
989 1384 0.42
T8 : FYM 10 t + BLME to 20 kg N ha-1
1008 1460 0.42
T9 : FYM 10 t + BLME to 30 kg N ha-1
1200 1680 0.42
T10 : FYM 7.5 t + 25:50:25 kg NPK ha-1
980 1372 0.42
C.D (P=0.05) 100.93 164.57 NS
Note: FYM - Farmyard manure,
BLME - Bio digested liquid manure equivalent
UAS, Bangalore Naveen kumar, 2009
Table 19: Pod yield (kg ha-1), haulm yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index of groundnut as
influenced by FYM and bio digested liquid manure under rainfed condition

23. Table 20: Pod yield, haulm yield, oil yield and B:C ratio of groundnut as
influenced by the different liquid organic manures
Treatment Pod yield
(kg ha-1)
Haulm yield
(kg ha-1)
Oil yield
(kg ha-1)
B:C
ratio
BDLM @ 25 kg N equivalent per ha + 3
sprays of Panchagavya at 3 %
1783 2767 554 2.3
BDLM @ 25 kg N equivalent per ha + 3
sprays of vermiwash at 3 %
1752 2589 538 2.2
EBDLM @ 25 kg N equivalent per ha + 3
sprays of Panchagavya at 3 %
2023 3090 668 2.7
EBDLM @ 25 kg N equivalent per ha + 3
sprays of vermiwash at 3 %
1879 2794 596 2.4
Control (25:50:25 Kg N: P2O5:K2O ha-1) 1625 2518 482 1.8
C. D. at 5 % 186 303 61 -
Shashidara, 2014UAS, Bengaluru

24. Table 21: Yield and soil chemical composition after harvesting of maize+watermelon
intercropping under different fertilizer treatments.
Treatments Yield (kg plot-1) Soil status after harvesting of crop
Maize watermelon pH OM % Ca (mmol/kg ) Mg (mmol/kg )
Neem leaf extract @3
L/25 m2
1.65b 20.3bc 6.25d 1.44b 1.00b 1.00b
Poultry manure @ 15
kg /25m2
1.70b 16.75b 6.10c 1.66e 1.25c 0.84d
Woodash extract @3
L/25 m2
3.00d 10.4a 6.80f 1.51bd 1.29d 0.78c
Modified neem leaf
extract @ 3 L/25 m2
3.85e 28.8d 6.34d 1.74f 1.31e 0.88e
NPK 15-15-15 @
300g/25m2
2.15c 23.8c 5.38ab 0.38b 0.06a 0.06a
Control 1.20a 7.8a 5.2a 0.28a 0.03a 0.07a
Treatment Ca (%) Mg (%)
Neem leaf extract 0.77 0.75
Poultry manure 0.32 0.41
Woodash extract 15.00 1.00
Modified neem leaf extract 15.66 1.53
Initial- pH: 5.45; OM: 0.69; Ca: 0.11; Mg: 0.09
Emmanuel, 2012Nigeria

25. Table 22: Mineral profile of Azolla pinnata (on per cent DMB).
Bengaluru Anitha et al., 2016
Minerals Content
Calcium (%) 1.64
Iron (ppm) 1569
Zinc (ppm) 325
Manganese (ppm) 2418
Copper (ppm) 9.1
Boron (ppm) 31
Cobalt (ppm) 8.11
Nickel (ppm) 5.33
Biofertilizers
A Biofertilizer is a substance which contains living microorganisms
which, when applied to seeds, plant surfaces, or soil, colonize the rhizosphere or
the interior of the plant and promotes growth by increasing the supply or
availability of nutrients to the host plant.

26. Table 23: Effect of Rhizobium and lime supply on the microelements
uptake in whole plant in P. vulgaris
Treatments Mn (ppm) Fe (ppm) Cu (ppm) Zn (ppm) B (ppm) Mo (ppm)
With out
rhizobium
2.3±0.4b 103.7±7.2b 0.6±0.0b 1.9±0.1b 1.9±0.1b 1.4±0.2b
With
rhizobium
6.4±0.8a 238.0±21.1a 1.0±0.1a 4.3±0.3a 4.3±0.3a 2.9±0.4a
Lime (t/ha)
0 5.7±1.1a 221.6±29.0a 0.9±0.1a 3.6±0.5a 3.6±0.4a 1.0±0.2c
2 4.1±0.8a 166.1±19.7ab 0.8±0.1ab 3.1±0.3ab 3.0±0.4a 2.0±0.3b
3 3.2±0.7a 124.8±17.0b 0.6±0.1b 2.6±0.3b 2.7±0.3a 3.4±0.5a
R*L 0.8 ns 3.6* 3.2* 2.2 ns 1.6ns 1.3ns
Patrick et al., 2011South africa

27. Table 24: Effect of microbial inoculation on the availability of P, micronutrients
and yield of faba bean
Treatments Soil nutrient content after harvest Yield
(ton/fed)
% increase
over control
P Fe Mn Zn Cu
Control 3.71 3.55 0.67 0.28 0.24 2.62 -
VAM 8.44 4.22 0.84 0.61 0.30 2.97 12.03
PDB 6.15 3.75 0.70 0.39 0.28 2.85 7.14
VAM+PDB 8.93 5.43 1.00 0.79 0.53 3.09 16.16
L.S.D. at 0.05 1.30 0.30 0.29 0.09 0.20 0.30 -
Initial soil status: P- 3.9 %; Fe- 3.72; Mn -0.66; Zn - 0.29; Cu- 0.21
Raafat and Tharwat, 2006Egypt
VAM : Vascular Arbuscular Mycorrhizae; PDB: Phosphorus Dissolving Bacteria
1 fed = 0.42 ha

28. Organically approved amendments
Source Conditions
for use
Nutrients supplied
Basic slag Permitted 33.9 % Ca; 3.4 % Mg; 12.4 % S; 59 ppm Zn;
56.4 ppm Cu; 6.9 ppm Mn; 33.4 ppm B; 10
ppm Mo
Bone meal Permitted 23 % Ca; 660 ppm Zn; 500 ppm Mn; 715
ppm B; 270 ppm Cu
lime Permitted 32.3 % Ca
gypsum Permitted 29.2 Ca; 18.6 % S
Kieserite Permitted 15 % Mg; 21 % S
Epsum salt Permitted 9.6 % Mg; 13 % S
Natural phosphates (like rock phosphate) Permitted 33.1 % Ca
Sulphur (elemental) Permitted 99-100 % S
Bourdax mixture Permitted 0.32 % Ca; 0.12 % S; 0.21 % Cu
Biodynamic preparations Permitted Secondary and microelements
IFOAM, Germany
Table 25: Organically approved secondary and micronutrient sources

29. Conclusion
 All organic nutrient management practices was found beneficial for
sustaining soil health in terms of build up of secondary and
micronutrients.
 Eupatorium (Chromoleana odorata), an obnoxious weed found in
abundance all along roadsides, waste lands and in forest area can be
used as green leaf manure in rice cultivation.
 Utilization of crop residues as a source of nutrients helps in recycling of
nutrients and limits the environmental pollution arising from burning of
crop residues.
Future line of work
• Need to identify and study the secondary and micronutrient solubulizing
or mobilizing micro organisms.
• Need to develop organic micronutrients sources and commercialize for
organic crop production.
• Need to study the chelating agents on micronutrient availability and
uptake in organic farming.