Biofortification, the process of increasing the bioavailable concentrations of essential elements in edible portions of crop plants through agronomic intervention or genetic selection, may be the solution to malnutrition or hidden hunger mitigation. Biofortification, the process of breeding nutrients into food crops, provides a comparatively costeffective, sustainable, and long-term means of delivering more micronutrients. This approach not only will lower the number of severely malnourished people who require treatment by complementary interventions but also will help them maintain improved nutritional status.

1. WELCOME

2. Seminar on
BIOFORTIFICATION : A SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL
STRATEGY FOR REDUCING MALNUTRITION
Presentation by
PUDE NAGRAJ NANDKUMAR
(REG.NO. 2018A/M112)
RESEARCH GUIDE AND SEMINAR INCHARGE
Dr. Syed Ismail
Head
Department of Soil Science and Agril. Chemistry
VNMKV, Parbhani.

3. CONTENTS
 Meaning and definition of malnutrition.
 Malnutrition status in world, India, and Maharashtra.
 What are the measure to reduce malnutrition?
 Methods of biofortification.
 Biofortification of different crop with different nutrient and
the crop quality enhanced.
 Conclusion

4. Malnutrition
 Malnutrition is a condition that results from eating a
diet in which one or more nutrients are either not
enough or are too much such that the diet causes
health problems. It may involve calories, protein,
carbohydrates, vitamins or minerals.
 The term malnutrition generally refers both to
undernutrition and over nutrition, but in this guide we
use the term to refer solely to a deficiency of nutrition.
 Many factors can cause malnutrition, most of which
relate to poor diet or severe and repeated infections,
particularly in under privileged populations.
Source://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/71618288.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinter

6. Malnutrition Status in World
 This includes stunting (35 per cent), wasting (17 per cent) and overweight (2
per cent).
 The data states that children under the age of 5 years are affected by
micronutrient deficiencies.
 While every 5th child under the age five is vitamin A deficient.
 One in every 3rd baby has vitamin B12 deficiency and two out of every five
children are anemic.
 Three children under five years of age or 200 million - is either
undernourished or overweight.
 Overweight and obesity increasingly begin in childhood with a growing threat
of non-communicable diseases like diabetes (10 per cent) in school-aged
children and adolescents.
Malnutrition Status in India
 44% of children under the age of 5 are underweight.
 While 72% of infants have anaemia .
 Malnutrition caused 69% of deaths of children below the age of five in India.
Source : 2018_Global_Nutrition_Report_Executive_Summary English.

7. Malnutrition Status in Maharashtra
 Almost 38% of children under age three are stunted
and almost 40% are underweight.
 The stunting and underweight prevalence for children
with illiterate mothers is 52.9% and 53.1%
respectively contrasted with 22.9% and 25.9% for
children with well educated mothers.
 Almost 72% of children under age three are anaemic.
Source : Overview of Malnutrition Situation in Maharashtra, Mother and child malnutrition, UNICEF 2019.

8. Strategies to reduce malnutrition
• Biofortification
• Supplementation
• Sustainability
• Integrated nutritional programs
• Dietary diversification
Source: Blössner M. et al. (2005) Malnutrition Quantifying the health impact at national and local levels
Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 12.

9. Biofortification
• Definition : Biofortification, the process of increasing the
bioavailable concentrations of essential elements in edible
portions of crop plants through agronomic intervention or
genetic selection, may be the solution to malnutrition or
hidden hunger mitigation.
Meaning
• Biofortification, the process of breeding nutrients into food
crops, provides a comparatively costeffective, sustainable,
and long-term means of delivering more micronutrients.
• This approach not only will lower the number of severely
malnourished people who require treatment by
complementary interventions but also will help them
maintain improved nutritional status.
Source : Bouis et al.,(2011) Crop Science 50.

10. Cont.
• Biofortification provides a feasible means of reaching
malnourished rural populations who may have limited
access to commercially marketed fortified foods and
supplements.
• Biofortified staple foods cannot deliver as high a level
of minerals and vitamins per day as supplements or
industrially fortified foods, but they can help by
increasing the daily adequacy of micronutrient
intakes among individuals throughout the life cycle.
Source : Bouis et al. (2011) Crop Science Vol.50.

11. Bouis et al. (2011) Crop Science Vol. 50.
Which minerals and vitamin will be biofortified ?
Sr.no. Crop Mineral
1 Rice Zinc and Iron
2 Wheat Zinc and Iron
3 Maize b-carotene and zinc
4 Cassava b-Carotene
5 Beans Iron
6 Sweet potato b-carotene
7 Pearl Millet Iron and zinc
8 Banana and
Plantain
b-carotene
9 Lentil Iron
10 Potato Iron
11 Sorghum Iron and Zinc

12. Discovery
1. Identify target populations
2. Set nutrient target levels
3. Screen germplasm and gene
Development
4. Breed biofortified crops
5. Test performance of new crop
varieties
6. Measure nutrient retention in
crops/food
7. Evaluate nutrient absorption and
impact
Dissemination
8. Develop strategies to disseminate
seeds
9.Promote marketing & consumption
of biofortified food
Outcomes 10. Improve nutritional status of
target populations
Stages of Biofortification
Source : Mali et al. (2014) Biofortification to solve world wide micronutrient malnutrition 26-11.

13. 13
Varieties With Improved Quality Released In Some Crop Plants In India
Crop Variety Quality Character Developed by
Wheat WB 02 High Zinc (42.0 ppm), Iron (40.0 ppm) IIWBR, Karnal
HPBW 01 High Zinc (40.6 ppm), Iron (40.0 ppm) PAU, Ludhiana
Maize Pusa Vivek QPM 9 Provitamin-A (8.15 ppm), Lysine
(2.67%), Tryptophan (0.74 %)
IARI, New Delhi
Pusa HM 4 High Lysine (3.62%), Tryptophan (0.91
%)
IARI, New Delhi
Pusa HM 8 High Lysine (4.18%), Tryptophan (1.06
%)
IARI, New Delhi
Pusa HM 9 High Lysine (2.97%), Tryptophan (0.68
%)
IARI, New Delhi
Mustard Pusa Mastard 30 Erucic acid < 2.0% IARI, New Delhi
Pusa Double Zero
Mustard 31
Glucosinolates < 30.0 ppm IARI, New Delhi
Soybean Lee Protein (43-45%), Oil (23%) IIVR, Varanasi
Source: Yadava D.K. et al. (2017) Biofortified Varieties: Sustainable Way to Alleviate Malnutrition Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

14. 14
Crop Variety Quality Character Developed by
Rice CR Dhan 310 High protein in polished grain
(10.3%)
NRRI, Cuttack
CR Dhan 311 High protein (10.1%),
Zinc (20.0 ppm)
NRRI, Cuttack
DRR Dhan 45 High Zinc (22.6 ppm) IIRR, Hyderabad
Sorghum Parbhani Shakti High Iron (45.0 ppm),
Zinc (32 ppm)
VNMKV, Parbhani with
ICRISAT
Pearl Millet HHB 299 High Iron (73.0 ppm),
Zinc (41 ppm)
HAU, Haryana with
ICRISAT
AHB 1200 High Iron (73.0 ppm) VNMKV, Parbhani with
ICRISAT
Lentil Pusa Ageti Masoor High Iron (65.0 ppm ) IARI, New Delhi
Cauliflower Pusa Beta Kesari 1 Beta carotene (10.0 ppm) IARI, New Delhi
Potato Bhu Sona Beta carotene (14 mg/100 g) CTCRI, Kerala
Sweet Potato Bhu Krishna Anthocyanin (90.0 mg/100 g) CTCRI, Kerala
Pomogranate Solapur Lal Iron 5.6-6.1 mg/100g
Zinc 0.64-0.69 mg/100g
Vitamin C: 19.4-19.8 mg/100g
Developed by ICAR
National Research Centre
on Pomegranate,Pune
Source: Yadava D.K. et al. (2017) Biofortified Varieties: Sustainable Way to Alleviate Malnutrition Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

15. Supplementation
• Supplementation is the best short-term intervention to
improve nutritional health, involving the distribution of pills or
mineral solutions for immediate consumption.
• This helps to alleviate acute mineral shortages but is
unsustainable for large populations and should be replaced
with fortification at the earliest opportunity.
• In developing countries, where acute and chronic deficiencies
are common, supplementation is highly recommended to
complement the diet (fortified or otherwise) of the entire
population.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of Food Crops In: Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1

16. Promotion of Dietary Diversification
• Dietary diversification is constrained by resource availability for poor
households and seasonal availability of fruits and vegetables.
• Promotion of home gardens is often touted, but the poor have a high
opportunity cost for their labor and often limited land.
• Increased production of fruits and vegetables for household use reduces
resources available for other income-earning or food production
activities.
• This type of effort is also relatively expensive and difficult to sustain on
any large scale.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of Food Crops in Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1
https://www.harvestplus.org/knowledge-market/in-the-news/diediversity-and-biofortification-closer-you-t

17. Methods of Biofortification
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/228592/fpls-07-02028-HTML/image_m/fpls-07-02028-
g001.jpg

18. Plant breeding
• Plant breeding programs focus on improving the level and
bioavailability of minerals in staple crops using their natural genetic
variation.
• Breeding approaches include the discovery of genetic variation
affecting heritable mineral traits, checking their stability under
different conditions, and the feasibility of breeding for increasing
mineral content in edible tissues without affecting yields or other
quality traits.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops in Springer India,978 -81-322-2716-1

19. Conventional Plant Breeding
 This allows crop scientists to make significant improvement in the
nutritional, eating quality, and agronomic traits of major subsistence food
crops.
 Conventional breeding is limited, however, because it can only use the
genetic variability already available and observable in the crop being
improved or occasionally in the wild varieties that can cross with the crop.
Source:https://encryptedtbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSb
Source : Prahraj et al.(2016) Biofortification of food crops in Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1.

20. Mutation Breeding
Source:https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0958166917300150-fx1.jpg
 Mutation breeding has been used extensively in developed and
developing countries to develop grain varieties with improved grain
quality and in some cases higher yield and other traits.
 This technique makes use of the greater genetic variability that
can be created by inducing mutations with chemical treatments or
irradiation.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1

21. Molecular Breeding
• Also called marker-assisted breeding.
• This is a powerful tool of modern biotechnology that
encounters little cultural or regulatory resistance and has
been embraced so far even by organic growers because it
relies on biological breeding processes rather than
engineered gene insertions to change the DNA of plants.
• This technique is expanding rapidly with the development
of genomics, which is the study of the location and
function of genes, and with the rapid decline in costs of
screening plant tissue.
Source : Bohara et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1.

22. Genetic Engineering
• Genetic engineering is the latest weapon in the armory
against mineral deficiency and uses advanced biotechnology
techniques to introduce genes directly into breeding varieties.
• The genes can come from any source (including animals and
microbes) and are designed to achieve one or more of the
following goals:
a) Improve the efficiency with which minerals are mobilized in
the soil
b) Reduce the level of antinutritional compounds
c) Increase the level of nutritional enhancer compounds such as
inulin.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India,978 -81-322-2716-1

23. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR):
Microbiological Interventions
Source : Singh et al.(2016) Biofortification of food crops Springer India,978 -81-322-2716-1

24. Cont.…
• These include beneficial bacteria that colonize plant roots
and enhance plant growth by a wide variety of mechanisms.
• The use of PGPR is steadily increasing in agriculture, as it
offers an attractive way to reduce the use of chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, and related agrochemicals.
• Interventions using PGPR or other biological agents are
limited. Secretion of phytosiderophores by microorganisms
and plants in restricted spatial and temporal windows
represents an efficient strategy for uptake of iron and other
micronutrients by plants from the rhizosphere.
Source : Singh et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India,978 -81-322-2716-1

25. AM Fungi
• Most plants, including all major grain crops and almost all
vegetables and fruits, are associated with mycorrhizal fungi
that improve the uptake of essential mineral elements from
soils and, therefore, enhance plant growth and productivity.
• However, the role of mycorrhizas on element
biofortification may be piloted through agricultural
practices.
• Mycorrhizas can potentially offer a more effective and
sustainable element biofortification to curb global human
malnutrition.
Source: Chaturvedi et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops in Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1

26. Agronomic Intervention
Source:https://encryptedtbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRZnbpD3nrzJjSIfFo6O4YwhDFBE7zAB
wqyYaEJKGexlb1pqbyL)

27. Cont…
• Farmers have applied mineral fertilizers to soil for
hundreds of years in order to improve the health of their
plants.
• But within certain limits the same strategy can also be
used to increase mineral accumulation within cereal
grains for nutritional purposes.
• This strategy only works if the mineral deficiency in the
grain reflects the absence of that mineral in the soil and
if the mineral fertilizer contains minerals that are rapidly
and easily mobilizable.
• Another way to increase mineral concentration in grain
through foliar application of fertilizer.
Source : Singh et al.(2016) Biofortification of food crops in Springer India,978 -81-322-2716-1

28. Industrial Fortification
• The marketed supply of a widely consumed staple food can be
fortified by adding micronutrients at the processing stage, and
historically this is how micronutrient deficiencies have been
addressed in the developed world.
• Consumption of wheat flour products is growing around the
world, even where wheat is not a traditional food staple, opening
new fortification opportunities at the milling stage.
Source : Singh et al.,(2016) Biofortification of food crops in Springer India, 978 -81-322-2716-1

29. Case studies

30. Table 1. Effect of Zn fertilization and Zn concentration in grain
Zn applied (kg/ha) Wheat grain Zn
(mg/kg)
0 38.1
2.6 41.3
5.2 43.8
7.8 47.3
Source :Ram et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India.

31. 0
10
20
30
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
7
14
21
No Zn
Soil Zn Appl.
Soil+Leaf Zn Appl.
Soil Zn Appl. (kg/ha)-
A B
Figure 1. Grain Zn concentrations of durum wheat subjected to soil and foliar
application of ZnSO4 (A) and increasing rate of soil Zn fertilization (B). Plants
were grown on a highly Zn-deficient calcareous soil under field conditions
Source : Cakmak et al. (2010)

32. Table 2. Graded levels of Zn with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Zinc
Solubilizing Bacteria on Phosphorus uptake (kg/ha) by Maize grain
Treatments Black soil Red Soil
S1
Contr
ol
S2
ZnSO
4 @
12.5
kg
ha-1
S3
ZnS
O4
@
25
kg
S4
ZnS
O4
@
37.5
kg
ha-1
S5
ZnSO
4 @
50 kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO4
Foliar
spray @
Mean S1
Cont
rol
S2
ZnSO
4 @
12.5
kg
ha-1
S3
ZnS
O4
@
25
kg
S4
ZnS
O4
@
37.5
kg
ha-1
S5
ZnS
O4
@
50
kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO
4
Foliar
spray
@
Mean
M1: ( control ) 16.5 18.5 17.3 16.5 16.4 14.6 16.6 13.5 16.1 16.4 16.6 16.3 14.0 15.5
M2 :(AM fungi 18.6 20.4 22.4 23.7 23.7 19.4 21.4 17.0 18.6 20.8 22.0 21.0 17.8 19.6
M3: ZSB 17.3 18.9 20.5 21.6 21.5 17.5 19.5 15.6 17.1 18.8 19.6 19.8 16.0 17.8
M4 : M2+ M3
(combinations
with AM fungi
+ ZSB)
20.6 23.8 24.7 27.8 27.5 22.7 24.5 19.1 21.8 22.8 26.0 25.7 20.7 22.6
Mean 18.2 20.4 21.2 22.4 22.3 18.6 20.5 `16.3 18.4 19.7 21.0 20.8 17.1 18.9
SEd CD (0.05) SEd CD (0.05)
M 1.29 2.7 0.55 1.1
S 1.57 3.3 0.67 1.4
M X S 3.16 6.6 1.34 NS
Source : Suganya (2015) Biofortification Of Zinc In Maize (Zea Mays L.) Through Fertilization.
Location: TNAU Coimbatore (M. Sc. Thesis).

33. Foliar applications Grain yield (g/plant) N (g/kg) Fe (mg/kg)
Control 2.71 37 36
Control + Urea 3.34 38 36
FeSO4 2.73 38 38
FeSO4 + Urea 2.69 41 43
FeEDTA 3.07 35 38
FeEDTA + Urea 3.38 36 42
FeEDDHA 3.11 36 35
FeEDDHA + Urea 2.61 39 39
Fe Citrate 2.54 37 36
Fe Citrate + Urea 2.97 39 37
CV (% 18.5 4.7 8.1
F test* n.s. * *
LSD 0.05 3 5
Table 3. Changes in grain yield and grain N and Fe concentrations in plants treated by
various foliar Fe fertilizers with and without 1% (w/v) urea in the spray solution. Foliar
sprays of Fe fertilizers were done at the booting and early milk stages Grain concentration.
Source : Bahar et al. (2011) Plant Soil 349,215–225

34. Table 4. Effect of sources, time, and method of Zn application on Zn
concentrations in grain and straw of chickpea
Treatment
Zn concentration
mg /kg
Zn concentration
mg/ kg
2011-2012 2012-2013 2011-12 2012-2013
Control 37.5 36.3 14.8 13.5
NPK 42.6 41.4 18.3 17.1
NPK + ZnSHH soil at 5 kg Zn /ha 51.9 50.7 22.6 21.3
NPK + ZnSHH, one spray 49.8 48.5 22.8 21.5
NPK + ZnSHH, two sprays 54.7 53.4 27.1 25.8
NPK + ZnSHH, three sprays 58.4 57.1 32.5 31.2
NPK + Zn–EDTA at 2.5 kg Zn /ha 52.6 51.3 24.6 23.4
NPK + Zn–EDTA, one spray 51.2 50.1 25.1 24.0
NPK + Zn–EDTA, two sprays 58.1 56.7 28.3 27.1
NPK + Zn–EDTA, three sprays 72.3 63.5 33.9 32.6
SE 1.11 1.12 1.18 0.61
LSD (P ¼ 0.05 3.31 3.33 3.51 1.81
ZnSHH zinc sulfate heptahydrate
Source: Shivay et al. (2016 ) Biofortification of Food Crops In: Springer India, 978-81-322-2716-
8_17Location: Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

35. Treatments
Dry matter weight (gm/plant)
15 days after sowing 30 days after sowing 45 days after sowing
Zinc solubilizers (S)
S0: Control 0.17 1.39 1.88
S1: Pseudomonas striata 0.22 2.03 2.21
S2: Trichoderma viride 0.19 1.73 2.05
S3: Bacillus megaterium 0.21 1.89 2.11
S.Em.± 0.002 0.039 0.04
C.D. at 5 % 0.006 0.112 0.115
Levels of ZnSO4 (Zn)
Zn0: ZnSO4 0 kg ha-1 0.18 1.50 1.77
Zn1: ZnSO4 10 kg ha-1 0.19 1.71 1.90
Zn2: ZnSO4 20 kg ha-1 0.20 1.82 2.14
Zn3: ZnSO4 30 kg ha-1 0.22 2.00 2.45
S.Em.± 0.002 0.039 0.04
C.D. at 5 % 0.006 0.112 0.115
Interaction (SxZn)
S.Em.± 0.004 0.078 0.08
C.D. at 5 % 0.013 0.225 0.23
CV % 3.91 7.67 6.70
Table 5. Effect of zinc solubilizing cultures and zinc levels on dry matter weight in spinach
Source :Yogesh Waghmare (2019) Studies on effect of zinc solublizing microorganisms on growth, yield
and nutrient uptake in spinach(M.sc.Thesis). Location : VNMKV, Parbhani.

36. Table 6. Zinc content (ppm) in rice grain and straw as influenced by different zinc
treatments.
Source : Dr. Ch.Pulla Rao (2012) Agricultural College Bapatla .
Location: Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University Hydrabad.(M.Sc. Thesis)
Treatment
Husk
(ppm)
Brown
rice
(ppm)
Polished
rice (ppm)
Whole rice
(ppm)
Rice
straw
(ppm)
T1 : Soil application @ 50 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 27.9 31.9 24.6 29.0 96.0
T2 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
maximum
tillering (MT) stage
30.3 34.0 26.0 31.2 101.7
T3 :T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
panicle
initiation (PI) stage
30.8 34.5 26.4 32.6 100.7
T4 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
flowering stage
31.2 37.0 27.6 33.2 101.3
T5 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
MT + flowering stages
32.7 39.7 29.9 36.1 103.3
T6 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
PI + flowering stages
33.8 40.4 30.6 37.2 105.0
T7 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
MT + PI stages
34.6 41.3 32.6 37.7 108.3
T8 : T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at
MT + PI + flowering stages
36.2 42.7 34.4 40.0 113.0
T9 : Control (No Zinc) 20.3 26.8 14.4 22.8 82.3
SEm± 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.7
(P= 0.05) 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 8.2
(%) 6.6 6.4 9.8 6.2 4.7

37. Table 7. Graded levels of Zn with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Zinc
Solubilizing Bacteria on Iron uptake (g ha -1) by maize grain
Treatments Black soil Red Soil
S1
Contr
ol
S2
ZnSO4
@
12.5
kg ha-
1
S3
ZnSO
4 @
25 kg
S4
ZnSO4
@
37.5
kg ha-
1
S5
ZnSO4 @
50 kg ha-
1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO4
Foliar
spray
@
Mean S1
Contr
ol
S2
ZnSO4
@ 12.5
kg ha-1
S3
ZnSO
4 @
25 kg
S4
ZnSO
4 @
37.5
kg
ha-1
S5
ZnSO
4 @
50 kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO4
Foliar
spray
@
Mean
M1 control 351 456 504 535 529 451 471 318 436 483 491 499 410 439
M2 (AM fungi) 446 488 518 551 553 482 506 415 449 495 512 523 438 472
M3 ZSB 454 473 523 536 549 492 504 426 461 495 501 526 457 478
M4 M2+ M3
(combinations
with AM fungi
+ ZSB)
489 536 554 605 615 513 552 467 498 514 581 593 486 523
Mean 435 488 524 557 561 484 508 406 461 496 521 535 448 478
Source : A. Suganya (2015) Biofortification Of Zinc In Maize (Zea Mays L.) Through Fertilization.
Location: Tamilnadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

38. Figure 3. Fractional iron absorption and total amount of iron absorbed from a
biofortified and a control bean with natural PA level, after partial and almost
total dephytinization
Petry et al. (2015) Nutrients 2072-6643.

39. Tocochromanol Activity (IU/mg) Activity
(%)
a-Tocopherol 1.49 100
b-Tocopherol 0.75 50
g-Tocopherol 0.15 10
d-Tocopherol 0.05 3
a-Tocotrienol 0.45–0.75 30–50
b-Tocotrienol 0.08 5
g-Tocotrienol Below detection Below
detection
d-Tocotrienol Below detection Below
detection
all-rac-a-Tocopheryl acetate (synthetic) 1 67
RRR-a-Tocopheryl acetate (synthetic) 1.36 91
Source : Laurent Me et al. (2017) Current Opinion in Biotechnology 44, 189–197.
Table 8. Vitamin E activity of natural and synthetic tocochromanols

40. Table 9. Graded levels of Zn with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Zinc
Solubilizing Bacteria on Zinc content (ppm) of grain
Treatments Black soil Red Soil
S1
Contr
ol
S2
ZnSO
4 @
12.5
kg ha-
1
S3
ZnS
O4
@
25
kg/
ha
S4
ZnS
O4
@
37.
5 kg
ha-1
S5
ZnS
O4
@ 50
kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO4
Foliar
spray
@
Mean S1
Cont
rol
S2
ZnSO
4 @
12.5
kg
ha-1
S3
ZnS
O4
@
25
kg1
S4
ZnS
O4
@
37.5
kg
ha-1
S5
ZnS
O4
@
50
kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO
4
Folia
r
spray
@
Mean
M1 control 20.2 20.5 21.5 22.2 23.2 21.1 21.5 20.9 21.4 22.0 22.9 23.8 21.0 22.0
M2 (AM fungi) 20.5 22.2 23.1 24.5 25.4 20.4 22.7 21.3 22.9 23.8 24.9 25.8 21.7 23.4
M3 ZSB 21.4 22.6 23.9 24.9 25.6 20.7 23.2 21.8 22.9 24.4 25.4 26.0 21.0 23.6
M4 M2+ M3
(combinations
with AM fungi
+ ZSB)
22.3 22.9 24.7 25.6 25.9 22.8 24.0 22.9 23.5 25.4 26.1 26.6 23.0 24.6
Mean 21.1 22.1 23.3 24.3 25.0 21.3 22.8 21.7 22.7 23.9 24.8 25.6 21.7 23.4
SEd CD (0.05) SEd CD (0.05)
M 0.14 0.3 0.04 0.1
S 0.20 0.4 0.05 0.1
M X S 0.33 0.7 0.11 0.2
Source : A. Suganya (2015) Biofortification Of Zinc In Maize (Zea Mays L.) Through Fertilization
Location: Tamilnadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.(Ph.D. Thesis).

41. Table 10. Zinc uptake (g/ha) of wheat grain affected by zinc application at
different maturity periods in lateritic soil
Maturity period
Grain
F1
RDF
(100:60:40)
F2
F1 + 100 kg/ha
ZnSO4⋅7H2O
F3
F2 +0.5%spray
of ZnSO4⋅H2O
Short duration 149.30 304.61 296.04
Long duration 148.69 303.98 296.89
Mean 148.99 304.29 296.46
Source : Kumar et al. (2018) Agronomic biofortification of zinc in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).Current
Science, (115),5.
Location: Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Birsa. Agricultural University, Kanke,
Ranchi, India.

42. Treatment
Protein
Grain
(%)
Phosphorous Uptake
(Kg P /ha )
Grain Straw Total
Absolute control 9.9 14.9 1.3 16.2
Control + Azo.+ CW1 + PW5 10.5 19.0 1.6 20.6
RNPK 12.9 37.9 2.6 40.5
75% N + RPK 10.7 25.1 1.8 26.9
75% N + RPK + Azo. 12.1 26.0 1.9 27.9
75% N + RPK + CW1 12.8 25.0 1.8 26.8
75% N + RPK + PW5 12.0 25.2 1.8 27.0
75% N + RPK + Azo. + CW1 14.3 39.1 2.6 41.7
75% N + RPK + Azo. + PW5 14.4 37.9 2.6 40.5
75% N + RPK + CW1 + PW5 14.4 38.3 2.6 40.9
75% N + RPK + Azo. + CW1 + PW5 14.4 43.7 2.8 46.5
SEm± 0.63 2.5 0.18 2.6
CD (P=0.05) 1.9 7.3 0.53 7.8
Azo Azotobacter (IARI inoculant); CW1, Anabaena sp.; PW5, Providencia sp.; RNPK,
recommended dose of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K); RPK, recommended
dose of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).
Source : Dawlatzai et al. (2016 ) Indian Journal of Agronomy 61 (3), 396__400.
Table 11. Effect of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria on protein content in grain, and
phosphorus uptake in wheat

43. Treatment Zinc uptake (kg ha-1)
T1 Soil application @ 50 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 0.87
T2 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at maximum tillering
(MT) stage
0.91
T3 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at panicle intiation
(PI) stage
0.95
T4 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at flowering stage 0.97
T5 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at MT + flowering
stages
1.01
T6 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at PI + flowering
stages
1.10
T7
T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at MT + PI stages
1.18
T8 T1 + foliar application @ 0.5% ZnSO4 at MT + PI + flowering
stages
1.34
T9
Control (No Zinc) 0.63
SEm± 0.09
CD (P= 0.05) 0.27
CV (%) 10.11
Table 12. Zinc uptake (kg ha-1) of rice as influenced by different zinc treatments.
Source : Dr. Ch.Pulla Rao (2012) (M.Sc. Thesis)
Location : Agricultural College Bapatla . Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University Tamilnadu.

44. Characteristic
Control
(no Zn)
Soil
Zn
Foliar
Zn
Soil +
foliar Zn
Significa
nce
Grain yield
(t/ha)
6.7 7.0 6.9 7.0 NS
Zn in unhusked
rice (mg/kg)
18.7 19.1 32.3 34.7 P < 0.01
Zn in brown
rice (mg/ kg)
19.1 20.8 24.4 25.5 P < 0.01
Zinc in polished
rice (mg/kg)
16.1 16.2 17.7 18.4 P < 0.01
Table 13. Grain yield and relative zinc concentration in unhusked, brown, and
white (polished) rice (averaged over 9 site years in China, India, Lao PDR,
Thailand, and Turkey)
Source: Shivay et al. (2016 ) Biofortification of Food Crops In: Springer India, 978-81-322-2716-
8_17Location: Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

45. Figure 4. Correlation between non-ferritin-bound iron in ppm and PA in g/100 g bean
Petry et al. (2015) Nutrients 2072-6643.
Location: Institute of Food, Nutritionand Health, Laboratoryof Human Nutrition ,ETH Zurich.

46. Table 14. Graded levels of Zn with AM Fungi and Zinc Solubilizing
Bacteria on total Zn uptake (g ha-1) in red soil
Treatments Harvest stage
S1
Contr
ol
S2
ZnSO4 @
12.5 kg
ha-1
S3
ZnSO4
@ 25 kg
S4
ZnSO4 @
37.5 kg
ha-1
S5
ZnSO4 @
50 kg
ha-1
S6
0.5 %
ZnSO4
Foliar
spray @
Mean
M1 control 305 425 469 516 525 396 439
M2 (AM
fungi)
380 455 505 545 556 411 475
M3 ZSB 416 470 528 551 562 423 491
M4 M2+ M3
(combinatio
ns with AM
fungi + ZSB)
435 480 553 641 643 488 543
Mean 384 462 514 563 572 429 487
SEd CD (0.05)
M 12.70 26
S 15.55 32
M X S 31.10 NS
Source : A. Suganya (2015) Biofortification Of Zinc In Maize (Zea Mays L.) Through Fertilization.
Location: Tamilnadu Agricultural University Coimbatore.

47. Treatment
Zinc concentration (mg k/g)
Grain Flour
Soil application rate of ZnSO4 · 7H2O (kg ha1)
0 37.1 9.5
50 38.4 10.1
LSD (P0.05) 1.0 0.5
Foliar application rate of ZnSO4 · 7H2O (%)
0 26.6 6.4
0.2 37.1 10.3
0.4 42.0 11.3
0.5 46.0 11.3
LSD(P0.05) 1.5 0.8
Table 15. Effect of zinc fertilization by soil and foliar application on grain and flour
Source :Ram et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In: Springer India.

48. Figure 2 . Biosynthetic pathway of development of B-carotene
in rice endosperm
Source : Mali et al. (2014) Trends in Biosciences (7), 608-2613.

49. Figure 5. Fast-Track breeding approach followed at ICRISAT for biofortified
hybrid development in India and OPV development in West Africa.
Source : Govindaraj et al. (2019 ) MDPI Journal Agriculture (9), 106

50. Figure 6. Overview of mechanisms involved in microbe-
mediated biofortification of crops
Siderophores
Metallothioneins
Organic ligands
Defense and
Pathogenesis
related
Nitrogen fixation
Phosphorus
solubilization
Growth regulators
Enzymes
Eubacteria, Cyanobacteria, AM Fungi,
such as IAA
Actinomycetes
mediated by
microbes
Biofortification
Source: Prasana et al. (2016) Biofortification of food crops In Springer India.

51. Conclusion
 Biofortification is a cost effective and long term means of
delivering more micronutrient.
 Biofortification help to overcome the malnutrition in human
beings.
 Biofortification help to increment of nutritional quality in daily
diets.
 Through biofortification with increase dose of fertilizer the
concentration of minerals will be increased in grain.
 It improve of plant or crop quality.

52.  After the one-time investment is made to develop seeds that
fortify themselves, recurrent costs are low.
 Microbes like AM fungi and ZSB help to more uptake of zinc in
grain from soil.
 Also iron and zinc uptake in grain is more by foliar application
than soil application .