Potentialities and Constraints of Liquid Biofertilizers

2. Potentialities and Constraints of Liquid
Biofertilizers :Siddu
Malakannavar

3. Sequence of presentation
Introduction
- Why to explore bio-fertilizers?
- Biofertilizers: Classification, types, Liquid and carrier based
biofertilizers
Shelf life and viability of liquid and carrier based biofertilizers
Effect of liquid biofertilizers on
• Germination and crop growth
• Yield attributes and yield
• Quality of crops
• Nutrient uptake by crops and soil fertility status
Constraints of liquid biofertilizers
Success stories
Conclusion
Future line of work

4. Why to explore bio-fertilizers?
• Green revolution brought amazing consequences in food
grain production but with insufficient concern for agricultural
sustainability.
• The availability and affordability of fossil fuel based chemical
fertilizers at farm level in India have been ensured only
through imports and subsidies which largely depends on GDP
of the country.
• Indiscriminate synthetic fertilizer usage has polluted the soil,
water basins, destroyed micro-organisms and eco-friendly
insects and made the crops more susceptible to diseases and
depleted the soil fertility.

5. Fig 1. Status of essential nutrients in Indian soils
Source: FAI, 2011

6. Fig 2. Trends in Consumption of N,P and K Per Hectare
of Gross Cropped Area in India: 1951 to 2009-10
Source: Fertilizer Association of India Annual Report 2011
84 kg/ha
144 kg/ha
31 kg/ha
22 kg/ha
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
5th Plan
(1974 -79)
8th Plan
(1992 -97)
9th Plan
(1997 -02)
10th Plan
(2002 -07)
11th Plan
(2007 -12)
Kg
food
grains
per
kg
NPK Fertilizer use efficiecy over successive plan periods
Fig 3. Decreasing response to NPK (Kg food Grain/Kg NPK)
in India
Fig 4. Annual growth rate of projected supply and
demand of food items in India
Source: FAO, 2012

7. • Increased usage of chemical fertilizers leads to depletion of soil
fertility and raises other environmental problems.
• Therefore, the use of biofertilizers is both economical and
environment friendly.
• The pragmatic approach which have to be integrate nutrient supply
system involving a combination of use of chemical fertilizers and
biofertilizers is needed.
• Moreover, India is not self sufficient in fertilizer production.
Realizing the importance of biofertilizers in supplementing chemical
fertilizers, the Government of India launched the ‘National Project
on Development and Use of Biofertilizers’ in 2011.

8. What are biofertilizers ?
• Bio-fertilizers or microbial inoculants are the carrier-based
preparations containing sufficient number of
microorganisms in a viable state inoculated to soil or seed to
augment the nutrient availability to plant.
• Biofertilzer is an organic product containing a specific
microorganism (microbial inoculant) in concentrated form
(107 to 109 g-1), which is derived either from the nodules of
plant roots or from the soil of root zone (Rhizosphere).

9. Classification of Biofertilizers
N2 fixing Biofertilizers
Free-living
Symbiotic
Associative Symbiotic
P Solubilizing Biofertilizers
Bacteria
Fungi
P Mobilizing Biofertilizers
K Mobilizing Biofertilizers
and
K Solubilizing Biofertilizers
Biofertilizers for
Micro nutrients
• Silicate, Zinc, S
and Mn solubilizers
Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR)
Pseudomonas
Arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM)
Ectomycorrhiza
Ericoid mycorrhizae
Orchid mycorrhiza

10. Advantages of Biofertilizer Use
N-Biofertilizers can provide 25-30% of chemical fertilizer
equivalent N
PSB biofertilizer can provide 12-20 kg P2O5/ha/season
Mycorrhiza can provide adequate P, other micro nutrients
and help in increased water absorption
Keep soils biologically active

11. Table 1. Use intensity of Biofertilizers (BF) and Chemical
fertilizers in India
Region
Chemical
(NPK kg/ha)
Cropped
area(%)
Bio-fertilizers
(kg/ha)
South 145.21 18.46 0.05
North 150.43 22.32 0.07
West 80.82 40.91 0.06
East 110.63 18.32 0.04
Source: National Centre of Organic Farming, 2011

12. Poor Acceptability
Poor acceptability among farmers may be attributed to:
Poor organic carbon in soils
Inconsistent responses
Poor quality of carrier based products
Sensitivity to temperature and short shelf life
Non-compatibility with chemical seed dressers/ fertilizers
Dependence for supply on Government system

13. Concept of liquid biofertilizers
“Liquid bio-fertilizers are special liquid
formulation containing not only the desired
microorganisms but also special cell protectants or
chemicals that promote formation of resting spores
or cysts for longer shelf life and tolerance to adverse
conditions.”

14. Carrier Vs Liquid biofertilizers
Biofertilizers
Carrier based Liquid based
Advantages
• Cheap
•Less investment
Disadvantages
• Low shelf life
• Temperature sensitive
• Contamination prone
• Low cell count
• Less effective
• Automation difficult
Advantages
• Longer shelf life
•Temperature tolerant
• High cell count
• Contamination free
• More effective
Disadvantages
• High cost
• Higher investment for
production unit

15. Table 2. Quantity of biological N fixed by liquid Rhizobium in
different crops
Sl.
No.
Host group Rhizobium species Crops
N fixation
Kg ha-1
1. Pea group Rhizobium leguminosarum Green pea, lentil 62 - 132
2. Soybean group R. japonocum Soybean 57 - 105
3. Lupini group R. lupine Lupinous 70 - 90
4. Alfalfa group R. meliloti Melilotus 100 - 150
5. Beans group R. phaseoli Phaseoli 80 - 110
6. Clover group R. trifolii Trifolium 130
7. Cowpea group Rhizobium sp.
Moong, Redgram,
Cowpea,
Groundnut
57 - 105
8. Cicer group Rhizobium sp. Bengal gram 75 - 117
Source: Biofertilizer vision, 2004

16. Shelf life and viability of liquid and carrier
based biofertilizers

17. Table 3. Liquid Inoculum Vs Carrier based Inoculum - Shelf life
Chandra et. al., 2004
Inoculum
Months
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24
Azosp (L) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Azosp (S) 9.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Azoto (L) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Azoto (S) 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
P.S.M (L) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
P.S.M (S) 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
K.M.B (L) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
K.M.B (S) 8.0 8 .0 8.0 7.0 5.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Rhizo (L) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 Nil Nil Nil
Rhizo (S) 9.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Source: Biofertilizer vision 2004

18. Table 4. Viability of Enterobacter hormaechei in Liquid Broth and
Lignite at two different Storage conditions
Gujarat Prajapati and Modi, 2014
Time Interval
(Days)
Liquid Broth
(CFU/ml)
Lignite
(CFU/g)
40C 300C 40C 300C
0 6.00 x107 6.00 x107 6.00 x107 6.00 x107
15 5.60 x107 4.48 x107 4.12 x107 4.80 x107
30 4.32 x107 4.12 x107 3.84 x107 4.28x107
45 3.76 x107 3.64 x107 1.56 x107 1.78 x107
90 3.56 x107 3.12 x107 2.72 x106 2.88 x106
105 3.04 x107 2.68 x107 2.36 x106 2.56 x106
120 2.96 x106 2.48 x106 2.04x106 2.18x106
135 2.80 x106 2.32 x106 1.92x106 2.08 x106
150 2.72 x106 2.20 x106 1.28x106 1.44 x106

19. Fig 5. Survival of Bradyrhizobium sp. stored at room temperature
in different inoculant formulations
Note: YEMB: Yeast Extract Mannitol Broth; LI: Liquid inoculant; CRI: Carrier based inoculant
Vithal Navi, 2004
Bangalore

20. Table 5. Survival of Azospirillum in liquid formulation amended with
different chemical additives
Kumaresan and Reetha, 2011
Tamil Nadu

21. Table 6. Survival of Pseudomonas striata in different formulation
Chidambram, Tamil Nadu Mugilan et al., 2011
Treatment
Population of P. striata in 1 x 109 cfu
15 30 45 60
Vermiculite 4.0 5.21 7.15 9.0
Lignite 4.42 6.18 7.41 10.1
Liquid 15.33 19.0 20.41 28.3
Table 7. Phosphate solubilizing efficiency on
Pseudomonas striata
Media
Size of clear zone (mm)
5 days 10 days
Vermiculite 4 mm 7 mm
Lignite 2 mm 5 mm
Liquid 7 mm 11.5 mm

22. Effect of liquid biofertilizers on
germination and crop growth

23. Karthika and Vanangamudi, 2013
Coimbatore
Fig 6. Germination of maize hybrid seed bioprimed
with phosphobacteria

24. Nonprimed seeds Seeds bioprimed with
phosphobacteria 20% for 12 h
Fig 7. Speed of germination at 48 h of germination as
influenced by Phosphobacteria biopriming
Karthika and Vanangamudi, 2013
Coimbatore

25. Table 8. Plant growth-promoting activities of different
day old cultures of PGPR on wheat seedlings
Pune, Maharashtra Neeta et al., 2012
Culture age
(days)
Germination (%) Shoot biomass (g) Root biomass (g)
Acetobacter
diazotrophicus
Herbaspirillum
seropedicae
A.
diazotrophicus
H.
seropedicae
A.
diazotrophicus
H.
seropedicae
15 94.0 96.0 0.87 0.85 0.26 0.26
30 93.7 95.9 0.82 0.95 0.22 0.28
60 92.3 95.0 0.86 0.92 0.23 0.27
90 92.0 94.3 0.84 0.93 0.22 0.27
120 90.8 92.0 0.79 0.89 0.21 0.26
150 90.0 90.4 0.73 0.88 0.21 0.25
180 98.4 88.4 0.76 0.88 0.23 0.26
210 88.0 86.0 0.75 0.84 0.22 0.24
240 85.8 84.0 0.75 0.83 0.22 0.21
270 83.0 78.0 0.65 0.68 0.18 0.20
Control 72 72 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.14

26. Table 9. Effect of biofertigation on growth and
physiological characters of banana
Madurai, Tamil Nadu Mahendran et al., 2013
Treatments
Pseudostem
height (cm)
Pseudostem
girth (cm)
LAI
chlorophyll-
SPAD
SLW
(mg cm-2)
T1 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF as WSF
(urea, 13:40:13, KNO3)
228.53 67.16 4.30 47.33 0.067
T2 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF
(50% P&K as basal, remaining NPK as WSF)
211.86 63.95 4.20 46.47 0.084
T3 - Drip fertigation of 75% RDF as WSF (urea,
13:40:13, KNO3) + LBF (2.5 lit/ha)
220.70 62.63 3.82 48.10 0.076
T4- Drip fertigation of 75% RDF + LBF
(50% P&K as basal remaining NPK as WSF)
215.33 59.82 3.91 46.84 0.057
T5 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF as WSF
(urea, 13:40:13, KNO3) + LBF
234.63 69.89 4.75 52.40 0.095
T6- Drip fertigation of 100% RDF
(50% P&K basal, remaining as WSF) + LBF
228.68 65.28 4.47 48.55 0.088
CD( P=0.05) 12.98 4.10 0.23 3.76 0.0040

27. Table 10. Effect of organic wastes in the presence liquid
biofertilizer on growth attributes in groundnut
Cairo, Egypt Radwan and Awad, 2002
Treatments
Dry weight (g/plant)
R/S
Nodule
Wt.
(g/plant)
No. of
nodules
plant-1
Roots Shoots
Plant
Whole
NPK 3.02 6.64 9.66 0.46 0.492 10
FYM+ liquid biofertilizer (LBF) 3.71 6.89 11.30 0.52 0.673 14
Composted rice straw 3.43 6.51 9.94 0.53 0.614 13
Composted rice straw + LBF 4.11 7.55 11.66 0.54 0.650 14
Composted maize stalks 3.26 6.49 9.75 0.50 0.553 13
Composted maize stalks+ LBF 3.49 6.57 10.06 0.53 0.627 13
Composted water hyacinth 3.50 6.28 9.78 0.54 0.579 11
Composted water hyacinth +
LBF
3.65 6.53 10.88 0.55 0.605 12
L.S.D. at 5% 0.66 0.72 0.81 0.06 0.037 4

28. Fig 8. Performance of liquid Azospirillum on Chilli
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Plant height (cm) Photosynthetic
Rate (PR) (µ mol
m-2S-1)
Stomatal
frequency
Leaf area cm2 Yield of dry chilli
Control Foliar spary (10 ml)
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Ramarethinam et al., 2004
g/plant

29. Table 11. Effect of Liquid Rhizobium inoculation on
nodule number and nodule fresh weight in
soybean
Thao et al., 2002
Vietnam
Cultivar
Nodule no plant-1 Nodule wt plant-1 (mg)
Uninoculated Inoculated Uninoculated Inoculated
Local cultivars
MTD-176 2 38 25 671
HL 92 2 15 16 249
Nam Vang 2 30 22 503
‘Promiscuous’ cultivars
TGX1447-1D 1 8 22 91
TGX1437-3D 1 16 29 118
TGX1440 5 52 59 852
TGX1448-2E 6 54 69 946
LSD (P = 0.05) 5. 1 67.7
Note: N:P:K at 0:60:90 kg/ha and liquid Rhizobium at 10 ml/kg seed

30. Table 12. Effect of Liquid Rhizobium inoculation on
shoot dry matter and grain yield of Soybean
Cultivar
Shoot DM (t/ha) Grain yield (t/ha)
Uninoculated Inoculated
%
Response
Uninoculated Inoculated
%
Response
Local cultivars
MTD-176 4.08 5.67 +39 1.38 1.81 +31
HL92 3.32 4.09 +23 0.72 0.93 +29
Nam Vang 4.23 5.05 +19 1.24 1.41 +14
‘Promiscuous’ cultivars
TGX1447-1D 2.39 2.60 +9 0.45 0.48 +7
TGX1437-3D 3.53 4.21 +19 0.70 0.78 +11
TGX1440 4.55 5.86 +29 0.67 0.92 +37
TGX1448-2E 5.09 7.26 +43 0.72 0.90 +25
LSD (P = 0.05) 0.40 0.10
Thao et al., 2002
Vietnam
Note: N:P:K at 0:60:90 kg/ha and liquid Rhizobium at 10 ml/kg seed

31. Table 13. Effect of liquid and carrier based Rhizobium
inoculants on growth, nodulation and
seed yield of urdbean
PORS, Berhampore Biswas and Bhowmick, 2007
Treatments
Nodule no.
plant-1
Nodule dry wt.
(mg plant-1)
DMP
(g plant-1)
Seed yield
(kg ha-1)
Carrier based Rhizobium
inoculant 23.71 15.76 4.63 1083
Liquid based Rhizobium
inoculant
26.11 18.15 5.95 1177
N @20 Kg ha-1 20.79 15.58 4.41 1182
N @40 Kg ha-1 20.13 15.46 5.79 1215
Uninoculated
control
15.96 12.94 4.06 941
CD (P=0.05) 1.76 1.36 0.30 75.0

32. Table 14. Performance of nutrient sources and its
levels on okra under biofertigation system
Madurai, Tamil Nadu Mahendran et al., 2010
Treatments
Plant
Height
(cm)
No of
branches
at harvest
No of fruits
/plant
Fruit yield
(t ha-1)
T1 – Surface irrigation with soil application of
100% RDF (200:100:100 kg NPK ha-1)
167.5 4.3 13.1 10.87
T2 - Drip fertigation of 50% RDF
(50% NPK as basal + 50% WSF)
165.3 4.2 12.7 9.89
T3 - Drip fertigation of 75% RDF
(50% NPK as basal + 50% WSF)
167.2 4.3 13.2 12.37
T4 – Drip fertigation of 100% RDF
(50% NPK as basal + 50% WSF)
172.6 5.0 13.5 13.84
T5 – Drip fertigation of 50% RDF (50% NPK as
basal + 50% as LBF (Liquid Bio Fertilizers)
176.8 4.0 13.0 10.57
T6 – Drip fertigation of 75% RDF
(50% NPK as basal + 50% as LBF)
179.4 5.2 14.1 13.97
T7 – Drip fertigation of 100 % RDF
(50% NPK as basal + 50% as LBF)
182.3 6.6 15.0 15.54
CD (P = 0.05) 7.92 0.24 0.68 1.00

33. Effect of liquid biofertilizers on yield
attributes and yield

34. Table 15. Yield of pulses in response to inoculation with
liquid Rhizobium inoculant
Treatments
Yield (q ha-1)
Soybean Chickpea Pigeonpea Groundnut
Uninoculated 18.03 10.24 7.02 9.82
Liquid Rhizobium
inoculant
20.74 11.21 8.55 11.31
Carrier (Lignite)
Rhizobium inoculant
19.59 10.94 8.02 10.48
CD at p = 0.05 0.47 0.33 0.37 0.31
Fig 9. Field experiment to study
the effect of liquid Rhizobium
inoculant on Groundnut
Bangalore Brahmaprakash et al., 2007

35. Table 16. Effect of organic wastes in the presence
and absence of liquid biofertilizer on yield of
groundnut plants
Treatments
No. of
pods
/plant
Weight of
mono-pods
(g/plant )
Yield of
pods
(g/plant)
Yield of
seeds
(g/plant)
Shelling
%
NPK 27 9.67 68.1 43.52 63.9
FYM 26 8.52 62.4 41.01 65.7
FYM+ liquid biofertilizer (LBF) 28 7.49 73.6 49.30 68.9
Composted rice straw 26 9.16 64.4 43.62 67.7
Composted rice straw + LBF 29 7.54 75.8 52.72 69.6
Composted maize stalks 24 9.59 61.0 40.94 66.1
Composted maize stalks+ LBF 28 8.28 68.3 45.98 67.5
Composted water hyacinth 25 8.44 66.6 45.05 66.6
Composted water hyacinth +
LBF
26 8.05 70.6 47.99 67.4
L.S.D. at 5% 1.1 1.32 7.2 5.47 1.21
Cairo, Egypt Radwan and Awad, 2002

36. Table 17. The effect of PGPR and PSM and fertilizer
application on yield and yield components of
Corn (Zea mays L).
Iran Mohammad et al., 2011
Treatments
Number
of rows
Number of
grain in
row
Number
of grain
in ear
Seed
index (g)
Grain
yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest
index
Manures
Farmyard manure 18.5 34.3 626.1 21.0 9.12 0.547
Green manure 18.1 31.8 603.2 20.2 8.71 0.530
Fertilizers
NPK 18.3 32.8 607.0 21.9 9.13 0.549
NPK + PGPR + PSM 17.7 32.7 639.8 21.9 9.89 0.557
N[P.sub.50]K + PGPR + PSM 19.3 35.1 680.3 21.9 10.27 0.563
[N.sub.50]PK + PGPR + PSM 17.6 32.2 569.5 21.0 8.29 0.531
[N.sub.50][P.sub.50]K + PGPR
+ PSM
18.2 31.6 577.7 21.4 8.20 0.529
PK + PGPR 17.8 28.9 518.0 20.1 7.25 0.516
CD (0.05) 0.39 2.24 20.92 0.03 0.23 0.012

37. Table 18. Effect of biofertigation on growth, yield
and harvest index of Bt cotton (Mean of two years)
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Jayakumar et al., 2014
Treatments
Sympodial
Branches
plant-1
Number
of bolls
plant-1
Boll
weight
(g boll-1)
Seed cotton
yield
(kg ha-1)
Harvest
Index
T1: DF with 75 % NPK 11.69 21.73 4.69 2036 0.41
T2: DF with 75 % NPK +
biofertigation
15.68 25.30 4.69 2744 0.44
T3: DF with 100 % NPK 15.97 26.23 4.34 2829 0.45
T4: DF with 100 % NPK +
biofertigation
17.57 28.90 4.71 3217 0.48
T5: DF with 125 % NPK 17.77 29.11 4.78 3273 0.48
T6: DF with 125 % NPK +
biofertigation
18.08 29.47 4.84 3395 0.49
T7: Soil application of 100 % NPK 11.33 21.33 4.50 1993 0.40
LSD (P=0.05) 1.72 1.46 NS 262 0.01

38. Table 19. Effect of Gum Liquid Inoculums of
Rhizobium japonicum and Azotobacter chroococcum
on Glycine max
Bhopal (M.P.) Nandi et al., 2013
Treatments
No. of
nodules
plant-1
Nodule
fresh
weight (g)
Grain
yield
(kg ha-1)
T1: Negative control 17.33 13.00 1042.3
T2: Positive control (46:46:0 Kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1) 21.33 15.00 1523.7
T3: R. japonicum (Rj(S)002) (LI) 31.00 19.67 3455.7
T4: R. japonicum (Rj(S)005)+ Lignite 18.67 17.23 1893.7
T5: A. chroococcum + (LI) 34.67 22.33 2207.0
T6: Azotobacter chroococcum inoculums + Lignite 18.00 16.34 1520.6
T7: R. japonicum (Rj(S)002) + A. chroococcum + (LI) 40.33 24.33 3915.1
T8: Rhizobium japonicum (Rj(S)005) Inoculum +
Azotobacter chroococcum inoculum + Lignite
22.00 17.67 2029.2
CD (0.05) 3.21 2.15 266.7

39. Table 20. Effects of phosphatic liquid biofertilizer with
inorganic and organic sources of P on yield of lentil
Bangladesh Haque and Khan, 2011
Treatments
Ishurdi Magura
Seed yield
(t ha-1)
Stover
yield
(t ha-1)
Seed yield
(t ha-1)
Stover yield
(t ha-1)
T1: Control 0.91 1.69 0.86 1.75
T2: 100% P from Chemical fertilizer 1.51 2.67 1.21 3.02
T3: 50% P from Chemical fertilizer 1.28 2.58 1.12 2.81
T4: 100% P from Chemical fertilizer
+ Phosphatic biofertilizer (PB)
1.36 2.88 1.16 2.87
T5: 50% P from Chemical fertilizer
+ PB
1 .62 3.17 1.36 3.19
T6: 50% P from cowdung 1.23 2.51 1.06 2.62
T7: 50% P from cowdung +PB 1.26 .2.50 1.08 2.53
T8: PB 1.21 2.44 1.10 2.75
CD (0.05) 0.24 0.27 0.21 0.24

40. Effect of liquid biofertilizers on quality of
crops

41. Table 21. Effect of biofertigation with liquid
biofertilizers on yield and fruit quality of Banana
Madurai, Tamil Nadu Mahendran et al., 2013
Treatments
Bunch
Yield (t ha-1)
TSS
(o brix)
Ascorbic acid
(mg 100g-1)
Total
Sugar (%)
T1 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF as WSF
(urea, 13:40:13, KNO3)
41.85 24.98 17.79 22.79
T2 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF
(50% P&K as basal, remaining NPK as WSF)
35.15 24.28 15.32 22.10
T3 - Drip fertigation of 75% RDF as WSF + LBF (urea,
13:40:13, KNO3)
34.16 24.39 16.36 22.18
T4- Drip fertigation of 75% RDF + LBF
(50% P&K as basal remaining NPK as WSF)
31.58 24.04 15.25 21.84
T5 - Drip fertigation of 100% RDF as WSF
(urea, 13:40:13, KNO3) + LBF
44.51 26.07 18.42 23.77
T6- Drip fertigation of 100% RDF
(50% P&K as basal, remaining as WSF) + LBF
37.67 25.68 17.55 23.45
CD( P=0.05) 2.51 1.28 1.44 1.57

42. Table 22. Effect of Co-inoculation with phosphate
Solubilizing fungi on growth parameters, yield and
nutrient uptake in groundnut
Jitendra et al., 2011
Bhopal, M.P.
Treatments
Height
(cm)
Dry
Wt. of
plant (g)
Number
of
pods/
plant
N
%
P
%
Oil
%
Protein
%
Control 61.2 11.2 16.6 7.2 0.41 20.3 35.9
Tri-calcium-phosphate
(TCP)
75.6 16.2 26.3 6.9 0.51 24.2 42.6
TCP + Aspergillus
niger (Spore suspension
of 2 × 106 ml-1)
98.4 19.0 32.5 7.6 0.55 26.1 43.9
TCP + Penicillium
notatum
90.1 16.7 33.6 7.4 0.50 25.6 42.6
TCP + Aspergillus niger
+ Penicillium notatum
113.6 22.0 35.8 8.0 0.59 26.3 45.8
CD (0.05) 9.56 1.65 1.97 0.39 0.03 0.34 1.75

43. Table 23. Effect of organic wastes in the presence
of liquid biofertilizer on chemical composition in
seeds of groundnut
Cairo, Egypt Radwan and Awad, 2002
Treatments
Protein
%
P %
Zn
ppm
Mn
ppm
Fe
ppm
Cu
ppm
Oil
%
NPK 20.3 0.34 36.1 10.1 83.4 8.4 50.6
FYM 20.3 0.35 36.5 10.4 85.1 8.6 52.2
FYM+ liquid biofertilizer (LBF) 21.3 0.38 36.9 11.1 87.2 8.7 54.2
Composted rice straw 22.1 0.40 36.7 11.2 86.3 8.7 53.3
Composted rice straw + LBF 22.8 0.41 37.0 11.8 88.8 8.8 55.1
Composted maize stalks 21.8 0.39 36.6 10.6 86.5 8.7 53.7
Composted maize stalks+ LBF 22.4 0.40 36.9 11.1 88.1 8.7 54.3
Composted water hyacinth 22.2 0.40 36.9 11.0 88.3 8.7 53.9
Composted water hyacinth +
LBF
22.8 0.42 37.4 12.1 89.1 8.8 55.4
L.S.D. at 5% 1.5 0.05 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 3.5

44. Table 24. Effect of liquid bio-fertilizers in the production
of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Cabbage
(Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata)
Colombia Hernando et al., 2011
Treatments
Head weight (g) Hardness (psi) Diameter (cm) Yield (t ha-1)
Lettuce Cabbage Lettuce Cabbage Lettuce Cabbage Lettuce Cabbage
Control 422.8 966.5 6.5 15.3 11.7 14.3 14.30 26.58
100% NPK as
commercial
fertilizers
747.7 1325.0 8.9 20.6 14.3 21.9 20.58 41.45
75 % NPK as
commercial
fertilizers
668.1 1246.3 7.3 19.9 13.1 20.5 19.05 38.40
100% NPK + LBF 969.3 1615.8 10.5 21.0 15.3 22.9 24.68 48.40
75% NPK + LBF 880.5 1428.8 9.7 20.8 15.1 22.5 22.80 46.68
CD (0.05) 198.4 216.1 0.92 0.54 0.68 0.82 2.23 3.52

45. Effect of liquid biofertilizers on nutrient
uptake and soil nutrient status

46. Table 25. Effect of 100% NPK and bacterial
applications on fertility status of soil
Pune, Maharashtra Neeta et al., 2012
Treatment
Organic
carbon (%)
Total nitrogen
(%)
Available
phosphorus
(ppm)
Available
potassium (%)
T1- Acetobacter
diazotrophicus L1
1.13 0.013 51.67 0.016
T2- Herbaspirillum
seropedicae J24
0.55 0.009 50.17 0.023
T3- 100% NPK +
Mixed (T1 + T2)
1.24 0.015 53.14 0.026
T4- 100% NPK 0.66 0.009 47.08 0.022
T5- Control 0.55 0.008 15.00 0.018
CD (0.05) 0.14 0.001 12.31 21.34

47. Table 26. Performance of Potash Mobilizing Bacteria (PMB) in
different soil conditions at different locations in Orissa
Name of place
Initial 10 days inoculation 20 days inoculation
pH
EC
(dS/m)
Av. K2O
kg ha-1
pH
EC
(dS/m)
Av. K2O
kg ha-1
pH
EC
(dS/m)
Av.
K2O
kg ha-1
Phulbani
(Red soil)
6.94 0.04 504.0 7.0 0.09 524.7 6.94 0.07 510.7
Aska
(Alluvial soil)
6.71 0.06 73.9 7.48 0.07 140.4 7.33 0.07 120.9
Bhavanipatna
(Black soil)
5.50 0.04 208.3 5.53 0.08 215.0 6.66 0.08 275.5
Keonjhar
(Black soil)
8.09 0.03 215.0 8.07 0.07 295.7 8.10 0.09 288.9
Orissa Rath et al., 2002

48. Table 27. Effects of phosphatic liquid biofertilizer
with inorganic and organic sources of P on
P uptake by lentil
Treatments
Ishurdi Magura
Total P
uptake
(kg ha-1)
% increase
over
control
Total P
uptake
(kg ha-1)
% increase
over
control
T1: Control 8.91 - 7.93 -
T2: 100% P from Chemical fertilizer 11.51 29.2 9.87 24.4
T3: 50% P from Chemical fertilizer 10.56 18.5 9.42 18.8
T4: 100% P from Chemical fertilizer
+ Phosphatic biofertilizer (PB)
11.92 33.8 10.27 29.5
T5: 50% P from Chemical fertilizer + PB 12.29 37.9 10.72 35.2
T6: 50% P from cowdung 10.51 17.9 9.30 17.3
T7: 50% P from cowdung + PB 10.82 21.5 9.43 19.0
T8: Phosphatic biofertilizer (PB) 10.3 16.5 9.42 18.7
CD (0.05) 0.54 0.43
Bangladesh Haque and Khan, 2011

49. Table 28. Economics of biofertilizer use (Liquid)
Biofertilizer/ crop
Quantity
required lit/ha
Cost of
application
(Rs/ha)
Amount of nutrient
mobilized kg/ha
Rhizobium in legumes 0.2 - 1.0 lit 40 - 200 25 - 35 kg N
Azotobacter/
Azospirillum in non-
legumes
0.5 - 2.0 lit 80 - 400 20 - 25 kg N
Azoto+Azosp+PSB 0.5 - 2.0 lit 80 - 400 20 kg N + 12 kg P
Mycorrhiza 2.0 - 5.0 lit 200 - 500
20 - 25 kg P +
micronutrients +
moisture

50. Table 29. Potential of liquid biofertilizer in substitution of
chemical fertilizers
Sl. No. Biofertilizers Substitutes/ha/year References
1. Rhizobium
108.6 - 217.3 kg
of urea
Mahdi et al., 2010
2. Azospirillum 60 kg urea in maize Fulcheri and Frioni, 1994
3. Azolla 20 - 40 kg urea Mahdi et al., 2010
4. BGA 54 - 65 kg urea
Goyal et al., 1971 and
Venkataraman et al., 1981
5. Frankia 195 kg urea Silvester et al., 1975
6. PSB 95 kg SSP Hornado et al., 2009

51. Constraints in liquid bio-fertilizer use

52. 1. Resource constraints
• Limited resource generation for BF production
The risk involved in production and no guarantee of sell
of bio-fertilizers, the resource generation is very limited.
• Non-availability of suitable facilities
Lack of essential equipments, power supply, etc. Space
availability for laboratory, production, storage, etc. Lack of
facility for cold storage of inoculants.
• Financial constraints
Non-availability of sufficient funds and problems in
getting bank loans and less return by sale of products in
smaller production units.

53. 2. Production Constraints
• Unavailability of appropriate and efficient strains
Lack of region specific strains is one of the major
constraints as bio-fertilizers are not only crop specific but soil
specific too. Also the selected strains should have competitive
ability over other strains.
• Mutation during fermentation
Bio-fertilizers tend to mutate during fermentation and
thereby raising production and quality control cost.
• Poor inoculant's quality
It is not only due to poor production facilities but can be
caused by poor standards, transport and storage facilities.

54. 3. Market level constraints
• Lack of awareness of farmers
Inspite of considerable efforts in recent years, majority of farmers in
India are not aware of bio-fertilizers and their usefulness in increasing crop
yields.
• Inadequate and inexperienced staff
Because of inadequate staff and that too non technically qualified
who can attend to technical problems. Farmers are not given proper
instructions about the application aspects.
• Lack of quality assurance
The sale of poor quality bio-fertilizers through corrupt marketing
practices results in loss of faith among farmers.
• Seasonal and unassured demand
The bio-fertilizer use is seasonal and both production and distribution
is done only in few months of year, as such production units particularly
private sectors are not sure of their demand.

55. 4. Field level constraints
• Soil and climatic factors
Among soil and climatic conditions, high soil fertility status,
unfavorable pH, high nitrate level, high temperature, drought,
deficiency of P, Cu, Co, Mo or presence of toxic elements affect the
microbial growth and crop response.
• Native microbial population
Antagonistic microorganism already present in soil competes
with microbial inoculants and many times do not allow their
effective establishment by outcompeting the inoculated population.
• Faulty inoculation techniques
Majority of the marketing sales personals do not know proper
inoculation techniques.

56. Success Stories

57. Table 30. Expenses and income from sugarcane cultivation by
Ramesh Lad
(PER ACRE)

58. Table 31. Expenses and income from banana cultivation by
Ankit Agrawal
(PER ACRE)

59. Expenses & income statement for cotton cultivation by
Shashikant Girase (PER ACRE)

60. Conclusion
• In liquid formulations high populations of organisms can
be maintained for more than 12 months.
• Liquid biofertilizers increased the yield upto 12-15% over
uninoculated control.
• Liquid biofertilizers have the capacity to replace the
traditional chemical fertilizers (upto 25%) and carriers
based biofertilizers and are important in restoring the soil
health.
• Application of liquid biofertilizers can become an integral
component of integrated nutrient management (INM) and
they play a vital role in increasing the agricultural
production.

61. Future line of work
• Identification/selection of efficient crop/soil specific
microbial strains for nitrogen fixation, phosphorus,
potassium, zinc solubilization or mobilization suited for
different agro climatic conditions are needed.
• Suitable combinations of microbial formulations (liquid
microbial consortium) with optimized field results are
needed.