Bdai lecture i bd research
-
Upload
pontus-bornold -
Category
Documents
-
view
175 -
download
6
Transcript of Bdai lecture i bd research
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)
Recent trends on BD agriculture researchDr.K.Perumal, (Deputy Director, R&D)
Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre
Main ingredients of Biodynamic preparations.
Field and Crop Spray Preparations Compost Preparations
Preparation Number
Main IngredientPreparation
NumberMain Ingredient
500 Cow Manure 502 Yarrow
501 Silica 503 Chamomile
508 Equisetum 504 Stinging Nettle
505 Oak bark
506 Dandelion buds
507 Valerian
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.
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.
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
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
Area under cultivation of biodynamic Agriculture
There are more than 4200 BD farms in 43 countries, the area of which, over 128,000 ha, is certified according to Demeter standards.
http://www.demeter.net/
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.
New Zealand
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
on plots treated with BD preparations. as
they have been proved to stimulate lateral
root formation and thus increase potential
root–mycorrhiza interaction points.
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
colonization.
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
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-
1989 in biodynamic trial shows 2.71 % of C.baltic sea
HV I
2,12
2,16
2,282,31
1,95
2,00
2,05
2,10
2,15
2,20
2,25
2,30
2,35
1991 1995 2000 2006
C %
to
p s
oil
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.
Egypt
SEKEM’s companies enterprises like the institutes of
education, vocational training, research centre and
hospitals
Scientific 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;
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
The main characteristics of long-term trials, which are based on sound scientific methods and include BD research
Country
of trial
Trial description Duration
of trial
Crop rotation
and fertilization
References
Therwil,
Switzerland
In the DOK trial biodynamic,
organic, conventional
farmyard manure and
conventional-mineral farming
systems are compared with
control plots
1978–the
present FYM, composted FYM
with added BDpreparations and MIN are used, depending on production system
Pfiffner and Ma¨der;
Ma¨der et al.;
Fließbach etal.
Darmstadt,
Germany
With the MIN–ORG trial,
maintained at the Institute for
Biodynamic Research, the
question of mineral versus
organic fertilizers is tackled
1980–the
present
Same crop rotation and similar
soil tillage are used in all treatments
Nitrogen (N) input levels are maintained at the same level, whereas MIN, FYM and composted FYM with added BD preparations are used to supply N to the soil
Raupp
Bonn,
Germany
Effects of traditionally
composted FYM against
two types of BD composted
FYM1 and a control plot
were investigated
1993–2001 Same 6-year crop rotation
with similar land management
Techniques was used. FYM and composted FYM with added BD preparations were used
as fertilizers at a rate of
30 t ha – 1
Zaller and Ko¨pke
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.
National and international research Institutes
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
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 cow
manure with concentrated applications of herbs (Koepf et al.
1989).
Effect of biodynamic manure on soil properties
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)
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)
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).
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
Bacillus
Trichoderma veridi
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
microbial activity. (Oehl et al, 2004).
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)
Contd.,
Effect BD on crop management
A total of 1,443 colonies (ranging
between 45 in BD500 to 527 in BD506)
were observed from the nine samples,
from that 67 isolates, 17 suppressed
disease causing fungi such as R.
bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela et
al 2003 from ICRISAT).
Antagonistic effect
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
Effect on physiology and growth of crop plant
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
system
o 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).
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)
Contd.,
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
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
microbial activity. (Oehl et al, 2004).
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)
Effect BD on crop management
A total of 1,443 colonies (ranging between 45 in BD500 to
527 in BD506) were observed from the nine samples, from
that 67 isolates, 17 suppressed disease causing fungi such
as R. bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela et al 2003 from
ICRISAT).
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
Effect on physiology and growth of crop plant
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 system
o 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).
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)
Biodynamic Research in India
ORGANIC, BIODYNAMIC MANURES AND THEIR EFFECT ON GROWTH ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED PLANTS in India
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
Physicochemical properties of different organic and biodynamic manures
ManuresManures pHpH ECEC (m.mohs)(m.mohs)
Nitrogen Nitrogen (%)(%)
PhosphorusPhosphorus(%)(%)
PotassiumPotassium(%)(%)
Organic Organic CarbonCarbon
(%) /dry wt (%) /dry wt
BD 500BD 500 7.2 ± 0.17.2 ± 0.1cc 0.17 ± 0.010.17 ± 0.01abab 1.63 ± 0.021.63 ± 0.02bb 1.11 ± 0.011.11 ± 0.01bb 2.53 ± 0.002.53 ± 0.00cc 24.55 ± 0.0124.55 ± 0.01dd
BD 502BD 502 5.3 ± 0.35.3 ± 0.3bb 0.26 ± 0.020.26 ± 0.02abab 0.07 ± 0.000.07 ± 0.00aa 0.05 ± 0.000.05 ± 0.00aa 1.07 ± 0.011.07 ± 0.01bb 22.64± 0.0322.64± 0.03cc
BD 503BD 503 5.7 ± 0.25.7 ± 0.2bb 0.29 ± 0.010.29 ± 0.01bb 0.04 ± 0.000.04 ± 0.00aa 0.09 ± 0.000.09 ± 0.00aa 2.28 ± 0.002.28 ± 0.00cc 27.39 ± 0.0027.39 ± 0.00ee
BD 504BD 504 7.1 ± 0.37.1 ± 0.3dd 0.23 ± 0.010.23 ± 0.01abab 0.5 ± 0.030.5 ± 0.03aa 0.06 ± 0.010.06 ± 0.01aa 1.06 ± 0.001.06 ± 0.00bb 28.36 ± 0.0128.36 ± 0.01efef
BD 505BD 505 7.9 ± 0.47.9 ± 0.4dd 0.12 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.02abab 0.05 ± 0.000.05 ± 0.00aa 0.01 ± 0.000.01 ± 0.00aa 0.07 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.01aa 16.87 ± 0.0016.87 ± 0.00bb
BD 506BD 506 6.1 ± 0.26.1 ± 0.2cc 0.29 ± 0.010.29 ± 0.01abab 0.32 ± 0.020.32 ± 0.02aa 0.47 ± 0.020.47 ± 0.02bb 1.27 ± 0.001.27 ± 0.00bb 11.46 ± 0.0111.46 ± 0.01aa
BD 507BD 507 6.8 ± 0.26.8 ± 0.2cc 0.01 ± 0.020.01 ± 0.02aa 0.15 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.02aa 0.01 ± 0.000.01 ± 0.00aa 1.26 ± 0.021.26 ± 0.02bb 26.94 ± 0.0126.94 ± 0.01ee
BD CompostBD Compost 7.3 ± 0.17.3 ± 0.1cc 0.03 ± 0.010.03 ± 0.01aa 0.5 ± 0.010.5 ± 0.01bb 0.04 ± 0.010.04 ± 0.01aa 0.74 ± 0.010.74 ± 0.01bb 27.46 ± 0.0027.46 ± 0.00ee
CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 8.0 ± 0.18.0 ± 0.1dd 0.11 ± 0.040.11 ± 0.04abab 2.09 ± 0.012.09 ± 0.01aa 6.86 ±6.86 ± 0.00 0.00dd 4.69 ± 0.004.69 ± 0.00dd 16.44 ± 0 0016.44 ± 0 00bb
VermicompostVermicompost**
6.6 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.1cc 0.04 ± 0.010.04 ± 0.01aa 2.13 ± 0.042.13 ± 0.04cc 2.03 ± 0.002.03 ± 0.00cc 2.28 ± 0.022.28 ± 0.02cc 27.37 ± 0.0027.37 ± 0.00ee
NADEP*NADEP* 3.7 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.2aa 0.05 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.01aa 1.39 ± 0.001.39 ± 0.00bb 0.95 ± 0.000.95 ± 0.00dd 2.55 ± 0.022.55 ± 0.02cc 30.37 ± 0.0030.37 ± 0.00ff
Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 3.7 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.2aa 0.40 ± 0.020.40 ± 0.02abab 1.29 ± 0.001.29 ± 0.00bb 0.77 ± 0.010.77 ± 0.01bb 2.24 ± 0.012.24 ± 0.01cc 17.47 ±17.47 ± 0.01 0.01bb
Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level. * Organic
ManuresManures AuxinAuxin(µg/g)(µg/g)
CytokininCytokinin(µg/g)(µg/g)
Abscisic acidAbscisic acid (µg/g)(µg/g)
GAGA33
(µg/g)(µg/g)
BD 500BD 500 21.7 ± 0.4521.7 ± 0.45aa 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01bb ----
BD 502BD 502 9.7 ± 0.459.7 ± 0.45bb 7.0 ± 0.017.0 ± 0.01aa ----
BD 503BD 503 7.9 ± 0.017.9 ± 0.01bb 3.9 ± 0.013.9 ± 0.01bb ----
BD 504BD 504 8.4 ± 0.018.4 ± 0.01bb 5.7 ± 0.85.7 ± 0.8aa 18.7 ± 0.818.7 ± 0.8aa
--
BD 505BD 505 9.0 ± 0.019.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb 18.8 ± 0.818.8 ± 0.8aa
--
BD 506BD 506 3.3 ± 0.323.3 ± 0.32bb 5.7 ± 0.045.7 ± 0.04bb 18.7 ± 0.0418.7 ± 0.04aa
--BD 507 (2 ml)BD 507 (2 ml) 6.5 ± 0.186.5 ± 0.18bb 6.0 ± 0.186.0 ± 0.18aa -- --
BD CompostBD Compost 6.3 ± 0.86.3 ± 0.8bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb ----
CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 28.7 ± 0.0428.7 ± 0.04aa 7.7 ± 0.87.7 ± 0.8aa -- 23.7 ± 0.0423.7 ± 0.04aa
Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 8.5 ± 0.248.5 ± 0.24bb 5.7 ± 0.015.7 ± 0.01bb -- --
NADEP*NADEP* 21.7 ± 0.0421.7 ± 0.04aa 5.5 ± 0.85.5 ± 0.8bb -- --
Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 10.5 ± 0.0410.5 ± 0.04bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb -- --
Quantification of Plant Growth Regulators of different organic and biodynamic manures
Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level.
Note: - undetectable * Organic
ManuresManures CFU of CFU of bacteria x10bacteria x1066
AzotobacterAzotobacterx10x1066
AzospirillumAzospirillumx10x1066
CFU ofCFU offungifungix10x1066
RhizobiumRhizobium x10x1066
BD 500BD 500 4.1 ± 0.084.1 ± 0.08aa 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02cc 0.2 ±0.000.2 ±0.00bb 0.9 ±0.020.9 ±0.02aa
3.1 ±0.013.1 ±0.01aa
BD 502BD 502 1.4 ± 0.081.4 ± 0.08abab 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02cc 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb
1.3 ± 0.121.3 ± 0.12bb
BD 503BD 503 3.9 ± 0.013.9 ± 0.01aa 1.3± 0.041.3± 0.04bb 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.8 ± 0.000.8 ± 0.00abab
2.1 ± 0.082.1 ± 0.08bb
BD 504BD 504 3.6 ± 0.083.6 ± 0.08aa 0.6 ± 0.080.6 ± 0.08cc -- 0.2 ± 0.000.2 ± 0.00bb
2.9 ± 0.052.9 ± 0.05aa
BD 505BD 505 0.8 ± 0.050.8 ± 0.05bb 1.4 ± 0.021.4 ± 0.02bb 0.3 ± 0.080.3 ± 0.08bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb
0.8 ± 0.020.8 ± 0.02bb
BD 506BD 506 3.8 ± 0.023.8 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb -- 0.6 ± 0.020.6 ± 0.02bb
2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01aa
BD 507BD 507 3.3 ± 0.183.3 ± 0.18aa 0.4 ± 0.020.4 ± 0.02cc 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02bb
1.1 ± 0.021.1 ± 0.02bb
BD CompostBD Compost 2.8 ± 0.022.8 ± 0.02bb 2.5 ± 0.082.5 ± 0.08aa 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.6 ± 0.000.6 ± 0.00bb
3.1 ± 0.023.1 ± 0.02aa
CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 4.9 ± 0.024.9 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb 0.2 ± 0.000.2 ± 0.00bb 1.2 ± 0.021.2 ± 0.02aa
2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01bb
Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 2.9 ± 0.022.9 ± 0.02bb 2.7 ± 0.082.7 ± 0.08aa 0.9 ± 0.000.9 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02bb
1.6 ± 0.011.6 ± 0.01bb
NADEP*NADEP* 3.5 ± 0.183.5 ± 0.18aa 0.6 ± 0.040.6 ± 0.04bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb 0.5 ± 0.020.5 ± 0.02bb
1.9 ± 0.011.9 ± 0.01aa
Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 3.9 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb 0.2 ± 0.020.2 ± 0.02bb 0.5 ± 0.000.5 ± 0.00bb
2.1 ± 0.022.1 ± 0.02aa
Occurrence and distribution of microbes in different organic and biodynamic manures
Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level. Note: - undetectable * Organic
ab
a b
cd
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of biodynamic manures
05
101520253035
CPPremuni
Leavesmold
Peatmoss
Remuni C Old cocopeat
NPK
, OC
(%) /
man
ure
Nitrogen Phosporus Potasium Organic carbon
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CPPremuni
Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old cocopeat
Hum
ic a
cid
(mg/
g) m
anur
e
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
CPP remuniLeaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old cocopeat
CF
U b
acte
ria
(106
/g)m
anur
e
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
CF
U fu
ngi 1
03/g
man
ure
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum Rhizobium
Total CFU fungi
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
CPP remuni Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old coco peat
PGR
s (µg
/g)m
anur
e
Auxin Cytokinin
Total protein content of different organic and biodynamic manures
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
a b c d e f g h i j k l
Different organic and biodynamic manures
pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µg
/g)d
ry w
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
a b c d e f g h i j k l
Different manures
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re d
ry
wt
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/g)
Protein Subtilin
Total protein and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in different organic and biodynamic manure
(a) BD 500(b) BD 502(c) BD 503(d) BD 504
(e) BD 505(f) BD 506(g) BD 507(h) BD compost (i) CPP
(j) Vermicomp(k) NADE
(l) Panchakavya
I II III IV
V VI VII VIII
IX X XI XII
I. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 500II. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 502III. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 503IV. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 504V. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 505VI. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 506VII. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 507VIII. Circular paper chromatogram image of biodynamic compostIX. Circular paper chromatogram image of CPP (Cow Pat Pit) X. Circular paper chromatogram image of vermi compostXI. Circular paper chromatogram image of NADEPXII. Circular paper chromatogram image of panchakavya
Circular paper chromatogram image analyses of different organic and biodynamic manures
1. Stuff cow Horn with cow dung
2 Place the cow horns in the pit 3 Cow horn with fresh cow dung and BD 500 harvested after 120 days of incubation
4 Staffing the mud horn with cow dung5 Mud horn alternatives for cow horns6 Placing the cow dung filled mud horns in pit
1
2
3
4
5
6
Preparation of BD 500
Cow horn
Total Nitrogen
(%)
Protein (%)
Major Amino acids (%)
Raw 14 87.5 -
Steamed 13.5 84.5 -
Hydrolyzed
12 75 Cysteine 1,Lysine 2.35
Methionine 0.47
Chemical analysis of Cow horn
BD500 MCRC
DaysTotal bacteria*
Fungi*
Rhizobium*
Azospirillum*
Azotobacter*
Actinomycetes*
0 7.2 5.5 2.1 1.9 2.7 6.315 17.7 7.8 4.5 3.8 3.5 7.730 21.1 9.7 5.9 5.7 4.6 9.545 29.9 10.5 7.3 6.3 6.9 10.660 32.2 11.6 10.3 9.5 7.2 12.275 38.8 13.3 12.7 10.6 8.4 13.490 42.2 16.1 15.4 12.4 10.3 16.3
105 39.9 12.4 10.2 9.1 8.7 15.1120 36.6 8.7 7.9 7.8 7.6 13.8
* = X 106
Availability of Cow horns?Why cow horns alone for BD
Preparations?
a b
c d
(a), (b), (c) and (d) covered with gunny bag
CPPM MANURE PREPARATION
Four different biodynamic manure combinations of equal proportion ratio viz., BDM I) - CPP + BD 500 BDM II) - CPP + Herbals prepBDM III) - BD 500 + Herbals prep BDM IV) - Herbals
Five 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 herbals
II) CPPM II - cow dung alone III) CPPM III - cow dung + egg shell + bore well soil IV) CPPM IV - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + bore well soilV) CPPM V - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + egg shell
Cow Pat Pit Manure samples were prepared by including all the components (control) and kept in different containers viz.,
i) Mud pot ii) Plastic bath tub iii) Cement pot
Effect containers on Preparation of CPPM manure
Effect Of CPPM Manure Preparation at Different localities
Different physicochemical parameters viz., pH Electrical conductivity (EC) Muthuvel and Udayasoorian (1999) Moisture content TemperatureBrick’s value Available 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., 1947 Circular paper chromatogram image analysis (Pfeiffer, 1984)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
ma
nu
re
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
acid
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
05
1015202530354045
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06 /g
) m
an
ure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3 /g)
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/g
)
ma
nu
re
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs (
µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µ/g
) m
an
ure
dry
wt
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM I manure
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM II manure
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (%
) m
an
ure
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
acid
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs (
µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06/g
) m
an
ure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3/g
) m
an
ure
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
0
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
ma
nu
re
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
( Days)
Hu
mic
acid
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06 /g
) m
an
ure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3 /g )
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter
Azospirillum Rhizobium
Total CFU fungi
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µ
g/g
) m
an
ure
dry
wt
0
0.02
0.04
0.060.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM III manure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
ma
nu
re
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
aci
d (
mg
/g)
ma
nu
re
0
510
1520
2530
3540
45
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06 /g
) m
an
ure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
03 /g
) m
an
ure
Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter
Azospirillum Rhizobium
Total CFU fungi
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n (
mg
/g)
ma
nu
re
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
dry
wt
0
5
10
15
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM IV manure
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
ma
nu
re
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
0
5
10
15
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06/g
) m
an
ure
0
0.20.4
0.6
0.8
11.2
1.4
1.6
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3/g
) m
an
ure
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
0
50
100
150
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Prote
in c
on
ten
t (µ
g/g
) m
an
ure d
ry w
t
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n (
mg/g
) m
an
ure
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
aci
d (
mg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM V manure
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K, O
C (
%)
man
ure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Organic carbon
05
101520253035
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs (
µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.2
0.4
0.60.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06 /g
)
ma
nu
re
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3 /g)
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Prote
in c
on
ten
t (µ
g/g
) m
an
ure d
ry
wt
01234
5678
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
pH
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
010
2030
405060
7080
90100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
aci
d (
mg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of mud pot CPPM manure
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K,
OC
(%
) m
an
ure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Organic carbon
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
aci
d
(mg
/g)
man
ure
05
1015202530
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs (
µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06/g
)
ma
nu
re
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
CF
U f
un
gi
10
3/g
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
020406080
100120140160180200
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Pro
tein
co
nen
t (µ
g/g
) m
an
ure
dry
wt
6.36.46.56.66.76.86.9
77.17.27.37.4
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
pH
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/g
) m
an
ure
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of plastic bath tub CPPM manure
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K, O
C (
%)
ma
nu
re
Nitrogen Phosprous Potassium Organic carbon
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hu
mic
aci
d (
mg/g
) m
an
ure
05
1015202530
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(1
06/g
) m
an
ure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
CF
U f
un
gi
10
3/g
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(µg
/g)
ma
nu
re d
ry w
t
6.86.856.9
6.957
7.057.1
7.157.2
7.257.3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
pH
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n (
mg/g
) m
an
ure
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of cement pot CPPM manure
a
hgfe
i j k l
b c d
Circular paper chromatogram image of CPPM manure samples prepared in three different containers
(a) 0th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (g) 30th day CPPM (cement tub) (b) 15th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (h) 45th day CPPM (cement tub) (c) 30th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (i) 0th day CPPM (Mud tub) (d) 45th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (j) 15th day CPPM (Mud tub) (e) 0th day CPPM (cement tub) (k) 30th day CPPM (Mud tub) (f) 15th day CPPM (cement tub) (l) 45th day CPPM (Mud tub)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
man
ure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hum
ic a
cid
(mg/
g) m
anur
e
05
1015202530354045
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg/
g) m
anur
e
Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
acte
ria
(106
/g)
man
ure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
CF
U fu
ngi (
103/g
)
man
ure
Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter
Azospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%) m
anur
e
5.65.8
66.26.46.66.8
77.27.47.6
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
pH
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Subt
ilin
prod
uctio
n (m
g/g)
m
anur
e
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Prot
ein co
nten
t (µg
/g) m
anur
e dr
y w
t
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
NP
K (
%)
man
ure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Hum
ic a
cid
(mg/
g) m
anur
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
PG
Rs
(µg/
g) m
anu
re
IAA Kinetin ABA GA3
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
CF
U b
act
eriu
m (
10
6/g
) m
an
ure
00.2
0.40.6
0.81
1.21.4
1.61.8
CF
U f
un
gi
(10
3/g
)
ma
nu
re
Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter
Azospirillum Rhizobium
Total CFU fungi
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
OC
(%) m
anur
e
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Prot
ein
cont
ent (
µg/g
) man
ure
dry
wt
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
pH
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
(Days)
Subt
ilin
prod
uctio
n (m
g/g)
m
anur
e
Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi)
0th
90th
45th 30th 15th
75th 60th
Circular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collected at MCRC
0th 15th 30th 45th
60th 75th 90th 105th
120th Circular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collected at Vadakadampadi
Physicochemical parameters of three different commercial biodynamic manures
ManuresManures pHpH EC EC (%)(%)
Moisture Moisture content content
(%)(%)
Brick’s Brick’s valuevalue(%)(%)
OC OC (%)(%) N (%)N (%) PP
(%)(%)KK
(%)(%)
Humic acidHumic acid(mg/g) of (mg/g) of manuremanure
BD 500 ABD 500 A 8.178.17 0.160.16 20.020.0 3.83.8 15.1415.14 0.0460.046 3. 683. 68 3.443.44 54.254.2
BD 500BD 500BB
7.447.44 0.320.32 44.444.4 3.43.4 16.4016.40 0.0920.092 6. 846. 84 4.684.68 74.174.1
CPPCPP 8.468.46 0.180.18 25.025.0 2.92.9 19.1019.10 0.0980.098 8. 958. 95 5.145.14 87.087.0
Values are mean of three replicates
Occurrence and distribution of microbes in three different commercial biodynamic manures
ManuresManuresCFU of CFU of
bacterium bacterium x10x1066
AzotobacterAzotobacter x10x1066
AzosprillumAzosprillum x10x1066
Rhizobium Rhizobium x10x1066
CFU of fungi CFU of fungi x10x1033
BD 500 ABD 500 A 0.60.6 0.20.2 0.40.4 0.30.3 0.10.1
BD 500 BBD 500 B 0.30.3 1.11.1 0.90.9 0.50.5 0.20.2
CPPCPP 1.71.7 1.01.0 1.01.0 0.80.8 1.01.0
Values are mean of three replicates
Circular paper chromatogram images of BD 500 A manure sample
Circular paper chromatographic images of BD 500 B manure sample
Circular paper chromatogram images of CPP manure sample
Chromatographic analysis of three different commercial biodynamic manures
S.NoS.No ManuresManures Chromatogram zoneChromatogram zone ReportReport
i)i) BD 500 ABD 500 A Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]
RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Middle zone[AvailableMiddle zone[Available C,NC,N]]Width [cm]Width [cm]
RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Outer zoneOuter zone[Water soluble humus][Water soluble humus]
Width [cm]Width [cm]RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
2.52.50.350.35
Light yellowish brownLight yellowish brownRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward
2.92.90.410.41
Light greyLight greyRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward
4.74.70.670.67
Dark brownDark brownThick 56 radiating spikes projected outwardThick 56 radiating spikes projected outward
ii)ii) BD 500 BBD 500 B Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]
RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Middle zone[AvailableMiddle zone[Available C,N]C,N]Width [cm]Width [cm]
RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Outer zoneOuter zone[[Water soluble humusWater soluble humus]]
Width [cm]Width [cm]RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
2.12.10.30.3
Light brownLight brownRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward
2.82.80.40.4
Light greyLight greyRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward
4.84.80.680.68
Thick brownThick brown60 radiating dark spikes projected outward60 radiating dark spikes projected outward
iii)iii) CPPCPP Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]
RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Middle zone [AvailableMiddle zone [Available C, NC, N]]
Width [cm]Width [cm]RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
Outer zoneOuter zone[Water soluble humus][Water soluble humus]
Width [cm]Width [cm]RRff value value
ColourColourPatternPattern
2.52.50.350.35
Light yellowish brownLight yellowish brownradiating spikes projected outwardradiating spikes projected outward
3.03.00.420.42
Light greyLight greyradiating spikes projected outwardradiating spikes projected outward
4.94.90.70.7
Dark brownDark brownThick 57 radiating spikes projected Thick 57 radiating spikes projected
outwardoutward
S.NoS.No ManuresManures Chromatogram zoneChromatogram zone ReportReport
a
b
Efficacy of CPPR (CPP Remuni) Japan manure against Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus
Efficacy of CPPM manure against Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in different natural media
Five different natural media viz., i) CPPM extract ii) CPPM extract + 1% yeast extract iii) Partially extracted CPPM (CPPM was added with distilled water in a ratio of 1:1 w/v iv) Spent wash effluent of sugar cane industry (E.I.D parry)v) Vermicompost medium
GROWTH AND SUBTILIN PRODUCTION OF 12 DIFFERENT ISOLATES OF Bacillus subtilis IN DIFFERENT MEDIA
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation(h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BS1 Subtilin
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.69
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIV Subtilin
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.151.16
1.17
1.18
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0n
m
0.7
0.71
0.720.73
0.74
0.75
0.76
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSVII Subtilin
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIX Subtilin
1.11.12
1.141.161.18
1.21.22
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSXII Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in nutrient
broth medium
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.4
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSI Subtilin
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
00.05
0.10.150.2
0.250.3
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSII Subtilin
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.230.240.250.260.270.280.290.3
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIV Subtilin
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation(h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSVII Subtilin
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSVIII Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM
extract medium
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/m
l)
BSII Subtilin
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIII Subtilin
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSVIII Subtilin
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.640.650.660.670.680.690.70.71
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSXI Subtilin
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (hrs)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
Su
bti
lin
yie
ld (
mg
/ml)
BSIV Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM +
1% yeast extract medium
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at 6
60 n
m
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Subt
ilin
pro
duct
ion
(mg/
ml)
BSII Subtilin
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSIII Subtilin
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1 S
ub
tili
n p
rod
uct
ion
(m
g/m
l)
BSIX Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in distillery extract medium
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSIII Subtilin
0.390.4
0.410.420.430.440.450.46
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0n
m
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSVII Subtilin
0.40.410.420.430.440.450.460.47
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25S
ub
tili
n p
rod
uct
ion
(mg
/ml)
BSIX Subtilin
0.410.420.430.440.450.460.470.48
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.21
0.22
0.230.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSXII Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in vermicompost extract medium
0.910.920.930.940.950.960.970.98
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIII Subtilin
0.880.89
0.90.910.920.930.940.950.96
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(m
g/m
l)BSIV Subtilin
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
a
t 6
60
nm
0.210.220.230.240.250.260.270.280.29
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSVII Subtilin
0.910.920.930.940.950.960.970.98
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
ctio
n
(mg
/ml)
BSVIII Subtilin
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Gro
wth
at
66
0 n
m
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
0.34
Su
bti
lin
pro
du
cti
on
(mg
/ml)
BSIX Subtilin
Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in partially CPPM
extract medium
0102030405060708090
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(ug
/ml)
BSI BSII BSIII BSIV BSV
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(ug
/ml)
BSVI BSVII BSVIII BSIX BSX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incubation (h)
Pro
tein
co
nte
nt
(ug
/ml)
BSXI BSXII
Extracellular protein content of 12 different isolates of Bacillus subtilis (BS I - BS XII)
Control
Staphylococcus aureus
Micrococcus luteus
Efficacy of Bacillus Subtilis (BS I) crude extract on test pathogens
Carbon sourcesCarbon sources OD at 660 nmOD at 660 nm Inhibition zone Inhibition zone (mm) diameter(mm) diameter
SorbitalSorbital 1.111.11 14.014.0
MannitolMannitol 1.041.04 12.012.0
GlucoseGlucose 1.071.07 15.015.0
MannoseMannose 1.091.09 15.015.0
FructoseFructose 0.870.87 18.018.0
SucroseSucrose 0.890.89 15.015.0
RiboseRibose 0.850.85 16.016.0
RaffinoseRaffinose 0.860.86 18.018.0
GalactoseGalactose 1.281.28 26.026.0
InositolInositol 0.760.76 17.017.0
LactoseLactose 0.960.96 17.017.0
MaltoseMaltose 0.850.85 12.012.0
XyloseXylose 0.980.98 18.018.0
GlycerolGlycerol 0.830.83 17.017.0
StarchStarch 0.870.87 14.014.0
Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different carbon sources
Values are mean of three replicates
Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different N2 sources
Nitrogen sourcesNitrogen sources OD at 660 OD at 660 nmnm
Inhibition Inhibition zone (mm) zone (mm) diameterdiameter
Potassium nitratePotassium nitrate 1.081.08 9.09.0
Ammonium phosphateAmmonium phosphate 1.051.05 12.012.0
Sodium nitrateSodium nitrate 1.071.07 17.017.0
Ammonium sulphateAmmonium sulphate 1.031.03 14.014.0
Ammonium nitrateAmmonium nitrate 1.071.07 15.015.0
PeptonePeptone 1.211.21 31.031.0
L- CysteinL- Cystein 0.980.98 24.024.0
L- ThreonineL- Threonine 0.970.97 14.014.0
L- AlanineL- Alanine 1.051.05 12.012.0
L- LeucinL- Leucin 0.950.95 13.013.0
L- phenylalanineL- phenylalanine 0.850.85 17.017.0
L- AsparagineL- Asparagine 0.940.94 15.015.0
L- ProlineL- Proline 0.970.97 15.015.0
Values are mean of three replicates
Efficacy of different solvent systems for the extract of antimicrobial substance from Bacillus subtilis BS I
Solvents Solvents
Zone of inhibition (mm diameter)Zone of inhibition (mm diameter)
Staphylococcus Staphylococcus aureusaureus
Micrococcus Micrococcus luteusluteus
E. coliE. coli
Chloroform - isopropanolChloroform - isopropanol 14.0 ± 0.0214.0 ± 0.02aa 11.0 ± 0.0211.0 ± 0.02aa 9.0 ± 0.019.0 ± 0.01aa
Chloroform - methanolChloroform - methanol 17.0 ± 0.0417.0 ± 0.04aa 13.0 ± 0.0313.0 ± 0.03aa 9.0 ± 0.039.0 ± 0.03aa
HexaneHexane 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02 c c 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc 2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01cc
EtherEther 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.034.0 ± 0.03cc 3.0 ± 0.023.0 ± 0.02cc
ChloroformChloroform 6.0 ± 0.026.0 ± 0.02bb 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc
IsopropanolIsopropanol 7.0 ± 0.037.0 ± 0.03bb 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02bb 5.0 ± 0.025.0 ± 0.02bb
MethanolMethanol 10.0 ± 0.0210.0 ± 0.02bb 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02bb
Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level.
Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I extract on different plant pathogens
(A). F. oxysporum (B). R. Solani (C). M. grisea (D). R. Solanacearum (E). X. oryzae
Fusarium oxysporum on Potato Dextrose Agar at 48 h
A B C D E
Efficacy of organic and biodynamic manures on Allium cepa L. bulbs Hydroponic study
A total of 12 organic and biodynamic manures: vermicompost, NADEP compost, panchakavya (ingredients of cow dung, urine, milk, curd and ghee) and Biodynamic (BD) compost and cow pat pit (CPP), cow horn manure (BD 500) and biodynamic herbal preparations viz, (BD 502 – BD 507) were used in the present study
Onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) samples
The biometric parameters like shoot length, number of sheath, root length and number of rootlets were recorded. In addition the root samples were subjected for cross sections and studied.
Efficacy of different biodynamic manures and Bacillus subtilis BS I culture filtrate on selected Plants under laboratory and field trial
3. Soil drench method
15 days old tomato seedlings were transplanted to the experimental pots contained the micro conidia of 3 x 105/mL of Fusaruium oxysporum and inoculated 10 mL of Bacillus subtilis BS I of 6 x 106 CFU/mL, Ca. 5 cm away from the stem.
Diseased plants (pathogens only) with out treatment and healthy plants (control) were served as control.
The above experiments were conducted for a period of 50 days after transplantation and the following parameters were recorded.
In addition the length of shoot, root, fresh and dry weight of shoot and root were also recorded at the end of experiment.
Field trial study
Healthy seeds of bhindi (Arka Anamika variety) obtained from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Each plot covered an area of 6 m × 2.5 m.
Six different experiments were performed for a period of 120 days.
A total of eighteen plots were made. Each plot had four ridges and furrows.
Forty plants were grown in each plot at an interval of 30 x 30 cm.
Initially in each spot 2 seeds were sown and at the end of 7th day one healthy seedling was maintained.
At every 15 days interval different parameters like, height of plant, number of branches, number of flowers and number of vegetables and weight were recorded.
A total of 29 pickings were made during the first month to fourth month of experimental periods.
The yield of bhindi was recorded every month
Field experimental details/plot
T1. Control - without organic/inorganic fertilizerT2. Recommended dose of fertilizers - 10 kg Farmyard Manure (FYM) applied only on initial day and 264 gm Urea + 97.5 gm single super phosphate (SSP) + 153 gm Murite of potash (MOP) applied on 0th and 60th day.T3. Farmyard Manure (FYM) - 10 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T4. Vermicompost - 3 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T5. Cow pat pit (CPP) of 10 g applied on 0th and 60th day. T6. FYM + Vermicompost + cow pat pit of 10 kg, 3 kg and 10 g respectively applied on 0th and 60th day
Field trial
18 m
TT66 TT33 TT55
TT55 TT22 TT66
TT44 TT11 TT44
TT33 TT44 TT11
TT22 TT55 TT33
TT11 TT66 TT22
15 m
R1 R2 R3
j
T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of chemicalfertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM
Field trial on bhindi applied with differaent organic and biodynamic manures
(a) Root and Sheath growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 503 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 507 (f) Cross section of onion root treated under water without manures (control)
Epiblema Parenchymatous cell
Pericycle
Metaxylem
Protoxylem
Phloema b
c
e f
Endodermis
29 µm
50.2 µm52.7 µm
57.5 µm
d
48.5 µm
Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures
Biometric parameters of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures
TreatmentTreatment
Root (30Root (30thth day) day) Sheath (30Sheath (30thth Day) Day)
Number of Number of fibrous roots fibrous roots
(Nos)(Nos)
Length of fibrous Length of fibrous roots Average 3 roots Average 3
times (cm)times (cm)
Number of Number of Sheath (Nos)Sheath (Nos)
Length of Sheath Length of Sheath (cm)(cm)
BD 500BD 500 44.0 ± 0.1844.0 ± 0.18ee 8.3 ± 0.018.3 ± 0.01ee 6.3 ± 0.086.3 ± 0.08cc 16.6 ± 0.1216.6 ± 0.12dd
BD 502BD 502 24.0 ± 0.0124.0 ± 0.01dd 6.6 ± 0.046.6 ± 0.04bb 3.5 ± 0.53.5 ± 0.5abab 7.6 ± 0.457.6 ± 0.45cc
BD 503BD 503 25.0 ± 0.18 25.0 ± 0.18 dd 6.7 ± 0.186.7 ± 0.18bb -- --
BD 504BD 504 27.0 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.01dd 6.8 ± 0.026.8 ± 0.02bb 4.1 ± 0.184.1 ± 0.18bb 6.4 ± 0.186.4 ± 0.18bb
BD 505BD 505 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00aa 6.6 ± 0.806.6 ± 0.80bb -- --
BD 506BD 506 25.0 ± 0.825.0 ± 0.8dd 2.5 ± 0.802.5 ± 0.80aa -- --
BD 507BD 507 27.0 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.01dd 7.4 ± 0.047.4 ± 0.04bcbc -- --
BD compostBD compost 1.0 ± 0.001.0 ± 0.00aa 6.5 ± 0.326.5 ± 0.32bb -- --
CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 31.0 ± 0.0031.0 ± 0.00dd 7.4 ± 0.047.4 ± 0.04bcbc 23.0 ± 0.0023.0 ± 0.00dd 18.6 ± 0.2018.6 ± 0.20dd
Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 28.0 ± 0.0128.0 ± 0.01dd 7.7 ± 0.807.7 ± 0.80bcbc -- --
NADEP*NADEP* 38.0 ± 0.0138.0 ± 0.01ee 7.7 ± 0.807.7 ± 0.80bcbc -- --
Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 14.0 ± 0.0014.0 ± 0.00cc 10.6 ± 0.8010.6 ± 0.80dd 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00aa 3.7 ± 0.123.7 ± 0.12aa
Control - WaterControl - Water 8.0 ± 0.848.0 ± 0.84bb 4.5 ± 0.184.5 ± 0.18abab -- --
(a) Cumulative of organic manures on growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old)
(b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + BD 500 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + (502 - 507) (f) Cross section of onion root treated under BD500 + (502 - 507)
29 µm
a b
d
f
Phloem Metaxylem
Protoxylem
Pericycle Endodermis
Parenchymatous cell Epiblema
52.2 µm
52.2 µm
c
57.5 µm
e
53.4 µm
Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with different biodynamic manures
Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures
(a) Cross section of onion root treated under BD (502 - 507) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under water (control)
a
b
52.2 µm
50.2 µm
Effect of different combinations of biodynamic manures of A. cepa L.
TreatmentTreatment
RootRoot(30(30thth day) day)
SheathSheath(30(30thth Day) Day)
Average Average number of number of roots (Nos)roots (Nos)
Average root Average root length (cm) in length (cm) in
3 times3 times
Number of Number of root lets root lets
(Nos)(Nos)
Number of Number of sheaths (Nos)sheaths (Nos)
Average Average sheath length sheath length
(cm) in 3 (cm) in 3 timestimes
CPP + BD 500CPP + BD 500 15.5 ± 0.515.5 ± 0.5bb 4.72 ± 0.124.72 ± 0.12aa 38.0 ± 0.0238.0 ± 0.02 bc bc -- --
CPP + BD CPP + BD (502 - 507)(502 - 507) 33.3 ± 0.533.3 ± 0.5aa 3.72 ± 0.023.72 ± 0.02aa 36.0 ± 0.0236.0 ± 0.02bb 8.6 ± 0.58.6 ± 0.5aa 4.82 ± 0.324.82 ± 0.32aa
BD 500 + BD BD 500 + BD (502 - 507)(502 - 507) 16.0 ± 0.0216.0 ± 0.02bb 5.34 ± 0.045.34 ± 0.04aa 41.0± 0.0441.0± 0.04dd -- --
BD (502 - 507)BD (502 - 507) 18.0 ± 0.0018.0 ± 0.00 bc bc 5.78 ± 0.085.78 ± 0.08aa 39.0 ± 0.0239.0 ± 0.02cc -- --
CPP + CPP + panchakavya*panchakavya* 15.7 ± 0.0215.7 ± 0.02bb 5.29 ± 0.025.29 ± 0.02bb 35.0 ± 0.0235.0 ± 0.02bb -- --
ControlControl 25.5 ± 0.525.5 ± 0.5cc 12.6 ± 0.0612.6 ± 0.06bb 19.0 ± 0.0219.0 ± 0.02aa 2.3 ± 0.52.3 ± 0.5bb 3.68 ± 0.183.68 ± 0.18aa
Effect of CPPM manure on Allium cepa L.
a
g
fe
c d
b
(a), (b) Manure amended soil 0th day(c), (d) 5th day(e), (f) 15th day(g) 30th day
Effect of CPPM manures an garden soil on Allium cepa L.
TreatmentTreatment
Root (30 Root (30 thth day) day) Sheath (30 Sheath (30 thth Day)Day)
Number Number fibrous of fibrous of
roots (Nos)roots (Nos)
Length of Length of fibrous roots fibrous roots
Average 3 times Average 3 times (cm)(cm)
Number of Number of Sheath (Nos)Sheath (Nos)
Length of Length of Sheath (cm)Sheath (cm)
BD 500BD 500 6.0 ± 0.116.0 ± 0.11abab 15.0 ± 0.0015.0 ± 0.00bb -- --
BD 500 + BD BD 500 + BD 502-507502-507 15.0 ± 0.0215.0 ± 0.02bb 21.0± 0.0221.0± 0.02aa 4.0 ± 0.054.0 ± 0.05bb 6.0 ±0.056.0 ±0.05bb
BD 500 +BD 500 +CPPCPP 19.0 ± 0.12 19.0 ± 0.12 aa 23.0 ± 0.1123.0 ± 0.11aa 3.0± 0.023.0± 0.02bb 2.0± 0.022.0± 0.02bb
CPPCPP 14.0 ± 0.0014.0 ± 0.00bb 20.0 ± 0.0120.0 ± 0.01aa 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01bb 4 .0± 0.034 .0± 0.03bb
CPP +CPP +BD 502-507BD 502-507 24.0± 0.0124.0± 0.01aa 24.0 ± 0.0424.0 ± 0.04aa 20.0± 0.0220.0± 0.02aa 26.0± 0.0226.0± 0.02aa
BD (502-507)BD (502-507) 9.0 ± 0.009.0 ± 0.00abab 14.0 ± 0.0214.0 ± 0.02bb 18.0± 0.0218.0± 0.02aa 24.0± 0.0224.0± 0.02aa
SoilSoil(Control)(Control) 4.0± 0.034.0± 0.03abab 11.0 ± 0.0111.0 ± 0.01bb 5.0± 0.025.0± 0.02bb 12.0± 0.0212.0± 0.02bb
e
(a) Treated with BD 500, (b) Treated with BD 500+ BD (502- 507), (c) Treated with BD 500+ CPP, (d) Treated with CPP, (e) Treated with CPP+ BD (502-507), (f) Treated with BD (502 - 507), (g) Treated with soil control
g
a cb
d f
29 µm 29.5 µm 17.4 µm
29.0 µm 39.8 µm 17.4 µm
37.4 µm
e
Cross section of fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures amended soil
a b c d
(a) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of green gram(b) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of cowpea(c) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of black gram(e) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of soybean
Efficacy of CPPM on test certain plants on 20th day
Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30th Day)
PlantsPlants
Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30 thth Day) Day)
Sheath (average)Sheath (average) Root (average)Root (average)
Number of Number of sheath (Nos)sheath (Nos)
Length of Length of sheath sheath
(cm)(cm)
Number of Number of roots roots (Nos)(Nos)
Length of Length of roots roots (cm)(cm)
Number of Number of rootlets rootlets (Nos)(Nos)
BhindiBhindi 7.0 ± 0.067.0 ± 0.06abab 20.5 ± 0.0620.5 ± 0.06aa 35.0 ± 0.0035.0 ± 0.00aa 12.5 ± 0.0012.5 ± 0.00aa 19.0 ± 0.0619.0 ± 0.06abab
Black gramBlack gram 7.0 ± 0.057.0 ± 0.05abab 7.9 ± 0.067.9 ± 0.06bb 34.0 ± 0.0434.0 ± 0.04aa 8.5 ± 0.018.5 ± 0.01abab 27.0 ± 0.0027.0 ± 0.00aa
Cow peaCow pea 8.0 ± 0.018.0 ± 0.01abab 19.3 ± 0.0019.3 ± 0.00aa 39.0 ± 0.0039.0 ± 0.00aa 11.0 ± 0.0011.0 ± 0.00aa 40.0 ± 0.0540.0 ± 0.05aa
GreenGreen 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00bb 5.2 ± 0.015.2 ± 0.01bb 7.0 ± 0.037.0 ± 0.03bb 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 9.0 ± 0.009.0 ± 0.00bb
Green gramGreen gram 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 20.7 ± 0.0020.7 ± 0.00aa 50.0 ± 0.0050.0 ± 0.00aa 11.7 ± 0.0011.7 ± 0.00aa 39.0 ± 0.0439.0 ± 0.04aa
LablabLablab 7.0 ± 0.007.0 ± 0.00abab 14.5 ± 0.0414.5 ± 0.04aa 32.0 ± 0.0632.0 ± 0.06aa 9.5 ± 0.069.5 ± 0.06abab 16.0 ± 0.0416.0 ± 0.04abab
MaizeMaize 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 8.1 ± 0.008.1 ± 0.00bb 19.0 ± 0.0019.0 ± 0.00abab 9.8 ± 0.009.8 ± 0.00abab 27.0 ± 0.0327.0 ± 0.03aa
SoybeanSoybean 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 11.8 ± 0.0411.8 ± 0.04bb 38.0 ± 0.0238.0 ± 0.02aa 11.6 ± 0.0511.6 ± 0.05aa 45.0 ± 0.0745.0 ± 0.07aa
Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level.
TreatmentTreatmentShoot length Shoot length
(cm)(cm)Root length Root length
(cm)(cm)Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)
Fresh wt of Fresh wt of root (g)root (g)
Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of shoot (g)(g)
Dry wt of Dry wt of root (g)root (g)
Seed Seed treatmenttreatment
54.87±0.0254.87±0.02 a a 24.31±0.0524.31±0.05 a a 385.67±0.08385.67±0.08 a a 19.56±0.0319.56±0.03 a a 98.46±0.0498.46±0.04 a a 18.34±0.0818.34±0.08 a a
ControlControl 46.74±0.0446.74±0.04 ab ab 19.38±0.0319.38±0.03 b b 278.95±0.04278.95±0.04 ab ab 19.43±0.0719.43±0.07 b b 86.43±0.0386.43±0.03 ab ab 16.49±0.0216.49±0.02 b b
Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on seed treatment of tomato
TreatmentTreatmentShoot length Shoot length
(cm)(cm)Root length Root length
(cm)(cm)
Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)
Fresh wt of Fresh wt of root (g)root (g)
Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of shoot (g)(g)
Dry wt of Dry wt of root (g)root (g)
Root dipRoot dip56.98±0.0856.98±0.08 a a 21.48±0.0721.48±0.07 a a 412.75±0.08412.75±0.08 a a 22.75±0.0622.75±0.06 a a 115.85±0.05115.85±0.05 a a 20.65±0.0420.65±0.04 a a
ControlControl46.74±0.0446.74±0.04bb 19.38±0.0519.38±0.05 b b 278.95±0.02278.95±0.02 ab ab 19.43±0.0319.43±0.03 b b 86.43±0.0486.43±0.04 ab ab 16.49±0.0516.49±0.05 b b
Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on root treatment of tomato
TreatmentTreatmentShoot length Shoot length
(cm)(cm)Root length Root length
(cm)(cm) Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)
Fresh wt of Fresh wt of root (g)root (g)
Dry wt of Dry wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)
Dry wt of root Dry wt of root (g)(g)
Soil drenchSoil drench
63.76±0.0363.76±0.03 a a 27.45±0.0327.45±0.03 a a 512.64±0.04512.64±0.04 a a 28.54±0.0728.54±0.07 a a 123.93±0.05123.93±0.05 a a 23.65±0.0623.65±0.06 a a
ControlControl
46.74±0.0446.74±0.04 ab ab 19.38±0.0519.38±0.05 a a 278.95±0.01278.95±0.01 b b 19.43±0.0319.43±0.03 ab ab 86.43±0.0586.43±0.05 ab ab 16.49±0.0616.49±0.06 ab ab
Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on soil drench of tomato
02468
10121416
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 15th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 30th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
05
101520
2530
3540
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 45th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
02
468
1012
1416
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
0
10
20
30
40
50
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 60th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)0
5
10
15
20
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM
PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables
Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi
01020304050607080
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 75th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
01020304050607080
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 90th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
01020304050607080
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 105th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0
5
10
15
20
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
0
20
40
60
80
100
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment 120th
day
Pla
nt
len
gth
(cm
)
0246810121416
NB
, NF
, NV
(N
o)
PL NB NF NV
T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM
PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables
Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi
T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended Dose of Fertilizers (RDF), T3 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) T4 - Vermicompost T5 - Biodynamic Treatment (CPPM), T6 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) + Vermi compost + Biodynamic treatment (CPPM)
DaysDays Yield of bhindi (kg/plot)Yield of bhindi (kg/plot)
T1T1 T2T2 T3T3 T4T4 T5T5T6T6
0 - 450 - 45 (1 picking)(1 picking)
2.0±0.022.0±0.02bb 2.6±0.012.6±0.01 b b 3.0±0.023.0±0.02bb 3.4±0.023.4±0.02bb 4.0±0.034.0±0.03 b b
4.65±0.024.65±0.02 b b
46 - 75 46 - 75 (14 (14 pickings)pickings)
8.98±0.038.98±0.03 a a 10.94±0.0310.94±0.03 a a 9.34±0.039.34±0.03 a a 11.06±0.0211.06±0.02 a a 14.83±0.0214.83±0.02 a a
18.74±0.0218.74±0.02 a a
76 - 10576 - 105 (7 pickings)(7 pickings)
3.20±0.043.20±0.04bb 4.24±0.034.24±0.03 b b 3.84±0.013.84±0.01bb 4.10±0.014.10±0.01 b b 6.86±0.036.86±0.03bb
8.45±0.038.45±0.03bb
106 - 120106 - 120 (4 pickings)(4 pickings) 1.25±0.021.25±0.02 b b 2.34±0.012.34±0.01bb 1.83±0.021.83±0.02bb 2.13±0.022.13±0.02 b b 3.68±0.023.68±0.02 b b 5.39±0.015.39±0.01 b b
TotalTotal 15.43±0.0215.43±0.02 a a 20.12±0.0220.12±0.02 a a 18.01±0.0318.01±0.03 a a 20.69±0.0120.69±0.01 a a 29.37±0.0129.37±0.01 a a
37.23±0.0337.23±0.03 a a
Effect of different organic and biodynamic manures on the yield of vegetables of bhindi
Cost benefit analysis of CPP manure preparation (per pit)
Sl NoSl No MaterialsMaterials QuantityQuantity SourceSource Cost Cost (Rs)(Rs)
11 Fresh cow dungFresh cow dung 60 kg60 kg FarmerFarmer 100.00100.00
22 Rock phosphate (Bore Rock phosphate (Bore well)well)
100 g100 g Easily available Easily available 10.0010.00
33 Crushed eggshell powder Crushed eggshell powder (fine)(fine)
100 g100 g Easily availableEasily available 10.0010.00
44 BricksBricks 60 nos/ @3.0060 nos/ @3.00 Manufacture Manufacture industryindustry
180.00180.00
55 BD herbal preparation (BD BD herbal preparation (BD 502 – BD 507)502 – BD 507)
3 g each and 30 ml 3 g each and 30 ml BD 507BD 507
Kurinji farmKurinji farm 225.00225.00
66 Gunny bagGunny bag 22 Department storeDepartment store 30.0030.00
77 Labour charges per pit Labour charges per pit CPP making, CPP making, weekly maintenance weekly maintenance charges (15 minutes for 16 charges (15 minutes for 16 weeks, 4 h)weeks, 4 h)
4 h/pit4 h/pit--
----
100.00100.00
60.0060.00
Total expensesTotal expenses 715. 00715. 00
Yield and sale valueYield and sale value 25 - 30 kg Rs. 100/kg25 - 30 kg Rs. 100/kg 2500.002500.00
Profit in 120 days/plotProfit in 120 days/plot 1222.001222.00
SUMMARY
A total 30 organic and biodynamic manure samples were chosen and investigated for different physicochemical and Microbiological parameters.
Among them, the Cow Pat Pit remuni contained high amount of nutrients and microbial load when compared to the rest.
The CPP manure contained high level of auxin 28.7 µg/g and maximum number of 4.9 x 106 CFU/gram of bacteria and 1.2 x 106 CFU/gram of fungi.
The levels of nutrients in CPP manure sample were high than the rest of samples when subjected for circular paper chromatogram image analysis.
The parameters viz., brick’s values, electrical conductivity, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, humic acid, PGRs, microbial occurrence and distribution, subtilin production of the ten different CPP manures were increased up to 90th day and thereafter the values were decreased. The pH of samples varies during the study period.
The sample I contained maximum amount of 5.96% N, 5.9% of P 4.25% of K, 37.2 µg/g of auxin, 9.77 µg/g of cytokinin, 23.4 µg/g of GA3,
471.3 g/g of total protein and subtilin of 1.083 mg/g, as well as maximum number of 4.1 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria, 3.0 x 106 CFU/g of Azotobacter, 2.3 x 106 CFU/g of Azosprillum, when compared to the other samples.
The CPPM samples prepared in three different containers revealed that the manure sample collected from mud pot contained high amount of humic acid 87.9 mg/g, auxin 27.9 g/g, gibberlic acid 9.6 g/g and subtilin 0.165 mg/g.
The MCRC sample contained high amount of N of 8.23%, auxin 29.3 µg/g, subtilin of 0.289 mg/g and 2.3 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria on 90th day
The CPPM sample showed a predominant occurrence of Bacillus subtilis. A total of 12 isolates of Bacillus subtilis were isolated.
The isolates Bacillus subtilis BS I, BS II, BS IV, BS VII and BS VIII inoculated in five different media revealed that the organisms grown in the CPPM manure extract amended broth showed maximum growth and subtilin production.
Among them B. subtilis BS I contained 0.946 mg/ml of subtilin and protein 71.20 g/ml.
Based on the protein profile pattern of the isolates were segregated in to four groups. The group D comprised of a maximum of 8 different Bacillus subtilis isolates.
The culture filtrate of B. subtilis BS I obtained from the galactose amended medium showed high antifungal activity of inhibition zone of 26 mm diameter against Fusarium oxysporum causing wilt disease of tomato.
• BD Herbal preparations- Temperate regioin.
• Can we grow in tropical regions?
• Can we find alternative herbs?
Preparation of 502 - 507 made from medicinal herbs (Source: Biodynamic Association of India - BDAI, Bangalore/Kodaikanal)
(a) BD 502- Yarrow (Achillea millifolium) Bovine bladder Potassium (K) Sulphur (S) and trace elements
(b) BD 503- Chamomile (Matricuria chamomilla) bovine intestine Calcium (Ca) and Nitrogen (N)(c) BD 504- Stinging Nettle (Urtica parviflora) Iron (Fe) and Magnesium (Mg)(d) BD 505- Oak (Quercus glauca) Sheep skull Calcium (Ca)(e) BD 506- Dandelion (Taraxicum officinalis) Bovine intestine Silica (Si)(f) BD 507- Valerian (Valeriana officinalis) Phosphorous
a b
c d
e f
Studies on efficacy of biodynamic manure with locally available biomass
Literature collection
Identification of alternative herb for BD preparation
Analysis of BD preparation and commercially available, alternative preparation (periodical analysis- (BD502, BD504, BD505, BD506 and its alternative preparations) (BD503 and its alternative preparations,)
Preparation and comparative studies on BD and Non BD compost analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological
Preparation of BD Herbal preparation
BD500 manure using different vessels (Cow horn, Mud horn and mud pot vessel) and dung and analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological
Studies on effect of BD and alternative preparation on compost analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological
Field trial with BD and alternative compost, BD compost and BD500
Consolidation and statistical analysis of data
Design
Biodynamic manure analysis
APhysico chemical
properties B Biochemical studies C Microbial Studies1 Moisture content 1 Alkaline phosphatase 1 Total Bacteria
2 Temperature 2 Protease 2 Total fungi3 pH 3 Invertase 3 Rhizobium
4 EC 4 Cellulase 4 Azotobacter5 Nitrogen 5 Phenolic compound 5 Azospirillum 6 Phosphorus 6 Protein 6 Actinomycetes7 Potassium 7 Amino acids 7 VAM
8 Micronutrients 8 Fatty acids 8Phasphate solubiling microbes
9Organic carban and organic matter 9 Humic acids 9
Nitrate ruducing microbes
10 Organic fraction 10Plant growth regulators 10
Sulphur reducing microbes
Work doneBD 500 preparationHorn and Mud pot Were usedCow, goat, buffalo dung were usedBD 500 manure from David farms, Kurinji farms and Maharastra were analysis for comparation . The Kurinji farms BD500 shows more nutrients and microbial activityIdentified alternative herbal plant Biodynamic compostBD compost prepared with and with out BD preparation
S.No BD Herb Name Alternative herbs (Botanical and vernacular name)
1Yarrow Aerva lanata- Serupoolai -dried flower
2Chamomile Tridax procumbens - Vettukayapoondu -flower
3Stinging Nettle Tragia involucrata - Senthatti - dried whole plant present
4Oak bark Casuarina sps - Bark
5Dandelion Spherenthus indicus - kottakaranthai – flower
Physico chemical properties of Regular and alternative BD preparation
BD 502 alternative preparation
BD504 alternative BD505 alternative BD500
compost
Food quality (Lecture II)
• Biodynamic farm management practices reflect a desire to improve the healthiness of
produce, which is believed to occur through harnessing biological processes and
eliminating use of pesticides, herbicides, synthetic veterinary medicines and readily
soluble fertilizers (Kirchmann, 1994).
• The circular paper chromatographic analysis of soybean seeds grown from chemical
production system gave weaker patterns than those from organic and biodynamic;
this be inferred to be having lower protein organization and enzyme activity and thus
contributory or translated to poorer storability of seeds that went under the same
treatment (Tung and Fernandez, 2008).
• Podolinsky (1990) reported that quality of product given biodynamics is superior
and with very high life forces.