Presentation by DR.Amitava Rakshit on building blocks for policy design to improve national...
-
Upload
bhuvaranasi -
Category
Environment
-
view
288 -
download
5
Transcript of Presentation by DR.Amitava Rakshit on building blocks for policy design to improve national...
Impact Assessment of Biopriming Interventions for
Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Agriculture
Amitava Rakshit TWAS Nxt Fellow
1 2
India is progressing
Are we going to grow green seedling from the pile of coins ?
Is there any real crisis???
India’s soil crisis: Land is weakening and withering
M Rajshekhar, ET Bureau Jul 12, 2011, 05.46am IST In his fields, Badhia Naval Singh, a farmer tilling 8 bighas of land in the Bagli tehsil in Madhya Pradesh, has been seeing something strange for a while now. Earlier, if he pulled out a tuft of grass, he would see earthworms . "Ab woh dikhna bandh ho gaye hain (they don't show up any longer)," says the 45-yearold .Also, he says, when he ploughed earlier, the soil would break into soft crumbs and fall along the long furrows the plough left behind. Now, the soil is harder and the plough uproots a succession of large clods — dheplas, in local parlance — from the earth. The changing nature of soils — for the worse — is a refrain with farmers in these parts, even across the country.Top of Form
Fixing the crisis in India's agricultural soils
ET Bureau May 18, 2012, 11.58AM ISTIs the government finally moving to address the burgeoning crisis in India's agricultural soils? On May 15, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar had told the Lok Sabha that due to excess use of fertilisers in Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, paddy cannot be grown any longer. He also said that so much urea is being used by farmers that it is affecting productivity. And that his ministry was planning to redirect India's fertiliser subsidy towards organic and balanced fertilisers.This is a welcome announcement. Last year, when scientists at Bhopal-based Indian Institute of Soil Sciences collated results from soil testing laboratories across the country, they found that nutrient-deficiencies were rife across India's farmlands. Large parts of the country are deficient in two or more critical nutrients. Areas like the Indo-Gangetic plains - Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar - which produce nearly 50 per cent of the nation's grains and feed about 40 per cent of the population - were seeing multiple deficiencies. This is over and above other worrying changes in agricultural soils, such as falling levels of soil organic carbon, rising salinisation, erosion of farmlands and falling numbers of soil fauna like earthworms and insects. All of which again suggests that our agricultural soils are changing in fundamental ways.
JULY 12, 2013India’s soil crisis
In his fields, Badhia Naval Singh , a farmer tilling 8 bighas of land in the Bagli tehsil in Madhya Pradesh, has been seeing something strange for a while now. Earlier, if he pulled out a tuft of grass, he would see earthworms . “Ab woh dikhna bandh ho gaye hain (they don’t show up any longer),” says the 45-year old .Also, he says, when he ploughed earlier, the soil would break into soft crumbs and fall along the long furrows the plough left behind. Now, the soil is harder and the plough uproots a succession of large clods – dheplas, in local parlance – from the earth. The changing nature of soils – for the worse – is a refrain with farmers in these parts, even across the country.
Soil health and support systems - Contradictions and missing links - Paper published in the Economic and Political Weekly July 25, 2013This paper published in the Economic and Political Weekly explores the contradictions in soil health management policies and its impact on farming and food production in India in the context of the declining vitality of Indian soils and the resultant threat to food security, which has already been accepted as a critical crisis for agricultural production in India. The paper informs that the indiscriminate usage of chemical fertilisers over several decades and complete neglect of ecological fertilisation have exacerbated this crisis. Policymakers have made promises to support ecological alternatives to address the crisis. However, these promises remain on paper and government policies continue to tread the path of chemical- intensive farming and have completely ignored soil health and neglected the importance of organic matter.
For example, the government has heavily subsidised chemical and synthetic fertilisers, particularly nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK). This mindless support has led to indiscriminate use of chemical fertilisers, especially nitrogenous fertilisers, which in turn, have led to widespread soil degradation and yield stagnation in the regions, which have adopted chemical-intensive agriculture.Of late there has been an acknowledgement of the soil health crisis and promises have been made to deal with the situation. However, the paper argues that investments continue to support a chemical fertiliser-based farming model. The paper argues that it is high time that the government makes investments to support a holistic ecological fertilisation programme and chalks out a plan to move away from the dependence on chemical fertilisers to ensure food security in the country.Ecological fertilisation is often neglected citing reasons such as non-availability of biomass and high labour costs associated with such practices. However, few resources have been invested thus far in evaluating species, in improving cultural practices, and in devising appropriate implements for growing and harnessing plant biomass for soil health improvement. The government investment must go into grass roots institution-building, research and incentive mechanisms to support ecological fertilisation in a holistic manner, argues the paper.
UNEP YEAR BOOK EMERGING ISSUES IN OUR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT 2012
Soils are of basic importance to the delivery of many interrelated ecosystem services
Supporting services:nutrient cycling, water release/retention, soil formation, habitat for biodiversity, exchange of gases with the atmosphere, degradation of complex materials
Regulating services:carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, water purification, natural attenuation of pollutants
Provisioning services:food and fibre production,water availability, platformfor construction
Cultural services:protection of archaeologicalremains, outdoor recreational pursuits, landscapes, supporting habitats
Becoming an International Agony
Projected Food Grain Production, Fertilizer Demand, likely Consumption and Gap
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2003 2010 2025
Year
Nu
trie
nts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Fo
od
gra
in p
rod
uc
tio
n
Foodgrain production (Mt)NPK Demand (Mt)NPK Consumption (Mt)NPK Gap (Mt)
Where do we stand now?
Depleting soil organic matterImbalance in fertiliser useSpurious materialLack of vibrant vigilance on quality
controlDearth of Quick testing kitEmerging multi-nutrient
deficiencies particularly of secondary and micronutrients
Declining nutrient use efficiencyNegative soil nutrient balance
Plant Nutrient Balance System
INPUT
• Mineral fertilizers
• Organic manures
• Atmospheric deposition
• Biological nitrogen-fixation
• Sedimentation
OUTPUT
• Harvested crop parts
• Crop residues
• Leaching
• Gaseous losses
• Water erosion
System is Overloaded!
This becoming an Iraqi surface to air missile.
A BALANCE SHEET OF NPK IN INDIAN SOIL
Nutrients Addition Removal Balance
N 10923 9613 1310
P 4188 3702 486
K 1454 11657 -10203
NPK Total 16565 24971 -8406
Gross balance sheet (‘000 t)
FAI (2013)
NUTRIENT MINING
INEFFICIENT FARMING SYSTEM
N P K NPK Total
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Addition Removal Balance
Gro
ss b
alan
ce sh
eet (
‘000
t)
Year
??
Mo Mo
B B B B
Mn Mn Mn Mn Mn
S S S S S
K K K K K K
Zn Zn Zn Zn Zn Zn
P P P P P P
Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe
N N N N N N N N
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000201
0
202
5
Emerging Multi-Nutrient Deficiencies in Soils
NUTRIENT EFFICIENCY
(%)Nitrogen
30-50Phosphorus
15-20Potassium
70-80Sulphur <5
Zinc 2-5
Iron 1-2
Copper 1-2
Boron 2-3
Molybdenum 2-5
Another great concern is NUE
13.4
11
8.2
7
5.84.9
4.1 3.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Res
pon
se r
atio
(k
g gr
ain
/kg
NP
K)
Low Fertilizer Response - Irrigated Areas
Declining Fertilizer Response
(Rakshit et al.,2011)
Input Sector –A huge energy Intensive one
Input Usage(106
tonnes)
Subsidy(Rs.
billion)
Size of the industry
(Rs. billion)
Energy Involvem
ent(MJ kg-1)Indi
aGlobal
India
Global
India Global
Fertilizer
24.5 170 750 - 30 5000 78.2(N);17.5(P);13.8(
K)Pestici
de0.85 2.6 - - 180 2500 215(Harbic
ide), 238(Insecticide) and 92(Fungicide)
Bio pestici
de
0.25 25 - - 2 200 -
Bio fertilize
r
0.28 200 - - 4 180 0.01(liquid); 0.3(solid)
Input statistics in agriculture
Rakshit et al.,(Ed) 2015 Nutrient Use Efficiency: from Basics to Advances Springer Verlag, 385p
2 Bags of Urea Burning 100 liters of crude oil
How serious the issue is?
Price of oil per barrel (159 liters) = $ 164,000 USD
One single barrel of oil =energy equivalent of 23,000 human labor hours= 12 years (40 hours /week)
ALL INDIA DEMAND PROJECTION OF FERTILIZER NUTRIENTS DURING 12TH PLAN
(2012‐13 TO 2016‐17)
2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
17585 18230 18834 19430 20035
29675 30763 31783 32788 33809
N P K Total
,00
0 T
ON
NES
Source-FAI(2013)
Nutrient Status – N P K
63
42
13
26
37
11
20
50
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
N P K
% d
efi
cie
nt
sam
ple
s
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
Indian soils poor in N and P with 89 and 80 percent soil samples in low to medium category; relatively better in K with 50 percent samples only low to medium.
Nutrient Status –Micro and Secondary
41
49
33
13 12
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S Zn B Mo Fe Mn Cu
% d
efi
cie
nt
sam
ple
s
S, Zn, B, Mo, Fe, Mn and Cu deficient to the tune of 41, 49, 33, 22, 12, 5 and 4 % respectively.
Subsidy in agricultural inputs w.r.t fertilizer
Year Total subsidy (Rs.in Crores)
2012‐2013 93076
2013‐2014 102107
2014‐2015 112014
2015‐2016 122882
2016‐2017 134805
Projected Subsidy
(GOI)- MCF Twelfth Plan
Rhizosphere manipulation is the missing link
Can we make a simple intervention without much dependence on non
renewable energy to savea reasonable amount of subsidy and to
improve NUE ???....
YES
ONE OF THE AVAILABLE
OPTIONS: SEED PRIMING
WHY PRIMING ADVOCACY?
• For better crop establishment – Increase plant growth– Increase rate of germination– Uniform growth of plants– Eliminates seed borne pathogens– Competence with weeds
• Increase NUE • and Improves WUE in several crops
INPUTS ARE BECOMING ENERGY INTENSIVE
OSMO PRIMING
MATRIX PRIMIN
G
HYDRO PRIMING
PRIMING OPTIONS
BIO PRIMING
Bio-priming is a process of biological seed treatment that refers combination of seed hydration and inoculation of seed with beneficial organism for the following good reasons on soil-plant-animal system
improved nutrient use efficiency, plant growthplant tolerance to stresshelp to reduce the environmental
pollution and increasing the agricultural
sustainability Source:IRRI- Rice Knowledge Bank
Who are the eligible candidates?
1.Trichoderma harzianum
2.Pseudomonas fluorescens
3.Pseudomonas aureofaciens strain AB254
4.Rhizobacteria strain
5.Agro bacterium rubi strain A 16
6.Pseudomonas putidastrain BA 8
7.Bacillus subtilis strain BA 142
8. Bacillus megaterium strain M 3
9. GliocladiumRakshit et al.,2014
Relevance output from the Research works
Biopriming using Trichoderma harzianum and its effect on plant health
Process of seed biopriming using normal seeds and its effect on plant health
Untreated control
Bioprimedseeds
(A) Roots of sweet corn treated with T-22 Planter Box or not treated(B) Soybean plants with roots grown from seeds either treated with T-22 or not. A 123% increase in yield was obtained in this trial as a consequence of treatment with T-22.(HARMAN,2000)
Differences in biomass of various treatments (a consortium, bTrichoderma harzianum, c Pseudomonas fluorescens, d Azospirillumbrasilense, e control) of biologically hardened tea plants (Thomas et al.,2010)
Availability of macro and micro nutrients in soil as influenced by the application of T. harzianum in
sugarcane Singh et al.,(2010)Nutrient -
unitTMC
applied soilControl (check)
Increase in nutrient
% Increase
N Kg ha-1 279.52 219.52 60.00 27.33
P Kg ha-1 75.88 45.96 29.92 65.10
K Kg ha-1 274.00 190.00 84.00 44.21
Cu - ppm 1.41 1.33 0.08 6.01
Fe - ppm 14.68 7.32 7.36 100.54
Mn - ppm 9.98 5.56 4.42 79.49
Zn - ppm 0.88 0.53 0.35 66.00
Organic – C (%)
0.56 0.36 0.20 55.55
Soil pH 7.32 7.82 -0.5 -6.39
Crop Bioagent Nutrient Use Efficiency Reference
Primary(N, P, K)
Secondary(Ca, Mg)
Micro(Cu, Fe, Zn,
Mn)
Rice(Oryza sativa)
Rice(Oryza sativa cvKRHI)
A. amazonense
T. harzianum BHU 105
N (3.5–18.5%)
N (11%)
Rodrigues et al.
(2008)
(Preetipriya and
Rakshit,2013)
Wheat (Triticum aestivum )
Wheat-rice and wheat- blackgram rotations
T.Harzianum BHU 105
Natural mycorrhiza consortium+ Pseudomonas fluorescens( strains R62 +
R81)
N(14%)
0.695 PUE [kg P grain kg-1 P
fertilizer]
(Meena and
Rakshit, 2015)
Mäder et al. (2011)
Maize (Zea mays) T. harzianum 8.8-9.76% N in root; 3.5% N in
shoot
Akladious et al.
(2012)Sugarcane (Sachrum
officinarum)Fluorescent Pseudomonas
strains R62 + R81,0.719 PUE [kg P
grain kg-1 P fertilizer]
Yadav et al. (2009)
Soybean (Glycine max)T
richoderma harzianum AS 19-2
N (15.8%) Zn (8.24%); Fe (57.82%)
Entesari et al. (2013)
Trichoderma virens As10-5 N (5.2%) Zn (21.6%); Fe (14.81)
Trichoderma atroviride As18-5
N (11%) Zn (+37.25%); Fe (+14.6%)
Biopriming mediated nutrient use efficiency
Rakshit et al.,(Ed) 2015 Nutrient Use Efficiency: from Basics to Advances Springer Verlag, 385p
Crop Bioagent Nutrient Use Efficiency Reference
Primary(N, P, K)
Secondary(Ca, Mg)
Micro(Cu, Fe, Zn,
Mn)Melon (Cucumis melo) T. harzianum N (27.03%), P (137.8% ); K (27.96% )
Martínez-Medina et al. (2011)
Glomus constrictum under reduced fertilization dosage.
N (11.05%); K (32.2%)
Glomus mosseae under reduced fertilization dosage.
N (31.05%); P (67.56%) and K (46.6%)
Glomus claroideum under reduced fertilization dosage
N (9.47%); P (27.02%); K (27.96%)
Glomus intraradices under reduced fertilization dosage
N (7.89%); P (21.62%); K (13.55%)
Trichoderma harzianum under conventional fertilization dosage.
N (20.6%); K (30%)
Glomus constrictum under conventional fertilization
K (30%)
Glomus mosseae under conventional fertilization
N (1.26%); K (29.16%)
Glomus claroideum under conventional fertilization
N (9.47%); P (27%); K (27.96%)
Glomus intraradices under conventional fertilization
N (7.89%); P (21.62%); K (13.56%)
Tea (Camellia sinensis) Trichoderma harzianum N (44%); P (50%); K (16%)
Thomas et al. (2010)
Azospirllum brasilense N (65%); P (25%); K (14%)
Pseudomonas fluorescens N (52%); P (67%); K (18%)
Biopriming mediated nutrient use efficiency
Treatments
Nitrogen uptake (mg/plant)
Alluvial soilRed soil
Black soil
Alluvial
soil
Red soil
Black soil
Alluvial soil
Red soil
Black soil
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DASControl N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha
0.56d 0.20c 0.36d 3.56c 0.28c 1.44d 12.44d 1.86c 3.70d
RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha
6.35a 2.65a 5.12a54.14
a23.66a 30.16a 87.43a 47.20a 55.43a
Biopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K
6.32a 2.64a 4.02a 53.30 22.74a 29.15a 87.37a 46.75a 55.38a
Biopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K
2.96b 1.56b 2.32b18.35
b10.79b 9.40b 29.04b 11.60b 16.43b
Biopriming with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K
1.44c 0.70c 1.12c 7.70c 4.10c 4.37c 20.34c 8.63bc 10.82c
Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU105 andgraded levels of N application on nitrogen uptake (mg/plant) at different growth stage of wheat
Treatments
Agronomic Use Efficiency (%)
Alluvial soil Red soil Black soil
RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha 45b 45b 31a
Biopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K 39b 52a 24b
Biopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K 40b 47ab 20c
Biopriming with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K 66a 52a 11d
Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105 and graded levels of N application on AUE (%) in wheat
Alluvial soil Red soil Black soil0
5
10
15
20
25
A
A
AB
B
B
A
C
CC
D
DD
EE
Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/haRDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/haBiopriming with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: KBiopriming with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K
Root
infe
ctio
n (
%)
Impact of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU105 and graded levels of N application on root infection (%) of wheat. Bars followed by a similar letter between treatments within a soil type are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level of significance according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test.
Alluvial soil
Red soil
Black soil
Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105and graded levels of N application on root infection (%) of wheat at 30 DAS.
(T1: Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha, T2: RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha,
T3: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K, T4: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K, T5: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K)
Effect of soil types, biopriming with T. harzianum BHU 105 and graded levels of N application on available nitrogen (kg/ha) in rhizosphere of wheat at different growth stages
(T1: Control N: P: K @ 0:0:0 kg/ha, T2: RDF of N: P: K @ 120: 60: 60 kg/ha, T3: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 3/4th N and RDF of P: K,
T4: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + ½ N and RDF of P: K, T5: Seed treatment with T. harzianum + 1/4th N and RDF of P: K, DAS-Days after Sowing)
Bio priming can do wonders
• Reduction in time between seed sowing and seedling emergence along with improved seedling vigour;
• Increase NUE & WUE;• Increased plant growth;• Competence with weeds;• Uniform growth of plants & rate
of germination;• Elimination of seed-borne
pathogens;• Extended temperature range at
which seed germinate.
Small is beautiful
Impact Assessment through Participatory Mode-Our experience • No adverse environmental impact is envisaged.• Increases the resilience of the poor through reduction of
cropping risk and allowing higher and more stable yields.• Although benefit: cost ratios for Bio priming were not
calculated for seed priming, marginal rates of return will be very high indeed because of the extra yield obtained without significant extra cost.
• On average, bio priming increased grain yield by 12% with a range from 6 to more than 24% depending on the cultivar, location and year. Bio priming also benefited the farmer with a monetary gain of Rs. 975/- to Rs. 2665/- over non-priming.
PRECAUTIONS
• Most of the bioprimed agents are available in liquid formulation; thus management of huge quantities of wet bioprimed seed becomes difficult especially under hot tropical climate.
• In temperate climate maintaining the temperature during priming is crucial.
Seed priming with biological agents have the potential to meet crop nutrient requirements and improve seedling emergence and crop stand establishment, yield, and grain micronutrient enrichment.
Seed biopriming seems pragmatic, inexpensive and an easy method for improving nutrient use efficiency especially by small landholders in developing countries like India.
An extra intervention with the existing technology of INM practice could make a huge difference in the intensive input/energy consuming system altogether leading to sustainable high yields saving a lot of energy for future use.
Final submission
Acknowledgement
Banaras Hindu University
MSc Students: Preetipriya, Sunita, Sinha