Well, I think that apart from the yield factor, the use of chemical or inorganic fertilizers is associated to many other detrimental effects on soil and the environment at large Effects such as increase in soil acidity and pollution. Hence, there is an advocacy for a shift to organic farming especially in the developing countries. I am aware there are researches going on currently on the use of AM and the combined use of AM and puoltry manure to enhance crop yield (the work of Nwangburuka et al.2012a and b). You may google this refernce to find out more. There seem to be progress in this direction. Therefore, I believe it is possible that biofertilizer can replace inorganic fertilizers in the nearest future.

Of course

Yes, as long as the crop variety and biofertilizer strain are optimally matched, and environmental conditions are favorable for the microbe and plant. We describe our success with endophytic strains of clover rhizobia where their use as biofertilizers significantly reduces the dependence on chemical fertilizers to maximize grain yield of rice. See our publication and references therein for details. Yanni YG and Frank B. Dazzo. 2010. Enhancement of rice production using endophytic strains of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii in extensive field inoculation trials within the Egypt Nile delta. Plant and Soil (DOI: 1007-s1104-010-7) 336: 129-142.

Regards,

Frank Dazzo and Youssef Yanni

Why not... Yes they will... Shall share some inputs...

Some more i shall keep adding... Please try these...

And this

Vermiwash

Bio fertilizers and organic manures and organic compost can only supplement chemical fertilizers in a modern production systems. Bio fertilizers can never replace chemical fertilizers in the foreseeable future.

thats a good one indeed... please do visit India and ask the farmer NOT in total production but production per acre and one can realise what is happening.

yes, biofertilizers can replace chemical fertilizers. But gradually, sudden reduction can leads to reduction in crop yield. Because, our cropping systems are badly addicted to chemical or in other words instant nutrition. While biofertilizers needs time to establish in particular soil or ecosystem. Once it get established, i can easily replace it up to 50 % chemical under Integrated Nutrient Management System or full reduction of chemicals can also be achieved after 3-5 years of nutrient management. The best examples in Gujarat, India is Sardar Patel Farm, Kathwada, Ahmedabad (Certified Organic Farm). For more details you can refer official website www.aau.in of Department of Microbiology & Biofertilizer Project, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, INDIA regarding use and effect of biofertilizers in agriculture.

There is a gap in biofertilizers use and nutrient requirement of crop, because the field performance of applied biofertilizers depend on fertility status of field soil, type of the crop and method of cultivation etc. Hence, replacement of chemical fertilizers may be possible only if we adopt integrated nutrient management in organic farming by using consortium of plant growth promoting microbial inoculants, applying organic/bio manures, adopting soil fertility management like mulching and proper irrigation methods etc.

First we should know, what is biofertilizers. It is a microbial culture contains no nutrients. After application in the field biofertilizer Microbes associate with plant root system and give benefits to the plant by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and solubilizing/mobilizing nutrients as to absorb by the plant root. Except (atmospheric )nitrogen, all nutrients should be present in the soil as to get the plant through biofertilizer microbes. Hence, the availability of fixed form of nutrient should be in sufficient level in the soil in spite of applying suitable and efficiency of microbial culture in making available nutrients to plant root. Just only with biofertilizers we can not replace chemical fertilizers. The only way for replacement of chemical fertilizers is, following integrated nutrient management(INM). Please refer INM method in crop cultivation.

It depends on many factore such as soil conditions (pH, content of nutrients, content of soil rganic matter), the proper used inoculant with the suitable crop, the skilled user..

Why to be exclusive? Soil fertility is complex, so if we are trying to achieve high yields in the future we must to think on fertility, too. Chemical or mineral fertilizers are concentrated formulations, but most of them have short term effect with yield increasing and without positive effect on soil microorganisms. On the other hand, biofertilizers maintain or increase soil microbial complex with slow releasing of mineral nutrients from organic matter - long term effect. From this point, the combination could be better solution for whole system crop + soil.

Yes biofertilizer replace chemical fertilizer in future and use of biofertilizer improve soil health also need to find suitable combinations with other amendments and use of these biofertilizers for long time replace chemical fertilizers and its need of time now.

Yes, biofertilizer can replace chemical fertlizers. But, this must be done step by step reducing gradually the quantity of chemical fertilizers used.

Yes, it is possible to replace chemical fertilizers and also pesticides by biofertilizers and biopesticides in developping countries. But, I thing the problem is the difficulty of having biopesticides working in all developing countries as chemicals. If so, biofertilizers must be used to replace gradually chemicals.

In the past, there will be no such question. Until the chemical fertilisers were introduced to our farmers. As we all know that soil fertility and crop yield are not increased in the same order of the increase of chemical fertiliser application. In contrast, we are facing a yield declining. I agree with Hiren and think that it is possible if there is a good structure and help from government and private sectors. Satyabrata may be right that hunger is a big push of using chemical fertiliser. But, with a good management system of resource use and support from the community, our soil will return to life again, as in the good old day. Till that time, we could be free from heavily use of chemical fertilisers, or not at all need them. A group of Thai rice farmer has returned to use organic nutrient in their farm. After some years past, they are now independent from the use of chemical fertiliser and are free from the bad cycle of loosing land to investors. I don't need to write the reason why the farmers have to give up their land, we are know right?

Based on my research and by regards to the organic material in soils,biofertilizers can reduce 10-15 percent use of chemical fertilizer.

Chemical fertilizer can grow the volume of crops higher but nutrient is very less comparing to organically grown produces. Neem cake fertilizer can reduce up 38% of chemical fertilizer. You can try.

To continue this scientific discussion, I have attached a zip containing a few of our publications on field inoculation trials done in the Egypt Nile delta, where we have optimized the use of natural, endophytic rhizobia as biofertilizers for rice. There, farmers have continuously rotated rice and berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum) successfully for centuries, and our lab and field studies show that the rhizobia significantly benefit vegetative and reproductive growth of rice in the field beyond the benefits of N fertility alone. Some of the same isolates have improved the production of corn and cotton, and the combination of rhizobia with rice has been confirmed on all continents where rice is grown (only Antartica excluded :-). In no case does the biofertilizer fully replace the N-requirements so best results occur with a combination of biofertilizer plus appropriate chemical fertilizer.The mechanisms involve elevation of gene expression for photosynthetic efficiency, phytohormone synthesis and plant defense, resulting in plants with improved root architecture and enhanced nutrient uptake efficiency, and more productive photosynthetic capacity in above-ground plant parts. It would be helpful for respondents to cite their published field studies documented with appropriate statistics and parallel N-fertilization plots to support arguments in this discussion.

My previous attempt to post the zip file attachment failed so I am trying it again.

I recommend Auerbach, R., G. Rundgren & N. El-Hage Scialabba (eds), 2013. Organic Agriculture: African experiences in resilience and sustainability. Rome: Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). ISBN 978-92-5-107666-8 (print); E-ISBN 978-92-5-107667-5 (pdf). What happens in Africa is important to the rest of the world, as it consists of more than 50 developing countries, each with its own problems, and the continent incorporates not only the equator but both tropics. Climates and soils are variable but one thing they have in common is their fragility. African countries cope with more challenges than most, but in meeting these challenges they provide an example to the rest of the world.

Hello,

In my opinion looking at biofertilizers to supplement mineral fertilizers or the other way round is a wrong approach. Basically the plant needs the nutrients in an available form from whatever source that is available and the literature abound in this direction. The two techniques to satisfy the plants nutrients requirements have their strengths and weaknesses. For instance mineral fertilization practices aim at satisfying the major nutrients needs only disregarding the other aspect of soil fertility,on the other hand use of biofertilizers (besides N fixing microbes -that also affects productivity from a symbiotic association) often aims at mining the soil resource which become of particular concerns when the soil reserve is already limiting (one of the reason for failures encountered in tropical countries)

From this viewpoint, the challenge of modern agriculture is to optimise the two approaches that is applying the right combination of the two that will effectively safeguard the sustainability of agricultural land . If we can manage the two, we shall cater for a more effective and efficient plant nutrition, a long term strategy that will satisfy the objective of increasing crop productivity in poor performing agricultural system without compromising the future needs.

Very interesting answers have so far been contributed by esteemed researchers. I see this problem from two angles: one, in developing countries' agriculture the main contenders are smallholder farmers who are characteristically poor and hence, unable to purchase most inputs including chemical fertilizers. Two, their farm productivity per unit area is always low due to low or no use of fertilizers of any kind. So the situation in developing countries' agriculture is more complex than one could margin. When scientists do research on how to improve productivity in these countries usually they try to find alternative sources of soil amendments that could increase productivity with minimum capital input. We conducted a study in the Zambezia area of Mozambique to find out if use of cow pea residues could replace the more expensive urea fertilizers recommended as a source of N for these farmers. We should note here that cow peas are introduced in the rice fields as a relay crop. These residues can be harvested and processed for compost manure before soil-incorporation or they could be soil-incorporated immediately before sowing the rice crop. It was interesting to note that when 50% of N was supplied by cow pea residues and the other 50% supplied by urea as fertilizers, grain yield was high (4.7 t /ha) compared with the control which gave only 1.4 t /ha. Cow pea residues alone as a source of N gave 2.8 t ha of grain. Application of 100% urea, however gave an highest yield of 6.3 t /ha. With such data one would be tempted to recommend urea for high productivity of rice in the Zambezia but given the socio-economic conditions of farmers, it would be wise for farmers to use cow pea residues and a small amount for urea (starter N) (50% of recommended) to achieve significant increases in rice yield. This short story shows that bio-fertilizers alone cannot meet food requirements for the ever-increasing populations of developing countries. A more strategic approach is recommendable.

Spot on ! Researchers must not forget the limitations experienced by the end user, and all research should be done in collaboration with the target communities, to learn what their problems really are. Often not a choice between chemical and organic methods, but the choice between their financial and their labour constraints.

Now you got me started.

it is not a matter of whether organic CAN replace synthetic fertilizers.

In the long term they HAVE to replace synthetics.

Where do synthetic fertilizers come from and more importantly where do they go after their application?

Especially the major nutrients N, P and K. How are they made?

N is made by splitting atmospheric N2 with high inputs of fossil fuels.

fuel price goes up ---> N fertilizer price goes up.

P is mined as a rock and then treated with acid to produce superphosphate.

due to limited resources the price is climbing steadily.

Potassium is mined as well and the prices are also going up.

so all three are in a sense non renewable and all three will get more expensive in the future.

and I did not even mention the other 11 essential nutrients that plants require.

Thus over time fewer and fewer farmers in poor countries will be able to afford those types of nutrient inputs.

so where do the synthetic fertilizers go to?

some portion is taken up by plants, some portion is leaching into the water table or washed away as run-off.

the portion that is the crop will be eaten, either by us directly or by an animal we feed and then eat and then a part of the eaten portion will turn into waste that is washed away and who knows/cares where it goes...

In Far North Queensland along the coastal sugar cane and banana production areas fertilizer run-off into the ocean is threatening the Great Barrier Reef more than anything else. The high nutrient loads in the water cause acidification and growth of algae that blocks out the sunlight both of which are detrimental for the coral.

This fertilizer would not run off if it would have been applied in organic non soluble form.

The farmer pays for a ton of fertilizer and looses at least a third of this nutrient to leaching especially in tropical high rainfall areas where so many poor countries are situated.

The Soil Food Network is what has supplied plants with nutrients over millions of years and what we do now is to get rid of it and regard soils as dead sponges that we saturate with nutrients just like in hydroponics.

Plants are not made for sterile soils.

why would plants pump almost 50% of their photosynthesis products into the root zone?

---> to feed fungi and bacteria that will in exchange deliver nutrients the plant can't access and so increase the root system of the plant.

This makes a healthier and stronger plant, more resilient in droughts, and less vulnerable to pests and diseases as well as much richer food with more trace elements, higher phosphorus content and better taste.

Soluble Phosphorus locks up with iron in acidic soils with low organic matter.

The farmer buys a ton of superphosphate and loses part of it to this process.

Studies have shown, that mycorrhizal fungi can access locked up soil phosphorus and deliver it to plant roots in exchange for carbohydrates.

unfortunately those fungi cannot thrive in soils that are regularly drenched in fungicides and high concentrations of nutrient salts.

all the nutrient cycling that has been performed by natural systems over millenia has lead to increased fertility in any given natural ecosystem.

...and we do exactly the opposite.

Instead of recycling the nutrients we break up every nutrient cycle into a direct line that starts in the fertilizer factory of big agribusiness and ends somewhere irrecoverably down the drain or in the ocean. --> good for the business bad for everything else.

Agribusiness is makes its main profit in three areas:

* sale of seed of bred and or genetically modified plants

* sale of Synthetic fertilizers

* sale Pest and weed control products

The plants are bred for high yield and require high nutrient inputs.

The high nutrient intake but poor overall supply with minor and trace elements in low organic matter soils in combination with an inbred susceptibility makes those designer plants very vulnerable to insect pests.

In this way those three areas are closely linked together and chain the farmers to a hand full of big multinational companies that make billions of dollars in profit.

So we are running out cheap fuel to make N, we are running out of P, soil fertility is decreasing and we have no measures in place to address any of those issues.

The conclusion is that the whole world needs a type of agriculture that is regenerative and mimics the nutrient cycles of natural systems to guaranty a constant supply of those nutrients and I believe that the developing countries will be the first to transition to this new kind of agriculture since they will be the first who will no longer be able to afford the only 150 year old so called "conventional agriculture".

So, if this so called modern agricultural practice going on with chemical fertilizers what will happen then?

Actually, some experiments were carried out in Egypt to evaluate the potential use of residues from biowates fermentation to produce biogas. Two pieces of land were used, the first one was fertilized using chemicals and fresh biowastes,the second one was fertilized with biofertilizer. Both lands were cultivated with several crops.

The results showed that: from the second piece of land (biofertilizer) the vegetable crops production is higher than the first piece of land by 14-20%, and the wheat production is higher by about 12%.

This indicates that the biofertilizers can efficiently replace the chemical fertilizer in developing countries.

Yes, definitely it is reducing N fertilizer application for the legumes

Most of the above issues on biofertilizer usage are addressed in chapters by an international list of authors in the recent CRC Press 2013 publication of the Advances in Soil Science series entitled "Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems".

Thank you so much to you all for your valuable suggestions and comments.

yes indeed!, We are looking for such application to be available to the doorstep of the farming community to restrict or limit the application of chemical fertilizers, due to their heavy application Nitroate nitrogen probkem was very high.

With 4 decades of R&D experience as a soil fertlityexpert, I believe that biofertlizers can not replace chemical fertilizers fully. At best, biofertilizers can supplement the chemical ferilizers of in certain situation may substitute the fertilizers party. However, I have witnessed more failures than sucesses to the tall claims regarding biofertilizers in the developing countries.

In 2008 we did trials with paddy in Suriname ( Sth America ) with an organic grown multi-mix of approx 90+ micro-organism strains marketed in India as Magic-Gro and the rest of the world Bio-Gro. We discovered that we had up to 40% higher crop output which enables the small farmer to make a profit and another + was that the plants shown to be healthier and less sensitive for fungal diseases. This BioGro is particularly sold to the small farmers who can not effort the chemical fertilizer.

Many soils today has been damaged by chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. This damaged soil lacks sufficient microbial activity to sustain healthy plant growth. It show that BioGro remediate this situation. and brings the soil back to a healthy, productive state.;The beneficial microbes in BioGro remediate the soil and allows the farmer to increase his harvest again!

the benfits shown to be:

• Ability to perform in varied soil conditions and constraints due to multiple variety of microbes

• Ability to “hold” Nitrogen in soil – reduces leaching

• Increases growth of feeding roots – increase in nutrient uptake.

• Biological control of parasitic root rot fungi and diseases

• Produces plant growth hormones and regulators that are needed by the plants

• Helps breakdown pesticide and herbicide residue in the soil

• Completely Organic

Soils tests done by my self shown that the uptake of N.P.K. by the plant was 50% higher compared to the control group.

The BioGro reduce the the use of chemical fertilizer. and the farmer has to be educated in becoming clever in het making of biofertilizer at the same time the use of volcanic rock stone powder reduce the use of fertilizer even further.

Please contact: Suriya Murthy of Universal Innovations Pty Ltd

regards

Martin

Bacreria(Plant growth promoting rhizobaceria) are one kind of biofertilizers. For example: Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Herbaspirilium.... There are many papers that shows these bacteria have bad effects in human health(cancer, lung desease,blood desease...).In organic farming systems,farmers inoculate seeds or seedlings with these bacteria.Sometimes they spry these bacteria on the surface of leaves for better growth of plants.I think we are not allowed to use these bacteria(small killers) in agriculture.

Hi Davood, did the research paper zoomed into which species causing the disease to human? Or they only mentioned genus names? If so, that's not valid conclusions.

Thanks,

Chanyarat

Thanks Martin, I will have a look on the suggested website ;-)

Hi Davood,

As Chanyarat mentioned The pathogenic bacteria should be clearly stated.

But at the other hand I would stress that with the increasing requirement of foods I would first look at which micro-organisms are pathogenic for the plants and which are not. And as I know that the BioGro has certainly not these at all. At the other hand a surplus of non pathogenic bacteria around the roots prevent the uptake of pathogenic bacteria as they seem to be encapsulated by the non pathogenic bacteria who feeds the plants.

The issue as you mentioned seen from socioeconomic and health I would like to state that in the western world during first half of the last century the death rate has gone down and age has been improved through a much improved hygiene. And sorry for the medical profession not thanks to the medical arena and pharmaceutic industries. Go back to your issue of disease to humans the public or consumer needs to become aware that hygiene in preparing foods need to be attended. Even with orthodox grown foods with chemical fertilizers and plant protective substances is it essential to removed these inorganic substances. So what do you prefer, a healthy and very nourishing disease free food crop with non pathogenic plant micro-organisms that is thoroughly cleaned, with e.g. Sodium-bicarb. or food-crops with pseudo hormonic substances which influence human hormonal balance. Best Regards Martin

The answer is really simple: yes, biofertilizer can replace chemical fertilizer in developing countries BY DEFAULT, because of price alone. Often it is not a question of replacement, but of never having had an alternative. Making it profitable and sustainable, however, takes more knowledge and effort, but look at a recent FAO publication: Auerbach, R., G. Rundgren & N. El-Hage Scialabba (eds), 2013. Organic Agriculture: African experiences in resilience and sustainability. Rome: Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). ISBN 978-92-5-107666-8 (print); E-ISBN 978-92-5-107667-5 (pdf).

Thanks Peta ,

I will look at it

Best regards

Martin

The answer of the question relies more on the political choice a third world country opt s for. Choosing chemical fertilizers means accepting a complete package of hybrid seeds, pesticides, cash crops, mono-culture, increasing input cost, perennial dependence on the market forces controlled principally by the multinational companies etc. On the other hand, bio-fertilizers stand for another baggage that includes traditionally preserved local seeds, organic pesticides, preservation of bio-diversity, more dependence on the traditional knowledge and a typical sense of self dignity among the peasant class. Traders in the market are more interested in chemical fertilizers. Banks take additional initiative to grant loans to those who champion chemical fertilizers. The positive development is that the common people have started discussing more the politics behind the chemical fertilizers, the possibilities of increasing misery and gradual sell out to the neo-colonial forces. This is happening because of certain highly disturbing incidences like fast growing statistics of suicides of the farmers in India. The state projected narratives of 'progress and growth' are challenged openly. Thus the implicit issue of the moment is can new democratic movements in the third world countries gain momentum? The undisputed answer is 'Yes'. In other words, bio-fertilizers will definitely replace chemical fertilizers but the pace of its spread will be controlled by various factors. Moreover, the rate of spread of bio-fertilizers will represent the degree of consciousness of the agrarian population of a country.

Biofertilizers are different from chemical fertilizers in their performance on the crop productivity. Biofertilizers help in fixation of nitrogen or enhances the availability of nutrient, whereas chemical fertilizer directly provide nutrient to the plant at a rapid speed. Bioferlizers are slow acting and make the nutrient available slowly, which the plant utilizes to its optimum need. Farmers are required to be educated about biofertilizers.

Biofertilizers can only reduce use of mineral fertilizers, but not replace. Especially in low humus and light texture soils effect of biofertilizers can be very limited.

Going through all the possible answers from different perspectives of individuals, I think there is a missing link between soil distraction and restoration or amendment. Lot of questions regarding crops transformation and introduction of new crops in a new soils. Ratio of nutrients and safety of the products produced by using chemical inputs and bio inputs need to be considered before attending the question.My answer is simple: Yes, bio fertilizer can replace the use of chemical fertilizer in developing countries.

Chemical fertilizers kills the subsurface biota,which helps in minerals release from soil. It makes the soil less porous & use of such fertilizers demands more use of water.There are farmers in India,who still abhor use of chemical fertilizers & one of the benefit is they don't have to use pesticides,thereby lowering the inputs.Making of biofertilizers do take some time,& in a tropical country like your's biofertilizers have a great future.Once the farmers take to chemical fertilizers,their cost of inputs will steadily increase till the returns steadily lower down.Initially the farmers will get higher yields,but then it slowly tapers down, unless efforts are made to correct the situation. Once farmers take to use of chemical fertilizers,the fertilizer plants will have to use Ammonia as one of the ingredients,& may even have to import from overseas,which is a tricky & a hazardous proposition.

Biofertilizers can provide agroecosystem with 20-50 kg/ha/y additional N , but do not provide P, K and microelements, only increasing its availability. Biofertilizers should accomplish application of fertilizers and manure but do not replace them, that especially true for intensive agriculture

Thank you all for your enthusiastic answers.

I have found some literature about biofertilizer recently and they emphasize on N2 fixing and P solubilizing. How about Potassium (K)? Do you know how to measure K decomposing activity of bacteria and which method is the most reliable? We used XRF and AAS and results are not reliable, they fluctuated. And one more thing I want to know is which bacteria is the best in K-decomposing activity.

with my best of regards

lynn

Though the biofertilizers are the best for use in agricultural crops as compared to the inorganic ones, there are some societal problems which first will have to be addressed.

The question is how did the use of chemical fertilizers gained a firm foothold over the bio product? All of these are what have happened over some past decades.

1) The authorities have been giving massive subsidies on purchase of chemical ones & almost nil on the bio products.

2) In order to give work to the rurals, respective governments have established huge fertilizer plants in their countries & then the products are then sold at subsidised rates in the markets. This encourages the agriculturists to use the chemical products. Though this was a wrong trend, the scientific technocrats in the Agricultural sector didn't do anything to stem this wrong track.

3) In their run to increase agricultural products, the authorities probably were made to believe that tilling of land is too slow & time consuming through the traditional method of employing bullocks - the working farm animals. The manufacturers of farm tractors & allied machineries jumped in to the fray to nail the point that farm tractors are the best option in such a scenario & the authorities took the bait to the detriment of the health of the soil. The future implications of such an action was never imagined by the authorities, with the result, they were made to believe that with the help of the farm tractor, even the govt. waste lands could be converted into agricultural farms - overnight (?).  When once the farm tractors made their massive entry, the importance of working farm animals was lost - their numbers dwindled & their production of biofertilizer lost importance - there was just not the raw material available. To add to the problem, whatever was available, was used as fuel in their house holds.

4) With the use of chemical fertilizers, the use of biocides has become a necessity. Though they are the costliest of the farm production in puts, the vested interest jumped in to the fray by first selling the product at cheaper prices - initially - & then slowly raising them. On the other hand, even though it is a fact that those of the farms using biofertilizers do not have use these costly inputs, the scientists of the agricultural sector couldn't show the actual benefit to the farmers. Neither the authorities nor the concerned scientists envisaged future implications to the detriment of the sector.  

Biofertilizer is always good for sustainable agricultural development. In developing countries like India Vermicompost is a promising product which can replace inorganic fertilizers. Go ECOFRIENDLY for realiable agri products

Could bio fertilizer replace the use of chemical fertilizer in developing countries?This is  an important question and the discussions are moving in to the right direction. Fertilizer is a single component of agriculture and there are lot of other elements involved in this culture. Better to turn our attention to the whole system. In my opinion bio fertilizer alone can not replace the use of chemical fertilizer not only in developing countries but also developed countries. 

From my searches on rice and biofertilizers in Egypt, i can say the integrated use of bio and chemical fertilizers has been found promising not only in maintaining and in sustaining high productivity but in providing stability to crop of rice production and minimize the cost of inputs and environmental pollution. But we can't replace all chemical fertilizers doses by biofertilizers, only save part (about one third or 30%) of chemical fertilizers to keep the ideal yield.

Regards

Nehal

Article Efficiency of Pseudomonas fluorescens as Plant Growth-Promot...

Article Prospects of using Rhizobium as supplements for mineral nitr...

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Conference Paper Evaluation of bio-NPK and compost tea on seedling vigor and ...

Thesis EFFECT OF BIO AND MINERAL NITROGEN FERTILIZER ON GROWTH, YIE...

Good points and interesting attached files

Please have a look at following excellent work entitled:

The Role of Soil Microorganisms in Plant Mineral Nutrition—CurrentKnowledge and Future Directions ( Frontiers in Plant Science,published: 19 September 2017

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01617)

Abstract: In their natural environment, plants are part of a rich ecosystem including numerous and diverse microorganisms in the soil. It has been long recognized that some of these microbes, such as mycorrhizal fungi or nitrogen fixing symbiotic bacteria, play important roles in plant performance by improving mineral nutrition. However, the full range of microbes associated with plants and their potential to replace synthetic agricultural inputs has only recently started to be uncovered. In the last few years, a great progress has been made in the knowledge on composition of rhizospheric microbiomes and their dynamics. There is clear evidence that plants shape microbiome structures, most probably by root exudates, and also that bacteria have developed various adaptations to thrive in the rhizospheric niche. The mechanisms of these interactions and the processes driving the alterations in microbiomes are, however, largely unknown. In this review, we focus on the interaction of plants and root associated bacteria enhancing plant mineral nutrition, summarizing the current knowledge in several research fields that canconverge to improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning this

phenomenon. PDF enclosed

Yes, Biofertiliser sustains the micro organism in the soil which is time demanding in future due to soil more effected using high dose of chemical fertilizer.  Several example in the soil condition of punjab and haryana  state of India. There are soil depleted day by day due to high dose of fertilizer and pesticides. Biofertilizer viz. rhizobioum and azatobactor providing microorganism in the soil as well as maintaining pollution of the environment. one of the my friend told about pollution of Delhi is high risk zone of the India. He made a experiment on biofertilizer in the his kitchen garden and lawn of the home. He used rhizobium and azatobactor in his soil but not used any chemical fertilizer and pesticides. They got surprised result of that region where he used these bio agents in the soil. Pollution was decreased after measuring the pollution meter. It happens due to nitro fixing bacteria fixes Nitrogen and decreases Co2 level. In this regarding it is time demanding to use biofertilizer to safe our environment as well as soil texture.

Why have  biofertilizers  not found that place of prominence what they deserve in soil fertility and plant nutrition as an invisible drivers of soil fertility and plant nutrition . One of the simple reasons that strike to our mind is the slowness in  producing response and their vulnerability to various stresses , thereby , making them rather inactive once inoculated into the new crop rhizosphere  soils. What are the strategies  shall we look forward to address them..?? 

Some kind of biofertilizers ( Pseodomonas and Herbaspirillum speices) are not safe for the human and environment.

Why species not pathogenic of Pseudomonas could not be used as biofertilizers?

Dear Molina

Please see attachments.

rather than only discussion here on yields and nutrients (which I mostly agree)...sometimes challenge for implementation can be logistic restrictions for markets and supply.

Supply of biofertilizers not always close to end user, and products tend to be loose or have a high moisture content. Volume implications and water tracking costs limit economics. Also equipment is required to apply them in large scale, and it implies a change for farmers (and investment). Of course is do able, but it can be a barrier.

Problem is to be sourced in large scale agriculture. However, there is a growing interest in producing biofertilizers coupled to biomass to energy projects which are industries that can boost food production by sourcing biofertilizers to nearby farmers. We produce biomass for energy and use organic soil amendments to reduce fossil energy and footprint in large scale projects. Replacing fertilizers means a big reduction in fossil energy involved in synthetic products that use fossil energy and often represent 70% of total footprint of biomass fuels delivered to processing facilities. At the same, organic farming is totally compatible and provides stability in commercial projects and supply chains (even if some P or ash from boilers and digestate from biogas digesters or biochar form gasifiers can be used to replenish minerals)

We call certain crops mycorrhizal dependent.Likewise , do we have certain crops exclusively biofertilizers dependent..??.My second issue is , what's your take on the premise that perennial crops are better suited for biofertilization than annual crops..??

Muchas gracias por sus aportes. Definitivamente para la agricultura industrial que alimenta al mundo los fertilizantes químicos son muy importantes.. . La lucha contra el hambre seguirá dependiendo de los fertilizantes químicos

perennial crops often require less inputs than annual crops, maybe that was the reason. We use digestate and other products that can be applied with injectors and proper equipment. Besides the volume/logistic issue, other disadvantages to mention are a) a slow nutrient release rate that in perennials would be less critical than in annuals b) A short shelf life, lack of suitable carrier materials, susceptibility to high temperature, problems in transportation and storage are all biofertilizer bottlenecks that still need to be solved in order to promote effective inoculation

Because of carier, transportation and conservation problèmes, it will be difficult to completely replace chemical fertilizers by biofertizers. But, We can highly reduce the use of chemical fertlizers by an intelligent combinaison of the two kind of fertilizer.

Yes, in smallholder farmers' farms and in horticulture. Although we do not deny this possibility in industrial agriculture, we think it would be better to combine bio and chemical fertilizers to minimize the use of chemicals and subsequently their impacts on human health and kl ' environment.

The introduction of rockdust waste from the stone quarries mixed with compost is an excellent replacement for chemical fertilizers,. At the same time introduce applications of a "mix of the essential microorganisms" which belong in the soil. These are taking care of converting the inorganic rockdust into organic nutrients for the plants. With harvest improvements of 30 to 80+%

Where can you get a cheaper inorganic, non polluting form of soil improvement than rockdust? 1 m3 costs in Germany approx. 180.00 euros. in the Philippines not more than 20.00 Euro per m3 Its the waste of the quarry, when not removed it reduces strongly the life time of the machinery at the quarry.

Our trials on our trial farm in the Philippines and production farm in Germany has proven over and over that is works well.

This concept has reduced the overall cost from 20.000,00 Euro to only 4000,00 Euro per year in Germany alone and includes the reduction on fungi- and pesticides as well.

You may follow the link below:

Article Up to 52 % N fertilizer replaced by biofertilizer in lowland...

Yes the biofertilizers definately reduces the use of chemical fertilizers because the biofertilizers are environmental friendly and enhances the activity of micronutrients in the soil along with the they helps in the better production than the chemical fertlizers.

In some how It could be a synergistic factor with the other environmental issues including soil to lower the overuse of mineral fertilizers

Let me toss up another issue. there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the possiblereduction in doses of chemical fertilizers used as a part of RDF , regardless of soils and crops. What is your opinion , can we schedule multiple microbial inoculation just like fertilizers during the entire growth period of a crop..??

Yes but it takes time to replace it.

To give an example that inmediate replacement is possible We prooved it at our research farm in the Philippines. I must state that we using Rockdust which we categorize as biofertilizer. Beside that we using at the same time a large mix of various Microorganisms.

We started to develop the farm & plantation May 2017 and did not us any fertilizer what so ever.

Our results were that we proofed the full eradication of Fusarium of the Banana plants while the already available banana plants were already with fusarium.

The large variety of fruit trees planted that year shown a more than 20% faster development in size and fruit delivery.

Tests done on our german testgrounds we have shown the same regime with pine tree growth higher than the standard growth normally 10 years for 2.5 meter average. Test trials in 6 years 4,50 meter or higher.

Dr. Anoop, I think the biofertilizers have the potential to sustain the plant growth and development. Although, it will take time to restore the status of the soil to pre-green revolution era, nevertheless, there are many regions which still are untouched with the modernization in agriculture in terms of chemical inputs. Those regions will be more responsive to biofertilizers applications.

It depends on the condition of the soil, its content of organic matter, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen and how the soil is managed, but in general and in most cases it is difficult to dispense with chemical fertilizers with keep at the same level of productivity

Use of Biofertilizer can reduce the inorganic chemicals but it's not possible to replace it completely. in the scenario of growing population and increase in demand for food supply, it is impossible to replace but with help of integrated nutrient management, there is a chance to increase Biofertilizer usage.