see link below ↓↓↓

Article Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer application on Ma...

maize is edible grain crop being agronomist  i  know that soil fertility increase with application of fertilizers but organic natural nutrition is better for soil health and for avoid any chemical residual effect  in grain of maize.

This is not specific for maize alone. There is a lot of evidence  on a number of crops like soybean, wheat, chickpeas etc.,  in a number of field trials in India that purely in so far as nutritional quality is concerned, the differences between organic and inorganic balanced fertilization are negligible. 

The application of available Nitrogen in organic or synthetic forms will increase the content of grain protein and increase yield.

High amounts can lead to nitrate accumulation in foliar which can have effects on human and animal health. Nitrogen fertilization with other major and minor elements can lead to excessive watery growth, insect and disease susceptibility and increase losses for environmental stresses.

One of the best ways of increasing the ability of maize to support animal and human dietary needs is the use of Quality Protein Maize which is high in limiting amino acids such as Lysine.

The use of legumes in rotation before the maize crop will increase the soil supply of nitrogen and rotation maize has higher yield potential and quality. Soybeans are most commonly employed. 

Animal manures and compost can improve the mineral content of maize and improve the ability to produce balanced animal and human nutrition. Generally the use of 80% corn meal and 20% soybean concentrate is able to balance the needs for monogastric animals at reasonable cost for animal producers.  If you have a mixed animal and crop system the use of alfalfa hay can allow for optimized maize production without amendment using synthetic nitrogen or manure/compost.

Dr.Hepperly and other colleagues, it is always good to link agriculture and livestock enterprises to efficiently utilise the manure resources. It is also desired to include legume  in crop rotation as green manure, intercrop or  cover crop.At relatively low yields organic manures or other organic sources provide sufficient amounts of nutrients to crops. As organic manures contain secondary and micronutriets along with major nutrients, they may provide some sort of balanced nutrition to crop and grain quality may also be good.But now the problem is to provide sufficient nutrients to crop like hybrid Maize which produces 12-13 tonnes of Maize grains per ha land.Is it now possible to provide sufficient nutrients to Maize through organic sources on long-term or sustainable basis and maintain the quality of grain. Or alternatively we have to demarkate the areas for organic Maize with quality grain and other areas for integrated nutrient supply using Fertilizers, manures and bio fertilizers.Also quality of grain can be maintained using the integrated nutrient supply system.

Dr. Rao,s answer is OK. Generally the organically grown crops do have relatively better quality and health friendly. Quality is mainly disturbed with imbalance nutrient availability and their absorption by plants.

Dear Fikadu, the answer is yes. As Dr. Rao and Rao mentioned, changes in  nutritional quality is not limited to maize only as a result of organic and inorganic nutrient applications.  For instance,  the availability of N in low or excess amount can have significant effect on grain N concentration, which in turn affects grain protein content. The influence of other nutrients on other nutritional qualities is similar. However, the native soil nutrient content, soil biophysical and chemical properties, the source and amount applied as external input, the soil  moisture content, crop varieties, cropping systems and growing conditions may have significant influence on the availability and uptake of nutrients by plants and nutritional quality.

That is why soil test based fertilizer recommendation is advocated not only in terms of crop quality, but also in terms of economic efficiency and environmental management. Please find recent publications as attachment.  

Dr.Getachew, agree with you that the factors and processes which govern the crop growth,production and productivity will also influence the the grain composition and quality. As mentioned by Dr.RAO,many times the difference between the organic manures and Fertilizers is not conspicuous or clear.in the grain composition of crop in not only mineral elements but also in organic constituents like protein, carbohydrates, oil or fat content or even aminoacid content.Many times it is claimed and believed that organic farming improves the taste, cooking quality of food grainss .But we need sufficient data to support the claims.I also endorse the conclusion of Dr.Getachew regarding balanced fertilization with organic and inorganic sources based on soil testing.

certainly, quality of maize will be better with the organics. It not only contain all the essential elements, but also promotes huge microbial activities including PGPR.

Maize takes nitrogen from a available N-pool whichever may be the source of N. As such, there should not be any difference on quality of maize from he source of N in the soil. However, as stated by some scientists above, organic manure definitely increases the soil quality and thus may improve the availability of other nutrients thereby overall plant health.

Very interesting discussion . This is the debate perhaps will  not be so easily resolved . The scientific fraternity will remain divided on this issue . And it absolutely correct , whether mineral fertilizers  or organic manures will evoke better response  to crop yield and quality cannot be restricted to any one crop precisely .  Dr Getachew and Dr Hepperly , if you remember few days back only , we were discussing about the issue which kind of crops are better equipped to be benefitted to either organic manures or mineral fertilizers?. I feel any crop can be grown effectively with quality production with the balanced fertilization , either by exclusive use of mineral fertilizers ( If soil organic matter is within optimum limits) or organic manures alone ( Which is again not a  good practice in a long run , affecting the cost of production ) or by combination of two divergent nutrient sources.

Every living component needs optimum environment for its expression be it physical, chemical or biological. When optimum plant nutrition is there from chemical fertilizers, organics use certainly will improve biological activities in soil and there by its beneficial effects on plant growth, yield and quality.

Use of organis be given due priority to have good quality crops apart from quantity produced, particularly in a country like India.  

Balanced nutrition depends on meeting soil imbalances and crop needs.

Start with soil and crop leaf sampling to know where amendments should be focused.

If you use a crop like pigeon pea use can greatly reduce need for Nitrogen supplementation.

Soil test will give the needs for micro and macro nutrients for Indian conditions

Zinc can be challenging in at least 50% of fields. Zinc can be addressed by seed, soil, and foliar treatments without enormous input needed.

Under Indian conditions Phosphorus and Potassium may be wanting and these cannot be gotten from Biological Source legumes. Soil test will determine that need. If you get some good soil test I will give my input on how to address you Maize needs.

Dear Fikadu Negese

All plants do need a balanced nutrition and crops, including maize, so produced generally have better nutritive value. In fact we have to balance nutrient availability in soils which best can be assessed from soil test.

The OM from plant sources provide some elements, in traces, which we do not know so far which help improve produce quality. I give you one example as a food for thought.

In my village near Faisalabad, people grow vegetables where there is great problem of flower shedding that affect yield adversely. The ladies in that area wash gold ornaments in water and spray it on pumpkin shoots. Due this this practice flower shedding is  decreased considerably. I guess some addition of gold as ppt to check flower shedding.

Hence OM from plant sources could provide such traces of elements to improve produce quality.

Dr.Ghafoor, I heard that in good olden days people eating gold wrapped as very thin films on hot food.I do not know how far it is true.I under stand that some metals like gold ,silver, calcium are used in ayuvefic medicine. I think some of the metals in traces may be useful to plants which needs to be established.

Hi Fikadu,

Yes absolutely there are relations between fertilizer inputs and quality of grain and residues of crops. I have no answer as to which one of the nutrients are important. I would argue these relations are stronger and more responsive with the macro nutrients. For example we did a work on how fertilizer input/ extractable soil nutrient  affects animal feed quality traits such as crude protein, digestibility etc.... of animal feed. We found that crud protein is highly related to the degree of nitrogen input/soil contents and so does S.... I think the same principles work for human food quality and applies to maize. I attached our publication in this area for your reference...

Again back to your question: I have no evidence as to whether organic or inorganic is best... but given the diverse nutrient content or the organic fertilizer the probability of organic nutrient sources to affect the crop quality is higher, but  the speed of release of nutrient from the organic source is major problem.  In fact if you want to compare these two nutrient sources on their effect on grain quality you need to undertake longer term experiment.. as nutrient available from organic source is released slowly over longer time and you may not see the impact immediately like for the inorganic.

Yes I agree with Dr Haileslassie . Any  crop fertilization   programme , regardless of source of fertilizers, if based on balanced fertilization , must produce good quality yield. Very often , we are tempted to say , the yield response could be much better with organic manures over exclusive mineral fertilizers . It could be a possibility where initial organic matter of the soil is too low to trigger any microbial transformation of nutrients. But in a soil having modest amount of organic matter , inorganic fertilizers would certainly take an upper hand over organic manures . Again the question comes ,  are we evaluating such response under rainfed or irrigated conditions, possibly the magnitude of responses with two divergent types of nutrient sources would be different  depending upon the soil surface as well subsurface properties. And , there is no doubt about the majority of the residual effect of organic manures getting more conspicuously visible on crop performance in the next seasons than in the current season.  

Dear colleagues, interesting discussion. As mentioned by me earlier organic manures by virtue of containg major and micronutriets supply them on decomposition and mineralization. Applying sufficiently large amount of nutrients through manure to high yielding maize is a challenge.When manure is applied to current crop ,it decomposes in about 2 months and supplies major share of nutrients (30%N,60%P and 70% or more K) to crop during the current season.The rest is released in the  subsequent crops.When we practice organic farming and continuously apply manure every year,. the cumulative effects become very prominent.So under conditions of application of high rates of manure application over many years as in organic farming, the produce quality may be good.It is also possible to produce high yields and quality Maize by balanced fertilization through Fertilizers alone or through integrated nutrient supply system as mentioned  earlier by colleagues.

I think integrated plant nutrient management approach (both organic and inorganic nutrient sources) appears more productive, economically feasible, environmentally friendly and sustainable. How do you see the long term application of high amounts of manures in terms of nutrient imbalances and emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in tropical agro-ecosystems?

Because of the heavy losses of maize in your environment potentially from both stem borers and witchweeds, I would suggest you implement the push pull maize system method for legume intercropping which will also provide Nitrogen for your maize. If you can corral your animals and compost manure it would lead to best ability to increase soil organic matter which will limit your ability access seasonal water. Under a semi arid environment which  I suspect you make have make sure to get a complete soil analysis. It will important to see if you have Zinc limitation which is common in maize and can be remedied in your plantings and adjust any toxicity or deficiency which the soil analysis may reveal. By using biological Nitrogen adjusting the soil based on plant needs a better nutritional crop should be possible. By utilizing the biological push pull system you will avoid the antinutritional effects of synthetic pesticides and unnecessary nutrient applications. If you get a soil analysis I would be happy to give a recommendation based on my experience in maize in the tropics and around the world.

If nutrients are applied balanced quantities; inorganic or organic forms, there will not be much difference in maize quality.   

That's a point Dr Nazir . As long as we are able to address the soil fertility constraints , either through inorganic fertilizers or through organic manures , there is a  remote possibility of having any discernible difference in quality . However I agree with Dr Getachew to have a compromise between the two sources to have the resultant  mutualistic benefits  on both soil and crop health, including the legume intercropping as advocated by Dr Hepperly . There have have been  limited efforts in the past to judge the effectiveness of  integrated nutrient management in terms of release of  green house gases or carbon accredition, besides soil and crop health . I am enclosing a PDF for further reading  on some of the above issues. 

Yes, INM pays in the long run and keeps the soils fertile and normal. Thank you Dr. Anoop Kumar for sharing a good pdf.

In my own observation in field extracts of plants in low concentration (upto 5%) like moringa and mulberry leaves or synthetic substnce (like thiouurea, salicylic acid in very low concentration) improved grain quality.

Dr.Getachew,in India under All India coordinated research Long term Experiments  are in progress from more than four decades.In those experiments integrated nutrient supply is one treatment in different cropping  and ecosystems.Under integrated nutrient supply system no nutrient imbalance is observed. The same treatment maintained higer organic carbon stocks among different treatments.In selected locations greenhouse gas emissions are measured/being measured. I shall try to locate appropriate publication from IISS,Bhopal resources.

.

Dr.Getachew, I could locate the annual report of AICRP Long Term Fertilizer Experiments, (LTFE).Please refer to website of I ISS,Bhopal under AICRPs Long Term Fertilizer Exeriments . www.iiss.nic.in./LTFE.html

Tropical soils needs more integrated form of nutrient management. Experimental evidences are there. However, practical part is not followed. 

When we use organic fertilizer, almost liqued not solid (because the first is easier to be used for crops), we get same or biggest size, better flavour, better post harvest and in some crops more quantity of protein

 Dr. Manapatra in practical implimentation several factors play role.Organic manures are preferred in  vegetable crops like chillies ,potatoes, high value crops like sugarcane, maize ete.Biofertilizers are applied based on awarenesss and availability. Even though losses are more ,manures are applied in summer season because of convenience. Ms.Maria ,in which crops manure is applied and at what rate to get improved quality of produce?Is it slurry manure you are referring to?

Friends , we are missing one very important aspect of discussion . Are we talking of rainfed maize or irrigated maize ?. In these two contrasting growing conditions , whole discussion will take a different shape, besides nutrient -use-efficiency , agronomic efficiency etc  etc...  If it is rainfed maize , role of green manure crops , crop residues management , organic manuring etc will be unavoidable ( Dr Hepperly is dead right in that context ) . But if it is irrigated maize , then there is no supplement better than INM ( As endorsed by Dr Getachew and Dr Nazir ) taking care of both soil health and plant health in addition to quality production. I  , therefore, think  kind of  such practices will be largely dictated by the crop whether grown under irrigated or rainfed conditions. That also is to be seen,  full potential of organic manures whether , we will be able to harness in one or two harvesting season?

Drr. Srivastava has indicated very good point.

Yes, Dr. Anoop Kumar is right. We should discuss rainfed and irrigated maize separately.

I totally agree with Dr.Anoop Kumar Srivastava. I'm also doing a long-term experiment with paddy rice,since the irrigated system in Japan is very good, the rainfed effect wasn't significant, so I do not mention rainfall on the issue, but you may should consider solar radiation and temperature

Dear colleagues ,integrated nutrient supply system is equally important in rainfed agriculture also.All India coordinated research project for  dryland agriculture with its cooperative centres has developed IPNS recommendations for important  rainfed crops in India.Central Research  Institute for Dryland Agriculture,CRIDA,Hyderabad website can be consulted. International Crops Research Institute for Semiarid Tropics, ICRISAT has been promoting balanced fertilization with micronutriets , organic manures,and Biofertilizers. Dr.Suhas P Wani publications in Researchgate can be viewed.The following  review article may be consulted.Soil health issues in rainfed agriculture by Rao,A.Subba Indian Journal of dry land agricultural Research and Development. 2011 vol 26(2) pp1-20 .on line published on 22 July,2013. Indian journals.com mollicutes.indianjournals. com

While 70% of our ourselves and our plant surface are water. Fresh water useful for agriculture is a tiny shrinking reserve which is increasingly endangered particularly by agriculture. Over 80% of the world's water use goes to irrigation. No matter how you slice it water is a key limiting nutrient for our world food system. The optimization of this whether in the rainfed or irrigation system will depend on our preserving our water supplies which is most endangered by our agricultural practices. From the on set of manufacturing through light photosynthesis the Carbon and oxygenated hydrogen are linked together. When we destroy the Carbon basis in our soils we are desiccating the foundation of the life itself. When 100 units of dry soil move from 1 to 5% soil organic matter the water capacity is transformed from less than 30 units water to over 200 units water. When we look at agriculture potential in a more dry than wet world the management and conservation and regeneration of soil carbon has primary importance especially when climate change is considered for its seriousness for our future.

Dr.Hepperly, I agree with you that organic carbon is important  in dry regions also.Our endeavor is to to increase or maintain carbon status of soils.Equally important is conservation and efficient use of water in rainfed agriculture.But how to balance agricultural production and water conservation and use.Shall we compromise for a lower yield for soil carbon maintenance and water conservation?

Something like 1) no till planting 2) use of compost  3) use of cover 4) rotational cropping  5) balancing soil fertility 6) liming do not necessarily need to be seen as compromising yield and quality.

Neither do inputs need to be seen as panacea solutions by denying the issues related to them and their use.

If we do biological based systems over time the base resources increase and yield and quality become less of a concern not more.

Part of this solution is weaning ourselves from inputs with intrinsic problems related to eutrophication and toxicity.  We only appreciate this through long term effect and adaptation which has been scarce in our era post World War 2.

The problems for farmers in changing their system and allowing the biological nature to be restored which has been lost in "modern so called good agriculture practices" such as input farming.

In our long term studies after 3 yeas of conversion the transition is no longer seen in a crop like maize which is among the most Nitrogen demanding crops.  All the Nitrogen needs of maize a highly dependent crop on Nitrogen can be supplied by legumes in rotation and covers from the air. Biological nitrogen avoids most of  the massive energetic and environmental load of a fertilizer approach.

 I believe that type of prospective is the high production agriculture will lead to greater appreciation that it is carbon based. Post modern Nitrogen approach is fundamently flawed. In fact, the use of inputs into monocultures not considering the system itself is a part of the problem not necessarily the solution. It is the problem. These inputs take away from the biology and make the system increasing leaky with the vast majority of the North America system overflow contributing to a growing massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. This has been a North American Export throughout the World as Modern methodology is extolled without appreciation of its drawbacks.

Irrigation itself can be improved to get much less misuse of the irrigation as in targeted drip compared to open furrow systems. We might chose to optimize by doing my crop area and expecting less yield but able to do more acres. We cannot expect that every field will be irrigated as you astutely observed.

If you have a leaky system based on inputs alone we tend to need increasing inputs to get the same result. We focus on the underlying resource and its improvement be get a decreasing real need for inputs and nutrients are not lost but recycled within the system to build it over time.

The massive issues in the soil can often be related to lack of attention to pH and mineral balancing let alone idea of a one time maximization of yield potential of single crops. For this reason our solutions need to be based on long term and regenerative approaches not on an input approach. In fact many times our great obstacles are related to the inputs. In relation to this look at the continuing "need" for liming and high amounts of ammoniated fertilizer are the base of maize production for instance. In reality. The return on this system is small compared to investment in terms of energy and its long term effects on soil water and air issues.

When we focus on both the chemistry and biology we get better results over the long haul.

The reason I think this is so important because natural biological processes are generally more effective and efficient than chemistry alone.

 Dear Dr.Hepperly, I whole heartedly appreciate your  comments. I agree with you that our agricultural practices should not be simply input based.But many of us did not pay attention to long term solutions to sustainable agriculture. I have comeacross a figure of around 40 million tonnes of nitrogen fixation by Microbial systems compared to chemical fixation of over 80 million tonnes of Fertilizers which indicates substantial contribution from biological fixation.There are several problems in practicing  green manuring and cover crops like moisture availability and temperature before  or after the main crop.Intercropping is not a problem. Similarly manure use is not problem but availability in sufficient amount is problem.. Onfarm generation of organic manures like green leaf manure,compost and farmyard manure is a good opportunity. Biological mobilization of nutrients like P and micronutriets through root systems and microbes is another opportunity. Where ever external nutrients supply is needed we can go for mineral application and mobilze through biological means.Even pest and disease control can be achieved through cultural and biological means.Only problem is time and energy need to be spent to understand the systems and plan appropriate interventions.

Dear Fidako

From experiments with horticultural crops it was found that the use of organic source fertilizers have a best positive effects on yield quality and nutritional value in respect to negative effects of residual toxic compounds resulting from the use of inorganic fertilizers.from my experiment on fruit crops fertilizing i suggest  that you can use bio fertilizers  ,or bio stimulants to achieve good rsults.

best regards

AliAlhayany 

Ali Alhayany, Can you please enlist quality parameters that were positively affected by organic source of fertilizer in comparison to inorganic fertilizers.

In terms of response in organic or conventional maize the adjustment of pH and balancing of key nutrients are critical to both yield and quality in both production systems.  

We can achieve balanced  nutrition through chemical fertilizers,organic manures and combination of fertilizers and manures.One problem with chemical fertilizers alone is that we may not be able to apply all the essential nutrients through fertilizers .When manure is applied in manure alone system and integrated nutrient management system almost all the nutrients can be provided to the crop. So we may get better quality grain in manure and integrated nutrient supply systems compared to fertilizer alone applied system.But equivalent yield levels can be achieved in all the three systems.

There certainly is, both in quality and taste.

yes, very much. Take nitrogen fertilizer which is strongly linked to protein and sulphur. When it comes to animal feed quality there are some improvement in feed quality trait . look at this paper

Yes if we take the Nitrogen it increases the protein content. and if we take organic fertilizers it increases the soil fertility and it increases the nutritional value of feed