Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Loading in …3
×
1 of 68

Agroomic biofortification

10

Share

Modern agriculture has been largely successful in meeting the food needs for ever increasing population in developing countries. On the contrary, malnutrition, especially Fe and Zn continue to pose a very serious constraint not only to human health as well economic development of nation that might formerly have got unnoticed. Besides, the micronutrient deficiencies are becoming increasingly common in agriculture as a result of higher levels of removal by ever-more-productive crops combined with breeding for higher yields, at the expense of micronutrient acquisition efficiency (Havlinet al., 2014).Therefore, agriculture must now focus on a new paradigm that will not only produce more food, but deliver better quality food as well.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Agroomic biofortification

  1. 1. Agronomic biofortification –A way for alleviating micronutrient deficiency and malnutrition Bornali Borah Ph. D. Scholar (Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry) Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat
  2. 2.  INTRODUCTION  FUTURE THRUST  CONCLUSION  REVIEW OF LITERATURE & CASE STUDY  MAJOR REASONS OF MALNUTRITION  PRESENT SCENARIO 1. MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY IN SOILS 2. MALNUTRITION  FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY IN SOIL  AGRONOMIC BIOFORTIFICATION CONTENTS  APPROACHES TO ALLEVIATE MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY  MAJOR CAUSES OF MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES IN HUMANS OF INDIA
  3. 3. Malnutrition refers to deficiencies, excesses or imbalances in a person’s intake of energy and/or nutrients. The term malnutrition covers 2 broad groups of conditions. One is ‘undernutrition’—which includes stunting (low height for age), wasting (low weight for height), underweight (low weight for age) and micronutrient deficiencies or insufficiencies. The other is overweight, obesity and diet-related noncommunicable diseases (such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes).(WHO, 2012) WHAT IS MALNUTRITION? 6 3
  4. 4. Modern agriculture has been largely successful in meeting the food needs for ever increasing population in developing countries. On the contrary, malnutrition, especially Fe and Zn continue to pose a very serious constraint not only to human health but also economic development of nation that might formerly have got unnoticed (Havlin et al., 2014). Intensification of agriculture leads to greater nutrient mining pressure on the finite soil resources causing deficiency of micronutrients to soil, as traditional fertilizer practices designed to meet the needs for only major nutrients.  Discontinuation of micronutrients application may results loss of 30 MT in current level of food grain production ( Shukla et al., 2014). Therefore, agriculture must now focus on a new paradigm that will not only produce more food, but deliver better quality food as well. 4 MAJOR REASONS OF MALNUTRITION
  5. 5. • Among them Fe, I, Zn and vitamin A deficiencies are most prevalent (Kennedy et al., 2003, UN SCN, 2004). • Zinc deficiency in human nutrition is the most wide spread nutritional disorder, next only to iron, vitamin A and iodine. (WHO, 2012) • About 20% of deaths in children under five can be attributed to vitamin A, Zn, Fe, and I deficiency (Prentice et al, 2008) • Over 60% of the world’s population are iron (Fe) deficient, over 30% are zinc (Zn) deficient (White and Broadley, 2009) Two billion people across the world suffering from another type of hunger known as “hidden hunger” which is caused by an inadequate intake of essential micronutrients in the daily diet ... 5 FSSAI, Global nutrition report, 20165 184M
  6. 6. 6 6
  7. 7. Water and energy Protein (amino acid) Lipids (Fatty acid) Macro minerals Micro elements Vitamins 2 9 2 7 17 13 Water Histidine Linolenic acid Na Fe D Carbohydrates Isoleucine Linoleic acid K Zn E Leucine Ca Cu K Lysine Mg Mn C Methionine S I, F, B1 Phenylalanine P As, Li, Sn, V B2 Threonine Cl Co B3 Tryptophan Se B6 Valine Mo Folic acid Ni Biotin Cr Niacin B12 Table 1:Essential nutrients for sustaining human life Singh (2009)7
  8. 8. Fig.1 :Percentage of population suffering from undernourishment 8
  9. 9. Fig. 2: Zinc deficiency and Child mortality : Geographic overlap Cakmak (2012) Better Crops 96: 17-19 9
  10. 10. Fig. 3: Worldwide prevalence of Anemia by severity Harvest Plus (2014) http://www.harvestplus.org/content/iron 10
  11. 11. 11 Fig 4: Spatial Variation in Available Zinc Deficiency Status in Soils of Different States of India
  12. 12. 12 Fig 5: Iron Deficiency Status in Soils of Different State of India
  13. 13. 13 Fig 6: Spatial Variation in Available Zinc Deficiency Status in Soils of Different District of Gujarat
  14. 14. 14 Fig 7: Spatial Variation in Available Iron Deficiency Status in Soils of Different State of India
  15. 15. Major causes of micronutrient deficiency in soil Continuous use of high analysis fertilizers Low inherent level of micronutrients in the soil Use of high – yielding cultivars Over liming in acidic soils Interactions among macro and micronutrients Sandy and calcareous soils Decreased use of manures, composts and crop residues 15
  16. 16. Nearly 50% of Indian soils Zn- deficient which is expected to increase to 63% by 2025 if the trend continues Table 2 : Micronutrients deficiency status of available (DTPA extractable in %) in soils of different zones of India Source: AICRP-MSPE database 16 Zones No. of samples 2009-2014 Zn Fe Cu Mn East 17675 29.4 5.3 2.1 3.5 North 15859 19.3 11.4 4.5 7.9 South 42602 54.3 12.3 9.8 6.5 West 21328 48.8 17.9 0.2 3.6 All India 97464 43.0 12.1 7.0 5.5
  17. 17. Major Causes of Micronutrient Deficiencies in Humans of India  Intake of nutritious food - Inadequate  Bioavailability of minerals and vitamins - Poor  Intestinal parasitic infestation - Frequent  Commonly consumed foods and beverages - high in antinutrients and low in enhancers of micronutrient absorption  Favorable nutritional characteristics - Primitive cultivars better than high yielding varieties  Dietary diversity - Reduced  Refined and processed foods - Increasing consumption 17
  18. 18. High Consumption of Cereal Based Foods with Low Zn and Fe Concentrations In the rural areas of India, rice and wheat contributes nearly 75 % of the daily calorie intake. (Calmak, 2012) A diet of 300-400 g cereals day-1 will supply only 4-6 mg Zn/day from rice and 11-18 mg –Zn day-1 –from wheat For a better Zn nutrition of human beings cereal grains should contain around 40-60 mg Zn kg-1 Current Situation: 10-40 mg kg-1 Zn content (mg Zn kg-1 grain) Un-hulled rice -27-42, polished rice- 13-15, wheat grains- 38-47 18
  19. 19. Group RDA (mg day-1 ) Zinc Iron Adult man 12 21 Adult woman Pregnant 12 35 Lactating 0-6 month 12 25 Lactating 6-12 month 12 5 Children 1-3y 5 9 4-6y 7 13 7-9y 8 16 Adolescents Boys (10-18y) 11-12 21-28 Girls(10-18y) 9-12 26-27 Average daily requirement Zn- 15-20 mg day-1 Fe- 20 mg day-1 Recommended daily allowance (RDA) for Indians ICMR (2010) 19
  20. 20. APPROACHES TO ALLEVIATE MINERAL DEFICIENCY 1. Dietary Diversification 2.Food Fortification 3. Supplementation 4.Biofortification 20 20
  21. 21. WHAT IS BIOFORTIFICATION? • “Biofortification” or “biological fortification” refers to nutritionally enhanced food crops with increased bioavailability to the human population that are developed and grown using modern biotechnology techniques, conventional plant breeding, and agronomic practices. (WHO, 2002) Agronomic biofortification or ferti- fortification is the application of micronutrient-containing mineral fertilizer to the soil and/or plant leaves (foliar), OR Improvement of the solubilization and mobilization of mineral elements in the soil to increase micronutrient contents of the edible part of food crops. 21
  22. 22. SHORT TERM APPROACHES LONG TERM APPROACHES Agronomical Biofortification Physiological Interventions Microbiological Interventions Conventional Breeding Transgenic Approaches BIOFORTIFICATION 22
  23. 23. Challenges of genetic biofortification Requires sufficient amount of plant bio-available Zn in soil ---- Soil depletion of Zn  Stability of the trait across different environments ---- High soil pH, low moisture and organic matter content of the soil can reduce uptake of Zn in grains  The trait has to transferred to all or many cultivars ---- Time consuming, requires huge resources  Acceptance of biofortified crops by producers ---- How it profits the farmer, yield penalties 1723
  24. 24. Intervention Scope Economics Supplementation: giving mineral drugs as clinical treatment Recommended during pregnancy /severe Zn deficiency for a shorter period It is costly and only recommended when a very quick response is required Fortification: addition of an ingredient to food to increase the concentration of a particular element It is effective but limited to urban areas. It is very uneconomical if carried out for longer period of times Food Diversification/ modification Applicable only where alternative food products are available with high adoptability It is economically feasible and sustainable intervention Biofortification It is targeted and reachable It is cost effective and sustainable approach. Increase yields on micronutrient deficient soils Seems permanentBouis and Welch, 2010 Comparison of Biofortification over other Approaches 24
  25. 25. How biofortified Crops Improve Food and Nutrition Security Compared with conventional (non-biofortified crops), biofortified crops have Increase foods available in homes  Better agronomic characteristics • Greater : yields, resistance to pests, tolerance to stresses  Higher nutritional concentration • More: iron, zinc, beta- carotene and/or tryptophan and lysine Increase the intake of these nutrients Improve nutrition security Improve food security 25
  26. 26. APPROACHES IN AGRONOMIC BIOFORTIFICATION Increase micronutrient concentration by 1. Soil Application 2. Foliar Application 3. Soil + Foliar Application 4. Seed treatment 5. Organic Matter 6. Soil amendments & sewage 26 26
  27. 27. Table 3: Effect of micronutrients application on grain yield, grain Zn/Fe concentration of different groups of cultivars at different locations Crops Efficient cultivars Inefficient cultivars Zinc (Zn) Grain yield (t/ha) Grain Zn (mg/kg) Grain yield (t/ha) Grain Zn (mg/kg) -Zn + Zn -Zn + Zn -Zn + Zn -Zn + Zn 1. IISS, Bhopal A. Pigeon pea 1.41 1.54 32.6 43.8 1.06 1.41 35.1 48.2 B. Wheat 3.72 3.87 41.0 47.8 2.85 3.37 43.0 56.3 2. ANGRAU, Hyderabad A. Rice (dehusked) 5.98 6.18 11.0 16.7 5.36 7.92 9.5 16.9 B. Maize 5.04 6.13 24.2 27.4 4.39 6.59 23.7 29.5 3. GBPANT, Pantnagar A. Rice (dehusked) 3.94 5.92 13.1 26.8 3.94 5.92 13.1 26.8 B. Wheat 3.71 3.95 20.3 43.1 3.26 4.23 15.1 43.8 27 Shukla et al., 2015
  28. 28. Crops Efficient cultivars Inefficient cutivars Iron ( Fe) Grain yield (t/ha) Grain Fe (mg/kg) Grain yield (t/ha) Grain Fe (mg/kg) -Fe +Fe -Fe +Fe -Fe +Fe -Fe +Fe 4. AAU, Anand A. Pigeon pea 2.50 2.62 34.1 36.0 2.27 2.55 33.7 38.5 B. Chickpea 3.15 3.27 59.0 62.8 2.36 2.91 56.0 67.5 5. RAU, Pusa A. Rice (dehusked) 5.04 15.6 21.4 81.7 2.99 4.06 13.8 24.3 B. Maize 5.19 5.55 46.8 66.2 5.22 6.22 41.3 63.2 Shukla et al., 2015 28
  29. 29. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  30. 30. SOILAPPLICATION Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyandmalnutrition 30
  31. 31. Table 4: Effect of Zn fertilization on Zn concentration of aromatic hybrid rice Zn fertilization Grain yield (t/ha) Biological yield (t/ha) Grain Zn concentration (mg/kg) Straw Zn concentration (mg/kg) Absolute Control (no N & no Zn) 5.03 13.33 15.0 125.2 Control (only N) 6.74 17.63 17.0 144.0 2.0% ZEU (ZnSO4.7H2O) 7.53 19.22 23.0 177.7 2.0% ZEU (ZnO) 7.30 18.64 20.0 164.6 5.0kg Zn/ha (ZnSO4.7H2O) 7.17 18.31 21.1 161.3 5.0kg Zn/ha (ZnO) 7.04 17.96 19.2 151.8 CMCU 6.80 17.76 17.0 143.1 SEm± 0.12 0.19 0.08 0.56 CD (P=0.05) 0.33 0.55 0.24 1.60 ICAR, New Delhi ZEU: Zinc enriched urea, CMCU: Coating material coated urea Jat et al., (2009) 29
  32. 32. Fig.8: Grain Zn concentration in rice and wheat due to degree of Zn enrichment of urea •Solid lines for Zn sulphate (ZnSEU) and dotted lines for Zn oxide enriched urea (ZnOEU) •Zn enrichment of urea @ 2 % Zn as zinc sulphate Prasad (2013)IARI, NewDelhi 30
  33. 33. Table 5: Effect of Zn fertilizer sources on the Zn concentration in grain and straw of durum wheat under rice – wheat cropping system Treatment Zn concentration in grain (mg/kg grain ) Zn concentration in straw (mg/kg straw) 2009-2010 2010-2011 2009-2010 2010-2011 Control (no Zn) 34.0 32.6 104.4 104.7 ZnSO4.7H2O (21% Zn) 41.5 41.6 123.8 125.7 ZnSO4.H2O (33% Zn) 40.3 40.2 120.9 122.2 ZnO (82% Zn) 37.2 37.3 111.7 111.8 ZnSO4.7H2O + ZnO (50%+ 50%) 39.0 39.3 117.4 117.1 EDTA- Chelated Zn (12% Zn) 45.2 45.4 133.9 133.1 SEm± 0.26 0.27 1.10 0.84 CD (P= 0.05) 0.73 0.77 3.14 2.40 Soil type: sandy clay , pH: 7.5, OC: 053%, Zn: 0.67 mg/kg, N: 135.75 kg/ha, P: 16.04 kg/ha, K: 292.10 kg/ha IARI, New Delhi In all the Zn treatment, 5 kg Zn/ ha was applied Singh and Shivay (2013) 31
  34. 34. Treatment Micronutrients content (mg/kg) Fe Mn Zn Cu Micronutrient levels M0:- Control 99.0 21.0 43.0 17.0 M1:- 2.50 mg Fe/kg 111.2 20.8 47.4 15.9 M2:- 5.00 mg Fe/kg 138.0 19.7 51.5 15.0 M3:- 7.50 mg Fe/kg 147.6 19.1 53.5 14.3 M4:- 10.0 mg Fe/kg 147.2 18.3 53.4 13.7 M5:- 1.25 mg Zn/kg 111.5 21.6 52.1 16.5 M6:- 2.50 mg Zn/kg 119.6 20.7 64.0 16.2 M7:- 3.75 mg Zn/kg 125.0 19.7 72.9 15.9 M8:- 5.00 mg Zn/kg 129.0 19.6 84.0 14.8 M9:-Grade 5@ 12.0 mg/kg 122.9 21.2 59.5 16.3 SEm± 1.31 0.43 1.52 0.33 CD @ 5% 3.61 1.23 4.35 0.94 Table 6 : Effect of different treatment on micronutrient content (mg/kg ) in grains of rice. NAU, Navsari Gohil (2015) 32
  35. 35. FOLIAR APPLICATION Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyandmalnutrition 35
  36. 36. Table 7: Effect of ferti-fortification with Fe on grain Fe concentration and uptake in different maize cultivars Cultivers Fe content (mg/kg) Fe uptake (g/ha) Control Fe spray Mean Control Fe spray Mean PMH1 23.53 38.23 30.88 1008 1743 1375 JH 3459 32.57 39.90 36.24 1404 1760 1582 30V92 31.23 38.53 34.88 1447 3814 2631 Prabhat 25.80 36.23 31.02 999 1461 1230 Navjot 28.37 39.57 33.97 1188 1724 1456 Mean 28.30 38.49 33.40 1209 2101 1655 CD (0.5%) - 3.84 - - 56 - Three sprays of 1.0% Fe ( FeSO4.7H2O) Ludhiana, Punjab Dhaliwal et al., (2013) 33
  37. 37. Treatment Rice cultivars PR113 PR116 PR118 PR120 PAU201 PR113 PR116 PR118 PR120 PAU201 Fe concentration (mg kg-1) in grains Fe uptake (g ha-1) in grains Control 15.2 14.8 13.0 17.8 12.5 394.9 356.5 357.1 274.3 319.6 0.5 % FeSO4.7H2O 18.8 20.5 19.7 20.2 19.8 603.5 518.3 568.7 531.2 537.4 % increase over control 23.6 38.5 51.5 13.4 58.4 52.8 45.3 59.2 93.6 68.1 1% FeSO4.7H2O 26.4 25.8 26.5 28.2 28.8 794.1 693.9 671.4 721.9 746.8 % increase over control 73.6 74.3 103.8 58.4 130.4 101.0 94.6 88.0 163.1 133.6 CD (P=0.05) NS 3.1 1.1 6.2 5.7 45.2 61.0 27.0 47.3 43.9 Soil type: loamy sand, pH: 7.9, EC: 0.14 dS/m, Fe: 5.28 mg/kg Ludhiana, Punjab Singh et al., (2013) Table 8: Effect of foliar spray of FeSO4.7H2O on Fe concentration and uptake of Fe in brown rice of different rice cultivars 34
  38. 38. Table 9: Effect of Zn and Fe sprays on content of Zn and Fe in grains of different wheat cultivars Treatment PBW 343 PBW 550 PBW 17 PDW 233 PDW 274 PDW 291 Average Concentration of Zn (mg/kg) in wheat grains with foliar Zn No spray 21.42 20.56 21.86 20.35 23.89 23.36 21.91 +Zn(4 foliar sprays @ 0.5 % Zn) ) through ZnSO4 24.18 26.14 26.39 21.60 25.56 24.56 24.74 % Increase 12.62 27.15 20.81 6.16 7.07 5.15 13.16 Concentration of Fe (mg/kg) in wheat grain with foliar Fe No spray 37.42 39.14 40.47 38.90 39.14 41.99 39.51 +Fe(4 foliar sprays @ 0.5 % Fe) through FeSO4 47.70 45.27 48.90 44.27 46.65 45.89 46.45 % Increase 16.45 15.66 20.99 13.76 19.17 9.27 17.81 Soil type: loamy sand, pH(1:2) 7.6, EC: 0.14 (dS/ m), Organic Carban: 0.38(%), Available Zn: 0.74 (mg/kg), available Fe: 4.76 (mg/kg) PAU, Ludhiana Dhaliwal et al.,(2014) 35
  39. 39. Fig.9 : Zn uptake by grain of maize as influenced by different foliar Zn treatments T1 : Control T2 : Foliar spray of ZnONPs suspension at 500 ppm T3 : Foliar spray of ZnONPs suspension at 1000 ppm T4 : Foliar spray of ZnONPs suspension at 2000 ppm T5 : Foliar spray of Bulk ZnOsuspension at 500 ppm T6 : Foliar spray of Bulk ZnO suspension at 1000 ppm T7 : Foliar spray of Bulk ZnOsuspension at 2000 ppm T8 : 0.5% foliar spray of ZnSO4 •· Schedule of foliar spray : 30 and 45 days after sowing (DAS) Tiwari, (2017)AAU, Anand, Gujarat 36
  40. 40. Treatments Zn uptake (g ha-1) Zn use efficiency (%) Soil Zn (mg kg-1) Grain Straw total 2010 2011 ZnSO4.7H2O 38.77 121.35 160.12 0.79 1.30 1.44 ZnCl2 36.20 111.58 147.78 0.47 1.19 1.05 Zn3(PO4)2 39.30 112.30 151.60 0.30 1.22 0.93 ZnO 39.19 130.79 169.98 0.29 1.06 1.40 Na2Zn-EDTA 45.65 131.19 176.84 1.57 2.26 0.98 SEm± 0.730 7.837 8.012 0.103 0.070 0.034 CD(p=0.05) 2.064 NS NS 0.291 0.204 0.100 Foliar Spray concentration (%) 0.5 35.84 108.97 144.80 0.82 1.26 0.97 1.0 45.82 139.80 185.62 0.70 1.54 1.33 1.0+0.5 Lime 37.82 115.55 153.37 0.52 1.42 1.18 SEm± 0.565 6.070 6.206 0.080 0.055 0.027 CD (p=0.05) 1.599 17.170 17.553 0.225 0.158 0.078 All interaction are NS Table 10: Effect of Zn sources and their concentration of foliar spray on Zn uptake, Zn use efficiency of rice and post harvest soil Zn (Pooled 2010-2011) Kulhare et al. (2017)Jabalpur, MP Soil pH-8.1, OC- 0.47%, Zn- 0.69 (mg kg-1) 37
  41. 41. SOIL + FOLIAR APPLICATION Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyandmalnutrition 41
  42. 42. Treatment Micronutrients uptake (g ha-1) Yield and Yield Attributes Zn Fe Mn Cu Test weight (g) Grain Yield (q ha-1) T1: Zn25 SA (Control) 78.1 119.9 66.3 9.1 37.14 36.4 T2: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at CRI & H 119.0 123.9 63.5 10.0 37.52 34.3 T3: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at CRI & M 123.7 116.3 66.6 11.6 39.11 36.4 T4: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at CRI & D 95.9 139.3 75.5 12.9 38.43 39.4 T5: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at H & M 145.2 121.2 78.0 10.8 37.74 38.3 •T6: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at H & D 152.2 165.5 76.3 12.5 38.18 42.7 T7: Zn20 SA+0.5% FS at M & D 99.0 142.2 75.1 10.1 38.05 37.1 T8: 0.5 % FS at CRI, H, M & D 134.3 163.1 72.9 10.3 37.85 41.2 Mean Rest Zn (T2-T8) 124.2 138.8 72.6 11.2 38.13 38.5 CD (0.05) 23.08 32.85 N.S. N.S. N.S. 2.59 Table 11: Effect on Zn application (ZnSO4) at different growth stages on micronutrient uptake by grains, test weight and grain yield of wheat Tiwari, (2011)AAU, Anand, Gujarat Soil type: loamy sand, pH: 8.12, EC: 0.15 dS/ m, DTPA-Fe: 5.61 mg/kg , DTPA-Zn:0.67 mg/kg Organic C: 0.39% 38 CRI- Crown root initiation, H-heading , M- milking stage, D- Dough stage
  43. 43. Table 12: Effect of Fe nutrition on N, P, K and Fe uptake in grain, straw and total by aerobic rice Treatment N uptake (kg/ha) P uptake (kg/ha) K uptake (kg/ha) Fe uptake (g/ha) Grain Straw Total Grai n Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Control 56.2 31.0 87.2 9.1 6.8 15.8 21.3 85.4 106.7 416.0 2551 2967 FeSO4 at 50 kg /ha 61.8 34.6 97.4 10.7 7.5 18.1 22.7 88.8 111.5 456.6 2773 3229 FeSO4 at 100 kg/ha 65.2 37.4 103 11.9 8.3 20.2 24.7 92.9 117.0 478.3 2914 3392 FeSO4 50 kg/ha + two foliar sprays of 2% FeSO4 65.1 36.6 102 11.6 7.8 19.4 23.6 92.4 116.5 531.8 3071 3603 Three foliar sprays of 2% FeSO4.7H2O 60.0 32.8 92.8 10.0 7.4 17.3 22.6 89.6 112.2 522.8 3004 3526 SEm± 1.24 0.47 1.63 0.40 0.29 0.66 0.70 1.33 1.94 11.27 46.34 56.61 CD (P=0.05) 3.57 1.36 4.69 1.16 0.83 1.90 2.00 3.83 5.59 32.45 133.4 163.0 6 Soil type: sandy clay loam, pH: 8.1, initial Fe: 5mg/kg, N: 79.2mg/kg, P: 6.2 mg/kg, K: 74.8 mg/kg organic C: 4.9 g/kg IARI, New Delhi Yadav et al., (2013) 39
  44. 44. Control T1 :Control (NP without Fe) Fe1 T2:NP+20 kg Fe ha-1 soil application through FeSO4 Fe2 T3:NP + 3 foliar sprays of 0.5% FeSO4 Fig.10 : Effect of Fe treatments on grain Fe content of different gram varieties Anonymous, (2014)Micronutrient project (ICAR), AAU, Gujarat Gram varieties Fe- efficient Varieties GG-1 (V1) GAG-735 (V2) Fe- inefficient Varieties ICCC-4 (V3) GJG-305 (V4) 40
  45. 45. Table 13: Effect of N, Z and Fe application on Zn content in grain, husk and brown rice Treatment Grain (mg kg-1) Husk (mg kg-1) Brown rice (mg kg-1) 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 Zn method of application and level Zn1- no Zn 19.5 19.6 20.6 20.8 30.9 31.1 Zn2- soil Zn @ 50 kg ZnSO4 /ha 22.6 22.7 23.7 23.9 33.8 34.0 Zn3- foliar Zn @0.5% ZnSO4 25.3 25.7 26.5 26.7 41.6 41.8 Zn4-Zn2+Zn3 26.5 26.6 27.6 27.8 43.0 43.2 CD (P= 0.05) 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 Fe levels Fe1-no Fe 23.4 23.5 24.5 24.7 37.2 37.4 Fe2-Foliar Fe @ 0.5 % 23.6 23.7 24.7 24.9 37.4 37.6 CD (P= 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS 41 Soil type: loamy, pH: 7.3, EC: 0.25 dS/m, Zn:0.62 mg/kg, Fe: 4.48 mg/kg All interaction are NS Ludhiana, Punjab Kumar et al ., (2016)
  46. 46. Treatments Yield (kg ha-1) Zn uptake (g ha-1) Grain Straw Grain Straw T1 Control(no fertilizers were applied) 2604 3324 29.3 63.2 T2 Recommended dose of N:P205:K2O @120:60:40 kg ha-1 3768 4621 64.8 90.6 T3 RDF+ Soil application of ZnSO4 @25 kg ha-1 at transplanting 4807 5855 107.5 169.1 T4 RDF+ Soil application of nano zinc as impregnated granules@10 kg ha-1 at transplanting 3942 4806 68.2 102.2 T5 RDF+ Soil application of nano zinc as impregnated granules@15 kg ha-1 at transplanting 4043 4963 79.0 111.9 T6 RDF+ Soil application of bio zinc @15 kg ha-1 at transplanting 4623 5531 88.3 124.8 T7 RDF+ Soil application of bio zinc @ 30 kg ha-1 at transplanting 5355 6347 170.4 238.8 T8 RDF+ Foliar spray of 0.2% as ZnSO4 5268 6258 160.1 216.3 T9 RDF+ Foliar spray of 1 ml l-1 as nano zinc 5247 6189 152.7 185.0 T10 RDF+ Foliar spray of 2 ml l-1 as nano zinc 4370 5306 76.4 116.5 T11 RDF+ Foliar spray of 1.5 ml l-1 as bio zinc 4740 5740 95.3 143.0 T12 RDF+ Foliar spray of 3 ml l-1 as bio zinc 4625 5603 91.1 135.7 CD (p=0.05) 209.7 207.8 21.5 31.6 Table 14: Effect of zinc on yield, nutrient content in grain and straw of rice Apoorva et al., (2017)Hyderabad pH (8.24), EC (0.74 dS m-1), low in OC (0.42%), DTPA zinc 0.3 mg kg-1 42 Nano Zinc - Zn(40 mg kg-1 ), Bio Zinc- 3% Zn, 16% OM
  47. 47. Fe uptake (g ha-1) Zn uptake (g ha-1) Treatments Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total T1 : Control 82.35 390.50 472.85 48.47 72.66 121.13 T2 : Grade- I (FS) 86.11 435.76 521.87 52.36 69.00 121.36 T3 : Grade- II (FS) 101.28 479.35 580.63 63.61 94.41 158.02 T4 : Grade- III(FS) 110.42 489.94 600.36 59.89 91.65 151.54 T5 : Grade- IV(FS) 104.81 478.39 583.21 64.38 96.61 160.98 T6 : Grade- V (SA) 100.95 493.85 594.80 60.79 69.69 130.48 T7 : STV 98.70 494.07 592.77 51.98 67.33 119.31 SEm± 4.71 18.71 19.34 2.31 5.52 6.39 CD @ 5% 14.00 55.60 57.47 6.87 16.39 18.98 Table 15: Effect of multi micronutrient mixture on Fe and Zn uptake (g ha-1) by grain and straw of pearl millet Grade Content (%) Fe Mn Zn Cu B LF Grade I General 2 0.5 4.0 0.3 0.5 LF Grade II For Zn deficiency 2 0.5 8.0 0.5 0.5 LF Grade III For Fe deficiency 6 1.0 4.0 0.3 0.5 LF Grade IV For Zn & Fe deficiency 4 1.0 6.0 0.5 0.5 LF Grade V Soil application 2 0.5 5.0 0.2 0.5 STV- 50 kg FeSO4.5H2O ha-1 and 40 kg MnSO4.3 H2O ha-1 , Foliar spray 1 % (15, 30, 45 DAT) Kadivala et al., (2018)Micronutrient project, AAU, Gujarat Soil type-Loamy sand, pH-7.96, EC-0.44 dS m-1 , OC- 3.65 g kg-1 ), Fe- 4.20 (mg kg-1 ), Zn-1.20 (mg kg-1 ) 43
  48. 48. SEED TREATMENT Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmineral deficiencyandmalnutrition 48
  49. 49. Fig.11: Zn uptake by grain of maize as influenced by different Zn seed treatments T1 : Pure water (Control) T2 : ZnONPs suspension at 500 ppm T3 : ZnONPs suspension at 1000 ppm T4 : ZnONPs suspension at 2000 ppm T5 : Bulk ZnO suspension at 500 ppm T6 : Bulk ZnO suspension at 1000 ppm T7 : Bulk ZnO suspension at 2000 ppm T8 : Seed treatment with ZnO slurry @10 mL bulk ZnO /kg seeds Tiwari, (2017)AAU, Anand, Gujarat 45
  50. 50. SEED ENRICHED WITH ZINC Increasing Resistance to Diseases Higher yield under Zn deficiency Improving Abiotic Stress tolerance Better Seed Viability and Seedling Vigour Improving Human Nutrition Decreasing Seedling Rate Fig. 12: Agronomic and human nutritional benefits resulting from use of Zn enriched seeds Calmak (2008) 47
  51. 51. ORGANIC MATTER APPLICATION Agronomicbio-fortification–Anexcellentapproachfor alleviatingmalnutrition 51
  52. 52. Treatments N P K Zn (g ha-1) T1 NPK alone 84.94 15.50 81.66 556.91 T2 NPK + FYM without enrichment @ 200 kg ha-1 89.41 16.08 79.93 585.80 T3 NPK + 1.25 kg Zn enriched FYM @ 200 kg ha-1 91.39 15.20 83.92 618.70 T4 NPK + 2.50 kg Zn enriched FYM @ 200 kg ha-1 97.07 16.80 83.40 655.10 T5 NPK + 5.00 kg Zn enriched FYM @ 200 kg ha-1 100.43 18.70 90.20 677.32 T6NPK + cow dung without enrichment @ 200 kg ha-1 87.01 15.40 77.83 563.90 T7 NPK + 1.25 kg Zn enriched cow dung @ 200 kg ha-1 91.72 15.30 80.45 571.30 T8 NPK + 2.50 kg Zn enriched cow dung @ 200 kg ha-1 94.14 15.71 80.28 613.40 T9 NPK + 5.00 kg Zn enriched cow dung @ 200 kg ha-1 94.50 17.10 85.63 640.30 CD (p=0.05) 5.60 2.10 8.60 43.50 Table 16 : Effect of Zn enriched organic manure on total nutrient uptake (kg ha-1) by rice Sridevi et al .,(2010)UAS, Bangaluru Soil texture- clay loam, pH 7.7, EC- 0.28 dSm-1, CEC 4.1 c mol (p+) kg-1 , DTPA Zn-0.76 mg kg-1 49
  53. 53. Fig 13: Effect on Fe and Zn fortified FYM on plant content of Fe (ppm) at different growth stages of aerobic rice SHILPA, (2011)UAS, Bangaluru Treatments Nutrient management T1 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 T2 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + 10 kg ha-1 ZnSO4 T3 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + 10 kg ha-1 FeSO4 T4 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + 5 kg ha-1 ZnSO4 + 5 kg ha-1 FeSO4 T5 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + FYM enriched with 1% ZnSO4 T6 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + FYM enriched with 1% FeSO4 T7 100 % NPK + FYM 10 t ha-1 + FYM enriched with 1% ZnSO4 + FYM enriched with 1% FeSO4 Soil texture- clay loam, pH 7.8, EC- 0.28 dSm-1, OC (%) 0.45, DTPA Zn (ppm) 0.40, DTPA Fe (ppm) 5.00 50
  54. 54. Treatments Available Zn (mg kg-1) Zn Uptake (g ha-1) Available Fe (mg kg-1) Fe Uptake (g ha-1) T1- RDNP + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 (Control) 0.66 130.38 4.02 941.67 T2- RDNP + Fe @ 4 kg ha-1 + Zn @ 2 kg ha-1 0.74 143.24 4.43 998.05 T3- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.1 0.85 157.38 4.70 1066.91 T4- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.2 1.02 167.02 4.82 1188.90 T5- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.3 0.86 158.89 4.49 1079.71 T6- YM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.4 0.96 166.43 4.76 1171.05 T7- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + 50 % RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.1 0.89 162.02 4.61 1119.81 T8- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + 50 % RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.2 1.04 176.02 4.67 1219.98 T9- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + 50 % RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.3 0.94 162.32 4.80 1141.74 T10- FYM @ 2.5 t ha-1 + 50 % RDNP + Fe – Zn Enrichment No.4 1.03 171.57 4.70 1191.33 CD (0.05) 0.03 6.91 0.03 30.41 Enrichment No. 1- 500 kg ha-1 FYM+ 1 kg ha-1 ZnSO4.7H2O + 2 kg ha-1 FeSO4. 5H2O Enrichment No. 2- 500 kg ha-1 FYM+ 2 kg ha-1 ZnSO4.7H2O + 4 kg ha-1 FeSO4. 5H2O Enrichment No. 3- 500 kg ha-1 Vermicompost + 1 kg ha-1 ZnSO4.7H2O + 2 kg ha-1 FeSO4. 5H2O Enrichment No.4- 500 kg ha-1 Vermicompost+ 2 kg ha-1 ZnSO4.7H2O + 4 kg ha-1 FeSO4. 5H2O RDN- 120 kg ha-1 Nitrogen – 50% at sowing + 50% at first irrigation stage RDP- 60 kg ha-1 phosphorus-as basal dose at the time of sowing Table 17:Effect of Fe and Zn enriched with different organic sources on availability of DTPA extractable Zn and Fe , its uptake by wheat plants (pooled data 2005-2008) Yadav et al., (2011)Wheat Research Station, Vijapur, Gujarat 51
  55. 55. Table 18: Effect of Zinc levels and organic source with or without incubation in soybean and its residual effect on succeeding wheat crop Treatment Soybean yield (t/ha) Wheat yield (t/ha) Grain Stover Grain Straw Control 1.31 1.81 4.50 5.12 1.25 Zn kg/ha 1.43 1.93 4.82 5.39 2.5 Zn kg/ha 1.50 2.08 5.03 5.62 5.0 Zn kg/ha 1.64 2.23 5.40 5.70 1.25 Zn + 200 kg cow dung/ha 1.48 2.02 4.86 5.40 2.5 Zn+ 200 kg cow dung/ha 1.57 2.13 5.27 5.82 5.0 Zn + 200 kg cow dung/ha 1.71 2.36 5.70 5.88 SEm± 0.08 0.11 0.25 0.38 CD (P=0.05) 0.22 0.32 0.74 NS Soil type: medium black soil, pH: 7.2, EC: 0.08 dS/m, Zn: 0.56mg/kg Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Uike et al,. (2013) 52
  56. 56. SOILAMENDMENTS & SEWAGE APPLICATION Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyandmalnutrition 56
  57. 57. Table 19: Effect of ferro-gypsum on total uptake of micronutrients in groundnut (g ha-1) Treatments Fe Mn Zn Cu Control 2896 370 158 85 Gypsum 3349 432 191 91 Gypsum + FeSO4 (SA) 4352 743 340 138 Gypsum + FeSO4 (FS) 3767 508 276 114 Ferro gypsum (FG) 4026 755 288 128 Gypsum + FeSO4 = FG 3690 461 207 99 SE. m 90 10 6 3 CD (p = 0.05) 195 22 13 5 Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) SA = soil application (FeSO4 @ 50kg), FS = Foliar spray (1.0% FeSO4 at 30,40 and 50 DAS) Soil type: calcareous soil, pH : 8.5 Ferro gypsum : Titanium industry byproduct contain Fe, Ca, S, K, Mg Jagdeeswaran et al.,(2001) 53
  58. 58. Table 20: Micronutrient content (mg kg-1) in vegetable crops irrigated with treated sewage water (TSW) and tube well water (TW) Crop Zinc Iron Copper Manganese TSW TW TSW TW TSW TW TSW TW Broad bean 10.7 5.8 211 180 39.5 29.5 80.0 69.0 Sponge gourd 30.0 22.5 211 195 75.3 60.5 30.7 22.0 Brinjal 12.0 10.1 180 140 33.8 25.8 21.1 15.5 Okra 57.8 45.0 182 140 59.3 57.0 29.5 25.0 Spinach 31.7 28.4 220 200 82.0 62.3 30.5 28.5 Cauliflower 43.0 27.0 225 61 29.0 20.0 41.0 31.0 Radish 37.0 22.0 222 91 80.0 19.0 36.0 24.0 Potato 27.0 18.0 32 19 29.0 22.0 15.0 10.0 Critical limits of phyto- toxicity 150-200 >500 20-100 >500 Chemical composition of water used Content (mg l-1) Zn Fe Cu Mn TSW 4.4 18.4 31.5 2.7 TW 0.1 1.0 ND 0.2 Saraswat et al., (2005)Varanasi (UP) 54
  59. 59. Treatments Dry matter yield ( g pot-1) Zn conc. (ug g-1) Zn uptake (ug pot-1) Zndff (%) Control 3.38 12.09 40.77 - 100 kg biosludge ha-1 3.30 13.20 43.59 - 5.00 kg Zn ha-1 as ZSH 3.67 14.33 52.89 35.38 1.25 kg Zn ha-1 as ZEMB 3.52 12.66 44.51 24.85 2.50 kg Zn ha-1 as ZEMB 3.54 13.16 46.60 36.66 5.00 kg Zn ha-1 as ZEMB 3.96 14.41 56.90 52.97 LSD (p≤ 0.05) 0.35 1.62 7.90 15.41 Table 21: Residual effect of Zn applied on rice on dry matter, Zn concentration, total Zn uptake, Zndff of Zn by wheat plants ZSH- Zinc sulphate heptahydrate, ZEMB- Zinc –enriched post-methanation biosludge Srivastava et al., (2008)Uttarakhand Soil texture: silty clay loam, pH- 7.66, EC- 0.339 dS m-1 , OC: 13.03 g, DTPA Zn: 0.61 mg kg-1 55
  60. 60. CASE STUDY
  61. 61. Diet Iron intake Iron excretion Absorption Fe through standard source 752±39 336a±20 416b±26 Fe through enriched Pigeon pea grain (Efficient) 748±30 401ab±36 347ab±29 Fe through enriched Pigeon pea grain (Inefficient) 795±46 494b±19 300a±31 abMeans with different superscripts in columns for a parameter differ significantly (P<0.05) Table 22: Apparent absorption (µg/day) of Fe in rats fed with pigeon pea based diets Anonymous (2014) 56 Micronutrient Research Project, AAU, Anand,
  62. 62. Diet Fe content (µg/g) Liver Kidney Femur Fe through standard source 57.6b±1.1 34.5b±1.3 99.9b±1.8 Fe through enriched Pigeon pea grain (Efficient) 57.6b±0.9 29.8a±1.1 92.6a±0.9 Fe through enriched Pigeon pea grain (Inefficient) 49a±1.0 28.1a±0.2 88.8a±1.3 Table 23: Fe content in organs of rats fed with pigeon pea based diets ab Means with different superscripts in columns for a parameter differ significantly (P<0.05) 62 57
  63. 63. Y = 24.11x + 14.45 R² = 0.59 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 BloodZnConcentration(ugdl_1) Soil Zn Bhavera Y = 24.11x + 14.45 R² = 0.59 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 GrainZnConcentration(mgkg-1) Soil Zn Bhavera y = 1.53x + 12.82 R² = 0.55 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 BloodSerum-Zn(Ugdl-1) Grain -Zn (mg kg-1) Bhavera Mall Fig 14: Zn in Soil-Grain-Human Continuum 58 Shukla, et al., (2016) Bhopal
  64. 64. Zinc in Soil-Plant-Animal- continuum 28th NATIONAL WORKSHOP –– AICRP on Micronutrients 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 Pre-study Stabilization 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 35 days ZncontentinBloodSerumofmilchcow (µg/mL) Days after feeding Regular maize fodder Zn enriched maize fodder 59 Bhopal Shukla, et al., (2016)
  65. 65. Biofortification will shift the population into a more Mineral sufficient range due to shift in distribution Cut-off POPULATIONDISTRIBUTION DEFICIENCY SUFFICIENCY BIOFORTIFICATION 60
  66. 66. Agronomic biofortification with the help of fertilizers would be very rapid and practical approach to maximize mineral uptake and grain mineral accumulation in food crops immediately. Application of micronutrients containing fertilizers to soil i.e. Zinc Enriched Urea (ZEU) @ 2% Zn as ZnSO4.7H2O, EDTA-Chelated Zinc (12% Zn), foliar application @ 1% (Fe as FeSO4 and Zn as ZnSO4), 20 kg ha-1 (SA)+ 0.5% (FA) and multi-micronutrient mixture (1%), seed treatment i.eZnO NPs (1000ppm) would be of greater importance to enhance micronutrients density in food grains. Enrichment of micronutrients food grains could be also be achieved by application of organic manures i.e. FYM or cow dung @ 200 kg and vermicompost @ 500 kg ha-1 enriched with Zn and Fe, soil amendments like gypsum, ferro-gypsum, treated sewage- sludge etc. The bioavailability of Fe in rat from pigeon pea efficient variety was comparable with standard diet comprising of FeSO4 as Fe source. CONCLUSION 61
  67. 67. Future thrust Need to undertake more extensive research for increasing bio availability of micronutrient in food grain. Precise information on extent of micronutrient deficiencies in each agro-ecological region need to be created for correcting it through reliable soil testing advisory services. Development of new fertilizer strategies to deliver the required nutrients in food system sustainably, are need to address the micronutrients problem in soil-plant- animal/ human continuum. Programs/ Govt. policies for agronomic biofortification of cereal food grains with Zn and Fe needs to be launched in a mission mode to combat their deficiency in humans. 62
  68. 68. Thank you

×