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.

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.  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. 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. 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. • 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

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. Fig.1 :Percentage of population suffering from undernourishment
8

9. Fig. 2: Zinc deficiency and Child mortality : Geographic overlap
Cakmak (2012)
Better Crops 96: 17-19
9

10. Fig. 3: Worldwide prevalence of Anemia by severity
Harvest Plus (2014)
http://www.harvestplus.org/content/iron
10

11. 11
Fig 4: Spatial Variation in Available Zinc Deficiency Status in Soils of
Different States of India

12. 12
Fig 5: Iron Deficiency Status in Soils of Different State of India

13. 13
Fig 6: Spatial Variation in Available Zinc Deficiency Status in Soils of
Different District of Gujarat

14. 14
Fig 7: Spatial Variation in Available Iron Deficiency Status in Soils of
Different State of India

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. APPROACHES TO ALLEVIATE MINERAL
DEFICIENCY
1. Dietary Diversification 2.Food Fortification
3. Supplementation 4.Biofortification
20
20

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. SHORT TERM APPROACHES LONG TERM APPROACHES
Agronomical Biofortification
Physiological Interventions
Microbiological Interventions
Conventional Breeding
Transgenic Approaches
BIOFORTIFICATION
22

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

30. SOILAPPLICATION
Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient
deficiencyandmalnutrition
30

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. 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. 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. 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. FOLIAR APPLICATION
Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient
deficiencyandmalnutrition
35

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. SOIL + FOLIAR APPLICATION
Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient
deficiencyandmalnutrition
41

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. SEED TREATMENT
Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmineral
deficiencyandmalnutrition
48

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. 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. ORGANIC MATTER APPLICATION
Agronomicbio-fortification–Anexcellentapproachfor
alleviatingmalnutrition
51

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. 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. 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. 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. SOILAMENDMENTS & SEWAGE
APPLICATION
Agronomicbiofortification–Awayforalleviatingmicronutrient
deficiencyandmalnutrition
56

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. 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. 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. CASE STUDY

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. 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. 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. 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. Biofortification will shift the population into a more Mineral
sufficient range due to shift in distribution
Cut-off
POPULATIONDISTRIBUTION
DEFICIENCY SUFFICIENCY
BIOFORTIFICATION
60

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. 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. Thank you