Biofertilizers:

Biofertilizers are defined as preparations containing

living cells of efficient strains of microorganisms that
help crop plants uptake of nutrients by their interactions
in the rhizosphere when applied through seed or soil. 
or
“Biofertilizers or bioinoculants are the preparations
containing microorganisms beneficial to agricultural
production in terms of nutrient supply”

1
Biofertilizers are differ from chemical fertilizers
1) Biofertilizers on application in soils, multiply and keep
benefiting the growing crops.
2) They do not depleted as in the case of fertilizers. Biofertilizers
can substitute for in organic fertilizers to maintain the
environment.
They are used either to fix nitrogen or to solubilise plant nutrient
like phosphorus or to otherwise stimulate the plant growth
through synthesis of growth promoting substances or to collect
available phosphorus from remote place out of reach of plant
root hairs by sending elongated filaments.

2
 Why to use biofertilizers?

• Nitrogen fixation through the rhizobactria

deposit the nitrogen in the soil.
Phospobactria convert insoluble
phosphorus in to soluble form, ultimately
available to plants, that improve
physicochemical properties of soil.
• Minimization the 50% losses of due to
natural processes of denitrification and
leaching of nitrogenous fertilizers.
• Help in mineralization of plant nutrients.
• Eco-friendly and pollution free.

3
Biofertilizers grouped in different ways based on their nature and function.

S. No. Groups Examples

N2  fixing Biofertilizers
Azotobacter, Beijerinkia, Clostridium, Klebsiella, Anabaena,
1. Free-living
Nostoc, 
2. Symbiotic Rhizobium, Frankia, Anabaena azollae
3. Associative Symbiotic Azospirillum
P Solubilizing Biofertilizers
Bacillus megaterium , Bacillus subtilis
1. Bacteria
Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas striata
2. Fungi Penicillium sp, Aspergillus awamori
P Mobilizing Biofertilizers
Glomus sp.,Gigaspora sp.,Acaulospora sp., 
1. Arbuscular mycorrhiza
Scutellospora sp. & Sclerocystis sp.
2. Ectomycorrhiza Laccaria sp., Pisolithus sp., Boletus sp., Amanita sp.
3. Ericoid mycorrhizae Pezizella ericae
4. Orchid mycorrhiza Rhizoctonia solani
Biofertilizers for Micro nutrients
Silicate and Zinc
1. Bacillus sp.
solubilizers
4
Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria
 Merits of biofertilizers

Biofertilizers are natural products and leave no harmful

effect on soil and environment.

These are cheap, non-bulky and required in small dose.
Besides their direct effect on current crops, applications
of biofertilizers also leave residual effect by way of
increasing population of beneficial soil micro-organisms.
Biofertilizers secrete plant growth hormones favor
germination and root growth which results in to higher
absorption of nutrients from soil.

5
 Precautions while using
biofertilizers
Keep biofertilizers packets under shade and cool
place.
Use it for specific crop.
Mix biofertilizers with seeds as per recommendation.
Open the pack just before use and sow treated seeds
immediately after drying.
Don’t use packets when crop, batch no., name of
manufacture and expiry date is not mentioned.
Don’t mix biofertilizers with insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides or fertilizers.
Don’t mix the biofertilizer with seed under direct sunlight.

6
Unavailability of appropriate and location specific strains
and unavailability of good carrier material leading to short
shelf life.

Several soil and environmental factors like pH,

temperature and moisture also influenced the survival and
activity of biofertilizers microbes when inoculated in soil.

Timely unavailability of biofertilizers, due to poor

marketing network, improper storage and transport
facilities.

Biofertilizers are stored at 200 C for 6 months but viability

is lost at 400 C within few hours. 7
Table1:Production of biofertilizers in India

8
Source-: Based on information from State Government/Regional Centers/NGOs in India
Table 2: Approximate demand of various biofertilizers for
food grains in future

Sr. no. Name of biofertilizers Tonnes year-1

1 Rhizobium 35730
2 Azospirillum 482000
3 Azotobacter 162610
4 BGA 267720
5 Azolla 20380
6 PSB 275500

Source: Vora, M. S. (2000-2001). Short Term Training

Programme on Biofertilizer, T and V, GAU, 9
Anand.
Estimates of nitrogen fixed by pulses

Crop N fixed (kg/ha/crop)

Lucerne 100-300
Pigeon pea 168-200
Chickpea 85-110
Cowpea 80-85
Groundnut 50-60
Lentil 90-100
Greengram / Blackgram 50-55
Pea 52-77
Soybean 60-80

(Tisdale et al., 1997)10

How biofertilizers are applied to crops ?

1)Seed treatment:

Rate of application :
1. Nitrogenous biofertilizers– 200 gm/10 kg seeds
2. Phosphatic biofertilizers - 200 gm/10 kg seeds
3. Liquid biofertilizer – 3 ml /lit. water (seeds are to
be dipped in the solution.)
11
2) Seedling root dip:

For rice crop, a bed is made in the field and filled with
water. Recommended biofertilizers are mixed in this
water and the roots of seedlings are dipped for minimum
½ an hour before transplanting. 12
3) Soil treatment:

Four kg each of the

recommended biofertilizers are
mixed in 200 kg of compost and
kept overnight. This mixture is
incorporated in the soil at the time
of sowing or planting or in standing
crop.
13
 Types of biofertilizers

N Fixing biofertilizers Phosphate solubilizing

biofertilizers

For Legumes For Cereals

-Azotobacter
- Rhizobium
-Azospirillum
-Blue green algae
-Azolla

Phosphate solubilizers Phosphate absorbers

-Bacillus -Vessicular Arbuscular
-Pseudomonas
-Penicillium Mycorrhizae (VAM)
14
-Aspergillus
 Rhizobium
• Rhizobium is undoubtely best known bio-
fertilizer.
• The importance for pulses, oilseeds,
fodder legumes.
• It fixes atmospheric nitrogen symbiotically
with legumes.
• The quantum of fixation ranges from 50 to
300 kg N /ha/season and 10-30% increase
in yield.

15
 Cross
Crossinoculation
inoculationgroup
groupof
ofRhizobium
Rhizobium

Rhizobium species Cross inoculation group Genus

R. trifoli Clover group Trifolium

R. meliloti Alfalfa group Melilotus, Meticago

R. phaseoli Bean group Phaseolus

R. lupini Lupine group Lupinous

R. leguminosarum Pea group Pisum

R. japonicum Soybean group Glycine

R. species Cowpea Vigna

16
 Azotobacter
1. Heterotrophic free living N fixing bacteria
is present in neutral and alkaline soils.
2. It also synthesize IAA, GA, B-vitamins etc.
3. Azotobacterin is important culture
containing cells of Azotobacter
chroococcum spp.
4. Azotobacter can be used for rice, cotton,
bajra, sorghum, sugarcane, wheat and
vegetables.
5. It is capable of fixing 20-30 kg N/ha and
increase the yield by 10-15 %.

17
Azotobacter

18
 Azospirillum

1. Increase mineral & water uptake, root development,

vegetative growth & crop yield.
2. Apart from nitrogen fixation they also produce
growth promoting substances like IAA, IBA, GA.
3.It is used for rice, sorghum, maize, castor, sunflower,
wheat, millets, corn, rice etc.
Benefits:
Increasing the yield upto 14 to 20 % and can fix 20-
25 kg N/ ha/ season.
19
Azospirillum

20
 Phosphobacteria
1. A soil bacterium capable of solubilizing the insoluble
inorganic phosphorus in soil and makes it available to the
plant.
2. They are also known to produce amino acids, vitamins and
growth promoting substance like IAA and GA which helps in
better growth of plants.

Benefits
1. It can increase the yield at the extent of 10- 20%.
2. 50 kg of rock phosphate per ha with phosphobacteria can give
a yield equivalent to the application of super phosphate 50
kg/ha.
21
Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhiza
1. VAM fungus colonize the plant root system and
increase the growth and yield of crop.
2. Imparts tolerance to drought, salinity and
resistant to plant pathogens.
3. Increased nutrient uptake particularly P, Zn, S
and other micronutrients.
4. We can save 50% Phosphatic fertilizer without
affecting the yield .

22
VAM

23
 Blue green algae
1. BGA also called cyanobacteria .
2. They have heterocyst are capable of fixing
atmospheric nitrogen.
3. Genera in Indian soils are anabaena and nostoc.
4. These micro-organisms suitable under flooded
rice.
5. Increase in yield 6-35%.
6. BGA applied at @ 10 kg per ha.
7. About 25-30 kg N/ha could added in rice.
24
Blue green algae

25
 Azolla
 It is used as green manure crop as
alone or with transplanted rice.
 Fixation of 60-80 kg N/ ha/season & 10-
25% increase in yield.
 It control 50 % weeds in rice field.
 It reduces the infestation of nematodes
in rice field.
 It helps to increase the availability of K
when it is deficient in soils.
26
Azolla pinnata

27
28
 Organic Farming
Organic farming is a production system which

avoids or excludes the use of synthetic compounds like

fertilizers, pesticides, weedicides and livestock feed

additives. It based on crop rotations, legumes, green

manures, off farm organic wastes and biofertilizer

biological method of pest control which result into the

maintenance of soil health, supply of plant nutrients and

controls insects and weeds.

29
 Why organic farming?
• Need of more intensive and economic
agriculture production led to wide use of high
dose of chemical fertilizers, but insufficient use
of organic led to negative result, decrease in
fertility and soil structure.
• Chemical fertilizers and pesticides pollute our
soil, air and water.
• It is beneficial to health and good marketability.
30
 Advantages of organic farming
1. Optimal conditions in the soil for high yields and good
quality crops.
2. Improve soil physical properties such as aeration ,
porosity and WHC.
3. Improve soil chemical properties and promote favourable
chemical reactions.
4. Improve plant growth and physiological activities of
plants.
5. Reduce the need for purchased inputs.
6. Prevent environmental degradation.
7. Minimized the pollution.
8. Provide healthier and nutritionally superior food.
9. Organic fertilizers are considered as complete plant food.

31
Fig 1:Total area under organic cultivation
according to continents

Anonymous (2008a).
32
Table :1:Total area under organic farming
(Rank wise)
Rank Country Total area (Hectare)

1 Australia 1,21,26,333
2 China 34,66,570
3 Argentina 28,00,000
4 Italy 9,54,361
5 USA 8,89,048
6 Brazil 8,87,637
7 Germany 7,67,891
8 Uruguay 7,59,000
9 Spain 7,33,182
10 UK 6,90,270
31 India 1,14,132
33
Anonymous (2008b).
34
 Table 2: Effect of different treatments on growth parameter,
yield attributes and yield of pearl millet.

Treatments Plant Effective Ear head Grain

height (m) tiller/plant length yield
(cm) (q/ha)
Control 1.69 2.71 21.99 17.14

Pseudomonas 1.77 2.88 22.85 19.37

striata culture

Paecilomyces 1.69 2.79 22.15 17.30

fusisporus
culture

CD at 5 % 0.03 0.11 0.68 1.26

GAU, Junagadh, (Gujarat) Prajapati et al. (1991)

35
 Table :3:Effect of Azotobacter chroococcum inoculation on
the growth and yield of fodder jawar.
Treatment Yield (q/ha) Plant height Fresh weight
(cm) (g/plant)
Green Dry 15 DAS 45 25 At
fodder fodder DAS DAS harvest

control 120.2 37.6 32.6 137.4 15.4 53.7

IARI culture 137.2 45.8 33.8 145.1 21.0 61.7

Rallis culture 143.4 47.4 37.3 145.4 20.3 65.8

Bactegin 131.2 42.8 33.8 147.0 18.7 63.7

culture
SEm ± 12.91 4.22 2.03 8.91 0.51 7.25
CD(0.05) - - - - 1.03 -
DAS- Days after sowing Jaiswal and Gulati (1992)
AAI,Allahabad 36
AAI,Allahabad(UP)
(UP)
 Table:4:Effect of Azolla and Blue Green algae inoculation on grain
and straw yield of rice.

Treatments Grain yield Straw yield

(g/5plant) (g/5plant)
Uninoculated 23.7 50.1
Azolla + 30kg N/ha 28.4 57.3

Azolla + 60kg N/ha 34.3 61.6

Azolla + 90kg N/ha 39.7 68.8

BGA + 60kg N/ha 30.0 66.8

BGA + 90kg N/ha 35.5 64.6

Nitrogen 120kg/ha 34.5 67.5

CD at 5% 6.3 8.8

G.B.P.U.A&T, Pantnagar, ( Uttranchal) Kumar et al. (1996)

37
 Table 5 :Effect of bio-fertilizers on yield, quality and net
realization of wheat.

Treatment Yield (q/ha) Protein Net

content realization
(%) (Rs/ha)
Grain Straw

Uninoculated 34.34 41.16 13.69 9671

A. chroococcum 37.59 45.59 14.33 10950

P. striata 36.99 44.78 13.92 10690

CD at 5% 2.47 3.23 0.20 -

GAU, Junagadh, (Gujarat) Patel et al. (1996)

38
 Table :6:Effect of blue- green algae on grain yield and straw
yield of rice.

Treatment 1992 1993

Grain yield Straw yield Grain yield Straw yield

(q/ha) (q/ha (q/ha (q/ha
Control 35.4 41.4 36.6 41.7

BGA@10 37.9 44.3 38.3 44.6

kg/ha

CD (P=0.05) 2.3 2.4 1.6 2.2

BGA- Blue green algae

Baronda,Raipur
Baronda,RaipurChhatisgarh
Chhatisgarh
Patel (2000)
39
Table 7 : Grain yield, straw yield and harvest index of Wheat as
affected by biofertilizers.

Grain yield Straw yield

Treatment Harvest Index
(q/ha) (q/ha)
Biofertilizer
T1-Control 30.2 47.3 37.1
T2-Azospirillum 34.3 49.5 38.7
T3-Azotobacter 33.5 49.6 38.0
T4-Azospirillum
35.5 51.6 39.2
+Azotobacter
C.D at 5% 2.6 3.5 2.0

IARI (New Delhi) Sushila and Giri (2000 a)

40
Table 8 : Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield
attributes of wheat.

Plant Total Length of Test

Treatments
Height (cm) tillers/m spike (cm) weight (g)
BIOFERTILIZER
T1-Control 75.0 58.6 8.82 34.35
T2-Azospirillum 77.6 63.5 9.45 35.73
T3- Azotobacter 77.3 61.6 9.39 35.31
T4-Azospirillum
78.3 65.5 9.77 36.89
+Azotobacter
C.D. at 5% NS 4.0 0.41 2.20

IARI (New Delhi) Sushila and Giri (2000 b)

41
Table 9:Effect of biofertilizers on sorghum yield
Treatment Yield (q/ ha)

Grain Fodder

T1: Control 41.6 94.4

T2: Azospirillum 44.1 100.4

T3: PSB 42.2 96.6

T4: Azospirillum + PSB 44.5 101.4

CD at 5 % 1.48 3.19

RAU, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Patidar and Mali (2002)

42
Table 10 : Effect of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms on
yield and yield attributes of wheat

Effective Test Grain yield

Treatment Grain/ear
tillers/ m2 weight (g) (q/ha)
Phosphate solubilizing micro - organisms
T1 : No inoculation 269.60 32.24 46.46 44.56
T2 : Pseudomonas
281.26 33.97 47.79 48.39
striata
T3 : Aspergillus
278.54 33.62 47.61 47.13
awamori
T4 : Pseudomonas
striata +Aspergillus 289.75 35.38 48.74 51.75
awamori
C.D. at 5% 8.3 0.94 0.91 1.57

IARI (New Delhi) Singh and Rai (2002)

43
Table:11:Residual effect of black gram inoculated Rhizobium,

VAM and Plant

Treatment
PSBdryonweight
succeeding wheat crop.
Total nutrient uptake (mg/plant)
(g) N P

Uninoculated 2.46 28.35 6.13

Rhizobium 2.81 35.38 8.15
VAM 2.74 34.31 7.58
PSB 2.84 34.19 7.45
Rhizobium + 3.01 40.52 8.83
VAM
Rhizobium + PSB 3.04 40.19 8.66
VAM + PSB 3.07 38.13 8.91
Rhizobium + 3.11 41.17 9.69
VAM + PSB
CD at 5% 0.16 2.34 0.60

G.B.P.U.A&T,
G.B.P.U.A&T,Pantnagar,
Pantnagar,(UT)
(UT) Tomar
Tomaretetal.
al.(2003)
(2003)44
45
Table 12 : Effect of Rhizobium and VAM inoculation on phosphorus content (%)
in root, shoot, pod and pod yield of Groundnut (on pooled basis)

Treatment Root Shoot Pod Pod yield

(%) (%) (%) (kg/ha)

Control 0.15 0.16 0.23 520.47

VAM 0.20 0.25 0.34 704.92

Rhizobium 0.18 0.22 0.30 839.26

VAM + 0.24 0.32 0.40 1122.72

Rhizobium
C.D.at 5% 0.05 0.03 0.032 105.28

MAU
MAUParbhani
Parbhani(Maharashtra)
(Maharashtra) Kohire
Kohireet
etal.
al.(1991)
(1991)
46
Table 13 : Effect of bio-fertilizers and FYM on nodulation, growth
and yield of groundnut
Dry matter at
Treatments Nodules/plant Pod yield (kg/ha)
harvest (g/plant)
T0 Control 25 9.30 1725
T1 FYM @ 12 t/ha 33 10.50 2140
T2 Rhizobium (R) 34 10.40 2050
T3 Azospirillum (A) 32 10.30 1950
T4 Phosphobacterium (P) 31 9.30 2025
T5 FYM+R+A 37 10.00 2125
T6 FYM+R+P 37 9.70 2180
T7 FYM+A+P 28 10.10 2145
T8 FYM+R+A+P 41 10.60 2195
CD at 5% 5 1.20 107

TNAU-Vriddhachalam (TN) Balasubramaniam and Palaniappan (1994)

47
Table:14:Effect of bio-fertilizer on growth, yield attributes and
yield of groundnut.
Treatment Plant Developed Pod Test Pod Haulm
height pods/ weight/ weight/ yield yield
at Plant plant (gm) plant (q/ha) (q/ha)
harvest (gm)
(cm)
control 18.73 3.70 3.86 29.69 9.13 15.72

Bacterial 19.75 4.55 4.20 30.58 10.03 17.62

culture
(P. striata)
Fungal 19.45 3.20 4.16 30.16 9.77 17.20
culture (P.
fussisporus)

CD at 5% NS 0.23 0.17 NS 0.24 0.68

GAU, Junagadh, (Gujarat) Mehta et al. (1995)

48
Table No:15:Effect of bacterial inoculation on yield attributes

of Indian mustard

Treatment Branches/plant Pods /plant Seed yield

(Bacterial (q/ha)

inoculation) Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2

Control 4.35 4.63 222.5 223.3 13.03 12.22

Azotobacter 4.97 5.38 242.0 242.9 15.01 14.30

Azospirillum 5.24 5.57 245.7 245.6 15.11 14.32

Y1=1992-93; Y2=1993-94
CD (P= 0.05) 0.38 0.34 16.5 14.4 0.87 0.67
RRS, Gurgaon , (Hariyana) Chauhan et al.
49
(1996)
Table:16:Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on
nodulation, growth and yield of groundnut

Nodules/plant Root length (cm) Biomass/plant Pod yield/plant

Treatments
45DAS 45DAS (g) (g)
Control 89 33 13.1 3.6
PGPR-1 114 43 16.2 4.4
PGPR-2 114 42 18.0 4.5
PGPR-3 103 39 15.9 3.7
PGPR-4 113 42 19.2 4.4
PGPR-5 99 33 16.2 3.9
PGPR-6 89 38 15.9 3.7
PGPR-7 111 36 15.9 3.7
PGPR-8 108 35 16.1 4.1
PGPR-9 102 39 16.0 3.7
CD at 5% 19.03 5.4 1.8 0.68

NRCG, Junagadh (Gujarat) Patel et al. (2004)

50
51
Table :17:Effect of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria
and farm yard manure on the yield of black gram
Treatment Pod / plant 1000 seed Seed Seed Straw
(g) weight/ yield yield
plant (g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Control 27.27 33.57 4.52 599 990

FYM 31.20 34.70 5.12 761 1130

PSB 30.70 34.10 5.00 721 1067

FYM+PSB 36.10 36.55 5.90 819 1200

CD at 5% 2.35 0.97 0.42 043 150

PSB-Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria @ 10 g/kg of seed

FYM- farm yard manure@ 5 tonnes/ha
KVK ,Tikamgarh (MP) Tomar 52
(1998)
 Table :18: Effect of Rhizobium on grain yield of
lentil
Treatment Grain yield (kg/ha)

1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000

Without 915 1202 943

Rhizobium
With Rhizobium 1052 1430 1107

SEm ± 24 28 19

CD at 5% 71 82 57

G.B.P.U.A&T,
G.B.P.U.A&T,Pantnagar,
Pantnagar,( (UT)
UT) Sahu et al. (2002)

53
Table :19:Effect of biofertilizers on growth and yield of mungbean

Treatment Plant height (cm) Branches/plant Nodules/ Yield (q/ha)

plant at
50 DAS Harvest 50 Harvest 45 DAS Grain Stover
DAS

Control 36.77 44.48 10.22 13.59 27.23 6.02 13.46

Rhizobium 40.12 47.28 12.33 15.28 31.81 7.39 15.86

PSB 39.12 46.01 12.04 14.69 31.23 7.17 15.43

Rh + PSB 40.69 48.09 12.47 15.80 32.46 8.57 16.21

CD at 5% 1.29 1.86 1.22 0.95 1.16 0.47 1.01

Jobner ( Rajasthan) Singh and Pareek (2003)

54
Table :20:Evalution of liquid (L.) based Rhizobium inoculants in
comparison to carrier (C.) based inoculants in pigeonpea.
Treatment No. of nodules/ Nodule dry weight Grain yield
plant (mg/plant) (kg/ha)

Uninoculated 8.0 32.5 1945

control
GKL-16(C) 12.6 34.7 2111

GKL-16 (L) 11.3 33.0 2185

LAR-220(C) 11.7 36.0 2210

LAR-220(L) 13.3 33.0 2255

Mean (C) 11.5 34.5 2198

Mean (L) 12.9 33.9 2183

CD at 5% 2.8 2.5 180

PAU. Ludhiana, (Panjab) Sharma et al.(2006) 55

Table 21(A):Combined effect of bioagent on growth, nodule
parameter and yield of pigeon pea.
Treatment Plant height Nodules / N content Grain Protein
at 90 days plant at 90 in root yield content in
(cm) days nodules (q/ha) grain(%)
(%)
T1=Rhizobium 83.53 34.17 2.67 11.97 18.18
(R)
T2=VAM 82.03 33.39 2.56 11.64 17.73
T3 =PSB 80.50 32.57 2.47 11.28 17.28
T4=Bacillus 79.91 31.67 2.40 10.92 16.83
subtilis
T5=R + VAM 85.06 34.97 2.75 12.34 18.65
T6=R+ PSB 86.50 35.80 2.83 12.68 19.20
T7= R +Bacillus 88.90 37.18 3.01 13.35 20.11
subtilis
T8=VAM +PSB 87.98 36.54 2.92 13.05 19.68
T9=VAM 92.24 38.87 3.13 13.97 20.93
+Bacillus subtilis 56

Continue…..
Table :21 (B) Combined effect of Bioagent on growth, nodule
parameter and yield of pigeon pea.
Treatment Plant Nodules / N content Grain Protein
height at plant at 90 in root yield content in
90 days days nodules (q/ha) grain (%)
(cm) (%)
T10=Bacillus subtilis 91.10 38.09 3.08 13.62 20.58
+ PSB
T11=R+VAM + PSB 93.78 38.89 3.20 13.90 21.31

T12=R + VAM + 95.27 39.62 3.25 14.46 21.72

Bacillus subtilis
T13=R +VAM + PSB 97.26 40.44 3.30 14.87 22.08
+ Bacillus subtilis
T14=Control 78.66 30.22 2.30 10.55 16.34
S.E± 0.11 0.17 0.02 0.003 0.02
CD (0.05) 0.33 0.51 0.05 0.007 0.06

MPKV, Rahuri (Maharashtra) Pawar et al. (2008)

57
58
 Table :22:Effect of Azolla on root knot infection in okra

Treatment Root knot index(1-5)*

Dry Azolla 1% 2.6
2% 2.0
3% 2.0
Fresh Azolla 1% 3.6
2% 4.0
3% 4.4
Control 4.6
CD at 5% level 0.63
CV% 14.16

GAU, Anand (Gujarat) Thakar et al.(1987)

1*= Free, 5= Maximum decrease intensity
Dry Azolla at 4 & 5% was found phytotoxic
59
Table :23:Reduction in the growth of Fusarium oxysporium
f. sp. lycopersici (tomato wilt) by
the Azotobacter chroococcum and Bacillus spp.
Bacterial Growth of fungus compared to control (%)
strains Observation taken after days
3 5 7

Azotobacter chroococcum
A-41 0.0 7.4 11.7
C-2 19.4 24.1 24.7
M-4 3.2 9.3 11.7
Bacillus spp
BM-1 0.0 0.0 0.0
BM-2 0.0 0.0 0.0
BM-3 0.0 0.0 0.0
BM-4 0.0 0.0 0.0
IARI, New Delhi Kapoor and Kar (1989)
60
 Conclusion

From the foregoing discussion, it can be inferred that

considerable improvement in the identification, isolation and
utilization of beneficial microorganisms in agriculture has
been achieved. Mass production and supply of good quality of
biofertilizers is pre-requisite for organic farming. Research
finding shown that 25 to 50% N and P could met through
biofertilizers for cultivated crop in our country. Thus,
biofertilizers are expected to play a significant role in the
nutrient management of agricultural production and sharing
organic farming in the need future.

61
 Future needs………
1) It is necessary to develop specific strains of bacteria suitable for different
agro climatic condition and soil types to fully harness the benefit from the
N-fixer.
2) Poor quality of inoculants including low shelf life, low population count
and contamination for want of quality control is serious constraints for a
large scale use of biofertilizer.Hence there is a need to put in greater effort
in this direction to achieve better quality of inoculants by making
necessary arrangements in storage and transport.
3) The effect of biofertilizers on crop growth and yield is not as striking as
that of chemical fertilizers. Being a biological material, the influence is
subject to various environmental factors on favourable soil condition and
nutritional stresses. However on along term sustainability basis ,BNF has
an importance role to play.
4) Should be easily available in market at sowing season.
62
63