bdai lecture i bd research

Lecture plan & Demonstration

• 1. Recent trends in Biodynamic agriculture research

• 2. Case studies on the influence of biodynamic agriculture practices on soil, seed, crop and human health

• 3.Qulatitaive analysis of soil, manure and plant products through image forming chromatograms

• 4. AAT for soil and manure (Quantitative determination of soil nutrients)

Recent trends on BD agriculture researchDr.K.Perumal, (Deputy Director, R&D)

Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre

Main ingredients of Biodynamic preparations.

Field and Crop Spray Preparations Compost Preparations

Preparation Number

Main IngredientPreparation

NumberMain Ingredient

500 Cow Manure 502 Yarrow

501 Silica 503 Chamomile

508 Equisetum 504 Stinging Nettle

505 Oak bark

506 Dandelion buds

507 Valerian

How Might BD Preparations Work?• Primary modes of operation for BD preparations are: nutrient

addition (primarily micronutrient), microbial inoculation, plant immunity stimulation, plant hormones, and microbial signaling.

• BD preparations could change the plant or soil microbial community directly, through inoculation, or indirectly, by changing the habitat or by stimulating microbial growth.

• A change or increase in microbial community could cause either detriments, such as disease, or benefits, such as increased availability of nutrients from the soil.

General effects of soil inoculation. Figure credit: Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, Washington State University.

Influence of BD 501 on microbial signaling. • The community make-up and/or its activities can be affected by microbial

signaling.

• Microorganisms communicate with each other by several means, including through volatile or diffusible molecules

• .

• Individual microbes can release tiny amounts of hormones, signals, and other chemicals that may induce a change in the activities of neighboring microbes.

• Antibiotics are a well-known example, and are produced by many soil and compost microbes to reduce the growth of other populations.

• The chemistry and complexity of microbial signaling is a new frontier in microbiology.

Influence of BD Preparations on disease inhibition

• BD preparations are gaining popularity and interest is for disease inhibition.

• Preparations may suppress plant pathogenic organisms through competition, predation, antagonism of microbes in the preparations, or inhibitory compounds from the microorganisms.

• Some materials can also induce “systemic resistance” in plants. This is similar to a plant vaccination or overall immune system stimulation.

• • Typical plant responses to pathogenic attack such as production of chitinase (an

enzyme that breaks down fungal cell walls) and thickening of plant defensive cell

walls can be stimulated PRIOR to actual attack by a pathogen.

Plant immunity stimulation after treatment with silica spray. Figure credit: Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, Washington State University

Testing BD on the Farm• The use of BD methods and

preparations on thousands of farms suggests that there can be real benefits.

• Successful use of any new material should be accompanied with on-farm experimentation and diligent record keeping

Area under cultivation of biodynamic Agriculture

There are more than 4200 BD farms in 43 countries, the area of which, over 128,000 ha, is certified according to Demeter standards.

http://www.demeter.net/

http://www.demeter.net/

Study directly comparing BD and Conventional farms was carried out in on

16 farms . BD farming practices for at least 8 years resulted in higher soil

organic matter contents, increased quality of soil structure, increased

microbial activity and higher numbers of earthworms. BD farms were

financially as viable as their conventional counterparts.

Droogers and Bouma compared BD and conventional soils on two

neighboring farms, where each farming practice has been applied for at

least 70 years. They found significant differences in soil organic matter

(SOM) content and water availability in favor of BD soils.

New Zealand

Australia

According to Ryan et al., there is a strong

negative correlation between the levels of P

(soil extractable and in pasture shoots) and

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization

in white clover and rye grass.

BD plants and soils contain less extractable

P, but have higher levels of arbuscular

mycorrhizal fungi colonization.

Raupp also reports a higher density of roots

on plots treated with BD preparations. as

they have been proved to stimulate lateral

root formation and thus increase potential

root–mycorrhiza interaction points.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

colonization.

Northern Victoria and New South Wales(Animal husbandry)

Burkitt et al. compared ten BD and CON dairy farms for 4 years.

He suggested the use of certified inputs on BD farms to increase milk fat,

protein and production levels, but did not give further details. This was the

only published study found that dealt with farm animals and BD farming

practices

Sweden

Dr.Artur Grandstedt conducted biodynamic

field trails from 1950 to 1980 nearby baltic sea

The eight treatment which was named as K

experiment

Yields in K-experiment during 30 years

showed a continues increases of the yields.

After a ten years period was the yields in the

biodynamic and conventional fertilized system

on the same level.

Organic carbon in the top soil 0-10 cm 1958-

1989 in biodynamic trial shows 2.71 % of C.baltic sea

HV I

2,12

2,16

2,282,31

1,95

2,00

2,05

2,10

2,15

2,20

2,25

2,30

2,35

1991 1995 2000 2006

C %

to

p s

oil

California

BD wine grape production is also increasingly attracting attention, as

some of the world’s prestigious wine producers have started to use BD

practices in the past decade.

Research followed suit and experimental results suggest that BD practices

have an effect on wine grape canopy and chemistry, whereas no

significant effects on soil fertility parameters were shown in a 6-year

on-farm comparison trial between ORG and BD practices in an organic

vineyard.

Probst et al., however, measured significant differences in soil fertility

between CON and BD soils on farms with a long history of BD (since

1981) and CON cultivation.

Egypt

SEKEM’s companies enterprises like the institutes of

education, vocational training, research centre and

hospitals

Scientific outcomes in biodynamic research

Convert desert into oasis by following biodynamic methods

As a direct result of biodynamic farming activities was the landmark achievement of the reduction in the use of synthetic pesticide in Egypt by over 90% from over 35000 tonnes per year to about 3000 tonnes.

At the same time, the average yield of raw cotton was increased by almost 30% to 1200 kg per acre and fibre elasticity and overall quality was improved, compared to cotton grown by conventional method;

The Mekong Delta Of Vietnam

• Yield and seed quality of modern and traditional soybean [Glycine max (l.)

Merr.] under organic, biodynamic and chemical production practices.

• The experiment revealed that seed yield from biodynamic, organic or

chemical production practically the same and significantly higher by 50-

66% than that of the control

• The biodynamic production practice improved soil properties especially

in soil organic matter content and earthworm population

• Biodynamic practices gave good seed qualities such as high storability

and high protein

The main characteristics of long-term trials, which are based on sound scientific methods and include BD research

Country

of trial

Trial description Duration

of trial

Crop rotation

and fertilization

References

Therwil,

Switzerland

In the DOK trial biodynamic,

organic, conventional

farmyard manure and

conventional-mineral farming

systems are compared with

control plots

1978–the

present FYM, composted FYM

with added BDpreparations and MIN are used, depending on production system

Pfiffner and Ma¨der;

Ma¨der et al.;

Fließbach etal.

Darmstadt,

Germany

With the MIN–ORG trial,

maintained at the Institute for

Biodynamic Research, the

question of mineral versus

organic fertilizers is tackled

1980–the

present

Same crop rotation and similar

soil tillage are used in all treatments

Nitrogen (N) input levels are maintained at the same level, whereas MIN, FYM and composted FYM with added BD preparations are used to supply N to the soil

Raupp

Bonn,

Germany

Effects of traditionally

composted FYM against

two types of BD composted

FYM1 and a control plot

were investigated

1993–2001 Same 6-year crop rotation

with similar land management

Techniques was used. FYM and composted FYM with added BD preparations were used

as fertilizers at a rate of

30 t ha – 1

Zaller and Ko¨pke

Germany: Nicolaas Busscher, Johannes Kahl,Gaby Mergardt and Angelika Ploeger

Department of Organic Food Quality and Food Culture, University of Kassel,

Nordbahnhofstrasse and Witzenhausen, Germany

Denmark: Jens-Otto Andersen and Marianne Paulsen, Biodynamic Research Association

Denmark.

Netherlands: Machteld Huber and Paul Doesburg, Department of Healthcare and Nutrition,

Louis Bolk Institute.

Sweden: Eric - Biodynamic Research Institute Järna, Sweden

UK: Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association www.biodynamic.org.uk

Good Gardeners Association www.goodgardeners.org.uk

McCarrison Society www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk

Austria:CMC Austria www.landmanagement.net

Vietnam: Lam Dong Tung, Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute, Can Tho, Vietnam

India????

MCRC doing work on quality testing of soil, manure and food samples through image forming

techniques.

National and international research Institutes

http://www.biodynamic.org.uk/

http://www.goodgardeners.org.uk/

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/

http://www.landmanagement.net/

Case studies on biodynamic agriculture research

• Properties of BD preparations

• Influence of BD on Soil,

• Influence of BD on Manure maturation

• BD on Seed treatment and germination

• BD management on Crop Growth

• Crop yield

• Quality of the products

Biodynamic farmers use ‘preparations’ to improve soil

health and crop quality/ vitality

Field sprays that are either made from cow manure and

silica fermented in cow horns, or from special mixtures of cow

manure with concentrated applications of herbs (Koepf et al.

1989).

Effect of biodynamic manure on soil properties

Physical properties

• An experiments were carried out during the year

1999, at Shivri farm of Uttar Pradesh, to explore the

significance of biodyanmic preparation-500 (BD-

500) as compost inoculum in sodic soils.

• Biodynamic management could be another

promising technology that could be employed in

bioremediation process of problematic soils.

Ansari and

Ismail(2008)

Chemical properties Soil organic matter content was found to

be significantly higher on most of the

biodynamic farms than on their

conventional counterparts

Compost-fertilized soils supported

greater dehydrogenase activity, more soil

respiration 19.0 mL CO2 g 21 soil h21

in biodynamic compost plot.

Compost may supply an additional

source of labile C and other nutrients to

the soil for microbial growth and

activity. (Carpenter-Boggs et al., 2000)

Biological properties

Rupela, 2003 reported that the microbial

population in BD preparations was found to be

substantial where bacteria population (3.45 to 8.59

log10 g – 1 ). fungi was found in the preparations 502

and 506 (5.30 and 4.26 log10 g - 1, respectively).

Mader.et al., 2002 studied that difference in

dehydrogenase, protease and phosphatase activities

with respect to the farming systems in the

biodynamic, organic and conventional agriculture

long term comparison trial, where highest values

were measured for the biodynamic system

Bacillus

Trichoderma veridi

Contd.,

Microbial biomass nitrogen also differed significantly and was highest

in the biodynamic system with 59% more than that in the conventional

farming. Furthermore, the microbial biomass carbon was 35% higher

in the Biodynamic system, compared with the conventional farming.

A plots receiving the biodynamic field sprays had more MinC than

water- sprayed soils. There fore C is usually a good indicator of

microbial activity. (Oehl et al, 2004).

Earthworm population

Pfiffner et al (1995) found more

earthworms under organic than

biodynamic management, and fewest

in mineral-fertilized compost.or

unfertilized plots.

Carbon sequestration:

In Switzerland, a long-term trial for a

biodynamic system showed a stable

carbon content, while a carbon loss of

15% in 21 years was measured for the

compared conventional systems

(Fliessbach, 2007)

Contd.,

Effect BD on crop management

A total of 1,443 colonies (ranging

between 45 in BD500 to 527 in BD506)

were observed from the nine samples,

from that 67 isolates, 17 suppressed

disease causing fungi such as R.

bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela et

al 2003 from ICRISAT).

Antagonistic effect

Tung and Fernandez, 2008

found that the shoot biomass at

pod filling stage of biodynamics

was higher by 24-28% and crop

growth rate as well for the two

different soybean varieties

Effect on physiology and growth of crop plant

Effect on crop yieldRice crop: The grain yield and total milling yield

was similar under organic and biodynamic

methods (Garcia-Yzaguirre,et al., 2011).

Wheat and maize:

o Six years near Elkhorn with five different

treatments. The BD+ system resulted in 403 to

605 kg /ha more wheat grain than did the organic

system

o Five years of maize crop trials showed average

yields of 5.58, 6.71,6.77, and 7.15 Mg/ha of grain

for the conventional, organic, BD, and BD+

treatments, respectively. (Goldstein and Barber

2005).

Carpenter-Boggs et al. (2000) found no significant differences in yield of wheat

and lentil in biodynamic and chemical system, although the yield of lentil per

unit of plant biomass was higher in biodynamic.

The experiment was conducted at Mekong Delta of Vietnam, revealed that seed

yield of soybean from biodynamic, organic or chemical production practically the

same and significantly higher by 50-66% than that of the control (Tung1 and

Fernandez, 2007).

In several studies biodynamic preparations have hormone-like effects on various

crops (Stearn, 1976; Goldstein, 1979; Goldstein and Koepf, 1982; Fritz, et al.,

1997) and they can increase root growth (Bachinger, 1996; Goldstein, 1986).

In Germany the biodynamic sprays increased crop yields (cereals and vegetables)

on years where yields were low (Raupp and Koenig, 1996)

Contd.,

Biological properties Rupela, 2003 reported that the microbial population in BD preparations was

found to be substantial where bacteria population (3.45 to 8.59 log10 g – 1 ).

fungi was found in the preparations 502 and 506 (5.30 and 4.26 log10 g - 1,

respectively). Several bacterial and fungal strains showed a potential for

suppressing fungal plant pathogens.

Mader.et al., 2002 studied that difference in dehydrogenase, protease and

phosphatase activities with respect to the farming systems in the biodynamic,

organic and conventional agriculture long term comparison trial, where

highest values were measured for the biodynamic system

Contd.,

Microbial biomass nitrogen also differed significantly and was highest

in the biodynamic system with 59% more than that in the conventional

farming. Furthermore, the microbial biomass carbon was 35% higher

in the Biodynamic system, compared with the conventional farming.

A plots receiving the biodynamic field sprays had more MinC than

water- sprayed soils. There fore C is usually a good indicator of

microbial activity. (Oehl et al, 2004).

Earthworm population

Pfiffner et al (1995) found more earthworms under organic

than biodynamic management, and fewest in mineral-fertilized

compost.or unfertilized plots.

Carbon sequestration:

In Switzerland, a long-term trial for a biodynamic system

showed a stable carbon content, while a carbon loss of 15% in

21 years was measured for the compared conventional systems

(Fliessbach, 2007)

Effect BD on crop management

A total of 1,443 colonies (ranging between 45 in BD500 to

527 in BD506) were observed from the nine samples, from

that 67 isolates, 17 suppressed disease causing fungi such

as R. bataticola, A. flavus, S. rolfsii. (Rupela et al 2003 from

ICRISAT).

Tung and Fernandez, 2008 found that the shoot

biomass at pod filling stage of biodynamics was

higher by 24-28% and crop growth rate as well for

the two different soybean varieties

Effect on physiology and growth of crop plant

Effect on crop yieldRice crop: The trials were set up in Pego-Oliva marshland in the year of 2005 to 2009.

The grain yield and total milling yield was similar under organic and biodynamic

methods (Garcia-Yzaguirre,et al., 2011).

Wheat and maize:

o Six years near Elkhorn with five different treatments. The BD+ system resulted in

403 to 605 kg /ha more wheat grain than did the organic system

o Five years of maize crop trials showed average yields of 5.58, 6.71,6.77, and 7.15

Mg/ha of grain for the conventional, organic, BD, and BD+ treatments, respectively.

o Yields from the conventional plots lagged behind the organic and biodynamic plots

throughout the experiment (Goldstein and Barber 2005).

Carpenter-Boggs et al. (2000) found no significant differences in yield of wheat

and lentil in biodynamic and chemical system, although the yield of lentil per

unit of plant biomass was higher in biodynamic.

The experiment was conducted at Mekong Delta of Vietnam, revealed that seed

yield of soybean from biodynamic, organic or chemical production practically the

same and significantly higher by 50-66% than that of the control (Tung1 and

Fernandez, 2007).

In several studies biodynamic preparations have hormone-like effects on various

crops (Stearn, 1976; Goldstein, 1979; Goldstein and Koepf, 1982; Fritz, et al.,

1997) and they can increase root growth (Bachinger, 1996; Goldstein, 1986).

In Germany the biodynamic sprays increased crop yields (cereals and vegetables)

on years where yields were low (Raupp and Koenig, 1996)

Biodynamic Research in India

ORGANIC, BIODYNAMIC MANURES AND THEIR EFFECT ON GROWTH ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED PLANTS in India

Biodynamic Agriculture Research Objectives

Collection of organic-biodynamic manures and analysis for physical, chemical and microbiological parameters

Isolation and identification of microbial populations in selected organic and biodynamic manures

Production of subtilin

Evaluation of partially purified subtilin and organic, biodynamic manures against certain selected plant pathogens at laboratory and field trial

Assessment of Cow Pat Pit manure and other combinations of manures for the yield of bhindi under field trial

Alternative materials for BD 500

Alternative tropical herbs for BD preparations

Physicochemical properties of different organic and biodynamic manures

ManuresManures pHpH ECEC (m.mohs)(m.mohs)

Nitrogen Nitrogen (%)(%)

PhosphorusPhosphorus(%)(%)

PotassiumPotassium(%)(%)

Organic Organic CarbonCarbon

(%) /dry wt (%) /dry wt

BD 500BD 500 7.2 ± 0.17.2 ± 0.1cc 0.17 ± 0.010.17 ± 0.01abab 1.63 ± 0.021.63 ± 0.02bb 1.11 ± 0.011.11 ± 0.01bb 2.53 ± 0.002.53 ± 0.00cc 24.55 ± 0.0124.55 ± 0.01dd

BD 502BD 502 5.3 ± 0.35.3 ± 0.3bb 0.26 ± 0.020.26 ± 0.02abab 0.07 ± 0.000.07 ± 0.00aa 0.05 ± 0.000.05 ± 0.00aa 1.07 ± 0.011.07 ± 0.01bb 22.64± 0.0322.64± 0.03cc

BD 503BD 503 5.7 ± 0.25.7 ± 0.2bb 0.29 ± 0.010.29 ± 0.01bb 0.04 ± 0.000.04 ± 0.00aa 0.09 ± 0.000.09 ± 0.00aa 2.28 ± 0.002.28 ± 0.00cc 27.39 ± 0.0027.39 ± 0.00ee

BD 504BD 504 7.1 ± 0.37.1 ± 0.3dd 0.23 ± 0.010.23 ± 0.01abab 0.5 ± 0.030.5 ± 0.03aa 0.06 ± 0.010.06 ± 0.01aa 1.06 ± 0.001.06 ± 0.00bb 28.36 ± 0.0128.36 ± 0.01efef

BD 505BD 505 7.9 ± 0.47.9 ± 0.4dd 0.12 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.02abab 0.05 ± 0.000.05 ± 0.00aa 0.01 ± 0.000.01 ± 0.00aa 0.07 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.01aa 16.87 ± 0.0016.87 ± 0.00bb

BD 506BD 506 6.1 ± 0.26.1 ± 0.2cc 0.29 ± 0.010.29 ± 0.01abab 0.32 ± 0.020.32 ± 0.02aa 0.47 ± 0.020.47 ± 0.02bb 1.27 ± 0.001.27 ± 0.00bb 11.46 ± 0.0111.46 ± 0.01aa

BD 507BD 507 6.8 ± 0.26.8 ± 0.2cc 0.01 ± 0.020.01 ± 0.02aa 0.15 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.02aa 0.01 ± 0.000.01 ± 0.00aa 1.26 ± 0.021.26 ± 0.02bb 26.94 ± 0.0126.94 ± 0.01ee

BD CompostBD Compost 7.3 ± 0.17.3 ± 0.1cc 0.03 ± 0.010.03 ± 0.01aa 0.5 ± 0.010.5 ± 0.01bb 0.04 ± 0.010.04 ± 0.01aa 0.74 ± 0.010.74 ± 0.01bb 27.46 ± 0.0027.46 ± 0.00ee

CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 8.0 ± 0.18.0 ± 0.1dd 0.11 ± 0.040.11 ± 0.04abab 2.09 ± 0.012.09 ± 0.01aa 6.86 ±6.86 ± 0.00 0.00dd 4.69 ± 0.004.69 ± 0.00dd 16.44 ± 0 0016.44 ± 0 00bb

VermicompostVermicompost**

6.6 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.1cc 0.04 ± 0.010.04 ± 0.01aa 2.13 ± 0.042.13 ± 0.04cc 2.03 ± 0.002.03 ± 0.00cc 2.28 ± 0.022.28 ± 0.02cc 27.37 ± 0.0027.37 ± 0.00ee

NADEP*NADEP* 3.7 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.2aa 0.05 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.01aa 1.39 ± 0.001.39 ± 0.00bb 0.95 ± 0.000.95 ± 0.00dd 2.55 ± 0.022.55 ± 0.02cc 30.37 ± 0.0030.37 ± 0.00ff

Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 3.7 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.2aa 0.40 ± 0.020.40 ± 0.02abab 1.29 ± 0.001.29 ± 0.00bb 0.77 ± 0.010.77 ± 0.01bb 2.24 ± 0.012.24 ± 0.01cc 17.47 ±17.47 ± 0.01 0.01bb

Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level. * Organic

ManuresManures AuxinAuxin(µg/g)(µg/g)

CytokininCytokinin(µg/g)(µg/g)

Abscisic acidAbscisic acid (µg/g)(µg/g)

GAGA33

(µg/g)(µg/g)

BD 500BD 500 21.7 ± 0.4521.7 ± 0.45aa 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01bb ----

BD 502BD 502 9.7 ± 0.459.7 ± 0.45bb 7.0 ± 0.017.0 ± 0.01aa ----

BD 503BD 503 7.9 ± 0.017.9 ± 0.01bb 3.9 ± 0.013.9 ± 0.01bb ----

BD 504BD 504 8.4 ± 0.018.4 ± 0.01bb 5.7 ± 0.85.7 ± 0.8aa 18.7 ± 0.818.7 ± 0.8aa

--

BD 505BD 505 9.0 ± 0.019.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb 18.8 ± 0.818.8 ± 0.8aa

--

BD 506BD 506 3.3 ± 0.323.3 ± 0.32bb 5.7 ± 0.045.7 ± 0.04bb 18.7 ± 0.0418.7 ± 0.04aa

--BD 507 (2 ml)BD 507 (2 ml) 6.5 ± 0.186.5 ± 0.18bb 6.0 ± 0.186.0 ± 0.18aa -- --

BD CompostBD Compost 6.3 ± 0.86.3 ± 0.8bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb ----

CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 28.7 ± 0.0428.7 ± 0.04aa 7.7 ± 0.87.7 ± 0.8aa -- 23.7 ± 0.0423.7 ± 0.04aa

Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 8.5 ± 0.248.5 ± 0.24bb 5.7 ± 0.015.7 ± 0.01bb -- --

NADEP*NADEP* 21.7 ± 0.0421.7 ± 0.04aa 5.5 ± 0.85.5 ± 0.8bb -- --

Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 10.5 ± 0.0410.5 ± 0.04bb 4.0 ± 0.014.0 ± 0.01bb -- --

Quantification of Plant Growth Regulators of different organic and biodynamic manures

Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level.

Note: - undetectable * Organic

ManuresManures CFU of CFU of bacteria x10bacteria x1066

AzotobacterAzotobacterx10x1066

AzospirillumAzospirillumx10x1066

CFU ofCFU offungifungix10x1066

RhizobiumRhizobium x10x1066

BD 500BD 500 4.1 ± 0.084.1 ± 0.08aa 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02cc 0.2 ±0.000.2 ±0.00bb 0.9 ±0.020.9 ±0.02aa

3.1 ±0.013.1 ±0.01aa

BD 502BD 502 1.4 ± 0.081.4 ± 0.08abab 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02cc 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb

1.3 ± 0.121.3 ± 0.12bb

BD 503BD 503 3.9 ± 0.013.9 ± 0.01aa 1.3± 0.041.3± 0.04bb 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.8 ± 0.000.8 ± 0.00abab

2.1 ± 0.082.1 ± 0.08bb

BD 504BD 504 3.6 ± 0.083.6 ± 0.08aa 0.6 ± 0.080.6 ± 0.08cc -- 0.2 ± 0.000.2 ± 0.00bb

2.9 ± 0.052.9 ± 0.05aa

BD 505BD 505 0.8 ± 0.050.8 ± 0.05bb 1.4 ± 0.021.4 ± 0.02bb 0.3 ± 0.080.3 ± 0.08bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb

0.8 ± 0.020.8 ± 0.02bb

BD 506BD 506 3.8 ± 0.023.8 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb -- 0.6 ± 0.020.6 ± 0.02bb

2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01aa

BD 507BD 507 3.3 ± 0.183.3 ± 0.18aa 0.4 ± 0.020.4 ± 0.02cc 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02bb

1.1 ± 0.021.1 ± 0.02bb

BD CompostBD Compost 2.8 ± 0.022.8 ± 0.02bb 2.5 ± 0.082.5 ± 0.08aa 0.1 ± 0.000.1 ± 0.00bb 0.6 ± 0.000.6 ± 0.00bb

3.1 ± 0.023.1 ± 0.02aa

CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 4.9 ± 0.024.9 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb 0.2 ± 0.000.2 ± 0.00bb 1.2 ± 0.021.2 ± 0.02aa

2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01bb

Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 2.9 ± 0.022.9 ± 0.02bb 2.7 ± 0.082.7 ± 0.08aa 0.9 ± 0.000.9 ± 0.00bb 0.3 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.02bb

1.6 ± 0.011.6 ± 0.01bb

NADEP*NADEP* 3.5 ± 0.183.5 ± 0.18aa 0.6 ± 0.040.6 ± 0.04bb 0.3 ± 0.000.3 ± 0.00bb 0.5 ± 0.020.5 ± 0.02bb

1.9 ± 0.011.9 ± 0.01aa

Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 3.9 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.02aa 0.9 ± 0.020.9 ± 0.02bb 0.2 ± 0.020.2 ± 0.02bb 0.5 ± 0.000.5 ± 0.00bb

2.1 ± 0.022.1 ± 0.02aa

Occurrence and distribution of microbes in different organic and biodynamic manures

Results represent mean SD of three replicates. Values denoted by different letters, differ significantly at <0.05 level. Note: - undetectable * Organic

ab

a b

cd

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of biodynamic manures

05

101520253035

CPPremuni

Leavesmold

Peatmoss

Remuni C Old cocopeat

NPK

, OC

(%) /

man

ure

Nitrogen Phosporus Potasium Organic carbon

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

CPPremuni

Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old cocopeat

Hum

ic a

cid

(mg/

g) m

anur

e

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

CPP remuniLeaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old cocopeat

CF

U b

acte

ria

(106

/g)m

anur

e

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

CF

U fu

ngi 1

03/g

man

ure

Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum Rhizobium

Total CFU fungi

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

CPP remuni Leaves mold Peat moss Remuni C Old coco peat

PGR

s (µg

/g)m

anur

e

Auxin Cytokinin

Total protein content of different organic and biodynamic manures

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

a b c d e f g h i j k l

Different organic and biodynamic manures

pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µg

/g)d

ry w

t

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

a b c d e f g h i j k l

Different manures

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re d

ry

wt

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/g)

Protein Subtilin

Total protein and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in different organic and biodynamic manure

(a) BD 500(b) BD 502(c) BD 503(d) BD 504

(e) BD 505(f) BD 506(g) BD 507(h) BD compost (i) CPP

(j) Vermicomp(k) NADE

(l) Panchakavya

I II III IV

V VI VII VIII

IX X XI XII

I. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 500II. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 502III. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 503IV. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 504V. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 505VI. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 506VII. Circular paper chromatogram image of BD 507VIII. Circular paper chromatogram image of biodynamic compostIX. Circular paper chromatogram image of CPP (Cow Pat Pit) X. Circular paper chromatogram image of vermi compostXI. Circular paper chromatogram image of NADEPXII. Circular paper chromatogram image of panchakavya

Circular paper chromatogram image analyses of different organic and biodynamic manures

1. Stuff cow Horn with cow dung

2 Place the cow horns in the pit 3 Cow horn with fresh cow dung and BD 500 harvested after 120 days of incubation

4 Staffing the mud horn with cow dung5 Mud horn alternatives for cow horns6 Placing the cow dung filled mud horns in pit

1

2

3

4

5

6

Preparation of BD 500

Cow horn

Total Nitrogen

(%)

Protein (%)

Major Amino acids (%)

Raw 14 87.5 -

Steamed 13.5 84.5 -

Hydrolyzed

12 75 Cysteine 1,Lysine 2.35

Methionine 0.47

Chemical analysis of Cow horn

BD500 MCRC

DaysTotal bacteria*

Fungi*

Rhizobium*

Azospirillum*

Azotobacter*

Actinomycetes*

0 7.2 5.5 2.1 1.9 2.7 6.315 17.7 7.8 4.5 3.8 3.5 7.730 21.1 9.7 5.9 5.7 4.6 9.545 29.9 10.5 7.3 6.3 6.9 10.660 32.2 11.6 10.3 9.5 7.2 12.275 38.8 13.3 12.7 10.6 8.4 13.490 42.2 16.1 15.4 12.4 10.3 16.3

105 39.9 12.4 10.2 9.1 8.7 15.1120 36.6 8.7 7.9 7.8 7.6 13.8

* = X 106

Availability of Cow horns?Why cow horns alone for BD

Preparations?

a b

c d

(a), (b), (c) and (d) covered with gunny bag

CPPM MANURE PREPARATION

Four different biodynamic manure combinations of equal proportion ratio viz., BDM I) - CPP + BD 500 BDM II) - CPP + Herbals prepBDM III) - BD 500 + Herbals prep BDM IV) - Herbals

Five different manures were prepared as per the description given earlier by eliminating certain components:

I) CPPM I - prepared with all components (control) viz., such as cow dung + egg shell + bore well soil + BD herbals

II) CPPM II - cow dung alone III) CPPM III - cow dung + egg shell + bore well soil IV) CPPM IV - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + bore well soilV) CPPM V - cow dung + BD herbal preparations + egg shell

Cow Pat Pit Manure samples were prepared by including all the components (control) and kept in different containers viz.,

i) Mud pot ii) Plastic bath tub iii) Cement pot

Effect containers on Preparation of CPPM manure

Effect Of CPPM Manure Preparation at Different localities

Different physicochemical parameters viz., pH Electrical conductivity (EC) Muthuvel and Udayasoorian (1999) Moisture content TemperatureBrick’s value Available nitrogen (N) Subbiah et al. (1956) Phosphorous (P) Olsen (1954) Potassium (K) Jackson (1958) Organic carbon (OC) Walkley and Black (1934)Protein Lowry et al. (1951) Humic acid Welte et al. (1952)Plant Growth Regulators Unyayar et al. (1996).Subtilin Dimick et al., 1947 Circular paper chromatogram image analysis (Pfeiffer, 1984)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

ma

nu

re

Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

acid

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

05

1015202530354045

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06 /g

) m

an

ure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3 /g)

ma

nu

re

Total CFU bacteria AzotobacterAzospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/g

)

ma

nu

re

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs (

µg

/g)

ma

nu

re

Auxin Cytokinin ABA GA3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µ/g

) m

an

ure

dry

wt

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM I manure

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM II manure

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (%

) m

an

ure


0

20

40

60

80

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

acid

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs (

µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06/g

) m

an

ure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3/g

) m

an

ure


0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

ma

nu

re


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

( Days)

Hu

mic

acid

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06 /g

) m

an

ure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3 /g )

ma

nu

re

Total CFU bacteria Azotobacter

Azospirillum Rhizobium

Total CFU fungi

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µ

g/g

) m

an

ure

dry

wt

0

0.02

0.04

0.060.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM III manure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

ma

nu

re


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

aci

d (

mg

/g)

ma

nu

re

0

510

1520

2530

3540

45

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06 /g

) m

an

ure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

03 /g

) m

an

ure



Total CFU fungi

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n (

mg

/g)

ma

nu

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re

dry

wt

0

5

10

15

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM IV manure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

ma

nu

re


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

0

5

10

15

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06/g

) m

an

ure

0

0.20.4

0.6

0.8

11.2

1.4

1.6

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3/g

) m

an

ure


0

50

100

150

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Prote

in c

on

ten

t (µ

g/g

) m

an

ure d

ry w

t

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n (

mg/g

) m

an

ure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

aci

d (

mg

/g)

ma

nu

re

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM V manure

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K, O

C (

%)

man

ure

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Organic carbon

05

101520253035

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs (

µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


0

0.2

0.4

0.60.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06 /g

)

ma

nu

re

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3 /g)

ma

nu

re


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Prote

in c

on

ten

t (µ

g/g

) m

an

ure d

ry

wt

01234

5678

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

pH

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

010

2030

405060

7080

90100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

aci

d (

mg

/g)

ma

nu

re

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of mud pot CPPM manure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K,

OC

(%

) m

an

ure

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Organic carbon

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

aci

d

(mg

/g)

man

ure

05

1015202530

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs (

µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


0

0.5

1

1.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06/g

)

ma

nu

re

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

CF

U f

un

gi

10

3/g

ma

nu

re


020406080

100120140160180200

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Pro

tein

co

nen

t (µ

g/g

) m

an

ure

dry

wt

6.36.46.56.66.76.86.9

77.17.27.37.4

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

pH

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/g

) m

an

ure

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of plastic bath tub CPPM manure

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K, O

C (

%)

ma

nu

re

Nitrogen Phosprous Potassium Organic carbon

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hu

mic

aci

d (

mg/g

) m

an

ure

05

1015202530

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(1

06/g

) m

an

ure

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CF

U f

un

gi

10

3/g

ma

nu

re


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(µg

/g)

ma

nu

re d

ry w

t

6.86.856.9

6.957

7.057.1

7.157.2

7.257.3

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

pH

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n (

mg/g

) m

an

ure

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of cement pot CPPM manure

a

hgfe

i j k l

b c d

Circular paper chromatogram image of CPPM manure samples prepared in three different containers

(a) 0th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (g) 30th day CPPM (cement tub) (b) 15th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (h) 45th day CPPM (cement tub) (c) 30th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (i) 0th day CPPM (Mud tub) (d) 45th day CPPM (plastic bath tub) (j) 15th day CPPM (Mud tub) (e) 0th day CPPM (cement tub) (k) 30th day CPPM (Mud tub) (f) 15th day CPPM (cement tub) (l) 45th day CPPM (Mud tub)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

man

ure

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hum

ic a

cid

(mg/

g) m

anur

e

05

1015202530354045

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg/

g) m

anur

e


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

acte

ria

(106

/g)

man

ure

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

CF

U fu

ngi (

103/g

)

man

ure


Azospirillum RhizobiumTotal CFU fungi

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%) m

anur

e

5.65.8

66.26.46.66.8

77.27.47.6

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

pH

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Subt

ilin

prod

uctio

n (m

g/g)

m

anur

e

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Prot

ein co

nten

t (µg

/g) m

anur

e dr

y w

t

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (MCRC)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

NP

K (

%)

man

ure

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Hum

ic a

cid

(mg/

g) m

anur

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

PG

Rs

(µg/

g) m

anu

re

IAA Kinetin ABA GA3

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

CF

U b

act

eriu

m (

10

6/g

) m

an

ure

00.2

0.40.6

0.81

1.21.4

1.61.8

CF

U f

un

gi

(10

3/g

)

ma

nu

re



Total CFU fungi

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

OC

(%) m

anur

e

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Prot

ein

cont

ent (

µg/g

) man

ure

dry

wt

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

pH

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

(Days)

Subt

ilin

prod

uctio

n (m

g/g)

m

anur

e

Physicochemical and microbial parameters of CPPM manure prepared at (Vadakadampadi)

0th

90th

45th 30th 15th

75th 60th

Circular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collected at MCRC

0th 15th 30th 45th

60th 75th 90th 105th

120th Circular Paper Chromatographic images of CPPM manure collected at Vadakadampadi

Physicochemical parameters of three different commercial biodynamic manures

ManuresManures pHpH EC EC (%)(%)

Moisture Moisture content content

(%)(%)

Brick’s Brick’s valuevalue(%)(%)

OC OC (%)(%) N (%)N (%) PP

(%)(%)KK

(%)(%)

Humic acidHumic acid(mg/g) of (mg/g) of manuremanure

BD 500 ABD 500 A 8.178.17 0.160.16 20.020.0 3.83.8 15.1415.14 0.0460.046 3. 683. 68 3.443.44 54.254.2

BD 500BD 500BB

7.447.44 0.320.32 44.444.4 3.43.4 16.4016.40 0.0920.092 6. 846. 84 4.684.68 74.174.1

CPPCPP 8.468.46 0.180.18 25.025.0 2.92.9 19.1019.10 0.0980.098 8. 958. 95 5.145.14 87.087.0

Values are mean of three replicates

Occurrence and distribution of microbes in three different commercial biodynamic manures

ManuresManuresCFU of CFU of

bacterium bacterium x10x1066

AzotobacterAzotobacter x10x1066

AzosprillumAzosprillum x10x1066

Rhizobium Rhizobium x10x1066

CFU of fungi CFU of fungi x10x1033

BD 500 ABD 500 A 0.60.6 0.20.2 0.40.4 0.30.3 0.10.1

BD 500 BBD 500 B 0.30.3 1.11.1 0.90.9 0.50.5 0.20.2

CPPCPP 1.71.7 1.01.0 1.01.0 0.80.8 1.01.0


Circular paper chromatogram images of BD 500 A manure sample

Circular paper chromatographic images of BD 500 B manure sample

Circular paper chromatogram images of CPP manure sample

Chromatographic analysis of three different commercial biodynamic manures

S.NoS.No ManuresManures Chromatogram zoneChromatogram zone ReportReport

i)i) BD 500 ABD 500 A Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]

RRff value value

ColourColourPatternPattern

Middle zone[AvailableMiddle zone[Available C,NC,N]]Width [cm]Width [cm]

RRff value value


Outer zoneOuter zone[Water soluble humus][Water soluble humus]

Width [cm]Width [cm]RRff value value


2.52.50.350.35

Light yellowish brownLight yellowish brownRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward

2.92.90.410.41

Light greyLight greyRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward

4.74.70.670.67

Dark brownDark brownThick 56 radiating spikes projected outwardThick 56 radiating spikes projected outward

ii)ii) BD 500 BBD 500 B Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]

RRff value value


Middle zone[AvailableMiddle zone[Available C,N]C,N]Width [cm]Width [cm]

RRff value value


Outer zoneOuter zone[[Water soluble humusWater soluble humus]]



2.12.10.30.3

Light brownLight brownRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward

2.82.80.40.4

Light greyLight greyRadiating spikes projected outwardRadiating spikes projected outward

4.84.80.680.68

Thick brownThick brown60 radiating dark spikes projected outward60 radiating dark spikes projected outward

iii)iii) CPPCPP Inner zone [Minerals]Inner zone [Minerals]Width [cm]Width [cm]

RRff value value


Middle zone [AvailableMiddle zone [Available C, NC, N]]



Outer zoneOuter zone[Water soluble humus][Water soluble humus]



2.52.50.350.35

Light yellowish brownLight yellowish brownradiating spikes projected outwardradiating spikes projected outward

3.03.00.420.42

Light greyLight greyradiating spikes projected outwardradiating spikes projected outward

4.94.90.70.7

Dark brownDark brownThick 57 radiating spikes projected Thick 57 radiating spikes projected

outwardoutward

S.NoS.No ManuresManures Chromatogram zoneChromatogram zone ReportReport

a

b

Efficacy of CPPR (CPP Remuni) Japan manure against Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus

Efficacy of CPPM manure against Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus luteus

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in different natural media

Five different natural media viz., i) CPPM extract ii) CPPM extract + 1% yeast extract iii) Partially extracted CPPM (CPPM was added with distilled water in a ratio of 1:1 w/v iv) Spent wash effluent of sugar cane industry (E.I.D parry)v) Vermicompost medium

GROWTH AND SUBTILIN PRODUCTION OF 12 DIFFERENT ISOLATES OF Bacillus subtilis IN DIFFERENT MEDIA

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation(h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BS1 Subtilin

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.63

0.64

0.65

0.66

0.67

0.68

0.69

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIV Subtilin

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.151.16

1.17

1.18

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0n

m

0.7

0.71

0.720.73

0.74

0.75

0.76

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSVII Subtilin

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIX Subtilin

1.11.12

1.141.161.18

1.21.22

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSXII Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in nutrient

broth medium

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.4

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSI Subtilin

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

00.05

0.10.150.2

0.250.3

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSII Subtilin

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.230.240.250.260.270.280.290.3

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIV Subtilin

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation(h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSVII Subtilin

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSVIII Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM

extract medium

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/m

l)

BSII Subtilin

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIII Subtilin

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSVIII Subtilin

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.640.650.660.670.680.690.70.71

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSXI Subtilin

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (hrs)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

Su

bti

lin

yie

ld (

mg

/ml)

BSIV Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in CPPM +

1% yeast extract medium

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at 6

60 n

m

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Subt

ilin

pro

duct

ion

(mg/

ml)

BSII Subtilin

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSIII Subtilin

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

0.16

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1 S

ub

tili

n p

rod

uct

ion

(m

g/m

l)

BSIX Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in distillery extract medium

0.39

0.4

0.41

0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSIII Subtilin

0.390.4

0.410.420.430.440.450.46

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0n

m

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSVII Subtilin

0.40.410.420.430.440.450.460.47

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25S

ub

tili

n p

rod

uct

ion

(mg

/ml)

BSIX Subtilin

0.410.420.430.440.450.460.470.48

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.21

0.22

0.230.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSXII Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis isolates in vermicompost extract medium

0.910.920.930.940.950.960.970.98

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIII Subtilin

0.880.89

0.90.910.920.930.940.950.96

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(m

g/m

l)BSIV Subtilin

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

a

t 6

60

nm

0.210.220.230.240.250.260.270.280.29

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSVII Subtilin

0.910.920.930.940.950.960.970.98

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

ctio

n

(mg

/ml)

BSVIII Subtilin

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Gro

wth

at

66

0 n

m

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

0.34

Su

bti

lin

pro

du

cti

on

(mg

/ml)

BSIX Subtilin

Growth and subtilin production of Bacillus subtilis in partially CPPM

extract medium

0102030405060708090

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(ug

/ml)

BSI BSII BSIII BSIV BSV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(ug

/ml)

BSVI BSVII BSVIII BSIX BSX

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Incubation (h)

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(ug

/ml)

BSXI BSXII

Extracellular protein content of 12 different isolates of Bacillus subtilis (BS I - BS XII)

Control

Staphylococcus aureus

Micrococcus luteus

Efficacy of Bacillus Subtilis (BS I) crude extract on test pathogens

Carbon sourcesCarbon sources OD at 660 nmOD at 660 nm Inhibition zone Inhibition zone (mm) diameter(mm) diameter

SorbitalSorbital 1.111.11 14.014.0

MannitolMannitol 1.041.04 12.012.0

GlucoseGlucose 1.071.07 15.015.0

MannoseMannose 1.091.09 15.015.0

FructoseFructose 0.870.87 18.018.0

SucroseSucrose 0.890.89 15.015.0

RiboseRibose 0.850.85 16.016.0

RaffinoseRaffinose 0.860.86 18.018.0

GalactoseGalactose 1.281.28 26.026.0

InositolInositol 0.760.76 17.017.0

LactoseLactose 0.960.96 17.017.0

MaltoseMaltose 0.850.85 12.012.0

XyloseXylose 0.980.98 18.018.0

GlycerolGlycerol 0.830.83 17.017.0

StarchStarch 0.870.87 14.014.0

Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different carbon sources


Antifungal activity of Bacillus subtilis BS I on Fusarium oxysporum at different N2 sources

Nitrogen sourcesNitrogen sources OD at 660 OD at 660 nmnm

Inhibition Inhibition zone (mm) zone (mm) diameterdiameter

Potassium nitratePotassium nitrate 1.081.08 9.09.0

Ammonium phosphateAmmonium phosphate 1.051.05 12.012.0

Sodium nitrateSodium nitrate 1.071.07 17.017.0

Ammonium sulphateAmmonium sulphate 1.031.03 14.014.0

Ammonium nitrateAmmonium nitrate 1.071.07 15.015.0

PeptonePeptone 1.211.21 31.031.0

L- CysteinL- Cystein 0.980.98 24.024.0

L- ThreonineL- Threonine 0.970.97 14.014.0

L- AlanineL- Alanine 1.051.05 12.012.0

L- LeucinL- Leucin 0.950.95 13.013.0

L- phenylalanineL- phenylalanine 0.850.85 17.017.0

L- AsparagineL- Asparagine 0.940.94 15.015.0

L- ProlineL- Proline 0.970.97 15.015.0


Efficacy of different solvent systems for the extract of antimicrobial substance from Bacillus subtilis BS I

Solvents Solvents

Zone of inhibition (mm diameter)Zone of inhibition (mm diameter)

Staphylococcus Staphylococcus aureusaureus

Micrococcus Micrococcus luteusluteus

E. coliE. coli

Chloroform - isopropanolChloroform - isopropanol 14.0 ± 0.0214.0 ± 0.02aa 11.0 ± 0.0211.0 ± 0.02aa 9.0 ± 0.019.0 ± 0.01aa

Chloroform - methanolChloroform - methanol 17.0 ± 0.0417.0 ± 0.04aa 13.0 ± 0.0313.0 ± 0.03aa 9.0 ± 0.039.0 ± 0.03aa

HexaneHexane 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02 c c 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc 2.0 ± 0.012.0 ± 0.01cc

EtherEther 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.034.0 ± 0.03cc 3.0 ± 0.023.0 ± 0.02cc

ChloroformChloroform 6.0 ± 0.026.0 ± 0.02bb 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01cc

IsopropanolIsopropanol 7.0 ± 0.037.0 ± 0.03bb 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02bb 5.0 ± 0.025.0 ± 0.02bb

MethanolMethanol 10.0 ± 0.0210.0 ± 0.02bb 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 4.0 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.02bb


Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I extract on different plant pathogens

(A). F. oxysporum (B). R. Solani (C). M. grisea (D). R. Solanacearum (E). X. oryzae

Fusarium oxysporum on Potato Dextrose Agar at 48 h

A B C D E

Efficacy of organic and biodynamic manures on Allium cepa L. bulbs Hydroponic study

A total of 12 organic and biodynamic manures: vermicompost, NADEP compost, panchakavya (ingredients of cow dung, urine, milk, curd and ghee) and Biodynamic (BD) compost and cow pat pit (CPP), cow horn manure (BD 500) and biodynamic herbal preparations viz, (BD 502 – BD 507) were used in the present study

Onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) samples

The biometric parameters like shoot length, number of sheath, root length and number of rootlets were recorded. In addition the root samples were subjected for cross sections and studied.

Efficacy of different biodynamic manures and Bacillus subtilis BS I culture filtrate on selected Plants under laboratory and field trial

3. Soil drench method

15 days old tomato seedlings were transplanted to the experimental pots contained the micro conidia of 3 x 105/mL of Fusaruium oxysporum and inoculated 10 mL of Bacillus subtilis BS I of 6 x 106 CFU/mL, Ca. 5 cm away from the stem.

Diseased plants (pathogens only) with out treatment and healthy plants (control) were served as control.

The above experiments were conducted for a period of 50 days after transplantation and the following parameters were recorded.

In addition the length of shoot, root, fresh and dry weight of shoot and root were also recorded at the end of experiment.

Field trial study

Healthy seeds of bhindi (Arka Anamika variety) obtained from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Each plot covered an area of 6 m × 2.5 m.

Six different experiments were performed for a period of 120 days.

A total of eighteen plots were made. Each plot had four ridges and furrows.

Forty plants were grown in each plot at an interval of 30 x 30 cm.

Initially in each spot 2 seeds were sown and at the end of 7th day one healthy seedling was maintained.

At every 15 days interval different parameters like, height of plant, number of branches, number of flowers and number of vegetables and weight were recorded.

A total of 29 pickings were made during the first month to fourth month of experimental periods.

The yield of bhindi was recorded every month

Field experimental details/plot

T1. Control - without organic/inorganic fertilizerT2. Recommended dose of fertilizers - 10 kg Farmyard Manure (FYM) applied only on initial day and 264 gm Urea + 97.5 gm single super phosphate (SSP) + 153 gm Murite of potash (MOP) applied on 0th and 60th day.T3. Farmyard Manure (FYM) - 10 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T4. Vermicompost - 3 kg applied on 0th and 60th day.T5. Cow pat pit (CPP) of 10 g applied on 0th and 60th day. T6. FYM + Vermicompost + cow pat pit of 10 kg, 3 kg and 10 g respectively applied on 0th and 60th day

Field trial

18 m

TT66 TT33 TT55

TT55 TT22 TT66

TT44 TT11 TT44

TT33 TT44 TT11

TT22 TT55 TT33

TT11 TT66 TT22

15 m

R1 R2 R3

j

T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of chemicalfertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM

Field trial on bhindi applied with differaent organic and biodynamic manures

(a) Root and Sheath growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 503 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 507 (f) Cross section of onion root treated under water without manures (control)

Epiblema Parenchymatous cell

Pericycle

Metaxylem

Protoxylem

Phloema b

c

e f

Endodermis

29 µm

50.2 µm52.7 µm

57.5 µm

d

48.5 µm

Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures

Biometric parameters of Allium cepa L. treated with different organic and biodynamic manures

TreatmentTreatment

Root (30Root (30thth day) day) Sheath (30Sheath (30thth Day) Day)

Number of Number of fibrous roots fibrous roots

(Nos)(Nos)

Length of fibrous Length of fibrous roots Average 3 roots Average 3

times (cm)times (cm)

Number of Number of Sheath (Nos)Sheath (Nos)

Length of Sheath Length of Sheath (cm)(cm)

BD 500BD 500 44.0 ± 0.1844.0 ± 0.18ee 8.3 ± 0.018.3 ± 0.01ee 6.3 ± 0.086.3 ± 0.08cc 16.6 ± 0.1216.6 ± 0.12dd

BD 502BD 502 24.0 ± 0.0124.0 ± 0.01dd 6.6 ± 0.046.6 ± 0.04bb 3.5 ± 0.53.5 ± 0.5abab 7.6 ± 0.457.6 ± 0.45cc

BD 503BD 503 25.0 ± 0.18 25.0 ± 0.18 dd 6.7 ± 0.186.7 ± 0.18bb -- --

BD 504BD 504 27.0 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.01dd 6.8 ± 0.026.8 ± 0.02bb 4.1 ± 0.184.1 ± 0.18bb 6.4 ± 0.186.4 ± 0.18bb

BD 505BD 505 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00aa 6.6 ± 0.806.6 ± 0.80bb -- --

BD 506BD 506 25.0 ± 0.825.0 ± 0.8dd 2.5 ± 0.802.5 ± 0.80aa -- --

BD 507BD 507 27.0 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.01dd 7.4 ± 0.047.4 ± 0.04bcbc -- --

BD compostBD compost 1.0 ± 0.001.0 ± 0.00aa 6.5 ± 0.326.5 ± 0.32bb -- --

CPP (MCRC)CPP (MCRC) 31.0 ± 0.0031.0 ± 0.00dd 7.4 ± 0.047.4 ± 0.04bcbc 23.0 ± 0.0023.0 ± 0.00dd 18.6 ± 0.2018.6 ± 0.20dd

Vermicompost*Vermicompost* 28.0 ± 0.0128.0 ± 0.01dd 7.7 ± 0.807.7 ± 0.80bcbc -- --

NADEP*NADEP* 38.0 ± 0.0138.0 ± 0.01ee 7.7 ± 0.807.7 ± 0.80bcbc -- --

Panchakavya*Panchakavya* 14.0 ± 0.0014.0 ± 0.00cc 10.6 ± 0.8010.6 ± 0.80dd 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00aa 3.7 ± 0.123.7 ± 0.12aa

Control - WaterControl - Water 8.0 ± 0.848.0 ± 0.84bb 4.5 ± 0.184.5 ± 0.18abab -- --

(a) Cumulative of organic manures on growth of onion under hydroponic condition (30 days old)

(b) Cross section of onion root treated under BD 500 (c) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP (d) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + BD 500 (e) Cross section of onion root treated under CPP + (502 - 507) (f) Cross section of onion root treated under BD500 + (502 - 507)

29 µm

a b

d

f

Phloem Metaxylem

Protoxylem

Pericycle Endodermis

Parenchymatous cell Epiblema

52.2 µm

52.2 µm

c

57.5 µm

e

53.4 µm

Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with different biodynamic manures

Anatomical features of the fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures

(a) Cross section of onion root treated under BD (502 - 507) (b) Cross section of onion root treated under water (control)

a

b

52.2 µm

50.2 µm

Effect of different combinations of biodynamic manures of A. cepa L.

TreatmentTreatment

RootRoot(30(30thth day) day)

SheathSheath(30(30thth Day) Day)

Average Average number of number of roots (Nos)roots (Nos)

Average root Average root length (cm) in length (cm) in

3 times3 times

Number of Number of root lets root lets

(Nos)(Nos)

Number of Number of sheaths (Nos)sheaths (Nos)

Average Average sheath length sheath length

(cm) in 3 (cm) in 3 timestimes

CPP + BD 500CPP + BD 500 15.5 ± 0.515.5 ± 0.5bb 4.72 ± 0.124.72 ± 0.12aa 38.0 ± 0.0238.0 ± 0.02 bc bc -- --

CPP + BD CPP + BD (502 - 507)(502 - 507) 33.3 ± 0.533.3 ± 0.5aa 3.72 ± 0.023.72 ± 0.02aa 36.0 ± 0.0236.0 ± 0.02bb 8.6 ± 0.58.6 ± 0.5aa 4.82 ± 0.324.82 ± 0.32aa

BD 500 + BD BD 500 + BD (502 - 507)(502 - 507) 16.0 ± 0.0216.0 ± 0.02bb 5.34 ± 0.045.34 ± 0.04aa 41.0± 0.0441.0± 0.04dd -- --

BD (502 - 507)BD (502 - 507) 18.0 ± 0.0018.0 ± 0.00 bc bc 5.78 ± 0.085.78 ± 0.08aa 39.0 ± 0.0239.0 ± 0.02cc -- --

CPP + CPP + panchakavya*panchakavya* 15.7 ± 0.0215.7 ± 0.02bb 5.29 ± 0.025.29 ± 0.02bb 35.0 ± 0.0235.0 ± 0.02bb -- --

ControlControl 25.5 ± 0.525.5 ± 0.5cc 12.6 ± 0.0612.6 ± 0.06bb 19.0 ± 0.0219.0 ± 0.02aa 2.3 ± 0.52.3 ± 0.5bb 3.68 ± 0.183.68 ± 0.18aa

Effect of CPPM manure on Allium cepa L.

a

g

fe

c d

b

(a), (b) Manure amended soil 0th day(c), (d) 5th day(e), (f) 15th day(g) 30th day

Effect of CPPM manures an garden soil on Allium cepa L.

TreatmentTreatment

Root (30 Root (30 thth day) day) Sheath (30 Sheath (30 thth Day)Day)

Number Number fibrous of fibrous of

roots (Nos)roots (Nos)

Length of Length of fibrous roots fibrous roots

Average 3 times Average 3 times (cm)(cm)

Number of Number of Sheath (Nos)Sheath (Nos)

Length of Length of Sheath (cm)Sheath (cm)

BD 500BD 500 6.0 ± 0.116.0 ± 0.11abab 15.0 ± 0.0015.0 ± 0.00bb -- --

BD 500 + BD BD 500 + BD 502-507502-507 15.0 ± 0.0215.0 ± 0.02bb 21.0± 0.0221.0± 0.02aa 4.0 ± 0.054.0 ± 0.05bb 6.0 ±0.056.0 ±0.05bb

BD 500 +BD 500 +CPPCPP 19.0 ± 0.12 19.0 ± 0.12 aa 23.0 ± 0.1123.0 ± 0.11aa 3.0± 0.023.0± 0.02bb 2.0± 0.022.0± 0.02bb

CPPCPP 14.0 ± 0.0014.0 ± 0.00bb 20.0 ± 0.0120.0 ± 0.01aa 3.0 ± 0.013.0 ± 0.01bb 4 .0± 0.034 .0± 0.03bb

CPP +CPP +BD 502-507BD 502-507 24.0± 0.0124.0± 0.01aa 24.0 ± 0.0424.0 ± 0.04aa 20.0± 0.0220.0± 0.02aa 26.0± 0.0226.0± 0.02aa

BD (502-507)BD (502-507) 9.0 ± 0.009.0 ± 0.00abab 14.0 ± 0.0214.0 ± 0.02bb 18.0± 0.0218.0± 0.02aa 24.0± 0.0224.0± 0.02aa

SoilSoil(Control)(Control) 4.0± 0.034.0± 0.03abab 11.0 ± 0.0111.0 ± 0.01bb 5.0± 0.025.0± 0.02bb 12.0± 0.0212.0± 0.02bb

e

(a) Treated with BD 500, (b) Treated with BD 500+ BD (502- 507), (c) Treated with BD 500+ CPP, (d) Treated with CPP, (e) Treated with CPP+ BD (502-507), (f) Treated with BD (502 - 507), (g) Treated with soil control

g

a cb

d f

29 µm 29.5 µm 17.4 µm

29.0 µm 39.8 µm 17.4 µm

37.4 µm

e

Cross section of fibrous roots of Allium cepa L. treated with combined biodynamic manures amended soil

a b c d

(a) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of green gram(b) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of cowpea(c) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of black gram(e) Efficacy of CPPM on growth of soybean

Efficacy of CPPM on test certain plants on 20th day

Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30th Day)

PlantsPlants

Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30Efficacy of CPPM manure on growth of different plants (30 thth Day) Day)

Sheath (average)Sheath (average) Root (average)Root (average)

Number of Number of sheath (Nos)sheath (Nos)

Length of Length of sheath sheath

(cm)(cm)

Number of Number of roots roots (Nos)(Nos)

Length of Length of roots roots (cm)(cm)

Number of Number of rootlets rootlets (Nos)(Nos)

BhindiBhindi 7.0 ± 0.067.0 ± 0.06abab 20.5 ± 0.0620.5 ± 0.06aa 35.0 ± 0.0035.0 ± 0.00aa 12.5 ± 0.0012.5 ± 0.00aa 19.0 ± 0.0619.0 ± 0.06abab

Black gramBlack gram 7.0 ± 0.057.0 ± 0.05abab 7.9 ± 0.067.9 ± 0.06bb 34.0 ± 0.0434.0 ± 0.04aa 8.5 ± 0.018.5 ± 0.01abab 27.0 ± 0.0027.0 ± 0.00aa

Cow peaCow pea 8.0 ± 0.018.0 ± 0.01abab 19.3 ± 0.0019.3 ± 0.00aa 39.0 ± 0.0039.0 ± 0.00aa 11.0 ± 0.0011.0 ± 0.00aa 40.0 ± 0.0540.0 ± 0.05aa

GreenGreen 3.0 ± 0.003.0 ± 0.00bb 5.2 ± 0.015.2 ± 0.01bb 7.0 ± 0.037.0 ± 0.03bb 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 9.0 ± 0.009.0 ± 0.00bb

Green gramGreen gram 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 20.7 ± 0.0020.7 ± 0.00aa 50.0 ± 0.0050.0 ± 0.00aa 11.7 ± 0.0011.7 ± 0.00aa 39.0 ± 0.0439.0 ± 0.04aa

LablabLablab 7.0 ± 0.007.0 ± 0.00abab 14.5 ± 0.0414.5 ± 0.04aa 32.0 ± 0.0632.0 ± 0.06aa 9.5 ± 0.069.5 ± 0.06abab 16.0 ± 0.0416.0 ± 0.04abab

MaizeMaize 5.0 ± 0.015.0 ± 0.01bb 8.1 ± 0.008.1 ± 0.00bb 19.0 ± 0.0019.0 ± 0.00abab 9.8 ± 0.009.8 ± 0.00abab 27.0 ± 0.0327.0 ± 0.03aa

SoybeanSoybean 10.0 ± 0.0110.0 ± 0.01aa 11.8 ± 0.0411.8 ± 0.04bb 38.0 ± 0.0238.0 ± 0.02aa 11.6 ± 0.0511.6 ± 0.05aa 45.0 ± 0.0745.0 ± 0.07aa


TreatmentTreatmentShoot length Shoot length

(cm)(cm)Root length Root length

(cm)(cm)Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)

Fresh wt of Fresh wt of root (g)root (g)

Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of shoot (g)(g)

Dry wt of Dry wt of root (g)root (g)

Seed Seed treatmenttreatment

54.87±0.0254.87±0.02 a a 24.31±0.0524.31±0.05 a a 385.67±0.08385.67±0.08 a a 19.56±0.0319.56±0.03 a a 98.46±0.0498.46±0.04 a a 18.34±0.0818.34±0.08 a a

ControlControl 46.74±0.0446.74±0.04 ab ab 19.38±0.0319.38±0.03 b b 278.95±0.04278.95±0.04 ab ab 19.43±0.0719.43±0.07 b b 86.43±0.0386.43±0.03 ab ab 16.49±0.0216.49±0.02 b b

Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on seed treatment of tomato



(cm)(cm)

Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)


Dry wt of shoot Dry wt of shoot (g)(g)

Dry wt of Dry wt of root (g)root (g)

Root dipRoot dip56.98±0.0856.98±0.08 a a 21.48±0.0721.48±0.07 a a 412.75±0.08412.75±0.08 a a 22.75±0.0622.75±0.06 a a 115.85±0.05115.85±0.05 a a 20.65±0.0420.65±0.04 a a

ControlControl46.74±0.0446.74±0.04bb 19.38±0.0519.38±0.05 b b 278.95±0.02278.95±0.02 ab ab 19.43±0.0319.43±0.03 b b 86.43±0.0486.43±0.04 ab ab 16.49±0.0516.49±0.05 b b

Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on root treatment of tomato



(cm)(cm) Fresh wt of Fresh wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)


Dry wt of Dry wt of shoot (g)shoot (g)

Dry wt of root Dry wt of root (g)(g)

Soil drenchSoil drench

63.76±0.0363.76±0.03 a a 27.45±0.0327.45±0.03 a a 512.64±0.04512.64±0.04 a a 28.54±0.0728.54±0.07 a a 123.93±0.05123.93±0.05 a a 23.65±0.0623.65±0.06 a a

ControlControl

46.74±0.0446.74±0.04 ab ab 19.38±0.0519.38±0.05 a a 278.95±0.01278.95±0.01 b b 19.43±0.0319.43±0.03 ab ab 86.43±0.0586.43±0.05 ab ab 16.49±0.0616.49±0.06 ab ab

Effect of Bacillus subtilis BS I on soil drench of tomato

02468

10121416

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 15th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 30th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

05

101520

2530

3540

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 45th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

02

468

1012

1416

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

0

10

20

30

40

50

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 60th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)0

5

10

15

20

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM

PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables

Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi

01020304050607080

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 75th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

01020304050607080

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 90th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

01020304050607080

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 105th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0

5

10

15

20

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

0

20

40

60

80

100

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatment 120th

day

Pla

nt

len

gth

(cm

)

0246810121416

NB

, NF

, NV

(N

o)

PL NB NF NV

T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), T3 – Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T4 - Vermicompost, T5 - Cow Pat Pit (CPPM), T6 - CPPM + BD 500 + FYM

PL - Plant Length, NB - No of Branches, NF - No of Flowers, NV - No of Vegetables

Biometric parameters of field trial on bhindi

T1 - Absolute control, T2 - Recommended Dose of Fertilizers (RDF), T3 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) T4 - Vermicompost T5 - Biodynamic Treatment (CPPM), T6 - Farm Yard Manure (FYM) + Vermi compost + Biodynamic treatment (CPPM)

DaysDays Yield of bhindi (kg/plot)Yield of bhindi (kg/plot)

T1T1 T2T2 T3T3 T4T4 T5T5T6T6

0 - 450 - 45 (1 picking)(1 picking)

2.0±0.022.0±0.02bb 2.6±0.012.6±0.01 b b 3.0±0.023.0±0.02bb 3.4±0.023.4±0.02bb 4.0±0.034.0±0.03 b b

4.65±0.024.65±0.02 b b

46 - 75 46 - 75 (14 (14 pickings)pickings)

8.98±0.038.98±0.03 a a 10.94±0.0310.94±0.03 a a 9.34±0.039.34±0.03 a a 11.06±0.0211.06±0.02 a a 14.83±0.0214.83±0.02 a a

18.74±0.0218.74±0.02 a a

76 - 10576 - 105 (7 pickings)(7 pickings)

3.20±0.043.20±0.04bb 4.24±0.034.24±0.03 b b 3.84±0.013.84±0.01bb 4.10±0.014.10±0.01 b b 6.86±0.036.86±0.03bb

8.45±0.038.45±0.03bb

106 - 120106 - 120 (4 pickings)(4 pickings) 1.25±0.021.25±0.02 b b 2.34±0.012.34±0.01bb 1.83±0.021.83±0.02bb 2.13±0.022.13±0.02 b b 3.68±0.023.68±0.02 b b 5.39±0.015.39±0.01 b b

TotalTotal 15.43±0.0215.43±0.02 a a 20.12±0.0220.12±0.02 a a 18.01±0.0318.01±0.03 a a 20.69±0.0120.69±0.01 a a 29.37±0.0129.37±0.01 a a

37.23±0.0337.23±0.03 a a

Effect of different organic and biodynamic manures on the yield of vegetables of bhindi

Cost benefit analysis of CPP manure preparation (per pit)

Sl NoSl No MaterialsMaterials QuantityQuantity SourceSource Cost Cost (Rs)(Rs)

11 Fresh cow dungFresh cow dung 60 kg60 kg FarmerFarmer 100.00100.00

22 Rock phosphate (Bore Rock phosphate (Bore well)well)

100 g100 g Easily available Easily available 10.0010.00

33 Crushed eggshell powder Crushed eggshell powder (fine)(fine)

100 g100 g Easily availableEasily available 10.0010.00

44 BricksBricks 60 nos/ @3.0060 nos/ @3.00 Manufacture Manufacture industryindustry

180.00180.00

55 BD herbal preparation (BD BD herbal preparation (BD 502 – BD 507)502 – BD 507)

3 g each and 30 ml 3 g each and 30 ml BD 507BD 507

Kurinji farmKurinji farm 225.00225.00

66 Gunny bagGunny bag 22 Department storeDepartment store 30.0030.00

77 Labour charges per pit Labour charges per pit CPP making, CPP making, weekly maintenance weekly maintenance charges (15 minutes for 16 charges (15 minutes for 16 weeks, 4 h)weeks, 4 h)

4 h/pit4 h/pit--

----

100.00100.00

60.0060.00

Total expensesTotal expenses 715. 00715. 00

Yield and sale valueYield and sale value 25 - 30 kg Rs. 100/kg25 - 30 kg Rs. 100/kg 2500.002500.00

Profit in 120 days/plotProfit in 120 days/plot 1222.001222.00

SUMMARY

A total 30 organic and biodynamic manure samples were chosen and investigated for different physicochemical and Microbiological parameters.

Among them, the Cow Pat Pit remuni contained high amount of nutrients and microbial load when compared to the rest.

The CPP manure contained high level of auxin 28.7 µg/g and maximum number of 4.9 x 106 CFU/gram of bacteria and 1.2 x 106 CFU/gram of fungi.

The levels of nutrients in CPP manure sample were high than the rest of samples when subjected for circular paper chromatogram image analysis.

The parameters viz., brick’s values, electrical conductivity, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, humic acid, PGRs, microbial occurrence and distribution, subtilin production of the ten different CPP manures were increased up to 90th day and thereafter the values were decreased. The pH of samples varies during the study period.

The sample I contained maximum amount of 5.96% N, 5.9% of P 4.25% of K, 37.2 µg/g of auxin, 9.77 µg/g of cytokinin, 23.4 µg/g of GA3,

471.3 g/g of total protein and subtilin of 1.083 mg/g, as well as maximum number of 4.1 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria, 3.0 x 106 CFU/g of Azotobacter, 2.3 x 106 CFU/g of Azosprillum, when compared to the other samples.

The CPPM samples prepared in three different containers revealed that the manure sample collected from mud pot contained high amount of humic acid 87.9 mg/g, auxin 27.9 g/g, gibberlic acid 9.6 g/g and subtilin 0.165 mg/g.

The MCRC sample contained high amount of N of 8.23%, auxin 29.3 µg/g, subtilin of 0.289 mg/g and 2.3 x 106 CFU/g of bacteria on 90th day

The CPPM sample showed a predominant occurrence of Bacillus subtilis. A total of 12 isolates of Bacillus subtilis were isolated.

The isolates Bacillus subtilis BS I, BS II, BS IV, BS VII and BS VIII inoculated in five different media revealed that the organisms grown in the CPPM manure extract amended broth showed maximum growth and subtilin production.

Among them B. subtilis BS I contained 0.946 mg/ml of subtilin and protein 71.20 g/ml.

Based on the protein profile pattern of the isolates were segregated in to four groups. The group D comprised of a maximum of 8 different Bacillus subtilis isolates.

The culture filtrate of B. subtilis BS I obtained from the galactose amended medium showed high antifungal activity of inhibition zone of 26 mm diameter against Fusarium oxysporum causing wilt disease of tomato.

• BD Herbal preparations- Temperate regioin.

• Can we grow in tropical regions?

• Can we find alternative herbs?

Preparation of 502 - 507 made from medicinal herbs (Source: Biodynamic Association of India - BDAI, Bangalore/Kodaikanal)

(a) BD 502- Yarrow (Achillea millifolium) Bovine bladder Potassium (K) Sulphur (S) and trace elements

(b) BD 503- Chamomile (Matricuria chamomilla) bovine intestine Calcium (Ca) and Nitrogen (N)(c) BD 504- Stinging Nettle (Urtica parviflora) Iron (Fe) and Magnesium (Mg)(d) BD 505- Oak (Quercus glauca) Sheep skull Calcium (Ca)(e) BD 506- Dandelion (Taraxicum officinalis) Bovine intestine Silica (Si)(f) BD 507- Valerian (Valeriana officinalis) Phosphorous

a b

c d

e f

Studies on efficacy of biodynamic manure with locally available biomass

Literature collection

Identification of alternative herb for BD preparation

Analysis of BD preparation and commercially available, alternative preparation (periodical analysis- (BD502, BD504, BD505, BD506 and its alternative preparations) (BD503 and its alternative preparations,)

Preparation and comparative studies on BD and Non BD compost analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological

Preparation of BD Herbal preparation

BD500 manure using different vessels (Cow horn, Mud horn and mud pot vessel) and dung and analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological

Studies on effect of BD and alternative preparation on compost analysis-Physicochemical, biochemical and microbiological

Field trial with BD and alternative compost, BD compost and BD500

Consolidation and statistical analysis of data

Design

Biodynamic manure analysis

APhysico chemical

properties B Biochemical studies C Microbial Studies1 Moisture content 1 Alkaline phosphatase 1 Total Bacteria

2 Temperature 2 Protease 2 Total fungi3 pH 3 Invertase 3 Rhizobium

4 EC 4 Cellulase 4 Azotobacter5 Nitrogen 5 Phenolic compound 5 Azospirillum 6 Phosphorus 6 Protein 6 Actinomycetes7 Potassium 7 Amino acids 7 VAM

8 Micronutrients 8 Fatty acids 8Phasphate solubiling microbes

9Organic carban and organic matter 9 Humic acids 9

Nitrate ruducing microbes

10 Organic fraction 10Plant growth regulators 10

Sulphur reducing microbes

Work doneBD 500 preparationHorn and Mud pot Were usedCow, goat, buffalo dung were usedBD 500 manure from David farms, Kurinji farms and Maharastra were analysis for comparation . The Kurinji farms BD500 shows more nutrients and microbial activityIdentified alternative herbal plant Biodynamic compostBD compost prepared with and with out BD preparation

S.No BD Herb Name Alternative herbs (Botanical and vernacular name)

1Yarrow Aerva lanata- Serupoolai -dried flower

2Chamomile Tridax procumbens - Vettukayapoondu -flower

3Stinging Nettle Tragia involucrata - Senthatti - dried whole plant present

4Oak bark Casuarina sps - Bark

5Dandelion Spherenthus indicus - kottakaranthai – flower

Physico chemical properties of Regular and alternative BD preparation

BD 502 alternative preparation

BD504 alternative BD505 alternative BD500

compost

Food quality (Lecture II)

• Biodynamic farm management practices reflect a desire to improve the healthiness of

produce, which is believed to occur through harnessing biological processes and

eliminating use of pesticides, herbicides, synthetic veterinary medicines and readily

soluble fertilizers (Kirchmann, 1994).

• The circular paper chromatographic analysis of soybean seeds grown from chemical

production system gave weaker patterns than those from organic and biodynamic;

this be inferred to be having lower protein organization and enzyme activity and thus

contributory or translated to poorer storability of seeds that went under the same

treatment (Tung and Fernandez, 2008).

• Podolinsky (1990) reported that quality of product given biodynamics is superior

and with very high life forces.

bdai lecture i bd research

Documents

bd preparations work

plant hormones

bd agriculturedr

bd farmsin

microbial inoculation

testing bd

plant immunity stimulation

complexity of microbial