Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining Future ... of...Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining...

Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining Future Agriculture

Research Briefings Volume (2), No (16), 2010

Natural Resources Division, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan 1

Formulation of Cost-effective Bio-fertilizers using Organic and Mineral Sources for

Balance Availability of NPK

Ghufran Ahmad and Dr. Shahid Ahmad

October 2010



Natural Resources Division, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan

Formulation of Cost-effective Bio-fertilizers using Organic and Mineral Sources for Balance Availability of NPK

Ghufran Ahmad1 and Dr. Shahid Ahmad2

1. Motivation Dr. Zafar Altaf, Chairman PARC, successfully implemented Organic Farming as a part of the New Initiatives at the NARC during Rabi 2008-09, where organic wheat was produced on 240 ha under Barani conditions. The average yield was around 2.0 tons/ha, whereas range was very high between low and high yields based on various treatments. The bio-fertilizers and organic composts used for growing wheat at NARC were having NPK contents of less than 3%. This means that in a bag of 50 kg, there was only 1.5 kg of NPK and micro-nutrients, in addition, to the organic materials and micro-organisms present in these products. The number of bags recommended for wheat was 10 bags per ha, which provided around 15 kg of NPK, which seems inadequate for expecting a wheat yield of 4 tons/ha or more. The cost of this recommended dose was Rs. 3,500 per ha, if bio-fertilizer is used from Nature farming Research and Development Foundation, Faisalabad. Later on NARC installed a Pilot Plant of Bio-fertilizer and started producing bio-fertilizers. Two questions which emerged from this experience are: a) How a balanced bio-fertilizer can be produced with NPK of over 7% instead of less than 3% (ranging between 2.3 to 2.6%) currently available from the local organic products; b) How the cost-effectiveness of these bio-fertilizers can be increased? Thus, the most urgent action to undertake right now is to develop a strategy for the formulation of cost-effective bio-fertilizers which can help promote organic farming in the country. However, these new approaches and technologies are hardly adopted by the farmers when the related products are not easily available. There is also a debate being continued in the country that organic farming can’t support food security until and unless chemical fertilizers are used. The strategy does not demand that farmers who can afford chemical fertilizers stop using chemical fertilizers. In reality, small-holders who are majority in number in the Indus basin hardly use balance chemical fertilizers and the use is so inadequate (normally Urea) that it has hardly any significant impact on productivity. The target farmers under the organic farming strategy are the small holders of Indus basin, Barani farmers, mountainous farmers and Rod-Kohi farmers. Rod-Kohi farmers are not using any chemical fertilizers and Barani farmers hesitate to use chemical fertilizers when they are not sure about the occurrence of rainfall. Beside the availability of the product being an issue, it is also important that how much the farmers are familiar with the new technologies and processes. Returns of these technologies also matter as attractive returns also plays a major role in the adoption of such technologies. A pertinent example is the lack of availability of bio-pesticides and predators required to successfully introduce the IPM practices. Mere advocating or training will not result in a successful adoption of technology until all queries of the farmers have been addressed. The same holds for other technologies like drip irrigation and high density orchards. Until orchard management concept is linked with drip irrigation, introduction of drip irrigation or high orchards farming in isolation will not meet the objectives sought. The examples above should have offered a clear picture as to what is trying to be accomplished here. This is a first step in the efforts to put together the basic elements of the strategy for cost-effective formulation of bio-fertilizers. These findings are first approximations and improvements can be made later on. 2. Background Information 2.1. Organic Sources for Development of Bio-fertilizers There are several sources of organic materials which can be used for the development of balanced bio-fertilizers. Each of these has different amounts of NPK. Some of these organic materials are presented in Table 1 (Zublene et al. 1997; Sideman 2009). These organic materials can be used for the development of bio-fertilizers but it does not mean that these should be used without considering cost-effectivity. The cost effectivity should be seen

1 Honorary Short-term Internee worked in Integrated Natural Resource Management Cell, NRD, PARC, Islamabad. 2 Chief Scientist-II/Member Incharge Natural Resources Division, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad.

M

Res

Natura

in the cobio-fertil Table 1.

Org

PoultryDairy MSugarcCottonSoybeaFish MAlfalfaSesbanRice H

2.2. Rock Phobio-fertilphosphatwhereas phosphatmaterial rock (Taenhancinthe rock acid. Maximumper annuduring 2million toprice of aprovides

Table 2.

M

Rock P Accordintotal requfrom the availableUnexploiinterest ofrom Jord

3 Some matpaper and these dairy4 Data is g5 The price

Managing

search

al Resources

ntext of materlizer.

Selected sourganic Sources

y Manure Manure cane Mud n Seed Meal an Seed Meal

Meal a Hay nia4

Husk

Cheap Sourc

osphate is a chlizers (Figure 1te has hardly 1total P2O5 in

te is 21-37.6%or location of t

able 2). The comng available P2

material usin

m amount of um in the coun2006-07, whicons during 200almost 4-5 foldsubsidy on ph

Rock Phosphaterial

Phosphate

ng to an estimauirement of phidentified sou

e in the countited” that avaiof the businessmdon (Box I).

terials may vary irefer to maximum

y and poultry is alsgiven for whole pla

is in accordance w

Natural R

h Brief

Division, P

rial availability

rces of organis3

ce for Phosp

heap source of 1). In its origin% or less of avthe locally av

% based on the source for mmmonly used p2O5 is to haveng sulphuric o

phosphatic fentry was 0.979ch was declin07-08; largely d (GOP 2008).

hosphate fertiliz

hate and unit cN

(%) P

(%) 0 21.0

ate, the amounhosphate fertiliurces. But moretry. Siddiqui (ilable reservesmen in develop

in composition dum values when bothso balanced. Thereant of Sesbania 56 with the current pr

Resources

fings

Pakistan Agr

y, price of mate

ic materials anN

3.0 2.1 2.2 6.0 7.0

10.0 2.5

2.58 2.72

hatic Fertiliz

phosphorus wnal form, rock vailable P2O5, vailable rock the type of

mining of the procedure for digestion of

or phosphoric

ertilizer used 9 million tons ned to 0.63 due to rise in . Government zers.

cost of phosphK

(%) Tota

(0 2

nt of rock phosizers for aroune exhaustive su(2006) highligs of rock phosping SSP and T

e to moisture conh urine and dung e will be wide varidays after seeding

rice of the materia

s for Sust

ricultural Re

erials and trans

nd percent nutP

5.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 1.2 6.0 0.5 0.41 0.01

zers

which may be u

Figure 1. R

horic content al NPK %)

Pr(Rs

21.0 4

sphate in Pakind 30 years. Rurveys can be ghted in an arsphate in the cTSP instead of

ntent and method oof dairy animal isation in percent nug. al in Faisalabad. T

taining Fu

Volum

Research Cou

sportation cost

trients of NPKK

(%) 23011422.40.

utilized in prep

Rock phosphat

rice5 s./kg)

Pr(Rs./1

4.0 4

stan is almost Rock phosphate

arranged to harticle on “Phocountry are unf DAP. DAP re

of handling. Theses kept and effectivutrients due to han

The transportation

uture Agr

me (2), N

ncil, Islama

ts of materials

K K

.0

.0

.8

.5

.5

.9

.5 44 04

paration of pho

te from Kakul

rice 100kg)

P(R

400

sufficient to me is a locally aave full accounosphate Rock nexploited eithequires import

e values of N, P avely converted to mndling of these ma

cost has been add

riculture

No (16), 2

abad, Pakista

while formula

Total NPK

10.0 8.3 6.0 10.5 9.7 20.9 5.5 5.43 2.77

sphatic minera

l mines

Price of P2O5Rs./kg of P2O5

19.0

meet the countavailable resount of the resourDeposits Rem

her due to lackof rock phosph

and K are used inmanure. The feedinterials.

ded on approximat

2010

an

ating

al or

5)

try’s urce rces

main k of hate

n this ng to

tion.




4

Box. I. Case Study of Rock Phosphate Deposits in Pakistan and Local Manufacturing of Single Super Phosphate Siddiqui (2006) highlighted the need for development of phosphate rock, an important mineral source for the production of phosphate fertilizer - SSP. The initial geological surveys conducted during 1969 identified potential deposits of 26 million tons of phosphate rock in Pakistan. However, extraction during last 10 years was limited to 270,000 tons only (Figures 2 and 3). It is a major source of phosphate, and is used as an organic fertiliser in its raw form, and is the raw material for production of phosphate fertilisers, phosphoric acid and other industrial chemicals and animal-feed. Currently, Pakistan has an installed capacity of 1.0 million tons for production of phosphate fertilisers (DAP, SSP and NP). Fauji Fertiliser Bin Qasim Ltd. has an installed annual capacity of producing 446,000 tons DAP, whereas Hazara Phosphate Fertilisers Ltd. and Lyallpur Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. have a cumulative capacity of producing 180,000 tons of SSP fertiliser annually. Production capacity for NP fertiliser is at the level of 300,000 tons per annum. All the capacity is not being used as SSP plants are not operational. Figure 2. Rock phosphate granules Figure 3. Rock phosphate lumps and granules Total production of phosphate fertilisers in the country meets 25% of total domestic demand, which is now either stagnant or declining due to higher price of DAP/NP during 2009, where it exceeded Rs. 5000 per bag of 50 kg of DAP. During 2007-08, the consumption of phosphate fertilizers was 0.63 million nutrient tonnes. Almost all the feedstock is now being imported, instead of extraction and use of indigenous phosphate rock. There exist two major phosphate rock types, namely dolomite ore containing low to medium P2O5 and siliceous ore containing medium to high P2O5. The proven reserves, commonly known as Hazara phosphates, are estimated to be 14 and 12 million tons of the respective ores. Siddiqui (2006) further indicated that low-grade phosphate, with 15-20% P2O5 contents, is ideal raw material for production of SSP, a known product with an established market demand. Simple and cost-effective method is employed through compaction and granulation of phosphate rock. Adding other raw materials, such as limestone, dolomite, magnesite and others, which are available close to Hazara phosphate deposits, could produce a complete range of composite fertilisers. It is thus established that the use of indigenous phosphate for production of fertilisers is achievable and beneficial. The quality and quantity of Tarnawai reserves thus meet the requirement of fertiliser industry and could absorb the cost of developing mines over the total tonnage eventually extracted. Two deposits, at Kakul and Tarnawai, are estimated to meet nearly 40 years’ demand for production of SSP fertilizer. With an installed crushing and grinding plant of 60,000 tons annual capacity at Kakul, an investment of about $10 million remains idle, having multiplier adverse effect on socio-economic conditions of the area. One of the issues resulting in closure of mine was disagreement on its price between seller Sarhad Development Authority and buyer National Fertiliser Corporation of Pakistan, which revolves around the analysis of the quality of rock phosphate i.e. the P2O5 content (Siddiqui 2006).




5

Instead of wasting time in terms of re-commissioning of the two SSP plants or privatization, it is advisable to enter into production of organic fertilizer with equal amount of nitrogen and phosphorous so that a balance and cost-effective fertilizer can be provided to the farming community. For this purpose, small-scale units can be installed all over the country, where organic source of manure are available along with other plant waste materials. This is the strategy which PARC has put forward after initiating research projects on Enriched Composts type Bio-fertilizers, Phosphate Fertilizer using indigenous Rock Phosphate, Microbial Bio-fertilizers for food legumes and cereals. The strategy is to target all the cost-effective options of bio-fertilizers using available waste material, mineral sources and biotechnology.

The other organic sources of phosphates are: a) sugarcane press mud; b) thar ash; and c) coal dust. These materials can also be used for the preparation of bio-fertilizers. 3. Formulation of Cost-effective Balanced Bio-Fertilizers In order to formulate cost-effective balanced bio-fertilizers, there is a need to develop appropriate mathematical expressions. It requires a formulation for which the unit NPK cost is minimized and the total NPK is maximized (Alimi et al. 2006; Bassam et al. 2009). For balanced bio-fertilizer, the amount of N should be greater than or equal to the amount of P2O5. This condition is required because crops require nitrogen in greater amount than phosphorus (Bierman and Rosen. 2005). Furthermore, rock phosphate is a cheaper source of mineral P2O5, which is allowed as a constituent for bio-fertilizer. Let us first derive an equation for the formulation of bio-fertilizer from two organic sources. Assume that we have two organic sources, I and II, and we want to formulate a bio-fertilizer, which has N and P in the ratio of m:n. Table 3. Nutrients fr materials of two organic sources

Organic Source N (%) P (%) K (%) Quantity used in bio-fertilizer I A1 B1 C1 X

II A2 B2 C2 Y As only two organic sources (I and II) are employed in formulating the bio-fertilizer, we have

X + Y = 1 (1)

Another condition applied is that the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus is in the ratio of m:n.

(XA1 + YA2) / (XB1 + YB2) = m/n

X(nA1 – mB1) =Y(mB2 – nA2)

X = Y (mB2 – nA2) / (nA1 – mB1) (2)

By inserting the value of ‘X’ from Eq.2 in Eq. 1 one can get the value of ‘Y’ and given as under:

Y = (nA1 – mB1) / (nA1 – nA2 + mB2 – mB1) (3)

By substituting value of ‘Y’ from Eq. 3 to Eq. 2 we get the value of ‘X’ and given as under:

X = (mB2 – nA2) / (nA1 – nA2 + mB2 – mB1) (4) Note that the subscripted A, B, C, and m and n are constants, whereas ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are variables. For these quantities of I and II, one can get a balanced bio-fertilizer with N:P equal to m:n. Also remember that for a balanced bio-fertilizer N ≥ P, so m ≥ n for a balanced bio-fertilizer. Sesbania leaves, stem and pods are cheaper source of nitrogenous material in most of the agricultural areas of Pakistan, where it is grown as a fodder and as green manuring crop (Enishi et al. 1994; El-Morsy 2009; Onim




6

et al. 1989; Onim et al. 1987). It can be used with poultry manure to develop a cost-effective bio-fertilizer because poultry manure has both phosphate and potash. Example 1: Formulating Bio-fertilizer using poultry manure and Sesbania. The nutrients of poultry manure and Sesbania are given in Table 4. Develop formulation having roughly equal amount of N and P nutrients. Table 4. NPK nutrients of bio-fertilizer using poultry manure and sesbania

Organic Source N (%) P (%) K (%) Quantity used in bio-fertilizer Poultry Manure 3.0 5.0 2.0 X

Sesbania6 2.6 0.4 2.4 Y The quantities required for poultry manure (‘X’) and Sesbania (‘Y’) are computed as under (Table 5):

X = (0.4 – 2.6) / (3 – 2.6 + 0.4 – 5) X = 0.524

Y = (3 – 5) / (3 – 2.6 + 0.4 – 5)

Y = 0.476 Table 5. NPK nutrients of bio-fertilizer using poultry manure and sesbania

Organic Source Quantity used in bio-fertilizer N (%) P (%) K (%) Poultry manure 0.524 1.6 2.6 1.0

Sesbania 0.476 1.2 0.2 1.1 Total 1.0 2.8 2.8 2.1

The ‘N’ and ‘P’ contents are equal in the bio-fertilizer formulated by using 52.4% of Poultry Manure and 47.6% of dried leaves of Sesbania. The NPK contents in the formulation are 7.7%, which is almost three times the NPK available in the FYM or the bio-fertilizers currently being sold in the market. The next step is to work out the economics of the formulation having NPK of 7.7% formulated using poultry manure and Sesbania dry leaves (Table 6). For this purpose, solution was developed graphically by comparing two graphs: a) first graph with NPK contents; and b) second graph with unit NPK cost on the vertical axis whereas both having amount of Sesbania on the horizontal axis. Table 6. Cost per unit of NPK for bio-fertilizer using poultry manure and sesbania

Organic Sources Cost (Rs./kg of material)7 Total NPK (%) Cost (Rs./unit of NPK)Poultry manure Rs. 1.7 10 Rs. 17 Sesbania Rs. 3.88 5.4 Rs. 70

We know that for balanced bio-fertilizer the amount of nitrogen should be greater than the amount of phosphorus. This condition gives the inequality;

3X + 2.6Y ≥ 5X + 0.4Y 2.2Y ≥ 2X

But X + Y = 1 → X = 1 – Y

So, we get 2.2Y ≥ 2 – 2Y

4.2Y ≥ 2 Y ≥ 0.476

So, amount of Sesbania greater than and equal to 0.476 will give a balanced bio-fertilizer (Figure 4).

6 Values rounded off to one decimal place for simplification of calculation. 7 Faisalabad was taken as the base city for estimation of the cost of bio-fertilizer. These costs have been adjusted for transportation charges using approximate charges. 8 This value is obtained by using the yield of Sesbania of 2.84 tons/ha or 1.3 ton/acre. The price of 1.3 ton of Sesbania as Rs. 5000 is assumed considering the prevailing rates in rural areas. Thus Sesbania costs Rs. 3838/ton or Rs. 3.8/kg.

M

Res

Natura

The grey0.476, tSesbaniaWe havinequalityThe regthis greyhigher NBut the c= 0.524 along theoptimal because possible combinatNPK coand Cosincreases Examplementionefor constituteorganic sManure leaves. Fprepared organic formulatidifferent previous this procan examdemonstrprocedurexample incorporaManure, Rice Hus

Table 7.

OP

It is evidto 1, so;

9 Values ro

Managing

search

al Resources

y line is set the amount

a in the fertilize to satisfy y (Y≥0.47ion on right

y line will giveN compared tocombination (at

and Y = 0.47e grey line is

combinatifor any oth

bio-fertilition the toontents decreast/Unit of NPs.

e 2: The aboved formulation

bio-fertilized using tsources – Poul

and SesbaFor bio-fertiliz

by using thsources,

ion will be a from

example. Fcedure let’s tample for betration of re. For

we wate Poul

Sesbania ask (Table 7).

NPK nutrientOrganic Source

oultry ManurRice Husk Sesbania

dent that sum of

unded off to one d

Natural R

h Brief

Division, P

at of

zer. the

76). to

e us P. t X 76) the ion her zer

otal ase PK

ve-n is zers two ltry

ania zers hree the bit the For ake tter the the

will ltry and

Figure 4bio-ferti

ts of bio-fertile9 Nre

f the amounts o

decimal place for s

Resources

fings

Pakistan Agr

4. Comparisonilizer with var

lizer using pouN (%)

3.0 2.7 2.6

of three organi

X + Y

simplification of ca

s for Sust

ricultural Re

n between Totrying amount

ultry manure,P (%)

5.0 0

0.4

ic sources used

Y +Z = 1 → (5)

alculation.

taining Fu

Volum

Research Cou

tal NPK (%) aof Sesbania

, rice husk andK (%)

2.0 0

2.4

d in the formul

)

uture Agr

me (2), N

ncil, Islama

and Cost/Unit

d sesbania leavAmount in B

XYZ

ation of bio-fe

riculture

No (16), 2

abad, Pakista

NPK (Rs.) of

ve Bio-fertilizerX Y Z

ertilizer must eq

2010

an

f the

qual




8

Also, 0 ≤ X, Y and Z ≤ 1

And the constraint for balanced bio-fertilizer, N ≥ P, would be,

(-2)X + 2.71Y + 2.17Z ≥ 0 → (6) X – 1.36Y – 1.09Z ≤ 0

The corresponding equality would be,

X – 1.36Y – 1.09Z = 0 → (7)

Solving (5) and (7), by elimination using matrix algebra, would give, X + 0.12Z = 0.57 Y + 0.89Z = 0.42

Further solving these equations gives,

X = 0.57 – 0.12Z Y = 0.42 – 0.89Z

We now apply the other constraint on these equations i.e. X, Y and Z cannot lie outside the interval [0, 1]. From this constraint we will get the range of Z for feasible solutions. Using this constraint we found that, the amount of Z should belong to the interval [0, 0.47]. For these values of Z we will get a bio-fertilizer with N: P = 1: 1. N: P in the bio-fertilizer can be controlled by varying the constraint (6). For finding out a suitable balanced bio-fertilizer we need to keep in mind the costs and nutrients of the organic materials selected for formulation. In Pakistan, Sesbania is more costly than other two so it would be reasonable not to use too much of it. Similarly, it would seem sensible not to use too much rice husk as it has very low NPK contents (2.77%). Poultry manure is not expensive and has high NPK contents (10%) but it has greater amount of P than N. These conditions imply that in order to find a cost-effective bio-fertilizer we will need to make a few compromises. The ideal combination would vary from region to region depending on the cost of raw materials in that region and type of crop because each crop has different nutritional requirement. It would also depend on the cropping pattern and soil characteristics because if nitrogen fixing crops have been cultivated previously then it will need low N component in fertilizer. 4. Feasible Strategies for Organic Farmers The above-mentioned analysis clearly indicates that formulating a balanced bio-fertilizer is difficult especially the challenge is how to balance the N contents in the bio-fertilizer because contents of P2O5 can be easily increased by adding rock phosphate because it is cost-effective and locally available at very affordable price. The feasible strategies have to be developed, which can be adopted by the farming community to meet the nutrient requirement of various crops in different soils and ecologies. In this section some feasible strategies are discussed, which can be employed by the farmers to provide nutritional requirement of crops under various cropping patterns.

4.1. Nitrogen Incorporation through Green Manuring As the mineral phosphate fertilizer can be developed cost-effectively in line with the nutrient combination of SSP, therefore, one has to find out a cost-effective source of nitrogen. The real question is that whether traditional practice of green manuring can provide cost-effective way of incorporating nitrogen in the soil10 (Table 8). Nitrogen in the green matter of 68-76 kg/ha can be added through green manuring.

10 Green manuring is a process in which leguminous fodders or beans are used as organic nitrogenous sources for crops. Some popular green manuring crops conventionally used in Pakistan are Guar, Cowpeas, Sesbania, etc.




9

Table 8. Conventional green manuring crops in Pakistan Local Name

Botanical Name Growing Season Green Matter Yield Nitrogen (days) (tons/ha) (kg/ha) (%)

Cowpea Vigna sinensis 45-60 15.0 74.0 0.49 Guar Cyamopsis

tetragonaloba 45-60 20.0 68.0 0.34

Dhaincha Sesbania aculeate 56 2.84 (dry matter) 75.89 2.67

For green manuring, inoculation of seeds is necessary to enhance nodulation. For this purpose Azotobactor type inoculums are required which are being provided by the Applied Microbiology Program of the LRRI-NARC.

4.2. Bio-fertilizers for Phosphorous The analysis of green manuring indicated that if farmers adopt green manuring in-between the two crops i.e. after the harvest of Rabi crops, it can provide 68-76% of nitrogen only from the green materials. If the crop is effectively nodulated then the biologically fixed nitrogen will be even higher than the amount of nitrogen provided by the green manuring. Thus, one leguminous crop of green manuring after the harvest of Rabi crop which is effectively inoculated for green manuring would be sufficient for meeting nitrogen requirement of two crops per annum from the same field. However, 1-2 bags of NP bio-fertilizers would help to effectively incorporate the micro-organisms in the field. These farmers would require an effective source of organic phosphate fertilizer to meet the crop needs. Any organic fertilizer enriched with rock phosphate can be used for this purpose. Rock phosphate, as mentioned earlier, is an economical source for preparation of phosphatic bio-fertilizers. Rock phosphate has almost 21% of P2O5 but all of this is not available for assimilation. It must undergo a process, called digestion, in order to increase the available P2O5. Digestion involves the treatment of rock phosphate with an acid. The acid reduces rock phosphate to a more powdery form increasing the number of reaction sites. Phosphoric acid is preferable for this process because it not only increases the number of reaction sites but also increase the phosphoric contents of rock phosphate. Other option is to use H2SO4. Other weak organic acids can also be used. EM having pH of 3.5 can also be used as it provides micro-organisms. Poultry manure can also be added to make the bio-fertilizer more effective in terms of balanced nutrition and conversion of total P2O5 into available P2O5 (Table 9). The formulated fertilizer has around 9.8% of P2O5 and 3.5% of N and K. Table 9. Formulation of phosphatic bio-fertilizer using Poultry manure and Rock Phosphate (%)

Material N P K Amount

Nutrients Nutrients in Mixture Total NPK N P K N P K

Poultry Manure 3.0 5.0 2.0 70 2.1 3.5 1.4 2.1

9.8

1.4

13.3 Rock Phosphate 0 21.0 0 30 0 6.3 0

The mixture of Poultry Manure and Rock Phosphate is a good phosphatic fertilizer as it has very high contents of available P2O5. This is also an economical phosphatic bio-fertilizer as can be discerned from Table 10. Table 10. Cost/Unit of NPK of phosphatic bio-fertilizer

Sources Price (Rs./kg)

Amount (%)

Price of material

(Rs.)

Price of Fertilizer

(Rs./100kg)

NPK (%)

Cost (Rs./Unit NPK)

Poultry Manure 1.7 70 119 239

13.3

17.9 Rock Phosphate 4 30 120

4.3. Balanced Bio-fertilizers for NPK The balanced fertilizer is especially for those farmers who are unable to use green manuring. In this regard, two possible balanced bio-fertilizers are discussed which can be used as cost-effective fertilizers in different regions.




10

Balanced fertilizer is needed to maintain soil nutrients in different cropping systems on sustainable basis (Bierman and Rosen 2005; Oku and 2000). Option #1: Bio-fertilizer formulation is suggested using combination of 55% Poultry Manure, 22% Sesbania and 23% Rice Husk (Table 11). Rice husk is recommended as a component of bio-fertilizer; therefore, it will be economical to use this formulation for rice growing areas, where rice husk is available at very low prices. Table 11. Bio-fertilizer with 55% Poultry manure, 22% Sesbania and 23% Rice Husk

Table 12. Cost/Unit of NPK of bio-fertilizer

Organic Sources N P K Amount

(%) Nutrient in Materials

Nutrients in Fertilizer

Total NPK

N P K N P K Poultry Manure 3.0 5.0 2.0 55 1.65 2.75 1.1

2.85

2.85

1.65

7.35 Sesbania aculeata11

2.58 0.41 2.44 22 0.57 0.1 0.54

Rice Husk 2.72 0.01 0.04 23 0.63 0 0.01 The above-mentioned formulation provides total NPK of 7.35%. The cost of unit nutrient has to be worked out to have analysis of cost-effectivity. Table 12 illustrates the cost of raw materials used in the preparation of the bio-fertilizer, cost of 100 kg of bio-fertilizer and cost per unit of NPK. The Unit Cost of NPK is Rs. 28 per kg of NPK, which is very reasonable.

Option #2: Bio-fertilizer with 57.5% Poultry manure and 42.5% Rice Husk. This fertilizer is suitable for regions nearby rice fields or regions where rice husk is easily available. The NPK is around 7% (Table 13).

Table 13. NPK content in bio-fertilizer with 57.5% Poultry manure and 42.5% Rice husk (%)

Table 14 provides the cost of raw materials used in the preparation of the bio-fertilizer, cost of 100kg of bio-fertilizer and cost per unit NPK. The unit cost of NPK reduced to Rs. 21.5. Thus it is most cost-effective formulation and can be used in the rice growing areas, even with less cost, as rice husk is available at low price. In addition to NPK, the organic sources used for preparation of these bio-fertilizers also contain small amounts of other minerals i.e. Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium and organic carbon (Table 15).

11 Data is given for whole plant of Sesbania aculeata 56 days after seeding. 12 Faisalabad was taken as the base city for estimation of the cost of bio-fertilizer. These costs have been adjusted for transportation charges on approximate. 13 This value is obtained by using the information in Table 4.1.1. Yield of Sesbania is 2.84 ton/ha which is approximately equal to 1.3 ton/acre. So, 1.3 ton of Sesbania costs Rs. 5000 or Sesbania costs Rs. 3838/ton or approximately Rs. 3.8/kg.

Organic Sources Cost12 (Rs.)

Cost (Rs./kg)

Amount (Rs.)

Cost of material

(Rs.)

Cost (Rs./100kg of

fertilizer)

NPK (%)

Cost/unit NPK

Poultry Manure 12000/7 ton 1.7 55 93.5

205.85

7.35

Rs. 28 Sesbania 5000/acre 3.813 22 83.6

Rice Husk 50/40kg 1.25 23 28.75

Organic Sources

N P K Amount in bio-

fertilizer

Nutrients Nutrient content in bio-fertilizer

Total NPK

N P K N P K Poultry manure 3.0 5.0 2.0 57.5 1.7 2.9 1.2

2.9

2.9

1.22

7.02 Rice Husk 2.72 0.01 0.04 42.5 1.2 0 0.02




11

Table 14. Cost/Unit of NPK of bio-fertilizer Organic Sources

Cost14 Cost (Rs./kg)

Amount (%)

Cost of material

(Rs.)

Cost (Rs./100kg of

fertilizer)

NPK (%)

Unit Cost of NPK (Rs.)

Poultry manure

Rs. 12000/7 ton Rs. 1.7 57.5 Rs. 98 Rs. 151

7.02

21.5

Rice Husk Rs. 50/40kg Rs. 1.25 42.5 Rs. 53 Table 15. Amounts of other minerals in poultry manure and sesbania

Raw Material Calcium (%) Magnesium (%) Sodium (%) Poultry Manure Under cage scraped 2.0 0.3 0.2

Broiler House 2.0 0.4 0.6 Sesbania 1.0 0.25 0.1

Here the price of rice husk is taken same for both bio-fertilizers however; in actual scenario rice husk will be relatively expensive in “non-rice regions” and cheaper in regions proximal to rice fields. 5. Case Study of Malaysian and Philippine Bio-Fertilizer Plant The R&D work done by Malaysia and Philippines on bio-fertilizers is worth mentioning as it could provide some valuable insights into the preparation mechanism, which can be adopted while developing system for manufacturing bio-fertilizers in Pakistan. In this process a rapid composting activator “Bio-Plus” is being used which is a Philippine product. This activator is being used in China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and other countries. The preparation process for a bio-fertilizer is given as follows by the IFUGAO State College of Agriculture and Forestry (ISCAF 2009). 5.1. Bio-fertilizer Manufacturing Process using Bio-Plus Activator The first step involves weighing of the bio-degradable materials. Then the raw materials are milled if required. After milling of the raw materials, the Bio-Plus activator is added along with blending in order to achieve homogeneity. Bio-Plus activator is added in the range of 0.5 to 0.7% based on the weight of the final product. In Pakistan, we can use EM (Effective Micro-organisms) available from the Nature Farming Research and Development Foundation, Faisalabad. For aeration and adjustment of temperature, the biomass should be turned on alternate days. The moisture and temperature should be monitored during the fermentation period. The optimal conditions, as given by the IFUGAO State College of Agriculture and Forestry, are as follows;

pH: 7 ± 0.5 Moisture Content : 45 ± 5% Temperature : 65 ± 5ºC during thermophilic stage 50 ± 5ºC during mesophilic stage 40 ± 5ºC during curing or “sweetening” stage

The composting process generally takes from 20 to 45 days depending on the compost temperature. The compost temperature depends on the air temperature, depth of the heap and the kind and nature of raw materials used for the process. During cold seasons, the heap can be covered by black plastic to maintain higher compost temperature. The compost should be cured from 7 to 14 days. During this period the biological agents convert the inorganic compounds to more suitable nutrients. Mill this product and pack in polypropylene bags with polyethylene liners.

14 Faisalabad was taken as the base city for estimation of the cost of bio-fertilizer. These costs have been adjusted for transportation charges on approximate.




12

The required stuff for production of this fertilizer on the recommendation of IFUGAO University are given as under:

Basic (50 bags of production) Covered shed with concrete flooring (30 m2 +) Water Source Shovels Weighing Scale Sieve

Intermediate (50-100 bags of production)

Covered shed with concrete flooring (1 m2 per bag of production) Chopper shredder Water supply Shovels Weighing scale Wheel barrows Sieve

5.2. Small-Scale Manufacturing Process in Philippines The IFUGAO provided some of the photographs for the manufacturing process, which might be helpful in providing a better understanding of the manufacturing process (Figures 5 to 10). The examples of Philippines and Malaysia are taken purposely, otherwise the bio-fertilizer plants have been installed in Pakistan and producing bio-fertilizers and these products are being sold in the country. The real issue in Pakistan is the “Valieti Syndrome”, which is a sign of colonial style attitude towards any new or indigenous initiative. Otherwise the country has already made headway in the production of various forms of bio-fertilizers. The scientists are fully aware of the cost-effectivity and the availability of promising materials considering various ecologies and cropping patterns. There are options available to suit the requirement and needs. Technology is available starting from a manual and labour intensive system to a fully automatic commercial scale system of producing bio-fertilizers. The efforts are needed to develop optimization techniques to minimize the cost and maximize the NPK availability. Such formulations will ultimately help to formulate mixtures of various organic materials in proportions which provide best option of cost-effectivity of bio-fertilizers. Figure 5. Weighing of bio-degradable material Figure 6. Spreading and layering of the biomass




13

Figure 7. Addition of Bio-Plus activator Figure 8. Smoke emitting during mixing

(theomorphic effect of Bio-Plus)

Figure 9. Sieving of biomass Figure 10. Bio-fertilizer ready after 28 days

5.3. Malaysian Bio-fertilizer Plant The Malaysian bio-fertilizer plant “Organi-Gro Sdn.Bhd.” is located in Perlis State, Malaysia. Raw materials are sludge from ethanol fermentation plant and ground rice husk (Figure 11). The 15-meter ground rice husk silo is presented in Figure 12. The Rice husk is conveyed to the mechanical mixer pneumatically at predetermined volume.

Figure 11. Malaysian bio-fertilizer plant Figure 12. Ground rice husk silo and mixer

M

Res

Natura

Mixing pthe centrewhere thelevator into the m

The mechis presentons/hr ca

Figure 1 The comof 50 tonThere armanufacttons/day

6.

Theof nwhioth

Managing

search

al Resources

platform: The e of Figure 13he rice husk ion the right co

mixer.

hanical mixer wnted in Figure 1apacity is prese

4. Mechanica

mpost turning mns per day is pre two units oturing plant of organic fert

Key Findin

e analysis madnutrient percenich is reasonab

her sources of n

Natural R

h Brief

Division, P

mechanical m3. The top hoppis poured intoonveys the Bio

with 15 tons pe14. The hammeented in Figur

l mixer – 15 to

machine with apresented in Fof this machinbuilt to prodtilizer in Malay

ngs

de in the briefinntage. The reably of low cosnitrogen were u

Resources

fings

Pakistan Agr

mixer is shownper shows the io the mixer. o-PLUS Activ

er hour capaciter mill of 5

re 15.

on/hour

a capacity igure 16. ne in the duce 100 ysia.

ngs indicated tal issue is nitrot. The best sou

used in the form

s for Sust

ricultural Re

n in inlet The ator

ty

Figure

Figure 15. H

Figure 16. C

that balance ferogen as the source of nitrogemulation.

taining Fu

Volum

Research Cou

13. Mixing pl

Hammer mill -

Compost turn

rtilizers can beource of mineren is the fish m

uture Agr

me (2), N

ncil, Islama

latform

- 5 ton/hour ca

ning machines

e formulated wral phosphate

meal, which is

riculture

No (16), 2

abad, Pakista

apacity

with higher amois rock phosphcostly. Theref

2010

an

ount hate fore,




15

The cost effective and balance fertilizers can be made with maximum nutrient percentage of 8% (NPK) or less. Therefore, it is recommended that green manuring of leguminous crops effectively inoculated must be incorporated in the cropping pattern. The green manuring can provide nitrogen from two sources – from the green material of leguminous crop stand and biological nitrogen fixation due to nitrogen fixing bacteria (Azotobacter).

Phosphate fertilizers can be developed cost-effectively using the phosphate rock produced locally in Hazara using either digestion of rock with acids (H2So4, Phosphoric acid, weak organic acids like EM, etc.) or with organic composts through micro-organisms.

Cost-effective and balance bio-fertilizers can be developed having total NPK of 7-8% with cost of unit NPK ranging between Rs. 22-28/kg. The material cost of balanced bio-fertilizer ranges between Rs. 75 to 103, and with 100% cost of formulation the cost of product will range between Rs. 150-206 per bag of 50 kg. This shows that the companies who are currently manufacturing bio-fertilizers are selling at very high prices, even the percentage of NPK is in the range of 3%, which is less than half of the formulated bio-fertilizer.

Phosphate fertilizers can also be formulated cost-effectively having total NPK of 13% (P2O5 of 10%) at a unit cost of NPK of Rs. 18/kg. The material cost is Rs. 120/bag and with 100% cost of formulation and profit margins it will be around Rs. 240-250 per bag of 50 kg, which is quite economical.

The key finding is that there is huge margin being taken by the chemical and bio-fertilizer companies on per bag basis. The real question is that what is a justifiable cost of production of bio-fertilizer and what are the fair levels of margins of profit by the company and the retailers.

7. Way Forward The way forward is that there is a need to initiate research for the formulation of bio-fertilizers considering a three prong strategy.

Firstly, all the available data must be reviewed to document the available organic and mineral resources in Pakistan (both quantity and nutrient percentage) and then develop formulations which are cost-effective. The focus should be to develop bio-fertilizer production plants as a subsidiary of the already successful institutions like the “Idara-a-Kissan” so that bio-fertilizers can be produced by the farmers’ cooperative and sold to the fellow farmers at a reasonable price.

Secondly, other institutions or federations of Farmers’ Organizations can entered into formulation of bio-fertilizers like Pakistan Kissan Board, Sindh Abadgar Board and Farmers Associate of Pakistan.

Thirdly, the real concern is that there is no ethics of profit margins as both the chemical and bio-fertilizer companies are selling fertilizers at a very high cost. For example the price of chemical N and P (from Nitrophos) available today in the market is around Rs. 56.26/nutrient kg, whereas the organic NPK available in the market by the bio-fertilizer companies is around Rs. 150/nutrient kg. The locally produced organic fertilizer can be formulated and sold by companies in cooperative mode at Rs. 36 to 56/nutrient kg of NPK (doubling the cost of materials for formulating the bio-fertilizer). The trick is that energy intensive systems should not be used for formulating the bio-fertilizers and some ethics has to be maintained for justifiable profits.

8. References

1. Alimi, T., O.C. Ajewole, O.O. Olubode-Awosola and E.O. Idowu. 2006. Economic rationale of commercial organic fertilizer technology in vegetable production in Osun State of Nigeria. Journal of Applied Horticulture, 8(2): 159-164, July-December, 2006.

2. Bassam, A., A. A. Sharafat and A. Al-Kouri. 2009. Financial Feasibility of organic fertilizer production in Jordan. Research journal of Biological Sciences. 4(6): 728-733.

3. Bierman, P. M. and C. J. Rosen. 2005. Nutrient cycling and maintaining soil fertility in fruits and vegetable crops system. Department of Soil, Water and Climate. University of Minnesota. USA. Website: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/M1193.html.

4. Enishi, O., K. Shijimaya, T. Shioya, K. Ikeda and Y. Kariya. 1994. Changes of chemical composition of leaf stem and pods with seeds and degradability of stem in Sesbania with advancing maturity. J. Japan. Grassl. Sci. 40(1):16-21.

5. Sideman, E. 2009. Natural resources of plant nutrients. MOFGA FACT SHEET #11. Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. http//www.mofga.org/




16

6. ISCAF. 2009. Organic fertilizer manufacturing plants using Bio-Plus. IFUGAO State College of Agriculture and Forestry. Public of the Philippines. Cordillera Administrative Region, Province of IFUGAO. Municipality of Alfonso Lista. Website: http://diy-organicfertilizer.blogspot.com/ and http://www.aaccupqa.org.ph/IfugaoStateCollegeOfAgricultureAndForestry.html

7. M.H.M. El-Morsy. 2009. Influence of cutting height and plant spacing on Sesbania productivity under hyper-arid conditions in El-kharga Oasis, El-Wadi El-Gaded, Egypt. International Journal of Plant Production. 3(2):1735-6814. http//www.ijpp.info/

8. Oku, E. E., A. N. Essoka and A. N. Etta. 2000. Soil nutrient enhancement in smallholder farms of the tropical zone. Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences. ISSN: 1597-0906.

9. Onim, J.F.M., K. Otieno and B. Dzowela. 1989. The role of Sesbania in small scale farms in western Kenya as multipurpose trees. In: Macklin, B. and Evans, D.O. (eds), Perennial Sesbania Species in Agro forestry Systems. Proceedings of an International Workshop at ICRAF Nairobi, Kenya. NFTA Special Publication 90-01, p. 167-180.

10. Onim, J.F.M., P. Ochola, M. Mathuva, K. Otieno and H. A. Fitzhugh. 1987. Dry matter, nitrogen and green manure yields of Leucaena, Sesbania and pigeonpea in a cutting frequency study. Proceedings of 6th KUA/SR-CRSP Kenya Workshop, The Perennial Sesbania Species Nairobi, p. 65-71.

11. Siddiqui, H. A. 2006. Phosphate rock deposits remain unexploited” published in The Daily Dawn 16th October, 2006, Karachi.

12. Zaid, A. A. and O. Ganiyat. 2009. Comparative utilization of bio-degraded and un-degraded rice husk in Clarias gariepinus diet. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 8 (7), pp. 1358-1362, 6 April, 2009. Website: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB. Department of Marine Sciences, University of Lagos, Akoka, Nigeria.

13. Zublene, J. P., J. C. Barker and T. A. Carter. 1997. Poultry Manure as a Fertilizer Source. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-439-5, Revised May 1993 (MOC), Last Web Update: December 1997 (DBL).

The NRD Research Briefings is a Series of Issues, which are being prepared and circulated to the policy and decision makers, research and development experts, NGOs and private sector in the country with an objective to synthesize and disseminate the research outputs related to natural resources management research conducted by the establishments of the Natural Resources Division of PARC. The NRD Research Briefings was started during February 2009 to present outputs of studies undertaken by the Natural Resources Division of PARC and its research establishments including the MARC-Gilgit, AZRC-Quetta, AZRIs at D. I. Khan, Bahawalpur and Umerkot and national research institutes at NARC. The comments and suggestions can be sent at the following email address: Email: [email protected] Phone no. (Office): 92-51-9220385; Cell Numbers: 0321-9561517 Address: Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, P.O. Box 1031, Islamabad. The scientists and engineers of NRD and its establishments interested to get their papers published in these Briefings can send their files through email. Reference: Ahmad, G. and S. Ahmad. 2010. Formulation of Cost-effective Bio-fertilizers using Organic and Mineral Sources for Balance Availability of NPK. Vol. (2), No. (16), NRD, PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining Future ... of...Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining...

Documents

Transcript of Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining Future ... of...Managing Natural Resources for Sustaining...