Impact of Crop Bio-fortification on Food and Nutritional Security in India

Full text

Chapter 2
Impact of Crop Bio-fortification on
Food and Nutritional Security in India
Rayapati Karthik*, N. Prathap Reddy
and R. Shiva Kumar
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture,
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 030, Telangana
*Corresponding author
Food security of the country has been improved due to green revolution and
enhancement of cereal production. Main concern of green revolution was laid on yield
increase not on quality food production and it scale down soil productivity accompanied
by less nutritive food grain production. Malnutrition is an alarming problem in the world.
While providing enough calories, monotonous diets based on cereals and other starchy staple
foods often fail to provide sufcient quantities of essential minerals and vitamin like iodine,
iron, zinc and vitamin A and thus create a “hidden hunger” of micronutrient malnutrition.
Major strategies to address and tackle the malnutrition are dietary-diversication, medical
supplementation, food fortication and biofortication. While all approaches is effective
under ideal situations, ‘biofortication’ remains the most sustainable and cost-effective
mean for providing the desired levels of nutrients in the diet in natural form. Biofortication
offer sustainable solutions to the escalating micronutrient-related malnutrition problems.
Two-three foliar sprays of Zn and Fe (0.5 per cent ZnSO4 and FeSO4) on later growth stages
offer a practical and useful means for bio-fortication with Zn and Fe. Concentration of
micronutrients increases 60-80 per cent in cereal grains and 50-65 per cent in pulses over
control. Foliar application of micronutrients results signicantly higher micronutrient
recovery percent over soil application. Adequate information programmes are needed to
create public awareness for the adoption of the varieties by farmers and public acceptance by
consumers, especially if there are obvious changes in the qualities of the crop, such as colour
as in golden rice and white maize. With proper planning, execution and implementation,

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
22
biofortied food crops will help India to address the malnutrition problem with minimum
investment in research and have a signicant impact on the lives and health of millions of
needy people of the country.
Keywords: Food security, Green revolution, Malnutrition, Biofortication, Golden rice.
Introduction
Food security of our country has been enhanced thanks to green revolution
but main emphasis was laid only on improving productivity not on quality food
production and it scale down soil productivity accompanied by less nutritive food
grain production. Recent surveys showed 35.8 per cent of children suffer from
malnutrition in India (Neeraja et al., 2017). According to Rapid Survey on Children
(2013–14) conducted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, about 18.6
per cent of new borns, 34.6 per cent of children up to 3 years and 62.5 per cent of
adolescent girls suffer from malnutrition in our country.
Malnutrition Problem in India (FAO - The state of food security
and nutrition in the world 2019 report)
P 194.4 million people are undernourished in our country.
P 51.4 per cent of women in reproductive age between 15 to 49 years are
anaemic.
P 37.9 per cent of the children aged under ve in India are stunted.
P 20.8 per cent suffer from wasting. Meaning their weight is too low for
their height.
P People depend manly on cereal diets which don’t have sufcient minerals
and vitamins and it leads to the hidden hunger (Demment and Allen,
2003).
P Hidden hunger is lack of vitamins and minerals and occurs when
the quality of the food people consume doesn’t meet their nutritional
requirements, as such the food is decient in micronutrients
Strategies to Tackle Malnutrition
There are some strategies developed by scientists to tackle the malnutrition
problem like dietary-diversication, medical supplementation, food fortication and
biofortication. Among all of the above strategies, biofortication is the sustainable
and economically feasible way for eradicating the malnutrition problem in our
country. It is the best way to feed the rural people who can afford neither medical
supplementation nor fortied food products.
Biofortification
Biofortication refers to the genetic enhancement of key food crops with
enhanced nutrients (Bouis et al., 2013). It differs from fortication (addition of
exogenous nutrients as in iodized salt) by increasing the nutrients of crops at source

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 23
through agricultural interventions, viz. agronomy, breeding and biotechnology. It
is a process where the nutritional quality of a crop is enhanced through various
approaches like agronomic, breeding and transgenic approaches.
Approaches of Biofortification
1. Agronomic practices
2. Conventional breeding
3. Genetic modication technology
4 Microbiological approaches
Agronomic Biofortification
P Agronomic biofortication is the application of micronutrient-containing
mineral fertilizer to the soil and/or plant leaves (foliar application), to
increase micronutrient contents of the edible part of food crops
P Addition of the appropriate nutrient as an inorganic compound to the soil
increases the mineral content of the plant as demonstrated successfully
in crops like rice, wheat and maize.
P Agronomic biofortication is the easiest and fastest way for biofortication
of cereal grains with Fe and Zn.
P Agronomic biofortication is the only way to reach the rural masses to
enhance the composition of desired nutrient in their diet. Hence, the role
of agronomic biofortication in solving hidden hunger or micronutrient
malnutrition is tremendous.
Conventional Breeding
P With some identified donors for high nutrients, varieties are being
developed through conventional breeding by crossing with popular
varieties.
P The breeding lines with adequate amounts of nutrients and promising yield
thus developed are evaluated under the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR) – All India Coordinated Research Projects (AICRP) for
varietal release.
P However, breeding, by and large, relies on long and repetitive cycle of
hybridization and selection, thereby are time consuming and labour-
intensive.
Genetic Modification Technology
P In some cases, genetic variability for desirable target traits for
biofortication is not available in the germplasm. Hence, transgenic
approach using genetically modied (GM) technology is the only viable
option.
P The methodology involves introduction of genes from novel sources for
desirable target traits.

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
24
P It has advantages of unlimited access to the genes of interest, rapid as well
as direct application by introduction into popular varieties and stacking
of different genes.
e.g.: Golden Rice for β-carotene.
Microbiological Approaches
P Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) includes benecial bacteria
that colonize plant roots and augment plant growth by ample variety of
mechanisms.
P Uptake of iron, zinc and other micronutrients by the plant roots is
improved due to secretion of phytosiderophores by microorganisms
present in the soil rhizosphere.
P Biofortication of pulse crops through application of PGPRs can therefore
considered as a possible supplementary technique.
In Table 2.1, we can observe the important nutritional factors required by
humans and their deciency symptoms. We can observe the nutritional quality of
mega-staple crops in Table 2.2.
Table 2.1: Important Nutritional Factors Required by Humans
Nutritional Factor Requirement Deficiency Symptoms
Protein 0.66 g/kg body weight/day Poor intellectual development, diorderly
physical functioning
Lysine 30 mg/kg body weight/day for adults
35 mg/kg body weight/day for children
Fatigue, dizziness, nausea, anaemia
Tryptophan 30 mg/kg body weight/day for adults
35 mg/kg body weight/day for children
Depression, anxiety and impatience
Iron 1460 µg/g per day for adults
500 µg/g per day for children
Anaemia
Zinc 2960 µg/g per day for adults
1390 µg/g per day for children
Loss of appetite, impaired immune
function
Vitamin A 500 µg/g per day for adults
275 µg/g per day for children
Night blindness
Vitamin C 60 mg per day for adult women
90 mg per day for adult men
Scurvy, joint and muscle pains
Source: FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, 2000.
Target Crops for Biofortification - Indian Scenario
Some of the target crops for biofortication under Indian scenario are
1. Rice: Rice is the major calorie supplement for two thirds of the Indian
population with a consumption of 220 g per day (Neeraja et al., 2017). Most

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 25
of our population is consuming polished rice which is poor in nutrient
content and it can be biofortied with Fe, Zn and protein.
Table 2.2: Nutritional Quality of Mega-staple Crops
Nutrient Maize (as white whole
cornmeal)
Rice (as white, short
grain rice)
Wheat (as whole
wheat flour)
Calcium (mg/100g) 6 1 34
Iron (mg/100g) 3.45 1.46 3.88
Vit A (mg/100g) 0 0 0
Vit C (mg/100g) 0 0 0
Vit E (mg/100g) 0.42 0 0.82
Niacin (mg/100g) 3.63 1.49 6.37
Protein (g/100g) 8.12 2.36 13.70
Source: Kumari et al., 2014.
2. Wheat: Wheat is also consumed by majority of our population and played a
vital role in green revolution. It is poor in Fe and Zn which can be enriched
through biofortication.
3. Maize: Maize is low in Fe, Zn and protein and vitaminS A and C are
completely absent. These elements can be incorporated in maize through
biofortication approaches.
4. Pearlmillet: Pearl millet is having poor quantity of Iron and zinc.
Pearl millet biofortication programme was intensively supported by
HarvestPlus and ICRISAT for the genetic improvement of grain Fe with
Zn content as an associated trait.
5. Sorghum: In India, sorghum contributes around 50 per cent of the total
cereal intake (75 kg grain per head per year), especially by rural consumers
in the major production regions (Neeraja et al., 2017). Iron and zinc content
can be improved in sorghum through biofortication approaches.
Table 2.3: Recently Developed Biofortified Cultivars
Released through AICRP Network
Variety Specifications Developed By Yield
Rice varieties
CR Dhan 310 High protein (10.3 per cent) in polished
grain
NRRI, Cuttack 45.0 q/ha
DRR Dhan 45 High zinc (22.6 ppm) in polished grain IIRR, Hyderabad 50.0 q/ha
DRR Dhan 49 High zinc (25.2 ppm) in polished grain IIRR, Hyderabad 50.0 q/ha
Wheat varieties
WB 02 Rich in zinc (42.0 ppm) and iron (40.0
ppm)
IIWBR, Karnal 51.6 q/ha
HPBW 01 High iron (40.0 ppm) and zinc (40.6 ppm). PAU, Ludhiana 51.7 q/ha

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
26
Variety Specifications Developed By Yield
Pusa Tejas (HI
8759)
Rich in protein (12 per cent), iron (42.1
ppm) and zinc (42.8 ppm)
IARI Regional
station, Indore
50.0 q/ha
Pusa Ujala (HI
1605)
Rich in protein (13 per cent), iron (43
ppm) and zinc (35 ppm)
IARI Regional
station, Indore
30.0 q/ha
MACS 4028 (d) Rich in protein (14.7 per cent), iron (46.1
ppm) and zinc (40.3 ppm)
ARI, Pune 19.3 q/ha
Maize varieties
Pusa Vivek QPM9
Improved
High tryptophan (0.74 per cent) and lysine
(2.67 per cent) and high provitamin-A
(8.15 ppm)
IARI, New delhi 55.9-59.2 q/ha
Pusa HM4 Improved High tryptophan (0.91 per cent) and lysine
(3.62 per cent)
IARI, New delhi 64.2 q/ha
Pusa HM8 Improved High tryptophan (1.06 per cent) and lysine
(4.18 per cent)
IARI, New delhi 62.6 q/ha
Pusa HM9 Improved High tryptophan (1.06 per cent) and lysine
(4.18 per cent)
IARI, New delhi 52.0 q/ha
Pearl Millet varieties
Hhb 299 Rich in iron (73.0 ppm) and zinc (41.0
ppm)
CCSHAU, Hisar
and ICRISAT
Grain yield -32.7
q/haDry fodder
yield- 73.0 q/ha
Ahb 1200 Rich in iron (73.0 ppm)) VNMKV,
Parbhani and
ICRISAT
Grain yield -32.0
q/haDry fodder
yield- 70.0 q/ha
Lentil varieties
Pusa Ageti Masoor Rich in iron (65.0 ppm) IARI, New delhi 13.0 q/ha
IPL 220 Rich in iron (73.0 ppm) and zinc (51.0
ppm)
IIPR, Kanpur 13.8 q/ha
Soyabean variety
NRC 127 Kunitz Trypsin Inhibitor free variety
18.5-20.0 per cent oil and 38.0-40.0 per
cent protein
IISR, Indore 18.0 q/ha
Mustard varieties
Pusa Mustard 30 Low erucic acid (<2.0 per cent) 37.7 per
cent oil content
IARI, New Delhi 18.2 q/ha
Pusa Double Zero
Mustard 31
Low erucic acid (<2.0 per cent) in oil and
glucosinolates (<30.0 ppm)
IARI, New Delhi 23.0 q/ha
Sweet potato
Bhu Sona High β-carotene (14.0 mg/100 g)
20.0 per cent starch and 2.0-2.4 per
cent sugar
CTCRI,
Thiruvanantha-
puram.
19.8 t/ha
Bhu Krishna High anthocyanin (90.0 mg/100 g)
19.5 per cent starch and 1.9-2.2 per
cent sugar
CTCRI,
Thiruvanantha-
puram.
18.0 t/ha
Cauliflower
Pusa Beta Kesari 1 High β-carotene (8.0-10.0 ppm). IARI, New Delhi. 40.0-50.0 t/ha
Source: Yadava et al., 2017.

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 27
Criteria of Biofortified Crop
Bouis and Welch (2010) suggested the following criteria to be a potential
biofortied crop.
P High Yielding: Crop productivity must be maintained.
P Effective: The increased level of micronutrient must have signicant
positive impact on human beings.
P Stable: Increased level of micronutrients in crop must be stable year after
year.
P Quality: Good taste and cooking quality.
Experimental Findings
Table 2.4: Effect of Zinc Levels on Zn Concentration (mg/kg) and Grain Yield of Rice
Treatments
Zinc Levels
(mg/kg)
Brown Rice
(mg/kg)
Straw
(mg/kg)
Grain Yield
(g/pot)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2
0 (T1) 30.2 32.9 44.7 42.9 47.7 50.3
5 (T2) 49.1 48.5 66.6 62.3 58.8 62.3
10 (T3) 58.5 53.5 81.1 74.5 59.1 63.6
15 (T4) 61.2 57.5 85.7 79.9 61.2 63.7
20 (T5) 61.7 58.8 89.5 84.1 60.6 62.9
SEm± 1.45 1.42 1.70 1.64 2.11 2.22
C.D (p≤0.05) 2.93 2.87 3.43 3.22 4.26 4.49
Source: Hussain et al., 2018.
A pot experiment was conducted by Hussain et al. (2018) to nd the effect of zinc
levels on zinc content of grain as well as grain yield of rice. Highest concentration
of zinc in both brown rice and straw is obtained with the application of 20 mg/kg
which is statistically at par with application of 15 mg/kg. This study says thatfor
achieving the bioforticational benets in rice, higher dose of Zn upto 20 mg/kg
appears to be more appropriate.
Table 2.5: Effect of Zinc Sources and their Concentration of
Spray on Yield and Zinc Content of Rice
Treatments Grain Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Grain Zn (mg/kg)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
ZnSO4.7H2O 3.93 3.40 7.12 6.22 10.34 10.83
ZnCl2 3.83 3.50 7.13 6.63 9.74 10.01
Zn3(PO4)2 3.82 3.29 6.56 6.58 11.28 10.71
ZnO 3.94 3.58 6.80 7.57 9.99 10.83

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
28
Treatments Grain Yield (t/ha) Straw Yield (t/ha) Grain Zn (mg/kg)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
Na2Zn-EDTA 4.04 4.17 6.84 6.91 10.65 11.54
SEm± 0.080 0.116 0.264 0.308 0.455 0.281
CD (p=0.05) NS 0.337 NS NS NS 0.814
Foliar Spray conc. (per cent)
0.5 3.68 3.54 6.75 6.67 9.61 10.25
1.0 4.31 3.83 7.12 7.41 11.21 11.29
1.0+0.5 Lime 3.74 3.40 6.80 6.26 10.38 10.82
SEm± 0.062 0.090 0.205 0.239 0.353 0.218
CD (p=0.05) 0.179 0.261 NS 0.692 1.021 0.630
Source: Kulhare et al., 2017.
An experiment was conducted by Kulhare et al. (2017) to determine the impact
of foliar spray of 0.5, 1.0 per cent Zn salts and 1.0 per cent Zn salts + 0.5 per cent
lime concentration of different sources of Zn (ZnSO4.7H2O, ZnCl2, Zn3(PO4)2, ZnO
and Na2Zn-EDTA) on yield, Zn content in rice. Grain yield signicantly increased
with the foliar application of Zn-EDTA compared to other sources of Zn but the
cost of Zn-EDTA is very high comparatively. Foliar application of 1.0 per cent zinc
salts was found signicantly superior to 0.5 per cent Zn salt for yield, straw yield
and Zn content and application of lime reduces the zinc availability to the plant
because of negative interaction between calcium and zinc. This study says that 1
per cent foliar application of ZnSO4.7H2O at two growth stages (tillering and ag
leaf stage) will increase the grain yield as well as zinc content in rice grain.
Table 2.6: Effect of Sulphur Fertilization on Biofortification of
Wheat Grains with Micronutrients
Treatments Micronutrients Concentrations in Wheat Grain (mg/kg)
Fe Zn Mn Cu
Control (no fertilizer) 150 37.3 41.0 5.1
Prilled urea (130 kg/ha N) 156 39.2 43.7 5.8
1 per cent Sulphur-coated urea 161 40.9 44.3 6.4
2 per cent Sulphur-coated urea 166 42.8 45.8 6.9
3 per cent Sulphur-coated urea 171 43.2 46.3 7.2
4 per cent Sulphur-coated urea 176 43.8 46.5 7.6
5 per cent Sulphur-coated urea 181 44.5 46.8 7.7
SEm± 1.52 0.62 0.75 0.13
LSD (P=0.05) 4.69 1.90 2.30 0.40
Source: Shivay et al., 2016.
Shivay et al. (2016) conducted an experiment to determine the impact ofsulphur
fertilization on biofortication of wheat grains with Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu. There is a

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 29
gradual increase in the concentration of Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu in wheat grain with the
application of 5 per cent sulphur coated urea (SCU), which should be considered as
a good source of sulphur along with nitrogen for wheat. Main reason behind this
is addition of sulphates make the soil acidic which is favourable for the availability
of micronutrients to the plant.
Table 2.7: Accumulation of Zinc (mg/kg) in Wheat Grain Affected by
Zinc Application at different Maturity Periods
Maturity Period F1
(Control)
F2
(100 kg/ha)
F3
(F2 + 0.5 per cent
Spray of ZnSO4.7H2O)
Short duration 38.15 76.12 75.85
Long duration 39.58 78.22 77.14
Mean 38.86 77.17 76.49
CD at 5 per cent 11.04
F1: control (recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)
F2: F1 + 100 kg/ha zinc sulphate (soil application)
F3: F2 + three foliar sprays of 0.5 per cent zinc sulphate (first at crown root stage, second at preflowering
stage and third at milking stage).
RDF: NPK (100: 60: 40) kg/ha.
Source: Kumar et al., 2018.
Kumar et al. (2018) conducted an experiment to determine the grain yield
and accumulation of zinc in wheat grain affected by zinc application at different
maturity periods. Zinc accumulation was maximum in the treatment F2 which is
at par with the F3 in both short and long duration cultivars. So, it is better to go for
application of either one soil application of zinc sulphate @100 kg/ha or three foliar
spraysof ZnSO4.7H2O @ 0.5 per cent at crown root stage, preowering stage and
milking stages along with recommended dose of fertilizers to obtain the high zinc
concentration in wheat grain.
Table 2.8: Effect of Zn and Fe Application on the Zinc and
Iron Contents of Maize Grain
Treatments Grain Yield
(t/ha)
Fe Content
(mg/kg)
Per cent
Increase
Zn Content
(mg/kg)
Per cent
Increase
NPK 4.9c 74.1c - 14.3c -
NPK + 10 kg Zn and Fe 6.1b 91.6bc 23.6 18.3c 28.0
NPK + 20 kg Zn and Fe 7.6a 107.6b 45.2 23.2b 62.2
NPK + 30 kg Zn and Fe 7.7a 122.7b 65.6 25.1b 75.5
NPK + 0.1 per cent foliar
spray of Zn and Fe
5.2bc 153.6a 107.3 31.8a 122.4
RDF- N: P: K: 270+120+150 kg/ha
Source: Saleem et al., 2016.

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
30
The study was conducted by Saleem et al. (2016) to evaluate the response of
hybrid maize towards zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe) fertilization applied both as soil and
foliar application. The foliar treatment of Zn and Fe was done to crop at silking and
grain lling stage. The results indicated that maize grain yield and their Zn and
Fe content responded positively towards Zn and Fe application applied as soil or
foliar application. The 30 kg/ha of Zn and Fe gave highest grain yield (7.76 t/ha)
which is at par with 7.64 t/ha grain yield from the plots receiving 20 kg of Zn and
Fe/ha. This study has concluded that the increase in yield was freeze after 20 kg/
ha of Zn and Fe and the maximum accumulation of iron and zinc was obtained in
grains when foliar application of Zn and Fe @ 0.1 per cent was applied at silking
and grain lling stages.
Table 2.9: Effect of Organic Manures and Zn Fertilization on Grain Yield,
Straw Yield and Zn Concentration of Grains in Maize
Treatments Grain Yield
(t/ha)
Straw Yield
(t/ha)
Zn Concentration in
Grain (mg/kg)
Control 3.83g 7.74h 19.37c
FYM + ZnS 5.94c 11.77c 32.66ab
FYM + ZnF 5.76c 11.43d 36.06a
Press Mud + ZnS 6.50a 12.82a 33.82a
Press Mud + ZnF 6.18b 12.34b 34.92a
Fish Manure + ZnS 5.21d 10.91e 26.83abc
Fish Manure + ZnF 5.24d 10.65e 36.10a
Slaughter House Waste + ZnS 4.22e 10.29f 21.90c
Slaughter House Waste + ZnF 4.09e 10.16f 19.26c
ZnS 4.05ef 9.81g 23.85bc
ZnF 4.19e 9.74g 21.50c
ZnS- 16 kg/ha Soil application.
ZnF- 0.5 per cent foliar application.
Source: Naveed et al., 2018.
In a field experiment conducted by Naveed et al. (2018), maize was
supplemented with farm yard manure (FYM), press mud (PM), sheries manure
(FM), and slaughter house waste (SHW) in combination with Zn soil application
(ZnS) and Zn foliar spray (ZnF) with recommended doses of N:P:K (140:100:60
kg/ha), respectively. The suggested doses of manures (10 ton/ha FYM, 8 ton/ha
PM, 2 ton/ha SHW and 1 ton/ha FM were applied in soil at the time of seedbed
preparation. PM + ZnS increased the grain yield by 69.71 per cent, while FM + ZnF
and FYM + ZnF increased the grain Zn concentration by 86.37 and 86.16 per cent,
respectively. Organic manures inuence the nutrient uptake from soil, increase the
product quality, and act as a good organic fertilizer. The current study revealed that
organic manures can enhance crop growth and Zn uptake in grain in sustainable
manner.

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 31
Table 2.10: Effect of Cultivars and Micronutrients on Yield and
Nutrient Content of Rabi Sorghum
Treatments Grain Yield
(t/ha)
Fe Content
(mg/kg)
Zn Content
(mg/kg)
Y1 Y2 Y1 Y1 Y2
RDF (80:40:40 kg NPK/ha) 3.27 4.88 35.00 16.88 23.71
RDF + ZnSO4 @ 50 kg/ha 3.29 4.56 38.75 18.11 25.34
RDF + FeSO4 @ 50 kg/ha 3.15 4.67 34.68 17.94 25.26
RDF + ZnSO4+ FeSO4 soil
application fb foliar application
(0.50 per cent + 1.0 per cent
at 45 DAS)
3.09 4.52 44.06 18.65 27.47
LSD (0.05) NS NS 5.7 NS 2.76
Varieties
CSH 15R 2.47 5.28 39.22 19.13 26.29
M 35-1 2.86 3.97 34.37 18.99 24.42
Phule Chitra 3.92 4.62 39.00 15.50 25.16
Phule Maulee 3.95 4.50 41.59 20.80 26.42
Phule Yashoda 2.81 4.93 36.42 15.04 24.93
LSD (0.05) 0.58 0.79 6.40 4.02 NS
Source: Mishra et al., 2015.
Mishra et al. (2015) conducted an experiment to see the effect of external
application of Fe and Zn on grain yield and quality of rabi sorghum. External
application of micronutrients (Fe and Zn) through fertilizers had no signicant
effect on grain yield in both the years as compared to RDF alone. This study has
concluded that sorghum cultivar Phule Maulee with soil application of ZnSO4 +
FeSO4 each at 50 kg/ha followed by foliar application (0.50 per cent +1.0 per cent)
at 45 DAS along with recommended dose of fertilizer (80:40:40 kg NPK/ha) is
recommended for producing micronutrient (Fe and Zn) rich post-rainy sorghum.
Table 2.11: Effect of Nitrogen and Zinc Levels on Yield, Zinc Content and
Uptake in Pearl Millet Grain
Treatments Yield (kg/ha) Zn Content (mg/kg) Zn Uptake (kg/ha)
Nitrogen levels (kg/ha)
0 1428.76 11.82 1.73
20 1760.77 15.78 2.67
40 1966.32 16.60 3.46
60 2109.70 17.81 3.80
Zinc levels (kg/ha)
0 1551.30 13.57 2.23
5 1858.28 16.34 3.02
10 2039.59 16.59 3.50

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
32
Treatments Yield (kg/ha) Zn Content (mg/kg) Zn Uptake (kg/ha)
Significance
Nitrogen 149.93 1.81 0.38
Zinc 129.84 1.57 0.33
N * Zn NS S S
Source: Prasad et al., 2015.
Prasad et al. (2015) conducted an experiment to determine the impact of N and
Zn fertilizer on zinc biofortication in pearl millet. The grain yield signicantly
increased 47.65 per cent from 0 to 60 kg N/ha and 31.47 per cent from 0 to 10 kg
Zn/ha and the same trend was observed in both zinc content and uptake. It can
be concluded that 60 kg N/ha and 10 kg Zn/ha was suitable and optimum for
increasing yield, zinc uptake and content of zinc (biofortication) in pearl millet
grain under semi arid region. This study says that cultivation of pearl millet with
nitrogen and zinc application not only increases food security but also improve the
nutrition security of rural people.
Table 2.12: Effect of iron and Urea Application on Grain Yield, Iron and
Zn Content in Grains of Chickpea
Treatments Grain Yield (/ha) Iron (mg/kg) Zn (mg/kg)
2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17
Fe application
Control 1726 1748 54.63 55.69 29.48 29.07
Foliar spray of FeSO4 at
0.5 per cent at flowering
stage
1808 1835 68.27 69.97 32.44 32.27
Foliar spray of FeSO4 at
0.5 per cent at flowering
and pod formation stages
1861 1902 73.50 75.34 35.08 34.21
LSD (0.05) 85 86 3.61 3.16 1.50 1.36
Urea application
Control 1684 1702 62.05 63.36 29.61 28.58
Foliar spray of urea @ 2
per cent at flowering stage
1827 1868 66.11 68.05 32.81 32.68
Foliar spray of urea @ 2
per cent at flowering and
pod formation stages
1885 1913 68.25 69.60 34.58 34.29
LSD (0.05) 85 86 3.61 3.16 1.50 1.36
Source: Pal et al., 2019.
Pal et al. (2019) conducted an experiment to study the impact of Fe and N
foliar application on iron and zinc content in chickpea grain as well as grain yield.
Application of 0.5 per cent FeSO4 at owering and pod formation stages has resulted

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 33
in the highest Fe and Zn content in grain in both the years followed by the application
of 0.5 per cent FeSO4 at owering stage alone. Urea spray @ 2 per cent at both
owering and pod formation stages also increased the Zn and Fe content of grain.
Urea is improving the availability of iron and zinc because of positive interaction
between nitrogen and micronutrients. This study has concluded that foliar sprays
of 0.5 per cent FeSO4 along with 2 per cent urea at owering and pod formation
stages can be the best strategy to enhance Fe and Zn content in chickpea grain.
Table 2.13: Details of Baseline Level of Nutrients in Targeted Crops and Levels
Achieved through Biofortification
Crop Nutrient Baseline Levels Levels Achieved
Nutritional factors
Rice Zinc 12.0-16.0 ppm >20.0 ppm
Protein 7.0-8.0 per cent >10.0 per cent
Wheat Iron 28.0-32.0 ppm >38.0 ppm
Zinc 30.0-32.0 ppm >40.0 ppm
Protein 8-10 per cent >12.0 per cent
Maize Lysine 1.5-2.0 per cent >2.5 per cent
Tryptophan 0.3-0.4 per cent >0.6 per cent
Provitamin A 1-2 ppm >8.0 ppm
Pearl Millet Zinc 30.0-35.0 ppm >40.0 ppm
Iron 45.0-50.0 ppm >70.0 ppm
Lentil Zinc 35.0-40.0 ppm >50.0 ppm
Iron 45.0 – 50.0 ppm >62.0 ppm
Cauliflower β-carotene Negligible >8.0 ppm
Sweet potato Anthocyanin Negligible >80.0 mg/100 g
β-carotene 2.0-3.0 mg/100 g >13.0 mg/100 g
Pomegranate Vitamin C 14.2 – 14.6 mg/100 g >19.0 mg/100 g
Iron 2.7-3.2 mg/100 g >5.0 mg/100 g
Zinc 0.50-0.54 mg/100 g >0.6 mg/100 g
Anti-Nutritional factors
Mustard Glucosinolates >120.0 ppm <30.0 ppm
Erucic Acid >40 per cent <2.0 per cent
Soyabean Kunitz Trypsin Inhibitor 30-45 mg/g of seed meal Negligible
Source: Yadava et al., 2018.
In the above table, we can see thebaseline level of nutrients and levels achieved
through biofortication in targeted crops. Biofortication not only helps in enriching
the crops with micro nutrients and vitamins but also decreases the anti nutritional
factors present in the crops like mustard, soyabean etc. which ultimately improves
their consumption.

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
34
Challenges
P Till now various products are developed through biofortication. Further
studies should be done in this aspect in such a way that demands for
biofortied food drives research and product development.
P There should be good cooperation between the agriculture and nutrition
experts to further strengthen this concept and studies should be done
on the level of vitamins and minerals and their retention after storage,
processing and cooking.
P For GM technology, the major problem of developing fortied crops is the
cost of research and the regulatory compliances. Food safety experiments
on GM foods are required to be intensied.
P There is lack of awareness on biofortification among farmers and
consumers. Some people do not prefer them because of the change in the
colour and other qualities. So government should conduct camps and
programmes to increase the awareness on biofortication among the
people.
Conclusion
P According to UNICEF (2009), one in every three malnourished children
in the world lives in India. To tackle this issue, scientists have proposed
various strategies like food fortication, medical supplementation, diet
diversication and biofortication to tackle the malnutrition. Among all
these strategies, Biofortication is offering sustainable solutions to the
growing micronutrient related malnutrition problems.
P Agronomic biofortication is successful in enriching the crops particularly
cereals with micronutrients like Fe and Zn. Much focus is on the iron and
zinc which are most essential for human beings besides they are decient
in our Indian soils.
P Micronutrient concentration can be increased by 60-80 per cent and
50-65 per cent in cereals and pulses respectively. Foliar application of
micronutrients is better compared to soil application and recorded higher
micronutrient recovery percent comparatively. 2-3 foliar sprays of Zn
and Fe (0.5 per cent ZnSO4 and FeSO4) on different growth stages is more
benecial in enriching the crops with them. It is clear that biofortication
sounds a very effective way in solving the malnutrition problem.
P Various government organizations like ICAR, DBT and ICMR, along with
international organizations, viz. Harvestplus, IRRI are now converging
their research efforts of biofortication for product development, testing
and validation. With proper planning, execution and implementation,
biofortied food crops will help India to address the malnutrition problem
with minimum investment in research and it is going to improve the lives
and health of so many needy people of our country.

Impact of Crop Bio-fortication on Food and Nutritional Security in India 35
REFERENCES
Bouis, H. E., Welch, R. M. (2010). Biofortication - A sustainable agricultural strategy
for reducing micronutrient malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Sci. 50: 20-32.
Bouis, H., Low, J., McEwan, M., Tanumihardjo, S. (2013). Biofortication: evidence
and lessons learned linking agriculture and nutrition. The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization
(WHO).
Demment, M.W. and L.H. Allen (2003). Animal Source Foods to Improve
Micronutrient Nutrition and Human Function in Developing Countries. J.
Nutr., 133: 3875S-4061S.
FAO (2019). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019. Report.
Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization (2000). Preliminary
report on recommended nutrient intakes. Joint FAO/WHO expert consultation
on human vitamin and mineral requirements. Rome, Italy, Geneva, Switzerland,
Bangkok, Thailand: FAO/WHO and World Health Organization; 13 July, 2000.
Hussain, S. T., Bhat, M. A., Hussain, A., Dar, S. Ah., Dar, S. H., Ganai, M. A. and Telli,
N. A. (2018). Zinc fertilization for improving grain yield, zinc concentration
and uptake in different rice genotypes . J. Pharmacognosy and Phytochem., 7(2):
287-291.
Kulhare, P. S., Tagore, G. S. and Sharma, G. D. (2017). Effect of foliar spray and
sources of zinc on yield, zinc content and uptake by rice grown in a vertisol of
central India. Inter. J. Chemical Studies, 5(2): 35-38.
Kumar, A., Denre, M. and Prasad, R. (2018). Agronomic biofortication of zinc in
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Current Sci., 115 : 5-10.
Kumari, V. V., Hoekenga, O., Salini, K. and Chandran, M. A. S. (2014). Biofortication
of food crops in India: An Agricultural Perspective. Asian Biotechn. and Develop.
Rev. 16(2): 21-41.
Mishra, J. S., Hariprasanna, K., Rao, S. S. and Patil, J. V. (2015). Biofortication of
post-rainy sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with zinc and iron through fertilization
strategy. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 85(5): 721–4.
Naveed, S. D., Rehim, A., Imran, Md., Bashir, M. A., Anwar, M. F. and Ahmad, F.
(2018). Organic manures: an efcient move towards maize grain biofortication.
Inter. J. Recyc. Org. Waste Agric., 7: 189-197.
Neeraja, C. N., Babu, V. R., Ram, S, Hossain, F., Hariprasanna, K., Rajpurohit, B.
S., Prabhakar, Longvah, T., Prasad, K. S., Sandhu, J. S. and Datt, S. K. (2017).
Biofortication in cereals: progress and prospects. Current Sci., 113(6).
Pal, V., Singh, G. and Dhaliwal, S. S. (2019). Yield enhancement and biofortication of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grain with iron and zinc through foliar application
of ferrous sulfate and urea. J. Pl. Nutr. DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2019.1648675.

Sustainable Agriculture: Recent Advances
36
Prasad, S. K., Singh, R., Singh, M. K. and Rakshit, A. (2015). Zinc biofortication
and agronomic indices of pearl millet under semiarid region. Inter. J. Agric.,
Environ. and Biotech., 8(1): 171-175.
Saleem, I., Javid, S., Bibi, F., Ehsan, S., Niaz, A., Ahmad, Z. A. (2016). Biofortication
of maize grain with zinc and iron by using fertilizing approach. Inter. J. Agric.
and Eco. Res., 7(4):1-6.
Shivay, Y. S., Prasad, R., Pooniya, V., Pal, M. and Bansal, R. (2016). Effect of sulphur
fertilization on biofortication of wheat (Triticum aestivum) grains with Fe, Zn,
Mn and Cu. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 86(6): 823–4.
UNICEF (2009). Annual malnutrition report for India, 2009. wcd.nic.in/acts/rapid-
survey-children-rsoc-2013-14.
Yadava, D. K., Choudhury, P. R., Hossain, F., Kumar, D. (2017). Biofortied Varieties:
Sustainable Way to Alleviate Malnutrition. ICAR, New Delhi. 2017.
Yadava, D. K., Hossain, F. and Mohapatra, T. (2018). Nutritional security through
crop biofortication in India: Status and future prospects. Indian J. Medical
Res., 148; 621-631.