Phosphorus Biofertilizers from Ash and Bones—Agronomic Evaluation of Functional Properties


  •  Magdalena Jastrzebska    
  •  Marta Kostrzewska    
  •  Kinga Treder    
  •  Wieslaw Jastrzebski    
  •  Przemyslaw Makowski    

Abstract

Renewable raw materials could be a valuable source of phosphorus for plants. The bioavailability of this element can be enhanced by phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria. Suspension biofertilizers have been produced from sewage sludge ash and animal bones and enriched with the bacteria Bacillus megaterium. The functional properties of these preparations were compared in field experiments (northeast Poland, 2014, four replications) on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare Mac Key) to conventional fertilizers (superphosphate, phosphorite), ash-water solution (without microorganisms) and a control treatment without P fertilization. The soil type and cultivation regime were adjusted to the requirements of spring wheat in line with good agricultural practice. The effects of biofertilizers on the following were investigated: wheat yield, ear density, number of grains in the ear, the weight of 1000 grains, harvest index, weed infestation, the weight and structure of crop residues, and the pH of soil. Phosphorus biofertilizers from ash and bones equalled commercial fertilizers in terms of their crop-enhancing efficiency. Biofertilizer from ash, and ash diluted with water reduced weed infestation of the growing crop. Biofertilizer from bones resulted in a greater weight of wheat crop residues. Biofertilizers did not change the pH of soil. It is expected that the production of biofertilizers containing recycled phosphorus will be an alternative to its non-renewable resources and will also contribute to effective waste management.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact