3.8 Article

Age of peat-based lupin and chickpea inoculants in relation to quality and efficacy

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE
Volume 45, Issue 2-3, Pages 183-188

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/EA03158

Keywords

legume; nodulation; rhizobia; shelf life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extension of the current 12-month expiry of rhizobial inoculants in Australia to 18 months would have commercial benefits for the manufacturers and resellers. The dilemma, however, is that numbers of rhizobia in the inoculants decline over time and individual cells may lose efficacy. The research undertaken in this study shows the effect of lupin and chickpea inoculant age (i.e. 0, 6, 12, 15 and 18 months old) on numbers of rhizobia, rhizobial cell characteristics and efficacy. For the latter, assessments included colony size on plates, survival on inoculated beads, and infectiveness and effectiveness in field experiments at 3 sites. Assessment of commercially produced inoculants at the Australian Legume Inoculants Research Unit (ALIRU) laboratory indicated that, on average, chickpea and lupin inoculants had counts of about log(10) 9.6 when fresh, delivering > log(10) 6 rhizobia/seed. At 12 months, the average counts had fallen to log(10) 9.4, delivering slightly less than log(10) 6 rhizobia/seed. By 18 months, average counts were log(10) 9.3, delivering log(10) 5.9 rhizobia/seed. The lines of best fit indicated decline rates of 0.0005 log(10) units/day. We found no evidence that the rhizobia in the older inoculants (i.e. > 12 months old) had lost any ability to grow on nutrient agar, survive on inoculated beads, and nodulate and fix nitrogen with the host plant. While the chickpea and lupin inoculants produced currently in Australia are as efficacious after 18 months of storage at 4 degrees C as they are when fresh, efficacy of other inoculant types may fall below acceptable levels at < 12 months.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available