Raimi 2021

Scientific African 11 (2021) e00694
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Scientific African
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sciaf
Biofertilizer production in Africa: Current status, factors

impeding adoption and strategies for success
Adekunle Raimi a, Ashira Roopnarain b, Rasheed Adeleke a,∗
a
Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom,
South Africa
b
Microbiology and Environmental Biotechnology Research Group, Institute for Soil, Climate and Water- Agricultural Research Council,
Private Bag X79, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Presently, the global biofertilizer market is expanding due to the rising acceptance of
Received 18 October 2020 efficient soil nutrient management practices such as the application of biofertilizers
Revised 13 December 2020
amongst farmers. Biofertilizers are preferred to chemical fertilizers because they are cost-
Accepted 31 December 2020
effective, ecologically friendly, and guarantee sustainable agricultural production. However,
the biofertilizer industry is underdeveloped in many African countries due to several chal-
Keywords: lenges; thus, the full adoption and benefits of biofertilizer are yet to be fully realized com-
Africa pared to the developed nations. Therefore, the present review describes the production,
Biofertilizer technology usage, challenges as well as the strategies and opportunities for the development of biofer-
Formulation tilizer in Africa. The findings show that inadequate biofertilizer research, lack of technology
Government policies development, and ineffective regulatory framework have largely contributed to the chal-
Rules and regulations
lenges of biofertilizer development in Africa. Although there is evidence of some form of
Strategy
regulations in some African nations, effective biofertilizer regulations and quality control
management championed by the government would further promote the production of
quality biofertilizers and usage amongst African farmers. Adequate and effective extension
programs, agromarket development, as well as agricultural and research institution devel-
opment, could improve the production and adoption of biofertilizers in Africa. To achieve
increased commercial production and optimal application of biofertilizer amongst farm-
ers in Africa, a deliberate intervention by African government through biofertilizer policy,
funding and the development of efficient quality control system and market strategies is
essential. More so, government and private sector participation in sustainable investment
and technical support will lead to substantial biofertilizer commercialization and adoption
in Africa.
© 2021 North-West University, South Africa. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
African Institute of Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abbreviations: AM, Arbuscular Mycorrhiza; BNF, Biological Nitrogen Fixation; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; IITA, International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; IRAD, Institute of Agricultural Research and Development; KEFRI, Kenya Forestry
Research Institute; MIRCENs, Microbiological Resource Centres; MoFA, Ministry of Food and Agriculture; MMRS, Mount Makulu Research Station; NAFDAC,
National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control; INERA, National Agricultural Research Institute; NifTAL, Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Agri-
culture; PSB, Phosphate Solubilizing Biofertilizer; RoW, Rest of the World; SPRL, Soil Productivity Research Laboratory; UNESCO, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation; USAID, United States Agency for International Development.
∗
Corresponding author at: Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchef-
stroom, South Africa.
E-mail address: rasheed.adeleke@nwu.ac.za (R. Adeleke).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00694
2468-2276/© 2021 North-West University, South Africa. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein
Initiative. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
A. Raimi, A. Roopnarain and R. Adeleke Scientific African 11 (2021) e00694
Introduction
There is a global crusade for increased per capita agricultural production to alleviate food security challenges due to
the expanding world population [1]. Thus, African farmers who are a major economic factor in food productivity have been
encouraged to increase production [2]. However, the poor soil, harsh climatic conditions, including high temperature and
drought, the poor economic situation, lack of technological development and inefficient farming practices have significantly
affected crop productivity in Africa [3,4]. Presently, organic and chemical fertilizers are the major nutrient management
methods for increasing crop productivity [5]. Organic fertilizers, which are made from plant and animal materials, have
been used for centuries for improving plant productivity. However, challenges bordering on availability, cost, and manage-
ment have limited the use of organic fertilizers amongst African farmers [2]. Chemical fertilizers are costly, unsustainable
and contribute to environmental pollution and soil structure degradation [6]. The several ecological damages caused by the
overuse of chemical fertilizers have become increasingly uncontrollable and most times, irreversible, causing significant nu-
trient loss to African soils [6,7]. Moreover, the demand for green agriculture and high-quality food supply has suggested a
shift or, at least, a reduction in the application of agrochemical inputs. Consequently, the search for an economical, eco-
friendly, and sustainable solution for improving plant growth and yield has led to the discovery and use of biofertilizers as
an alternative (Fig. 1) [8].
Biofertilizers are biologically active formulations comprising beneficial live microbes in economical carrier materials,
which when applied to the soil, plant, and seed improve plant growth and development by enhancing the supply of plant
growth-promoting substances or nutrients [2,9,10]. The groups of microbes mostly used for inoculant production are the
arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and nitrogen-fixing rhizobia [11]. The genera Gi-
gaspora, Glomus, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Bradyrhizobium and Rhizobium, are commonly used for inoc-
ulant formulation [2,12,13]. These microbes play essential roles in soil ecosystem functions such as restoring and preserving
soil nutrient richness. Several studies have been conducted on biofertilizers and their various benefits in sustainable agricul-
ture, especially in promoting plant nutrition [13–16]. Some of these benefits include nitrogen fixation , nutrient solubiliza-
tion and mobilization, phytohormone production, microbial community diversification, and soil physicochemical property
improvement (Fig. 1).
Recently, biofertilizer technology is gaining attention amongst the agronomists and soil scientists because of its consid-
erable benefits, especially in sustainable agriculture [9]. The global biofertilizer market is currently growing, and countries
such as Argentina, Canada, China, Europe, India and the United States are the drivers [17,18]. These countries have realised
the enormous benefits of biofertilizers and are making substantial efforts to promote its adoption, as evidenced by their
well-developed biofertilizer market [19]. Moreover, these countries have strategies in place to support biofertilizer devel-
opment. Such strategies include industry privatisation, product commercialization, tax incentives, input subsidies, as well
as market development and financial support [20,21]. Unfortunately, the potential benefits of biofertilizer have been largely
Fig. 1. Role of biofertilizers in plant growth promotion. Biofertilizers promote plant growth by improving soil nutrient content. Some of the biofertilizers
can fix nitrogen, solubilize organic and inorganic nutrients such as phosphorus and enhance plant nutrition by establishing symbiotic relationships. The
application of biofertilizers is known to impact soil microbial community diversity, which in turn influence the complex microbiome of plants. Biofertilizers
also affect the soil physicochemical properties, including soil pH, soil texture, and organic matter, which greatly influence plant growth and development.
2
Fig. 2. Standardization process for commercial biofertilizer production. Biofertilizer production essentially depends on the availability and isolation of
targeted microbes from a specific environment, including rhizosphere and plant tissues. Candidate microbes are cultivated and multiplied using a fermenter
under optimal growth conditions. Thereafter, product efficiency is tested in the field. To finally obtain a quality biofertilizer, it is essential to carry out
quality testing at each step of the standardization process and formulate the biofertilizers with appropriate carriers.
untapped in Africa due to lack of market development, inadequate regulatory framework and ineffective quality control
systems [22,23]. These challenges have contributed to the increase in unregulated production and influx of commercial
biofertilizers whose real quality is questionable. The poor-quality products supplied to the agromarket has contributed to
the low acceptability and adoption of biofertilizer technology amongst farmers in Africa [22–24].
Furthermore, inappropriate formulations and poor packaging techniques are amongst the factors responsible for low-
quality biofertilizers [11,25]. Considering the need to manufacture quality biofertilizers with a cost not exceeding that of
conventional fertilizers to assure market sustainability, insight into the appropriateness of the core technologies such as car-
rier materials, inoculant strains and fermenters used in product formulation is essential [26]. Usually, biofertilizers must be
produced using efficient inoculant strains, which have excellent plant-growth-promoting attributes and carriers that provide
a suitable microenvironment [11]. Thus, the present study synthesized literature on the production and quality control of
biofertilizers as well as the challenges and potential solutions in the development and adoption of biofertilizers in Africa.
Furthermore, this review highlights different strategies, including government interventions and future actions that will pro-
mote full adoption of biofertilizers in Africa for improved crop productivity.
Biofertilizer production
The production process of biofertilizer is economical and straightforward when compared to chemical fertilizers [10,12].
However, key factors, including microbial strains, formulation type, carrier materials, and field applications, must be consid-
ered during biofertilizer production [11,27]. Essentially, six fundamental steps must be considered before standardizing the
process of commercial production of biofertilizers (Fig 2). The first step involves isolation, identification, and functional char-
acterisation of potentially active and non-toxic microbes, which can promote plant growth. Microbial strains are recovered
from their natural habitats usually from the bulk soil, rhizosphere, or plant tissues (leaves, stems, roots, seeds and flowers)
3
[13,28]. The functional characterization of the microbial strains is carried-out using general laboratory techniques, including
differential culture media or qualitative testing. Functional characteristics are used as a general quality control factor for
inoculants because they are quicker and cheaper than strain-specific assessment [26].
The second step involves the selection of a pure culture of the target strain(s) based on the desirable functions of biofer-
tilizers in the field, such as nutrient solubilization and mobilization, nitrogen-fixation, phytohormone production or a com-
bination of these functions. The suitability of selected strain(s) is further tested through various in vitro testing (Fig. 2),
including growth on selective media and quantitative testing to ascertain the level of potency [26]. Moreover, as part of the
selection process, the strains are tested in a greenhouse experiment to investigate their efficiency before field trial and ap-
plication [29,30]. This step also involves the analysis of the mechanisms and pathways by which the strains promote plant
growth. Molecular techniques, including genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics, together with culture-
based methods, have enabled a comparative analysis of plant growth-promoting ability of inoculant strains [31–34]. Such
knowledge can be harnessed in the formulation of biofertilizer that can perform optimally under diverse agricultural ecosys-
tems. For example, molybdenum is essential in N-fixation and could be added to the N-fixing inoculants for application in
molybdenum-deficient soils [26].
The third step, which involves the selection of suitable formulation materials, is essential in determining the form of the
products; either liquid or carrier-based such as granular, powder or slurry [29,35]. The carrier is vital for sustaining the mi-
crobes in a viable state and appropriate quantity [36]. The fourth step involves choosing a feasible propagation method for
the cultivation and multiplication of the selected strain(s) in the laboratory under optimal conditions to preserve the inher-
ent properties of the microbial strains for effective performance when used in the field. The optimal conditions are realised
by monitoring the microbial growth profile under different conditions. Usually, the multiplication of strains is accomplished
by using a conventional system of fermenters [37]. The two main types of fermentation employed in biofertilizer production
are the solid-state and submerged fermentation [37]. Prototyping is the fifth step and involves the testing of various forms
of products. This step guarantees the best type of product is selected for efficient performance in the field. Lastly, step six
is the testing of the products in the field on a large scale to finally determine the products’ actual efficiency and limitations
under diverse ecological regions and conditions before formalizing a standardized process for commercial production (Fig. 2)
[27,29].
Due to the obligate symbiotic nature of AM fungi, their recovery and multiplication techniques are usually different from
other microbes such as fungi and bacteria. AM fungi multiplication is achieved through monoxenic culture; a controlled
multiplication strategy where AM fungi are grown in a host plant [38]. For commercial production, the multiplication is
carried out under controlled conditions in a pot-house. This method allows for effective monitoring of spores and mycelia of
inoculum associated with host plant roots [39]. Soil nutrient conditions and a high-level synergy between the host and AM
fungi are critical considerations in AM fungi inoculum production. The host plant should have a good AM fungi colonization
affinity and must be able to grow in a short period with substantial root development [40]. The in vitro monoxenic culture,
under strictly controlled conditions, has the advantage of producing contaminant free propagules for biofertilizer production
[20].
Carrier materials
A major component of biofertilizer is the carrier material, which helps to preserve the microbial contents during pro-
duction and guarantees the delivery of a suitable quantity of viable microbes to the field [36,41]. Carrier materials occur
in the form of solids/tablets, granules, or powders. It may be organic, inorganic, or synthetic with appropriate physico-
chemical properties for maintaining the microbial strains in good physiological conditions under storage and on the field
[11]. The granular form (0.5–1.5 mm) of perlite, talcum powder, charcoal or soil aggregates is generally a suitable carrier for
biofertilizer production [42]. Similarly, sterilized oxalic acid industrial waste, fly ash, composted sawdust, kaolin, vermiculite,
diatoms, and wheat bran are other carriers used for biofertilizer production [16,43]. For liquid biofertilizers, apart from the
beneficial microbes and their biological secretions, the products also comprise unique cell protectants, which enhance the
formation of dormant spores or cysts [44]. Thus, products with cell protectants have a longer shelf life and improved field
effectiveness compared to carrier-based products [45]. Organic oils, water or water-in-oil emulsion, are widely used for liq-
uid biofertilizers [7]. Carrier materials must be cost-effective, non-toxic, readily available in abundant supply and easy to
apply [43]. Also, an acceptable carrier must have suitable pH buffering and high water-holding capacity and chemical and
physical uniformity to support the optimal growth of microbial species [11].
To ensure market sustainability, cheap carrier materials that guarantee a more affordable product for the farmers in
comparison to chemical fertilizers must be used for biofertilizer production [42]. Peat and bagasse, a waste product of sugar
cane, which is surplus in large quantities, are widely used as carrier materials [16,36,46]. Moreover, microbial biofilms, with
its extracellular polymeric substance adherent to inert or living surfaces, has been successfully used in inoculant formula-
tion. Many plant root and soil microbes produce biofilms that are useful resources in biofertilizer production [11,47]. For
example, the fungal-rhizobial biofilm formed from the combination of nitrogen-fixing rhizobial strains and fungal-bacterial
biofilms has potential in the production of biofilmed inoculants with applications in nitrogen-deficient soils and for biofer-
tilizers [47]. In addition, the use of bionanotechnologies could provide a novel means to develop carrier-based biofertilizers.
Nanoparticles are made of organic or inorganic materials having one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less
[48]. Hybrid systems formed from the combination of whole cells with nanostructures have several applications in various
4
fields, including biotechnology and agriculture [49]. An example is the fabricated macroscopic filters made of radially aligned
carbon nanotube walls, which can absorb Escherichia coli. Such technology can be used to recover bacterial cells during the
fermentation stage and deliver them to the field or plant [11].
The physicochemical and biological properties of carrier materials are well-known to influence biofertilizer quality
[45,50]. When these properties are not well maintained, possibly through inadequate packaging and poor storage condi-
tions, several quality issues may arise, such as contamination, reduced shelf life, poor field effectiveness etc. [37]. Microbial
contaminants have been a crucial challenge in biofertilizer quality, and to prevent this, sterilization of carrier materials has
become an essential process in biofertilizer production. Sterilization process supports a high number of target microbial
strains in the products for a longer period before use in the field [35]. The most commonly used methods of sterilization
are Gamma irradiation and autoclaving [26,51]. The autoclaving method is cost-effective and produces a pure culture of the
inoculant. However, Gamma irradiation is most suitable because it offers a better quality of the final materials without any
effect on the chemical and the physical properties of the products [35,51].
Biofertilizer production and application in different African regions
The production and application of commercial biofertilizer date back to 1895, while the first biofertilizer patent (no.
GB 189511460) was filed for registration in 1896 in the United Kingdom [52]. However, it is unclear when biofertilizers
were first introduced or used in Africa. According to literature, biofertilizer history could date back to 1952 when South
Africa first reported commercial biofertilizer [53]. On the contrary, a documented report on the large-scale afforestation of
pine in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) revealed that inoculants have been in use in Africa before 1928. Inoculated soil, most
probably with AM fungi, has been a major strategy for pine nursery development and thriving pine plantation for almost
a century in Africa (Southern Rhodesia Forestry Commission [54]). In 1923, the introduction of Pinus patula in Malawi had
failed consistently due to lack of inoculum until the application of mycorrhizal inoculated soil from Zimbabwe on the pine
plants (Street, 1962).
Despite the decades of existence and history of inoculants, its production and use in Africa is still at the pilot stage
[18,56]. In a bid to support research, development, and technological capability on biofertilizers, the United Nations Educa-
tional Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Agriculture (NifTAL) established
an initiative in applied microbiology and biotechnology amongst African regions in the 1980s. This initiative aimed at pro-
moting scientific cooperation between local institutions and regional professional bodies under the Microbiological Resource
Centres (MIRCENs) for biofertilizer production [46,57]. The N2Africa project, “putting nitrogen fixation to work for small-
holder farmers in Africa,” was established to support the production and use of rhizobia inoculants in Africa [57]. These
organizations are saddled with identifying challenges hindering inoculant development and deployment and promote re-
search targeted at solving such problems.
Similarly, the organizations are engaged in collecting, identifying, maintaining, testing, and distributing microbial cultures
suitable for crops in the region [58,59]. Despite several sponsored programs by international agencies (FAO, USAID, UNESCO,
IITA) to promote biofertilizers, its adoption is still very low, especially in Central and West Africa [21,56]. However, countries
such as Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe have some level of inoculant production and usage, though on a less
commercial level [60,61].
Southern Africa
The production and use of inoculants in Southern Africa is more pronounced in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, and South
Africa. Inoculation activities in Zambia date back to 1963 when Corby in 1963 carried out a study on soybean nodulation
efficiency with indigenous rhizobia and Bradyrhizobium japonicum inoculants [62]. Ten years later, a project on symbiotic N-
fixation in soybean and other grains and forage legumes began with field studies during the 1973/74 and 1974/75 seasons.
The report showed that the inoculated soybean yield increased by 93–102% (Zayed 1982 in Bala et al. [58]. This success
prompted a program on the commercialization of inoculants in 1976 at the Mount Makulu Research Station (MMRS) in
Zambia. However, the inoculum was not always available, especially in remote areas, and coupled with inadequate and
underdeveloped storage technologies; the product has witnessed low growth and demand [63]. Nevertheless, a naturally
nodule-forming soybean variety called “Nitrozam” was formulated to support smallholder farmers and to meet the demand
of upcoming soybean industries in Zambia and other African regions [64,65].
Despite biofertilizer production growth to about 16,0 0 0 kg yr−1 in the 1990s, production was still in the laboratory
without any advanced equipment [66]. However, to improve profitability and shelf life of products, cheap materials such
as molasses, which can reduce production cost by 85% over yeast extract medium, were preferred as broth for inoculant
production [44,58]. Under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with the University of Hawaii
NifTAL project in 1983, MMRS was funded and provided with technical assistance to improve the production, availability, and
efficiency of rhizobial biofertilizers in Zambia [64,67]. The team of Zambia biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) specialists was
also involved in this project to investigate the unique opportunity in BNF technology [67]. This support propelled a massive
increase in the inoculated soybean cultivation from 6550 ha in 1984 to 22,780 ha in 1992 with a substantial yield increase
of approximately 48%. Additionally, about 40,0 0 0 units of 250 g packets of Nitrozam sold at $2.5 each were produced during
5
this period. As of 1990, inoculant production has been moved from the MMRS to the Balmoral Veterinary Research Institute,
and production is based on pre-season orders. The products are sold by a marketing co-operative and seed company [67].
On the other hand, Zimbabwe has one of the largest biofertilizer production facilities in sub-Saharan Africa, located in the
Grasslands Research Institute, Marondera (Table 1) [64]. Though owned by the government, it is managed privately by the
Soil Productivity Research Laboratory (SPRL). With over 500 collections of rhizobial and bradyrhizobial strains, SPRL started
legume (mainly lucerne and clover) inoculant production in 1962. The soybean inoculant production using Bradyrhizobium
japonicum strain (MR1491 and 1495) commenced in 1967 [68]. To improve profitability, bagasse, a sugarcane waste, which
cost about US$700 per tonne, was used as the primary carrier material. Production mainly involves batch culture, using
single strain inoculum in a 4-step process involving carrier processing, inoculant-broth processing, inoculation of the carrier,
and finally, curing of inoculant bags and quality control [69]. As a result of the increase in the price of basal fertilizers and
commercial soybean seed, smallholders in Zimbabwe have increased the area of cultivation of promiscuous soybean [64].
In South Africa, the rapid commercial biofertilizer market expansion of 1952 necessitated an independent quality control
system. This body was established in the early 1970s, and in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, monitors the
quality of products sold to farmers [53]. Some quality parameters stipulated by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries for biofertilizer registration include six-month shelf life, maintenance of at least 5 × 108 rhizobial cells before the
expiration date, and the use of sterile peat as carrier material [53]. Collections of efficient microbial strains used for biofer-
tilizers are maintained at the Agricultural Research Council, Plant Protection Research Institute. There are many prominent
biofertilizer producers in South Africa. One of such is Soygro (Pty) Ltd based in Potchefstroom, which has been established
since 1988, producing major products such as Mazospirflo and Rhizostim (Azospirillum), Peanutflo and Soyflo (Bradyrhizo-
bium), and Nemablock [70,71]. The Mycoroot (Pty) Ltd is based in Rhodes and produces biofertilizer such as Mycoroot Super
Booster, Mycoroot Green, and Mycoroot SuperGro, while Amka Product (Pty) Ltd. produces Organico SuperGrow. Biological
Control Products SA (Pty) Ltd. based in Durban, was founded in 1995 and manufactures products including Soilfix, Com-
poster, Azo-N-Plus, Nat-P, and BioControl Rhizobia for soybean, lucerne, peanut, pea, and bean [2].
Although soil inoculants have been reportedly used for pine plantation since 1923 [55], the Thyolo field trial study on
soybean inoculated with Rhizobium in 1951 suggests biofertilizer activities were popular with soybean cultivation in Malawi
(Davis 1982 in Bala et al., 2011). In 1975, the Microbiology department of Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Lilongwe,
produced “Chitedze,” a commercial biofertilizer widely used for legume cultivation [21,64]. In 1976, the sales figure was
merely 22,400 g but rose significantly to 88,750 g in the 1987/1988 season at US$0.28 per 50 g sachet [72]. During the
1988/89 season, the inoculum price rose to US$ 0.56 for a 50 g sachet. The production that remained at 10,0 0 0 sachets
per annum in the early 20 0 0s increased to 15,0 0 0 sachets of 50 g unit in the 2012–2013 season. Also, soybean is usually
cultivated with SOY inoculant produced and sold at different Research Stations, including Chitedze, Bvumbwe, Lunyangwa,
Chitala, and Makoka [73]. According to Huising et al. [74], the estimated potential demand for inoculum in Malawi was
about 50,0 0 0 sachets. However, plans to increase production is hindered with different challenges, including product quality
control and limitation on biofertilizer importation [74]. To support inoculant development, the Agricultural Development Di-
vision in Malawi purchases products in bulk from the manufacturers and redistribute to smallholder farmers [72]. More so,
the public-private-partnership for inoculant production was established under the rural livelihood and economic develop-
ment program. These actions are welcoming strategies to boost production. Despite these, the use of inoculum has not been
encouraging due to quality control and extension service challenges. The collapse in the prices of crops such as soybeans
caused the low demand that negatively affected production [64].
Eastern Africa
In East Africa, Kenya has a better-developed production and use of biofertilizers amongst other countries. However, Tan-
zania, Uganda, Mozambique, and Rwanda have been reported in the literature on successful production and application of
inoculants [20,61]. The establishment of the MIRCEN laboratory at the University of Nairobi has been for over 30 years in
Kenya. UNESCO is funding the MIRCEN with the mandate to promote and transfer BNF technology to East African agricultural
stakeholders through inoculant production and distribution [59]. Kenya inoculant market has a major product called Biofix,
a rhizobial inoculant produced by MEA Fertilizers Ltd, Kenya and licensed by the University of Nairobi, MIRCEN [75,76].
Both parties produced about 3500 kg per year of Biofix in the 1990s. The product is so effective that 100 g of Biofix costing
about US$1.25 is adequate to inoculate up to 15 kg of common bean seeds per ha. This quantity is far less than 90 kg of
N fertilizer needed for the same amount of seeds per ha, which cost about US$12.50. However, Biofix inoculum, developed
since 1981, is still being underutilized in Kenya [21]. The low adoption is possibly due to a lack of awareness of biofertilizers
amongst farmers [75]. In a bid to increase sales and usage amongst smallholder farmers who need smaller quantities for
their small plots of land, products were made in 10 g, 20 g and 100 g packs, which can sufficiently inoculate 1 kg, 2 kg
and 10 kg of seeds, respectively [58]. As of 1990, 40% of total inoculants produced were used for common bean cultivation,
while 23%, 14% and 9% were for lucerne, soybean and tick clover, respectively [77]. Another important biofertilizer in Kenya
agromarket is KEFRIFIX, which is produced by the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) Biotechnology laboratory at the
Central Highland Ecoregion programme-Muguga. About 100 g of KEFRIFIX in 20 liters of water is enough to inoculate 10 0 0
seedlings. However, only 1% of farmers in Kenya use biofertilizers [69], and its production is yet to be fully commercial-
ized while products are exclusively produced and supplied on order. According to Masso [78], the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries have made some progress in developing the draft biofertilizer and soil conditioners bill.
6
A. Raimi, A. Roopnarain and R. Adeleke
Table 1
Challenges impeding inoculant production in Africa and possible solutions.
Region Country Institutions involved in inoculant production Challenges impeding inoculant development Possible Solution
• Lack of biofertilizer quality control system • Improvement of biofertilizer policy

Southern Africa Malawi Chitedze Agricultural Research Station,
• Limited capacity to expand production • Promoting and developing biofertilizer research
Lilongwe
• Lack of storage facilities • Government intervention through financial support
• Extension services challenges • Engaging agro-dealers to improve distribution

network
South Africa Agricultural Research Institute, and • Ineffective biofertilizer standards • Promote public-private-partnership for inoculant
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and • Extension services challenges production
Fisheries • Lack of farmers’ biofertilizer awareness
Zambia Mount Makulu Research Station (MMRS) and • Inadequate distribution network
Balmoral Veterinary Research Institute • Underdeveloped storage facilities
• Lack of advanced production technology
Zimbabwe Grasslands Research Institute, Marondera at • Lack of funds for the purchase of
Soil Productivity Research Laboratory (SPRL) equipment
• Inoculants are not easily accessible
• Low awareness amongst smallholder
7
farmers
• Lack of biofertilizer awareness • Promoting public-private partnership for inoculant
Eastern Africa Kenya MIRCEN, University of Nairobi and Kenya
Forestry Research Institute production
• Collaborations with developed countries to acquire
Tanzania The University of Dar-es-Salaam, and Sokoine • Inadequate funding
University of Agriculture • Lack of biofertilizer awareness novel biofertilizer development
• Investments in biofertilizer production facilities
• Inadequate extension services
• Expansion and commercialization of biofertilizer
Uganda Makerere University and Madhvani Sugar • Lack of biofertilizer awareness production
Company Ltd in Jinja • Inadequate experienced workforce • Building technical know-how and capacity
Rwanda Rwanda Agriculture Board • Inadequate production equipment

• Lack of qualified staff
• Unavailability of inoculant products
Mozambique International Institute of Tropical Agriculture • Lack of production facilities

(IITA) • Lack of well-developed distribution

network
• No regulatory framework
• Lack of agro-dealers in rural areas
(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued)
Region Country Institutions involved in inoculant production Challenges impeding inoculant development Possible Solution
• Inaccessibility to quality/varieties of • Government financial support

Central Africa Congo National Agricultural Research Institute,
• Formulation of efficient biofertilizer policy and
Catholic University of Bukavu, and the inoculant
University of Goma • Low awareness of biofertilizer usage regulatory framework
• Lack of regulatory framework • Improving extension services
• Development of an effective distribution network
Cameroon Biotechnology Centre, the University of • Lack of funding
Yaoundé and the Institute of Agricultural • Low biofertilizer awareness
Research and Development (IRAD) • Lack of regulatory framework on
biofertilizer
• Lack of comprehensive biofertilizer policy • Promoting, funding and developing biofertilizer
West Africa Nigeria International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA) and NAFDAC and regulations research
• Inadequate commercial inoculants • Collaborating with developed countries
• Low biofertilizer awareness amongst • Investing in biofertilizer technology

• Improving extension services and programs
farmers
• Inadequate research development • Development of biofertilizer distribution network
• Building workforce capacity
Senegal Microbiological Resource Centre, Dakar • No commercial production • Development for novel inoculant strains
8
• Lack of collaboration with other countries

• Inadequate biofertilizer technical
know-how
Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture • Lack of production facilities

• Lack of standards and quality control
regulations
• Inadequate funding
• Lack of experienced personnel
• Inadequate biofertilizer research • Improving on biofertilizer research
Northern Africa Egypt MIRCEN, faculty of Agriculture, Ain-Shams
• Development of efficient biofertilizer distribution
University, Cairo development
• Lack of awareness amongst smallholders network
• Improving awareness amongst smallholder farmers
Morocco Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II • Extension services challenges through extension services

Major challenges common to the regions include inadequate biofertilizer awareness amongst the smallholder farmers in the regions, lack of funding, non-commercialization of biofertilizer production, under-
developed distribution network and lack of biofertilizer standards and regulatory framework. These challenges can be mitigated by government intervention through deliberate funding of institutions involved
in the development and production of biofertilizers. Policies and regulations on biofertilizers should also be put in place by the concerned government institutions. More so, the encouraging of public-private
partnership can stimulate great investment in biofertilizer and cause an increase in product demand and supply.
In Tanzania, the FAO supported the rhizobial biofertilizer project in 1990 to establish efficient strains and fermenter
equipment for inoculant production at the University of Dar-es-Salaam. To increase the workforce, the University of Ni-
jmegen, Netherlands, also provided training support to Tanzanian microbiologists, especially at the postgraduate level at
the University of Dar-es-Salaam on Rhizobium inoculant research and development [61,79]. Major inoculants registered and
used in Tanzania include Biofix and Legumefix manufactured by MEA Fertilizer Ltd- Kenya and Legume Technology Ltd- UK.
Nitrosua is another major commercial biofertilizer developed at the Sokoine University of Agriculture to support soybean
and lucerne production. The product is a rhizobium inoculant made in sterile filter mud and packaged in 100 g units. The
inoculants were introduced to the farmers through the university’s extension services in partnership with the Ministry of
Agriculture and other private organizations [58,77].
For Uganda, the USAID-BNF project at Makerere University and Madhvani Sugar Company Ltd in Jinja are the two main
plants producing inoculants such as Bio-N-Fix [60]. These organizations were involved in a project sponsored by FAO in 1994,
which aimed to produce about 14.2 tonnes of soybean inoculants for distribution in Rwanda between 1995 and 1997. The
staff of these organisations was sent for highly specialized and intensive training courses in different institutions to increase
the workforce for N-fixation projects. The Uganda scientists were part of the MIRCEN regional collaborative network for
promoting BNF [59]. The products are made in 250 g unit packets for US$1 per unit. The carrier used for the inoculants was
sterile peat infused with Yeast Extract Mannitol Agar broth having viable microbial cells of at least 5 × 107 at manufacture
or 1 × 105 CFU/g at expiration, without contaminants [80]. In Uganda, 54% of the total inoculum production was for soybean
production, while the fast-growing N-fixing tree inoculants accounted for 34% [77]. Lack of awareness about biotechnology
and the small minority of scientists have hindered the rapid development of biofertilizers in Uganda (Table 1) [61].
In 1984, FAO also assisted the institute des Science Agronomique du Rwanda (now Rwanda Agriculture Board) to es-
tablish its inoculum production unit [57]. This unit produced over 2.4 tonnes of inoculants by the end of 1990 [81]. The
inoculum made into affordable packs of 40 g was adequate for 200 m2 of a soybean field. Unfortunately, the destruction of
all microbial strains and equipment during the Rwanda civil war in 1994 disrupted inoculum production. Subsequently, the
rehabilitation of the laboratory took place, as evidenced by the improved output recorded between 1995 and 2005. However,
after 2005, inadequate equipment and a lack of qualified staff affected production negatively [82].
Mozambique has low production and usage of biofertilizers, and most of the inoculants are imported due to a lack of
production facilities. According to Huising et al. [74], Mozambique imported about 1800 kg of inoculants in the 2012 −2013
season, mainly from Kenya, Argentina, South Africa, Canada, and Brazil. During field trials of different peat-based inoculants
in 2013, two imported products, Biagro and Biofix, were found to produce higher yield across all sites consistently. Also,
the Platform Mozambique projects, with the support of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and N2Africa, are the fore-
most organisations involved in developing, disseminating, and promoting BNF technology, especially for soybean production
amongst farmers [83]. In Mozambique, there is no well-developed biofertilizer distribution network, and the insufficient
agro-dealers to cover remote places has caused a shortage of inoculum supplies to the rural areas. The rise in soybean pro-
duction drives the increase in inoculum demand and supply. Thus, there is a need for government interventions such as
financial support to acquire equipment and for the development of institutions involved in the business of biofertilizer pro-
duction. More so, biofertilizer regulations and policies must be developed to support private sector participation to improve
biofertilizer production in Mozambique [74].
Central Africa
In Congo, the National Agricultural Research Institute (INERA), the Catholic University of Bukavu, and the University of
Goma are the local partners involved in the N2Africa project, “putting nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers in
Africa.” The project’s central vision as of 2013 centers on improving grain legume (groundnut, cowpea, soybean, and common
bean) yield by 950 kg/ha, increasing BNF by 46 kg/ha and the average family income by US$465 per annum [76,83]. One
of the products adopted and introduced to over 17,0 0 0 smallholder farmers in the Eastern DR Congo, North and South
Kivu provinces, is Rhizobium inoculant. The use of rhizobial inoculant improved soybean yield by about 500 kg/ha in South
Kivu. The harvest is a substantial profit when the cost of investment, about US$5–10 per 1 kg (at 600 g/ha) of inoculant, is
compared to the price of soybean yield at US$1 for 1 kg. The increase in soybean plant biomass, about 400 kg/ha/season
when Rhizobium inoculum was applied, caused a rise in animal feed, which triggered increased beef and dairy production
amongst farmers. However, to increase biofertilizer usage in Congo, future interventions should be on easy access to high-
quality inoculant varieties and training of farmers on the correct use of biofertilizers [83].
In a review by Romberger and Mikola, [54], the use of biofertilizers in Cameroon was evident from the report of the
supply of mycorrhizal inoculum from a Pinus patula plantation in Bamenda, Southern Cameroon to Jos, Nigeria in 1954 and
1956. Pinus patula and P. radiata were grown with the inoculum in Jos pine nursery. However, there is no evidence of the
commercial production of inoculum, and there are no comprehensive regulatory framework and quality control strategies
in place. In literature, there have been reports of laboratory production of rhizobium biofertilizers in Cameroon. According
to Ngakou et al. [84], efficient rhizobia strains selected during a study were used for rhizobial biofertilizer production for
legume cultivation. Moreover, the soil microbiology Laboratory in the Biotechnology Centre of the University of Yaoundé
and the Institute of Agricultural Research and Development (IRAD) have in-stock collections of beneficial strains and other
facilities for biofertilizer production [84].
9
Western Africa
Inoculant application amongst the farmers in West Africa is not common except for some field research experiments. The
low usage may be connected to the lack of intensive livestock and commercial soybean production in West Africa [85]. In
Nigeria, inoculant application could be traced to the pine trial experiments at Miango plantation in Jos. The Pinus oocarpa
at the plantation was inoculated with soil samples imported from England in 1952 [86]. Similarly, in 1959, mycorrhizal
inoculated soil was imported from Zambia and used on a Pinus khasya seedling in a nursery in Jos [86,87]. Despite evidence
of some sort of application since 1952, biofertilizer production and usage have remained underdeveloped in Nigeria.
However, due to the increasing demand for legume produce in West Africa, the International Institute of Tropical Agri-
culture (IITA) in Nigeria developed an efficient rhizobium inoculant called Nodumax, suitable for legume cultivation [88].
Legume cultivation has been given a lot of awareness amongst the sub-Saharan African farmers, not only for its nutritional
impacts but also for its ability to fix atmospheric N and improve soil quality. A review of the literature suggests other in-
oculants used in Nigeria include Histick, TSBF mixture, Legumefix, IRJ 2180A [89], and Bradyrhizobium spp. (RACA 6), AMF
(Rhizatech) and Trichoderma harzianm (Eco-T) [90]. These products were mentioned and used in different field studies in
northern Nigeria. Yusuf et al. [91] investigated two biofertilizers, Biofix and Vault, in a field experiment and found Biofix
is highly efficient. According to Huising et al. [74], Nigeria’s potential demand for biofertilizer stands at 50 0,0 0 0 g under
soybean cultivation. With 600 g of biofertilizer per ha at US$2.50 per 100 g pack, a total value of US$7.5 million in inoc-
ulant could be required. Presently, comprehensive regulation and quality control strategies for inoculants are not in place.
However, in collaboration with the COMPRO II project, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control
(NAFDAC) is developing registration guidelines and quality control structures for biofertilizers in Nigeria [74,78].
In Senegal, the Microbiological Resource Centre in Dakar is one of the major organizations involved in inoculum research,
conducting field trials on legumes (Table 1) [58,77]. The biofertilizers are developed for application in Middle East soils [92].
Although inoculants have been in existence for over 30 years in Senegal, production has remained on an exceedingly small
scale with no indication of interest for large-scale production. Under the village-based science education activities, about
330 farmers were educated on societal and ecological benefits of BNF technology to improve awareness and application of
biofertilizers amongst farmers [66,92]. The lack of collaborations with the private sectors and inadequate information and
technical know-how and unsuitable socioeconomic conditions may have contributed to the low development of biofertilizers
[92]. However, the French Institute of Scientific Research for Cooperative Development laboratory situated in Dakar special-
izes in legume-rhizobium symbioses and Frankia spp., with the main aim of finding the most effective symbiotic associations
with Casuarina and Allocasuarina genotypes micropropagated in vitro [58].
Comparable to other West African countries, Ghana biofertilizer industry is underdeveloped with no record of commercial
production or facilities in place except for research purposes. Inoculants sold in the country are imported. Under different
research collaboration programs, especially with N2Africa, about 590 kg of inoculants were imported from Legume Technol-
ogy Ltd. in the UK [74]. Presently, there are no standards or quality control regulations available for use. This situation and
other factors, including inadequate funding and lack of equipment and experienced personnel, hindered biofertilizer devel-
opment [78]. However, the Plant Protection & Regulatory Services department, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), is
developing a regulatory framework on Fertilizer quality control, which will include biofertilizers [78]. In addition, the MoFA,
in conjunction with COMPRO II, is developing and implementing registration guidelines [74]. Mensah et al. reported that
the SOPs for testing biofertilizers, including sampling, laboratory, greenhouse, field safety, and quality procedures, have been
developed and the validation is ongoing by Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology [78].
Northern Africa
Biofertilizer production in Egypt has been well-supported by the Biotechnology MIRCEN located at the faculty of Agricul-
ture, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, since 1978. Being one of the four MIRCENs established in Africa, this institution has the
responsibilities of research and training activities for Arab and North African countries. In 1980, a biofertilizer unit was es-
tablished as part of Cairo MIRCEN to conduct culture isolation, collection, and research for the development and production
of biofertilizer [93]. According to Mulongoy et al. [94], the retail price of rhizobial biofertilizer for farmers expressed on a
one ha basis was said to be US$1.7 in Egypt. This price is subsidized by the government, being below the actual cost of pro-
duction. More so, the ministry of agriculture in Egypt has a program that supports the production of adequate Cyanobacteria
biofertilizer for over 40,0 0 0 ha in rice cultivation [93].
In Morocco, biofertilizers have been used in many trial studies, mainly on legumes such as soybean, common bean,
and lentil [95,96]. The Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II co-ordinates biofertilizer research through the Soil
Microbiology Laboratory, which focuses on the ecology and characterization of the natural population of Rhizobium. More-
over, the institute investigates the possibility of producing new N-fixing trees and using inoculum for improving the yields
of major grains and fodder legumes [93]. Presently, there are some inoculum production companies in Morocco. One of
such is Elephant Vert Maroc, which invested over 850 million Dirhams in production between 2012 and 2017. The com-
pany has two production units in Meknes and produces about 50,0 0 0 tons of biofertilizer per year. Products manufac-
tured include fungal- and bacterial-based biofertilizers such as Fertinova and Novastim, rich in naturally sourced nutrients
(http://en.elephant-vert.com/ ).
10
Biofertilizer quality standards in Africa
Biofertilizer quality control is faced with many challenges, such as inadequate biofertilizer knowledge, lack of production
facilities and the absence of universal biofertilizer quality standards [97,98]. Interestingly, international bodies, including the
European Union and the United States have not established global standards for quality control of biofertilizers; thus, het-
erogeneous standards originating from different national regulations are on the rise [19,97]. This challenge has affected the
development of standardized legal definitions of biofertilizers in Africa. Unlike the United States, Canada, Denmark, India and
China, many African countries have quality guidelines and regulatory frameworks that are not comprehensive or still being
drafted [23]. Although Kenya and Uganda have somewhat similar quality parameters with India (Table 2), this is still in the
draft form [80,99]. Thus, the establishment of adequate policies, guidelines and quality control management through gov-
ernment interventions are suitable strategies common to all African regions for improving biofertilizer production (Table 1).
Generally, biofertilizer quality is dependant on the viability and population of microbial strains in the product as well as
the properties of carrier materials used for product formulation [11,26]. The parameters that define biofertilizer quality are
specified by legislation and vary from one country to another [100]. These parameters include the microbial type and density
at the time of production, product shelf life, level of contaminants and physicochemical properties of the carrier material
[26]. Similarly, China has established eight main parameters including particle size, organic matter content, appearance,
moisture content, pH, expiry date, the level of contaminants and quantity of live microbial cells [97,101].
Inoculum viability and efficiency character
The stipulated number of viable cells for a product differs with microbial types (Table 2). For bacteria, it ranges from >
1 × 108 CFUmL−1 for liquid and > 5 × 107 CFUg−1 for solid products [102]. However, for mycorrhiza, at least 100 viable
propagules per gram of the product is considered satisfactory [101]. A major technique for maintaining microbial viability is
the use of a mother culture from a single source. The mother culture must be preserved on culture media and refrigerated;
avoiding regular subculturing to minimize genetic damage, which may cause loss of plant growth-promoting capability [26].
Another important quality parameter that needs to be considered is the microbial efficiency character (Table 2). N-fixing
rhizobacteria, especially the symbiotic Rhizobium, must show effective nodulation on its host root. At the same time, Azo-
tobacter, Azospirillum, phosphate solubilising and mycorrhizal products should have the respective effective capability in the
field (Table 2) [41,101]. To maintain the microbial viability during storage, the products should have organic matter content
not less than 20% whether it is a solid or liquid product and at least a 6-month shelf-life [36,51].
Biofertilizer storage
Generally, storage conditions such as temperature, humidity and sunlight intensity affect microbial survival, carrier mate-
rial properties, biological effectiveness as well as the storage life of the products [45]. For field effectiveness, sufficiently high
numbers of viable cells must be present in the biofertilizer during storage [41]. Thus, maintaining a proper storage practice
is a measure towards achieving the desired quality product that promises success in biofertilizer usage. For better quality
and longer shelf life, biofertilizers must be stored in a cool place, preferably in a refrigerator. It has been suggested that the
best storage temperature for optimal efficiency and extended shelf life is 4 °C [103,104]. According to Phiromtan et al. [105],
the optimum storage temperature for Azotobacter venelandi NDD-CK-1 for as long as 90 days was observed to be 5 °C, sug-
gesting storage at a low temperature allows for a longer shelf life of inoculum. On the contrary, Kaljeet et al. [41] found that
Burkholderia spp. stored for two months at 28 °C had better viable growth than when stored at 4 °C, suggesting 28 °C is the
optimal temperature for the tested rhizobia. However, suppose inoculum stored at 4 °C was to be used, it must be incubated
at 26 °C for at least seven days to initiate microbial multiplication to reach the required viable cell amount. Storage is thus
crucial in maintaining biofertilizer stability and quality. End-users should be aware of this and follow the manufacturers’
instructions on storage conditions [105].
The world biofertilizer market and the opportunities for African countries
The increasing concern for sustainable agriculture and environmental management has triggered growing attention for
biofertilizer usage, thus causing an increased momentum in the biofertilizer market in many parts of the world, especially
in developed countries [106]. A sudden increase in biofertilizer demand has been reported in Spain, Italy, and Germany
[107]. In 2016, the global biofertilizer market was valued at US$1.06 million and estimated to worth US$2 billion in 2019.
Presently, the market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 11.2% from 2020 to 2025 and reach over
US$3.8 billion by 2025 [18]. The global increase in demand has been greatly influenced by the current growing demand for
organic products. Being an economical and safe technology, biofertilizers are appropriate for African countries where cheap
labour abounds, and agrochemical inputs are costly and not readily available [2,8].
The biofertilizer market is categorized into different classes based on product form, types, crop species, microbial strains,
and application methods. There are two primary forms, the carrier-based, and the liquid biofertilizers. In 2019, the liquid
products accounted for a significant value share due to its higher shelf-life and affordability compared to carrier-based prod-
ucts [18]. Also, liquid products are more convenient and have a better tolerance ability under adverse conditions. The major
11
Table 2
Parameters for biofertilizer quality.
INDIAN BIOFERTILIZER SPECIFICATION KENYAN BIOFERTILIZER SPECIFICATION
Parameter Rhizobium Azotobacter Azospirillum PSB Mycorrhiza Rhizobium Azotobacter Azospirillum PSB Mycorrhiza
Base Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier- Carrier-
based based based based based based based based based based
Viable cell, 5 × 107 5 × 107 5 × 107 5 × 107 At least 5 × 107 5 × 105 5 × 107 107 At least
CFU cell/g 100 100
propag- propag-
ules/g ules/g
pH solid 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.0–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.5–7.5
Particle 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 90% should 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 0.15–0.212 90% should
Size (mm) pass pass
12
through through
0.25mm 0.25 mm
Moisture 30–40% 30–40% 30–40% 30–40% 8–12% 40–50% 30–40% 30–40% 30–40% 8–12%
content
Efficiency Positive N- fixation White >30% P- 80 Effective N-fixation White >30% P- 80
character nodulation > 10 mg/g pellicle in Solubilisa- infection nodulation >10 mg/g pellicle in Solubilisation infection
of sucrose semisolid tion & points in of sucrose semisolid points in
N-free bro- 5 mm halo test roots/g N-free bro- test roots/g
mothymol zone on of mothymol of
blue media 3 mm thick inoculum blue media inoculum
media
Both countries have a product shelf life of at least six months from the day of manufacture for solid products stored under room temperature. For liquid products, the total
viable cells should be at least 108 CFU/mL, and the pH is 6.5–7.5 and 5.0–7.5 for India and Kenya, respectively. The level of contaminants should be nil at 105 dilution while
there should be no presence of pathogens. PSB is phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer [99,102].

biofertilizer types include the N-fixing, phosphate solubilizing, potash mobilizing, amongst others (including zinc, boron,
and sulfur-solubilizing) [13,28]. In 2012, the N-fixing biofertilizers accounted for about 80% of the global demand, and over
70% of the global revenue [108]. The N-fixing biofertilizers boost soil N supply amongst the famous leguminous and non-
leguminous crops, supplying plant hormones and influencing the soil microbial population and diversity, suggesting the
market for N-fixing biofertilizers will continue to grow in the global market [18]. However, the recent biofertilizer forecast
has favoured the phosphate-solubilizing biofertilizers to witness the fastest growth due to their ability to make soil P avail-
able and because of their cost-effectiveness and multifunctional attributes as biocontrol agents. Based on crop types, cereals
and grains, pulses and oilseed, fruit and vegetables, and others comprising turf and ornaments, plantation crops, fibre spices,
silage, and forage crops are the major market groups [109,110].
Based on microbial strains, the market comprises of Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, and Cyanobacteria. Others in-
clude mobilizing and solubilizing microbes such as Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Klebsiella, and AM fungi [13,28]. Biofertilizers are
also grouped by seed, soil, root dipping, and foliar application methods [11,15]. Additionally, the market has been seg-
mented into regions of the world, including North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Rest of the World (RoW).
Uninterestingly, Africa is grouped amongst the RoW with the lowest application of biofertilizers, approximately 5%. Asia,
North America, and Europe being the top consumers, have stringent regulations in place to promote the development of
the biofertilizer market [110]. Africa should learn from this and establish stringent policies and regulatory frameworks to
improve the biofertilizer market and support sustainable and eco-friendly technology [23].
Challenges in the use and development of biofertilizers in Africa
The low biofertilizer development and application amongst African farmers have been attributed to different challenges.
Though some of the challenges with possible solutions are already presented in Table 1, this section further highlights
a few of them with some more details. According to Sommer et al. [111], inadequate financing was a major factor that
contributed to the ineffectiveness in the operation of the African fertilizer financing mechanism in Cameroon, leading to
poor performance on biofertilizer production. Many African countries lack sufficient funding and technical know-how for
the acquisition of core technologies crucial for biofertilizer production [61,63]. Important technologies such as formula-
tion technologies, fermenters, storage facilities and sterilization equipment, which are capital intensive and mostly sourced
from developed countries are not available in most African countries [78,83]. More so, developed countries have differ-
ent inhibitory trade mechanisms such as countervailing duties, administrative red tape and customs for many classes of
goods that are substantially large and affect technology acquisition in Africa. Thus, without a better trading opportunity
for African countries, trust in the global market will continue to wane and may hinder the wider application of emerging
technologies [63].
Furthermore, the diverse plant species, ecological adaptability, and microbial strain efficiency are part of the factors af-
fecting biofertilizer usage [112]. The variability encountered in the efficacy of biofertilizers during field application has been
attributed to the poor performance of inoculum against native strains [39,100]. Therefore, biofertilizer formulation strategy
must be improved. Due to a lack of private sector involvement, the commercialization of biofertilizers in Africa has suffered
a setback [8,113], suggesting why African agromarkets are full of imported products which are mostly non-specific to local
crops and ecological conditions. In this instance, quality is usually compromised, and efficiency may be affected when im-
ported products are used on indigenous soil [24,100]. According to Oloke and Odeyemi [114], the indigenous Bradyrhizobium
from Nigerian soil was more efficient with a significant yield improvement over the imported Bradyrhizobium inoculants
when used on three cowpea cultivars. Moreover, biofertilizer importation contributes to trade deficits in Africa. For exam-
ple, Kenya has been reported to spend over 30% of its foreign exchange on fertilizer importation annually [21]. The trade
deficit is a major challenge that has adversely affected the African economy, buttressing the need to develop African biofer-
tilizer industry.
Other important factors affecting biofertilizer usage and development include handling and storage conditions. Generally,
a lower temperature is recommended for biofertilizer storage for longer shelf life [44,101]. However, the storage condition
at 4 °C using refrigerators cannot be adequately maintained in Africa where average farmers are constrained financially,
the electricity supply is erratic, and the temperature could be as high as 32–40 °C. These conditions cannot support effi-
cient biofertilizer storage and may have contributed to the substandard products found in countries such as Ghana, Nigeria,
Ethiopia, and Kenya [17].
Also, poor awareness affects the level of biofertilizer acceptance and usage amongst African farmers. Khonje [72] in a
study reported that many, including researchers and extension officers, are not well informed about the benefits of biofer-
tilizers in Malawi, which negatively affected the awareness of farmers on the technology. More so, inadequate technical
expertise on the application of biofertilizers with other farm management strategies could hinder the field efficiency of
biofertilizers [26]. Irrigation, crop types, agrochemical inputs, soil and environmental conditions affect biofertilizer success in
the field [17], implying adequate information and expertise about the agronomic application of biofertilizers in the African
context is vital. For example, MIRCEN in Kenya and Senegal are emphasising research and training in the production of
biofertilizers while East and West Africa are engaging in studies on BNF [66]. This program should further be intensified
and extended to other regions, as more research studies are required to experience the full benefit of biofertilizer.
13
Future actions and research for promoting biofertilizer development
In Africa, the limited participation of the private sector and the low level of government support in the production and
distribution of biofertilizer have negatively affected biofertilizer technology [109]. Despite Rhizobium inoculants being in
existence for over a century, African countries still produce at pilot scale, mostly for research purposes, with no strategy
to promote commercial production [58]. In countries such as China, the United States, Canada and Australia, Rhizobium
inoculants are widely used in the cultivation of pasture legumes for intensive livestock production. This practice should be
encouraged in African livestock farming to increase output while also expanding the use of biofertilizers beyond cropping
[85].
Biofertilizer quality management is essential during production and must be maintained continually in favour of farmers
[24]. Concerned institutions must regularly perform stringent monitoring with periodic checks so that product quality, at
any time, is maintained within the specified standards, without compromise [22,113]. Putting into practice the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards during the production process is important and will substantially impact
the quality assurance and product quality, positively. Importantly, an independent monitoring body should be put in place
to inspect and verify that the stipulated operative procedures are judiciously followed and met by manufacturers during
production [101]. Promoting the use of biofertilizers is essential for its adoption. The MIRCEN and the N2Africa have the
mandate to advance and transfer biofertilizer technology to all stakeholders within African regions [115]. Rhizobial collec-
tions (local and imported) consisting of over 250 strains are maintained at the MIRCEN centre in Kenya and distributed
to other countries. Replicating this promotion and marketing concept in all regions of Africa will contribute to biofertilizer
development. However, the marketing channels for biofertilizers in Africa have remained insufficient and inefficient, making
it challenging to promote the products to many other regions, especially the rural farmers [19,21]. Hence, good infrastruc-
ture, marketing channels and strategy development will improve the African biofertilizer market and subsequently promote
awareness, acceptability, and usage amongst African farmers [21].
The agricultural scientists and institutions saddled with the responsibility of educating farmers should, as a matter of ur-
gency and necessity, improve awareness amongst farmers and stakeholders through different facilitating media and research
collaborations [19,21]. Thus, efficient extension services, private sector participation, and government subsidy intervention
are key strategies [46]. Also, funding is considered critical in the commercialization and adoption of biofertilizers. Foreign
bodies supported many known activities on biofertilizers in Africa, and as soon as the external funding is withdrawn, the
activities ended [58]. African government should intensify on financing biofertilizer technology and deliberately formulate
policies to support its development [21]. A proposed model for improving biofertilizer quality, development and adoption in
Africa is presented in Fig. 3.
According to Masso et al. [22], partnerships with national monitoring institutions in the target nations to implement sus-
tainable biofertilizer legislation through a customer-paid certification procedure are essential. Programs such as workshops,
training, and seminars on quality standards and operating procedures are vital for improving biofertilizer development [98].
Apart from the need for policy formulation, establishing an independent quality control laboratory (Fig. 3) with the man-
date and capacity to analyse biofertilizers to guarantee product credibility has been suggested [74,78]. Similarly, to improve
awareness and build capacity in different academic and related institutions, the educational curriculum must include quality
control concepts. The economic analysis of biofertilizer quality assessment must also be investigated to advise the govern-
ment, regulatory institutions and agencies during customer-paid services development [22].
Investments in current and future technologies, as well as research and development, are key to the formulation and
production of novel biofertilizers. For instance, the selection of efficient microbes with unique traits such as high sensitivity
to desiccation and the ability to grow under extreme temperatures could lead to novel formulations [38]. More so, the plant
growth-promotion profiles and microbial ecology of inoculant strains have been shown to define the possible field functions
of the strains and if they are phyllosphere or rhizosphere competent [8,117]. Thus, formulation technologies could be used to
produce a specific product unique for a particular field function in a certain environment. It can also be used for improving
delivery, colonization, and establishment of inoculants in the rhizosphere or phyllosphere [38]. Related to formulation is the
delivery system used for transferring beneficial strains to the agricultural field. A good delivery system must have the ability
to improve the cost-effectiveness, applicability, and efficacy of the product. Thus, research to obtain such a quality delivery
system is important [11,38].
It is critical to identify the challenges affecting the production and adoption of biofertilizers and then promote research
and strategy to address such problems. For instance, the field efficiency of biofertilizers is affected by types of crop species,
diverse soil-nutrient complexity and climatic conditions. Thus, studies on appropriate biofertilizers will best be handled by
agronomists that understand the interrelationship between crops, nutrients, and climatic conditions in the African context
[21]. Another important phase of research is to develop proficient microbial strains which have better host colonization po-
tential, excellent field success, and ability to outcompete indigenous strain(s) in the field [35,114]. Most cultivated legumes
in Africa have a high affinity to associate with indigenous microbial strains compared to exotic strain(s) whose colonization
is usually less effective [118]. Thus, formulation using local strains with high field efficiency is key. Similarly, the develop-
ment of multi-strain consortia biofertilizers is key to achieving effective field functions. According to Frey-Klett et al. [119], a
combination of AM fungi and rhizobia is more efficient than maintaining the inoculum separately. A study also reported that
bean inoculant made from Rhizobium etli, R. tropici, and Azospirillum brasilense produced more nodules than bean inoculum
with a single microbe [11]. Moreover, genomic engineering technologies could be used for manipulating naturally occurring
14
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a proposed model for improved biofertilizer production and adoption in Africa. Government, private institutions, manufactur-
ers, stakeholders and end-users play a pivotal role in driving the success of the model. More so, the acquisition of advanced and core technologies relating
to formulation, efficient microbes, storage equipment, and field applications is essential. This model may reduce, if not eliminate, the proliferation of sub-
standard products in Africa if adopted. However, success can only be fully realized if all the different parts of the structure are effectively implemented.
Adapted from Kennedy [116].
beneficial microbes with desired genes to provide an enhanced expression of biofertilisation functions, and subsequently,
facilitate the production of better strains with multiple field functions [120,121]. Additionally, several biological substances
could be added to biofertilizers to improve product stability, shelf life and field efficiency [122]. For example, biological
substances such as flavonoids, strigolactones, and polysaccharides can improve symbiotic associations in AM fungi and host
plants as well as in Rhizobium during nodule formation [123,124]. Several of such compounds need to be investigated for
better product formulation.
Biofertilizer application needs to be optimized alongside other agronomic practices such as crop rotation, organic and
inorganic amendments, tillage and irrigation to improve its agronomic efficacy [94]. The knowledge of the dynamics of
the inoculum in the field under various agronomic practices could lead to the development of an appropriate biofertil-
izer for different physiological stages of crops and farming practices [125]. More so, the possibility of using other bene-
ficial microbes such as nematodes, protozoa, and yeast should be investigated. Although these organisms are historically
known for their plant growth-promoting ability, their potentials are yet to be realized in biofertilizers. Finally, private orga-
nizations, farmers, manufacturers, and importantly, government institutions and agencies in Africa should synergize on the
way forward in the commercialization and the ultimate realization of the enormous economic benefits of biofertilizers in
Africa [21,23].
15
Conclusion
While many developed nations have realized the importance of biofertilizers in sustainable agriculture, there is still low
production, awareness and adoption of biofertilizers amongst African countries. Thus, biofertilizer application should be en-
couraged amongst African farmers, especially in combating food insecurity and soil fertility challenges. To guarantee the
acceptability and effectiveness of biofertilizers, product quality is essential. Importantly, only an effective quality control
system coupled with standard regulations and guidelines will promote biofertilizer uptake in Africa. Unfortunately, most
African countries lack the regulatory framework, which would have triggered biofertilizer development. Thus, the develop-
ment of stringent policies, rules, and regulations to drive biofertilizer development is clearly a matter of urgency for the
African government.
The African government must promote biofertilizer development through a deliberate investment in the industry and
research facilities. Investments in current and future technologies are critical for the development and success of biofer-
tilizers in Africa. Importantly, African farmers must be supported financially through biofertilizer subsidy and agricultural
credit programs. These actions will attract private and foreign investors, champion effective marketing strategy, and im-
prove production and demand of biofertilizers amongst African nations. Furthermore, through adequate training, effective
extension programs and public- private partnerships, the adoption and application of biofertilizers can be improved. There
should be collaborations between government agencies and private-sector companies and between African countries and
other developed nations with well-developed biofertilizer technology. The aforementioned strategies will encourage a sys-
tematic regulation of biofertilizer commercialisation, and the production of quality biofertilizers that are well accepted and,
consequently, launch African countries into a wealth of productivity.
In addition, a major research focus should be on how to improve the field efficiency of biofertilizers through research
development. New insights into the mechanisms and uniqueness of plant growth promotion of beneficial microbes may
help redefine their special application and maximize the intrinsic potentials in the soil and plant microbiome. The microbial
communities associated with plants have been established to play key roles in mediating plant growth and development.
Therefore, the ability to influence these functions for improved plant productivity and health is clearly a research focus that
should be given more attention. The discovery and development of efficient inoculant strains, which can perform under
diverse field conditions with various plant species and having a myriad of agronomic benefits is key to the development of
novel biofertilizers.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) [grant numbers 116251 and 121924].
References
[1] H.C.J. Godfray, J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, C. Toulmin, Food security: the challenge
of the present, Geoforum 91 (2018) 73–77, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.030.
[2] A. Raimi, R. Adeleke, A. Roopnarain, Soil fertility challenges and Biofertiliser as a viable alternative for increasing smallholder farmer crop productivity
in sub-Saharan Africa, Cogent Food Agric 9 (2017) 1–26, doi:10.1080/23311932.2017.1400933.
[3] P.J. Gregory, J.S.I. Ingram, M. Brklacich, Climate change and food security, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360 (2005) 2139–2148, doi:10.1098/rstb.
2005.1745.
[4] K. Tully, C. Sullivan, R. Weil, P. Sanchez, The State of soil degradation in sub-Saharan Africa: baselines, trajectories, and solutions, Sustain 7 (2015)
6523–6552, doi:10.3390/su7066523.
[5] K.M.A. Rahman, D. Zhang, Effects of fertilizer broadcasting on the excessive use of inorganic fertilizers and environmental sustainability, Sustainability
10 (2018) 1–15, doi:10.3390/su10030759.
[6] S. Savci, An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 3 (2012) 77–80, doi:10.7763/ijesd.2012.v3.191.
[7] P. García-fraile, E. Menéndez, R. Rivas, Role of bacterial biofertilizers in agriculture and forestry, Bioengineering 2 (2015) 183–205, doi:10.3934/bioeng.
2015.3.183.
[8] R.A. Adeleke, B. Nunthkumar, A. Roopnarain, L. Obi, Applications of plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecosystem, in: V. Kumar, R. Prasad, M. Kumar,
D.K. Choudhary (Eds.), Microbiome Plant Heal. Dis, Springer Nature, Singapore, 2019, pp. 1–34, doi:10.1007/978- 981- 13- 8495- 0_1.
[9] D.C. Suyal, R. Soni, S. Sai, R. Goel, Microbial inoculants as biofertilizer, in: D.P. Singh, H.B. Singh, R. Prabha (Eds.), Microb. Inoculants Sustain. Agric.
Product., Vol 1, Springer, New Delhi, 2016, pp. 311–318, doi:10.1007/978- 81- 322- 2647- 5.
[10] J.K. Vessey, Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers, Plant Soil 255 (2003) 571–586, doi:10.1023/A:1026037216893.
[11] E. Malusà, L. Sas-Paszt, J. Ciesielska, Technologies for beneficial microorganisms inocula used as biofertilizers, Sci. World J. (2012) (2012) 1–12, doi:10.
1100/2012/491206.
[12] R.A. Adeleke, A.R. Raimi, A. Roopnarain, S.M. Mokubedi, Status and prospects of bacterial inoculants for sustainable management of agroecosystems,
in: B. Giri, R. Prasad, Q.-S. Wu, A. Varma (Eds.), Biofertilizers Sustain. Agric. Environ., Soil Biolo, Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 137–172, doi:10.1007/
978- 3- 030- 18933- 4_7.
[13] L. Thomas, I. Singh, Microbial biofertilizers: types and applications, in: B. Giri, R. Prasad, Q. Wu, A. Varma (Eds.), Biofertilizers Sustain. Agric. Environ.,
Vol 55, Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, 2019, pp. 109–135, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 030- 18933- 4_1.
[14] P. García-Fraile, E. Menéndez, R. Rivas, Role of bacterial biofertilizers in agriculture and forestry, AIMS Bioeng. 2 (2015) 183–205, doi:10.3934/bioeng.
2015.3.183.
[15] T.E. Lawal, O.O. Babalola, Relevance of Biofertilizers to Agriculture, J. Hum. Ecol. 47 (2014) 35–43, doi:10.1080/09709274.2014.11906737.
16
[16] M.S. Santos, M.A. Nogueira, M. Hungria, Microbial inoculants: reviewing the past, discussing the present and previewing an outstanding future for
the use of beneficial bacteria in agriculture, AMB Express 9 (2019) 1–22, doi:10.1186/s13568- 019- 0932.
[17] E. Malusà, F. Pinzari, L. Canfora, Efficacy of biofertilizers: challenges to improve crop production, in: D.P. SIngh, H.B. Singh, R. Prabha (Eds.), Microb.
Inoculants Sustain. Agric. Product., Vol. 2, Springer, FuNew Delhi, 2016, pp. 1–308, doi:10.1007/978- 81- 322- 2644- 4.
[18] Markets and Markets, Biofertilizer Market by Form (Liquid, Carrier-Based), Mode of Application (Soil Treatment, Seed Treatment), Crop Type, Type
(Nitrogen-Fixing, Phosphates Solubilizing and Mobilizing, Potash Solubilizing and Mobilizing), Region-Global Forecast to 2025, 2019. https://www.
marketsandmarkets.com/Market- Reports/compound- biofertilizers- customized- fertilizers- market- 856.html (Accessed 01 September 2020).
[19] C. Masso, J.R.A. Ochieng, B. Vanlauwe, Worldwide contrast in application of bio-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : lessons for sub-saharan Africa,
J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 5 (2015) 34–51.
[20] R.W. Mukhongo, J.B. Tumuhairwe, P. Ebanyat, A.H. AbdelGadir, M. Thuita, C. Masso, Production and use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculum in
sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and ways of improving, Int. J. Soil Sci. 11 (2016) 108–122, doi:10.3923/ijss.2016.108.122.
[21] J.N. Chianu, E.M. Nkonya, F.S. Mairura, J.N. Chianu, F.K. Akinnifesi, Biological nitrogen fixation and socioeconomic factors for legume production in
sub-Saharan Africa: a review, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 31 (2011) 139–154, doi:10.1051/agro/2010 0 04.
[22] C. Masso, J.M. Jefwa, M. Jemo, M. Thuita, D. Tarus, B. Vanlauwe, Impact of inadequate regulatory frameworks on the adoption of bio-fertilizer (e.g.,
PGPR) technologies: a case study of sub-saharan Africa, in: R. Sayyed, H. Sudini, K.V.K. Kumar, A. Armanda, S. Gopalkrishnan (Eds.), Recent Adv.
Biofertilizers Biofungicides Sustain. Agric., Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle, 2014, pp. 258–268, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[23] N.S.W. Simiyu, D. Tarus, J. Watiti, F. Nang, Effective Regulation of bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides : a potential avenue to increase agricultural pro-
ductivity, 2013.
[24] L. Herrmann, M. Atieno, L. Brau, D. Lesueur, Microbial quality of commercial inoculants to increase bnf and nutrient use efficiency, in: F.J. de Bruijn
(Ed.), Biol. Nitrogen Fixat., 1st, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 2015, pp. 1031–1040, doi:10.1002/9781119053095.ch101.
[25] D. Lesueur, R. Deaker, L. Herrmann, L. Brau, J. Jansa, The production and potential of biofertilizers to improve crop yields, in: A.N. Kumar, M. Samina,
B. Raffaella (Eds.), Bioformulations Sustain. Agric., Springer, New Delhi, 2016, pp. 71–92, doi:10.1007/978- 81- 322- 2779- 3.
[26] R. Deaker, M.L. Kecskés, M.T. Rose, K. Amprayn, G. Krishnen, T.T.K. Cuc, V.T. Nga, P.T. Cong, N.T. Hien, I.R. Kennedy, Practical Methods for the Quality
Control of Inoculant Biofertilisers, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 2011.
[27] K. Mohammadi, Y. Sohrabi, Bacterial biofertilizers for sustainable crop production : a review, J. Agric. Bol. Sci. 7 (2012) 307–316.
[28] S. Gupta, K. Meena, S. Datta, Isolation, characterization of plant growth-promoting bacteria from the plant Chlorophytum borivilianum and in-vitro
screening for activity of nitrogen fixation, phospthate solubilization and IAA production, Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 3 (2014) 1082–1090.
[29] R. Bhattacharjee, U. Dey, Biofertilizer, a way towards organic agriculture: a review, African J. Microbiol. Res. 8 (2014) 2332–2343, doi:10.5897/
ajmr2013.6374.
[30] B. Murphy, F. Doohan, T. Hodkinson, From concept to commerce: developing a successful fungal endophyte inoculant for agricultural crops, J. Fungi.
4 (2018) 24, doi:10.3390/jof4010024.
[31] A. Krishnamoorthy, T. Agarwal, J.N.R. Kotamreddy, R. Bhattacharya, A. Mitra, T.K. Maiti, M.K. Maiti, Impact of seed-transmitted endophytic bacteria
on intra- and inter-cultivar plant growth promotion modulated by certain sets of metabolites in rice crop, Microbiol. Res. 241 (2020) 126582, doi:10.
1016/j.micres.2020.126582.
[32] F. Luziatelli, A.G. Ficca, P. Bonini, R. Muleo, L. Gatti, M. Meneghini, M. Tronati, F. Melini, M. Ruzzi, A genetic and metabolomic perspective on the
production of indole-3-acetic acid by pantoea agglomerans and use of their metabolites as biostimulants in plant nurseries, Front. Microbiol. 11
(2020) 1–17, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01475.
[33] M. Kumari, I.S. Thakur, Biochemical and proteomic characterization of Paenibacillus sp. ISTP10 for its role in plant growth promotion and in rhizosta-
bilization of cadmium, Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 3 (2018) 59–66, doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2018.06.001.
[34] L.A. Terra, C.P. de Soares, C.H.S.G. Meneses, M.Z. Tadra Sfeir, E.M. de Souza, V. Silveira, M.S. Vidal, J.I. Baldani, S. Schwab, Transcriptome and proteome
profiles of the diazotroph Nitrospirillum amazonense strain CBAmC in response to the sugarcane apoplast fluid, Plant Soil 451 (2020) 145–168,
doi:10.1007/s11104- 019- 04201- y.
[35] D.A. Abd El-Fattah, W.E. Eweda, M.S. Zayed, M.K. Hassanein, Effect of carrier materials, sterilization method, and storage temperature on survival and
biological activities of Azotobacter chroococcum inoculant, Ann. Agric. Sci. 58 (2013) 111–118, doi:10.1016/j.aoas.2013.07.001.
[36] T. Tabassam, T. Sultan, M.E. Akhtar, A. Ali, Suitability of different formulated carriers for sustaining microbial shelf life, Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 28
(2015) 143–151.
[37] H. Suthar, K. Hingurao, J. Vaghashiya, J. Parmar, Fermentation: a process for biofertilizer production, in: H. Panpatte, D.G. Jhala, Y.K. Vyas, R.V. Shelat
(Eds.), Microorg. Green Revolution, Microorg. Sustain. 6, Vol 1, Springer, Singapore, 2017, pp. 229–252, doi:10.1007/978- 981- 10- 6241- 4_12.
[38] J.J. Parnell, R. Berka, H.A. Young, J.M. Sturino, Y. Kang, D.M. Barnhart, M.V. Dileo, From the lab to the farm: an industrial perspective of plant beneficial
microorganisms, Front. Plant Sci. 7 (2016) 1–12, doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01110.
[39] A. Faye, Y. Dalpe, K. Ndung’u-Magiroi, J. Jefwa, I. Ndoye, M. Diouf, D. Lesueur, Evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants, Can. J.
Plant Sci. 93 (2013) 1201–1208, doi:10.4141/CJPS2013-326.
[40] K.K. Treseder, The extent of mycorrhizal colonization of roots and its influence on plant growth and phosphorus content, Plant Soil 371 (2013) 1–13,
doi:10.1007/s11104- 013- 1681- 5.
[41] S. Kaljeet, F. Keyeo, H.G. Amir, Influence of carrier materials and storage temperature on survivability of rhizobial inoculant, Asian J. Plant Sci. 10
(2011) 331–337, doi:10.3923/ajps.2011.331.337.
[42] F. Ben Rebah, R.D. Tyagi, D. Prévost, Wastewater sludge as a substrate for growth and carrier for rhizobia: the effect of storage conditions on survival
of Sinorhizobium meliloti, Bioresour. Technol. 83 (2002) 145–151, doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00202-4.
[43] S. Deepti, S. Mishra, Exploitation and assessment of fly ash as a carrier for biofertilizers, Int. J. Environ. Sci. 3 (2014) 21–28.
[44] S.K. Brar, S.J. Sarma, E. Chaaboun, Shelf-life of biofertilizers: an accord between formulations and genetics, J. Biofertilizers Biopestic. 3 (2012) 1–3,
doi:10.4172/2155-6202.10 0 0e109.
[45] P. Pindi, S.D.V Satyanarayana, Liquid microbial consortium- a potential tool for sustainable soil health, Biofertilizers Biopestic 3 (2012) 1–9, doi:10.
4172/2155-6202.10 0 0124.
[46] K.M.I. Balume, O.K. Shellemiah, Paul Woomer, Assessment of quality control of inoculants used on bean and soybean in Eastern And Central Africa
MSc thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya, 2013.
[47] G. Seneviratne, J.S. Zavahir, W.M.M.S. Bandara, M.L.M.A.W. Weerasekara, Fungal-bacterial biofilms: their development for novel biotechnological ap-
plications, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 24 (2008) 739–743, doi:10.1007/s11274-007- 9539- 8.
[48] J.S. Duhan, R. Kumar, N. Kumar, P. Kaur, K. Nehra, S. Duhan, Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture, Biotechnol. Rep. 15 (2017)
11–23, doi:10.1016/j.btre.2017.03.002.
[49] D.G. Adetunji, Charles Oluwaseun Panpatte, M.A. Bello, Oluwasesan Micheal Adekoya, Application of Nanoengineered Metabolites from Beneficial and
Eco-friendly Microorganisms As a Biological Control Agents for Plant Pests and Pathogens, Springer, Singapore, 2019, doi:10.1007/978- 981- 32- 9374- 8.
[50] S. Gaind, A.C. Gaur, Evaluation of fly ash as a carrier for diazotrophs and phosphobacteria, Bioresour. Technol. 95 (2004) 187–190, doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2003.07.014.
[51] FNCA, Biofertilizer Manual, Forum for, Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Tokyo, Japan, 2006. ISBN4-88911-301-0 C0550.
[52] C. Chansa-ngavej, S. Assavavipapan, Forecasting of rhizobial biofertilizer technology using maturity mapping, in: Proceedings of the Int. Colloq. Bus.
Manag., Bangkok, Academia, 2007, pp. 1–32.
[53] B.W. Strijdom, South African studies on biological nitrogen-fixing systems and the exploitation of the nodule bacterium-legume symbiosis, S. Afr. J.
Sci. 94 (1998) 11–23.
[54] J.A. Romberger, P. Mikola, International Review of Forestry Research, Academic Press, New York, 1966, doi:10.2307/forhis/10.2.20-a.
17
[55] R.J. Street, Exotic Forest Trees in the British Commonwealth, Oxford University Press, London, 1962, doi:10.1038/196102b0.
[56] P.L. Woomer, J. Ongoma, T. Wafullah, Fully Commercialized BNF Technologies in Kenya, N2Africa. Www.N2Afri (2016) 3 pp.
[57] A.A. Abdullahi, J. Howieson, G. O’Hara, J. Tepolilli, R. Tiwari, A. Vivas-Marfisi, A.A. Yusuf, in: History of Rhizobia Inoculants Use for Grain Legumes
Improvement in Nigeria- The Journey So Far, N2Africa Proj. Murdoch Univ. West. Aust., 2002, pp. 1–27.
[58] A. Bala, N. Karanja, M. Murwira, L. Lwimbi, R. Abaidoo, K. Giller, Production and use of Rhizobial inoculants in Africa, Www.N2Africa.Org. (2011)
1–22.
[59] S.O. Keya, S.K. Imbamba, The East African Rhizobium MIRCEN; A framework for promoting regionally co-ordinated biological nitrogen fixation,
MIRCEN J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. (1986) 237–251 Oxford University Press, Helsinki, doi:10.10 07/BF0 0933490.
[60] G. Hardarson, W. Broughton, Maximising the Use of Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Agriculture, Vol 99, Kluwer Academic and Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, Rome, 2003.
[61] UNCTAD, The biotechnology promise: capacity-building for participation of developing countries in the bioeconomy, in: United Nations Conf. Trade
Dev, New York and Geneva, 2004, p. 141.
[62] W. Shurtleff, A. Aoyagi, History of Research on Nitrogen Fixation in Soybeans (1887-2018), Soyinfo Center, Lafayette, United States, 2018, doi:10.1159/
0 0 0353311.
[63] C. Juma, V. Konde, Industrial Applications for biotechnology opportunities for developing countries, Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 44 (2002) 22–35,
doi:10.1080/00139150209605929.
[64] S. Mpepereki, F. Javaheri, P. Davis, K.E. Giller, Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture: promiscuous soyabeans in southern Africa, F. Crop. Res. 65
(20 0 0) 137–149, doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(99)0 0 083-0.
[65] A.M. Mweetwa, M. Mulenga, X. Mulilo, M. Ngulube, J.S.K. Banda, N. Kapulu, S.H. N’gandu, Response of Cowpea, Soya Beans and groundnuts to non-
indigenous legume inoculants, Sustain. Agric. Res. 3 (2014) 1–84, doi:10.5539/sar.v3n4p84.
[66] N. Karanja, J. Freire, M. Gueye, E. DaSilva, MIRCEN networking: capacity building and BNF technology transfer in Africa and Latin America., Nairobi,
20 0 0.
[67] T.H. Carr, C. Sloger, J.W. Rourke, H. Tembo, Agronomic and economic impact of legume inoculant use in Zambia, 1985-1992, in: S.M. Mpepereki,
F.T. Makonese (Eds.), Harnessing Biol. Nitrogen Fixat. African Agric. Challenges Oppor., 6th Inte, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Zimbabwe,
1998, pp. 91–98.
[68] K.E. Giller, M.S. Murwira, D.K.C. Dhliwayo, P.L. Mafongoya, S. Mpepereki, Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture in Southern Africa, Int. J. Agric. Sustain.
9 (2011) 50–58, doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0548.
[69] L. Marufu, N. Karanja, M. Ryder, Legume inoculant production and use in East and Southern Africa, Soil Biol. Biochem. 27 (1995) 735–738, doi:10.
1016/0038- 0717(95)98658- B.
[70] F.J. de de Bruijn, Biological Nitrogen Fixation, in: B. Lugtenberg (Ed.), Princ. Plant-Microbe Interact. Microbes Sustain. Agric., Springer, Cham, 2015,
pp. 215–224, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 319- 08575- 3.
[71] Y. Helman, Y. Saul Burdman, Y. Okon, Plant growth promotion by rhizosphere bacteria through direct effects, in: E. Rosenberg, U. Gophna (Eds.),
Benef. Microorg. Multicell. Life Forms, Springer-Velag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 89–103, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 642- 21680- 0_6.
[72] D.J. Khonje, Adoption of the rhizobium inoculation technology for pasture improvement in sub-Saharan Africa, in: B.H. Dzowela, A.N. Said, A. Wen-
dem-Agenebu, J.A. Kategile (Eds.), Utilization of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural By-Product Materials as Animal Feed Resources in Africa,
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1990, pp. 780–801.
[73] G.A.D. Kananji, E. Yohane, D. Siyeni, L. Kachulu, L. Mtambo, B.F. Chisama, H. Malaidza, F. Tchuwa, O. Mulekano, A Guide to Soybean Production in
Malawi, Department of Agricultural Research Services„ Lilongwe, 2013, doi:10.13140/2.1.4982.2723.
[74] J. Huising, P. Woomer, J. De Wolf, B. Chataika, R. Abaidoo, C. Masso, S. Kantengwa, S. Boahen, J. Sanginga, Policy recommendation related to inoculant
regulation and cross border trade, Www.N2Africa.Org. (2013) 24.
[75] FAOAgribusiness Public-Private Partnerships - A Country Report of Kenya- Africa, Rome, 2013.
[76] P.L. Woomer, Improving legume inoculants and developing strategic alliances for their advancement, N2Africa. www.N2Afri (2013) 28 pp.
[77] UNDP, African Network of Microbiological Resources Centres ( MIRCENs ) in Biofertilizer Production and Use, Paris, France, 1994.
[78] C. Masso, Quality and Yield: supporting smallholder farmers’ decisions on top quality commercial products, 2015. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12478/
2763 (Accessed on 01 September 2020).
[79] J. Mugabe, Research on Biofertilizers: Kenya, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, Biotechnol. Dev. Monit. 18 (1994) 9–10.
[80] UNBS, Biofertilizer – Specification, Uganda National Bureau of Standards, Uganda. http://www.puntofocal.gov.ar/notific_otros_miembros/uga426_t.pdf.
(Accessed on 01 September 2020), 2014.
[81] B. Cassien, P. Woomer, Recent history of the BNF activities at the Institut des Sciences Agronomique du Rwanda, in: F.D. Dakora (Ed.), Biol. Nitrogen
Fixat. Africa Link. Process to Prog., African Association For Biological Nitrogen Fixation, Cape Town, South Africa, 1998, pp. 33–34.
[82] A. Bala, Update on Inoculant production by cooperating laboratories, Www.N2Africa.Org. 3.4.3 (2011) 8 pp.
[83] IITA, Research to Nourish Africa: regional Highlights, Http://Www.Iita.Org/Annual-Reports. (2013) 105. http://www.iita.org/annual-reports (Accessed:
01 September 2020).
[84] A. Ngakou, C. Megueni, H. Ousseni, A. Massai, Study on the isolation and characterization of rhizobia strains as biofertilizer tools for growth improve-
ment of four grain legumes in Ngaoundéré-Cameroon, Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 3 (2009) 1078–1089, doi:10.4314/ijbcs.v3i5.51086.
[85] P.H. Graham, C.P. Vance, Update on legume utilization legumes : importance and constraints to greater use, Plant Physiol. 131 (2003) 872–877,
doi:10.1104/pp.017004.872.
[86] FAOSavanna Afforestation, Africa FAO Forestry Paper 11, Rome, 1977.
[87] O.A. Adebolarin, Pathological Aspects of Seed-Borne Mycoflora of Pinus caribaea Morelet var. hondurensis PhD thesis, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife, Nigerai, 1990.
[88] N2Africa, Reports : N2Africa revitalizes legume production in Nigeria, IITA, Ibadan., 2015. www.iita.org. (Accessed on 01 September 2020).
[89] A.I. Aliyu, A.A. Yusuf, R.C. Abaidoo, Response of grain legumes to rhizobial inoculation in two savanna soils of Nigeria, African J. Microbiol. Res. 7
(2013) 1332–1342, doi:10.5897/ajmr12.1127.
[90] C.O.N ’Cho, A.A. Yusuf, J.T. Ama-Abina, M. Jemo, R.C. Abaidoo, I. Savane, Effects of commercial microbial inoculants and foliar fertilizers on soybean
nodulation and yield in northern Guinea savannah of Nigeria, Int. J. Adv. Agric. Res. 1 (2013) 66–73.
[91] A.A. Yusuf, M. Jemo, C. Ncho, R.C. Abaidoo, Effect of rhizobium inoculation and phosphorus sources on the productivity of groundnut in Samaru,
northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria, in: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Soil Science Society of Nigeria, 2012 16.39.
[92] E.J. DaSilva, E. Baydoun, A. Badran, Biotechnology and the developing world. Finding ways to bridge the agricultural technology gap, Electron. J.
Biotechnol. 5 (2002) 34–36.
[93] Y.I. Hamdan, V.M. Villalobos, Status and prospects of biotechnology in the Near East and North Africa, (1995).
[94] K. Mulongoy, S. Gianinazzi, P.A. Roger, Y. Dommergues, Biofertilizer: agronomic and Environmental Impacts and Economics, in: E.J. Da Silva, A. Ra-
tledge, C. Sasson (Eds.), Biotechnol. Econ. Soc. Asp. Issues Dev. Ctries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 55–69.
[95] I. Bouhmouch, F. Brhada, A. Filali-Maltouf, J. Aurag, Selection of osmotolerant and effective strains of Rhizobiaceae for inoculation of common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris) in Moroccan saline soils, Agronomie 23 (2001) 591–599, doi:10.1051/agro:2001149.
[96] M. Ourarhi, H. Abdelmoumen, K. Guerrouj, H. Benata, R. Muresu, A. Squartini, M. Missbah El Idrissi, Colutea arborescens is nodulated by diverse
rhizobia in Eastern Morocco, Arch. Microbiol. 193 (2011) 115–124, doi:10.10 07/s0 0203- 010- 0650- 0.
[97] E. Malusà, N. Vassilev, A contribution to set a legal framework for biofertilisers, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 98 (2014) 6599–6607, doi:10.1007/
s00253- 014- 5828- y.
18
[98] L. Herrmann, D. Lesueur, Challenges of formulation and quality of biofertilizers for successful inoculation, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97 (2013)
8859–8873, doi:10.10 07/s0 0253- 013- 5228- 8.
[99] KBSDraft Kenya Standard KS 2356, Biofertilizer — Specification, Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
[100] Legume Inoculants and Quality Control D. Herridge, G. Gemell, E. Hartley Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, VietnamCanberra,
2002, pp. 105–115.
[101] A.K. Yadav, K. Chandra, Mass production and quality control of microbial inoculants, Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. (2014) 483–489, doi:10.16943/ptinsa/
2014/v80i2/5.
[102] NCOFBiofertilizers and Organic Fertilizers in Fertilizer (Control ) Order, 1985 National Centre of Organic Farming, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2011 https:
//ncof.dacnet.nic.in/Training_manuals/Training_manuals_in_English/BF_and_OF_in_FCO.pdf (Accessed on 01 September 2020).
[103] Y. Bashan, Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture, Biotechnol. Adv. 16 (1998) 729–770, doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(98)
0 0 0 03-2.
[104] C. Plenchette, D.G. Strullu, Long-term viability and infectivity of intraradical forms of Glomus intraradices vesicles encapsulated in alginate beads,
Mycol. Res. 107 (2003) 614–616, doi:10.1017/S0953756203007482.
[105] M. Phiromtan, T. Mala, P. Srinives, Effect of various carriers and storage temperatures on survival of Azotobacter vinelandii NDD-CK-1 in powder
inoculant, Mod. Appl. Sci. 7 (2013) 81–89, doi:10.5539/mas.v7n6p81.
[106] M. Vosátka, J. Albrechtová, R. Patten, The international market development for mycorrhizal technology, in: A. Verma (Ed.), Mycorrhiza, 3rd ed.,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 419–438, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 540- 78826- 3_21.
[107] MordorIntelligence, Europe biofertilizers markets - growth, trends, and forecast (2020 - 2025), Hyderabad: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/
industry-reports/europe-biofertilizers-market (Accessed on 01 September 2020), 2019.
[108] Bio-FIT Project, Biofertilizers Market Size, Https//Www.Bio-Fit.Eu/Q9/Lo12-Bio-Fertilizers-Market-Size?Start=1 (Accessed 01 Sept. 2020). (2016) 1–17.
https://www.bio-fit.eu/q9/lo12-bio-fertilizers-market-size?start=1.
[109] R.B. Bhattacharjee, A. Singh, S.N. Mukhopadhyay, Use of nitrogen-fixing bacteria as biofertiliser for non-legumes: prospects and challenges, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 80 (2008) 199–209, doi:10.1007/s00253- 008- 1567- 2.
[110] Markets and Markets, Biofertilizers Market by Form (Liquid, Carrier-Based), Mode of Application (Soil Treatment, Seed Treatment), Crop Type, Type
(Nitrogen-Fixing, Phosphate Solubilizing & Mobilizing, Potash Solubilizing & Mobilizing), Region - Global Forecast to 2025, Biofertilizer Market Anal-
ysis AGI2569, 2016.
[111] R. Sommer, D. Bossio, L. Desta, J. Dimes, J. Kihara, S. Koala, N. Mango, D. Rodriguez, C. Thierfelder, L. Winowiecki, Profitable and Sustainable Nutrient
Management Systems for East and Southern African Smallholder Farming Systems – Challenges and Opportunities: a Synthesis of the Eastern and
Southern Africa Situation in Terms of Past experiences, Present and Future Oppo, CIAT, Cali Colombia, 2013.
[112] M. Lucy, E. Reed, B.R. Glick, Applications of free living plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, Int. J. Gen. Mol. Microbiol. 86 (2004) 1–25, doi:10.1023/
B:ANTO.0 0 0 0 024903.10757.6e.
[113] A.R. Raimi, O.T. Ezeokoli, R.A. Adeleke, High-throughput sequence analysis of bacterial communities in commercial biofertiliser products marketed in
South Africa: an independent snapshot quality assessment, 3 Biotech. 9 (2019) 1–12, doi:10.1007/s13205- 019- 1643- 6.
[114] J.K. Oloke, O. Odeyemi, Effects of some Nigerian Bradyrhizobium inoculants on the performance of three cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculata) in two
field plots, Biol. Fertil. Soils. 6 (1988) 178–182, doi:10.10 07/BF0 0257671.
[115] H. Odame, Biofertilizer in Kenya: research, production and extension dilemmas, Biotechnol. Dev. Monit. 30 (1997) 2023.
[116] I.R. Kennedy, M.T. Rose, M.L. Kecskés, R.J. Roughley, S. Marsh, P.T. Cong, T.T. Be, P. Van Toan, N.T. Hien, Future Perspectives for Biofertilisers: An
Emerging Industry Needing A Scientific Approach, 130th ed., Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Vietnam, 2008.
[117] J.A. Vorholt, Microbial life in the phyllosphere, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10 (2012) 828–840, doi:10.1038/nrmicro2910.
[118] J.L. Grönemeyer, A. Kulkarni, D. Berkelmann, T. Hurek, B. Reinhold-Hurek, Rhizobia indigenous to the okavango region in sub-saharan Africa: diversity,
adaptations, and host specificity, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80 (2014) 7244–7257, doi:10.1128/AEM.02417-14.
[119] P. Frey-Klett, J. Garbaye, M. Tarkka, The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited, New Phytol. 176 (2007) 22–36, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02191.x.
[120] W. Haggag, H. Mohamed, Biotechnological aspects of microorganisms used in plant biological control, Am. J. Sustain. Agric. 1 (2007) 7–12.
[121] H. Swain, S. Abhijita, Nitrogen fixation and its improvement through genetic engineering, J. Glob. Biosci. 2 (2013) 98–112.
[122] M. Leggett, J. Leland, K. Kellar, B. Epp, Formulation of microbial biocontrol agents-an industrial perspective, Can. J. Plant Pathol. 33 (2011) 101–107,
doi:10.1080/07060661.2011.563050.
[123] K. Abdel-Lateif, D. Bogusz, V. Hocher, The role of flavonoids in the establishment of plant roots endosymbioses with arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi,
rhizobia and Frankia bacteria, Plant Signal. Behav. 7 (2012) 636–641, doi:10.4161/psb.20039.
[124] D.L. Smith, S. Subramanian, J.R. Lamont, M. Bywater-Ekegàrd, Signaling in the phytomicrobiome: breadth and potential, Front. Plant Sci. 6 (2015) 1–9,
doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00709.
[125] J. Jansa, A. Wiemken, E. Frossard, The effects of agricultural practices on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 266 (2006) 89–115,
doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.266.01.08.
19

Raimi 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raimi 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientiﬁc African 11 (2021) e00694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biofertilizer production in Africa: Current status, factors

Biofertilizer production and application in different African regions

• Lack of biofertilizer quality control system • Improvement of biofertilizer policy

• Extension services challenges • Engaging agro-dealers to improve distribution

Rwanda Rwanda Agriculture Board • Inadequate production equipment

Mozambique International Institute of Tropical Agriculture • Lack of production facilities

Scientiﬁc African 11 (2021) e00694

(continued on next page)

• Inaccessibility to quality/varieties of • Government ﬁnancial support

• Low biofertilizer awareness amongst • Investing in biofertilizer technology

• Lack of collaboration with other countries

Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture • Lack of production facilities

Scientiﬁc African 11 (2021) e00694

Biofertilizer quality standards in Africa

Inoculum viability and eﬃciency character

INDIAN BIOFERTILIZER SPECIFICATION KENYAN BIOFERTILIZER SPECIFICATION

Scientiﬁc African 11 (2021) e00694

Challenges in the use and development of biofertilizers in Africa

Future actions and research for promoting biofertilizer development

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

You might also like