Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci.
DOI 10.1007/s40011-015-0544-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc
Biofortification of Rice Grains and Zinc Use-Efficiency in Basmati
Rice
Yashbir Singh Shivay1 • Rajendra Prasad1 • Ramanjit Kaur1 • Madan Pal1
Received: 2 August 2014 / Revised: 23 April 2015 / Accepted: 30 April 2015
 The National Academy of Sciences, India 2015
Abstract Zinc deficiency in human nutrition is wide-
spread in developing Asian and African countries where
cereal grains are the staple food. Agronomic biofortifica-
tion of Zn is a new innovative approach to get rid of Zn
malnutrition from the poorest of the poor rural masses, who
will never have money to buy mineral supplements nor can
afford to improve the components of their diet by incor-
porating animal products. Hence, a field experiment was
conducted during 2010 and 2011 on a sandy clay-loam soil
(typic Ustochrept) at New Delhi, India to study the effect
of NPK fertilization and to compare zinc sulphate hep-
tahydrate (ZnSHH) and Zn–EDTA for growth, yield at-
tributes, grain and straw yield, Zn concentration and uptake
and Zn use efficiency in Basmati rice cultivar ‘Pusa Su-
gandh 5’ when applied to soil ZnSHH and Zn–EDTA were
equally effective. Three foliar applications of ZnSHH in-
creased Zn concentration and uptake by rice as compared
to its soil application. Three foliar applications of Zn–
EDTA (at tillering, booting and grain filling stages) was the
best treatment and recorded significantly better growth,
higher values for yield attributes, higher grain and straw
yield and higher concentration and uptake of Zn in grain
and straw of Basmati rice than soil application of ZnSHH
or Zn–EDTA and two or a single foliar application of
ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA. Three foliar applications of 0.5 %
solution of Zn–EDTA recorded significantly higher head
rice recovery than soil application. The highest KLBC,
KLAC and KLER were obtained with three foliar appli-
cations of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA.
& Yashbir Singh Shivay
ysshivay@hotmail.com
1
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
Keywords Milling and cooking quality parameters 
Zn sulphate hepta hydrate  Zn–EDTA  Foliar application 
Zn biofortification of rice  Zn use efficiency
Introduction
Zinc deficiency in humans has recently received global
attention [1]. More than one-third of the world’s population
suffers from Zn deficiency [2, 3]. Zn deficiency has been
estimated to be responsible for approximately 4 % of the
worldwide burden of morbidity and mortality in under-five
year children and a loss of nearly 16 million global dis-
ability-adjusted life years (DALYs) [4]. Zn deficiency
leads to diarrhea and pneumonia in children [4–6]. Child-
hood dwarfism is considered as an indication of Zn defi-
ciency and about 61 million children under the age of
15 years are reported to be dwarf [2]. It is estimated that
60–70 % of population in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa
could be at risk of low Zn deficiency intake; in absolute
numbers this translates to 2 billion people in Asia and 400
million people in Sub-Saharan Africa [7].
Rice is the staple food in Asia where about 90 % of it is
grown and consumed [7]. It meets 21 % of the energy and
protein needs of humans globally [8]. Rice and other cereal
grains are inherently low in concentration as well as bio-
availability of Zn, particularly when grown on Zn deficient
soils [9]. Keeping this in view, biofortification of cereals
with Zn has therefore received considerable attention in
recent years [10, 11] and programmes such as HarvestPlus
and Golden Rice are underway to develop rice varieties
capable of producing grains denser in Zn, Fe and other
micronutrients [3].
123

Low availability of Zn in alkaline calcareous soils is a
serious problem in India, Pakistan, Turkey, China and
several other countries [1, 12] and good response of cereals
to Zn application has been reported [12]. Indian soils are
low in available Zn [13] and this leads to production of low
Zn containing rice. Soil application of Zn sulphate hep-
tahydrate (ZnSHH) is the most common way to apply Zn to
field crops, although there have been some field ex-
periments with ZnO [14] and Zn–EDTA [15]. In recent
years foliar application of Zn to wheat [16] and rice [17]
has received considerable interest. The present study was
therefore undertaken to study the effect of sources, time
and method of Zn application on growth, yield attributes,
yields and Zn concentration, and uptake and use efficiency
in Basmati rice, which is the most popular cereal in India
and several other countries of the world.
Material and Methods
Description of Study Area
Field experiments were conducted during rainy seasons
(June–November) of 2010 and 2011 on a sandy clay-loam
soil (typic Ustochrept) at research farm of Indian Agricul-
tural Research Institute, New Delhi, situated at a latitude of
28o380 N and longitude of 77o100 E, altitude of 228.6 meters
above the mean sea level (Arabian sea). The mean annual
rainfall of Delhi is 650 mm and more than 80 % generally
occurs during the south-west monsoon season (July–
September) with mean annual evaporation 850 mm. The
initial fertility status of experimental field had 213 kg ha-1
alkaline permanganate oxidizable N, 13.3 kg ha-1 available
P, 243 kg 1 N ammonium acetate exchangeable K, and
0.49 % organic carbon [18]. The pH of soil was 7.8 (1:2.5
soil and water ratio) and DTPA-extractable Zn in soil was
0.43 mg kg-1 of soil [18]. The critical level of DTPA ex-
tractable Zn for rice grown on alluvial soils in the rice–
wheat belt of north India varies from 0.38 to 0.90 mg kg-1
soil and thus, the experimental soil was inherently low in
available Zn and a response of Basmati rice to Zn applica-
tion was expected on the experimental field.
Experimental Treatments and Design
The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with
sixteen treatments comprising various levels, two sources and
different methods of their application viz. absolute control,
only NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K), NPK ?
5 kg Zn through ZnSO47H2O (Zinc sulphate hepta hydrate
abbreviated as ZnSHH in this paper) ha-1 (commercial grade
ZnSHH used contained 20 % Zn), NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 %
foliar spray at tillering, NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % foliar spray at
123
Y. S. Shivay et al.
tillering ? booting stages, NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % foliar
spray at tillering ? booting ? grain filling stages, NPK ?
ZnSHH 0.5 % foliar spray at tillering, NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 %
foliar spray at tillering ? booting stages, NPK ? ZnSHH
0.5 % foliar spray at tillering ? booting ? grain filling
stages, NPK ? 5 kg Zn through Zn–EDTA ha-1 (Zn–EDTA
contained 12 % Zn), NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % foliar spray at
tillering, NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % foliar spray at tiller-
ing ? booting stages, NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % foliar spray
at tillering ? booting ? grain filling stages, NPK ? Zn–
EDTA 0.5 % foliar spray at tillering, NPK ? Zn–EDTA
0.5 % foliar spray at tillering ? booting stages and
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % solution spray at tillering ? boot-
ing ? grain filling stages replicated three times. For each
spray 500 litres of solution per hectare was used. Thus, each
spray of 0.2 % solution of ZnSHH supplied 200 g Zn ha-1,
while each spray of 0.5 % solution of ZnSHH supplied 500 g
Zn ha-1. Similarly each spray of 0.2 % solution of Zn–EDTA
supplied 120 g Zn ha-1, while each spray of 0.5 % solution of
Zn–EDTA supplied 300 g Zn ha-1.
Field Preparation and Fertilizer Application
Field was disk-ploughed and levelled. Recommended dose
of P and K (26.2 kg P ha-1 as SSP and 33 kg K ha-1 as
MOP) were broadcast at puddling. Nitrogen @ 120 kg ha-1
as prilled urea was applied in all the treatments into two
equal splits; half at the time of transplanting and remaining
half at panicle initiation stage [40 days after transplanting
(DAT)]. All Zn fertilization treatments were applied as per
the experimental treatments details.
Rice Transplanting
Two 25-day-old seedlings of Basmati rice cultivar ‘Pusa
Sugandh 5’ were transplanted per hill at 20 cm 9 10 cm in
the first fortnight of July in rainy season of 2010 and 2011. It
is a Basmati rice variety released from the Indian Agricul-
tural Research Institute, New Delhi, India during 2004 for its
commercial cultivation. ‘Pusa Sugandh 50 (Pusa 2511) is a
cross between Pusa 3A 9 Haryana Basmati. All crop vari-
eties/cultivars developed at the Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi have prefix ‘Pusa’ which is the name of
a place in Bihar state of India where the institute was first
built in 1905. Rice crop was grown as per recommended
package of practices and was harvested in the second fort-
night of October in both the years of experimentation.
Studies on Growth and Yield Attributes of Basmati
Rice
Plant height of Basmati rice was measured at harvest from
the base of the plant at ground surface to the tip of the
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc Biofortification of Rice…

tallest panicle using a standard meter scale and was ex-
pressed in cm. The number of panicles hill-1 were counted
on ten hills selected randomly and mean value was com-
puted. Again ten panicles were selected randomly for
panicle length measurement. A seed counter was used for
counting of 1000-grains of Basmati rice and their weight
was measured with electronic balance.
Yields and Harvest Index of Rice
Harvesting was done manually with sickles after leaving the
border area. Net plots were demarcated at first from the
portion of the plot kept for recording grain yield. Plants from
the demarcated net plot area were harvested, tied in bundles
and taken to the threshing floor for drying and threshing. The
harvested plants were dried for 3–4 days to bring down the
moisture content to around 14 %. The weight of the har-
vested plants after sun drying and before threshing was
recorded. After threshing, the seeds were cleaned and sun-
dried and their weight was recorded. The yields in kg plot-1
were converted to Mg ha-1. Straw yield was obtained by
deducting the seed weight from the total weight. The grain
and straw yields were expressed in Mg ha-1. Harvest index
was calculated using the formula as under:
Grain yield ðMg ha1 Þ
Harvest index ¼  100
Biological yield ðMg ha1 Þ
ZnAE ¼ ðYt  YAC Þ=Zna
ZnCRE ¼ ½ðUZn  UAC Þ=Zna  100
ZnHI ¼ GUZn =UZn
wherein, Yt and UZn refer to the grain yield (kg ha-1) and
total Zn uptake (kg ha-1), respectively, of rice in Zn ap-
plied plots; YAC and UAC refer to the grain yield (kg ha-1)
and total Zn uptake (g ha-1), respectively of rice in control
(only NPK) applied plots; Zna refers to the Zn applied
(kg ha-1); GUZn refers to Zn uptake (kg ha-1) in grain.
The Zn mobilization efficiency index (ZnMEI) was
calculated as the equation given below:
Zn concentration in grain ðmg kg1 grainÞ
ZnMEI ¼
Zn concentration in straw ðmg kg1 strawÞ
Kernel Quality Parameters
Milling Quality Parameters
The seed produce of each treatment from each replication
was used to study the following physico-chemical, agro-
nomic characters and cooking quality parameters, which
were scored using standard procedures as per the details
given below:
Hulling (%)

Well sun-dried paddy (rough or unhulled rice) samples of

Chemical Analysis of Plant Samples each treatment weighing 100 g from each replication were
hulled in a mini ‘Satake Rice Mill’ [20], weight of brown
Plant samples were collected 5 days before of harvesting rice was recorded and hulling percentage was calculated as:
and dried in hot air oven at 60 ± 2 C for 6 h. The oven Weight of brown rice ðgÞ
dried samples were ground and sieved by passing through Hulling ð%Þ ¼  100
Weight of rough rice ðgÞ
40 mesh sieve in a Macro-Wiley Mill. From each repli-
cation 0.5 g dry matter samples of grain and straw samples Milling (%)
were taken for chemical analysis to determine the Zn,
concentration in rice grain and straw. The Zn in rice grain To obtain uniformly polished grains, the hulled brown rice
and straw samples was determined by wet-digestion (di- was passed through a ‘Satake rice polishing machine’ [20]
acid digestion) procedure as described by Prasad et al. [18]. for 2 min. The polished rice was weighed and milling
The uptake/accumulation of Zn in grain and straw of rice percentage was worked out as under:
were calculated by multiplying the dry matter accumula- Weight of milled rice ðgÞ
tion in grain and straw yield of rice with their respective Milling ð%Þ ¼  100
Weight of rough rice ðgÞ
concentrations expressed in g ha-1.
Head Rice Recovery
Zinc Use Efficiencies
The milled rice was passed through an appropriate sieve to
The estimated values of Zn agronomic efficiency (ZnAE), separate whole kernels from the broken ones. Head rice
apparent Zn crop recovery efficiency (ZnCRE), Zn harvest recovery (%) was computed as:
index (ZnHI) and Zn mobilization efficiency index Weight of whole milled rice ðgÞ
(ZnMEI) of applied Zn were computed using the following Head rice recovery ð%Þ ¼
Weight of rough rice ðgÞ
expressions as suggested by Shivay et al. [19]:  100:

123

Kernel Cooking Quality Parameters
Kernel Length Before Cooking
Rice cooking technique was a simple modification of the
technique used by Juliano and Perez [21]. Ten milled
kernels from each plot were taken at random and placed
separately on a graph paper and their length was measured
using a 93 magnifying lens. The actual mean kernel length
was expressed in mm.
Kernel Length After Cooking
A sample of ten kernels was taken in 15 cm long and
2.5 cm wide test tubes and pre-soaked in 5 ml of tap water
for 30 min. The tubes were then placed in water bath
maintained at boiling temperature (using a Thermotech
temperature controller TH-013; Thermotech, Gujarat, In-
dia) for 6–7 min. After cooking, the tubes were taken out
and cooled under running water for 2 min. Cooked kernels
were taken out of the tubes and excess water was removed
with a blotting paper. Lengths of cooked kernels were
measured as mentioned above.
Kernel Length Expansion Ratio
Kernel length expansion ratio was calculated by dividing
the length of cooked kernel by their length before cooking
using the following expression:
Elongation ratio ðERÞ ¼ L1 =L0
where, L0 and L1 are kernel length before and after cook-
ing, respectively.
Statistical Analysis
All the replicated data obtained from the experiment
were statistically analysed using the F test as per the
procedure given by Gomez and Gomez [22]. Least sig-
nificant difference (LSD) values at P = 0.05 were used
to determine the significance of differences between
treatment means.
Results and Discussion
Growth
The only growth character studied was plant height. Ap-
plication of fertilizer (NPK) significantly increased the
plant height of Basmati rice. Soil or foliar application of Zn
increased plant height of Basmati rice over NPK fertiliza-
tion and the tallest plants were obtained with three foliar
123
Y. S. Shivay et al.
applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA, but these in-
creases were not statistically significant (Table 1).
Yield Attributes
Panicles Hill-1
NPK fertilization significantly increased panicles hill-1 in
Basmati rice over no fertilizer control (Table 1). In both the
years of study soil application of ZnSHH did not significantly
increase panicles hill-1 over NPK fertilization, but soil ap-
plication of Zn–EDTA did. Also in both the years of study
three foliar applications of 0.2 % solutions of ZnSHH or a
single spray of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA significantly
increased panicles hill-1 in Basmati rice; there being no
significant increase when the number of sprays of 0.5 % so-
lution of ZnSHH was increased from one to two or three. As
regards Zn–EDTA one to three sprays of 0.2 % solution or
one or two sprays of 0.5 % solutions were at par and sig-
nificantly increased panicles hill-1 over NPK fertilization. In
both the years most panicles hill-1 were produced with three
sprays of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA, significantly superior
to soil application of Zn–EDTA or ZnSHH.
Panicle Length
In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased panicle length in Basmati rice over no fertilizer
control; there being no significant increase in panicle
length due to soil or foliar application of ZnSHH or Zn–
EDTA. Nevertheless, 3 sprays of 0.5 % solution of Zn–
EDTA produced the longest panicles.
1000-Grain Weight
In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased 1000-grain weight in Basmati rice over no fer-
tilizer control; there being no significant increase in
1000-grain weight due to soil or foliar application of
ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA. Nevertheless, 3 sprays of 0.5 %
solution of Zn–EDTA produced the heaviest grains.
Grain and Straw Yield
Grain Yield
In both the years of study NPK application significantly in-
creased the grain yield of Basmati rice over no fertilizer
control (Table 2). One to three foliar applications of 0.2 or
0.5 % solutions of ZSHH or one to three foliar applications of
0.2 % solution of Zn–EDTA or a single application of 0.5 %
solution of Zn–EDTA were equally effective and at par with
soil application of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA. In both the years of
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc Biofortification of Rice…

Table 1 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on growth and yield attributes of Basmati rice
Treatment Plant height (cm) Panicle length (cm) Panicles hill-1 1000-grain weight (g)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 98 99 23.4 23.6 6.5 6.7 22.5 22.7

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 112 113 27.8 27.9 8.6 8.8 26.3 26.5
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 114 115 28.4 28.6 9.5 9.8 26.8 27.0
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 113 114 28.1 28.3 9.6 9.8 26.5 26.7
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 114 115 28.2 28.4 9.9 10.1 26.6 26.8
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 115 116 28.8 29.3 10.2 10.5 26.7 26.9
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 114 115 28.5 28.7 9.8 10.2 26.6 26.8
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 116 116 29.0 29.2 10.2 10.5 26.9 27.1
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 117 117 29.2 29.4 10.8 11.1 27.2 27.4
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 116 117 29.1 29.3 10.2 10.5 27.3 27.6
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 114 115 28.3 28.5 10.0 10.3 26.8 27.1
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 115 116 28.6 28.9 10.6 10.9 26.9 27.2
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 116 117 28.9 29.1 10.8 11.1 27.1 27.4
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 116 117 28.8 29.0 10.5 10.8 27.2 27.5
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 117 118 29.5 29.7 11.3 11.6 27.6 27.9
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 118 119 30.1 30.3 11.8 12.1 28.1 28.4
SEm± 2.61 2.69 1.16 0.86 0.40 0.48 1.07 0.60
CD (P = 0.05) 7.53 7.78 3.35 2.49 1.16 1.38 3.10 1.72
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

Table 2 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on productivity and harvest index of Basmati rice
Treatment Grain yield (Mg ha-1) Straw yield (Mg ha-1) Harvest index (%)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 3.46 3.54 6.53 6.67 34.6 34.7

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 4.71 4.78 8.01 8.15 37.0 36.7
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 5.18 5.25 8.99 9.13 36.6 36.3
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 5.21 5.28 9.02 9.16 36.6 36.3
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 5.29 5.36 9.18 9.31 36.6 36.3
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 5.41 5.48 9.31 9.45 36.8 36.7
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 5.22 5.29 9.04 9.18 36.6 36.0
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 5.41 5.48 9.38 9.52 36.6 36.0
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 5.49 5.56 9.53 9.67 36.6 36.3
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 5.38 5.45 9.32 9.46 36.6 36.3
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 5.24 5.31 9.09 9.23 36.6 36.3
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 5.38 5.45 9.23 9.37 36.8 36.7
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 5.47 5.54 9.40 9.54 36.8 36.7
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 5.46 5.53 9.37 9.51 36.8 36.7
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 5.68 5.75 9.64 9.78 37.1 37.0
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 5.81 5.88 9.82 9.96 37.2 37.0
SEM± 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.92
CD (P = 0.05) 0.37 0.39 0.49 0.45 0.63 NS
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

123
 Y. S. Shivay et al.

study two or three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–
EDTA produced the highest grain yield of Basmati rice,
significantly more than soil application of ZnSHH or Zn–
EDTA and most other treatments of foliar spray.
Straw Yield
Straw yield followed the same pattern as grain yield, except
that only three sprays of 0.5 % solutions of either ZnSHH or
Zn–EDTA produced significantly more straw than their soil
application and several other foliar application treatments.
Harvest Index
Only in 2010 NPK application significantly increased the
harvest index over no fertilizer control and there was no
significant increase in harvest index due to soil or foliar ap-
plication of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA. In 2011, the treatment
differences were not significant. Nevertheless, in both the
years of study the highest harvest index was obtained with two
or three spray applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA.
Zinc Concentration and Uptake
Zinc Concentration in Grain
In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased Zn concentration in Basmati rice over no
fertilizer control (Table 3). A further significant increase in
Zn concentration in grain over NPK fertilization was
recorded with soil application of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA,
which were at par with two or three applications of 0.2 %
solutions of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA or one or two applica-
tions of 0.5 % solutions of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA. A single
application of 0.2 % of ZSHH or Zn–EDTA was inferior to
soil application of Zn and did not significantly increase Zn
concentration in rice grain. In 2011, three foliar applica-
tions of ZnSHH recorded significantly more Zn concen-
tration in rice grain than its soil application or other foliar
treatments. The highest Zn concentration in grains of
Basmati was recorded with three foliar applications of
0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA, significantly more than soil
application of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA and most other foliar
application treatments.
Zinc Concentration in Straw
In both the years of study, NPK fertilization significantly in-
creased Zn concentration in rice straw over no fertilizer con-
trol. In both the years of study soil application of Zn–EDTA
recorded significantly more Zn in rice straw than soil appli-
cation of ZSHH. Also in both the years of study three foliar
applications of 0.2 % solution of ZSHH solution resulted in
higher Zn concentration in rice straw than a single foliar ap-
plication. In the case of 0.5 % solution of ZnSHH in 2010, two
or three foliar applications were at par and resulted in

Table 3 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on Zn concentration in grain and straw of Basmati rice
Treatment Zn concentration in rice grain (mg kg-1) Zn concentration in rice straw (mg kg-1)
2010 2011 2011 2011

Absolute control 20.7 21.2 74.7 76.2

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 23.1 23.6 79.8 81.3
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 26.4 26.9 87.4 88.9
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 24.8 25.3 84.8 86.3
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 26.3 26.8 86.9 88.4
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 26.8 27.3 88.6 90.1
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 25.4 25.9 85.7 87.2
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 26.6 27.1 90.3 91.8
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 28.2 28.7 92.8 94.3
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 27.8 28.3 92.0 93.5
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 24.7 25.2 84.6 86.1
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 26.6 27.1 87.8 89.3
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 27.7 28.2 92.3 93.8
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 25.8 26.3 87.7 89.2
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 28.2 28.7 92.7 94.2
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 29.8 30.3 96.0 97.5
SEm± 0.74 0.58 1.08 0.60
CD (P = 0.05) 2.15 1.68 3.10 1.73
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

123
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc Biofortification of Rice…

Table 4 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on Zn uptake in grain, straw and total of Basmati rice
Treatment Zn uptake (g ha-1)
Grain Straw Total
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 71.7 75.2 487.9 508.4 559.7 583.6

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 108.8 112.9 639.4 662.4 748.2 775.3
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 136.9 142.0 786.0 811.5 922.9 953.5
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 129.3 133.7 765.1 790.3 894.4 924.0
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 139.3 143.8 798.1 823.1 937.4 966.9
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 145.3 149.7 825.3 851.2 970.5 1000.9
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 132.8 137.2 775.1 800.7 907.9 937.9
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 144.0 148.7 847.4 874.1 991.5 1022.8
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 155.1 159.8 884.8 912.0 1039.9 1071.8
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 149.8 154.3 857.8 884.7 1007.6 1039.0
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 129.5 134.0 769.4 794.9 899.0 928.9
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 143.2 147.8 810.6 836.9 953.8 984.7
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 151.6 156.3 868.0 895.0 1019.6 1051.3
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 141.0 145.6 822.1 848.5 963.1 994.1
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 160.4 165.1 894.0 921.4 1054.4 1086.5
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 173.3 178.3 942.8 971.1 1116.1 1149.4
SEM± 7.05 2.23 24.43 7.02 31.35 5.66
CD (P = 0.05) 20.35 6.43 70.53 20.28 90.53 16.33
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

significantly higher Zn concentration in rice straw than a
single application, while in 2011, three foliar applications re-
sulted in significantly higher Zn concentration than two foliar
applications, which in turn were superior to single application.
In the case of Zn–EDTA, both with 0.2 or 0.5 % solutions, Zn
concentration in rice straw significantly increased with each
foliar application. The highest Zn concentration in rice straw
was obtained with three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution
of Zn–EDTA, which was significantly more than that obtained
with soil application of Zn–EDTA.
Zinc Uptake in Rice Grain
In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased Zn uptake in rice grain over no fertilizer control
(Table 4). Zn application significantly increased Zn uptake
in rice grain. As regards soil application ZnSHH and Zn–
EDTA were at par in 2010, while in 2011, Zn–EDTA was
superior. Again in 2010 two or three foliar applications of
0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA were at par and three appli-
cations recorded significantly more Zn uptake in rice grain
than soil application of Zn and most other foliar applica-
tions. In 2011 a single foliar application of 0.2 % solution
of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA and a single foliar application of
0.5 % solution of ZnSHH recorded significantly lesser Zn
uptake by rice grain than their soil application. As regards
0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA three foliar applications
recorded significantly more Zn uptake by rice grain than
two applications, which in turn recorded significantly more
than a single application. In both the years of study three
foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA recorded
the highest Zn uptake in rice grain.
Zinc Uptake in Rice Straw
In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased Zn uptake in rice straw over no fertilizer control
(Table 4). When applied to soil Zn–EDTA resulted in
significantly more Zn uptake in rice straw than ZnSHH. In
2010 foliar application of ZnSHH significantly increased
Zn uptake in rice straw only when two or three applica-
tions of 0.5 % solution were made. Further, three appli-
cations of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA resulted in
significantly more Zn uptake by rice straw than its soil
application and one to three applications of 0.2 % Zn–
EDTA solution. In 2011, Zn uptake in rice straw with
three foliar applications of 0.2 % solution of ZnSHH was
significantly more, while that with a single foliar appli-
cation was significantly less than soil application of
ZnSHH. In both the years of study the highest Zn uptake
by rice straw was recorded with three foliar applications
of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA.

123
 Y. S. Shivay et al.

Table 5 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on Zn use efficiency indices of Basmati rice
Treatment Zn HI (%) ZnAE (kg grain increase kg-1 Zn applied) ZnCRE (%) ZnMEI
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 12.8 12.9 – – – – 0.28 0.28

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 14.5 14.5 – – – – 0.29 0.29
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 14.8 14.9 94.0 94.0 3.5 3.60 0.30 0.30
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 14.8 14.5 2083.3 2083.3 62.0 61.9 0.29 0.29
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 14.8 14.9 1208.3 1208.3 39.4 39.9 0.30 0.30
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 14.9 15.0 972.0 972.0 30.9 31.3 0.30 0.30
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 14.6 14.6 850.0 850.0 26.7 27.1 0.30 0.30
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 14.5 14.5 583.3 583.0 20.2 20.6 0.29 0.30
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 14.9 14.9 433.0 433.0 16.2 16.5 0.30 0.30
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 14.8 14.8 134.0 134.0 5.2 5.3 0.30 0.30
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 14.4 14.4 3681.0 3681.0 105. 106. 0.29 0.29
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 15.0 15.0 2326.3 2326.0 71.5 72.7 0.30 0.30
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 14.9 14.9 1759.0 1759.0 62.9 63.9 0.30 0.30
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 14.6 14.7 2083.3 2083.0 59.7 60.8 0.29 0.29
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 15.2 15.2 1347.0 1347.0 42.5 43.2 0.30 0.30
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 15.5 15.5 1018.7 1018.3 34.3 34.6 0.31 0.31
SEm± 0.26 0.27 36.00 8.42 1.00 0.65 0.005 0.007
CD (P = 0.05) 0.75 0.79 104.66 24.48 2.90 1.90 0.014 0.020
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

Zinc Uptake by Rice Crop (Grain ? Straw) Zinc Use Efficiency Indices

In both the years of study NPK fertilization significantly
increased Zn uptake by rice crop over no fertilizer control
(Table 4). Soil application of Zn–EDTA resulted in more
Zn uptake by rice crop than ZnSHH, although the dif-
ference was significant only in 2011. Foliar application of
0.2 % solution of ZnSHH recorded significantly more Zn
uptake by rice crop than its soil application only in 2011.
However, with 0.5 % solution of ZnSHH, three foliar
applications in 2010 and two or three foliar applications in
2011 recorded significantly higher Zn uptake by rice as
compared to its soil application; three foliar applications
were superior to two foliar applications. With 0.2 % so-
lution of Zn–EDTA a single foliar application was infe-
rior to its soil application in both the years of study. With
0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA, three foliar applications
resulted in significantly more Zn uptake by rice crop than
two foliar applications, which in turn recorded sig-
nificantly more Zn uptake than a single application in both
the years of study. In both the years of study the highest
Zn uptake by rice crop was recorded with three foliar
applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA.
Zinc Harvest Index (ZnHI)
In both the years of study application of NPK significantly
increased the ZnHI over no fertilizer control (Table 5).
However, soil or foliar application of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA
had no significant influence on ZnHI in Basmati rice; ZnHI
varied from 14.5 to 15.5 %.
Zinc Mobilization Efficiency Index (ZnMEI)
In both the years of study Zn application either to soil or
foliage significantly increased ZnMEI over no fertilizer
control. Various soil or foliar application treatments did not
differ significantly among themselves. ZnMEI varied from
0.29 to 0.31.
Zn Agronomic Efficiency (ZnAE)
ZnAE of Zn–EDTA was significantly higher than ZnSHH
for both soil and foliar applications. ZnAE with foliar ap-
plication was 4–27 fold of that obtained with soil appli-

123
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc Biofortification of Rice…

Table 6 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on physical grain (unhulled rough rice) quality parameters of Basmati rice
Treatment Hulling (%) Milling (%) Head rice recovery (%)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 68.3 68.5 61.5 61.7 51.3 51.5

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 71.2 71.6 63.4 63.8 53.5 53.7
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 72.8 73.0 65.2 65.5 54.4 54.8
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 72.1 72.5 64.3 64.5 54.0 54.1
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 72.5 73.1 65.5 65.8 54.5 54.7
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 72.7 73.2 65.8 66.2 55.2 55.5
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 72.5 73.0 65.1 65.8 54.3 54.6
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 72.9 73.5 65.9 66.3 54.8 55.3
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 73.3 73.8 66.2 66.5 55.3 55.8
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 73.1 73.5 66.3 66.5 55.1 55.6
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 72.5 72.8 65.8 66.1 54.8 54.9
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 72.8 73.1 66.1 66.5 55.2 55.6
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 73.1 73.5 66.8 67.1 55.8 56.2
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 72.7 73.2 66.5 66.9 55.3 56.5
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 73.2 73.8 66.6 67.5 56.0 56.3
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 73.8 74.1 67.8 68.1 56.5 56.7
SEm± 0.44 0.48 0.35 0.50 0.52 0.49
CD (P = 0.05) 1.26 1.39 1.01 1.44 1.50 1.42
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling

cation. In foliar application treatments, ZnAE significantly
declined as the number of applications was increased,
which also amounted to an increase in the amount of Zn
applied. Again since larger amounts of Zn were applied in
0.5 % solutions of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA, ZnAE was lower
with them than with 0.2 % solutions.
Zn Crop Recovery Efficiency (ZnCRE)
ZnCRE was only 3–5 % when ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA was
applied to soil and increased 10–20 fold when Zn was
applied to foliage. ZnCRE significantly decreased as the
number of foliar applications was increased, which also
amounted to an increase in the amount of Zn applied. In
case of single application of 0.2 % solution of Zn–EDTA it
was about 100 % and declined to 63 % when the number
of foliar applications was increased to three.
The highest hulling percentage was obtained with three
foliar applications of Zn–EDTA.
Milling Percentage
NPK fertilization significantly increased milling percent-
age in rice and Zn application through soil or foliage fur-
ther significantly increased it. The highest hulling
percentage was obtained with three foliar applications of
0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA and it was significantly more
than that obtained with soil application of Zn–EDTA. In
2010 soil application of Zn–EDTA recorded significantly
higher milling percentage than soil application of
ZnSHH.
Head Rice Recovery

Milling Quality Parameters
Hulling Percentage
NPK fertilization significantly increased hulling percentage
in rice and all treatments involving application of Zn
through soil or foliage but for a single spray of 0.2 %
ZnSHH solution significantly increased it further (Table 6).
NPK fertilization significantly increased head rice recovery
in rice and in the case of ZnSHH a further significant in-
crease in head rice recovery was obtained only with three
foliar applications of 0.2 or 0.5 % solution. With Zn–
EDTA soil application also recorded a significant increase
in head rice recovery over NPK fertilization and was at par
with one, two or three foliar applications of 0.2 or 0.5 %
solutions, except in 2010, when three foliar applications

123
 Y. S. Shivay et al.

Table 7 Effect of sources, time and method of zinc application on cooking quality parameters of Basmati rice
Treatment KLBC (mm) KLAC (mm) KLER (KLAC/KLBC)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Absolute control 6.8 6.8 10.0 10.0 1.47 1.47

NPK (120 kg N ? 26.2 kg P ? 60 kg K) 7.0 7.0 10.7 10.7 1.53 1.53
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through ZnSHH as SA 7.2 7.2 11.8 11.8 1.64 1.64
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT 7.1 7.1 11.5 11.5 1.62 1.62
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 7.2 7.2 11.8 11.8 1.64 1.64
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 7.3 7.3 11.9 11.9 1.63 1.63
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT 7.2 7.2 11.6 11.6 1.61 1.61
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 7.3 7.3 12.0 12.0 1.64 1.64
NPK ? ZnSHH 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 7.4 7.4 12.3 12.3 1.66 1.66
NPK ? 5 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn–EDTA as SA 7.3 7.3 12.0 12.0 1.64 1.64
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT 7.2 7.2 11.7 11.7 1.63 1.63
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B stages 7.3 7.3 12.0 12.0 1.64 1.64
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.2 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 7.4 7.4 12.3 12.3 1.66 1.66
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT 7.3 7.3 12.0 12.0 1.64 1.64
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B stages 7.4 7.4 12.3 12.3 1.66 1.66
NPK ? Zn–EDTA 0.5 % FSAT ? B ? GF stages 7.6 7.5 12.6 12.6 1.68 1.68
SEM± 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.19 0.012 0.012
CD (P = 0.05) 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.55 0.035 0.035
ZnSHH zinc sulphate heptahydrate, SA soil application, FSAT foliar spray at tillering, B booting, GF grain filling, KLBC kernel length before
cooking, KLAC kernel length after cooking, KLER kernel length expansion ratio

recorded significantly higher head rice recovery than soil
application.
Cooking Quality Parameters
Kernel Length before Cooking (KLBC)
NPK fertilization had no significant effect on KLBC in
rice, but Zn fertilization through soil or foliage sig-
nificantly increased it (Table 7). The highest KLBC was
obtained with three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of
Zn–EDTA.
Kernel Length After Cooking (KLAC) and Kernel Length
Expansion Ratio (KLER)
NPK fertilization significantly increased both KLAC and
KLER and a further significant increase in both parameters
was recorded with soil or foliar application of Zn. The
highest KLAC and KLER were obtained with three foliar
applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA. NPK fertil-
ization significantly increased the growth, yield attributes,
grain and straw yield and Zn concentration and uptake by
Basmati rice. This can be ascribed to better root growth due
to fertilizer application as reported by Pal et al. [23]. Better
root growth of rice plants permitted foraging of a larger
volume of soil for Zn resulting in its increased uptake.
When applied to soil ZnSHH and Zn–EDTA were found
to be equally effective. These results are in accordance
with the results of earlier researchers [24, 25]. The present
results thus disagree from those of Chatterjee and Mandal
[15] and Karak et al. [26], who reported Zn–EDTA to be a
better source of Zn than ZnSHH for rice when applied to
soil. The present results also support the farmers’ choice of
ZnSHH as a source of Zn for rice and other crops. High
cost of Zn–EDTA is a major deterrent.
As regards growth, yield attributes, grain and straw
yield, in general, foliar application was no better than its
soil application in the case of ZnSHH; single foliar appli-
cation at tillering was even inferior to soil application.
However from the viewpoint of Zn concentration and up-
take by rice, three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of
ZnSHH recorded significantly higher Zn concentration in
grain in the second year of study and in straw in both the
years of study. Three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution
of ZnSHH also recorded significantly more Zn uptake in
grain and straw than its soil application in the second year
of study. These results are in accordance with those of
Dhaliwal et al. [27] from India, who showed that averaged
on 5 rice cultivars 3 foliar sprays of 0.5 % ZnSHH
recorded a Zn concentration of 47.0 mg kg-1 grain in
brown rice as compared to 33.8 mg kg-1 grain in no Zn
check. Similarly in a multi-location study in China, India,
Lao PDR, Thailand and Turkey Zn concentration in

123
Relative Efficiency of Zinc Sulphate and Chelated Zinc on Zinc Biofortification of Rice…
unhusked rice grain was about 69 % higher with foliar
application than with soil application; at some centres it
was almost twice of that with soil application [28]. In a
recent study addition of 0.5 % w/v ZnSHH to a Fe-amino
acid fertilizer increased Zn concentration in rice grain by
42.4 % [29].
Although ZnHI and ZnMEI were not much influenced by
sources and method of Zn application, both agronomic and
apparent recovery efficiencies of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA were
much higher with foliar application and declined as the
number of foliar applications was increased. This was due to
the fact that the amount of Zn applied increased as the
number of foliar applications were increased. In general, the
agronomic and recovery efficiency of a nutrient decreases as
its rate of application was increased. The present study also
demonstrates that Zn fertilization under low available Zn
soils (0.43 mg kg-1 of soil) improves milling and cooking
quality of Basmati rice. Shivay and Prasad [30] also reported
improvement in the milling and cooking quality parameters
in Basmati rice due to Zn application.
Conclusion
Three foliar applications of Zn–EDTA (at tillering, booting
and grain filling stages) was the best treatment and
recorded significantly better growth, higher values for yield
attributes, higher grain and straw yield and higher con-
centration and uptake of Zn in grain and straw of Basmati
rice than soil application of ZnSHH or Zn–EDTA and most
other foliar treatments. Since the amount of Zn–EDTA
required for foliar application is much less, its high cost
may not come in the way of its wide scale use. Three foliar
applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA recorded sig-
nificantly higher head rice recovery than soil application.
The highest KLBC, KLAC and KLER were obtained with
three foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA.
Based on the present findings from the viewpoint of Zn
biofortification of rice grains as well as grain yield three
foliar applications of 0.5 % solution of Zn–EDTA are
recommended. Also, from the agronomic Zn biofortifica-
tion viewpoint, foliar application is better and requires
lesser amount of Zn fertilizers than their soil application.
Hence, this new innovative approach may be considered as
one of the possible ways to overcome the Zn malnutrition
from the Indian rural populace whose major staple food is
rice.
Acknowledgment Sincere thanks are due to Director, Joint Director
Research and Head, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Re-
search Institute, New Delhi for their advice and support.
References
1. Cakmak I (2008) Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: agro-
nomic or genetic biofortification? Plant Soil 302:1–7
2. Hotz C, Brown KH (2004) Assessment of the risk of zinc defi-
ciency in populations and options for its control. Food Nutr Bull
25:194–204
3. Stein AJ, Nestel P, Meenakshi JV, Qaim M, Sachdev HPS, Bhutta
ZA (2007) Plant breeding to control zinc deficiency in India: how
cost effective is biofortification. Public Health Nutr 106:492–501
4. Black R, Lindsay HA, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, DeOnnis M,
Ezzat M, Mathers F, Rivera J (2008) Maternal and child under
nutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences.
Lancet 371:243–260
5. Fischer WCL, Black RE (2007) Functional indicators for assessing
zinc deficiency. Food Nutr Bull 28(3 Suppl.):S454–S479
6. Graham RD, Welch RM, Bouis HE (2001) Addressing mi-
cronutrient malnutrition through enhancing the nutritional quality
of staple foods: principles, perspectives and knowledge gaps. Adv
Agron 70:77–142
7. IRRI (2006) Bringing hope, improving lives: Strategic Plan
2007-2015. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, p 61
8. McLean JL, Dawe DC, Hardy B, Hettel CP (2002) Rice Almanac,
3rd edn. CABI Publishing, Wallingford
9. Bell DW, Dell B (2008) Micronutrients for sustainable food,
feed, fibre and bioenergy products. International Fertilizer In-
dustry Association, Paris, p 175
10. Graham RD (2008) Micronutrient deficiencies in crops and their
global significance. In: Alloway BJ (ed) Micronutrient deficien-
cies in global crop production. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–61
11. Prasad R, Shivay YS, Kumar D (2013) Zinc fertilization of ce-
reals for increased production and alleviation of zinc malnutrition
in India. Agric Res 2:111–118
12. Prasad R (2006) Zinc in soils and in plant, human and animal
nutrition. Indian J Fertil 2(9):103–119
13. Prasad R, Shivay YS, Kumar D (2014) Agronomic biofortifica-
tion of cereal grains with iron and zinc. Adv Agron 125:55–91
14. Shivay YS, Kumar D, Ahlawat IPS, Prasad R (2007) Relative
efficiency of ZnO and zinc sulphate coated urea for rice. Indian J
Fertil 3(2):51–55
15. Chatterjee AK, Mandal LN (1985) Zinc sources for rice in soil at
different moisture regimes and organic matter levels. Plant Soil
87:393–404
16. Diaz DR (2012) Foliar feeding of micronutrients in wheat
www.agronomy.ksu.edu/extension(ruidiaz@ksu.edu). Accessed 1
Aug 2014
17. Boonchuay P, Cakmak I, Rerkasem B, Pram-U-Thai C (2013)
Effect of different zinc applications at different growth stages on
seed zinc content and its impact on seedling growth and vigor in
rice. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 59:180–188
18. Prasad R, Shivay YS, Kumar D, Sharma SN (2006) Learning by
doing exercise in soil fertility—a practical manual for soil fer-
tility. Division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi
19. Shivay YS, Prasad R, Rahal A (2010) Genotypic variation for pro-
ductivity, zinc utilization efficiencies and kernel quality in rices under
low available zinc conditions. J Plant Nutr 33:1835–1848
20. Satake T (1990) Modern rice milling technology. University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo
21. Juliano BO, Perez CM (1984) Results of collaborative test on the
measurement of grain elongation of milled rice during cooking.
J Cereal Sci 2:281–292
22. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agri-
cultural research. Wiley, New York
123

23. Pal NC, Sarkar MAR, Hossain MZ, Barman SC (2008) Root
growth of four aman rice varieties as influenced by NPK fertil-
ization. J Bangladesh Agric Univ 6:235–238
24. Rattan RK, Datta SP, Saharan N, Katyal JC (1997) Zinc in Indian
agriculture-a look forward. Fertil News 42(12):75–89
25. Rehm G, Schmitt M (1997) Zinc for crop production. University
of Minnesota Extension, Falcon Heights (ww00720 GO)
26. Karak T, Singh UK, Das DK, Kuzyakov Y (2005) Comparative
efficiency of zinc sulphate and Zn–EDTA for fertilization of rice
(Oryza sativa L). Arch Agron Soil Sci 51:253–264
27. Dhaliwal SS, Sadana US, Khurana MPS, Dhadli HS, Manchanda
JS (2010) Enrichment of rice grains through ferti-fortification.
Indian J Fertil 6(7):28–35
123
Y. S. Shivay et al.
28. Phattarakul N, Rerkasem B, Li LJ, Wu LH, Zou CQ, Ram H,
Sohu VS, Kang BS, Surek H, Kalayci M, Yazici A, Zhang FS,
Cakmak I (2012) Biofortification of rice grain with zinc through
zinc fertilization indifferent countries. Plant Soil 361:131–141
29. Yuan L, Wu L, Yang C, Lv Q (2013) Effect of iron and zinc
foliar applications on rice plants and their grain accumulation and
grain nutritional quality. J Sci Food Agric 93:254–261
30. Shivay YS, Prasad R (2012) Zinc-coated urea improves produc-
tivity and quality of Basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.) under zinc
stress condition. J Plant Nutr 35:928–951