Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Agronomic Biofortification of Millets: New Way to Alleviate Malnutrition

Written By

Sreenivasareddy Kadapa, Alekhya Gunturi, Rajareddy Gundreddy, Srikanth Reddy Kalwala and Uday Bhaskar Mogallapu

Submitted: 05 January 2023 Reviewed: 07 March 2023 Published: 15 April 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.110805

From the Edited Volume

Millets - Rediscover Ancient Grains

Edited by Latika Yadav and Upasana

Chapter metrics overview

150 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Biofortification or biological fortification refers to nutritionally enhanced food crops with increased bioavailability to the human population that are developed and grown using modern bio-technology techniques, conventional plant breeding, and agronomic practices. Our agricultural system has not been designed to promote human health; instead, it only focuses on increasing grain yield and crop productivity. This approach has resulted in a rapid rise in micronutrient deficiency in food grains, thereby increasing micronutrient malnutrition among consumers. Biofortification is a one-time investment and offers a cost-effective, long-term, and sustainable approach in fighting hidden hunger because once the biofortified crops are developed, there are no costs of buying the fortificants and adding them to the food supply during processing. Agronomic biofortification methods requires physical application of nutrients to temporarily improve the nutritional and health status of crops and consumption of such crops improves the human nutritional status. Soil and plant are managed by agronomic interventions. For the biofortification initiative to be successful, farmers use micronutrient fertilizers to fortified cultivars must get marketing support. Besides challenges the biofortification of millets have a promising future in combating the problem of malnutrition.

Keywords

  • biofortification
  • malnutrition
  • agronomic biofortification
  • fertilization approaches
  • millets biofortification

1. Introduction

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 780 million of the world’s estimated 792.5 million malnourished people reside in developing nations [1]. Additionally, despite increasing food crop production, around 2 billion people worldwide experience “hidden hunger,” which is brought on by a lack of vital micronutrients in the daily diet [2, 3]. In addition, there is growing concern over nutrition. Until now, the primary goals of our agricultural system have been to boost crop productivity and grain yield, not human health. This strategy has caused a sharp increase in the lack of some micronutrients in dietary grains, which has increased micronutrient malnutrition among consumers. Agriculture is currently transitioning from producing more food crops in greater quantities to generating enough nutrient-rich crops. This will aid in the battle against “hidden hunger” or “micronutrient malnutrition,” particularly in underdeveloped and poorer nations whose diets are predominately composed of micronutrient-poor staple foods [4]. Since the green revolution, there has been a huge rise in the production of food crops. But the nutrient content of crops could not keep up with the growing demand from the population. Malnutrition problems have become worse as a result of a lack of a balanced diet, especially in developing countries.

Following the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and then the Sustainable Development Goals, malnutrition—the monster of hidden hunger—has already attained the status of being of the utmost significance (SDGs). Every region of the world is affected by the issue of malnutrition. There are 2 billion or so malnourished individuals in the world, according to reports [5]. In this world, over 850 million of people are affected negatively by undernourishment [6]. In low-income nations like Africa, where Ca (54% of the continent’s population), Zn (40%), Se (28%), I (19%), and Fe (5%), there is a considerable risk for micronutrient deficiencies [7]. In poor nations, malnutrition mostly affects mothers and small children in many ways. A key strategy for lowering the prevalence of malnutrition worldwide is biofortification of different crop varieties offers a sustainable and long-term solution in providing micronutrients-rich crops to people. The terms “biofortification” and “biological fortification” refers to nutrient-enhanced food crops that are produced and grown utilizing contemporary bio-technology approaches, traditional plant breeding, and agronomic practices. Furthermore, biofortified crops with increased bioavailable concentrations of essential micronutrients are deployed to consumers through traditional practices used by agriculture and food trade which therefore provides a feasible way of reaching undernourished and low income group families with limited access to diverse diets, supplements, and fortified foods. These crops also have greater bioavailability to the human population [8]. Biofortification is an upcoming, promising, cost-effective, and sustainable technique of delivering micronutrients to a population that has limited access to diverse diets and other micronutrient interventions. Agronomic biofortification, the practice of increasing the micronutrient content of food crops through agronomic techniques. We can quickly, safely, and economically increase the amount of iron, zinc, and other micronutrients in our diet. Contrary to molecular/genetic methods, agronomic biofortification is done on current crop type to improve the product’s consumer acceptability. Major food crops, unfortunately, are poor suppliers of the micronutrients necessary for healthy human growth. The biofortified food crops, particularly the cereals, legumes, vegetables, and fruits, are giving the targeted people enough micronutrients. Although transgenic research is given more attention, breeding has a significantly higher success rate and acceptance rate. In spite of the difficulties, biofortified crops have a promising future in the fight against hunger. Poor people’s purchasing ability, access to markets and healthcare systems, and ignorance about the long-term health advantages of these vitamin supplements are further barriers [9, 10]. The development of biofortified crops eliminates the need to purchase fortificants and add them to the food supply during processing, making biofortification from an economic perspective a one-time investment that provides a cost-effective, long-term, and sustainable method of addressing hidden hunger [11, 12, 13, 14]. A substantial population rise in the developing world is also possible in the next decades, and combined with changing climate circumstances, ensuring food security will be more difficult [15, 16].

Since the majority of people consume a plant-based diet, nutritional security is essential to enhancing the health of the global population. The main source of the nutrients needed for healthy growth and development is plants. But due to their reliance on grain products, half of the world’s population, mainly those from Asia and Africa, suffer from nutritional deficiencies [14, 17, 18].

Advertisement

2. Significance of millets and biofortification

Millets, which have an average annual production of 14.2 and 12.4 million tonnes, are the second-largest source of calories after cereal grains in resource-limited nations in Asia and Africa [19, 20]. India is the world’s top producer of millets, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 making up around 80% of the total production [22] as mentioned in Table 1. Millets, which include pearl millet, finger millet, foxtail millet, proso millet, barn yard millet, kodo millet, and little millet, are frequently referred to as “small seeded grasses”.

Figure 1.

Major millets production in India.

Figure 2.

Production share of millets country wise [21].

MilletCultivationReference
Foxtail millet
[Setaria italica (L.) Beauv]
Cultivated for food in semi-arid tropics of Asia and as forage in Europe, North America, Australia, and North Africa[23]
Finger millet
[Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn]
As the primary food for rural populations of East and Central Africa and southern India[24]
Proso millet
(Panicum miliaceum L.)
Cultivated in drier regions of Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America[25, 26]
Barnyard millet
(Echinochloa spp.)
Cultivated in India, China, Japan, and Korea for food as well as fodder[27]
Kodo millet
(Paspalum scrobiculatum)
Native to the tropical and sub-tropical regions of South America and domesticated in India 3000 years ago[28]
Little millet
(Panicum sumatrense)
Domesticated in the Eastern Ghats of India occupying a major portion of diet among the tribal people and spread to Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Myanmar[29]

Table 1.

Millets and their cultivation in this world.

Pearl millet accounts for major share of the output of the millets [30, 31, 32, 33]. Millets are therefore consumed as multi-grains to reap the collective health benefits of nutrients. Due to their high levels of proteins, dietary fibers, iron, zinc, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, vitamin B, and vital amino acids, millets are nutritionally superior to wheat and rice [34, 35]. However, anti-nutrients such as phytates, polyphenols, and tannins decrease the bioavailability of minerals by chelating multivalent cations including Fe2+, Zn2+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ [36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. Additionally, the digestibility of millet grains is impacted by high levels of protease and amylase inhibitors [41, 42, 43] as shown below in the Table 2. Millets now have an orphan status in terms of worldwide economic significance due to the prevalence of antinutritional forces. When compared to other cereal crops, millets have significantly more genetic diversity for important mineral elements including iron, zinc, and calcium [57]. Additionally, millets are pest- and disease-resistant plants that can withstand drought [58] and provide effective crop insurance in underdeveloped nations [59, 60]. A food-based strategy called biofortification puts nutrient-dense crops at the doorsteps of underprivileged communities in order to combat nutritional hunger [61]. The Harvest Plus-Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Micronutrients project’s Biofortification Challenge Program (BCP) has primarily targeted three crucial micronutrients (Fe, Zn, and vitamin A) in seven major staple crops, namely rice, beans, cassava, maize, sweet potato, pearl millet, and wheat [62]. In this situation, millets biofortification may offer an effective means of ensuring the nutritional security of the world’s 8 billion people. By outlining the prospects and difficulties for enhancing the bioavailability of macro and micronutrients, we may explore the methods for accelerating biofortification in millets.

MilletNutrition ContentReference
Pearl milletRich in Fe, Zn, and lysine (17–65 mg/g of protein) compared to other millets.
Total phenolic contents reported are 168 mg/100 g (pearl millet) and ferulic acid equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction. Total flavonoid contents 49 mg/100 g (pearl millet) catechin equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction.
[44, 45]
[46]
Foxtail milletHigh amount of protein (11%) and fat (4%). The protein fractions are represented by albumins and globulins (13%), prolamins (39.4%), and glutelin’s (9.9%). It is thus recommended as an ideal food for diabetics. It also contains significant amounts of potential anti-oxidants like phenols, phenolic acids, and carotenoids[35, 47]
Finger milletRich in Fe, Zn, and lysine (17–65 mg/g of protein) compared to other millets.
Total phenolic contents reported are 168 mg/100 g (pearl millet) and ferulic acid equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction. Total flavonoid contents have been reported as 203–228 mg/100 g (finger millet), catechin equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction.
[35, 48, 49]
[49, 50]
[46]
Proso milletRich in Fe, Zn, and lysine (17–65 mg/g of protein) compared to other millets
Total phenolic contents reported are 168 mg/100 g (pearl millet) and ferulic acid equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction. Total flavonoid contents have been reported as 140 mg/100 g (proso millet) catechin equivalents in the soluble phenolic fraction.
[35]
[46]
Barn yard milletFunctional constituents’ viz. g-amino butyric acid (GABA) and b-glucan, used as anti-oxidants and in reducing blood lipid levels.[51, 52]
Kodo milletHigh magnesium content (1.1 g/kg dry matter).
Overall view of milletsThey contain health promoting phenolic acids and flavonoids, that play a vital role in combating free-radical mediated oxidative stress and in lowering blood glucose levels[34, 46, 50]
[53, 54, 55, 56]

Table 2.

Millets as a rich source of nutritional contents.

Advertisement

3. Necessity for biofortification

Our bodies require minute amounts of vitamins, and minerals and micronutrients. However, they have a significant influence and their deficiencies lead to major health problems such as chronic illnesses and stunting, weakened immunological and reproductive systems, and a decline in our physical and mental capabilities (WHO). Each year, more than 20 million people die from micronutrient deficiency, affecting more than 2 billion people [63, 64]. It is also known as “hidden hunger.” Ten main causes of sickness and disease in low-income nations, [65] of which Zn and Fe deficits rank fifth and sixth and are largely persistent. The most vulnerable groups to micronutrient deficiencies are children and women. According to WHO estimates, malnutrition, particularly a lack of micronutrients, killed approximately 6.3 million children under the age of 15 in 2017 and 5.4 million of them were under the age of five [66]. This is mostly caused by inadequate protein consumption, a lack of access to high-quality meals rich in micronutrients like iodine, iron, and zinc, or a repetitive eating pattern. Children who were stunted in the mother’s womb due to the expectant mother’s poor consumption of micronutrient-enriched foods. A major worldwide issue for humanity, malnutrition is believed to impact more than half of the world’s population. Traditionally, pharmaceutical supplementation and industrial fortification have been key strategies for addressing nutritional concerns. But these things are low reachability to poor income countries sometimes they reluctant to intakes of this tablet. So, the efficiencies of these strategies are low. Therefore, Biofortification was presented as a novel step. It is the act of breeding nutrients into food crops and is a reasonably cheap, long-term method of enhancing micronutrient delivery. This tactic not only lowers the number of people who are extremely malnourished and require supplemental therapy, but it also helps those people retain their improved nutritional status. Additionally, biofortification is a workable solution for rural people who are in poverty and might not have access to commercially market fortified meals and supplements. They prefer cereal-based foods, which are lower in protein and vitamins, and the soils in this area are depleted in zinc (50%) and iron (30%) and iodine, with the majority of the soil being damaged by alkalinity and salt problems [67].

Millets are advised for the health of newborns, nursing mothers, the elderly, and recovering patients. The grains are regarded as “gluten-free” because they gradually release sugar into the bloodstream [68]. Millets are favored as dietary items for persons with diabetes and cardiovascular disorders because of their high fiber and protein content [69].

For biofortification to be successful, the following three issues must be resolved:

A biofortified crop must meet the following criteria:

  1. It must provide a high yield and be profitable for the farmer;

  2. It must be efficient and successful in decreasing micronutrient deficiencies in people;

  3. It must be accepted by both farmers and consumers in the target regions [70].

Advertisement

4. Techniques for biofortification

The key processes or procedures for biofortified crops are listed below.

  1. Agricultural practices: Increasing the quantity of micronutrients in plants produced in soils lacking in those nutrients requires the use of fertilizers.

  2. Traditional plant breeding: This entails utilizing conventional breeding techniques to generate enough genetic variety in agricultural plants, for instance, to obtain high vitamin content. To develop nutrient-rich plants and other desirable features, it entails mating several varieties over numerous generations. In India, this method is the only one used to generate bio-enriched plants.

  3. Genetic engineering is introducing DNA into an organism’s genome to produce new or changed properties, such as traits and introducing disease resistance.

Advertisement

5. Methods employed for biofortification

Biofortification has been promoted as a long-term alternative to standard treatments since they are ineffectual for boosting mineral nutrition. The process of biofortification raises the mineral content and bioavailability of staple crop edible sections. While the latter can be achieved by agronomic intervention, plant breeding, or genetic engineering, mineral bioavailability can only be affected by these two methods as shown below in Tables 3 and 4 which describes about varieties, nutritional aspects and their adaptation.

SorghumIronReleasedIndia:
ICSR 14001, ICSH 14002
Hybrids:
ICSA 661 × ICSR 196,
ICSA 318 × ICSR 94
ICSA 336 × IS 3760
ICRISAT, Harvest Plus
IronReleasedNigeria:
12KNICSV(Deko)-188
112KNICSV-22 (Zabuwa)
ICRISAT, Harvest Plus
Iron, zinc, beta-caroteneResearch[71]
Pearl MilletIron and zincReleasedIndia:
Dhanashakti Hybrid, ICMH 1201 (Shakti-1201)
ICRISAT, Harvest Plus
Iron and zincResearch[72, 73]

Table 3.

Millets breeding for improving lives of million people around the world.

VarietiesNutritive valueAdaptation zone/stateSeason of cultivationGrain yield
Dhanshakti/ICTP 8203 FeFe: 71 ppm, Zn: 40 ppmMaharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana & Rajasthan.Kharif2.21 t/ha
Shakti-1201/ICMH 1201Fe: 75 ppm, Zn: 40 ppmMaharashtra & Rajasthan.Kharif3.6 t/ha
HHB-299Fe: 73 ppm Zn: 41 ppmHaryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Delhi, Maharashtra & Tamil NaduKharif3.27 t/ha
AHB-1200Fe (Hybrid)Fe: 73 ppmHaryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Delhi, Maharashtra &Tamil Nadu.Kharif3.2 t/ha

Table 4.

Millet varieties, nutritional aspects and their adaptation in various states of India.

Despite millets’ higher quality, India has only given pearl millet the top priority when it comes to crops for iron biofortification. Therefore, there is a lot of room to use the minor millets for biofortification. There are two ways to accomplish biofortification in millets:

  1. By boosting the accumulation of nutrients in milled grains, and.

  2. By lowering the antinutrients to enhance the bioavailability of minerals as discussed in Table 5 with development of biofortified varieties.

CropVarietiesReferences
Pearl milletHHB-299 (73.0 ppm Fe & 41.0 ppm Zn), AHB 1200 Fe, (77 ppm Fe & 39 ppm Zn), AHB 1269 Fe (91.0 ppm Fe 43.0 ppm Zn), ABV-04 (70.0 ppm Fe & 63.0 ppm Zn), Phule Mahashakti (87 ppm Fe & 41 ppm Zn), RHB-233(83 ppm Fe & 46 ppm Zn), RHB-234 (84 ppm Fe & 46 ppm Zn), HHB-311 (83 ppm Fe & 39 ppm Zn)[75, 76]
SorghumZn concentration in grain for mean of parent (IS2248 × IS 20843) was 55.46 ppm. Fe concentration in grain for mean of parent (ICSB 52 × SPV 1359) was 50.17 ppm[77]
Finger milletVR-929 (Vegavathi) (131.8 ppm Fe), CFMV-1 (Indravati) (58 ppm Fe & 44 ppm Zn), CFMV-2 (25 ppm Zn & 39 ppm Fe)[76]
Little milletCLMV-1 (59 ppm Fe & 35 ppm Zn)

Table 5.

Genetic biofortification through identification/development of biofortified varieties of different crops [74].

This study emphasizes the value of millet germplasm characterization for creating biofortified cultivars and the application of omics techniques to increase grain-nutrient density. We highlight the use of genetic engineering and genome editing technologies to promote nutrient accumulation in edible sections and to prevent the production of anti-nutrients, following the example of other cereal crops as shown above Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Schematic overview of micronutrient (MN) pathway from soil to humans and that influence MN bioavailability to the next level [78].

Advertisement

6. Agronomic approaches for biofortification

The most significant contribution to human health and prevention is probably an adequate and balanced diet that provides the energy routes, vital amino acids (lysine, methionine), vitamins (A, B, C, D and E), minerals, folic acids, and ionic elements (Fe, Zn, I, and Se). Targeted administration of soluble inorganic fertilizers to the roots or to the leaves is used when crops are produced in soils where mineral elements become instantly unavailable in the soil and/or not rapidly translocated to edible tissues. Agronomic biofortification is easy and cheap, but it requires specific consideration when it comes to nutrient supply, application technique, and environmental impact as discussed in Table 6. Hence, in certain situations, are less cost-effective. The success of Se fertilization of crops in Finland [84], zinc fertilization in Turkey [85], and I fertilization in irrigation water in China serve as examples of how mineral fertilizers might be used in developed countries [86]. In addition to fertilizers, nutrient mobility from the soil to the edible sections of plants can be improved by using soil microbes that promote plant development. To boost the Phyto availability of mineral elements, soil microbes from the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, and others can be used [87, 88]. When nitrogen is scarce, the N2-fixing bacteria are crucial for enhancing crop output [89]. Numerous crops have mycorrhizal fungus attached to them, which can emit organic acids, siderophores, and enzymes that can break down organic molecules and raise the mineral content of edible product [87, 90].

CropTreatmentImprovement in Zn and Fe concentrationReference
SorghumCombined application of 30 kg S ha−1 through gypsum, 0.5 kg B ha−1 through borax and 10 kg Zn ha−1 through ZnSO4Increase in Zn concentration in grain by 7 mg kg−1 grain[79]
Finger milletFoliar sprays of 0.2% ZnSO4 and Zn-EDTA twice at 30 and 60 days after sowingIncrease in total Zn and Fe uptake by 149 g ha−1 and 1497 g ha−1 in case of ZnSO4 spray and 279 g ha−1 and 1862 g ha −1 with Zn-EDTA spray,[80]
SorghumMycorrhiza + Bacteria Research
FYM + biofertilizer Research
[81, 82, 83]

Table 6.

Contribution of agronomic bio-fortification in increasing the grain Zn and Fe concentrations and uptake in different crops [74].

A good technique for supplementing micronutrient powders and promoting dietary diversity is agronomic biofortification, which is the process of increasing the density of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals in a crop by using suitable agronomic practices.

The following are the main benefits of agronomic biofortification:

  1. It is applied to crop cultivars that farmers are currently using and whose output is well-accepted by consumers.

  2. Enhanced micronutrient concentration in grain and other crop portions may be obtained in the same year.

  3. When the foliar treatment is used, very little micronutrient is required.

  4. New seed does not require investment.

  5. For poor nations, agronomic biofortification usually results in a win-win situation.

6.1 Agronomic biofortification in sorghum

Sorghum crop often suffers from the challenge of growing in nutrient poor and contaminated soil. The nutrient profile has been promoted by the application of fertilizers (both organic and inorganic) that have an additive effect on the yield. Researchers have intended to improve the nutrient uptake and alter the metabolic profile of sorghum by using the combination of plant growth-promoting bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) [81, 82]. Also, the inoculation of Azospirillum alone and in combination with phosphate-solubilizing bacteria increased sorghum grain yield and protein content by improving the status of phosphorous and nitrogen in the soil [83].

6.2 Agronomy biofortification through fertilization techniques

We are unaware of other studies that similarly quantified the direct impact of agronomic biofortification on dietary intake of micronutrients on human health. Even though it is shown that agronomic biofortification has the potential to increase micronutrient contents in crops, literature connecting these enhanced concentrations to micronutrient bioavailability, dietary intake and human health are scarce [91]. Such studies do exist on genetically biofortified crops, such as in the case of Indian schoolchildren consuming iron biofortified pearl millet [92]. Modeled estimations have been made on the potential of agronomic biofortification using agronomic and dietary data [93] proposed that future study on micronutrient bioavailability, including metabolic pathways that impact absorption and the health benefits of various chemical forms of micronutrients, is necessary to further establish the legitimacy of agronomic biofortification. The rate of adoption at the stakeholder level is quicker because fertilization is associated with the economy in both the short- and long-term [94], which is evident in both the rate of micronutrient application and the usage of micronutrient-fortified fertilizers [95]. To define the potential and essential circumstances for agronomic biofortification to improve human health, systematic study is needed.

6.3 Agronomic biofortification compared with other interventions

When compared to other intervention strategies like genetic biofortification, food fortification, supplementation, and dietary diversification, the question of whether agronomic biofortification is an efficient, workable, and sustainable approach to addressing micronutrient deficiencies still needs to be answered. Rarely do economic evaluations take agronomic biofortification into account when comparing the relative effects of various initiatives on nutrition. In comparison to other treatments, genetic biofortification is more economical over time than food fortification, supplementation, or dietary diversification since it only needs one breeding investment period [96, 97]. In addition to genetic biofortification (breeding), which is viewed as a more permanent technique, agronomic biofortification is frequently perceived as a temporary option to boost micronutrient availability [98, 99]. Breeding, according to [100] is the only agricultural intervention that may increase the nutritional value of staple crops in low-income countries since farmers with limited resources do not have access to or can pay fertilizers. Dietary diversity, according to the CGIAR biofortification programme, is the best sustainable option, yet those who are most at risk frequently cannot afford various foods. According to [101] concentrated metropolitan regions are most suited for supplements and food diversification programmes, whereas rural people are best served through agronomic biofortification.

Advertisement

7. Developments in biofortification

As of 2018, 6.7 million farm families throughout the world produced biofortified crops, and these goods undoubtedly end up in meals. More than 300 different cultivars of crops, including rice, wheat, maize, cassava, orange sweet potato, potato, lentil, beans, cowpea, banana, and plantain, have been made available so far in 30 different countries [102]. To populate biofortified crops and create an enabling environment, a number of institutions including the.

  1. Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),

  2. Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC),

  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMG Foundation), and

  4. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) must collaborate.

An environment like this includes, among other things, designing new development policies and agendas that take into account the programmes currently being implemented on the ground, recognizing biofortification among global regulatory agencies, collaborating between agencies from various sectors, encouraging private players to play an active role, and more. In order to promote a single, integrated dialog on standards and governance and to provide society the maximum return on investment feasible, CGIAR will continue to use its diverse network of international organizations, research institutes, and civil society groups throughout the world. One of them, Harvest Plus, is in charge of the biofortification initiative, which it will enable over the next years with the primary participation of local governments [102].

There is considerable evidence that eating these biofortified cereals with added macro- and micronutrients helps reduce malnutrition in underdeveloped nations. Micronutrient deficits in India have become worse due to the growth of high yielding cultivars, numerous cropping methods requires attention [103] and rising soil degradation [104]. Agronomic (raising micronutrients by soil amendments or foliar spray), biofortification is the intentional application of mineral fertilizers (such as enriched manures) to crops in order to raise the concentration of a target mineral in edible crop components and hence improve dietary intake of the target mineral [94] conventional breeding (which includes induced mutagenesis), and recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering, GM) are the three biofortification procedures that have been found [105]. Both the impacts on the nutritional value of these small grains and the effects on the end-use functional qualities will be studied.

Advertisement

8. Advantages of biofortification

Similar to the Green Revolution, a hunger-eradication initiative was launched in India. Due to the Green Revolution, the nation is producing more edible grains and is now nearly self-sufficient. To make sure that the populace is ingesting adequate calories, the government is putting many programmes and procedures into place. The improvement of the diet’s nutritional content, however, is the present priority. Even when they consume “adequate food,” many people may not acquire enough nutrients. The issue of “hidden hunger” is the outcome. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent support of locally grown foods as a long-term, economical solution to malnutrition, the Government of India (GoI) is encouraging biofortification. The availability of several biofortified crops in India, such as iron pearl millet, zinc wheat, zinc rice, zinc sorghum, and iron/zinc lentils, helps address the country’s micronutrient deficits by raising dietary levels of iron and zinc.

By utilizing distinct strategies, biofortification gives developing nations several benefits. In order to boost crops, research and initiatives like Harvest Plus are concentrating on the micronutrients iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and vitamin A, which are considered by the World Health Organization to be the most scarce micronutrients. These common crops can be found everywhere and do not require specific management because it is possible to enhance the yield without compromising the crop’s productivity. It can even lead to better development and larger yields because the majority of the target minerals are crucial for the plant’s own nutritional requirements and may help the plant tolerate environmental stress. It is practiced on crop cultivars that farmers are already growing and have good production acceptability, to increase the micronutrient content of grain and other agricultural components in the same year. When the foliar treatment is used, very little micronutrient is required. Further, no investment is required. The agronomic techniques that we can use to boost the concentration of nutrients in edible parts. Helps in maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the soil with Integrated Nutrient management practices.

Advertisement

9. Potential ways for agronomic biofortification

  1. Testing existing varieties for receptivity to micronutrients,

  2. Creating biofortified cultivars to address micronutrient deficits,

  3. Micronutrient need and fertilization in difficult soils,

  4. Importance of Zn and Fe fertilization in disease resistance,

  5. Micronutrient deficiencies and their management in rainfed agriculture,

  6. Soil micronutrient status across cropping systems and location and utilization in policy orientation,

  7. Zinc and Fe fertilization approaches for growth and yield enhancement

  8. Methods for boosting the bioavailability of micronutrients in key food items,

  9. Research on improving the usage efficiency of applied mineral micronutrient fertilizers

  10. The utilization of microbial inoculations and rhizosphere manipulation through management methods and input addition are potential ways to open the doors of this pool, which has not yet been used.

  11. Along with micronutrients, crops that have been agronomically biofortified to address protein, vitamin A, and folic acid deficits also need to be given similar priority [74].

Advertisement

10. Constraints in agronomic biofortification

The following difficulties arise while improving crop characteristics through agronomic biofortification: Micronutrients like iron, zinc, copper, etc. have relatively poor utilization efficiencies (1–5%), which restricts the absorption of applied micronutrients by plants.

  1. Farmers’ timely access to micronutrient fertilizers

  2. Genetic restrictions

  3. Difficulty in raising public awareness

  4. Lack of knowledge

  5. Post-harvest processing losses

The simplest approach of biofortification is the use of micronutrient-enriched fertilizers. But because of variations in mineral mobility, mineral accumulation across plant species, and soil compositions in the specific geographic location of each crop, the efficacy of agronomical biofortification is very varied. Agronomic approaches provide a short-term solution compared to breeding approaches.

11. Conclusion

The success of agronomic biofortification depends on the bioavailability of micronutrients along the entire pathway from soil to plant, food, and the human body. Since there are few studies linking the use of micronutrient fertilizer to improved human health, the effectiveness and utility of agronomic biofortification to treat human micronutrient deficiencies. We recommend the creation of research and pilot-scale fertilization programmes to bridge the knowledge gap on the relationship between the application of micronutrient-enriched fertilizer to crops and dietary micronutrient intake and absorption in consumer’s bodies. In the short term, agronomic approaches are the most important sustainable techniques of biofortification. Besides these challenges, biofortified crops hold a very bright future as these have the potential to remove micronutrient malnutrition among billions of poor people, especially in developing countries. It is well established that biofortification is a promising, cost effective, agricultural strategy for improving the nutritional status of malnourished populations throughout the world. The generation of biofortified food crops with improved nutrient contents such as increases in iron, zinc, Se, and provitamin A content are providing sufficient levels of these and other such micronutrients that are frequently lacking in the diets of the developing and developed world. To achieve this, collaboration between plant breeders, nutrition scientists, genetic engineers, and molecular biologists is essential. Besides these challenges, biofortified crops hold a very bright future as these have the potential to remove micronutrient malnutrition among billions of poor people, especially in the developing countries. The concept of biofortification should be viewed as the soil–plant–animal–human as a continuum rather than working on any one component in the food chain.

References

  1. 1. McGuire S, FAO, IFAD, WFP. The state of food insecurity in the world 2015: Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking stock of uneven progress. Rome: FAO. Advances in Nutrition. 2015;6(5):623-624
  2. 2. Hodge J. Hidden hunger: Approaches to tackling micronutrient deficiencies. In: Gillespie S, Hodge J, Yosef S, Pandya-Lorch R, editors. Nourishing Millions: Stories of Change in Nutrition. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2016. pp. 35-43
  3. 3. Muthayya A, Rah JH, Sugimoto JD, Roos FF, Kraemer K, Black RE. The global hidden hunger indices and maps: An advocacy tool for action. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):67860
  4. 4. Khush GS, Lee S, Cho JI, Jeon JS. Biofortification of crops for reducing malnutrition. Plant Biotechnology Reports. 2012;6:195-202
  5. 5. Tulchinsky T. Micronutrient deficiency conditions: Global health issues. Public Health Reviews. 2010;32:243-255
  6. 6. United Nations Millennium Development Goals Report. 2006. Available from: https://www.un.org/zh/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDGReport2006
  7. 7. Joy EJM, Ander EL, Young SD, Black CR, Watts MJ, Chilimba ADC, et al. Dietary mineral supplies in Africa. Physiologia Plantarum. 2014;151:208-229
  8. 8. Hefferon KL. Can biofortified crops help attain food security? Current Molecular Biology Reports. 2016;2(4):180-185
  9. 9. Gilani GS, Nasim A. Impact of foods nutritionally enhanced through bio-technology in alleviating malnutrition in developing countries. Journal of AOAC International. 2007;90(5):1440-1444
  10. 10. Perez-Massot E, Banakar R, Gomez-Galera S, Zorrilla-Lopez U, Sanahuja G, Arjo G, et al. The contribution of transgenic plants to better health through improved nutrition: Opportunities and constraints. Genes and Nutrition. 2013;8(1):29-41
  11. 11. Bouis HE. Economics of enhanced micronutrient density in food staples. Field Crops Research. 1999;60:165-173
  12. 12. Nestel P, Bouis HE, Meenakshi JV, Pfeiffer W. Biofortification of staple food crops. Journal of Nutrition. 2006;136:1064-1067
  13. 13. Pfeiffer WH, McClafferty B. HarvestPlus: Breeding crops for better nutrition. Crop Science. 2007;47:S88-S100
  14. 14. Hirschi KD. Nutrient biofortification of food crops. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2009;29:401-421
  15. 15. Bazuin S, Azadi H, Witlox F. Application of GM crops in sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons learned from green revolution. Biotechnology Advances. 2011;29:908-912
  16. 16. Das JK, Kumar R, Salam RA, Bhutta ZA. Systematic review of zinc fortification trials. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2013;62(1):44-56
  17. 17. White PJ, Broadley MR. Biofortifying crops with essential mineral elements. Trends in Plant Science. 2005;10:586-593
  18. 18. Zhao FJ, McGrath SP. Biofortification and phytoremediation. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:373-380
  19. 19. Belton PS, Taylor JRN. Sorghum and millets: Protein sources for Africa. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2004;15:94-98
  20. 20. O’Kennedy MM, Grootboom A, Shewry PR. Harnessing sorghum and millet biotechnology for food and health. Journal of Cereal Science. 2006;44:224-235
  21. 21. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). Available from: https://apeda.gov.in/milletportal/Production.html [accessed January 02, 2023]
  22. 22. Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO]. 2015. Available from: http://faostat3.fao.org/ [accessed January 02, 2023]
  23. 23. Austin D. Fox-tail millets (Setaria: Poaceae): Abandoned food in two hemispheres. Economic Botany. 2006;60:143-158
  24. 24. Vijayakumari J, MushtariBegum J, Begum S, Gokavi S. Sensory attributes of ethnic foods from fingermillet (Eleusine coracana). In: Proceeding of the National Seminar on Processing and Utilization of Millet for Nutrition Security: Recent Trends in Millet Processing and Utilization. Hisar: CCSHAV; 2003. pp. 7-12
  25. 25. Baltensperger DD. Progress with proso, pearl and other millets. In: Janick J, Whipkey A, editors. Trends in New Crops and New Uses. Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press; 2002. pp. 100-103
  26. 26. Kimata M, Negishi M. Geographical distribution of prosomillet Panicummiliaceum L. on iodo starch and phenol reactions; with special references to a Northern Propagation Route into Japanese Islands. Environmental Education Studies. Tokyo Gakugei University. 2002;12:15-22
  27. 27. Sood S, Khulbe RK, Gupta AK, Agrawal PK, Upadhyaya HD, Bhatt JC. Barnyard millet–a potential food and feed crop of future. Plant Breeding. 2015;2015(134):135-147
  28. 28. de Wet JMJ, Rao KEP, Mengesha MH, Brink DE. Diversity in kodomillet, Paspalumscrobiculatum. Economic Botany. 1983b, 1983b;37:159-163
  29. 29. de Wet JMJ, Rao KEP, Brink DE. Systematics and domestication of Panicum sumatrense (Gramineae). Journal of Agricultural Traditional Botany Application. 1983a;30:159-168
  30. 30. Yadav OP, Rai KN. Genetic improvement of pearlmillet in India. Agricultural Research. 2013;2:275-292
  31. 31. Yadav OP, Rai KN, Bidinger FR, Gupta SK, Rajpurohit BS, Bhatnagar SK. Pearlmillet (Pennisetumglaucum) restorer lines for breeding dual-purpose hybrids adapted to arid environments. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;82:922-927
  32. 32. Agricultural Statistics, Government of India. PearlMillet. In: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance–2014, Government of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 85-86
  33. 33. Nedumaran S, Bantilan MCS, Gupta SK, Irshad A, Davis JS. Potential Welfare Benefit of Millets Improvement Research at ICRISAT: Multi Country-Economic Surplus Model Approach, Socioeconomics Discussion Paper SeriesNumber15. Hyderabad: ICRISAT; 2014
  34. 34. Hegde PS, Rajasekaran NS, Chandra TS. Effects of the antioxidant properties of millet species on oxidative stress and glycemic status in alloxan induced rats. Nutrition Research. 2005;25:1109-1120
  35. 35. Saleh ASM, Zhang Q , Chen J, Shen Q. Milletgrains: Nutritional quality, processing, and potential health benefits. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2013;12:281-295
  36. 36. Oberleas DP. Phytates. In: Strong FM, editor. Toxicants Occurring Naturally in Foods. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1973. pp. 363-371
  37. 37. Gupta VP. Genetics of quality improvement. In: Gupta VP, Minnocha JL, editors. Trends in Genetical Research on Pennisetums. Vol. 1980. Ludhiana: Punjab Agricultural University; 1980. pp. 291-294
  38. 38. Kumar A, Chauhan BM. Effect of phytic acid on protein digestibility (in vitro) and HCl-extractability of minerals in pearlmillet sprouts. Cereal Chemistry. 1993;70:504-506
  39. 39. Abdalla AA, ElTinay AH, Mohamed BE, Abdalla AH. Proximate composition, starch, phytate and mineral contents of 10 pearlmillet genotypes. Food Chemistry. 1998;63:243-246
  40. 40. AbdelRahman SM, Babiker EE, ElTinay AH. Effect of fermentation on anti nutritional factors and HCl extractability of minerals of pearlmillet cultivars. Journal of Food Technology. 2005;3:516-522
  41. 41. Shivaraj B, Pattabiraman TN. Natural plant enzyme inhibitors. Characterization of an unusual alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitor from ragi (Eleusinecoracana Geartn.). Biochemical Journal. 1981;193:29-36
  42. 42. Pattabiraman TN. Trypsin/chymo trypsin inhibitors from millets. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1986;199:439-448
  43. 43. Joshi BN, Sainani MN, Bastawade KB, Deshpande VV, Gupta VS, Ranjekar PK. Pearlmillet cysteine protease inhibitor. Evidence for the presence of two distincts it’s responsible for anti-fungal and anti-feedant activities. European Journal of Biochemistry. 1999;265:556-563
  44. 44. McDonough CM, Rooney LW, Serna-Saldivar SO. In: Kulp K, Ponte JG, editors. The Millets. In: Hand Book of Cereal Science and Technology (Food Science and Technology). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc; 2000. pp. 177-202
  45. 45. Hadimani NA, Muralikrishna G, Tharanathan RN, Malleshi NG. Varying in processing characteristics and kernel texture. Journal of Cereal Science. 2000;33:17-25
  46. 46. Chandrasekara A, Shahidi F. Content of insoluble bound phenolics in millets and their contribution to anti-oxidant capacity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2010;58:6706-6714
  47. 47. Zhang LZ, Liu RH. Phenolic and carotenoid profiles and anti-proliferative activity of foxtail millet. Food Chemistry. 2015;174:495-501
  48. 48. Bhatt D, Negi M, Sharma P, Saxena SC, Dobriyal AK, Arora S. Responses to drought induced oxidative stress in five finger millet varieties differing in their geographical distribution. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2011;17:347-35356
  49. 49. Devi PB, Vijayabharathi R, Sathyabama S, Malleshi NG, Priyadarisini VB. Health benefits of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) polyphenols and dietary fiber: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014;51:1021-1040
  50. 50. Chandrasekara A, Shahidi F. Inhibitory activities of soluble and bound millet seed phenolics on free radicals and reactive oxygen species. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011;59:428-436
  51. 51. Kofuji K, Aoki A, Tsubaki K, Konishi M. Antioxidant activity of b-glucan. ISRN Pharm. 2012:125864. E pub 2012, Feb 19. DOI: 10.5402/2012/125864
  52. 52. Sharma S, Saxena DC, Riar CS. Isolation of functional components b-glucan and g-amino butyric acid from raw and germinated barnyard millet (Echinochloa frumentacea) and their characterization. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2016;71:231-238
  53. 53. Dykes L, Rooney LW. Review: Sorghum and millet phenols and antioxidants. Journal of Cereal Science. 2006;44:236-251
  54. 54. Dykes L, Rooney LW. Phenolic compound sin cereal grains and their health benefits. Cereal Foods World. 2007;52:105-111
  55. 55. Kim JS, Hyun TK, Kim MJ. The inhibitory effects of ethanol extracts from sorghum, foxtail millet and proso millet on a-glucosidase and a-amylase activities. Food Chemistry. 2011;124:1647-1651
  56. 56. Kunyanga CN, Imungi JK, Okoh MW, Biesalsk HK. Total phenolic content, anti oxidant and anti diabetic properties of methanolic extract of raw and traditionally processed Kenyan indigenous food ingredients. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2012;45:269-276
  57. 57. Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Advances in Setaria genomics for genetic improvement of cereals and bio energy grasses. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2015;128:1-14
  58. 58. O’Kennedy MM, Crampton BG, OziasAkins P. Pearlmillet. In: Kole C, Hall TC, editors. Compendium of Transgenic Crop Plants: Transgenic Cereals and Forage Grasses. Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. pp. 177-190
  59. 59. Tsehaye Y, Berg T, Tsegaye B, Tanto T. Farmers’ management of fingermillet (Eleusine coracana L.) diversity in Tigray, Ethiopia and implications for on-farm conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2006;15:4289-4308
  60. 60. Reddy INBL, Reddy DS, Narasu ML, Sivaramakrishnan S. Characterization of disease resistance gene homologues isolated from finger millet (Eleusinecoracana L. Gaertn). Molecular Breeding. 2011;27:315-328
  61. 61. Bouis HE, Hotz C, McClafferty B, Meenakshi JV, Pfeiffer WH. Biofortification: A new tool to reduce micro nutrient malnutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2011;32:S31-S40
  62. 62. Welch RM, Graham RD. Breeding for micro nutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:353-364
  63. 63. Kennedy GL, Pedro MR, Seghieri C, Nantel G, Brouwer I. Dietary diversity score is a useful indicator of micronutrient intake in non-breastfeeding Filipino children. The Journal of Nutrition. 2007;137:472-477
  64. 64. WHO. WHO/FAO (World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines. Nutrition Programme. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003
  65. 65. World Health Organization. Office of World Health Reporting. The World Health Report: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life: Overview. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. ISBN 924 1562072. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67454
  66. 66. WHO Newsroom. Factsheet “Children: Reducing Mortality”. 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets [Accessed on January 02, 2023]
  67. 67. Fuge R, Johnson CC. Iodine and human health, the role of environmental geochemistry and diet, a review. Applied Geochemistry. 2015;63:282-302
  68. 68. Taylor JRN, Emmambux MN. Gluten-free foods and beverages from millets. In: Arendt EK, DalBello F, editors. Gluten-Free Cereal Products and Beverages (Food Science and Technology). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2008. pp. 119-148
  69. 69. Muthamilarasan M, Dhaka A, Yadav R, Prasad M. Exploration of millet models for developing nutrient rich graminaceous crops. Plant Science. 2016;242:89-97
  70. 70. Hotz C, McCafeerty B, Hawkes C, Ruel M, Babu S. From harvest to health: Challenges for developing biofortified staple foods and determining their impact on micronutrient status. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2007;28:271-279
  71. 71. Reddy BVS, Ramesh S, Longvah T. Prospects of breeding for micronutrients and β-carotene-dense sorghums. International Sorghum Millets Newsletter. 2005;46:10-14
  72. 72. Velu G, Rai KN, Muralidharan V, Kulkarni VN, Longvah T, Raveendran TS. Prospects of breeding biofortified pearl millet with high grain iron and zinc content. Plant Breeding. 2007;126:182-185
  73. 73. Rai KN, Govindraj M, Rao AS. Genetic enhancement of grain iron and zinc content in pearl millet. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods. 2012;4(3):119-125
  74. 74. Shahane AA, Shivay YS. Agronomic biofortification of crops: Current research status and future needs. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 2022;18(2):164-179
  75. 75. Satyavathi CT, Ambawat S, Khandelwal V, Govindaraj M. Micronutrient Rice Pearl Millet for Nutritionally Secure India. CAZRI, Jodhpur, Rajasthan: ICAR-All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet; 2021
  76. 76. Yadava DK, Choudhury PR, Hossain F, Kumar D. Biofortified Varieties: Sustainable Way to Alleviate Malnutrition. Third ed. ICAR: New Delhi; 2020. pp. 1-86
  77. 77. Kumar AA, Reddy BVS, Ramaiah B, Sahrawat KL. Gene effects and heterosis for grain iron and zinc concentration in sorghum [sorghum bicolour (L.) Moench]. Field Crops Research. 2013;146:86-95
  78. 78. Mayer AB, Latham MC, Duxbury JM, Hassan N, Frongillo EA. A food systems approach to increase dietary zinc intake in Bangladesh based on an analysis of diet, rice production and processing. In: Thompson B, Amoroso L, editors. Combating Micronutrient Deficiencies: Food-Based Approaches. Rome, Italy and Wallingford, UK: FAO and CABI; 2011. pp. 254-300
  79. 79. Sahrawat KL, Rago TJ, Wani S, Pradhasaradhi G. Sulfur, boron, and zinc fertilization effects on grain and straw quality of maize and sorghum grown in semi-arid tropical region of India. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2008;2008(31):1578-1584
  80. 80. Kumar S, Pandey G. Biofortification of pulses and legumes to enhance nutrition. Heliyon. 2020, 2020;6(3):03682
  81. 81. Dhawi F, Datta R, Ramakrishna W. Mycorrhiza and PGPB modulate maize biomass, nutrient uptake and metabolic pathways in maize grown in mining impacted soil. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2015;97:390-399
  82. 82. Dhawi F, Datta R, Ramakrishna W. Mycorrhiza and heavy metal resistant bacteria enhance growth, nutrient uptake and alter metabolic profile of sorghum grown in marginal soil. Chemosphere. 2016;157:33-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.112
  83. 83. Patidar M, Mali AL. Effect of farmyard manure, fertility levels and biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2004;2(49):117-120
  84. 84. Aro A, Alfthan G, Varo P. Effects of supplementation of fertilizers on human selenium status in Finland. The Analyst. 1995;120:841-843
  85. 85. Cakmak I, Kalayci M, Ekiz H, Braun HJ, Kilinc Y, Yilmaz A. Zinc deficiency as a practical problem in plant and human nutrition in Turkey: A NATO-science for stability project. Field Crops Research. 1999;60:175-188
  86. 86. Jiang XM, Cao XY, Jiang JY, Ma T, James DW, Rakeman MA. Dynamics of environmental supplementation of iodine: Four years’ experience in iodination of irrigation water in Hotien, Xinjiang, China. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. 1997;52(6):399-408
  87. 87. Rengel Z, Batten GD, Crowley DE. Agronomic approaches for improving the micronutrient density in edible portions of field crops. Field Crops Research. 1999;60:27-40
  88. 88. Smith SE, Read DJ. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. 3rd ed. London, UK: Elsevier; 2007
  89. 89. Hardarson G, Broughton WJ. Maximising the use of biological nitrogen fixation in agriculture. Annals of Botany. 2004;93(4):477
  90. 90. Cavagnaro TR. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in improving plant zinc nutrition under low soil zinc concentrations: A review. Plant and Soil. 2008;304:315-325
  91. 91. Joy EJM, Ander EL, Young SD, Black CR, Watts MJ, Chilimba ADC, et al. Global Food Security. 2017;12:8-14
  92. 92. Finkelstein J, Mehta S, Udipi S, Ghugre P, Luna S, Wenger M, et al. A randomized trial of iron-biofortifiied pearl milletin school children in India. Journal of Nutrition. 2015;145:1576-1581
  93. 93. Finley JW. Bioavailability of selenium from foods. Nutrition Reviews. 2006;64(3):146-151
  94. 94. Prasad R, Shivay YS. Agronomic biofortification of plant foods with minerals, vitamins and metabolites with chemical fertilizers and liming. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2020;43:1534-1554
  95. 95. Shivay YS, Singh U, Prasad R, Kaur R. Agronomic interventions for micronutrient biofortification of pulses. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2016;61:S161-S172
  96. 96. Stein AJ, Nestel P, Meenakshi JV, Qaim M, Sachdev HPS, Bhutta ZA. Plant breeding to control zinc deficiency in India: How cost-effective is biofortification? Public Health Nutrition. 2006;10(5):492-501
  97. 97. Ma G, Jin Y, Li Y, Zhai F, Kok FJ, Jacobson E, et al. Iron and zinc deficiencies in China: What is feasible and cost-effective strategy? Public Health Nutrition. 2008;11(6):632-638
  98. 98. Garcia Banuelos ML, Sida Arreola JP, Sanches E. Biofortification – Promising approach to increasing the content of iron and zinc in staple food crops. Journal of Elementary Science Education. 2014;19(3):865-888
  99. 99. Velu G, Ortiz Monasterio I, Cakmak I, Hao Y, Singh RP. Biofortification strategies to increase grain zinc and iron concentrations in wheat. Journal of Cereal Sciene. 2014;59(3):365-372
  100. 100. Cakmak I, Pfeiffer WH, McClafferty B. Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal Chemistry. 2010;87(1):10-20
  101. 101. Bouis HE, Welch RM. Biofortification – A sustainable agricultural strategy for reducing micronutrient malnutrition in the global south. Crop Science. 2010;50:20-32
  102. 102. HarvestPlus. Biofortification Prioritization Index (BPI). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2013 Available from: http://www.harvestplus.org/content
  103. 103. Shahane AA, Shivay YS. Soil health and its improvement through novel agronomic and innovative approaches. Fronitiers in Agronomy. 2021;3:680456
  104. 104. Bhattacharyya R, Ghosh BN, Mishra PK, Mandal B. Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability. 2015;7:3528-3570
  105. 105. Carvalho SMP, Vasconcelos MW. Producing more with less: Strategies and novel technologies for plant-based food biofortification. Food Research International. 2013;54:961-971

Written By

Sreenivasareddy Kadapa, Alekhya Gunturi, Rajareddy Gundreddy, Srikanth Reddy Kalwala and Uday Bhaskar Mogallapu

Submitted: 05 January 2023 Reviewed: 07 March 2023 Published: 15 April 2023