ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство
The global synthetic fertilizer market, valued at approximately USD 200 billion in 2024, faces declining marginal returns despite increasing application rates. Concurrently, the biofertilizer market is projected to expand from USD 1.4 billion (2024) to USD 2.8 billion by 2030 (CAGR ~13 %). Integrate...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Institute of Agrocultural Microbiology and Agro-industrial Manufacture of NAAS of Ukraine
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://smic.in.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/543 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Agriciltural microbiology |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
Agriciltural microbiology| _version_ | 1871466342484279296 |
|---|---|
| author | Яковенко, Д. О. Болоховська, В. А. Хоменко, Т. О. Болоховський, В. В. Кузьмич, В. І. Янсе, Л. А. Бородай, В. В. |
| author_facet | Яковенко, Д. О. Болоховська, В. А. Хоменко, Т. О. Болоховський, В. В. Кузьмич, В. І. Янсе, Л. А. Бородай, В. В. |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "Д. О. Яковенко",
"institution": "Інститут агроекології та природокористування НААН"
},
{
"author": "В. А. Болоховська",
"institution": "ТОВ «Компанія “БТУ-Центр”»"
},
{
"author": "Т. О. Хоменко",
"institution": "ТОВ «Компанія “БТУ-Центр”»"
},
{
"author": "В. В. Болоховський",
"institution": "ТОВ «Компанія “БТУ-Центр”»"
},
{
"author": "В. І. Кузьмич",
"institution": "ТОВ «Компанія “БТУ-Центр”»"
},
{
"author": "Л. А. Янсе",
"institution": "Інститут агроекології та природокористування НААН"
},
{
"author": "В. В. Бородай",
"institution": "Національний університет біоресурсів і природокористування України"
}
] |
| author_sort | Яковенко, Д. О. |
| baseUrl_str | https://smic.in.ua/index.php/journal/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2026-07-22T10:10:52Z |
| description | The global synthetic fertilizer market, valued at approximately USD 200 billion in 2024, faces declining marginal returns despite increasing application rates. Concurrently, the biofertilizer market is projected to expand from USD 1.4 billion (2024) to USD 2.8 billion by 2030 (CAGR ~13 %). Integrated nutrient management systems combining mineral fertilizers with microbial inoculants represent an emerging technological frontier aimed at improving nutrient use efficiency, environmental sustainability, and soil health restoration. This review critically examines market dynamics, technological innovations, and practical challenges in developing integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer products, with a specific focus on microbial coating technologies for granular and liquid fertilizers. A comprehensive literature review covering 2020–2025, analyzing peer-reviewed publications, market reports, and field trial data from commercial applications was conducted. Search strategies employed multiple databases focusing on phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, nitrogen-fixing microorganisms, coating technologies, and integrated nutrient management systems. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) demonstrate consistent field efficacy, increasing wheat yields by 14–85 % while enhancing soil available phosphorus up to 33 %. Meta-analyses confirm biofertilizer yield increases of approximately 10–40 % across diverse crops and environments. Granular fertilizers coated with microbial inoculants through post-granulation spray coating at 2–5 L·t–1 achieve microbial densities of 106–108 CFU g–1 with reported shelf-life stability exceeding 12 months. However, technological barriers persist: conventional  granulation processes involve temperatures (60–90 °C) that inactivate microorganisms, necessitating post-granulation application strategies. Liquid fertilizers create chemically aggressive environments (pH 7–10, high salinity) that are hostile to long-term microbial survival, though short-term tank-mix compatibility (2–8 hours) enables immediate field application. Recent advances include the use of biopolymer matrices (chitosan, xanthan gum), metal-phenolic networks, and industrial-scale spray-coating systems, which demonstrate commercial viability while maintaining cost-competitiveness. Integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer systems offer substantial potential for sustainable intensification, enabling 20–30 % reductions in synthetic fertilizer application without yield penalty. Commercial viability depends on resolving formulation stability challenges through advanced coating technologies while maintaining cost-competitiveness. The convergence of controlled-release fertilizer technology with microbial inoculant delivery represents a promising pathway for nextgeneration nutrient management systems, with projected market potential within this segment reaching USD 5–6 billion by 2030. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.35868/1997-3004.42.3-18 |
| first_indexed | 2026-03-17T02:00:06Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
3
ҐРУНТОВА МІКРОБІОЛОГІЯ
Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42. С. 3–18.
ISSN 1997-3004
https://doi.org/10.35868/1997-3004.42.3-18
UDC 631:8.604/339.1
INTEGRATED FERTILIZER-BIOFERTILIZER SYSTEMS:
MARKET TRENDS, TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES
AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
D. O. Yakovenko1,2, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8239-7684,
V. A. Bolokhovska1, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2728-4589,
T. O. Khomenko1, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4095-3706,
V. V. Bolokhovskyi1, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0074-6362,
V. I. Kuzmych1, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1894-5634,
L. A. Janse2,3, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2567-5907,
V. V. Boroday2,4, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8787-8646
1LLC “Company "BTU-Center"”
1/34 Academika Amosova str., Sofiivska Borshchahivka, 08138, Ukraine
2Institute of Agroecology and Environmental Management, NAAS
12 Metrologichna str., Kyiv, 03143, Ukraine
3National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine
9 M. Omelianovycha-Pavlenka str., Kyiv, 01010, Ukraine
4National University of Life and Environmental Sciences
15 Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine
e-mail: veraboro@gmail.com
The global synthetic fertilizer market, valued at approximately USD 200 billion in 2024, faces
declining marginal returns despite increasing application rates. Concurrently, the biofertilizer
market is projected to expand from USD 1.4 billion (2024) to USD 2.8 billion by 2030 (CAGR
~13 %). Integrated nutrient management systems combining mineral fertilizers with microbial
inoculants represent an emerging technological frontier aimed at improving nutrient use efficiency,
environmental sustainability, and soil health restoration.
This review critically examines market dynamics, technological innovations, and practical
challenges in developing integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer products, with a specific focus on micro-
bial coating technologies for granular and liquid fertilizers.
A comprehensive literature review covering 2020–2025, analyzing peer-reviewed publications,
market reports, and field trial data from commercial applications was conducted. Search strategies
employed multiple databases focusing on phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, nitrogen-fixing microor-
ganisms, coating technologies, and integrated nutrient management systems.
Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) demonstrate consistent field efficacy, increasing wheat
yields by 14–85 % while enhancing soil available phosphorus up to 33 %. Meta-analyses confirm
biofertilizer yield increases of approximately 10–40 % across diverse crops and environments.
Granular fertilizers coated with microbial inoculants through post-granulation spray coating at
2–5 L·t–1 achieve microbial densities of 106–108 CFU g–1 with reported shelf-life stability exceeding
12 months. However, technological barriers persist: conventional granulation processes involve
© D. O. Yakovenko, V. A. Bolokhovska, T. O. Khomenko, V. V. Bolokhovskyi, V. I. Kuzmych, L. A. Janse, V. V. Boroday, 2025
4
temperatures (60–90 °C) that inactivate microorganisms, necessitating post-granulation applica-
tion strategies. Liquid fertilizers create chemically aggressive environments (pH 7–10, high sali-
nity) that are hostile to long-term microbial survival, though short-term tank-mix compatibility
(2–8 hours) enables immediate field application. Recent advances include the use of biopolymer
matrices (chitosan, xanthan gum), metal-phenolic networks, and industrial-scale spray-coating sys-
tems, which demonstrate commercial viability while maintaining cost-competitiveness.
Integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer systems offer substantial potential for sustainable intensifica-
tion, enabling 20–30 % reductions in synthetic fertilizer application without yield penalty. Com-
mercial viability depends on resolving formulation stability challenges through advanced coating
technologies while maintaining cost-competitiveness. The convergence of controlled-release ferti-
lizer technology with microbial inoculant delivery represents a promising pathway for next-
generation nutrient management systems, with projected market potential within this segment
reaching USD 5–6 billion by 2030.
Key words: soil nutrient management; biofertilizer formulation; sustainable agriculture.
1. Introduction
Modern agriculture confronts a fundamental
paradox: while global food production relies in-
creasingly on synthetic fertilizers, their marginal
productivity gains are diminishing even as ap-
plication rates escalate [1; 2]. The global ferti-
lizer market, valued at approximately USD 200
billion annually, exhibits volumetric stagnation
in mature markets despite price volatility and
rising input costs [3; 4]. Nitrogen use efficiency
in intensive cereal systems rarely exceeds 50 %,
with losses through leaching, volatilization, and
denitrification [5; 6]. Thus, the loss of approxi-
mately 59 % of N (at a level of 60–80 kg N/ha)
in the soil-plant system in grain production led
to a 41 % decrease in economic efficiency [7].
Phosphorus faces distinct challenges: upon ap-
plication, approximately 70–90 % of applied P
rapidly converts to retrograded forms unavaila-
ble to plants through fixation by soil minerals
(Fe, Al, Ca) [8]. Soil degradation caused by the
use of mineral fertilizers leads to reduced fertili-
ty, soil compaction, reduced microbial diversity
and other consequences [9; 10]. These factors
stimulate interest in biological solutions.
Microbial biofertilizers — particularly ni-
trogen-fixing bacteria (Azotobacter spp., Rhizo-
bium spp.) and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria
(PSB), including genera Bacillus, Paenibacillus,
and Pseudomonas — demonstrate the capacity
to enhance nutrient availability through biologi-
cal nitrogen fixation [10], mineral phosphate
solubilization [11; 12], stimulation of plant
growth via phytohormone production [13; 14]
and induction of resistance to biotic and abiotic
factors [15–17]. The global biofertilizer market
reached USD 1.4 billion in 2024 with projec-
tions approaching USD 2.8 billion by 2030,
reflecting compound annual growth rates of
approximately 12–13 % [18].
Yet despite documented efficacy in con-
trolled trials, biofertilizer adoption remains con-
strained by formulation challenges, inconsistent
field performance, and logistical barriers related
to storage, transport, and on-farm handling [19].
A promising solution emerging in recent years
involves so-called integrated products: mineral
fertilizers enriched with microbial inoculants
delivered through advanced coating or tank-mix
technologies [20–22]. Such systems have the
potential to combine the immediate nutrient
supply of mineral fertilizers with the sustained
efficiency-enhancing effects of beneficial mic-
roorganisms [23].
This review examines three interconnected
dimensions of integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer
systems: market and policy dynamics and eco-
nomic drivers, scientific evidence for phos-
phate-solubilizing and nitrogen-fixing microor-
ganisms, and technological challenges and in-
novations in formulation, particularly microbial
coating of granular fertilizers and compatibility
with liquid fertilizer systems. The review relies
on recent literature (2020–2025) and selected
commercial field trial data to assess both
achievements and persistent barriers, providing
an informed perspective on the trajectory of this
emerging technology sector and on the eviden-
tiary gaps that require further validation.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Literature search and data collection
A systematic literature review covering
publications from January 2020 through January
2025 was conducted. Multiple databases were
queried, including Web of Science Core Collec-
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
5
tion, PubMed, Google Scholar, and industry
market-research repositories. Search terms em-
ployed Boolean combinations: (“phosphate-so-
lubilizing bacteria” or “PSB”) and (“fertilizer
efficiency” or “biofertilizer”); (“nitrogen-fixing
bacteria” or “Azotobacter”) and (“coating tech-
nology”); (“granular fertilizer” or “liquid ferti-
lizer” or “UAN” (urea-ammonium nitrate)) and
(“microbial coating” or “tank mix compatibi-
lity”). Reference lists of key papers were also
screened to identify relevant studies not cap-
tured by database queries.
2.2. Market data analysis
Market valuations and growth projections
were compiled from industry analyst reports
(Mordor Intelligence, Markets and Markets,
IMARC Group), corporate disclosures from ma-
jor fertilizer manufacturers, and peer-reviewed
economic analyses. We prioritized sources
providing methodological transparency regar-
ding market segmentation and growth rate cal-
culations. Where multiple estimates were avai-
lable for the same year or segment, we reported
the range and the most conservative figure.
2.3. Field trial data integration
Commercial field-trial data from integrated
fertilizer-biofertilizer applications (2019–2024)
were incorporated, including multi-location and
multi-crop trials conducted in Ukraine, Europe,
and North America. Data encompassed crop-
yield responses, fertilizer use-efficiency metrics,
and product stability assessments under com-
mercial storage and handling conditions. Be-
cause a portion of these data originated from
corporate sources, they are identified in the text
as proprietary or non-peer-reviewed and inter-
preted with appropriate caution.
2.4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included if they: reported
quantitative field-trial data on biofertilizer or in-
tegrated fertilizer-biofertilizer efficacy, descri-
bed formulation technologies relevant to micro-
bial viability or shelf-life, examined phosphate-
solubilizing or nitrogen-fixing bacteria under
agricultural conditions, or analyzed market
trends with documented data sources. The la-
boratory studies without field validation and re-
view articles published prior to 2020 were ex-
cluded. However, seminal pre-2020 studies we-
re cited selectively to provide background on
coating technologies and mechanisms of plant
growth-promoting microorganisms.
3. Results
3.1. Global fertilizer and biofertilizer mar-
ket dynamics
3.1.1. Synthetic fertilizer market: scale and
regional dynamics
The global synthetic fertilizer market is
valued at approximately USD 200 billion annu-
ally, supporting an estimated half of world food
production [1,24]. Despite this massive scale,
volume growth has largely plateaued in mature
markets (North America, Western Europe, East
Asia), reflecting agronomic and physiological
limits where additional inputs yield diminishing
returns [1; 12; 14].
The main regional consumption patterns
are in the Asia-Pacific region, North America,
Europe and Latin America.
Asia-Pacific dominates global consumption
(> 50 % market share), with China producing
around 25 % of global fertilizer output and con-
suming approximately 94 million tonnes annual-
ly [3]. Growth rates in these mature intensive
systems have decelerated to about 2–3 % annu-
ally. North America accounts for ~18 % of the
global market. Despite extensive phosphate and
potassium resources, the region imports more
than half of its nitrogen fertilizers and about
85 % of potassium, creating exposure to supply
chain vulnerabilities [3]. Europe represents
~15 % of global markets. Post-2022 energy
price volatility significantly impacted fertilizer
costs, though prices declined from peak levels
of USD 815 t–1 (April 2022) to USD 334 t–1
(September 2024) for representative NPK bas-
kets [3]. Latin America (~11 % market share)
shows the strongest growth trajectory (CAGR
5–7 %), driven by expansion of soybean, corn,
and sugarcane cultivation in Brazil, Argentina,
and Paraguay [3]. Mature markets show modest
increases of 0.8–1.5 million tonnes annually,
while faster growth concentrates in Sub-Saharan
Africa (projected +25 %, or 2 million tonnes
over 2024–2028) and Latin America/South Asia
(+3–4 million tonnes each). This pattern reflects
a fundamental shift: once soils reach moderate-
to-high fertility, additional synthetic inputs pro-
vide progressively limited benefit while increas-
ing environmental externalities (nutrient runoff,
greenhouse gas emissions) [3; 24].
3.1.2. Biofertilizer market growth trajectory
During 2021 and 2022, global food and fer-
tiliser prices rose sharply due to the recovery
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
6
from the COVID-19 recession and the outbreak
of war between Russia and Ukraine. During
2022–2023, despite the sharp increase in raw
material costs, global demand for fertilisers de-
clined only slightly. A larger percentage of far-
mers (78.6 %) cited the cost of fertilisers as one
of the main problems affecting their activities,
which led to the implementation of adaptation
strategies to reduce dependence on fertilisers.
Such strategies included crop rotation, cover
crops, variable application rates, manure/com-
post use, and/or the addition of microorganism-
based biofertilizers [25].
In contrast, the biofertilizer sector continues
to exhibit robust expansion. Market valuations
increased from approximately USD 3,7 billion
in 2024, with projections reaching USD 6,0 bil-
lion by 2030, representing a compound annual
growth rate of about 9,94 % [26]. This growth
trajectory, while substantial in percentage terms,
maintains biofertilizers at < 1 % of the total fer-
tilizer market by value, highlighting both the
scale of opportunity and the challenges for mar-
ket penetration.
The main growth drivers are regulatory
pressures for input reduction (EU Farm to Fork
Strategy targeting up to 20–30 % fertilizer re-
ductions by 2030) [27], expansion of organic
agriculture requiring approved biological inputs,
rising synthetic fertilizer costs, which improve
the cost-benefit profile of biofertilizers and ac-
cumulating field evidence demonstrating agro-
nomic benefits under farmer conditions.
Regional adoption patterns vary substantial-
ly. India leads in absolute biofertilizer consump-
tion (~30 % global share), driven by govern-
ment subsidies and mandated inclusion in soil-
health and integrated nutrient management pro-
grams. Latin America, particularly Brazil and
Argentina, shows rapid growth (CAGR ~15–
18 %) supported by extensive soybean cultiva-
tion utilizing Bradyrhizobium inoculants. North
America and Europe exhibit slower but steady
adoption (CAGR ~8–10 %), primarily in orga-
nic systems and among by early-adopter con-
ventional farmers [28].
3.1.3. Integrated products: an emerging
high-growth segment
A nascent but rapidly growing segment
involves integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer pro-
ducts: mineral fertilizers (granular or liquid)
enriched with microbial inoculants [21; 22; 29;
30]. While comprehensive market data for this
subsegment remains limited, industry sources
suggest this category represents approximately
3–5 % of total biofertilizer sales (~USD 40–
70 million in 2024) with projected growth rates
potentially exceeding 20 % annually. If this tra-
jectory continues, integrated products could
reach USD 200–300 million by 2030, contribu-
ting to biofertilizer market expansion toward
an aspirational USD 5–6 billion valuation when
broader biostimulant and microbial categories
are included [28].
Growth drivers include farmer preference
for operational simplification (single-pass ope-
rations) and potential synergies, wherein mine-
ral nutrients support microbial establishment
while microbes enhance nutrient use efficiency.
Major fertilizer manufacturers are increasingly
investing in this space: ICL’s NanoCote tech-
nology, Mosaic’s MicroEssentials line with mi-
crobial-coating options, and regional producers
in Eastern Europe, Brazil, and China developing
proprietary formulations [29–32].
The core technological challenge — main-
taining microbial viability through manufactur-
ing, storage, and field application — remains
the primary constraint currently limiting broader
commercialization.
3.2. Phosphate-solubilizing and nitrogen-
fixing bacteria: mechanisms and efficacy
Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) en-
hance plant phosphorus nutrition through multi-
ple mechanisms, such as secretion of low-
molecular-weight organic acids (gluconic, citric,
oxalic) that chelate cations (Ca2+, Fe3+, Al3+)
bound to phosphate; production of phosphatase
enzymes and phytases mineralizing organic
phosphorus compounds, formation and release
of siderophores, which chelate metal ions and
form complexes, helping phosphates to be
available for plant uptake; and acidification of
the rhizosphere through proton extrusion and
respiratory CO₂ production [10–13; 33–36].
Key genera of PSB include Bacillus, Pae-
nibacillus, Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, and Pa-
ntoea. Their performance is highly dependent
on soil pH, organic carbon availability, texture,
moisture, and indigenous microbial competition
strongly modulate PSB efficacy, explaining the
substantial field-to-field performance variability
reported in the literature [33].
Recent field trials document their notable
efficacy. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) inocula-
tion with PSB consortia increased yields up to
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
7
14.42 % (P < 0.05) compared with the control
treatment in phosphate fertilizer-used farmland.
Besides promoting wheat growth, we found the
labile P fraction in soil was significantly in-
creased by over 122.04 % (P < 0.05) under PSB
inoculation compared with it in soils without, in
parallel, the stable P fraction was significantly
reduced by over 46.89 % (P < 0.05). Further-
more, PSB inoculation increased the soil micro-
bial biomass and activity [34]. Maize trials with
PSB seed treatment reported yield gains of 64–
85 % compared to uninoculated controls when
PSB were combined with reduced phosphorus
fertilizer inputs. A recent meta-analysis con-
firms that PSB consistently enhance rock phos-
phate solubilization and crop phosphorus up-
take, though efficacy varies with soil type, cli-
mate, and the specific strain or consortium em-
ployed [35]. This data support the premise that
PSB can partly compensate mineral P applica-
tion rates, but they also underscore the need for
strain-soil matching and multi-location valida-
tion.
Biological nitrogen fixation in classical
Rhizobium-legume symbiosis is well-established,
contributing approximately 20–60 kg N·ha–1 per
season in soybean and other grain legumes un-
der favorable conditions [10; 37]. More recent
and agronomically intriguing are associative ni-
trogen-fixing bacteria colonizing cereal roots:
Azotobacter spp., Azospirillum spp., Herbaspi-
rillum spp., others and endophytic bacteria [38].
The action of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF
516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528, either sepa-
rately or in combination, significantly improved
wheat plant growth and enhanced nutrient up-
take (N and P) under conditions of reduced ni-
trogen content in the soil [39]. While nitrogen
fixation rates in cereals (typically 10–30 kg N×
×ha–1·season–1) are lower than in legume sym-
bioses, additional benefits accrue through phy-
tohormone production (auxins, gibberellins, cy-
tokinins) that stimulate root growth, enhance
nutrient uptake, and may improve abiotic-stress
tolerance [40].
A meta-analysis of experimental studies
showed that the effectiveness of NFB inocula-
tion varied significantly depending on the com-
bination of crop and bacteria; soil inoculation
demonstrated a significantly greater positive ef-
fect than seed inoculation [41]. Field evidence
from wheat, maize, and rice systems demon-
strates yield increases of about 10–25 % with
nitrogen-fixing inoculants, often accompanied
by 15–20 % reductions in synthetic nitrogen fer-
tilizer without detectable yield penalty. Howev-
er, efficacy depends critically on soil nitrogen
status: indigenous nitrogen levels above 80–
100 kg N·ha–1 suppress biological fixation thro-
ugh feedback regulation, thereby limiting bene-
fits in intensively fertilized systems. According-
ly, the strongest response is reported in mode-
rate-input or transitional systems, which is par-
ticularly relevant for integrated fertilizer-bio-
fertilizer systems targeting N-rate optimization
rather than full replacement [42–44].
3.3. Synergistic effects microorganisms in
integrated systems
Combining PSB and nitrogen-fixing bacte-
ria with reduced mineral fertilizers often yields
additive-to-synergistic benefits exceeding indi-
vidual treatments. Field trials employing micro-
bial consortia with 70–80 % of standard NPK
rates produced yield increases of 10–22 % rela-
tive to full-fertilizer controls while using 20–
30 % less fertilizer [45]. These mechanisms in-
volve such factors, as nitrogen fixation supply-
ing additional N to support plant growth, phos-
phate solubilization enhancing P availability,
microbial organic acids improving micronutri-
ent (Fe, Zn, Mn) solubility, and phytohormone
production stimulating root proliferation and
greater nutrient foraging capacity [40; 42; 47;
48]. Joint inoculation of wheat plants with dia-
zotrophic Paenibacillus beijingensis BJ-18 and
phosphate-solubilising Paenibacillus sp. B1 sig-
nificantly increased plant growth and the con-
tent of phosphates and nitrogen in the roots and
shoots of plants and in the soil [48]. In several
cases, improved root architecture also enhanced
water uptake, indirectly contributing to yield
stability under transient stress [40; 42].
These integrated effects suggest a realistic
potential for fertilizer substitution — 20–30 %
reductions in mineral inputs while maintaining
or improving yields — provided that microbial
establishment and activity can be reliably
achieved under diverse field conditions and that
strains are matched to soil and crop require-
ments [49].
3.4. Technological challenges and innova-
tions in formulation
3.4.1. Granular fertilizers: from thermal
barriers to coating solutions
Conventional granular fertilizer production
involves high-temperature processes (60–90 °C)
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
8
during granulation, drying, and in some cases
coating stages [51]. Most microorganisms can-
not survive these conditions: vegetative bacteri-
al cells typically exhibit thermal death kinetics
with D-values (decimal reduction times) of 2–
5 minutes at 60 °C. Even spore-forming Bacil-
lus species experience significant viability los-
ses during prolonged exposure to granulation/
drying temperatures [52].
This thermal barrier historically prevented
microbial incorporation during granular fertili-
zer manufacture. However, a breakthrough solu-
tion has emerged: post-granulation spray coa-
ting of finished granules with microbial inocu-
lants at ambient temperatures (15–25 °C) [51].
This approach enables practical commercial
production while maintaining microbial viabi-
lity, allows flexible dosing, and can be imple-
mented on existing coating drums with limited
retrofitting.
3.4.2. Post-granulation coating technolo-
gies and commercial applications
Several coating approaches demonstrate
commercial viability, for example direct spray
coating with protective additives. The most
practically implemented approach involves
spraying microbial suspensions directly onto
finished granules using standard fertilizer-coa-
ting equipment. Liquid inoculant application
rates of 2–5 L·t–1 of granular fertilizer typically
achieve target microbial densities of 106–
108 CFU·g–1. Protective additives in the spray
solution — including glycerol, trehalose, or
polysaccharides — enhance desiccation tole-
rance during drying and subsequent storage
[54]. A two-step application (microbial spray —
light sealing layer) can further improve shelf-
life, where coating lines permit. As a commer-
cial example is the BTU-Center Groundfix
Coater technology. BTU-Center (Ukraine) de-
veloped a practical post-granulation coating sys-
tem for enriching granular NPK fertilizers with
microbial consortia [53]. Field trials (2020–
2024) of BTU-Center Groundfix Coater tech-
nology across multiple locations demonstrated
the application rates of 2–5 L inoculant per
tonne fertilizer can be achieved and that coated
products maintained shelf-life stability for more
than 12 months at ambient temperature (18–
25 °C), with microbial populations maintained
remaining > 106–107 CFU·g–1 throughout sto-
rage period. Also early plant response was ob-
served, such as enhanced root development vi-
sible within 14–21 days post-application. Usage
of BTU-Center Groundfix Coater technology
increased maize yield up to 0.4–1.0 t·ha–1 (5–
12 % gains) compared to standard fertilizer,
sunflower yield improvements of 0.3–0.6 t·ha–1
(8–15 % gains) and economic returns (additio-
nal yield value minus coating cost) ranged from
2:1 to 5:1, depending on crop price and fertilizer
rate.
In specific trials, enriched fertilizer at 100
kg·ha–1 produced yield increases nearly three
times greater than standard fertilizer: conven-
tional fertilizers yielded +250 kg·ha–1, while en-
riched formulations delivered +960 kg·ha–1.
Across five multi-location trials (2020–2024) on
corn and sunflower, average yield increments
reached 400 kg·ha–1 [54].
The use of the mineral fertiliser azophoska,
enriched with B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plan-
tarum 5/13, B. cereus 3/7, B. amyloliquefaciens
B-22 contributes to an increase in the number of
rhizosphere soil bacteria in Bellarosa potato
plants by more than 2 times for individual vari-
ants of ammonifying (by 5–82 %), phosphate-
solubilising bacteria and microorganisms that
mainly absorb mineral nitrogen compounds.
This further contributes to the development of
the root system and its absorption capacity, the
content of chlorophylls a and b, the area of the
photosynthetic apparatus, the specific surface
density of leaves the increase in crop yield and
starch content, and the reduction in nitrate con-
tent [21; 22].
When using a biopolymer coating system,
microorganisms, suspended in biopolymer solu-
tions (chitosan, alginate, xanthan gum) are
sprayed onto granules, followed by gentle, low-
temperature drying (35–40 °C) forming protec-
tive films [53; 55]. Chitosan-based coatings of-
fer particular promise due to their mild antimi-
crobial properties that protect against contami-
nation while still maintaining beneficial strain
viability. Xanthan gum provides excellent film-
forming characteristics and moderate moisture
retention. This approach routinely achieves mi-
crobial densities of 106–108 CFU·g–1 fertilizer
with shelf-life stability exceeding 12 months at
ambient temperature.
To protect Bradyrhizobium spp. cells, an
encapsulation technique was developed using
a thermostable xeroprotectant core based on al-
bumin and trehalose and a hydrophobic water
vapour barrier shell made of paraffin, which
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
9
increased the stability of the culture for 4
months during storage at a high temperature
(32 °C) and 75 % relative humidity [56].
Metal-phenolic network (MPN) coatings.
A recent innovation involves self-assembling
coatings combining metal ions (Fe3+, Ca2+) with
polyphenols (tannic acid) [57]. MPNs protect
microorganisms from desiccation, elevated tem-
peratures (up to 50 °C), and humidity fluctua-
tions. Coated Pseudomonas chlororaphis main-
tained viability after lyophilization and 6-month
storage at 25 °C, demonstrating equal or superi-
or protection compared to conventional ap-
proaches. Pseudomonas chlororaphis, coated
with MPN, improved seed germination by
150 % compared to the control [57].
However, there are some critical success
factors identified across approaches. Coating
rate optimization, for example, 2–5 L·t–1 ba-
lances microbial density, cost, and coating uni-
formity. Also microbial strain selection is im-
portant, because hardy strains exhibiting desic-
cation tolerance and rapid soil colonization out-
perform lab-optimized isolates. Bacillus and
Paenibacillus species forming dormant endo-
spores demonstrate notable superior storage sta-
bility. And moisture control is important.
Achieving < 3 % moisture content post-coating
minimizes aggregation during bulk storage and
mechanical spreading. And equipment compati-
bility need to consider, because coated fertili-
zers must retain free-flowing properties compa-
tible with standard spreading machinery.
3.4.3. Liquid fertilizer compatibility and
tank-mix strategies
Liquid complex fertilizers — particularly
UAN (urea-ammonium nitrate, 28–32 % N) and
liquid NPK formulations — represent 25–30 %
of fertilizer markets in North America, Brazil,
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. However, these sys-
tems present substantial challenges for extended
microbial storage. There are some chemical en-
vironment challenges:
– high salinity (UAN and liquid NPK ex-
hibit osmotic pressures (2–6 osmol kg–1) ex-
ceeding most bacterial tolerance thresholds);
– alkaline pH (UAN solutions typically ran-
ge pH 7–10 due to ammonia equilibria);
– chemical reactivity (urea and ammonia
can carbamylate bacterial proteins and free radi-
cals can damage cell membranes and DNA).
Despite long-term storage incompatibility,
short-term tank-mixing enables immediate field
application. This strategy leverages the logisti-
cal advantages of liquid fertilization while ac-
knowledging that true long-term co-formulation
with high-salt liquids remains an unresolved
formulation challenge.
As BTU-Center field practices shown, the
commercial applications of Groundfix bioferti-
lizer demonstrate successful tank-mix compa-
tibility with various liquid fertilizers [53]. For
example, post-mixing survival (microorganisms
in UAN solutions, 28–32 % N) for 2–8 hours is
sufficient for immediate broadcast or injection
application; liquid urea solutions are compatible
for same-day field application following tank
preparation; and compatibility with urease in-
hibitors (field experience confirms that Ground-
fix can be tank-mixed with UAN containing
NBPT (N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide)
urease inhibitors [54] without loss of detectable
microbial activity, enabling integrated nutrient
and efficiency management).This approach de-
liberately eliminates extended storage compati-
bility requirements, focusing instead on micro-
bial survival during the short period between
tank preparation and field delivery. Field trials
confirm that biofertilizer efficacy is maintained
when applications occur within recommended
timeframes [54].
Urease inhibitors like NBPT, widely used
to reduce ammonia volatilization from urea
[58], temporarily inhibit urease enzyme activity
in soil. While laboratory studies show that
NBPT can affect plant urea uptake systems at
high concentrations, field-relevant application
rates (530–1060 mg NBPT·kg–1 urea) do not
eliminate beneficial microbial activity when
proper tank-mix protocols are followed. The
brief exposure period (2–8 hours) before soil in-
corporation allows bacterial survival while pre-
serving both NBPT functionality and biofertili-
zer benefits.
Alternative strategies under investigation
include: the use of protective additives, such as
glycerol, trehalose, or proline added at 1–3 %
(w/v). which provide osmoprotection and ex-
tend bacterial survival [59]; microencapsulation
(alginate-encapsulated bacteria can withstand
liquid fertilizer environments for 7–14 days,
though cost and scalability challenges persist)
[53]; and separate application tracks (liquid fer-
tilizer and microbial inoculant applied through
separate nozzles in precision equipment, con-
verging only at soil surface; this approach
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
10
avoids in-tank incompatibility while preserving
single-pass field logistics).
3.5. Economic considerations and market
viability
3.5.1. Cost-benefit economics
Economic viability of integrated fertilizer-
biofertilizer products depends on several interre-
lated factors, such as:
1. Manufacturing cost increments. Post-gra-
nulation microbial coating adds approximately
USD 15–40 per tonne fertilizer, depending on
inoculant costs, application rates, and produc-
tion scale. For granular NPK fertilizers typically
costing USD 350–600 per tonne, this represents
a 2.5–10 % premium — commercially accep-
table provided that agronomic benefits materia-
lize.
2. Yield value realization. Field trials de-
monstrating 5–15 % yield increases translate to
substantial economic returns. For maize at USD
200 t–1 and 10 t·ha–1 baseline yield, a 10 % yield
gain (+1 t·ha–1) generates USD 200 ha–1 addi-
tional revenue, easily justifying USD 20–40 ha–1
coating cost increments.
3. Fertilizer substitution savings. If inte-
grated products enable 20–30 % reductions in
total fertilizer application — as demonstrated in
BTU-Center trials showing maintained yields
with 70 % of standard NPK rates plus Ground-
fix [54] — farmers realize both input cost sa-
vings (USD 70–180 ha–1 for typical NPK pro-
grams) and reduced application/ logistics ex-
penses.
BTU-Center field trials consistently demon-
strate positive economic returns of Groundfix in
commercial viability assessment [54]: coating
cost increment ~ USD 20–40 t–1 fertilizer; ap-
plication rate typically 150–300 kg·ha–1 en-
riched fertilizer; additional coating cost USD 3–
12 ha–1; yield value increase: USD 60–200 ha–1
(depending on crop and price); net economic
benefit USD 50–190 ha–1; return on coating in-
vestment of 5:1 to 15:1 ratio.
There are, however, some risk and variabi-
lity. The economic case weakens if field effica-
cy proves inconsistent. Risk-averse farmers re-
quire multiple successful on-farm demonstra-
tions before adoption, creating a “technology
valley of death” where promising innovations
stall without large-scale farmer validation net-
works. This explains the critical importance of
multi-location, multi-year field trial programs to
establish robust efficacy data.
4. Discussion
4.1. Technological maturation and remai-
ning barriers
The past five years have witnessed substan-
tial progress in integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer
technology [55–57; 60–62]. Post-granulation
coating approaches now routinely deliver viable
microorganisms (> 106–107 CFU·g–1) with 12–
18 month shelf stability, addressing the primary
technical barrier that long constrained this ca-
tegory [54]. Practical spray coating systems,
exemplified by BTU-Center’s Groundfix tech-
nology, demonstrate commercial viability across
multiple crops and environments.
Coating material selection represents a cri-
tical decision point. While advanced systems
such as metal-phenolic networks offer superior
protection [57], simpler approaches using bio-
polymers (chitosan, xanthan gum) or protective
additives in direct spray coating can provide
adequate performance at lower cost [53; 55; 56].
Commercial success depends less on achieving
maximum theoretical protection than on mee-
ting practical thresholds: 12-month shelf life,
compatibility with standard handling equipment,
and cost increments < 10 % of base fertilizer
price.
However, critical challenges persist:
1. Liquid fertilizer compatibility remains
largely unsolved for extended storage scenarios.
While tank-mix protocols enable 2–8 h stability
sufficient for immediate application — success-
fully implemented by BTU-Center and other
commercial producers — the goal of fully shelf-
stable liquid fertilizer-biofertilizer products ap-
pears distant absent fundamental breakthroughs
in microbial stress tolerance and osmoprotec-
tion. For practical purposes, short-term tank-mix
compatibility may represent an adequate solu-
tion given that most liquid fertilizer applications
involve on-farm/near-field mixing rather than
long-term pre-mixed storage.
2. Field efficacy variability continues to
challenge the sector. While meta-analyses con-
firm average benefits [35] and specific commer-
cial programs (e. g., Groundfix) demonstrate
consistent performance [54], individual farmer
experiences can vary substantially. This varia-
bility reflects complex interactions between ino-
culant strains, indigenous soil microbiomes, en-
vironmental conditions, and management prac-
tices [16]. Developing predictive models, deci-
sion-support tools, or rapid diagnostic tools to
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
11
identify optimal application scenarios remains
an active research frontier.
4.2. Market trajectory and integration
pathways
The integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer cate-
gory exhibits characteristics of early-stage inno-
vation adoption. Current market size (~ USD
40–70 million within the USD 1.4 billion bio-
fertilizer sector [8]) represents < 5 % penetra-
tion, but also a substantial growth potential. Pro-
jected trajectories suggest several possible sce-
narios. Conservative scenario shows 15–20 %
annual growth maintaining current market posi-
tioning would yield USD 150–200 million by
2030, representing modest penetration within
a USD 2.8 billion biofertilizer market. Moderate
growth scenario shows 25–30 % annual growth,
driven by expanded commercial adoption (ana-
logous to Groundfix expansion in Eastern
Europe and selected emerging markets) could
reach USD 300–400 million by 2030. Optimis-
tic scenario shows that, if technological barriers
are substantially overcome and regulatory fra-
meworks are better harmonized, integrated pro-
ducts could achieve 10–15 % of total biofertili-
zer markets (USD 280–420 million) by 2030.
Combined with broader biostimulant category
growth, this would contribute to an aspirational
USD 5–6 billion addressable market incorpora-
ting multiple biological enhancement technolo-
gies.
Realization of higher growth scenarios de-
pends on continued demonstration of robust and
reproducible field efficacy across diverse condi-
tions; cost competitiveness as production scales
and coating lines are standardized; regulatory
harmonization enabling more efficient market
access and multi-country registrations, and inte-
gration with precision agriculture platforms that
can optimize deployment strategies [63].
4.3. Integration with precision agriculture
and digital platforms
A promising trajectory involves the conver-
gence of integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer pro-
ducts with precision agriculture technologies
[64]. Variable-rate application equipment can
optimize integrated product deployment based
on georeferenced soil fertility maps, applying
microbial-enriched fertilizers selectively to
zones exhibiting high phosphorus fixation,
suboptimal P availability or localized N defi-
ciency, while using conventional products else-
where. This precision approach maximizes eco-
nomic returns by concentrating the high-cost,
higher-value inputs where agronomic benefits
are greatest [65].
Furthermore, real-time soil and plant diag-
nostics — NDVI imaging, proximal soil sen-
sors, foliar nutrient analysis — can monitor and
validate microbial inoculant performance within
season, enabling adaptive management deci-
sions. The integration of biologicals data with
digital agriculture platforms thus transforms
biofertilizers from products applied “on faith” to
precision-deployed tools based on measured
soil-plant-microbe status [66].
4.4. Sustainability implications
From an agroecological perspective, inte-
grated fertilizer-biofertilizer systems offer tan-
gible sustainability benefits. The combination of
biotechnology and nanotechnology has the po-
tential to transform agricultural practices and of-
fers answers to both immediate and long-term
challenges. Field-validated reductions of 20–
30 % in synthetic fertilizer application without
yield penalty [38; 54] translate to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer manu-
facture and field N2O emissions, diminished nu-
trient runoff contributing to aquatic eutrophica-
tion, improved soil health through enhanced mi-
crobial diversity and stimulated organic matter
accumulation, and decreased dependency on fi-
nite phosphorus reserves [24; 65; 67; 68]. Ho-
wever, these benefits require consistent field ef-
ficacy. If microbial inoculants underperform,
farmers will revert to conventional fertilizer
rates, eliminating expected sustainability gains.
Therefore, the environmental prospects of this
direction directly depend on technological reli-
ability.
Despite the fact that economic expectations
for biofertilisers are promising, several metho-
dological, environmental and legal issues are
hindering their development. The established
distribution network of mineral fertiliser com-
panies makes it difficult for biofertilisers to en-
ter the supply chain. Therefore, support from
various stakeholders and government agencies
to improve the situation in general and the sup-
ply chain in particular will lead to stable and
sustainable growth in the use of biofertilisers in
the future. Rethinking the international legal
framework, improving it based on trending
technologies, and promoting cross-sector coo-
peration are key factors in promoting biofertili-
sers as environmentally important and cost-
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
12
effective alternatives to chemical fertilisers [19;
63; 69; 70].
The industry must prioritize formulations
and application protocols that demonstrate reli-
able, cross-environment performance rather than
only peak efficacy under optimal scenarios [16].
5. Conclusions
The transition toward more sustainable and
efficient agricultural systems underscores the
growing importance of integrated fertilizer-bio-
fertilizer technologies. While synthetic fertili-
zers remain foundational to global food produc-
tion, their declining marginal returns and envi-
ronmental impacts create a strong rationale for
innovations that enhance nutrient use efficiency.
Integrated products — combining mineral nutri-
tion with microbial inoculants — offer a com-
pelling middle-ground approach. They retain the
reliability of conventional nutrient supply while
leveraging biological mechanisms to improve
nutrient uptake, soil health, and resilience. Re-
cent advances in post-granulation microbial
coating now enable shelf-stable granular ferti-
lizers with high viable microbial counts and
documented field performance. Trials consis-
tently demonstrate 5–15 % yield gains and ena-
ble 20–30 % reductions in fertilizer use without
yield penalty.
Commercial solutions, such as Groundfix
(BTU), exemplify the technical and agronomic
viability of these systems. Return-on-investment
ratios ranging from 2:1 to 15:1 across various
crops confirm that integrated solutions can be
cost-effective under field conditions.
However, challenges remain — particularly
the chemical incompatibility between living mi-
crobial agents and liquid fertilizer environments
over prolonged storage. While short-term tank-
mix strategies (2–8 hours) enable effective ap-
plication, true co-formulation of shelf-stable
microbial-liquid blends requires further break-
throughs in microbial tolerance and encapsula-
tion technology.
Looking ahead, four priorities will shape
the sector’s maturation:
1. Robust field validation across soil-clima-
tic conditions to guide deployment under vari-
able conditions.
2. Improved formulation science, ensuring
strain viability, compatibility, and cost effici-
ency.
3. Integration with precision agriculture
platforms to optimize spatially targeted use.
4. Regulatory streamlining to support bro-
ader market access for microbial-enhanced
products.
Market projections — USD 300–400 mil-
lion for integrated products by 2030 within a
broader biofertilizer market projected at USD
2.8 billion — signal significant growth poten-
tial. The convergence of microbial delivery
technologies with controlled-release fertilizers
offers a path toward scalable, sustainable nutri-
ent solutions aligned with global agroecological
and productivity goals.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: B. V. A. B. V. V.,
Ch. T. O., K. V. I.; methodology, investigation,
data curation, writing — original draft prepara-
tion, editing: D. Y. O.; supervision and review:
J. L. A., B. V. V. AI-assisted tools (ChatGPT,
Claude) were used only to improve grammar,
wording, and consistency of the manuscript.
The scientific content, data interpretation, and
conclusions were developed by the authors.
The authors are responsible for the final content.
The authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data availability statement
Data supporting this review are available
from cited public sources and company field tri-
al reports. Supplementary information is avai-
lable upon reasonable request to the correspon-
ding author.
Conflicts of interest
The author B. V. A is the Director of Pro-
spects and Development of Biotechnology
Company BTU, D. Y. O. is the Head of Interna-
tional Department at Biotechnology Company
BTU, B. V. V. is CEO, co-founder of Biotech-
nology Company BTU, Сh. T. O. is Commer-
cial Director of Biotechnological Company
BTU, Kuzmich V. I. is Head of The Expert De-
partment of LLC “TH "BTU-CENTER"” of
Biotechnological Company BTU, a biological
products manufacturer based in Ukraine specia-
lizing in microbial biofertilizers including phos-
phate-solubilizing and nitrogen-fixing bacterial
formulations. Field trial data and commer-
cial application examples from BTU products
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
13
(Groundfix, Groundfix Coater) are referenced in
this review. This work was conducted inde-
pendently as part of doctoral research of
D. Y. O. (J. L. A., B. V. V. are scientific super-
visors) and does not represent company posi-
tions. The authors declare that this work was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed
as a potential conflict of interest beyond the
stated employment.
REFERENCES
1. Heffer, P., Gruère, A., & Roberts, T. (2017).
Assessment of fertilizer use by crop at the global
level 2014-2014/15. International Fertilizer Associa-
tion (IFA) and International Plant Nutrition Institute
(IPNI). Paris, France. URL: https://www.fertilizer.
org/resource/assessment-of-fertilizer-use-by-crop-at-
the-global-level-2014-2014-15/
2. Sun, Y., Xian, J., Chen, X., Cao, D., Yao, R.,
Luo, Y., & Zhang, X. (2023). Chemical Fertilizer
Reduction Potential Estimation and Fertilization Op-
timization Strategy Based on a 10-Year Application
Summary and Status Questionnaires in a Typical
Yellow River Irrigated Area. Agronomy, 13(8), 2047.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082047
3. Mordor Intelligence (2024). Fertilizers Mar-
ket — Growth, Trends, and Forecasts (2024–2030).
Report accessed January 2025. URL: https://www.
marketsandmarkets.com
4. IMARC Group (2024). Fertilizer Market
Size, Share, Trends & Growth Report 2024–2033.
Report accessed January 2025. URL: https://www.
imarcgroup.com/fertilizer-market
5. Omara, P., Aula, L., Oyebiyi, F., & Raun, W. R.
(2019). World Cereal Nitrogen Use Efficiency
Trends: Review and Current Knowledge. Agrosys-
tems, Geosciences & Environment, 2, 1–8. 180045.
https://doi.org/10.2134/age2018.10.0045
6. Luce, M. St., Lemke, R., Gan, Ya., McCon-
key, B., May, W., Campbell, C. … Brandt, K. (2020).
Diversifying cropping systems enhances productivi-
ty, stability and nitrogen use efficiency. Agronomy
Journal, 112, 1517–1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/
agj2.20162
7. Ballagh, B., Ballagh, A., Bushong, J., & Ar-
nall, D. B. (2025). The Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer
Placement and Timing on Winter Wheat Grain Yield
and Protein Concentration. Agronomy, 15(8), 1890.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081890
8. Penn, C. J., & Camberato, J. J. (2019). A cri-
tical review on soil chemical processes that control
how soil pH affects phosphorus availability to
plants. Agriculture, 9(6), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture9060120
9. Rashmi, I., Roy T., Kartika, K. S., Pal, R.,
Coumar, V., Kala, S., & Shinoji, K. C. (2020). Or-
ganic and Inorganic Fertilizer Contaminants in Agri-
culture: Impact on Soil and Water Resources. In
Naeem, M., Ansari, A., Gill, S. (Eds.) Contaminants
in Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-41552-5_1
10. Volkohon, V. V. (2024). Znachennia mikro-
orhanizmiv dlia zdorovia gruntiv ta optymizatsii
formuvannia biotsenoziv [The significance of mi-
croorganisms for soil health and optimization of the
formation of biocenoses]. Fiziolohiia roslyn i hene-
tyka — Plant Physiology and Genetics, 56(1), 3–26
[in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.15407/frg2024.01.
003
11. da Silva, L. I., Pereira, M. C., de Carval-
ho, A. M. X., Buttrós, V. H., Pasqual, M., & Dória, J.
(2023). Phosphorus-Solubilizing Microorganisms:
A Key to Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture, 13(2),
462. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020462
12. Wang, S., Walker, R., Schicklberger, M.,
Nico, P. S., Fox, P. M., Karaoz, U., & Brodie, E. L
(2021). Microbial Phosphorus Mobilization Strate-
gies Across a Natural Nutrient Limitation Gradient
and Evidence for Linkage With Iron Solubilization
Traits. Front Microbiol, 12, 572212. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fmicb.2021.572212
13. de Andrade, L. A., Santos, C. H. B., Freza-
rin, E. T., Sales, L. R., & Rigobelo, E. C. (2023).
Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustai-
nable Agricultural Production. Microorganisms,
11(4), 1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms
11041088
14. Kumar, S., Satyavir, D., Sindhu, S., & Ku-
mar, R. (2021). Biofertilizers: An eco-friendly tech-
nology for nutrient recycling and environmental sus-
tainability. Current Research in Microbial Sciences, 3,
100094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100094
15. Rai, N., Rai, S. P., & Sarma, B. K. (2021).
Prospects for abiotic stress tolerance in crops utili-
sing phyto- and bio-stimulants. Frontiers in Sustai-
nable Food Systems, 5, 754853. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fsufs.2021.754853
16. Fadiji, A. E., Babalola, O. O., Santoyo, G.,
& Perazzolli, M. (2022). The potential role of mi-
crobial biostimulants in the amelioration of climate-
change-associated abiotic stresses on crops. Fron-
tiers in Microbiology, 12, 829099. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fmicb.2021.829099
17. Singh, R., Kaur, S., Bhullar, S. S., Singh, H.,
& Sharma, L. K. (2024). Bacterial biostimulants for
climate-smart agriculture practices: Mode of action,
effect on plant growth and roadmap for commercial
products. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and
Environment, 3, 12085. https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.
12085
18. Grand View Research. (2024). Biofertilizers
Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By
Product, By Application, By Region, And Segment
Forecasts, 2024–2030. URL: https://www.grandview
research.com/industry-analysis/biofertilizers-industry
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
14
19. Sansinenea, E. (2021). Application of bio-
fertilizers: current worldwide status. In A. Rakshit,
V. S. Meena, M. Parihar, H. B. Singh, A. K. Singh
(Eds.). Biofertilizers (pp. 183–190). Woodhead Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821667-
5.00004-X
20. Fadiji, A. E., Xiong, C., Egidi, E., &
Singh, B. K. (2024). Formulation challenges associ-
ated with microbial biofertilizers in sustainable agri-
culture and paths forward. J Sustain Agric Environ,
3, e70006. https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.70006
21. Volkohon, V. V., Dimova, S. B., Sasina, T. S.,
Volkohon, K. I., Shevchenko, L. A., Shtanko, N. P.,
& Zemska, I. A. (2022). Efektyvnist zbahachenykh
mikroorhanizmamy dobryv za vyroshchuvannia kar-
topli [Efficiency of microorganism-enriched fertili-
zerswhen growing potatoes]. Silskohospodarska
mikrobiolohiia — Agricultural Microbiology, 36,
3–12 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.35868/1997
3004.36.3-12
22. Sasina, T. S. (2025). Vplyv biolohichno
modyfikovanykh mineralnykh dobryv na vrozhainist
kartopli (Solanum tuberosum) ta yakist bulb [The
effect of biologically modified mineral fertilizers on
potato yield and tuber quality]. Ahroekolohichnyi
zhurnal — Agroecological Journal, 1, 152–158 [in
Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.33730/2077-4893.1.
2025.327105
23. Bargaz, A., Lyamlouli, K., Chtouki, M., Ze-
roual, Y., & Dhiba, D. (2018). Soil microbial reso-
urces for improving fertilizers efficiency in an inte-
grated plant nutrient management system. Frontiers
in Microbiology, 9, 1606. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2018.01606
24. Farooq, M., Rehman, A., Pisante, M. (2019).
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. In
M. Farooq, M. Pisante (Eds.) Innovations in Sus-
tainable Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-23169-9_1
25. Vos, R., Glauber, J., Hebebrand, C. & Ri-
ce, B. (2025). Global shocks to fertilizer markets:
Impacts on prices, demand and farm profitability.
Food Policy, 133, 102790. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.
102790
26. Mordor Intelligence (2025). Bioertilizers
Market — Growth, Trends, and Forecasts (2025–
2030). Report accessed January 2025. URL: https://
www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/glo
bal-biofertilizers-market-industry
27. European Commission (2020). Farm to Fork
Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-
friendly food system. Communication COM (2020)
381 final. URL: https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-
topics/farm-fork-strategy_en
28. Mordor Intelligence (2025). Agricultural
Inoculants Market Size and Share (2025–2030). Re-
port accessed January 2025. URL: https://www.mor
dorintelligence.com/industry-reports/agricultural-ino
culants-market
29. Figiel, S., Rusek, P., Ryszko, U., & Bro-
dowska, M. S. (2025). Microbially Enhanced Biofer-
tilizers: Technologies, Mechanisms of Action, and
Agricultural Applications. Agronomy, 15(5), 1191.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051191
30. Overbeek, W., Jeanne, T., Hogue, R., &
Smith, D. L. (2021). Effects of Microbial Consortia,
Applied as Fertilizer Coating, on Soil and Rhizo-
sphere Microbial Communities and Potato Yield.
Front. Agron, 3, 714700. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fagro.2021.714700
31. Ramsden, J., Reid, M., Whatley, V., & Dan-
cer, S. (2016). Disastrous performance of Nano-
Cote/Aqua Based antimicrobial paint in a hospital
setting. Journal of Biological Physics and Chemis-
try, 16, 131–136. https://doi.org/10.4024/16RA16A.
jbpc.16.03
32. Degryse, F., Baird, R., da Silva, R. C., Hol-
zapfel, C. B., Kappes, C., Tysko, M., & McLaugh-
lin, M. J. (2020). Sulfur Uptake from Fertilizer For-
tified with Sulfate and Elemental S in Three Con-
trasting Climatic Zones. Agronomy, 10(7), 1035.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10071035
33. Girmay, K. (2019). Phosphate Solubilizing
Microorganisms: Promising Approach as Bioferti-
lizers. International Journal of Agronomy. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2019/4917256
34. Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Liu, L., Li, S., Xie, J.,
Xue, X., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Screening of phospha-
te-solubilizing bacteria and their abilities of phos-
phorus solubilization and wheat growth promotion.
BMC Microbiol, 22, 296. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12866-022-02715-7
35. de Zutter, N., Ameye, M., Bekaert, B., Ver-
waeren, J., De Gelder, L., & Audenaert, K. (2022). Un-
covering New Insights and Misconceptions on the Ef-
fectiveness of Phosphate Solubilizing Rhizobacteria
in Plants: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Plant Sci, 13,
858804. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.858804
36. Rawat, P., Das, S., Shankhdhar, D., &
Shankhdhar, S. C. (2021). Phosphate-Solubilizing
Microorganisms: Mechanism and Their Role in
Phosphate Solubilization and Uptake. J Soil Sci
Plant Nutr, 21, 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s427
29-020-00342-7
37. Lindström, K., & Mousavi, S. A. (2020).
Effectiveness of nitrogen fixation in rhizobia. Mic-
robial biotechnology, 13(5), 1314–1335. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1751-7915.13517
38. Tariq, A., Tanvir, A., Barasarathi, J., Also-
him, A. S., Mastinu, A., Sayyed, R. & Nazir, A.
(2025). Endophytes: key role players for sustainable
agriculture: mechanisms, omics insights and future
prospects. Plant Growth Regulation, 1–22. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10725-025-01370-y
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
15
39. Aasfar, A., Meftah Kadmiri, I., Azaroual, S. E.,
Lemriss, S., Mernissi, N. E., Bargaz, A. … Hilali, A.
(2024). Agronomic advantage of bacterial biological
nitrogen fixation on wheat plant growth under con-
trasting nitrogen and phosphorus regimes. Frontiers
in plant science, 15, 1388775. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpls.2024.1388775
40. Backer, R., Rokem, J. S., Ilangumaran, G.,
Lamont, J., Praslickova, D., Ricci, E. … Smith, D. L.
(2018). Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Con-
text, Mechanisms of Action, and Roadmap to Com-
mercialization of Biostimulants for Sustainable Ag-
riculture. Frontiers in plant science, 9, 1473. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01473
41. Lopez-Arredondo, E. J., Rodríguez-Zarago-
za, S., Cabirol, N., Perales-Vela, H. V., & Ledesma-
Medina, K. Y. (2025). Nitrogen-fixing bacterial ino-
culation: a meta-analysis of its effects on crop pro-
ductivity and methodological considerations. Cogent
Food & Agriculture, 11(1), 257883. https://doi.org/
10.1080/23311932.2025.2575883
42. Ali, A., Jabeen, N., Farruhbek, R., Chachar, Z.,
Laghari, A. A., Chachar, S. … Yang, Z. (2025). En-
hancing nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture by in-
tegrating agronomic practices and genetic advances.
Frontiers in plant science, 16, 1543714. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1543714
43. Liang, X., Yu, S., Ju, Y., Wang, Y., & Yin, D.
(2025). Integrated Management Practices Foster Soil
Health, Productivity, and Agroecosystem Resilience.
Agronomy, 15(8), 1816. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy15081816
44. Ding, W., Xu, X., Zhang, J., Huang, S.,
He, P., & Zhou, W. (2021). Nitrogen balance acts an
indicator for estimating thresholds of nitrogen input
in rice paddies of China. Environmental pollution,
290, 118091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.
118091
45. Sedri, M. H., Niedbała, G., Roohi, E., Nia-
zian, M., Szulc, P., Rahmani, H. A., & Feiziasl, V.
(2022). Comparative Analysis of Plant Growth-
Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and Chemical Fer-
tilizers on Quantitative and Qualitative Characteris-
tics of Rainfed Wheat. Agronomy, 12(7), 1524.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071524
46. Goginyan, V., Harutyunyan, S., Stepanyan, T.,
Khachatryan, G., Bagiyan, V., Hovhannisyan, R. …
Chitchyan, K. (2025). Effect of complex microbial
preparation of free-living and symbiotic nitrogen-
fixing bacteria for agricultural crops. Brazilian jour-
nal of biology, 85, e292171. https://doi.org/10.1590/
1519-6984.292171
47. Yang, P., Lu, L., Condrich, A., Muni, G. A.,
Scranton, S., Xu, S. … Huang, S. (2025). Innovative
Approaches for Engineering the Seed Microbiome to
Enhance Crop Performance. Seeds, 4(2), 24. https://
doi.org/10.3390/seeds4020024
48. Li, Y., Li, Q., Guan, G., & Chen, S. (2020).
Phosphate solubilizing bacteria stimulate wheat rhi-
zosphere and endosphere biological nitrogen fixation
by improving phosphorus content. PeerJ, 8, e9062.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9062
49. Pang, F., Li, Q., Solanki, M. K., Wang, Z.,
Xing, Y-X., & Dong, D.-F. (2024). Soil phosphorus
transformation and plant uptake driven by phos-
phate-solubilizing microorganisms. Front. Microbi-
ol, 15, 1383813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.
1383813
50. Delgado, A., Quemada, M., Villalobos, F. J.
(2024). Fertilizers. In Villalobos, F. J., Fereres, E.
(Eds.). Principles of Agronomy for Sustainable Ag-
riculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-031-69150-8_25
51. Su, Y., Liu, C., Fang, H., Zhang, D. (2020).
Bacillus subtilis: a universal cell factory for indus-
try, agriculture, biomaterials and medicine. Microb
Cell Fact, 19, 173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-
020-01436-8
52. Jiao, X., Takishita, Y., Zhou, G., &
Smith, D. L. (2021). Plant Associated Rhizobacteria
for Biocontrol and Plant Growth Enhancement.
Frontiers in plant science, 12, 634796. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpls.2021.634796
53. Rojas-Sánchez, B., Guzmán-Guzmán, P.,
Morales-Cedeño, L. R., Orozco-Mosqueda, M. d. C.,
Saucedo-Martinez, B. C., Sánchez-Yáñez, J. M. …
Santoyo, G. (2022). Bioencapsulation of Microbial
Inoculants: Mechanisms, Formulation Types and
Application Techniques. Applied Biosciences, 1(2),
198–220. https://doi.org/10.3390/applbiosci1020013
54. BTU-Center. (2025). Groundfix Extreme.
Granula fertilizers with microbial coating (2020–
2025). Technical blog post. URL: https://btu-center.
com/en/blog/granular-fertilizers-with-microbial-coat
ing
55. O’Callaghan, M. (2016). Microbial inocula-
tion of seed for improved crop performance: issues
and opportunities. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 100,
5729–5746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-
7590-9
56. Aukema, K. G., Wang, M., de Souza, B.,
O’Keane, S., Clipsham, M., Wackett, L. P., & Ak-
san, A. (2022). Core-shell encapsulation formula-
tions to stabilize desiccated Bradyrhizobium against
high environmental temperature and humidity. Mi-
crobial biotechnology, 15(9), 2391–2400. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14078
57. Burke, B., Fan, G., Wasuwanich, P., Mo-
ore, E. B., & Furst, A. L. (2023). Self-Assembled
Nanocoatings Protect Microbial Fertilizers for Cli-
mate-Resilient Agriculture. JACS Au, 3(11), 2973–
2980. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.3c00426
58. Cantarella, H., Otto, R., Soares, J. R., de Bri-
to Silva, A. G. (2018). Agronomic efficiency of
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
16
NBPT as a urease inhibitor: A review. Journal of
Advanced Research, 13, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jare.2018.05.008
59. Berninger, T., González López, Ó., Bejara-
no, A., Preininger, C., & Sessitsch, A. (2018). Main-
tenance and assessment of cell viability in formula-
tion of non-sporulating bacterial inoculants. Micro-
bial biotechnology, 11(2), 277–301. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1751-7915.12880
60. Majaron, V., Silva, M., Bortoletto-San-
tos, R., Klaic, R., Ribeiro, S., Polito, W. … Ribei-
ro, C. (2021). Bioactive Coating With Low Reactive
Sources for Application as Multi-nutrient Fertilizer
Granules. Preprint. Research Square. https://doi.org/
10.21203/rs.3.rs-529344/v1
61. Luft, L., & Mazutti, M. A. (2025). Freeze
and Spray Drying Technologies to Produce Solid
Microbial Formulations for Sustainable Agriculture.
Processes, 13(7), 2188. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13
072188
62. Mosaic Company. (2023). Coated Fertilizer
Technology and Applications. Resource Library,
Crop Nutrition Division. URL: https://www.cropnut
rition.com/resource-library/coated-fertilizer/
63. Ibáñez, A., Garrido-Chamorro, S., Vasco-
Cárdenas, M. F., & Barreiro, C. (2023). From Lab to
Field: Biofertilizers in the 21st Century. Horticul-
turae, 9(12), 1306. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticultu
rae9121306
64. Cruz, C. & Dias, T. (2023). Integrating bio-
fertilizers and precision agriculture. Open Access
Government, 40, 450–451. https://doi.org/10.56367/
OAG-040-10978.
65. Timilsina, R. R., Khosla, S., Rahut, D. B.,
Jena, P. R., & Sonobe, T. (2025). A comprehensive
review of the soil health status for enhancing ag-
ricultural sustainability. Front. Environ. Sci, 13,
1548095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1548095
66. Rezaee Danesh, Y. (2025). Harnessing Be-
neficial Microbes and Sensor Technologies for Sus-
tainable Smart Agriculture. Sensors, 25(21), 6631.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s25216631
67. Shanmugavel, D., Rusyn, I., Solorza-Fe-
ria, O., & Kamaraj, S. K. (2023). Sustainable SMART
fertilizers in agriculture systems: A review on fun-
damentals to in-field applications. The Science of the
total environment, 904, 166729. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166729
68. Yang, L., Wang, Z., Cui, Y., Song, Y.,
Zhou, L., Wu, W. … Wan, G. (2025). Research pro-
gress on fertilizer carbon emissions: a bibliometric
analysis (2008–2024). Front. Environ. Sci, 13,
1592151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.
1592151
69. Nosheen, S., Ajmal, I., & Song, Y. (2021).
Microbes as Biofertilizers, a Potential Approach for
Sustainable Crop Production. Sustainability, 13(4),
1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041868
70. Díaz-Rodríguez, A. M., Parra Cota, F. I.,
Cira Chávez, L. A., García Ortega, L. F., Estrada
Alvarado, M. I., Santoyo, G., & de los Santos-Vil-
lalobos, S. (2025). Microbial Inoculants in Sustaina-
ble Agriculture: Advancements, Challenges, and Fu-
ture Directions. Plants, 14(2), 191. https://doi.org/
10.3390/plants14020191
Received: 05.09.2025
Accepted: 08.10.2025
Published online: 29.12.2025
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
17
https://doi.org/10.35868/1997-3004.42.3-18
УДК 631:8.604/339.1
ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ,
ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ
Д. О. Яковенко1,2, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8239-7684,
В. А. Болоховська1, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2728-4589,
Т. О. Хоменко1, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4095-3706,
В. В. Болоховський1, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0074-6362,
В. І. Кузьмич1, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1894-5634,
Л. А. Янсе2,3, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2567-5907,
В. В. Бородай2,4, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8787-8646
1ТОВ «Компанія “БТУ-Центр”», с. Софіївська Борщагівка
2Інститут агроекології та природокористування НААН, м. Київ
3Національна академія аграрних наук України, м. Київ
4Національний університет біоресурсів і природокористування України, м. Київ
e-mail: veraboro@gmail.com
Світовий ринок синтетичних добрив, обсяг якого у 2024 році оцінюється приблизно
у 200 млрд дол. США, стикається зі зниженням граничної віддачі, незважаючи на зростан-
ня норм внесення. Водночас ринок біодобрив, за прогнозами, зросте з 1,4 млрд дол. США
у 2024 році до 2,8 млрд дол. США до 2030 року (CAGR ~13 %). Інтегровані системи живлен-
ня, що поєднують мінеральні добрива з мікробними інокулянтами, формують новий техно-
логічний напрям, націлений на підвищення ефективності використання елементів живлення,
екологічну сталість і відновлення ґрунтового здоров’я.
У цьому огляді критично проаналізовано ринкову динаміку, технологічні інновації та
практичні виклики, пов’язані з розробкою інтегрованих добрив, з особливим акцентом на
технологіях мікробного покриття для гранульованих і рідких формуляцій.
Було проведено систематичний огляд літератури за 2020–2025 роки із залученням реце-
нзованих публікацій, ринкових звітів і даних польових випробувань із комерційного застосу-
вання. Пошукові стратегії охоплювали кілька баз даних і фокусувалися на фосфатмобілізу-
вальних бактеріях, азотфіксаторах, технологіях покриття й системах інтегрованого жив-
лення.
Фосфатмобілізувальні бактерії (ФМБ) демонструють стабільну польову ефективність,
забезпечуючи приріст урожайності пшениці на 14–85 % і підвищення доступного фосфору
в ґрунті до 33 %. Метадані підтверджують підвищення врожайності на 10–40 % при за-
стосуванні біодобрив на різних культурах і в різних умовах. Гранульовані добрива з мікроб-
ним покриттям, нанесеним методом постгрануляційного обприскування у дозі 2–5 л/т, за-
безпечують мікробне навантаження 106–108 КУО/г з терміном зберігання понад 12 місяців.
Водночас зберігаються технологічні бар’єри: традиційні процеси грануляції проходять за
температур 60–90 °C, що інактивує мікроорганізми, а це зумовлює необхідність постгра-
нуляційного нанесення. Рідкі добрива створюють хімічно агресивне середовище (pH 7–10,
висока осмолярність), несприятливе для довготривалого збереження мікроорганізмів, хоча
короткочасна танково-змішувальна сумісність (2–8 годин) дозволяє їх польове застосу-
вання. Останні досягнення охоплюють використання біополімерних матриць (хітозан, ксан-
танова камедь), металофенольних мереж і промислових систем обприскування, які довели
комерційну життєздатність і зберігають цінову конкурентоспроможність.
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
18
Інтегровані системи добрив і біодобрив мають значний потенціал для стійкої інтенси-
фікації, даючи змогу скоротити використання синтетичних добрив на 20–30 % без втрати
врожайності. Їхня комерційна життєздатність залежить від подолання викликів щодо
стабільності формуляцій за допомогою сучасних технологій покриття при збереженні кон-
курентної вартості. Конвергенція технологій контрольованого вивільнення з доставкою
мікробних інокулянтів є перспективним шляхом розвитку систем живлення нового поколін-
ня, ринковий потенціал яких до 2030 року оцінюється в межах 5–6 млрд доларів США.
Ключові слова: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське гос-
подарство.
Отримано: 05.09.2025
Прийнято до друку: 08.10.2025
Опубліковано онлайн: 29.12.2025
ISSN 1997-3004 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія. 2025. Вип. 42.
|
| id | oai:ojs2.smic.in.ua:article-543 |
| institution | Agriciltural microbiology |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-07-23T01:16:24Z |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Institute of Agrocultural Microbiology and Agro-industrial Manufacture of NAAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | smicinua/26/404234ef6a14f8bd6a54316efbd0fc26.pdf |
| spelling | oai:ojs2.smic.in.ua:article-5432026-07-22T10:10:52Z INTEGRATED FERTILIZER-BIOFERTILIZER SYSTEMS: MARKET TRENDS, TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство Яковенко, Д. О. Болоховська, В. А. Хоменко, Т. О. Болоховський, В. В. Кузьмич, В. І. Янсе, Л. А. Бородай, В. В. soil nutrient management; biofertilizer formulation; sustainable agriculture управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство The global synthetic fertilizer market, valued at approximately USD 200 billion in 2024, faces declining marginal returns despite increasing application rates. Concurrently, the biofertilizer market is projected to expand from USD 1.4 billion (2024) to USD 2.8 billion by 2030 (CAGR ~13 %). Integrated nutrient management systems combining mineral fertilizers with microbial inoculants represent an emerging technological frontier aimed at improving nutrient use efficiency, environmental sustainability, and soil health restoration. This review critically examines market dynamics, technological innovations, and practical challenges in developing integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer products, with a specific focus on microbial coating technologies for granular and liquid fertilizers. A comprehensive literature review covering 2020–2025, analyzing peer-reviewed publications, market reports, and field trial data from commercial applications was conducted. Search strategies employed multiple databases focusing on phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, nitrogen-fixing microorganisms, coating technologies, and integrated nutrient management systems. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) demonstrate consistent field efficacy, increasing wheat yields by 14–85 % while enhancing soil available phosphorus up to 33 %. Meta-analyses confirm biofertilizer yield increases of approximately 10–40 % across diverse crops and environments. Granular fertilizers coated with microbial inoculants through post-granulation spray coating at 2–5 L·t–1 achieve microbial densities of 106–108 CFU g–1 with reported shelf-life stability exceeding 12 months. However, technological barriers persist: conventional&nbsp; granulation processes involve temperatures (60–90 °C) that inactivate microorganisms, necessitating post-granulation application strategies. Liquid fertilizers create chemically aggressive environments (pH 7–10, high salinity) that are hostile to long-term microbial survival, though short-term tank-mix compatibility (2–8 hours) enables immediate field application. Recent advances include the use of biopolymer matrices (chitosan, xanthan gum), metal-phenolic networks, and industrial-scale spray-coating systems, which demonstrate commercial viability while maintaining cost-competitiveness. Integrated fertilizer-biofertilizer systems offer substantial potential for sustainable intensification, enabling 20–30 % reductions in synthetic fertilizer application without yield penalty. Commercial viability depends on resolving formulation stability challenges through advanced coating technologies while maintaining cost-competitiveness. The convergence of controlled-release fertilizer technology with microbial inoculant delivery represents a promising pathway for nextgeneration nutrient management systems, with projected market potential within this segment reaching USD 5–6 billion by 2030. Світовий ринок синтетичних добрив, обсяг якого у 2024 році оцінюється приблизно у 200 млрд дол. США, стикається зі зниженням граничної віддачі, незважаючи на зростання норм внесення. Водночас ринок біодобрив, за прогнозами, зросте з 1,4 млрд дол. США у 2024 році до 2,8 млрд дол. США до 2030 року (CAGR ~13 %). Інтегровані системи живлення, що поєднують мінеральні добрива з мікробними інокулянтами, формують новий технологічний напрям, націлений на підвищення ефективності використання елементів живлення, екологічну сталість і відновлення ґрунтового здоров’я. У цьому огляді критично проаналізовано ринкову динаміку, технологічні інновації та практичні виклики, пов’язані з розробкою інтегрованих добрив, з особливим акцентом на технологіях мікробного покриття для гранульованих і рідких формуляцій. Було проведено систематичний огляд літератури за 2020–2025 роки із залученням рецензованих публікацій, ринкових звітів і даних польових випробувань із комерційного застосування. Пошукові стратегії охоплювали кілька баз даних і фокусувалися на фосфатмобілізувальних бактеріях, азотфіксаторах, технологіях покриття й системах інтегрованого живлення. Фосфатмобілізувальні бактерії (ФМБ) демонструють стабільну польову ефективність, забезпечуючи приріст урожайності пшениці на 14–85 % і підвищення доступного фосфору в ґрунті до 33 %. Метадані підтверджують підвищення врожайності на 10–40 % при застосуванні біодобрив на різних культурах і в різних умовах. Гранульовані добрива з мікробним покриттям, нанесеним методом постгрануляційного обприскування у дозі 2–5 л/т, забезпечують мікробне навантаження 106–108 КУО/г з терміном зберігання понад 12 місяців. Водночас зберігаються технологічні бар’єри: традиційні процеси грануляції проходять за температур 60–90 °C, що інактивує мікроорганізми, а це зумовлює необхідність постгрануляційного нанесення. Рідкі добрива створюють хімічно агресивне середовище (pH 7–10, висока осмолярність), несприятливе для довготривалого збереження мікроорганізмів, хоча короткочасна танково-змішувальна сумісність (2–8 годин) дозволяє їх польове застосування. Останні досягнення охоплюють використання біополімерних матриць Інтегровані системи добрив і біодобрив мають значний потенціал для стійкої інтенсифікації, даючи змогу скоротити використання синтетичних добрив на 20–30 % без втрати врожайності. Їхня комерційна життєздатність залежить від подолання викликів щодо стабільності формуляцій за допомогою сучасних технологій покриття при збереженні конкурентної вартості. Конвергенція технологій контрольованого вивільнення з доставкою мікробних інокулянтів є перспективним шляхом розвитку систем живлення нового покоління, ринковий потенціал яких до 2030 року оцінюється в межах 5–6 млрд доларів США. (хітозан, ксантанова камедь), металофенольних мереж і промислових систем обприскування, які довели комерційну життєздатність і зберігають цінову конкурентоспроможність. Institute of Agrocultural Microbiology and Agro-industrial Manufacture of NAAS of Ukraine 2025-12-29 Article Article Рецензована Стаття application/pdf https://smic.in.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/543 10.35868/1997-3004.42.3-18 Agricultural microbiology; Vol. 42 (2025): Agriciltural microbiology; 3-18 Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія; Том 42 (2025): Сільськогосподарська мікробіологія; 3-18 1997-3004 10.35868/1997-3004.42 en https://smic.in.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/543/611 Авторське право (c) 2025 D. O. Yakovenko, V. A. Bolokhovska, T. O. Khomenko, V. V. Bolokhovskyi, V. I. Kuzmych, L. A. Janse, V. V. Boroday https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| spellingShingle | управління живленням ґрунту формуляція біодобрив сталe сільське господарство Яковенко, Д. О. Болоховська, В. А. Хоменко, Т. О. Болоховський, В. В. Кузьмич, В. І. Янсе, Л. А. Бородай, В. В. ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title | ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_alt | INTEGRATED FERTILIZER-BIOFERTILIZER SYSTEMS: MARKET TRENDS, TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_full | ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_fullStr | ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_full_unstemmed | ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_short | ІНТЕГРОВАНІ СИСТЕМИ ДОБРИВ І БІОДОБРИВ: РИНКОВІ ТРЕНДИ, ТЕХНОЛОГІЧНІ ВИКЛИКИ ТА МАЙБУТНІ ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| title_sort | інтегровані системи добрив і біодобрив: ринкові тренди, технологічні виклики та майбутні перспективи: управління живленням ґрунту; формуляція біодобрив; сталe сільське господарство |
| topic | управління живленням ґрунту формуляція біодобрив сталe сільське господарство |
| topic_facet | soil nutrient management biofertilizer formulation sustainable agriculture управління живленням ґрунту формуляція біодобрив сталe сільське господарство |
| url | https://smic.in.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/543 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT âkovenkodo integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT bolohovsʹkava integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT homenkoto integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT bolohovsʹkijvv integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT kuzʹmičví integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT ânsela integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT borodajvv integratedfertilizerbiofertilizersystemsmarkettrendstechnologicalchallengesandfutureperspectivesupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT âkovenkodo íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT bolohovsʹkava íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT homenkoto íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT bolohovsʹkijvv íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT kuzʹmičví íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT ânsela íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo AT borodajvv íntegrovanísistemidobrivíbíodobrivrinkovítrenditehnologíčníviklikitamajbutníperspektiviupravlínnâživlennâmgruntuformulâcíâbíodobrivstalesílʹsʹkegospodarstvo |