Composition and physico-chemical properties of Panchagavya

Introduction

Panchgavya is an organic formulation, which in Sanskrit means the blend of five disparate products viz., milk, curd, ghee, urine and dung obtained from Desi cow (all these products are individually called as Gavya and jointly named as Panchagavya) (Aditi and Sharma, 2021) [1] . Nutrients present in panchagavya was analyzed by Solaiappan, (2003) [21] and who reported that panchagavya is a living elixir of many microorganisms, bacteria, fungi, protein, carbohydrate, fat, amino acids, vitamins, enzymes, known and unknown growth promoting factors, micronutrients, trace elements, antioxidants and immunity enhancing factors. Similarly, importance of nutritional aspects of panchagavya suggested by Dhama et al. (2014) [7] who reported that panchagavya is positively an encouraging solution for various ailments/diseases of humans and animals with immense biomedical applications along with other beneficial usages. Its usage would further expand through scientific validation and research supports, clinical trials, commercialization and popularity in the society and the public. Selvaraj et al. (2007) [18] reported the moisture, protein, total ash and gross energy values of panchagavya were approximately 86.1 per cent, 229 ppm (0.143 per cent), 2.5-3.0 per cent and 400-700 kcal/kg respectively. Radha and Rao (2014) [16] , Mathivanan et al. (2006) [11] , Uthirapandi et al. (2018) [24] and Punitha et al. (2010) [15] who reported the pH of panchagavya were 3.7, 4.52, 4.3 and 5.32 respectively.

Electrical Conductivity values of panchagavya was analyzed by Sivapragasam et al. (2014) [20] who reported an EC value of 10.22 dS/m in panchagavya and Chakraborty and Sarkar (2019) [4] reported electrical conductivity (EC) values of panchagavya ranging from 6.15 to 11.02 dS/m. Udhayakumar, R. (2015) [23] reported the organic carbon (OC) content of Panchagavya were 0.57 to 17.45%. Chandrakala et al. (2007) [5] reported that the total nitrogen content of panchagavya was 0.03 per cent. Sharma et al. (2024) [19] who reported that the phosphorus content of panchagavya was 0.385. Similarly, the potassium content was analyzed by Mol et al. (2024) [12] and Choudhary (2021) [6] who reported that the potassium content of panchagavya were 1.35% and 0.84% respectively. Hence, in this study Natarajan (2003) [13] method (additional ingredients along with five ingredients from cows) and Traditional method (five ingredients from cows alone) were used to prepare panchagavya. Hence, this study was conducted to analyse and compare the panchagavya prepared from Bargur cattle dairy products for its composition and physico-chemical characteristics in order to identify superior one having better nutritional qualities.

Materials and Methods

Preparation of Panchagavya 2.1.1 Natarajan, 2003 method

Panchagavya sample P1 was prepared using Natarajan (2003) [13] method, and in this method 5 kgs of fresh Bargur cow dung was mixed with 0.5 kg of Bargur cow ghee in a mud container on first day and it was kept for three days at room temperature and it was thoroughly mixed daily. On fourth day the other ingredients namely Bargur cow urine 3 litres, Bargur cow milk 2 litres, Bargur cow curd 2 litres, sugarcane juice 3 litres, tender coconut water 3 litres, ripened banana (12 Nos.) and toddy 2 litres were added. If toddy is not available, 100 gms of yeast powder and 100 gms of jaggery may be mixed with 2 litres of warm water. After 30 minutes, this solution will be added to panchagavya. The mixture was mixed properly and covered with nylon net to prevent entry of flies. The container was then placed under shade and mixed thoroughly twice daily for 15 days. The Panchagavya stock solution was ready after the 18 th day.

Traditional method

Panchagavya sample P2 was prepared using traditional method (only five ingredients obtained from indigenous cattle were used) 5 kgs of fresh Bargur cow dung was mixed with 0.5 kgs of Bargur cow ghee in the mud pot on first day and kept for three days at room temperature and thoroughly mixed twice daily. On fourth day the other ingredients namely Bargur cow urine 3 litres, Bargur cow milk 2 litres, Bargur cow curd 2 litres and water 8 liters were added. The mixture was mixed properly and covered with nylon net to prevent entry of flies. The container was then placed under shade and mixed thoroughly twice daily for 15 days. The Panchagavya stock solution was ready after the 18 th day.

Composition of Panchagavya / Proximate composition of Panchagavya (crude protein, crude fat, ash and moisture)

The proximate composition includes moisture, crude protein, crude fat and total ash per cent which were analyzed by following the standard procedure of AOAC (1995) [2] and the results were expressed on dry matter basis. The crude protein content was determined by the Kjeldahl method and the crude fat content was determined by the Soxhlet method. The total ash content was determined by ashing the samples overnight at 550 o C. Moisture is estimated by drying the sample overnight at 105 °C.

Analysis of Panchagavya for physico-chemical characteristics

The pH, Electrical Conductivity (ds/m), Organic carbon (%), Nitrogen (%), Phosphorous (%) and Potassium (%) content of Panchagavya samples were analyzed at Department of Environmental Science, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore by using the method prescribed by FCO (1985) [3] .

Statistical Analysis

The values obtained were statistically analyzed by using paired T test and interpreted.

Results

Composition of Panchagavya

The mean (± SE) moisture per cent of the P1 sample was 89.00 ± 0.26, whereas the value for the P2 was 88.67±0.33 (Table 1). Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in moisture content between P1 and P2. The mean (± SE) crude protein per cent of the P1 and P2 were 2.78±0.03 and 2.33±0.02 respectively (Table 1 Significant difference (P < 0.01) was observed in crude protein content between the two panchagavya samples. The mean (± SE) crude fibre per cent of the P1 and P2 samples were 0.71±0.08 and 1.40±0.15 respectively (Table 1). Statistical analysis revealed significant difference (P < 0.05) in crude fibre content between the two panchagavya samples. The mean (± SE) crude fat per cent of the P1 and P2 samples were 2.77±0.07 and 2.60±0.08 (Table 1) respectively. Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in crude fat content between the two panchagavya samples. The mean (± SE) crude ash per cent of P1 and P2 were 3.00±0.19 and 2.40±0.06 (Table 1) respectively. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference (P < 0.05) in crude ash content of P1 and P2. The mean (± SE) gross energy content (Kcal/Kg) of the P1 and P2 samples were 4034.17±33.15 and 3743.33±44.10 respectively. Significant difference (P < 0.01) was observed in gross energy content between P1 and P2.

Physico-chemical properties of Panchagavya

The mean (± SE) pH of panchagavya samples were presented in Table 2. The pH of panchagavya samples P1 and P2 were 3.64 ± 0.05 and 4.72 ± 0.05 respectively. A significant difference (P < 0.01) was observed in the pH values between P1 and P2. The mean (± SE) electrical conductivity (EC) of the panchagavya samples P1 and P2 were 13.50 ± 0.65 and 12.50 ± 0.65 dS/m respectively (Table 2). No significant difference was observed in the electrical conductivity between samples. The mean (± SE) organic carbon content (per cent) P1 was 3.62 ± 0.19, whereas P2 showed a value of 2.43 ± 0.24 (Table 2). Statistical analysis indicated that the organic carbon content differed significantly (P < 0.01) between P1 and P2. The mean (± SE) nitrogen content (per cent) of the P1 was 0.30 ± 0.06, whereas it was 0.23 ± 0.04 for the P2 (Table 2). No significant difference was observed between the nitrogen content of P1 and P2. The mean (± SE) phosphorus content (per cent) of the panchagavya P1 samples was 0.05 ± 0.01, whereas the P2 showed a mean value of 0.03 ± 0.01 (Table 2). There was a significant difference (P < 0.01) in phosphorous content between samples. The mean (± SE) potassium content (per cent) of the P1 was 0.36 ± 0.01, whereas the value for the P2 was 0.29 ± 0.02 (Table 2). Statistical analysis indicated a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the potassium contents between the two panchagavya samples.

Discussion 4.1 Composition of Panchagavya

The moisture content of the panchagavya samples P1 and P2 did not differ significantly (Table 1). The results indicated that the incorporation of additional ingredients such as sugarcane juice, tender coconut water, ripened banana and toddy in P1 did not exert any noticeable influence on the overall moisture content when compared with the traditionally prepared panchagavya (P2). However, the moisture content observed in both P1 and P2 in the present study was higher than the values reported by Selvaraj et al. (2007) [18] , Kumar et al. (2006) [9] and Lakshmi and Sreeni (2022) [10] who documented a moisture content of 86.1%, 86.41% and 86.1 to 87.5% in panchagavya respectively, and this may be due to variations in the moisture level of the raw materials used as well as differences in environmental conditions during the preparation of panchagavya. The crude protein content of the panchagavya samples P1 was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than P2. The present findings were in close agreement with the findings of Kumar et al. (2006) [9] who reported the crude protein content of panchagavya was 3.72 per cent. The present crude protein values differ from the findings of Mol et al. (2024) [12] who reported a crude protein range of 7.00 to 16.63 per cent, and these variations in crude protein content may be attributed to differences in the protein content of the ingredients used. The crude fibre content of the panchagavya samples P2 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than P1 (Table 1). This may be due to lesser amount of fermentation in traditional method which leads to higher crude fibre content in P2, whereas additional ingredients used in P1 increase the amount of fermentation and simultaneously reduce the crude fibre content in P1. The present crude fibre values were in close agreement with the findings of Kumar et al. (2006) [9] who reported a crude fibre content of 0.95 per cent in panchagavya. The crude fat content of P1 and P2 did not vary significantly (Table 2). This suggests that the additional ingredients used in P1 did not show any influence on crude fat content. The present crude fat values agree with the findings of Kumar et al. (2006) [9] who reported an ether extract content of 2.35 per cent, and Lakshmi and Sreeni (2022) [10] who documented a fat content of 3.09 per cent in panchagavya. The crude ash content of panchagavya P1 was significantly (P<0.05) higher when compared to P2 and were presented in Table 2. This suggests that the additional ingredients used in P1 show significant influence on crude ash content. The results obtained in the present study are in agreement with the findings of Selvaraj et al. (2007) [18] who reported an ash content ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 per cent in panchagavya. However, the crude ash values were higher than those reported by Kumar et al. (2006) [9] and Lakshmi and Sreeni (2022) [10] who reported an ash contents 2.10 per cent and 0.89 per cent respectively. These variations may be attributed to differences in the composition of ingredients and the methods adopted during the preparation process. The gross energy content of panchagavya P1 was significantly (P < 0.01) higher when compared to Panchagavya P2 (Table 2) and this may be due to additional ingredients added in the P1 preparation when compared to P2 preparation. The present gross energy values were higher than the findings of Selvaraj et al., (2007) [18] and Sreenivasa et al. (2011) [22] who reported gross energy value of panchagavya is around 400-700 kcal/kg (as-fed basis) and 600-900 kcal kg⁻¹ on fresh basis respectively. Higher values of energy content of this study may be due to significant influence of source of ingredients used for panchagavya preparation.

Physico-chemical properties of Panchagavya

The analysis of the results pertaining to the pH of the panchagavya samples (P1 and P2) revealed a significant difference between the treatments (Table 2). A comparatively higher pH was observed in P2, whereas P1 exhibited a lower pH value. The lower pH recorded in the P1 sample is comparable with the findings of Radha and Rao (2014) [16] and Uthirapandi et al. (2018) [24] who reported a pH of 3.7 (after 19 days) and 4.3 respectively. The relatively higher pH observed in P2 (4.72) can be compared with the findings of Punitha et al. (2010) [15] , who reported that the pH decreased from 5.32 to 4.52 during 10 to 30 days of fermentation of panchagavya. Likewise, Priya et al. (2016) [14] observed pH values of 5.10, 4.43, 3.97 and 3.73 at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of fermentation, respectively. In the present study lower pH in P1 compared to P2 might be due to addition of extra ingredients, enhanced microbial fermentation and organic acid production. The electrical conductivity of the panchagavya samples P1 and P2 did not show any significant difference (Table 2). Additional ingredients used in P1 did not influence the EC value. The results are comparable with the findings of Chakraborty and Sarkar (2019) [4] , who reported EC values ranging from 6.15 to 11.02 dS/m. Similarly, Sivapragasam et al. (2014) [20] reported an EC value of 10.22 dS/m in panchagavya, which is also in close agreement with the values recorded in the present investigation. The organic carbon content (%) of the panchagavya samples P1 was significantly (P < 0.01) higher when compared to P2 (Table 2). The relatively higher organic carbon content observed in P1 may be attributed to the additional ingredients which are rich sources of fermentable organic matter. The organic carbon values obtained in the present study are in agreement with the findings of Udhayakumar (2015) [23] , who reported that the organic carbon content of panchagavya ranged from 0.57 to 17.45 per cent. This variation may be due to difference in ingredients used for preparation of panchagavya. The nitrogen content (per cent) of the panchagavya samples P1 and P2 did not differ significantly (Table 2). The nitrogen content was higher than the values reported by Dhasarathan et al. (2018) [8] , Chandrakala et al. (2007) [5] and Reddy et al. (2021) [17] who documented the nitrogen content in panchagavya sample were 0.024%, 0.03% and 0.10% respectively, This may be due to differences in raw materials, preparation methods, fermentation period and environmental conditions during the preparation of panchagavya. The phosphorus content of P1 was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than P2 (Table 2). The additional ingredients used in P1 had a significant influence on the phosphorus content compared with the P21. The present phosphorus content of P1 and P2 were higher than the value reported by Dhasarathan et al. (2018) [8] , who documented a phosphorus content of 0.018% in panchagavya, in contrast, values were lower than one reported by Sharma et al. (2024) [19] who documented a phosphorus content in panchagavya ranged from 0.08 to 0.385%. The potassium content of the panchagavya samples P1 was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than P2 (Table 2). Additional ingredients used in P1 markedly influence the potassium content compared with the P2. The values obtained in the study are in agreement with findings of Mol et al. (2024) [12] who reported potassium levels ranging from 0.345 to 1.35% in panchagavya. The variations in potassium content among samples may be attributed to potassium content of raw materials used especially banana which is rich in potsssium, fermentation period and environmental conditions during the preparation of panchagavya.

Summary and Conclusion

The present study concludes that analysis and comparison of composition and physico-chemical properties of two different panchagavya samples (P1 and P2) showed significant difference between them. Panchagavya prepared from Natarajan (2003) [13] method (P1) showed significantly higher values of crude protein, crude ash and gross energy, similarly P1 showed significantly higher values of organic carbon, phosphorous and potassium when compared to panchagavya prepared from traditional method (P2). Hence, the panchagavya prepared from Natarajan (2003) [13] method (P1) showed comparatively superior nutritional characteristics than traditionally prepared pnchagavya (P2). In conclusion, the panchagavya prepared from Natarajan (2003) [13] method (P1) can be effectively used as fertilizer in agriculture and also effectively used as feed supplement in animal production.

Conflict of Interest Not available

Financial Support

References

1. Aditi B, Sharma GD. Panchagavya: An eco-friendly formulation for insect pest management. Just Agriculture (Multidisciplinary e-Newsletter). 2021;1(8):1-6.
2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Washington (DC): AOAC; 1995.
3. National Centre of Organic Farming. Biofertilizers and organic fertilizers in Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Ghaziabad: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; 2014. p. 190.
4. Chakraborty B, Sarkar I. Quality analysis and characterization of Panchagavya, Jeevamrutha and Sasyamrutha. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(5):20182026.
5. Chandrakala M, Hebsur NS, Bidari BI, Radder BM. Effect of FYM and fermented liquid manures on nutrient uptake by chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) and soil nutrient status at harvest. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2007;4(1):19-24.
6. Choudhary L. Influence of Jeevamrit and Panchagavya as liquid organic sources on growth, productivity and profitability of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) [PhD thesis]. Gwalior: Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya; 2021.
7. Dhama K, Khurana SK, Karthik K, Malik YPS, Chauhan RS. Panchagavya: immune-enhancing and therapeutic perspectives. Journal of Immunology and Immunopathology. 2014;16:1-11.
8. Dhasarathan P, Charumathi S, Nagavasuda RK, Cholapandian AJA, Ranjitsingh. Plant growth promotion using Panchagavya. International Journal of Research and Review. 2018;5(10):194-196.
9. Kumar KG, Kumaravelu N, Sivakumar T, Gajendran K. Study on Panchakavya-an indigenous formulation and its effect on the growth promotion of crossbred pigs. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2006;40(2):158-160.
10. Lakshmi PN, Sreeni TV. Physico-chemical analysis of Panchagavya Ghritha prepared as per Ashtanga Hridaya reference and comparison with market samples. International Journal of Ayurveda and Pharma Research. 2022;10(7):31-37.
11. Mathivanan R, Edwin SC, Amutha R, Viswanathan K. Panchagavya and Andrographis paniculata as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoter on broiler production and carcass characteristics. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2006;5(12):1144-1150.
12. Mol R, Priya G, Rani B, Soumya VI, Gopinath PP, Aparna B. Standardization of Panchagavya for enhanced nutrient content and seed germination in sustainable organic farming. Journal of Advances in Biology and Biotechnology. 2024;27(11):515-531.
13. Natarajan K. Panchagavya: A manual. 1st ed. Goa: Other India Press; 2003. p. 18-24.
14. Priya J, Revathi K, Babu M, Shamsudeen P. Isolation and in vitro antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented Panchagavya. World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences. 2016;2(3):215-228.
15. Punitha S, Balamurugan I, Kuberan T, Suresh Kumar R. Isolation and characterization of agriculturally important microbes from Panchakavya and their enzymatic activity. Journal of Bioscience Research. 2010;1(3):194-201.
16. Radha TK, Rao DLN. Plant growth promoting bacteria from cow dung based biodynamic preparations. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2014;54(4):413-418.
17. Reddy VRT, Reddy SK, Dipti B, Vinai K, Singh AK. Panchagavya: A low-cost liquid organic manure for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. 2021;8(9):580588.
18. Selvaraj N, Anitha B, Anusha B, Guru Saraswathi M. Organic horticulture. Ooty: Horticultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 2007. https://agritech.tnau.ac.in/org_farm/orgfarm_panchakavy a.html
19. Sharma D, Bochalya RS, Choudhary K, Kumar R, Chandel S, Thakur M. Effect of foliar application timing of different bio-stimulants on growth, quality and nutrient uptake of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(8):406-144.
20. Sivapragasam C, Vanitha S, Kowsiga A, Joan Jeraldine Lidwin G. Effect of different combinations of Panchagavya on plant yield. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2014;9(2S2):8-11.
21. Solaiappan. Payir kakkum Panchagavya. Chengalpattu: Shengai Publishers; 2003.
22. Sreenivasa MN, Naik N, Bhat SN. Nutrient status and microbial load of different organic liquid manures. Karnataka Agricultural Sciences. 2011;24:583-584.
23. Udhayakumar R. Studies on the physico-chemical properties of Panchagavya and its effect on crop growth. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 2015.
24. Uthirapandi V, Suriya S, Boomibalagan P, Eswaran S, Ramya SS, Vijayanand N, et al. Organic fertilizing effect of Panchagavya on growth and biochemical parameters of holy basil (Ocimum sanctum L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(6):2637-2644.