Influence of NPK Beejamrit and Jeevamrit on Soil Health of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), is one of the most significant pulses crops in the world known as gram or Bengal gram. It is a member of Fabaceae family and important for its nutritional quality, high protein contents and its role in the improvement of soil fertility by biological nitrogen fixation (Koul et al., 2022) [7] . Chickpea is the second most popular grain legume internationally and is grown in over 50 nations around the globe, including the Americas, Australia, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Crop broadly classified in two major types, Desi chickpea (small dark colored seeds) and Kabuli chickpea (large creamcolored seeds) (Zhang et al., 2024) [18] India is the world's largest producer and consumer of chickpea and is responsible for a significant portion of the world's production. Chickpea productivity, disease resistance and adaptation to a wide range of agroclimatic conditions have been greatly improved thanks to continued breeding and better crop management (Merga, et al., (2019) [8] . Chickpea is one of the important leguminous crops because its nutritional content. It contains 17-23% proteins, 14% vitamins, 24-41% raw starch, 50-64% carbohydrates, 3-7% fats, 3.7-13% crude fiber (Yadav et al., 2022) [17] . The chickpea is a key grain legume crop used for its nutritional and nitrogen fixation properties and cultivated worldwide for these attributes (Koul et al., 2022) [7] . Beejamrit is a fermented microbial solution, with loads of plant-beneficial microbes and is applied as seed treatment. It is expected that the beneficial microbes would colonize the roots and leaves of the germinating seeds and help in the healthy growth of the plants. Jeevamrit improve soil fertility including application of Jeevamrit (a liquid organic manure) which is one of the most important components for nutrient management. Jeevamrit is a fermented liquid product prepared by mixing up cow dung with cow urine, jaggery, legume flour and handful of live soil (Palekar, 2007) [11] .

Materials and Methods

A field experiment which was carried out at the Soil Science Research Farm, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University, Prayagraj, during Rabi season 2025-26. It is situated at 25 0 24'30" N latitude, 81 0 51'10" E longitude and 98 meter above the sea level. The details about the experiment site, soil and climate are described in this chapter together with the experimental design, layout plan, culture practice, particulars of treatments, planting material and techniques employed for the parameters. The area of Prayagraj district represents the subtropical belt of the South East of Uttar Pradesh and endowed with extremely hot summer and fairly cold winter. The maximum temperatures of the area is between 25 0 C-35 0 C and rarely drops below 4 0 C-5 0 C. The relative air humidity is between 20-94%. The average rainfall of this area is around 1100 mm annually. The lowest Relative humidity was to be 48.5% and the lowest was 87.4%. the experiment was layout designed in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three levels of each NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The plot size was 3 x 3 m 2 for crop seed rate for 65-70 kg ha -1 (Cicer arietinum L.). Var. Himmat. Basal dose of fertilizer was applied in the respective plots according to the treatment allocation uniform furrow opened by about 5 cm. All the agronomic practices were carried out the uniformity to raise to the crop. Harvesting was done in March. The experiment consisted of 9 treatment combinations, T1: Absolute control, T2: NPK @ 100% (20:40:20 kg/ha), T3: Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg), T4:Jeevamrit Soil Treatment (500 l/ha), T5: Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg) + NPK @ 100%, T6: Jeevamrit Soil Treatment (500 l/ha) + NPK @ 100%, T7: Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg) + NPK @ 50%, T8: Jeevamrit Soil Treatment (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 50%, T9: Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%. Bulk density, Particle density, Pore space and Water holding capacity analyze Measuring cylinder method given by Muthuvel et al., 1992, Soil pH analyze Digital pH meter given by M. L. Jackson, 1958. Electrical conductivity analyzes Digital conductivity meter given by Wilcox, 1950, Organic carbon analyzes Wet oxidation method given by Walkley and Black, 1947, Available Nitrogen analyze Modified alkaline permanganate oxidation method given by Subbiah and Asija, 1956, Available Phosphorus analyze Olsen's extraction followed by Spectrophotometric method given by Olsen et al., 1954 [9] , Available Potassium analyze Neutral normal ammonium acetate extraction fallowed by Flame photometric given by Toth and Prince, 1949.

Results and discussion

The data presented in table and fig 1 clearly shows the response bulk density of soil was found to be non-significant in levels of NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The maximum bulk density of soil was recorded 1.29 and 1.32 Mg m -3 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T1 (Absolute control) followed by 1.27 and 1.30 Mg m - 3 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T3 (Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg) and minimum bulk density of soil was recorded 1.16 and 1.20 Mg m -3 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T9 (Beejamrit (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%). This reduction may be attributed to the incorporation of organic formulations, which improved soil aggregation and increased soil porosity. Addition of organic matter reduced soil compaction and created a loose soil structure, thereby lowering bulk density. (Gulaiya et al., 2023 and Begum et al., 2022) [5,1] .

The data presented in table and fig 1 clearly shows the response the particle density of soil non-significant yield with the levels of NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The highest particle density of soil was observed. 2.44 and 2.54 Mg m -3 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T1 (Absolute control) followed by 2.43 and 2.53 Mg m - 3 at 0-15 and15-30 cm in treatment T3 (Beejamrit Seed Treatment (5 ml/kg) and minimum particle density of soil was recorded 2.22 and 2.31 Mg m -3 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T9 (Beejamrit (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%).The lowest particle density was observed in T9, while the highest was found in T1. This decrease might be due to the higher accumulation of organic matter in soil as organic particles possess lower density than mineral particles. Enhanced microbial activity and humus formation also contributed to this reduction. (Gulaiya et al., 2023 and Begum et al., 2022) [5,1] .

The data presented in table and Fig. 1 it is evident that the NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit had significant influence on the pore space (%) of soil. The maximum pore space of soil was recorded 56.23 and 55.06% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T9 (Beejamrit (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) followed by 54.92 and 53.76% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T6 (Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) and minimum pore space of soil was recorded 50.38 and 49.43% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T1 (Absolute control). Treatment T9 recorded the highest pore space, while the control showed the lowest value. Increased pore space may be due to better soil aggregation and improvement in soil structure caused by organic amendments. Reduced bulk density also enhanced the formation of macro and micropores in the soil. (Gulaiya et al., 2023 and Begum et al., 2022) [5,1] .

These data table and fig. 1 clearly reveal that the water holding capacity of soil was influenced by the NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The response of water holding capacity of soil was found to be significant in levels of NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The maximum water holding capacity of soil was recorded 43.2 and 41.2% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T9 (Beejamrit (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) followed by 42.7 and 39.7% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T6 (Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) and minimum water holding capacity of soil was recorded 39.7 and 36.4% at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T1 (Absolute control). The highest value was recorded in T9. This improvement may be attributed to increased soil organic carbon and better aggregation, which enhanced moisture retention capacity of soil. Organic matter acts like a sponge and improves the storage of water in soil micropores. (Gulaiya et al., 2023 and Begum et al., 2022) [5,1] .

Table 1: Influence of NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit on Bulk density (Mg m -3 ), Particle density (Mg m -3 ), Pore space (%) and WHC (%) of soil.

Treatments

Soil EC (dSm -1 )

The data presented in table and fig. 2 clearly shows the EC of soil as influenced by NPK, Beejamrit and Jeevamrit. The maximum EC of soil was recorded 0.38 and 0.36 dSm -1 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T9 (Beejamrit (5 ml/kg) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) followed by 0.36 and 0.34 dSm -1 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T6 (Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1 ) + NPK @ 100%) and minimum EC of soil was recorded 0.28 and 0.26 dSm -1 at 0-15 and 15-30 cm in treatment T1 (Absolute control). The highest EC was observed in T9. This increase may be due to the greater availability of soluble salts and ions released from fertilizers and decomposition of organic inputs, which enhanced ionic concentration in the soil solution. (Begum et al., 2022) [1] .

Conclusion

The present investigation showed that recommended doses of NPK fertilizer along with integrated application of organic formulations (Beejamrit and Jeevamrit) significantly increased the soil physico-chemical properties and nutrient availability in chickpea cultivation. The treatment T₉ (Beejamrit (5 ml kg -1 seed) + Jeevamrit (500 l ha -1) + 100% NPK) showed excellent improvement in soil quality parameters. Among the treatments, T₉ recorded the lowest bulk density and particle density, while exhibiting the highest pore space and water holding capacity, indicating improved soil physical condition. The findings suggest that the combined use of Beejamrit and Jeevamrit with 100% recommended NPK fertilizer promotes better nutrient cycling, improves soil fertility status and sustains soil health. Thus, the nutrient management system, which combines the use of organic bio-stimulants and inorganic fertilizers can be proposed as an effective and sustainable approach to improve soil productivity and ensure long-term soil quality in the cropping system of chickpea in agro-climatic condition of Prayagraj.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the Hon'ble Vice chancellor Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju bhaiya) University, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, faculty of Agriculture for taking their keen interest and encouragement to carry out the research work.

References

1. Begum SS, Hasan A, David AA, Thomas T, Kumar T. Response of different levels of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on soil health, growth and yield attributes of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cv. Pusa-362 in an Inceptisol of Prayagraj. Asian J Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci. 2022;24(3):539-543.
2. Bhanusri K, Reddy MS, Sowmya N. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on nutrient use efficiency of irrigated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under scarce rainfall zone of Andhra Pradesh, India. J Sci Res Rep. 2024;30(9):507-514.
3. Bishnoi R, Bhati A. Zero budget natural farming. Trends Biosci. 2017;10(46):9314-9316.
4. Bouyoucos GJ. The hydrometer as a new method for the mechanical analysis of soils. Soil Sci. 1927;23:343-353.
5. Gulaiya S, Agrawal SB, Kochale P, Verma B, Patel KK. Changes in soil behavior under the use of various sources of nutrient and bio-fertilizer in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Biol Forum Int J. 2023;15(8):316-319.
6. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1958.
7. Koul B, Sharma K, Sehgal V, Yadav D, Mishra M, Bharadwaj C. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) biology and biotechnology: from domestication to biofortification and biopharming. Plants. 2022;11(21):2926.
8. Merga B, Haji J. Economic importance of chickpea: production, value, and world trade. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1):1615718.
9. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1954. Circular No. 939. p. 1-19.
10. Patel KK, Pandey AK, Baheliya AK, Singh V, Yadav R, Pandey S, Yadav V. A comparative study of the effects of biofertilizers and chemical fertilizers on soil physical and biological properties under chickpea crop (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Environ Clim Change. 2024;14(3):72-80.
11. Palekar S. Zero Budget Spiritual Farming. Amravati: Research Development and Extension Movement, Subhash Palekar Publication; 2007.
12. Sharma A, Agarwal SB, Jha AK, Sahu RK, Jatav SS, Singh PP, Parte V. Changes in root growth nodulation behaviour and plant survivability of chickpea under organic sources of nutrients and bio-agents. Plant Arch. 2025;25(2).
13. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25(8):259-260.
14. Toth SJ, Prince AL. Estimation of cation exchange capacity and exchangeable Ca, K and Na content of soil by flame photometer technique. Soil Sci. 1949;67:439-445.
15. Walkley A, Black IA. A critical examination of a rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils: effect of variations in digestion conditions and of inorganic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 1947;63(4):251-264.
16. Wilcox LV. Electrical conductivity. J Am Water Works Assoc. 1950;42:775-776.
17. Yadav P, Chandra R, Pareek N. Plant growth promoting Mesorhizobium as a potential inoculant for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): a review. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 2022;37(4):328-333.
18. Zhang J, Wang J, Zhu C, Singh RP, Chen W. Chickpea: its origin, distribution, nutrition, benefits, breeding, and symbiotic relationship with Mesorhizobium species. Plants. 2024;13(3):429.