Nutrient management through organic sources and its impact on yield and economics of gram

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) also known as Bengal gram or Chana is an important and unique food legume that is used in variety of food products such as snacks, sweets, condiments, vegetables etc. It is also consumed in the form of processed whole seed (boiled, roasted, parched, fried, steamed, sprouted etc.) or as dal, flour (besan). It is also an excellent animal feed and its straw has good forage value. Chickpea is an ancient crop and has been grown in India, Middle East and the parts of Africa for many years. In India, Chickpea is cultivated on an area of 10.91 million hectares with total production of 13.75 million tonnes with productivity of 1260 kg per hectare. While in Gujarat, chickpea is cultivated in an area of 1.10 million hectares producing 2.10 million tonnes with the productivity of 1908 kg per hectare (Anonymous, 2022) [2] . India is the world's largest producer of chickpea, accounting for 64% of global production (Gaur et al., 2010) [7] . Despite its importance in our daily nutrition and agricultural production, this crop's productivity in India and Gujarat is quite poor. Continuous use of fertilizers, ignoring organic sources would lead to gradual decline of organic matter content and native fertility status in the soil, which in turn reflect on the productivity of succeeding crop (Umadevi et al., 2018) [16] . Cultivation of legume crops is the key aspect of organic nutrient management system. Inclusion of legumes in cropping systems improves the nitrogen status of soil and increases the yield of succeeding cereal crops (Ali et al., 2015) [1] . Organic manures influence soil productivity through their effect on soil physical, chemical and biological properties (Watson et al., 2002) [17] . FYM plays a vital role in dictating biochemical cycles, as it supports the growth and activity of soil microflora. It enhances the colonization of Mycorrhizae, Rhizobium, Azotobacter and Azospirillum which in turn improve the nitrogen (N) as well as phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ) supply and other micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn) besides imparting the resistance to plant against various soil borne diseases and insect pest attack which ultimately improves the grain yield (Rolaniya et al, 2023) [11] .

Organic nutrient management is a key aspect in enhancing chickpea output among the different factors impacting crop productivity. Balanced use of nutrients in the form of organic fertilizers may beneficial for increasing the crop production. The use of organic manures, inorganic fertilizers and leguminous crops has been advocated to restore the nutrients in lost soils (Fening et al., 2005) [6] .

Materials and Methods

The present investigation was carried out during rabi and summer seasons of 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 at College Farm, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat). The topography of experimental site was fairly uniform and levelled which geographically situated at 20º 92' North latitude and 72º 90' East longitudes with an altitude of 12.33 meters above the mean sea level. The soil of experimental field was clayey in texture and medium in organic carbon (0.61%), low in available N (217.48 kg ha -1 ), medium in available P 2 O 5 (35.24 kg ha -1 ) and high in available K 2 O (300.60 kg ha -1 ) The experiment comprising five nutrient management treatments viz., N 1 (Control), N 2 (RDN through FYM), N 3 (RDN through biocompost), N 4 (RDN through ghnjeevamrit + jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation) and N 5 (RDF). The seeds of cultivar GG 5 (Gujarat Gram 5) were used in the present investigation. A randomized block design with four replications was used to set up the experiment. The required amount of organic manures (FYM, bio compost and ghanjeevamrit) was calculated and they were applied to the gram crop in accordance with the treatments and evenly distributed and incorporated in individual plots. Before applying organic manures, they were tested for N, P 2 O 5 and K2O content on dry weight basis. The fertilizers were applied in gram as per treatment. Gram was sown using a 60 kg ha -1 seed rate with 45 cm × 10 cm spacing. Average values of five randomly selected plants for different characters were used for statistical analysis. The RBD analysis was carried out for the characters studied.

Results and Discussion

Growth attributes

The results summarized in Table 1 revealed that treatment N 4 (RDN through ghan jeevamrit alongwith jeevamrit 500 lit ha -1 at 1 st Irrigation) resulted in significantly higher plant height (44.33 and 42.38 cm, respectively) during second year of investigation and in pooled results and remained at par with treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM), N3 (RDN through biocompost) and N 5 (RDF) during second year of investigation and in pooled analysis over control. Similarly, at harvest same treatment i.e., N 4 resulted in significantly higher number of branches plant -1 (14.55, 15.10 and 14.83, respectively) and remained at par with treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM) and N 5 (RDF) during individual years and in pooled analysis. Significantly higher dry matter accumulation plant -1 (33.13 and 31.93 g plant -1 , respectively) was noted under treatment N 4 (RDN through ghanjeevamrit supplemented with jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation) which remained at par with treatment N 5 (RDF) and N 2 (RDN through FYM) during the second year as well as in pooled findings. Treatment N 4 combines a concentrated organic reservoir with a liquid microbial catalyst. This combination introduces a massive microbial load and natural growth promoting substances such as Indole Acetic Acid (IAA), gibberellins and cytokinins which trigger cell division, elongation (Plant height) and lateral bud primordial (branching). Furthermore, the enhanced chlorophyll synthesis driven by increased micronutrient availability leads to substantial dry matter accumulation. Unlike solid phase manures like FYM (N 2 ) or biocompost (N 3 ), the liquid jeevamrit in treatment N 4 accelerates the decomposition of the solid organic fraction, providing a steady nutrient supply throughout the vegetative and reproductive phases. Similar outcomes have also been noticed by Kumar et al. (2019) [8] , Patel et al. (2022) [10] , Shah et al. (2024) [13] and Dwivedi et al. (2025) [5] in gram.

Yield attributes

According to the results of Table 2 and fig. 1, various treatments had a significant effect on the number of pods plant -1 of gram. Though, application of RDN through ghanjeevamrit supplemented with jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation (N 4 ) resulted in higher number of pods plant -1 (51.20 and 50.05) and remained on par with treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM), N 3 (RDN through biocompost) and N 5 (RDF)during second year of investigation and in pooled analysis. While, treatment N 5 (RDF) resulted in significantly higher number of pods plant -1 (49.45) at harvest and remained on par with treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM), N 3 (RDN through biocompost) and N 4 (RDN through ghanjeevamrit supplemented with jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation) during first year of investigation only. While, treatment N 1 (control) had lower number of pods plant -1 during individual years and in pooled results. According to table 2 and fig. 1, treatment N 4 (RDN through ghanjeevamrit supplemented with jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation) resulted in significantly higher seed yield (2347 and 2201 kg ha -1 ) of gram which remained at par with treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM) and N 5 (RDF) during second year of investigation and in pooled analysis. While, during the first year of investigation, it was noticed that treatment N 5 (RDF) resulted in significantly higher seed yield (2112 kg ha -1 ) and it remained statistically at par with treatment N 4 (2055 kg ha -1 ) and N 2 (1927 kg ha -1 ).While, significantly lower seed yield was (1476, 1493 and 1484 kg ha -1 ) observed under treatment N 1 (control) during individual years of investigation and in pooled findings, respectively. N 4 > N 5 > N 2 > N 3 > N 1 was the order in which different treatments influenced seed yield of gram. Increased branching and plant height expand the total leaf area (source), maximizing light interception and CO₂ assimilation. This leads to higher dry matter accumulation (31.93 g plant -1 in N 4 vs. 23.97 g plant -1 in control), providing a larger reservoir of photosynthates to be translocated to the developing seeds during the reproductive phase. Significantly higher stover yield (3315 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded with an application of RDF (N 5 ) which remained statistically at par with treatment N 4 (3247 kg ha⁻¹) and N 2 (2987 kg ha -1 ) during first year of investigation. While, during second year of study, treatment N 4 (RDN through ghanjeevamrit alongwith jeevamrit 500 lit ha⁻¹ at first irrigation) resulted in significantly higher stover yield (3388 kg ha -1 ) but it remained at par with N 5 (3327 kg ha⁻¹) and N 2 (3190 kg ha⁻¹). In case of pooled data, treatment N 5 (RDF) resulted in significantly higher stover yield of 3321 kg ha⁻¹ which remained statistically at par with N 4 (3318 kg ha⁻¹) and N 2 (3088 kg ha -1 ). Conversely, lower stover yield was reported under treatment N 1 (control) during both the years of study and in pooled results. The success of organic treatments like RDN through ghanjeevamrit alongwith jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation (N 4 ) is justified by the improvement in soil properties. Treatment N 4 showed the lowest bulk density (1.357 g cc -1 ), highest organic carbon (0.669%) and available NPK status after harvest. Organic amendments decrease soil bulk density and increase organic carbon, improving soil porosity and microbial activity. This creates a favorable rhizosphere that enhances the mineralization of nutrients, making them steadily available throughout the crop's growth stages. These results were in accordance with those of Patel et al. (2022) [10] , Shah et al. (2024) [13] , Dwivedi et al. (2025) [5] and Saharan et al. (2025) [12] with respect to gram.

Economics

The data tabulated in Table 3 revealed that treatment N 5 (RDF) emerged as the most economically viable option. It secured the highest net monetary returns (₹ 1,09,901 ha -1 ) and higher B:C ratio (1.97). It might be attributed that chemical fertilizers provide precise, water-soluble nutrients that the plant can absorb instantly during critical growth stages, leading to high yields with relatively low input costs compared to bulky organic manures. While, treatment N 4 (RDN through ghanjeevamrit alongwith jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation) produced the highest gross monetary returns (₹ 1,68,988 ha -1 ) due to superior seed and stover yields, but its higher variable costs (labour & input costs) increase the total cost of cultivation which reduced its overall net profit compared to RDF (N 5 ). Although, treatment N 3 (RDN through biocompost) had the lowest variable cost among the active nutrient treatments. While its gross returns were lower than N 4 and N 5 , it maintained a healthy B:C ratio of 1.70. However, treatment N 2 (RDN through FYM) had the highest cost of cultivation (₹ 71,618 ha -1 ), which significantly pulled down its B:C ratio to 1.22, making it less economically attractive than chemical and other organic alternatives. The lowest net realization of ₹62,592 was noted under the treatment N 1 (control) with BCR value of 1.19. Similar results were also reported by Sharma et al. (2017) [15] , Bhuva and Detroja (2018) [4] in chickpea, Sharma and Thakur (2022) [14] in French bean, Baldaniya et al. (2023) [3] in Indian bean, Kumar et al.( 2023) [9] in vegetable Indian bean and Saharan et al. (2025) [12] in chickpea. 1.97 *Selling price of gram seed -₹ 70 kg -1 , stover -₹ 4.5 kg -1 , Cost of input: FYM -₹ 3.50 kg -1 , biocompost -₹ 0.80 kg -1 , Ghanjivamrut-₹ 4.50 kg -1 , Urea -₹ 5.64 kg -1 and SSP -₹ 11.30 kg -1

Conclusion

Two years of research have led to the conclusions that, the application of RDN through ghanjeevamrit along with jeevamrit 500 l ha -1 at first irrigation was found to be beneficial for getting favourable growth, yield and economic returns from gram.

References

1. Ali W, Jan A, Hassan A, Abbas A, Hussain A, Ali M, et al. Residual effect of preceding legumes and nitrogen levels on subsequent maize. Int J Agron Agric Res. 2015;7(1):78-85.
2. Anonymous. Agricultural statistics at a glance. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, DAC&FW; 2021.
3. Baldaniya BM, Patel VM, Rathwa MK. Effect of organic, inorganic fertilizer and foliar spray on quality, nutrient content, uptake and soil status of Indian bean (Lablab purpureus L.). Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(12):1848-1852.
4. Bhuva HM, Detroja AC. Influence of nutrient management with organic manures on productivity, profitability and quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum)-chickpea (Cicer arietinum) sequence. Indian J Agron. 2018;63(3):300306.
5. Dwivedi A, Gangwar BJ, Kumar N. Effect of integrated nutrient management through organic sources on yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Bundelkhand region. Agric Sci Dig. 2025:1-6.
6. Fening JO, Adjei-Gyapong T, Yeboah E, Ampontuah EO, Quansah G, Danso SKA. Soil fertility status and potential organic inputs for improving smallholder crop production in the interior savanna zone of Ghana. J Sustain Agric. 2005;25(4):69-92.
7. Gaur PM, Tripathi S, Gowda CLL, Ranga Rao GV, Sharma HC, Pande S, et al. Chickpea seed production manual. Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh): International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; 2010. p. 10.
8. Kumar A, Kumar R, Kumar A, Kumar S, Bharti AK. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and seed quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under rainfed condition. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):2268-2270.
9. Kumar SGV, Arvadiya LK, Vishwanatha VE, Bartwal D, Katara AR, Patel PM, et al. Effect of nutrient management practices on growth, yield and economics of vegetable Indian bean and its residual effects on fodder pearl millet under vegetable Indian bean-fodder pearl millet cropping system. Int J Bio-Resour Stress Manag. 2023;14(6):862-871.
10. Patel A, Gangwar B, Pandey A, Singh RN. Effect of sowing methods and integrated nutrient management through FYM, VC and PM on growth of chickpea for organic farming in Bundelkhand. Madras Agric J. 2022;99(4-6):308-310.
11. Rolaniya LK, Jat RL, Kumar N, Punia M, Choudhary RR. Effect of integrated nutrient management practices on growth and yield of chickpea under different chickpea-based cropping systems in western Rajasthan, India. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(12):1253-1259.
12. Saharan S, Janardan S, Rahul S, Akashdeep S, Kunal N, Bharat BR, et al. Response of black gram (Vigna mungo L.) to organic nutrient sources and their effect on soil properties and yield attributes in Western Himalayan region of India. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(4):1-7.
13. Shah SN, Chaudhari VD, Shroff JC, Patel VJ, Patel AP. Nutrient management through organic sources in chickpea. Legume Res. 2024:1-4. doi:10.18805/LR-5165.
14. Sharma R, Thakur I. Impact of bioorganic nutrients and chemical fertilizers on sustainable production of French bean and soil health. J Environ Biol. 2022;43(3):430-439.
15. Sharma SK, Choudhary R, Trivedi A, Choudhary RS, Yadav SK. Response of organic nutrient management practices on soil properties and productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Bio-Resour Stress Manag. 2017;8(2):196-200.
16. Umadevi GD, Sunitha N, Reddi Ramu Y. Effect of various organic sources on soil microbial count and groundnut yield. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(3):1443-1445.
17. Watson CA, Atkinson D, Gosling P, Jackson LR, Rayns FW. Managing soil fertility in organic farming systems. Soil Use Manag. 2002;18(3):239-247.