See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/292444834

Evaluation of microbial culture (Jeevamrit) preparation and its effect on

productivity of field crops

Article in Indian Journal of Agronomy · June 2013

DOI: 10.59797/ija.v58i2.4191

CITATIONS READS

24 17,228

5 authors, including:

Charanjit Singh Aulakh Harmeet Singh

Punjab Agricultural University Punjab Agricultural University
57 PUBLICATIONS 306 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

S S Walia
Punjab Agricultural University
194 PUBLICATIONS 881 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charanjit Singh Aulakh on 19 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Journal of Agronomy 58 (2): 182__186 (June 2013)
Research Paper

Evaluation of microbial culture (Jeevamrit) preparation and its effect on

productivity of field crops
C.S. AULAKH1, HARGOPAL SINGH2, S.S. WALIA3, R.P. PHUTELA4 AND GURMINDER SINGH5

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004

Received : June 2012; Revised accepted : March 2013

ABSTRACT
Jeevamrit, a microbial culture, prepared especially from dung and urine of Indian cow is generally advocated
for use in organic farming to meet the nutritional requirement of crops. Laboratory studies and field experiments
were conducted to know the microbial composition and nutrient content of jeevamrit and its effect on the perfor-
mance of rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat {Triticum aestivum (L.) emend. Fiori & Paol} and maize (Zea mays L.)–
wheat cropping systems. The pH of jeevamrit prepared from buffalo, Indian cow and hybrid cow decreased from
8.32, 7.89 and 7.71 at the start to 3.86, 3.65 and 3.56, respectively after 5 days of incubation. The microbial count
increased from its initial values in all the cultures. The bacterial count of jeevamrit prepared from Indian cow’s
Downloaded From IP - [Link] on dated 23-Jan-2018

dung and urine was highest followed by hybrid cow and buffalo, where as the fungal count was highest in
jeevamrit prepared from hybrid cow’s dung and urine followed by Indian cow and buffalo. Jeevamrit prepared
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

from Indian cow and hybrid cow’s dung and urine did not differ much in the microbial count (bacteria and fungi).
[Link]

The nutrient contents were 0.22, 0.04 and 0.60 g nitrogen, 0.11, 0.04 and 0.06 g phosphorus, 1.09, 0.28 and 0.75
g potassium and 0.46, 0.43 and 0.39 g sulphur in each litre of jeevamrit prepared from buffalo, Indian cow and hy-
brid cow’s dung and urine, respectively; showing relatively higher contents of these nutrients in case of buffalo.
The carbon content was more in jeevamrit prepared from dung and urine of Indian cow followed by buffalo and hy-
brid cow. The field application of jeevamrit over two years (2009–10 and 2010–11) neither alone nor in combina-
tion with chemical fertilizers or farmyard manure influenced the grain yield of rice, maize and wheat in rice–wheat
and maize–wheat cropping systems indicating its inability to supply nutrients to the crops in needed quantities ei-
ther directly or indirectly through mobilization of native nutrients from the soil.

Key words: Cow dung and urine, Jeevamrit, Maize, Organic farming, Rice, Wheat

Organic farming is gaining importance in Indian agri- mands their integration with other available options. The
culture on account of sustainability and quality of the combined use of organic manures and specially prepared
crops being produced. It is being practiced on 37.2 million organics (jeevamrit, panchgavya) helped in sustaining
ha area in 160 countries of the world, which constitutes soybean and wheat yields in organic nutrient management
about 0.9% of the world’s agricultural land (Willer and system (Shwetha et al., 2009). Combined application of
Kilcher, 2011). The area under certified organic crops has green manures, crop residues and composts along with liq-
increased from 42000 ha in 2003–04 to 1.08 m ha in 2010 uid manures like beejamrut, jeevamrit, panchgavya,
(Yadav, 2010). The organic cultivation of crops has been sasyamrut and vermiwash etc. can release the nutrients in
recommended by substituting chemical fertilizers and pes- a more synchronized manner as per the need of the crop
ticides with organic manures and biopesticides, respec- (Kanwar et al., 2006). Jeevamrit enhances microbial activ-
tively (PAU, 2012). The commonly used organic manures ity in soil and helps in improvement of soil fertility (Joshi,
like farmyard manure, green manures, composts, 2012).
vermicompost and non–edible cakes are required in large Jeevamrit is claimed to be a panacea for organic farm-
quantities to meet the nutritional requirement of crops. The ing to fulfill the nutritional requirement of crops as well as
limited availability of these bulky organic manures de- for pest management. The jeevamrit should be prepared
from dung and urine of Indian cow only and dung and
1
Corresponding author Email: csaulakh@[Link] urine of one cow is sufficient for organic cultivation of 12
1&3
Agronomist, 5Research Fellow, Department of Agronomy, 2Se- ha (Palekar, 2009). A large number of organic growers
nior Soil Scientist, Department of Soil Science, 4Senior Microbi-
ologist, Department of Microbiology, PAU Ludhiana, Punjab
primarily depend upon jeevamrit for organic farming
 June 2013] EVALUATION OF MICROBIAL CULTURE IN FIELD CROPS 183

(Joshi, 2008; Singh, 2009). Therefore, laboratory studies (soil), soil and foliar application of jeevamrit (soil+foliar)
were conducted to know the chemical and biological com- and control. The soil of the experimental field having rice–
position of jeevamrits prepared from the urine and dung of wheat system was loamy sand having normal pH (7.12)
different species of farm animals. Further, since rice– and EC (0.2 dS/m), low soil organic carbon (0.39%), low
wheat and maize–wheat are the prominent cropping sys- in available nitrogen (193 kg/ha), high in available phos-
tems in Punjab and thus field experiments were conducted phorus (78 kg/ha) and medium in available potassium
to evaluate the potential of jeevamrit, prepared from dung (193 kg/ha). The soil of the experimental field having
and urine of Indian cow, to supply nutrition to these crops. maize–wheat system was loamy sand having normal pH
(7.08) and EC (0.2 dS/m), medium soil organic carbon
MATERIALS AND METHODS
(0.44%), low in available nitrogen (194 kg/ha), high in
Laboratory studies available phosphorus (90 kg/ha) and medium in available
Three sets of jeevamrit, one each from the dung and potassium (188 kg/ha). The recommended agronomic
urine of Indian cow, hybrid cow and buffalo were prepared practices, except the nutrition and pest management prac-
by using 1 kg dung, 1 litre urine, 200 g jaggery, 200 g tices, were followed to raise the crops. Rice ‘PAU 201’
chickpea flour and 100 g virgin soil from a canal bank. was transplanted on July 3 during both the years at a plant
The final volumes of the mixtures were made to 20 litres density of 33 hills/m2 and harvested on November 3 and
with water in plastic containers. The mixtures were kept October 20 during 2009–10 and 2010–11, respectively.
for incubation under shade for 5 days and stirred vigor- Water was kept ponded in the rice field continuously for
ously for 10–15 minutes three times a day with a wooden 15 days and subsequently irrigations were given 2 days af-
Downloaded From IP - [Link] on dated 23-Jan-2018

stick. The average minimum and maximum temperatures ter the ponded water receded completely. Wheat ‘PBW-
during the study period were 13.4 and 31.1ºC, respec- 550’ was sown, at a row spacing of 20 cm by using 112.5
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

tively. Total carbon, nitrogen and sulphur contents of these kg/ha seed, on November 19 and 12 and harvested on
[Link]

culture solutions were determined by using CHNS Ana- April 9 and 12 during 2009–10 and 2010–11, respectively.
lyzer (Elementar Vario ELIII). Total phosphorous was de- Maize ‘PMH-1’ was sown, at a row to row spacing of 60
termined by vanadomolybdophosphoric yellow colour cm and plant to plant spacing of 22 cm by using 20 kg/ha
method after digestion of the sample with diacid and po- seed, on July 7 and June 21and harvested on October 7
tassium was determined by flame photometer (Jackson, and 11 during 2009–10 and 2010–11, respectively.
1967). Well decomposed FYM (having 1.0% N) was used to
The bacterial and fungal populations were estimated by supply the nutrients as per the treatments. The entire quan-
the serial dilution and pour plate techniques using soil tity of FYM was applied before sowing or transplanting
extract agar and Rose Bengal agar media, respectively the crops. Chemical fertilizers (urea, DAP and MOP) were
(Lochhead and Chase, 1943; Martin, 1950). The media used to supply 120–30–30 kg N-P2O5-K 2O/ha to rice,
were prepared and sterilized in an autoclave at 15 psi for maize and wheat in chemical fertilizer plots. The 1/3rd N
20 minutes, while pre–sterilized agar plates were used for and whole P and K to rice were applied at the time of pud-
plating of diluted samples in triplicates. The agar plates for dling and the remaining N was applied in 2 splits at 3
bacteria and fungi were incubated at 30+1oC in an inverted weeks and 6 weeks after transplanting. In maize, the 1/3rd
position for 5 to 7 days until countable colonies were de- N and whole P and K were applied at the time of sowing
veloped. The respective colonies were counted on the ba- and the remaining N was applied in 2 splits at knee high
sis of their morphological characteristics and growth pat- stage and at tasseling. Half of recommended N and whole
tern. The results were expressed as colony forming units P and K to wheat were applied at the time of sowing and
(cfu)/ml. the remaining N was applied at the time of 1st irrigation.
Weed control in all the crops was done manually. The in-
Field studies sect–pest management in organic manured plots and un-
The field evaluation of jeevamrit was done on rice, fertilized control plots in rice and maize was done by us-
maize and wheat in rice–wheat and maize–wheat cropping ing Trichogramma–cards @ 100 cards/ha. The cards were
systems during 2009–10 and 2010–11 in a split plot design used as one time application in maize after 15 days of
with three replications. The main plots consisted of recom- sowing and in rice they were applied 5 times starting from
mended doses of chemical fertilizers (chemical fertilizer), 30 days after transplanting at weekly interval. The insect–
farmyard manure to supply 100 kg N/ha (FYM100), farm- pest management in chemical fertilizer plots of rice was
yard manure to supply 200 kg N/ha (FYM200) and unfertil- done by using two sprays of monocil 36 SL @ 1400 ml/ha
ized control. and one spray of dursban 20 EC @ 2.5 l/ha and in maize
The sub–plots consisted of soil application of jeevamrit it was done with decis 2.8 EC @ 200 ml/ha. Two sprays of
 184 AULAKH ET AL. [Vol. 58, No. 2

tilt @ 500 ml/ha were also given to rice at flowering. The tial value in all the preparations of jeevamrit (Fig. 2). The
aphid management in wheat in organic manured plots and sulphur content was highest in the jeevamrit prepared
unfertilized control was done by econeem @ 500 ml/ha. from buffalo excreta followed by Indian cow and hybrid
In chemical fertilizer plots, one spray of rogar @ 375 ml/ cow jeevamrits. The carbon content was more in jeevamrit
ha was done to control the aphid attack. prepared from Indian cow excreta followed by that of buf-
The jeevamrit @ 500 l/ha was applied four times along falo and hybrid cow. The overall content of nutrients in the
with irrigation water and foliar spray as per the treatments jeevamrit irrespective of the source was very low (Table
and was prepared afresh every time before its application. 1). Joshi (2012) reported 0.1–0.5% N, 0.02–0.04% P and
The microbial population was studied in the soil taken 0.2–0.4% K in jeevamrit. Reddy (2009) also reported low
from 0–15 cm depth of the plots receiving jeevamrit as concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in
soil + foliar application and control after the 4th application the jeevamrit solutions.
of jeevamrit to each crop.
The data on crop yields and soil microbial population Microbial population
were pooled and statistically analyzed by using statistical
methods described by Gomez and Gomez (1984) and the
software used was CPCS1 developed by the Department
of Statistics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Downloaded From IP - [Link] on dated 23-Jan-2018

Chemical composition of jeevamrits

The pH of jeevamrits prepared from dung and urine of
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

buffalo, Indian cow and hybrid cow decreased progres-

[Link]

sively with time from 8.32, 7.89 and 7.71 at the start to
3.86, 3.65 and 3.56, respectively after 5 days of incubation
(Table 1, Fig 1) and this is ascribed to the increased activ- Fig. 1. pH changes in jeevamrit
ity of acid producing microorganisms. The jeevamrit solu-
tions from the excreta of buffalo, Indian cow and hybrid
cow contained 0.22, 0.04 and 0.60 g nitrogen, 0.11, 0.04
and 0.06 g phosphorus, 1.09, 0.28 and 0.75 g potassium
and 0.46, 0.43 and 0.39 g sulphur/litre, respectively. The
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents were rela-
tively higher in jeevamrit prepared from buffalo excreta
followed by that of hybrid cow and Indian cow. The
chemical composition of dung and urine is reported to be
influenced by the factors like cattle species, type and age
Indian
of the animal, nutrient composition of the feed and climate
of the region (Van Fassen and Van Dijk, 1987).
The nitrogen content decreased with time from its ini- Fig. 2. Nitrogen (g/l) content in jeevamrit
Table 1. Microbial population and nutrient content in jeevamrit

Parameter Jeevamrit preparations

Buffalo Indian cow Hybrid cow

Microbial counts (cfu/ml)*

Bacterial count 2.6 × 106 (1.9 x 103) 8.9 × 106 (1.8 x 103) 8.6 × 106 (1.8 × 103)
Fungal 1.10 × 104 (1.6 x 103) 1.30 × 104 (1.8 x 103) 1.35 × 104 (1.7 × 103)
Nutrient content (g/l)
Carbon 5.99 7.19 5.47
Nitrogen 0.22 0.04 0.60
Phosphorus 0.11 0.04 0.06
Potassium 1.09 0.28 0.75
Sulphur 0.46 0.43 0.39

*The figures in parentheses are at the start of the preparation of jeevamrit

 June 2013] EVALUATION OF MICROBIAL CULTURE IN FIELD CROPS 185

The initial microbial population (bacteria and fungi) maize and wheat grain yields were significantly less with
was less in all the jeevamrit solutions at the start of their FYM200 and FYM100 than that with chemical fertilizer dur-
preparation and it increased with time as the incubation ing both the years.
progressed. Joshi (2012) also reported 5–7 times increase The pooled data analysis showed the highest grain
in nitrogen fixing and phosphate solublising bacteria in yields of rice, maize and wheat with chemical fertilizer
jeevamrit as compared to original count in cow’s urine and which were significantly higher than FYM100, FYM200 and
dung. The bacterial count was the highest in the jeevamrit unfertilized control (Table 2) indicating inability of FYM
prepared from excreta of Indian cow followed by hybrid to supply required quantities of nutrients to the crops.
cow and buffalo (Table 1). But the fungal count was the FYM application at both the rates was significantly better
highest in the jeevamrit prepared from excreta of hybrid than unfertilized control. FYM200 was significantly better
cow (1.35 × 104 cfu/ml) followed by Indian cow (1.30 × than FYM100 in wheat but statistically at par in rice and
104 cfu/ml) and buffalo (1.10 × 104 cfu/ml). Thus, there maize and that could be attributed to enhanced release of
was not much difference between Indian cow and hybrid nutrients from the FYM and soil during kharif season. The
cow with respect to microbial count of jeevamrit solutions. application of jeevamrit had no significant influence on
Hence, it can be concluded that the nutrient content of the the grain yield of rice and wheat in rice–wheat system and
jeevamrits irrespective of the source is very low to meet maize and wheat in maize–wheat cropping system. It did
the nutritional requirement of crops in needed quantities. not show any differential effect when applied alone or in
Though the bacterial population was less in buffalo cul- combination with chemical fertilizers or farmyard manure
ture, there was not much difference in the jeevamrit solu- thus indicating its inability to supply the required quantity
Downloaded From IP - [Link] on dated 23-Jan-2018

tions from the Indian cow and hybrid cow excreta. The of nutrients to the crop plants. Application of jeevamrit
bacterial and fungal count increased from the initial value alone yielded 16 and 49% lower grain yields of rice and
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

in all the jeevamrits. wheat, respectively as compared to the chemical fertilizer

[Link]

in rice–wheat cropping system. The corresponding yield

Effect on crop productivity reductions in maize–wheat were 56 and 48%, respectively.
In rice–wheat system, a significant reduction was ob- Shwetha et al. (2009) also reported significantly lower
served in rice grain yield with FYM200 and FYM100 than soybean yields with organic preparations alone than that
that with chemical fertilizer in 2009–10 but these differ- with the recommended fertilizers. Kasbe et al. (2009) also
ences were non–significant in 2010–11. This can be at- reported that jeevamrit did not improve growth and yield
tributed to the more availability of nutrients to rice in parameters of aerobic rice.
2010–11 due to the residual effect of FYM. A significant
reduction of 34.6 and 40.5 and 18.6 and 36.2% in wheat Soil microbial population
grain yield was observed with FYM200 and FYM100, respec- The microbial population (bacteria and fungi) in soil
tively as compared to the chemical fertilizer in 2009–10 was assayed after the 4th application of jeevamrit. The bac-
and 2010–11 respectively. In maize–wheat system, the terial and fungal counts of soil in rice and wheat in rice–
Table 2. Effect of different nutrient sources and jeevamrit on grain yield of crops

Nutrient source Grain yield (t/ha)

Maize–wheat system Rice–wheat system
Maize Wheat Rice Wheat
2009 2010 Pooled 2009 2010 Pooled 2009 2010 Pooled 2009 2010 Pooled

Chemical fertilizer 5.07 7.96 6.52 5.16 5.91 5.54 8.69 7.20 7.95 5.63 5.80 5.71
FYM100 2.05 4.93 3.49 2.88 4.13 3.50 7.15 7.14 7.14 3.35 3.70 3.53
FYM200 2.36 5.11 3.73 3.06 4.93 3.99 7.53 7.15 7.34 3.68 4.72 4.20
Unfertilized control 1.87 3.59 2.73 2.44 3.21 2.83 6.54 6.16 6.35 2.73 2.90 2.81
SEm± 0.13 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.21 0.13
CD (P=0.05) 0.46 0.73 0.50 0.44 0.55 0.30 0.60 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.74 0.45
Jeevamrit application
Jeevamrit (soil) 2.83 5.39 4.11 3.46 4.52 3.99 7.43 6.94 7.19 3.92 4.26 4.09
Jeevamrit (soil+foliar) 2.98 5.40 4.19 3.35 4.59 3.97 7.62 7.03 7.33 3.80 4.35 4.08
Control 2.70 5.40 4.06 3.34 4.52 3.94 7.38 6.76 7.07 3.82 4.24 4.03
SEm± 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.05
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
 186 AULAKH ET AL. [Vol. 58, No. 2

Table 3. Effect of different treatments on microbial population (pooled data)

Nutrient source Microbial population (cfu*/g soil)

Rice–wheat Maize–wheat
Rice Wheat Maize Wheat
Bacteria Fungi Bacteria Fungi Bacteria Fungi Bacteria Fungi
(× 106) (× 103) (× 106) (× 103) (× 106) (× 103) (× 106) (× 103)

Chemical fertilizer 22.3 23.5 18.4 29.0 18.4 18.1 16.9 23.1
FYM100 22.1 25.7 18.3 31.6 23.5 22.5 15.8 22.7
FYM200 21.6 24.2 18.4 28.8 21.2 21.3 17.5 23.6
Unfertilized control 21.3 25.6 17.0 29.9 22.2 21.1 18.7 24.0
SEm± 0.53 1.11 1.02 1.25 0.78 0.40 0.73 1.58
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 3.3 1.7 NS NS
Jeevamrit application
Jeevamrit (soil+foliar) 23.2 27.6 20.5 33.7 24.5 23.4 20.5 26.6
Control 20.4 21.9 15.6 25.9 18.2 18.0 13.9 20.2
SEm± 1.35 1.52 0.99 1.46 1.20 0.61 1.29 0.99
CD (P=0.05) NS 5.0 3.2 4.8 3.9 2.0 4.2 3.2

*cfu–colony forming units

wheat cropping system and wheat in maize–wheat system Kasbe, S.S., Joshi, M. and Bhaskar, S. 2009. Characterization of
Downloaded From IP - [Link] on dated 23-Jan-2018

were statistically at par among different nutrition treat- Farmers’ Jeevamruta Formulations with Respect to Aerobic
Rice. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences 43(3): 570–
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

ments including the unfertilized control (Table 3). How-

73.
[Link]

ever, in maize, the number of bacterial and fungal counts Lochhead, A.G. and Chase, F.E. 1993. Qualitative studies of soil
in soil was less in chemical fertilizer plots as compared to micro–organisms IV. Nutritional requirements of the pre-
organic manured plots and unfertilized control plots. dominant bacterial flora. Soil Science 55: 185–95.
The jeevamrit application resulted in significantly Martin, J.P. 1950. Use of acid, rose Bengal and streptomycin in the
higher counts of bacteria and fungi in soil under all the plate method for estimating soil fungi. Soil Science 69: 215–
32.
crops (Table 3). It appears that the microbial population
PAU. 2012. Package of Practices for Crops of Punjab (Kharif).
build–up in the jeevamrit solution caused increased counts Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. pp
of bacteria and fungi in plots receiving jeevamrit. How- 129–34.
ever, the non–significant differences in crop yields with its Palekar, S. 2009. How to Practice Natural Farming? All India
application pointed to the fact that the microbes present in Pingalwara Charitable Society. pp 22–27.
the jeevamrit were purely saprophytic and devoid of spe- Reddy, J. 2009. A model organic farm and holistic approach for sus-
tainable agriculture. Proceedings of International seminar
cific characteristics like nitrogen fixation, solublization of
on India Organic–Strategies to Surge Ahead, International
phosphorous and uptake of sulphur, hence unable to con- Competence Centre for Organic Agriculture, Sept. 10–11,
tribute nutritionally to the crop plants. Bangalore.
Shwetha, B.N., Babalad, H.B. and Patel, R.K. 2009. Effect of com-
REFERENCES bined use of organics, soybean–wheat cropping system.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Journal Soils and Crops 19(1): 8–13.
Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, New Delhi. Singh, J. 2009. Going green. The Tribune, Feb. 7, 2009.
Jackson, M. L. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis, New Delhi, India: Van Fassen, H.G. and Van Dijk, H., 1987. Manure as a source of
Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. pp 498. nitrogen and phosphorus in soils. In: Van der Meer H.G.,
Joshi, M. 2008. Studies on organic farming practices in Karnataka. Unwin, R.J., Van Dijk T.A., Ennik, G.C. (Eds.), Animal
Project Report. University of Agricultural Sciences, Banga- Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops: Fertilizer or
lore, India, pp 12–14. Waste? Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. pp 27–45.
Joshi, M. 2012. New Vistas of Organic Farming. Scientific Publish- Willer, H. and Kilcher, L. 2011. The World of Organic Agriculture:
ers, New Delhi. pp140. Statistics and Emerging Trends, IFOAM, Bonn and FiBL,
Kanwar, K., Paliyal, S.S. and Bedi, M.K. 2006. Integrated manage- Frick.
ment of green manure, compost and nitrogen fertilizer in a Yadav, A.K. 2010. Status of organic agriculture in India. Organic
rice–wheat cropping sequence. Crop Research 31(3): 334– Farming Newsletter 6(4): 3–10.
38.

View publication stats