Volume 4, Issue 6, December 2015, Page: 275-279
Impact of Biofield Energy Treatment on Soil Fertility
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Alice Branton, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Dahryn Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Gopal Nayak, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Sambhu Charan Mondal, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Snehasis Jana, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Received: Oct. 24, 2015;       Accepted: Nov. 6, 2015;       Published: Dec. 21, 2015
DOI: 10.11648/j.earth.20150406.19      View  5690      Downloads  64
Abstract
Measurement of soil components such as microbial population, minerals and obviously the content of organic carbon play the important roles for the productivity of crops and plants. The present study was attempted to evaluate the impact of Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on soil for its physical (electrical conductivity), chemical (minerals) and microbial flora (bacteria and fungi). A plot of lands was assigned for this study with some already grown plants. This plot was divided into two parts. One part was considered as control, while another part was subjected to Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment without physically touching and referred as treated. In the treated soil the total bacterial and fungal counts were increased by 546 and 617%, respectively as compared to the untreated soil. Additionally, the conductivity of soil of the treated plot was increased by 79% as compared to the soil of control plot. Apart from microbes, the content of various minerals were also changed in the biofield energy treated soil. The calcium carbonate content showed 2909 ppm in the control, while in the treated soil it was increased to 3943 ppm i.e. 36% increased. Various other minerals such as nitrogen and potassium were increased by 12% and 7%, respectively as compared to the control. Besides, the level of some minerals such as potassium, iron, and chloride were decreased by 9%, 23%, and 41%, respectively as compared to the control. Apart from chemical constituents of soil, the content of organic carbon was also reduced by 8% in the treated soil as compared to the control soil. The overall results envisaged that the biofield energy treatment on the soil showed a significant improvement in the physical, chemical, and microbial functions of soil component. Thus, improved the conductance, supportive microbes, minerals and overall productivity of crops. In conclusion, the biofield energy treatment could be used as an alternative way to increase the yield of quality crops by increasing soil fertility.
Keywords
Soil Fertility, Electrical Conductivity, Fungi, Bacteria, Minerals, Biofield Energy Treatment, Yield
To cite this article
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Sambhu Charan Mondal, Snehasis Jana, Impact of Biofield Energy Treatment on Soil Fertility, Earth Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 6, 2015, pp. 275-279. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20150406.19
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Janzen HH, Fixen PE, Franzluebbers AJ, Hattey J, Izaurralde RC, et al. (2009) Global prospects rooted in soil science. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75: 1-8.
[2]
Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM (1981) Interactions between major biogeochemical cycles in terrestrial ecosystems. Some Perspectives of the Major Biogeochemical Cycles.
[3]
Wall DH, Virginia RA (1999) Controls on soil biodiversity: Insights from extreme environments. Appl Soil Ecol 13: 137-150.
[4]
Nandhini B, Josephine RM (2013) A study on bacterial and fungal diversity in potted soil. IGCMAS 2: 1-5.
[5]
Chambers BJ, Richardson SJ (1993) Relying on soil mineral nitrogen reserves. J Sci Food Agr 63: 128-129.
[6]
Stockdale EA, Shepherd MA, Fortune S, Cuttle SP (2002) Soil fertility in organic farming systems - Fundamentally different? Soil Use Manage 18: 301-308.
[7]
Watson CA, Bengtsson H, Loes A-K, Myrbeck A, Salomon E, et al. (2002) A review of farm-scale nutrient budgets for organic farms as a tool for management of soil fertility. Soil Use Manage 18: 264-273.
[8]
Oborn I, Edwards AC, Witter E, Oenema O, Ivarsson K, et al. (2003) Element balances as a tool for sustainable nutrient management: A critical appraisal of their merits and limitations within an agronomic and environmental context. Eur J Agron 20: 211-225.
[9]
Duineveld BM, Rosado AS, van Elsas JD, van Veen JA (1998) Analysis of the dynamics of bacterial communities in the rhizosphere of the chrysanthemum via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and substrate utilization patterns. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 4950- 4957.
[10]
Franklin RB, Mills AL (2003) Multi-scale variation in spatial heterogeneity for microbial community structure in an eastern Virginia agricultural field. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44: 335-346.
[11]
Burr HS (1957) Bibliography of Harold Saxton Burr. Yale J Biol Med 30: 163-167.
[12]
Korotkov K, Champs D (2005) Energie humaine. Resurgence Collection. Belgique.
[13]
Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv Data 343: 1-19.
[14]
Korotkov K (2002) Human energy field: Study with GDV bioelectrography. Fair Lawn, NJ: Backbone Publishing Co.
[15]
Rubik B (2004) Scientific analysis of the human aura. In: Measuring energy fields: State of the art. GDV bioelectrography series. Korotkov K. (Ed.). Backbone Publishing Co. Fair Lawn, USA.
[16]
Shinde V, Sances F, Patil S, Spence A (2012) Impact of biofield treatment on growth and yield of lettuce and tomato. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 6: 100-105.
[17]
Sances F, Flora E, Patil S, Spence A, Shinde V (2013) Impact of biofield treatment on ginseng and organic blueberry yield. Agrivita J Agric Sci 35: 22-29.
[18]
Lenssen AW (2013) Biofield and fungicide seed treatment influences on soybean productivity, seed quality and weed community. Agricultural Journal 8: 138-143.
[19]
Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.
[20]
Trivedi MK, Tallapragada RM, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2015) Characterization of physical, spectral and thermal properties of biofield treated 1,2,4-Triazole. J Mol Pharm Org Process Res 3: 128.
[21]
Clark FE (1965) Agar-plate method for total microbial count. In Black C.A. et al., Eds. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
[22]
Martin JP (1950) Use of acid, rose bengal, and streptomycin in the plate method for estimating soil fungi. Soil Sci 69: 215-232.
[23]
Mahaney WC, Milner MW, Hs M, Hancock RGV, Aufreiter S, et al. (2000) Mineral and chemical analysis of soil eaten by humans in Indonesia. Int J Environ Health Res 10: 93-109.
[24]
Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) in: Page USDA, SCS.
[25]
Harris J (2008) Soil Microbial Communities and Restoration. Oikos 117: 1833.
[26]
Lopez-Lozano NE, Heidelberg KB, Nelson WC, García-Oliva F, Luis E, et al. (2013) Microbial secondary succession in soil microcosms of a desert oasis in the Cuatro Cienegas Basin, Mexico. Peer J 1: e47.
Browse journals by subject