Effects of Packaging Material and Moisture Contents on Pulse Beetle Infestation under Different Storage Conditions in Chickpea

Bharathi Y *

Department of Seed Science and Technology, Seed Research and Technology Centre, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Akil Kumar D

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Padmasree A

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Pradeep T

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Pallavi M

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Sujatha P

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Razia Sultana

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Jaganmohan Rao P

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

Ramesh M

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, India.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse crop grown globally for its nutritional richness and versatility which offers a significant source for both carbohydrates and protein. Chickpea seeds face a significant threat from various insect pests among these pulse beetles or bruchids (Callosobruchus spp.) stand out as the most destructive, inflicting damage ranging from 50% to 60% during storage. Bruchids are considered minor pests in the field, but they pose a serious threat during storage, leading to both quantitative and qualitative losses.

The present investigation was carried out with the objective of studying the influence of ambient and cold storage conditions on storability and to assess the pest infestation (pulse beetle) under ambient and cold storage conditions in two chickpea varieties viz., JG-11 (desi) and NBeG-119 (kabuli).  The seed was thoroughly sun dried to two moisture levels of seven and nine percent and stored in gunny and grain pro bags (hermetic bags). Gunny bags were kept at ambient storage as well as in the cold storage, while grain pro bags were stored at ambient storage conditions only as these are the hermetic bags and the dry chain technology concept holds good for storage at ambient conditions only.

Highest % seed damage (12.11 % in JG-11 and 13.00 % in NBeG-119) was noticed in seeds stored with nine per cent moisture content while, the lowest % seed damage (9.50 % in JG-11 and 9.83 % in NBeG 119) was recorded in seeds with seven per cent moisture content. After 8 months of storage highest per cent fecundity (151.66 and 144.66 in JG-11 and 145.00 and 138.50 in NBeG-119) was recorded in seeds stored in gunny bags kept at ambient storage with nine and seven per cent moisture respectively, followed by the seed stored in grain pro bags at ambient storage with nine percent seed moisture (9.667 in JG-11 and 7.833 in NBeG-119) and no fecundity was recorded in seeds stored in gunny bag at cold storage. At the end of storage period highest adult emergence was recorded in seeds stored in gunny bag at ambient storage with nine (196.83 in JG-11 and 217.17 in NBeG-119) and seven (187.83 in JG-11 and 207.83 in NBeG-119) per cent seed moisture followed by the seed stored in grain pro bags at ambient storage with nine percent seed moisture (11.67 in JG-11 and 13.00 in NBeG-119) and no adult emergence was recorded in seeds stored in gunny bag at cold storage (0.00 in JG-11 and 0.00 in NBeG-119 ) with seven and nine percent moisture at the end of the storage. Highest weight loss % (2.019% in JG-11 and 1.866% in NBeG-119) was recorded in seeds stored with nine per cent moisture content. While, the lowest weight loss % (1.679% in JG-11 and 1.772% in NBeG-119) was noticed in seeds stored with seven per cent moisture at the end of storage period.

Keywords: Bengal gram, gunny bag, grainpro bag, pulse beetle, cold storage


How to Cite

Y , Bharathi, Akil Kumar D, Padmasree A, Pradeep T, Pallavi M, Sujatha P, Razia Sultana, Jaganmohan Rao P, and Ramesh M. 2024. “Effects of Packaging Material and Moisture Contents on Pulse Beetle Infestation under Different Storage Conditions in Chickpea”. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International 46 (7):Page 232-244. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i72578.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Jukanti AK, Gaur PM, Gowda CL, Chibbar RN. Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. (2012). British Journal of Nutrition.108 (1): 11-26. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512000797. PMID: 22916806.

Lal SS. A review of insect pests of mungbean and their control in India. Tropical pest Management. 1985;31:105-114.

Ramzan M, Chahal BS, Judge BK. Storage losses to some commonly used pulses caused by pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.). Journal of Insect Science. 1990;3(1):106-108.

Caswell GH. The infestation of cowpeas in the Western region of Nigeria. Tropical Science. 1961;3:154-158.

German JF, Monge JP, Huignard J. Development of two bruchid populations Bruchidius atrolineatus (PIC) and callasobruchus maculatus (Fab.) infesting stored cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L walp) pods in Niger. Journal of Stored Products Research. 1987;23:157-162.

Gahukar RT, Reddy GVP. Management of insect pests in the production and storage of minor pulses. Annual Entomological Society of America. 2018;111: 172-183.

Stathers TE, Arnold SEJ, Rumney CJ, Hopson C. Measuring the nutritional cost of insect infestation of stored maize and cowpea. Food Security. 2020;12: 285-308.

Rawat DK, Verma CB, Prajapati SK, Prasad J, Kumar P, Prajapati BK, Singh BP. Enhancing Growth and Yield of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Varieties through Foliar Application of Micronutrients under Field Condition. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(10):3066–3078.

Available:https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i102975

Lalrinzuali Singh R, Pradhan A. Effect of Phosphorus and biofertilizers on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(17):273–279.

Available:https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i173207

Berhe M, Subramanyam B, Demissie G, Chichaybelu M, Abera FA, Mahroof R, Harvey J. Impact of storage technologies and duration on insect pest population, post‐harvest losses, and seed quality of stored chickpea in Ethiopia. Pest Management Science. 2024;80(2):518-532.

Bradford KJ, Dahal P, Asbrouck JV, Keshavulu K, Bello P, James T, Felicia W. The dry chain: Reducing postharvest losses and improving food safety in humid climates. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2018;71:84-93.

Erler F, Ceylan F, Erdemir T Toker C. Preliminary results on evaluation of chickpea, Cicer arietinum, genotypes for resistance to the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Insect Science. 2009;9:14.

Raghuwanshi PK, Sharma S, Bele M, Kumar D. Screening of certain gram genotypes against Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Research. 2005;39(4):651-653.

Lema T. Screening of chickpea genotypes against adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis, L.). Proceedings of the first annual conference crop protection society of Ethiopia. (Ethiopia). CPSE. 1994;2016:32.

Shaheen FA, Khaliq A, Aslam M. Resistance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum l.) cultivars against pulse beetle. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2006;38(4):1237- 1244.

Deepak KJ, Raju SVS, Dhirendra KS, Vaibhav S. Evaluation of some seed protectants against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in stored chickpea seeds under laboratory conditions. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2019;8(3):188-192.

Indian Institute of Pulse research, Annual report; 2021.

Shafique M, Ahmad M. Chickpea grains resistance to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus analis (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2005;37(2): 123-126.