Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 58 special issue (november 2024) : 1053-1062

Energy Budgeting of Different Cropping Sequences in the Indian Upper Gangetic Plains

L.R.Meena1,*, Devendra Kumar2, Sampat Ram Meena3, S.A.Kochewad4, Anjali5, Adarsh Kumar Meena6
1Division of Cropping Systems and Resource Management, ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, Modipuram-250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India.
2Division of Organic Agriculture Systems, ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, Modipuram-250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India.
3Department of Zoology, Shri Govind Guru Government Collage, Banswara-327 001, Rajasthan, India.
4School of Soil Stress Management, ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Malegam, Baramati, Pune-413 115, Maharashtra, India.
5Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur-302 033, Rajasthan, India.
6Department of Soil Science, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Modipuram, Meerut-250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Cite article:- L.R.Meena, Kumar Devendra, Meena Ram Sampat, S.A.Kochewad, Anjali, Meena Kumar Adarsh (2024). Energy Budgeting of Different Cropping Sequences in the Indian Upper Gangetic Plains . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(2024): 1053-1062. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-6320.

ABSTRACT

Background: This study is meant to examine the energy requirement and energy input- output of different cropping sequences .The crucial objective to conduct experiment to understand energy efficiency using inputs and outputs which were disbursed in cropping sequences. Hence, it is need of the hour to identify the most remunerative and cost effective cropping sequence with high energy efficient for UGP of India.
 
Methods: This study was carried out at the research farm of ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, Modipuram, during 2017-2021.The divergent cropping sequences viz. sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (CS1); rice-wheat-dhaincha (CS2); pigeonpea +maize-chickpea-okra (CS3); maize-berseem-black gram (CS4); sorghum-mustard-green gram (CS5) and Napier+cowpea/berseem (CS6) were compared in reference to curtail higher energy inputs  through selected alternate cropping sequences. The obtained energy values were calculated by multiplying the amount of inputs and outputs by using energy conversion factors.

Result: Maximum inputs energy consumed by sugarcane crop alone (33.14x103 MJ ha-1). Results shown that irrigation, seed, fertilizers and diesel required higher energy for the completion of cultural operations. However, higher inputs energy was used in irrigation followed by seed and fertilizers, respectively. In regard to per cent energy intake through inputs, the highest energy spent was for irrigation (35.30 MJ ha-1) and fertilizer (23.80 MJ ha-1).The wheat equivalent yield was higher in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (125.58 t ha-1). Maximum output energy was with above system (596.70×103 MJ ha-1). Highest net energy returns was counted with sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (549.37x103 MJ ha-1), energy ratio (12.60) and energy profitability (11.60). Indeed, energy efficiency was highest in same system (1657.50) followed by maize-berseem-black gram (1421.96).
 

INTRODUCTION

Energy inputs are crucial for the crop production and increased use of fossil fuel energy resources has become important to both developed and developing countries. In India, energy use in agriculture has been increasing since the green revolution in the late sixties with increasing use of high yielding varieties, synthetic fertilizers, agro-chemicals, herbicides, machinery as well as diesel and electricity in farm operations leading to higher productivity. The era of low priced energy is now ending and energy conservation has become more vital because rising cost of energy sources. Therefore, relation between crop production and energy use is very close. The energy inputs are inevitable features for fruitful crop growing in Indo-Gangetic Plains because high energy requires crops are being cultivated in the area such as sugarcane, rice, wheat, potato and oilseed crops. The availability of power on the farm is required more and more for enhancing crop productivity and profitability. Energy is used in every form of input viz. labour, seed, fertilizer, irrigation and insecticides for the plant protection, machinery use for various operations and farm machinery is directly linked with technological progress made in India. In the present years, a worldwide energy crisis prevailing due to fuel shortage and high prices of petroleum based products. The energy crisis country like India had an adverse effects on the economy growth. Among the field crops, legumes and oilseed, involves have less energy requirement than other crops. Looking at the crops like rice, wheat, maize and sugarcane required higher energy inputs, mainly for their higher demands of irrigation and fertilizers coupled with cultural operations (Pathak et al., 2022). The production of crops in diversified manner with advanced yield targets cannot be achieved without use of high energy inputs. The increase in crop productivity also needed additional supply of mechanical power along with adequate supply of chemical energy (Devasenapathy et al., 2009). Hence, increase additional cropping intensity over existing required higher supply of energy for the inputs like labour, seed, fertilizers, irrigation and farm implements for tillage, harvest and threshing (Verma, 2006). The production factors have encouraged an increase in energy inputs to maximize the yields and minimize labor-intensive operations (Shah and Wu, 2019). Hence, there is an urgent need to sustain productivity of various crops in India through inclusion of remunerative crops which are highly energy efficient. This can be possible by added of customary energy input i.e. human labour with substantial investments in farm machemary, irrigation, equipment’s, fertilizers, soil and water conservation practices etc. These inputs and methods represent various energies that need to be evaluated so as to ascertain their effectiveness and to know how to conserve them (Walia et al., 2014). Energy computing is necessary for efficient management of scarce resources for improved crop production in Indian scenario because faster decline in natural resources and climate change are the major concerned. It would be better to ascertain a high energy efficient output system with low energy input requirement and that would be an economically viable and livelihood for the farmers of Uttar Pradesh in India.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of energy ingesting i.e. the amount of inputs and outputs used in different cropping sequences to make an economic analysis at ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, Modipuram, Uttar Pradesh for a period of 4 consecutive years (2017-18 to 2020-21). The experiment site (29°43' N latitude and 77o 23' E longitude at an elevation of 237 m above mean sea level) is classified as semi-arid sub-tropical with monsoonal climate and sandy loam soil classified as Typicusforthents. During the experimental period the site received total annual rainfalls of 730.3 mm, 976.7 mm, 824.3 mm and 897.5 mm in 37, 44, 42 and 44 rainy days, respectively. More than 80% of rainfall was received through the south-west monsoon. The mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures ranged between 18.1°C and 30.7°C (2017-18), 17.4°C and 30.5°C (2018-19), 17.0°C and 29.9°C (2019-20) and 16.9°C and 30.2°C (2020-21). While the humidity stands at 72.7%, 72.7%, 74.2% and 75.2% in respective years (Fig 1). The mean over a period of 4 years of sunshine hours were 6.3 and pan evaporation (mm) was higher (1575.45 mm) than normal annual rainfall. The total soil organic carbon (TSOC) was 0.89% (CHNS analyzer). Available N (176.6kg/ha) was estimated by alkaline permanganate (KMnO4) method. Similarly, available soil P (29.3 kg/ha) was analyzed by (Jackson’s, 1973) method and available soil K (194.7 kg/ha) was estimated by NH4OAc method.
 

Fig 1: Annual average meteorological data recorded at Agromet Observatory, ICAR-IIFSR, Modipuram.


Energy inputs estimations were based on the human labour requirement, use of different types of machinery and quantity of materials, energy calculation was computed though using of different input and output energy equivalents.

Manual energy (Em) was determined through using of following formula (Gopalan et al., 1987).
 
Em = 1.96 Nm Tm MJ
 
Where:
Nm= Number of labour spent on a farm activity.
Tm= Useful time spent by a labour on a farm activity. h.

The energy coefficients used in the calculations are presented in Table 1. The total manual labour was recorded in each operation with working hours, which was converted in man-hour. All other factors affecting manual energy were neglected.

Table 1: Equivalent coefficient for various inputs sources of energy used for energy calculation under different cropping sequences.



Mechanical energy input was evaluated by quantifying the amount of diesel fuel consumed during the tillage, sowing, threshing and winnowing as prescribed methodology. The total time spent was also recorded during irrigation. Hence, for every farm operation, the diesel fuel energy input was determined by:
 
Ef= 56.31DMJ
 
Where:
56.31= Unit energy value of diesel, MJ-1.
D= Amount of diesel consumed, L.

Energy value for various input and output use in the experiments is given Table 1. The total energy input for a given cropping system was calculated by adding the energy requirement for human labour, insecticides, seeds, irrigation, farm yard manure (FYM), Vermicompost (VC), fertilizers and diesel, used in the individual cropping sequence. The energy output was calculated by accumulating the main products and by products produced from the different crops in cropping sequences. Subtracting input energy from output energy derived the net returns of energy. The output: input ratio was worked out by dividing the total energy used for raising the crop in the unit area (Table 2). The energy input and output were computed as Mega Joule (MJ) by using different formulae. The energy efficiency (EE) and specific energy (SE) were worked out as per Dazhong and Pimental (1984).

Table 2: Equivalent coefficient for various outputs for energy calculation under different cropping sequences.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Energy input consumed in the cropping sequences
 
Details of energy equivalent (conversion coefficient) of all inputs used in the different cropping sequences are shown in Table 3. The relative amount of energy inputs in all cropping sequences involved 12.28% to 21.01% for human labour (HL), 11.17% to 22.71% energy incurred in tractor/ diesel consumption, energy consumed in chemical fertilizers ranged between from13.86% to 21.74%, input energy in the form of pesticides used from 4.86% to 32.18%, energy inputs used in supplied of irrigations were diverse from 7.71% to 27.87% and it depends up on the water requirement of each crop and growing duration. Energy consumed for using of farm yard manure (FYM) to grow crops founded at 8.68% to 26.08%, VC (Vermicompost) supplied in the crop production required energy value to the tune from 5.26% to 26.31% under various cropping sequences. The crucial energy input like seed was used in crop production required highest in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat sequence from 5.83% to 54.65% in sorghum-mustard- green gram when compared with other cropping sequences. Ozkan et al., (2007) similarly found that inputs energy differed with the cropping sequences due to varying energy coefficients,The highest was being in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat system (47.33×103 MJ ha-1) and wellbeing ahead by rice-wheat-dhaincha (R-W-D) system (39.52×103 MJ ha-1) and  the lowest in Napier+cowpea/berseem cropping sequence (29.05×103 MJ ha-1). Energy consumption  for irrigation (71.199 MJ ha-1), fertilizer (47.992 MJ ha-1), tractor/diesel (28.115 MJ ha-1) and seed (20.944 MJ ha-1)  were the prime factors responsible for  putting the crops and cropping sequences in the highest position in terms of total energy requirement for the production main and byproducts.

Table 3: Mean (of four years) inputs requirements of the individual crops grown during 2017-18 and 2020-21.


    
System wise input energy requirement
 
Energy inputs consumed in different cropping sequences as reported in Table 4. The computation of energy linked inputs which were used for the crop production revealed that the total energy inputs were highest in case of sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (S-R-W) system because of this cropping pattern have the maximum demand of all inputs (47769 MJ ha-1 year-1) when comparison was made with other cropping sequences and the next cropping sequence which needed bulk energy inputs was rice-wheat-dhaincha (R-W-D) i.e. (39522 MJ ha-1 year-1). Despite this, least input energy was spent in maize-berseem-black gram (25785 MJ ha-1 year-1).The reason for the declined in inputs use energy was selection of crops like berseem and black gram as compared to high demanding energy inputs crops like sugarcane, rice, wheat and maize. Among the energy inputs, irrigation, fertilizers and tractor/diesel are having primary importance for output production. The total input energy was highest spent towards irrigations (35.43%), fertilizers (23.89%), tractor/ diesel (14.00%) and seed (10.42%), respectively. In fact, irrigation input energy is required highest for the crop production because some crops have been involved in the sequences they have high demands of irrigation than others. The cost of energy input of different crops and cropping sequences can be reduced by the selection of apposite sequences. The total annual energy inputs for the cropping sequences ranged from about 47769 MJ ha-1 year-1 under sugarcane-ratoon- wheat (S-R-W) to 25785 MJ ha-1 year-1 in maize- berseem- black gram (M-B-BG). It is generally, pragmatic that short span crops like legumes and oilseeds have lowest demand of energy inputs than other crops viz. sugarcane, rice, maize, wheat etc. Tuti et al., (2012), described that wheat required more energy than other crops.

Table 4: System wise input energy and total energy consumed in the different cropping sequences (MJ ha-1).

 
Wheat equivalent yield
 
The pooled analysis data indicated that annual wheat equivalent yield of sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (S-R-W) sequence was significantly higher than rest of the crop rotations (Table 5). Since the sugarcane have the higher yield potential and market value than other crops which were included in different cropping sequences. The divergent crops were grown among the different cropping sequences, so that the main and byproducts yields of all crops were converted into wheat equivalent yield (WEY t ha-1) on the basis of prevailing market price of each commodity. Similar results were also reported by (Anishetra and Kalghatagi (2021) and Sujathamma and Nedunchezhiyan (2024) in cropping sequences. The wheat grain prices were comparable parameter with other farm produces and their market worth in order to take the wheat values equivalent to other crops produces at par because productivity and market values were different among themselves. The wheat equivalent yield (WEY t/ha) was highest with sugarcane-ratoon-wheat cropping sequence (125.58 t ha-1 year-1) followed by Pigeonpea+ maize- chickpea-okra (29.02 t ha-1 year-1) and minimum wheat equivalent yield (WEY) was estimated with Napier + cowpea+ berseem (2.47 t ha-1 year-1). This might be due to under this cropping sequence consisted mainly by fodder crops rather than valuable crops. The equivalent wheat yield is governed by quantity of produce and its prevailing price and combined effect of these two ultimately led to maximum equivalent yield. This finding corroborates the observations of (Ozkan et al., 2007).
 

Table 5: Details of outputs as main and by-products and wheat equivalent yield and energy returns from the different cropping sequences in western upper gangetic plains of India

 
Energy outputs of cropping sequences
 
The total output energy was highest in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat cropping sequence (597.70 GJ ha-1 year-1) followed by rice-wheat-dhaincha (463.44 GJ ha-1 year-1), maize- berseem-black gram (369.71 GJ ha-1 year-1) and Napier + berseem/cowpea (333.50 GJ/ha) as detailed in Fig 2. The lowest energy output was shared by sorghum - mustard- green gram (319.53 GJ ha-1 year-1) and pigeonpea+ maize- chickpea-okra (280.09 GJ ha-1 year-1). However, main output energy from the different cropping sequences have paid more than their byproducts outcome energy. The perceptible output energy was produced where sugarcane, rice, wheat, maize and mustard crops were composed with other crops in the cropping sequences. The total energy production from the different crops and cropping systems varied from 25.25% to 11.85%. However, maximum total energy output was contributed by the sugarcane-ratoon- wheat sequence (4 years) as compared to other cropping sequences. The main season of production of high energy output from this system was due to greater potential of sugarcane alone than remaining crops which were included in the various configurations.

Fig 2: Cropping systems adopted in upper gangetic plains of India.


 
Energy input-output relationship
 
The total inputs and outputs energy of different cropping sequences were varied depending up on the crops involved and the practices used (Table 6). However, resource inputs energy was disbursed highest in sugarcane- ratoon- wheat (47.33×103 MJ ha-1 year-1) as compared to rest of the systems. The minimum input energy was used in Napier+cowpea/berseem (29.05×103 MJ ha-1 year-1) sequence because demands of the chemical fertilizers, irrigation, tractor/diesel and seed were smaller than other cropping sequences. Apart from these, there were no use of insecticides and pesticides in case of fodder crops leading to decline in input energy consumption. Besides, during Kharif season requirement of irrigation was meager and nutrients requirement of Napier hybrid bajra was met through intercropping of legumes (cowpea and berseem) concurrently in Kharif and rabi seasons. Similarly, output energy was generated highly in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat cropping sequence and followed by maize- berseem- black gram (369.71×103 MJ ha-1 year-1), rice-wheat-dhaincha (367.61×103 MJ ha-1 year-1) and Napier + cowpea/ berseem (333.50×103 MJ ha-1 year-1). The lowest output energy was given by Pigeonpea + maize-chickpea-ladyfinger (okra) crop sequence (280.09×103 MJ ha-1 year-1). The net energy was highest in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (549.37×103 MJ ha-1 year-1) and thereafter in maize- berseem- black gram   (334.67×103 MJ ha-1 year-1) and rice-wheat-dhaincha (328.09×103 MJ ha-1 year-1). The system net energy was minimum under pigeonpea+ maize-chickpea-okra (249.77×103 MJ ha-1 year-1). This might be due to these crops are highly exhausted towards required inputs and lesser responsive to output energy led to less net energy in the system. The output energy was declined to the tune of 61.39%, 62.31 and 78.92% with maize-berseem- black gram, rice-wheat- dhaincha and Napier + cowpea/ berseem cropping sequences over to sugarcane-ratoon-wheat. Similarly, system net energy returns was declined in the tune of 64.15%, 67.44%, 80.44%, 89.77% and 119.95% with maize-berseem- black gram, rice- wheat- dhaincha, Napier + cowpea/berseem, sorghums-mustard- green gram and pigeonpea+ maize-chickpea-okra cropping sequences over sugarcane-ratoon-wheat system. Similar results were also reported by (Afzalinia and Abdolhamid 2020 and (Venkat et al., 2024). The output- input ratio was highest in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat system (12.60) and closely followed by Napier + cowpea/ berseem (11.48), sorghums- mustard-green gram(10.68), maize- berseem- black gram (10.55) and lowest output-input ration was in pigeonpea + maize-chickpea-okra (8.23) and rice-wheat- dhaincha (8.30). The energy profitability was computed by system net energy returns and system input energy consumed. Numerically, maximum energy profitability was accounted with sugarcane-ratoon-wheat (11.60) followed by Napier+ cowpea/berseem (10.48) and sorghum-mustard- green gram (9.63). The least energy profitability was in pigeonpea+maize-chickpea-ladyfinger (8.23). The sugarcane-ratoon-wheat and maize-berseem- black gram systems were more efficient (1657.50 and 1421.96) than other cropping sequences due to high output energy and longest crop duration resulting in maximum times land occupied by the combination of crops and cropping sequences. Similar results were earlier reported by Negi et al., (2016) in various cropping sequences.

Table 6: System wise total inputs energy, total outputs energy and net energy return of different cropping sequences (Data pooled over 4 years).

 

CONCLUSION

The outcomes revealed that energy consumption for irrigation (71.199 MJ ha-1), fertilizer (47.992 MJ ha-1), tractor/diesel (28.115 MJ ha-1) and seed (20.944 MJ ha-1) were the prime factors responsible for  putting the crops and cropping sequences in the highest position in terms of total energy requirement for the main and byproducts  of sugarcane-ratoon- wheat  cropping sequence. The crucial input like seed used in sugarcane required 54.65% energy alone as compared to other energy inputs. However, the highest input energy was used in sugarcane-ratoon-wheat cropping sequence (47.33×103 MJ ha-1) followed by rice-wheat-dhaincha (39.52×103 MJ ha-1). The total output energy (597.70 GJ ha-1 year-1) and net energy returns (463.44 GJ ha-1 year-1) were also highest with this sequence. Similarly, energy output efficiency (1657.50), output-input ratio (12.60) and wheat equivalent yield (125.58 t ha-1) were highest under the same system. However, it would be better to ascertain a high energy efficient output system with low energy input requirement that could be an economically viable and livelihood for the farmers of Upper Gangetic Plains of India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors are thankful to Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, Modipuram, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for proving the necessary infrastructural facilities for conducting this project.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

REFERENCES


  1. Afzalinia, S. and Abdolhamid, K. (2020). Barley cultivars and seed rates effects on energy and water productivity of green fodder production under hydroponic condition. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 54(6): 792-796. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-554.

  2. Anishetra, S. and Kalaghatagi, S.B. (2021). Evaluation of Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) based intercropping systems with millets by varying row proportions under dry condition. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 55(4): 501-504. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5596.

  3. Bazaluk, O., Havrysh, V., Fedorchuk, M. and Nitsenko, V. (2021). Energy assessment of sorghum cultivation in Southern Ukraine. Agriculture. 11: 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture11080695.

  4. Canakci, M. and Akinci, I. (2003). Energy use patter analysis of greenhouse vegetables production. Energy. 31: 1243- 1256.

  5. Dazhong, W. and Pimental, D. (1984). Energy flow through an organic farming ecosystem in China. Agriculture Ecosystem  Environment. 11: 145-160.

  6. Devasenapathy, P., Ramesh, T. and Gangwar, B. (2008). In: Efficiency Indices for Agriculture Management Research. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi.

  7. Devasenapathy, P., SenthilKumar, G. and Shanmugam, P.M. (2009). Energy management in crop production. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54(1): 80-90.

  8. Fisher, B.S., Nakicenovic, N., Alfsen, K., Morlot, J.C., De La Chesnaye, F., Hourcade, J.C., Jiang, K. (2007). Energy Utilization Pattern for Sustainable Crop Production in the Semi-Arid Vertisols of India. Issue Related to Mitigation in the Long Term Context. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’ [(Eds.) Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R. and Meyer, L.A.]. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).  pp.171- 250.

  9. Ghosh, D., Brahmachari, K., Das,A., Hassan, M.M., Mukherjee, P.K., Sarkar, S., Dinda, N.K., Pramanik, B., Moulick, D., Maitra, S., Hossain, A. (2021). Assessment of energy budgeting and its indicator for sustainable nutrient and weed management in a rice-maize-green gram cropping system. Agronomy. 11(1):166. https://doi.org./10.3390/ agronomy11010166.

  10. Gopalan, C., Sastri, B.R. and Balasubramanian, B. (2006). Nutritional Value of Indian Foods, National Institute of Nutrition. Indian Council of Medical Research: Hyderabad, India.   

  11. Gopalan, C., Shashtry, B.V.R., Balasubramaniam, S.C. (1987). Nutritive value of Indian foods. Hyderabad: National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR.

  12. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice hall of India Pvt. LTD., New Delhi, 498: 151-154.

  13. Jackson, T.M., Khan, S.and Hafee, M. (2010). A comparative analysis of water application and energy consumption at the irrigated field level. Agri Water Management. 97: 1477- 1485.

  14. Lal, B., Rajput, S., Tamhankar,  M.B., Agrawal,  I.  and Sharma, M. S. (2003). Energy use and output assessment of  food-forage production systems. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 189: 57-62.

  15. Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Ghose, P.K., Hati, K.M. and Bandyopadhyay. (2002). Bioenergy and economic analysis of Soybean- based crop production system in Central India. Biomass and Bioenergy. 23: 337-345.

  16. Mihov, M., Antonova, G., Masheva, S. and Yankova, V. (2012). Energy assessment of conventional and organic production of head cabbage. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 18: 320-324.

  17. Mittal, V.K., Mittal, J.P. and Dhawan, K.C. (1985). Research digests on energy requirements in agricultural sector. Coordinating cell, AICRP on energy requirements in agricultural sector. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

  18. Nassiri, S.M. and Singh, S. (2009). Study on energy use efficiency for paddy crop using data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. Appl. Energy. 86: 1320-1325.

  19. Negi, S.C., Rana, S.S., Kumar, A., Subehia, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2016). Productivity and energy efficiency indices of diversified maize (Zea mays) - based cropping systems of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 61: 9- 14.

  20. Nisar, S., Benbi, D.K. and Toor, A.S. (2021). Energy budgeting and carbon footprints of three tillage systems in maize-wheat sequence of north-western indo-gangetic plains. Energy. 229: 120661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120661.

  21. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H. and  Karadeniz,  F. (2004).  Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Conversion Manage. 45: 1821-1830. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.10.002.

  22. Ozkan, B., Fert, C. and Karadeniz, C.F. (2007). Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy. 32: 1500-1504.

  23. Ozkan, B., Kurklu, A. and Akcaoz, H. (2004). An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: A case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy.  26: 89-95.

  24. Pathak, H., Mishra, J.P. and Mohapatra, T. (2022) Indian Agriculture after Independence. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi 110 001, pp 426.

  25. Pimentel, D. and Burgess, M. (1980). Energy Inputs in Corn Production. [Pimentel, D. (Ed)]. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp 67-84.

  26. Ram, R.A. and Verma, A.K. (2015). Energy, input, output and economic analysis in organic production of mango (Mangifera indica) cv. Dashehari. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 85(6): 827-832.

  27. Ricaud, R. (1980). Energy Input and Output for Sugarcane in Louisiana, [Pimentel, D. (Ed.)], Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, Boca Raton, FL., CRC Press, pp 135-136.

  28. Roy, D.C., Ray, M., Sarkar, U. and Patra, B.C. (2015). Bio-energy productivity and economics of rice (Oryza sartiva)- based cropping systems in coastal flood plain of West Bengal, India. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 6(1): 001-006.

  29. Shah, F. and Wu, W. (2019). Soil and crop management strategies to ensure higher crop productivity within sustainable environments. Sustainability. 11: 1485. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su11051485.

  30. Singh, S. and Mittal, J.P. (1992).  Energy in Production Agriculture. Mittal Publications, New Delhi, India, pp. 6-12.

  31. Singh, M.K., Pal, S.K., Thakur, R. and Verma, U.N. (1997). Energy input-output relationship of cropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 67: 262-264.

  32. Smithers, J. (2014). Review of sugarcane trash recovery systems for energy cogeneration in South Africa. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 32: 915-925. https:// doi.org/10. 1016/J.RSER.2014.01.042.

  33. Soni, P., Taewichit, C. and Salokhe, V.M.  (2013). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in rain-fed agricultural production systems of Northeast Thailand. Agricultural Systems. 116: 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy. 2012.12.006.

  34. Sujathamma, P., Nedunchezhiyan, M. (2024). Evaluation of sorghum based intercropping systems for rainfed vertisols. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(2): 290-294. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5934.

  35. Thyagaraj, C.R. (2012). Enhancing Energy Use Efficiency Through Conservation Agriculture. In: ICAR Sponsored Training Course on ‘Conservation Agriculture Strategies for Resource Conservation and Mitigation of Climate Change’ CRIDA Hyderabad, 24-30 September, pp 229-240.

  36. Toader, M. and Gheorghe, L. (2014). Researches the efficacy of the technologic process of cereal straw briquetting. UPB Sci. Bull. D. Mech. Energy. 76: 239-246.

  37. Tuti, M.D., Vedprakash, B. M., Pandey, R., Bhattacharyya, D., Mahanta, J.K., Bisht, M.K., Mina, B.L., Kumar, N., Bhatt, J.C. and Srivastva, A.K. (2012). Energy budgeting of colocasia-based cropping systems in the Indian sub- Himalayas. Energy. 45: 986-993.

  38. Venkat, R., Sai, S.M., Rahaman, S., Vinayak, M., Hari B.B., Reddy, R.KV.S. (2024). Energy assessment of manual transplanting rice and dry direct seeding rice production systems in Combined Nalgonda District, Telangana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(1): 95-100. doi: 10.18805/ IJARe.A-5912.

  39. Verma, S.R. (2006). Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production, Productivity, Cropping Intensity, Income Generation and Employment of Labour: Status of Farm Mechanization in India. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Pp 133-153.

  40. Walia, S.S., Gill, R.S., Aulakh, C.S. and Kaur, M. (2014). Energy efficient indices of alternate cropping systems of North West India. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 59(3): 359-363.

  41. West, T.O. and Marland, G. (2002). A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emission and net carbon flux in agriculture: Comparing tillage practices in the United States. Ecosystems  and Environment. 91: 217-232.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)