Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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
Legume Research, volume 47 issue 8 (august 2024) : 1282-1287

Energy and Economic Budgeting of Pigeonpea Genotypes (Cajanus cajan L.) at Various Sowing Dates

Dasharath Prasad1,*, Vijay Prakash1, S.K. Bairwa1, P.S. Chauhan1
1Department of Agronomy, Agricultural Research Station, Sriganganagar-335 001, Rajasthan, India.
  • Submitted21-05-2021|

  • Accepted27-07-2021|

  • First Online 21-08-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4670

Cite article:- Prasad Dasharath, Prakash Vijay, Bairwa S.K., Chauhan P.S. (2024). Energy and Economic Budgeting of Pigeonpea Genotypes (Cajanus cajan L.) at Various Sowing Dates . Legume Research. 47(8): 1282-1287. doi: 10.18805/LR-4670.
Background: Early duration pigeonpea genotypes a boon as the crop needs a very little amount of inputs, survives well even under available water conditions because of its Bio-tillage in nature. There are many causes of low productivity of pigeonpea, using long duration genotypes, using convention varieties, non monitored input like sowing date and management practice and short duration genotypes play a very important role in productivity as well as production in Rajasthan. 

Methods: A two-year field experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Research Station, Sriganganagar Rajasthan, during the Kharif season of the year 2018 and 2019. The experiment is laidout with a split plot design with thrice replication, in the main plot four dates of sowing allotted viz: D1: 25th May, D2: 10th June, D3: 25th June and D4: 10th July and in subplot five genotypes allotted viz: V1: UPAS-120, V2: ASJ-105, V3: Pant- 291, V4: PUSA- 992, V5: ICPL- 88039.

Result: Field experiments resulted, the Sowing date D2: 10th June (1451 kg ha-1), is best suitable as compared to others in terms of yields, its attributes and B:C ratio both the years. In the short duration varieties V4: PUSA-992 (1586 kg ha-1) superior to others. In respect of different sowings dates the energy budgeting viz: energy use efficiency varies from D1: 25th May (9.80) and (5.99) to D4: 10th July (8.14) and (4.95), energy productivity (kg MJ-1) varies from D1: 25th May (0.164) and (0.104) to D4: 10th July (0.126) and (0.078) in both the years. In respective of genotypes the higher energy use efficiency found in V4: PUSA-992 (10.34), (6.56), energy productivity in V4: PUSA-992 (0.171 kg MJ-1), (0.111 kg MJ-1) which was superior with others in all aspect in both the years respectively.
Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) is the second most important pulse crop next only to chickpea in India. From the nutritional point of view, vegetable proteins play an important role especially in rural areas, which house over 70% of the population in Rajasthan. Among the pulses pigeonpea is the second most important Kharif grain legume after chickpea in India and is grown predominantly under rainfed conditions. The kernels are nutritionally rich containing 20-22% protein. Its cultivation would be able to provide 40-60 kg N/ha to the subsequently grown crop (Sarkar et al., 2020).It is known to improve soil nutrition through nitrogen fixation and physical structure by adding organic matter from fallen leaf mass.
       
In the zone 1b under irrigated area major crops are cotton, cluster bean and some extent green gram during kharif (rainy) season. The introduction of pigeonpea in this canal irrigated area may be useful to farmers as follows, crop diversification by introducing new high yielding varieties and short duration pigeonpea varieties in the zone. Sowing time, a non-monetary input, has considerable influence on the growth and yield of pigeonpea crop. In addition, genotypes may vary in productivity (Umesh et al., 2013). However, with the changing climate, the optimum time of sowing may vary. Furthermore, when the crop is sown during the first fortnight of June, many times the maturity of the crop is delayed (Ram et al., 2011).
               
Energy use and output production knowledge in different cropping systems is needed to investigate how to improve  EUE  while maintaining crop production to free up land for energy crops. Agriculture in a ways an energy conversion industry. Energy use in agricultural production has been increasing faster than that of in many other sectors of the world economy because agricultural production has become more mechanized and commercial fertilizers dependent by the Shilpha et al., (2018).
Field experiment
 
The two-year field experiment was conducted during the Kharif season of the year 2018 and 2019 at Agricultural Research Station, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan, (S.K. Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner) on pigeonpea to find out the suitable date of sowing and suitable early maturing varieties of pigeonpea for Zone Ib of Rajasthan India. It is a canal irrigated area located between 28.4° to 30.6° North latitude and 72.3° to 75.30° East longitude under North-Western Plain Zone (1b). The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in texture, low in organic carbon (0.19%), medium in available P2O5 (33 kg/ha) and high in available K2O (330 kg/ha). The pH (1:2) and EC (1:2) of the soil were 8.1 and 0.20 dS/m, respectively. A uniform basal dose of 20 kg N/ha + 40 kg P2O5 /ha was applied at the time of sowing. The experiment is laid out with a split-plot design with thrice replication, in the main plot four dates of sowing allotted viz: D1: 25th May, D2: 10th June, D3: 25th June and D4: 10th July and in subplot five genotypes allotted viz:  V1: UPAS-120, V2: ASJ-105, V3: Pant- 291, V4: PUSA- 992, V5: ICPL- 88039. The plot size 3x6 m, crop geometry of 50 cm × 30 cm were maintained.
 
Energetic budgeting
 
Based on the energy inputs and output, energy use efficiency, energy productivity in physical terms and economic terms (Mittal and Dhawan 1989; Shilpha et al., 2018) were calculated.
 


 
Economics
       
Cost of cultivation
 
The expenditure incurred on raising the crop from sowing to harvesting and recorded as cost of cultivation or gross expenditure per hectare (₹ ha-1) for an individual crop of the sequence.
 
Gross returns
 
Total income obtained from seed and stover of the crop was worked out using the MSP expressed as ₹ ha-1.
 
Net returns
 
The net returns were computed by subtracting the cost of cultivation from gross returns and expressed as ₹ ha-1.
 
Returns per rupee invested (B:C ratio)
 
This was calculated as follows:    
         
 
                                               
Statistical analysis
 
Data from experiment were analyzed as two-way ANOVA. All the values presented here represent the mean values of three replications. Significance was tested using F-test at a 5% level of probability (P<0.05). The standard error of the mean (SEm±), the critical difference (CD) at 5% level of probability (P<0.05) were worked out for the study of each parameter by Gomez and Gomez 1984.
Yield parametersof pigeonpea
Seed per pods
 
The number of seed par pods recorded in sowing of D1: 25th May and gradually decrease in numbers by delayed in sowings from D1: 25th May (5.17) and (5.64) to D5: 10th July (4.01) and (4.62) in both the years respectively.  In respective of genotypes, the maximum Seed par pods found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (5.0), (5.56) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum Seed par pods (4.26) and (4.90) respectively in both the years (Table 1).
 

Table1: Effect of sowing dates and different varieties on yield and economics in years 2018 and 2019.


 
Pods per plants
 
The number of pods recorded in maximum in the sowing of D1: 25th May and gradually decrease in numbers by delayed in sowings from D1: 25th May (97.55) and (100.54) to D4: 10th July (85.18) and (87.44) in both the years respectively.  In respective of genotypes the maximum pods recorded in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (101.27), (104.17) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum Seed par pods (84.91) and (87.86) respectively in both the years according to Table 1.
 
Seed index (g)
 
 It is the 100-seed weight in gram of respective genotypes. The 100-seed weight recorded in maximum in the early sowing of D1: 25th May and gradually decrease in numbers by delayed in sowings from D1: 25th May (10.85 g) and (11.13 g) to D4: 10th July (10.03 g) and (10.31 g) in both the years respectively.  In respective of genotypes, the maximum seed index found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (10.95 g), (11.25 g) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum Seed index (9.59 g) and (9.86 g) respectively in both the years according to Table 1.
 
Seed yield and stover yield
 
Seed yield
 
It is the economically imported harvest from the crop’s respective genotypes. The seed yields recorded higher numerically in the early sowing of D1: 25th May and gradually decrease by delayed in sowings from D1: 25th May (1831 kg ha-1) and (1179 kg ha-1) to D4: 10th July (1411 kg ha-1) and (887 kg ha-1) in both the years respectively.  Both sowing of D1: 25th May and D2:10th June are statistically at par in yield, D2: 10th June (1773 kg ha-1) (1129 kg ha-1) is significantly superior with references to D3: 25th June (1503 kg ha-1) (966 kg ha-1) and D4: 10th July (1411 kg ha-1) (887 kg ha-1), in the seed yield percent reduction by (3.17%) (2.24%) in D2:10th June, by the (17.91%) (18.07%) in D3: 25th June and (22.94%) (24.77%) in D4: 10th July recorded as compared with D1: 25th May sowing dates was in both the years respectively (Table 1), these same work and results reported by Singh et al., (2016) and  Ram et al., (2011). In respective of genotypes, the maximum seed yield found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (1910 kg ha-1), (1263 kg ha-1), which was significantly superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (18.38 kg ha-1) (1151 kg ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum Seed yield (1323 kg ha-1) (807 kg ha-1), in the seed yield percent reduction by (3.77%) (8.87%) in V2: ASJ-105, in V3: Pant-291 (16.34%) (20.35%) and maximum loss recorded V5: ICPL-88039 (30.73%) (36.10%) recorded as compared to V4: PUSA-992 in both the year respectively (Table 1). These finding are correlated with Umesh et al., (2013).
 
Stover yield
 
The stover yields recorded higher numerically in the early sowing of D1: 25th May and gradually decrease by delayed in sowings from D1: 25th May (6695 kg ha-1) and (4112 kg ha-1) to D4: 10th July (5689 kg ha-1) and (3492 kg ha-1) in both the years respectively.  Both sowing of  D1: 25th May and D2:10th June is statistically at par in stover yield, D2: 10th June (6615 kg ha-1) (4043 kg ha-1) is significantly superior over to D3: 25th June (5873 kg ha-1) (3639 kg ha-1) and D4: 10th July, both the years respectively. In respective of genotypes, the maximum stoveryield found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (7089 kg ha-1), (4536 kg ha-1), which was significantly superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (6866 kg ha-1) (4151 kg ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum stover yield (5265 kg ha-1) (3124 kg ha-1), in both the years respectively (Table 1). Similar results were found by Kumar et al., (2008).
 
Economics
 
Cost of cultivation
 
It is the total expenditure to produce as the seeds term known as cost of cultivation.It is found constant in all dates of sowing and genotypes (28.10 x103 ₹ ha-1) and (28.50 x103 ₹ ha-1) in both years respectively (Table 1).
 
Gross return
 
It is the total return from the seed as well as stover yields. It found differ from high to low in early to late sown redgram viz: D1: 25th May (77.47 x103 ₹ ha-1) and (55.38 x103 ₹ ha-1) to D4: 10th July (60.76 x103 ₹ ha-1) and (42.46 x103 ₹ ha-1) in both the years respectively (Table 3). In respective of genotypes the higher gross return found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (81.02 x103 ₹ ha-1), (59.59 x103 ₹ ha-1), which was significantly superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (78.06 x103 ₹ ha-1) (54.34 ×103 ₹ ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded minimum seed yield (56.83 x 103 ₹ ha-1) (38.52 x103 ₹ ha-1), in both the years 2018 and 2019 respectively (Table 1).
 
Net return
 
It is the return from the seed after the deducted cost of cultivation. It is found high to low in different sowing dates, viz: D1: 25th May (49.37 x 103 ₹ ha-1) and (26.88 x 103 ₹ ha-1) to D4: 10th July (32.66 x 103 ₹ ha-1) and (13.96 x 103 ₹ ha-1) in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively. In respective of genotypes the highest net returns found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (52.92 x 103 ₹ ha-1), (31.09 x 103 ₹ ha-1), which was significantly superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (49.96 x 103 ₹ ha-1) (25.84 x103 ₹ ha-1), V3: Pant-291 (40.06 x103 ₹ ha-1) (19.16 x103 ₹ ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded lessnet returns (28.73 x103 ₹ ha-1) (10.02 x103 ₹ ha-1), in both the years respectively (Table 1).
 
B:C ratio
 
It is the ratio between benefit to cost of cultivation of pigeonpea crop. B:C ratio is recorded higher in early planted/sown conditions of redgram to less in late planted/sown conditions, viz: D1: 25th May (1.76) and (1.69) to D4: 10th July (1.16) and (1.05) in both the years respectively. In respective of genotypes the highest B:C ratio found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (1.88), (1.89), which was significantly superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (1.78) (1.63) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded less net returns (1.02) (0.86), in both the years respectively (Table 1). Similar results were reported by Kumar et al., (2008).
 
Energy dynamics
 
Different energy index and efficiency described inTable 3.
 
Energy input
 
It is the energy derives by different sources to cultivation viz: manpower, machine water, etc. were calculated and multiply with the equivalent unit (Table 2) in all treatment is workout is (11.17x103 MJ ha-1) and (11.34x103 MJ ha-1) in both the year respectively in all treatment same.
 

Table 2: Energy input and output equivalent value.


 

Table 3: Effect of sowing dates and different Varieties on energetic of pigeonpea years 2018 and 2019.


 
Energy output (x 103 MJ ha-1)
 
It is energy output that includes energy produced in the form of seed and stover.In the sowing dates the energy output varies from D1: 25th May (109.45x103 MJ ha-1) and (67.99x103 MJ ha-1) to D4: 10th July (90.97x103 MJ ha-1) and (56.13x103 MJ ha-1) in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively. Similar findings are the same by Mittal and Dhawan 1989. In respective of genotypes, the higher energy output found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (115.49x103 MJ ha-1), (74.47x103 MJ ha-1), which was superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (111.69x103 MJ ha-1) (68.08x103 MJ ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded less energy output (84.43x103 MJ ha-1) (50.40x103 MJ ha-1), in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively (Table 3). Similar research found by the Shilpha et al., (2018).
 
Energy balance
 
It is the balance between energy inputto energy output in the cultivation of pigeonpea. In the sowing dates the energy balance varies from D1: 25th May (98.28x103 MJ ha-1) and (56.65x103 MJ ha-1) to D4: 10th July (79.79x103 MJ ha-1) and (44.79x103 MJ ha-1) in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively. In respective of genotypes the higher energy balance found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (104.31x103 MJ ha-1), (63.13x103 MJ ha-1), which was superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (100.51x103 MJ ha-1) (56.74x103 MJ ha-1) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded less energy balance (73.25 x 103 MJ ha-1) (39.06x103 MJ hax), in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively. (Table 3) similar results reported by Chaudhary et al., (2006).
 
Energy use efficiency
 
It is the ratio of energy output to energy input in the cultivation of pigeonpea. In the sowing dates, the energy use efficiency varies from D1: 25th May (9.80) and (5.99) to D4: 10th July (8.14) and (4.95) in both the years 2018 and 2019 respectively. In respective of genotypes the higher energy use efficiency found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (10.34), (6.56), which was superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (10.0) (6.0) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded less energy use efficiency (7.56) (4.44), in both the years respectively. (Table 3). Similar results were found by Kumar et al., (2008).
 
Energy productivity (kg MJ-1)
 
It is the ratio of seed yield to energy input used in the cultivation of pigeonpea. In the sowing dates the energy productivity (kg MJ-1) varies from D1: 25th May (0.164) and (0.104) to D4: 10th July (0.126) and (0.078) in both years respectively. In respective of genotypes the higher energy productivity found in genotype V4: PUSA-992 (0.171), (0.111), which was superior with others followed by V2: ASJ-105 (0.164) (0.101) and V5: ICPL-88039 recorded less energy productivity (0.118) (0.071), in both the year 2018 and 2019 respectively (Table 3). Similar results were found by Chaudhary et al., (2006).
For the NWPZ zone of Rajasthan, based on two years of fixed land experimentation, it was revealed that the first fortnight of June suitable for the sowing of pigeonpea for good harvesting of seed yield. The most promising genotypes PUSA-992 are found economically in terms of production and profitability.
All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

  1. Chaudhary, V., Gangwar, B. and Pandey, D. (2006). Auditing of energy use and output of different cropping systems in India. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript EE 05. 8: 1-13.

  2. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Willley and Sons, NY.

  3. Kumar, N., Gopinath, K.A., Srivastva, A.K. and Mahajan, V. (2008). Performance of pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] at different sowing dates in the mid-hills of Indian Himalaya, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 54(5): 507-514.

  4. Mittal, J.P. and Dhawan, K.C. (1989). Energy parameters for raising crops under various irrigation treatments in Indian agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 25(1): 11- 25.

  5. Ram, H., Singh, G., Sekhon, H.S. and Khanna, V. (2011). Effect of sowing time on the performance of pigeonpea genotypes. Journal of Food Legumes. 24(3): 207-210.

  6. Sarkar, S., Panda, S., Yadav, K.K. and Kandasamy, P. (2020). Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) an important food legume in Indian scenario- A review. Legume Research. 43(5): 601-610. doi: 10.18805/LR-4021.

  7. Shilpha, S.M., Soumya, T.M., Mamathashree, C.M. and Girijesh, G.K. (2018). Energetics in various cropping systems. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience. 6(4): 303-323.

  8. Singh, G., Kaur, H. Aggarwal, N., Hari Ram, Gill, K.K. and Khanna, V. (2016). Symbiotic characters, thermal requirement,  growth, yield and economics of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) genotypes sown at different dates under Punjab conditions. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 8(1): 381-385.

  9. Umesh, M.R., Shankar, M.A. and Ananda, N. (2013). Yield, nutrient uptake and economics of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) genotypes under nutrient supply levels in dryland alfisols of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 58(4): 554-559.

Editorial Board

View all (0)