Relative Economic Profitability of Millet based Crop Rotations with Chickpea in Hisar District of Haryana

Haryana ranks second as a food grains contributor to the nation’s food basket with it’s nearly 70 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture had a rich legacy of sustainable agricultural development witnessing an production of 2.6 MT in 1966-67 to 18.3 MT in 2020-21 food-grain with eleven-fold increases in wheat and sixteen-fold increase in rice production during this period (Anonymous, 2022). The common cropping systems practiced in irrigated Northern and Central Haryana isrice-wheat, while in Southern Haryana cotton-wheat, pearl millet- chickpea and pearl millet-mustard cropping system are very common. But after continuous cropping, these allcrop rotations are facing new challenges like yield stagnation, resources depletion and deterioration, pest pressure, nutrient mining and burning of crop residue, which put questions on the sustainability of all these cropping systems in Haryana (Patel et al., 2023; Sammauria et al., 2020). From resource conservation and sustainability point of view most successful and highly adopted crop rotation in the dry regions of south Haryana is pearl millet-chickpea cropping system. So, now most of these systems require diversification for greater sustainability, better economics and conservation of natural resources. Crop diversification, defined as the introduction or addition of new crops to the existing farming system, can occur at the individual farm level or at larger scales. It can be one of the most ecologically feasible, cost-effective and rational ways of reducing uncertainties in agriculture-especially among small holder farmers (Kumar et al., 2023; Yadav et al., 2017).
       
Millets and pulses have potential to grow in harsh environment and minimize risks of entire crop failure unlike other cereals namely, wheat, rice and maize (Sivagamy et al., 2024). Millets and pulses, in India, bear significant relevance in promoting food and nutritional security for a number of reasons. These are the staple source of protein to a significant share of the Indian population and in particular the vegetarian population. They are also a rich source of fibre, vitamins and minerals, such as iron, zinc, folate and magnesium (Divya and Garg, 2024; Sandhya et al., 2022). Just as pulses provide nutritional benefits to humans, they also produce a number of different compounds that feed soil microbes thus benefitting soil health. One of the most popular benefits is the ability of pulses to fix atmospheric nitrogen (N) thereby, improving soil fertility (Kamal et al., 2023; Kamal et al., 2024). Not only do pulses discharge greater and different types of amino acids, the plant residues left after harvesting pulse crops also improve biochemical composition of the soil. Hence, pulses production can be provided compatibility with cereal crops to promote sustainability of the farming systems (Kumar et al., 2023; Lal, 2017; Sharma et al., 2023).
       
Millets and pulses are the most important dryland crops grown in both Kharif and Rabi seasons in the semi-arid regions of the country for food, feed and animal fodder. These crops also show considerable resilience to changing climate (drought, heat and nutrient stresses) (Singh et al., 2023; Hemalatha et al., 2021; Bandyopadhyay et al., 2017; Habiyaremye et al., 2017). Pearl millet is one of the important rainfed food grain crop of the arid and semi-arid region (Faiz et al., 2022; Meena et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2016). It forms a staple cereal in the diets of millions of farmers inhabiting these regions. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the major rabi pulse crop grown in rainfed black soil tracts of India. In worldwide, India occupies first position in terms of production and consumption with nearly 75 percent of the world cultivated area (Dhaka et al., 2024).
       
For diversification of Pearl millet-Chickpea rotation, adoption of small millets (finger millet, foxtail millet, proso millet, little millet, brown top millet, barnyard millet and kodo millet) in addition to pearl millet may be viable option (Habiyaremye et al., 2017). There is an immediate need to promote the cultivation of millets to ensure food and nutritional security at national level because small millets are considered climate smart and nature friendly crops because of high nutritive value, tolerance to water and temperatures stress, short life, low external inputs requirement (Jeeva et al., 2024; Dhaka et al., 2023). Farmers need to be continuously motivated and encouraged to pursue crop diversification for better sustainability as well as income and employment opportunities (Sammauria et al., 2020). Considering the importance of millets in food and nutritional security, the year 2018 as ‘National Year of Millets’ at national level and the year 2023 as ‘International Year of Millets’ was celebrated at global level. Millets are currently grown in 131 countries in over 78 million ha with sorghum and pearl millet accounting for over 90 per cent share at global level (Singh et al., 2023). India is the largest grower (with 19% contribution) and producer (20% production) of millets in the world (Dhaka et al., 2023a). The most important states for pearl millet cultivation are Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra having a total share of 78 per cent (Bhuva and Detroja, 2018). Karnataka alone accounts for more than 2/3^rd acreage of finger millet. Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh grow more than 60 per cent of small millets. All efforts made by Government to promote millets have been responded well by farmers and consumers. But very limited research work has been conducted so far on different minor millet-based crop rotations with chickpea except Pearl millet- Chickpea crop rotation. So, considering all these facts mentioned above a field experiment was conducted at CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India to study the relative economic profitability of eight millet based crop rotations with chickpea.

A field experiment was carried out at crop physiology field research area of CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India (29°10'N latitude, 75°46'E longitude and 215.2 M altitude) during 2022-23 in randomized block design in Kharif and Rabi season, replicated thrice with eight treatments (foxtail millet, little millet, brown top millet, proso millet, kodo millet, barnyard millet, finger millet and pearl millet) in Kharif season and eight crop rotations (foxtail millet- chickpea, little millet- chickpea, brown top millet- chickpea, proso millet- chickpea, kodo millet- chickpea, barnyard millet - chickpea, finger millet - chickpea and pearl millet-chickpea) in Rabi season to evaluate economic profitability of eight millet based crop rotations with chickpea. Soil of the field was sandy loam in texture, slightly alkaline in pH (7.6), low organic carbon, poor in available phosphorus, medium in available nitrogen and rich in available potassium. The maximum and minimum temperature during the crop study period was congenial for the growth and development of crops. Sowing of all millets viz. Foxtail millet (SIA 3156), Little millet (DHLM 36-3), Brown top millet (IIMR AK 2), Proso millet (TNAU 202), Kodo millet (JK 41), Barnyard millet (VC 27), Finger millet (GPU 67) and Pearl millet (HHB 67) in Kharif season was done on 27^th July, 2022 and these were harvested at 78, 92, 73, 69, 91, 78, 116 and 71 days after sowing, respectively. Agronomical management for each millet was done separately as per the recommendations given by Indian institute of millets research, hyderabad. During Rabi season, all millets were followed by chickpea (HC 7). The sowing of chickpea was done on 20^th October, 2022 after Foxtail millet, Brown top millet, Proso millet, Barnyard millet and Pearl millet while after Little millet and Kodo millet it was sown on 27^th October, 2022 and after Finger millet chickpea was sown on 29^th November, 2022. Chickpea was harvested at 164 days in case of Foxtail millet, Brown top millet, Proso millet, Barnyard millet and Pearl millet, while after Little millet and Kodo millet chickpea was harvested at 157 days after sowing. Minimum days (124) up to harvesting were taken by chickpea in case of finger millet. Treatment wise chickpea was fertilized with recommended dose of nutrients (20 N+40 P₂O₅ kg/ha) and inputs were given as per the recommendations of CCS haryana agricultural university, hisar. The energy equivalents of all inputs in the form of labour, seeds, fertilizers, hoeing, implements and pesticides and the energy output as produce was converted into energy (MJ) to calculated input and output energy of both crop seasons as well as crop rotation as per conversion factors as given by Kumar et al., (2022); Dhaka et al., (2017) and Net energy return was calculated as difference between the total output energy and total input energy. Energy ratio was determined as energy output divided by input energy. Human energy Profitability was calculated by dividing output energy with Labour Energy. Energy Productivity was calculated by dividing the seed yield of crop by their respective input energy requirement.  Energy intensiveness was expressed as total input energy divided by cost of cultivation. Energy profitability was computed by dividing the Net energy return with total input energy. Specific energy was calculated by Input energy divided by grain yield in kg/ha.
       
To compute the relative economics of all crop rotations, the data provided by Department Agriculture Economics, CCS Haryana Agricultural university, Hisar was considered for both season crop’s inputs and outputs. The price considered for grains of Foxtail millet, Little millet/ Brown top millet/Proso millet, Kodo millet, Barnyard millet, Finger millet and Pearl millet was Rs. 2909, 2300, 2599, 2800, 3578 and 2350 per quintal, respectively, while straw rate was Rs.1500/acre. The price used for chickpea seed and straw were Rs.5230/qt and Rs.1558/acre. The total and variable cost, Gross and net returns, B:C and per day returns for all eight crop rotations were calculated.

Kharif season
 
Table 1 cleared that yield attributes and yield was significantly affected by millets. Among millets Pearl millet and Kodo millet recorded significantly higher (190.5 cm) and lower (89.1 cm) plant height, respectively. Foxtail millet, Little millet, Brown top millet and Barnyard millet recorded plant height within range of 156.1-167.3 cm with non significant variation among themselves. Little millet followed by Proso millet and Kodo millet followed by Finger millet recorded significantly higher (29.6-28.6 cm) and lower (5.6-7.1 cm) ear head length, respectively. Brown top millet (17.5 cm) and Barnyard millet (18.6 cm), Foxtail millet (20.3 cm) and Pearl millet (20.0 cm) recorded statistically similar ear head length. Significantly higher total tillers (86.5), ear heads (77.3) and lower total tillers (9.3), ear heads (8.3) per plants were recorded with Proso millet and Finger millet, respectively. Foxtail millet, Kodo millet and Barnyard millet had shown non-significant variation regarding total tillers and ear heads per plant. Pearl millet followed by Barnyard millet and Little millet followed by Brown top millet recorded significantly higher (81.8 g) and lower (13.5 g) ear heads weights per plant, respectively. Among millets, pearl millet followed by finger millet and barnyard millet recorded significantly higher grain yield (2462 kg/ha), straw yield (7604 kg/ha) and biological yield (10066 kg/ha), while significantly lower grain yield (761 kg/ha), straw yield (3076 kg/ha) and biological yield (4117 kg/ha) were recorded with Little millet, Foxtail millet and Kodo millet, respectively. Little millet, Proso millet and Kodo millets had shown non-significant differences regarding yield performance. Foxtail millet closely followed by Brown top millet and Pearl millet recorded significantly higher harvest index (30.2%), while Little millet recorded significantly lower harvest index (17.9%). Except Foxtail millet and Brown top millet all millets had shown non-significant variations regarding harvest index compared to Little millet. Pearl millet followed by Kodo millet and Little millet followed by Foxtail millet observed with significantly higher (6.73 g) and lower (1.94 g) test weight, respectively. Corroborative findings have also been reported by Garg et al., (2020). The increase in grain yield of some millets might be due to increased photosynthetic activity, which resulted in a higher accumulation of photosynthates and their translocation to sink due to better source and sink channel (Krishna et al., 2020; Reddy et al., 2020). The increase in grain yield could be explained based on their beneficial effects on yield-attributing characteristics (Hemalatha et al., 2021). Nalini et al., (2020) in a study on pearl millet, Hemalatha et al., (2021) in a study on kodo millet, Krishna et al., (2020) in a study on finger millet and Reddy et al., (2020) in a study on foxtail millet have also reported similar findings. Higher HI in selected millet germplasms might be due to dry matter partitioning along with an increased level of nitrogen as reported by Reddy et al., (2016).
 

       
Among millets, Finger millet and Proso millet took maximum (116) and minimum (69) days to mature. Brown top millet, Proso millet and Pearl millet took almost similar days up to maturity (69-73 days). Foxtail millet and Barnyard millet were matured in 78 days, while Little millet and Kodo millet took 91-92 days for maturity (Table 2). Table 2 showed that among millets, Finger millet followed by pearl millet recorded maximum variable cost (Rs. 32523/ha), total cost (Rs. 62153/ha), while Foxtail millet recorded minimum variable cost (Rs. 22958/ha) and total cost (Rs. 50675/ha). All millets except finger millet and pearl millet recorded with variable cost Rs. 22958 to 25885/ha and total cost Rs. 50675 to 54188/ha. Finger millet found with significantly higher gross returns (Rs.74128/ha) and net returns (Rs. 11975/ha), which were 20.3 and 176.7 per cent higher compared to pearl millet, respectively. Significantly lower gross returns (Rs. 21273/ha) and net returns (Rs.-29808/ha) were recorded with Little millet. All millets except Finger millet and Pearl millet had shown negative net returns and less than one BC ratio. Finger millet recorded significantly higher B:C (1.19) closely followed by pearl millet (1.07). Similarly maximum per day net returns was recorded with Finger millet (Rs. 103.2/day/ha) closely followed by pearl millet (Rs. 60.9/day/ha). Proso millet recorded minimum net returns per day basis (Rs.- 401.6/day/ha). These results are in close conformity with the findings of Bana et al., (2016); Bhavani et al., (2021); Kumar et al., (2009); Garg et al., (2020); Krishna et al., (2020); Reddy et al., (2020).
 

       
Table 3 revealed that energy budget in the form of different energy based indices was significantly affected by millets. Among all millets, pearl millet followed by finger millet recorded significantly higher input energy (9697 MJ/ha), Output energy (131249 MJ/ha), net energy returns (121552 MJ/ha), energy intensiveness (14.0 MJ/USD) and human energy profitability (133.3 MJ/ha), while higher energy ratio (16.5), energy productivity (0.27 kg/MJ) and energy profitability (15.5 MJ/ha) were recorded with finger millet. Kodo millet closely followed by proso millet and little millet observed with lower output energy (131249 MJ/ha), net energy returns (46508 MJ/ha) and human energy profitability (54.1 MJ/ha).
 

 
Rabi season
 
Table 4 cleared that yield attributes and yield of chickpea were significantly affected by previous millet crops. Among all treatments, the chickpea sown over Pearl millet recorded significantly higher plant height (91.3 cm), while shortest plants (55.7 cm) were recorded when chickpea was taken after Finger millet. Chickpea recorded statistical similar plant height (86.6-91.3 cm) when it was taken after Foxtail millet, Proso millet and Pearl millet. Chickpea sown after Brown top millet and Barnyard millet recorded almost similar plant height. Chickpea sown after Foxtail millet followed by Pearl millet- chickpea recorded significant higher number of branches (11.1), while chickpea sown over finger millet recorded significantly lower branches/plant (6.0) but it was statistically at par with all treatments except Foxtail millet/Pearl millet- chickpea rotation. Significantly higher (1.16) and lower (0.72) seeds/pod were noticed with chickpea sown after Foxtail millet and Pearl millet/Barnyard millet, respectively. Chickpea pod length was non significantly varied among all crop rotations. Chickpea preceded by foxtail millet closely followed by Pearl millet- chickpea rotation recorded significantly higher pods/plant (122.8), while Chickpea taken after Finger millet recorded significantly lower (73.7) pods/plant. Chickpea sown after Little millet, Proso millet, Kodo millet and Finger millet recorded statistically similar pods/plant. Regarding seed index all treatments had shown non significant differences except chickpea sown after Kodo millet/Finger millet. Significantly higher (15.9 g) and lower (13.7 g) seed index was recorded when chickpea was preceded by Pearl millet millet/Foxtail millet and Finger millet, respectively. Chickpea preceded by foxtail millet closely followed by Pearl millet-Chickpea recorded significantly higher seed yield (2380 kg/ha) and biological yield (8923 kg/ha), while chickpea sown after Finger millet recorded significantly lower seed yield (1111 kg/ha) and biological yield (3638 kg/ha). Chickpea sown after foxtail millet, Proso millet, Barnyard millet and pearl millet recorded statistically similar yield. Chickpea sown after Kodo millet closely followed by Finger millet recorded significantly higher (31.3%) harvest index, while Brown top millet-chickpea rotation recorded significantly lower (19.3%) harvest index and it was statistically at par with Little millet/Proso millet/Barnyard millet/Pearl millet- Chickpea rotation. Chickpea sown after Pearl millet/Barnyard millet took significantly higher days (163) to mature, while chickpea preceded by Finger millet reported with significantly lower days (124) up to maturity (Table 4). Intensifying the cropping system with legume also increased grain and stover yields. The synergistic cereal–legume association leads to soil-N enrichment by biological-N fixation under legume cultivation and microbial activity in the rhizosphere (Faiz et al., 2022). This might be due to the fact that use of inorganic fertilizer resulted in better growth attributes of the plants (viz., plant height, No. of branches plant^-1, dry matter production and dry root biomass). The increased availability of nutrients enhanced greater translocation of photosynthates from the source to sink site that resulted in to higher yield contributing characteristics like number of pods plant^-1 and seed index, which ultimately increased the seed yield (Sodavadiya et al., 2023).
 

       
Table 5 illustrated that same amount of total cost (Rs. 46270/ha) and variable cost (Rs. 29050/ha) was incurred for sowing of chickpea in all crop rotations studied as similar inputs and agronomic practices were followed. Chickpea sown after all millets recorded economic returns with B:C more than one. Among all crop rotations, chickpea preceded by Foxtail millet closely followed by Pearl millet/Barnyard millet-chickpea recorded with significantly higher gross returns (Rs. 112983/ha), net returns (Rs. 66713/ha), B:C (2.44) and per day returns (Rs. 416/day/ha), while chickpea taken after Finger millet closely followed by Kodo millet and Little millet recorded with significantly lower gross returns (Rs. 61987/ha), net returns (Rs. 15717/ha), B:C (1.34) and per day returns (Rs. 125/day/ha). Corroborative findings have also been reported by Meena et al., (2021); Bhuva and Detroja (2018).
 

       
Table 6 revealed that chickpea sown our different millets recorded same amount of input energy and energy intensiveness as similar package of practices and costs were followed. Among all treatments, chickpea sown over foxtail  millet closely followed by chickpea taken after brown top millet recorded significantly higher output energy (127092 MJ/ha), net energy returns (120497 MJ/ha), energy ratio (19.27), energy productivity (0.31 kg/MJ), energy profitability (18.27 MJ/ha) and human energy profitability (134.2 MJ/ha), while chickpea sown over finger millet recorded significantly lower energy budget in the form of different energy based indices i.e., output energy (43707 MJ/ha), net energy returns (37112 MJ/ha), energy ratio (6.62), energy productivity (0.16 kg/MJ), energy profitability (5.62 MJ/ha) and human energy profitability (46.1 MJ/ha).
 

 
Total crop rotation
 
Table 7 revealed that among all crop rotations, Little millet/Kodo millet-Chickpea crop took significantly higher crop duration (249 days), while Proso millet- chickpea rotation recorded with significantly lower crop duration (231 days). Pearl millet- chickpea closely followed by barnyard millet/foxtail millet-chickpea rotation recorded significantly higher (3114 kg/ha) chickpea equivalent yield, while Little millet- chickpea closely followed by Kodo millet-chickpea rotation recorded significantly lower (1731 kg/ha) Chickpea Equivalent Yield. Chickpea Equivalent Yield recorded with Brown top millet-chickpea and Proso millet-chickpea rotation were statistically at par. Maximum variable cost (Rs. 61573/ha) and total cost (Rs. 1,08423/ha) for cultivation of both crops in rotation was reported with Finger millet-Chickpea rotation, while Foxtail millet-chickpea rotation recorded with minimum cost. All millet based crop rotations with chickpea were proved economically profitable having B:C more than one. Among all crop rotations, pearl millet-Chickpea closely followed by barnyard millet/foxtail millet-Chickpea recorded significantly higher gross returns (Rs. 1,70542/ha), net returns (Rs. 66991/ha), B:C (1.65) and per day returns (Rs. 285.1/day/ha). Little millet-Chickpea crop rotation closely followed by Kodo millet-chickpea rotation reported with significantly lower net returns (Rs.840/ha), B:C (1.01) and per day returns (Rs. 3.4/day/ha). Chickpea is a deep-rooted crop, therefore, which efficiently utilized the soil moisture for realizing higher yields. These results are in close conformity with the findings of Bana et al., (2023); Sharmili et al., (2023); Mohan et al., (2019).
 

       
Table 8 illustrated that all crop rotations except pearl millet/finger millet/proso millet followed by chickpea recorded statistically similar input energy. Pearl millet-chickpea rotation recorded significantly higher input energy (16293 MJ/ha), while brown top millet-chickpea rotation found with lower input energy (13324 MJ/ha). Significantly higher output energy (228629 MJ/ha) was recorded with pearl millet-chickpea closely followed by barnyard millet- chickpea rotation, while kodo millet–chickpea rotation recorded minimum output energy (112289 MJ/ha). Among all crop rotations, pearl millet- chickpea closely followed by barnyard millet- chickpea  rotation recorded significantly higher net energy returns (212336 MJ/ha), energy productivity (0.27 kg/MJ), energy intensiveness (15.8MJ/USD) and human energy profitability (118.4 MJ/ha), while kodo millet - chickpea rotation recorded significantly lower net energy returns (98936 MJ/ha), energy ratio (8.40), energy productivity (0.16 kg/MJ), energy profitability (7.40 MJ/ha) and human energy profitability (58.1 MJ/ha). These results were in conformity with the findings of Kumar et al., 2022 for pearl millet-wheat rotation and Dhaka et al., (2017); Choudhary et al., (2017).
 

During Kharif season among all millets (foxtail millet, little millet, brown top millet, proso millet, kodo millet, barnyard millet, finger millet and pearl millet) tested, Pearl millet was found most suitable, which produced significantly higher  grain yield (2462 kg/ha), biological yield (10066 kg/ha), net energy returns (121552 MJ/ha), Energy intensiveness (14.0 MJ/USD), human energy profitability (133.3 MJ/ha) compared to all other millets might be due to it’s maximum test weight (6.7 g), plant height (190.5 cm) and lower duration (71 days). Although Finger millet recorded second highest seed yield (1971 kg/ha) and it was most profitable with maximum net returns (Rs. 11975/ha) and B:C (1.19) but it was not fit in rotation with chickpea due to it’s long duration (116 days) as it delayed chickpea sowing by 39 days. In Rabi season chickpea sown after Foxtail millet recorded significantly higher seed yield (2080 kg/ha), biological yield (8923 kg/ha), net returns (Rs. 66713/ha), B:C (2.44), net energy returns (120497 MJ/ha), energy ratio (19.27), energy productivity (0.31 kg/MJ), energy profitability (18.27 MJ/ha) and human energy profitability (134.2 MJ/ha) compared to other crop rotations might be due to significantly higher plant height (86.8 cm), branches/plant (11.1), seeds/pod (1.16), pods/plant (122.8) and seed index (15.9 g). Considering economics and Chickpea Equivalent Yield, it is concluded that Little millet/Kodo millet - chickpea rotations are least economical might be due to long Kharif crop duration, delayed sowing of Rabi crop and less yield obtained.
       
Thus, it is concluded that pearl millet-chickpea (total duration of 234 days) closely followed by foxtail millet-chickpea rotation recorded with significantly higher Chickpea Equivalent Yield (3114 kg/ha), net returns (Rs. 66991/ha), B:C (1.65), per day returns (Rs. 285.1/day/ha), net energy returns (212336 MJ/ha), energy productivity (0.27 kg/MJ), energy intensiveness (15.80 MJ/USD) and human energy profitability (118.4 MJ/ha) was found most economical and suitable crop rotation for sandy loam areas of Hisar district of Haryana, India.

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.