Energy-efficient and economically viable agro-techniques for sustainable maize (Zea mays)-based cropping systems in light-textured soils of West Bengal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v64i2.5251Keywords:
Blackgram, Cropping system, Economics, Energy, Mulch, Tillage, VermicompostAbstract
A field experiment was conducted during 201012 at Pundibari, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, to analyse crop- ping systems in energy terms and to evaluate alternative solutions, especially for arable crops. The trial was car- ried out in a split-plot design with 2 main-plot (tillage), 2 subplot (mulching) and 4 sub-subplot treatments (INM). The highest net energy value was obtained with the conventional system, and the lowest with the conservation system. With respect to the treatments in maize (Zea mays L.)blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] cropping system, conventional tillage produced the 3 years highest output energy (264.47 103 MJ/ha). Maize was the crop that contributed much to the total output energy in the tillage systems, followed by blackgram. The highest benefit: cost ratio (1.73) was observed at zero tillage. Conservation tillage, mulching and application of vermicompost by partial replacement of chemical fertilizer opened up the better scope of energy conservation within the system by renewable sources.References
Nitrogen/kgPhosphorus/kgPotassium/kgHerbicide (Glyphosate @ 3 litres/ha)Maize seed energy (1,000 g)Maize kernel (1,000 g)0.06690.01730.01361.810.1040.015Patzek (2004)Patzek (2004)Patzek (2004)Borin et al. (1997)Borin et al. (1997)Borin et al. (1997)Treatment-wise input calculationsV1, 75% Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + vermicompost @ 5 t/haV2, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 7.5 t/haV3, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 10 t/haV4, 100% RDF (120, 60, 40 kg N, P and K/ha)Wheat straw (mulching @ 4 Mg/ha) (after decomposing as N, P and K)C1, Conventional tillageMaizeBlackgramC0, Zero tillageMaizeBlackgram13.9817.3620.759.635.953.790.861.760.98Based on above citedcriterion by differentworkersInput-wise energy involvement is tabulated in Table 4 under maizeblackgram cropping system June 2019]183ENERGY EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AGRO-TECHNIQUES FOR MAIZEbetter in conventional system during the initial yearswhich was at par with conservation tillage, but insignificantly increased yield was observed in zero tillage duringthe final years of experimentation. Thus, it indicates thatin the long run with better yield in zero tillage positiveresults in specific heat (MJ/kg) and energy productivity(kg/MJ) are expected which had been recorded in the experimental results of Singh et al. (1998), which ultimatelyproved that with the passage of time zero tillage gave theindication of significant improvement in terms of energyTable 3. Energy ( 103 MJ/ha) involved in maizeblackgram cropping system and per cent change in energy (analysed data of 3 years)TreatmentTotal inputEnergy outputNet energyOutput: input ratioEnergy-use efficiencyTillage system (C)C1C0SEmCD (P=0.05)18.1118.010.00010.0001264.47242.593.0818.80246.36224.583.0918.8013.5812.440.161.0314.613.40.171.03Mulch levels (M)M1M0SEmCD (P=0.05)18.0818.060.00010.0001263.47243.591.114.38245.41225.531.124.3813.5612.450.060.2514.613.50.060.25Vermicompost (V)V1V2V3V4SEmCD (P=0.05)16.9518.9219.5716.800.003NS251.10264.91286.98211.141.113.23234.15245.99267.41194.341.113.2313.8113.0013.6611.560.060.1814.814.014.712.60.060.18C1, Conventional tillage; C0, zero tillage; M1, wheat straw mulching; M0, no mulching; V1, 75% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer,i.e.120, 60, 40 kg N, P, K/ha) + vermicompost @ 5 t/ha; V2, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 7.5 t/ ha; V3, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 10t/ha; V4, 100% RDFTable 4. Equivalent yield (EY), specific heat and energy productivity of maizeblackgram cropping systems (analysed data of 3 years)TreatmentMaizeyield(t/ha)Blackgramyield (t/ha)System EY(t/ha)Energy input(103 MJ/ha)Specific heat(MJ/kg)Energyproductivity(kg/MJ)Tillage system (C)C1C0SEmCD (P=0.05)3.343.280.00010.0011.120.990.010.096.325.910.040.2418.1118.010.00010.00012.923.110.020.090.3480.3270.0020.012Mulch levels (M)M1M0SEmCD (P=0.05)3.473.150.020.061.091.020.010.036.365.860.020.0818.0818.060.00010.00012.893.140.010.060.3510.3240.0010.004Vermicompost (V)V1V2V3V4SEmCD (P=0.05)3.193.383.722.940.020.061.151.191.240.6340.010.036.256.547.024.630.040.1116.9518.9219.5716.800.003NS2.722.902.803.640.020.060.3690.3460.3570.2760.0020.006C1, Conventional tillage; C0, zero tillage; M1, wheat straw mulching; M0, no mulching; V1, 75% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer,i.e.120, 60, 40 kg N, P, K/ha) + vermicompost @ 5 t/ha; V2, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 7.5 t/ ha; V3, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 10t/ha, V4, 100% RDF 184DE AND BANDYOPADHYAY[Vol. 64, No. 2Table 5. Economics involved in maizeblackgram cropping system (analysed data of 3 years) and change in incomeTreatmentTotal cost(103 /ha)Gross returns(103 /ha)Net returns(103 /ha)Benefit: cost ratioReturns/day/haTillage system (C)C1C0SEmCD (P=0.05)36.7732.2794.7688.590.583.5057.9956.320.58NS1.561.730.020.112.452.380.02NSMulch levels (M)M1M0SEmCD (P=0.05)34.9234.1295.3987.960.291.1560.4753.840.291.151.721.570.010.042.552.270.010.05Vermicompost (V)V1V2V3V4SEmCD (P=0.05)33.7236.2238.7229.4293.8098.09105.2869.540.551.6260.0761.8766.5540.110.551.621.781.711.721.370.020.052.542.612.811.690.020.07C1, Conventional tillage; C0, zero tillage; M1, wheat straw mulching; M0, no mulching; V1, 75% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer,i.e.120, 60, 40 kg N, P, K/ha) + vermicompost @ 5 t/ha; V2, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 7.5 t/ha; V3, 75% RDF + vermicompost @ 10t/ha, V4, 100% RDF; Wheat straw, 200/ tone; urea, 5.02/kg; single superphospate, 3.20/kg; Muriate of potash, 4.60/kg; vermicompost(production cost only), 1.00/kg, Duration of maizeblackgram cropping system was 197 daysconservations over conventional tillage (Sharma et al.,2011). Maizemungbean/ groundnut-based cropping systems were found to be the best alternative cropping systems considering production efficiency, energy output efficiency, energy-use efficiency and energy productivity(Mohapatra and Pradhan, 2018)
Thus, it was clear that, conservation tillage had the progressive value of energy output and output: input ratiowith passage of time, whereas under conventional tillagemore or less diminishing output and output: input ratiowas observed in the subsequent year. Both mulching andhigher doses of vermicompost also had the positive towards the energy conservation. Thus conservation tillage,mulching and application of vermicompost by partial replacement of chemical fertilizer opened up the betterscope of energy conservation within the system
Economics in maizeblackgram cropping systemIn case of tillage, analysed value of 3 years showedconservation tillage being at par with conventional tillage,fetched the significantly higher net returns of 39.73% inV 3 (10 t/ha vermicompost and 75% of RDF) than V 4(100% RD (120, 60, 40 kg N, P, K/ha) owing, to the factthat higher gross income from the preceding crop maizeowing to the higher yield obtained in final (Table 5). Thehighest benefit: cost ratio of (1.73) was observed at zerotillage (C0) due to lower total cost and insignificantly better yield from the preceding crop maize and successiveblackgram compared to conventional tillage, during theyears, respectively (Sharma et al., 2009). The lowest werewith no mulching at both the tillages, indicating the savingof a considerable amount of money (Sharma et al., 2011)
Irrespective of tillage and mulch treatments recommended dose of chemical fertilizer brought about highergross income from the preceding crop maize owing to thehigher yield obtained in all the 3 years of experimentation
However, supplementation of chemical fertilizer with progressively increased dose of vermicompost fetched convincingly higher amount of gross income from the succeeding blackgram which had the significantly better yieldperformance from the residual effect of vermicompost. Asa whole the cumulative effect of applications ofvermicompost had the total gross income and better benefit: cost ratio over recommended dose of chemical fertilizer from maizeblackgram cropping system (Satyajeet etal., 2007). Furthermore, when the comparison was madebetween the individual years the increment in terms of income change corresponding to zero tillage, in conventional tillage the variations were less prominent and again,zero tillage under both mulched and unmulched treatmentshowed positive increment in income change which ultimately revealed that with the passage of time zero tillagegave the indication of significant improvement in terms ofincome generation over conventional tillage (Fig. 1)
Though under conventional tillage associated withmulching, beyond 5 t/ha vermicompost did not give the June 2019]ENERGY EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AGRO-TECHNIQUES FOR MAIZEremunerative return but under zero tillage (with mulching)farmers could go up to the highest level of vermicompostapplication (10 t/ha) saving the money from conventionaltillage. In this way, they will not only get the better opportunity to reduce the ill-effect of unnecessary heavy tillagebut also the additional advantage of improved yield andyield-attributing characters of succeeding blackgram fromthe higher amount of vermicompost application
Bailey, A.P., Basford, W.D., Penlington, N., Park, J.R., Keatinge,J.D.H., Rehman, T., Tranter, R.B. and Yates, C.M. 2003. Acomparison of energy use in conventional and integratedarable farming systems in the UK. Agriculture, Ecosystemsand Environment 97(13): 241253
Bonari, E., Mazzoncini, M., Peruzzi, A. and Silvestri, N. 1992. Energetic evaluations of productive systems at different level ofcultural intensification. Informatore Agrario 1: 125
Borin, M., Menini, C. and Sartori, L. 1997. Effects of tillage systemson energy and carbon balance in north-eastern Italy. Soil andTillage Research 40(34): 209226
Campliglia, E., Colla, G., Mancinelli, R., Rouphael, Y. and Marucci,A. 2007. Energy balance of intensive vegetable croppingsystems in Central Italy. Acta Horticulturae 747(747): 185191
Cavalaries, C.C. and Gemtos, T.A. 2004. Evaluation of tillage efficiency and energy requirements for five methods of soilpreparation in the sugarbeet crop. (In) Proceedings of Conference on Ecology Efficiency and Agricultural Engineering,held at Rousse, Bulgaria, pp. 110116
Chaudhary, V.P., Gangwar, B. and Pandey, D.K. 2006. Auditing ofenergy use and output of different cropping systems in India
Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR e-journal8: 113
Cosic, B., Stani, Z. and Dui, N. 2011. Geographic distribution ofeconomic potential of agricultural and forest biomass residual for energy use: Case study Croatia. Energy 36: 2,0172,028
Edwards, C.A.1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. American Journal of AlternativeAgriculture 2(4): 148152
Mohapatra, A.K.B. and Pradhan, K.C. 2018. Evaluation of productive, profitable and energy-efficient alternate cropping system options for pikka tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) onAlfisols of Odisha. Indian Journal of Agronomy 63(2): 211215
Patzek, P. 2004. Thermodynamics of the corn-ethanol biofuel cycle
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23(6): 519567
Pimentel, D. and Patzek, T.W. 2005. Ethanol production using corn,switchgrass and wood: Biodiesel production using soybeanand sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14(1): 6576
Pimentel, D., Hurd, L.E., Belloti, A.C., Forster, M.J., Oka, I.N.,Sholes, O.O. and Whitman, R.J. 1973. Food production andthe energy crisis. Science 182(4,111): 443449
Rathke, G.W., Wienhold, B.J., Wilhelm, W.W. and Diepenbrock, W
Tillage and rotation effect on cornsoybean energybalances in eastern Nebraska. Soil and Tillage Research 97:6070
Risoud, B. 2000. Energy efficiency of various French farming systems: questions and sustainability. In: International Conference on Sustainable energy: New Challenges for Agricultureand Implications for Land Use, held during 1820 May,2000 at the Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Russel, E.W. 1971. Soil structure. Its maintenance and improvement. European Journal of Soil Science 22(2): 137151
Satyajeet, Nanwal, R.K., Yadav, V.K. and Kumar, P. 2007. Effect ofintegrated nutrient management on productivity of pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum) and its residual effect on succeeding mustard (Brassica juncea). Journal of Research,Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 37(1): 1518
Sharma, P., Abrol, V. and Sharma, R.K. 2011. Impact of tillage andmulch management on economics, energy requirement andcrop performance in maizewheat rotation in rainfedsubhumid inceptisols. European Journal of Agronomy34(1): 4651
Sharma, P., Abrol, V., Sankar, G.R.M. and Singh, B. 2009. Influenceof tillage practices and mulching options on productivity,economics and soil physical properties of maize (Zea mays)wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79(11): 865870
Singh, M.K., Pal, S.K., Thakur, R. and Verma, U.N. 1998. Integrated nutrient energy management for sustainability inmaize (Zea mays)wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 68(12): 784787
Singh, R., Sharma, A.R., Dhyani, S.K. and Dube, R.K. 2011. Tillage and mulching effects on performance of maize (Zeamays)wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system undervarying land slopes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences81(4): 330335
Toderi, G. and Bonari, E. 1986. Soil tillage: Crop management aspects. II. Tillage and crops. Revista di Agronomia 20(2-3):106-133
Umar, B. 2003. Comparison of manual and manual-cum-mechanical energy uses in groundnut production in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGRJournal of Scientific Research and Development 5
USDA, 2010. USDA Nutrient Database, GNUtrition (lists.gnu.org)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
