energy and monetary analysis of...

Chapter-IV

Energy and Monetary analysis of agroecosystems

Introduction

Agricultural production sustainability is a complex concept dealing with

biophysical, social and economic environment and the interlinkages (Broun et aI.,

1987; Brklacich et al., 1991; Gliessman, 1981, 1992; Swaminathan, 1996). Energy and

monetary input-output budgeting provide insights into the sustainability of agricultural

production systems and the environmental problems and their relations to sustainability

(Pimental, 1990; Mitchell, 1979; Pal et aI., 1985; Giampetro et al., 1992;

Ramakrishnan, 1992). Some efforts have been made to assess the energy flows in

intensive agricultural zones such as Punjab-Haryana and comparable areas (Pal et aI.,

1985; Singh et aI., 1990; Sarkar, 1997). However, these studies have concentrated on

experimental farms as the unit of observation. Studies on farmers plots and considering

micro-scale variability within village landscapes, though available from other parts of

the country (Pandey and Singh, 1984; Patnaik and Ramakrishnan, 1989; Toky and

Ramakrishnan, 1981,1982; Maikhuri and Ramakrishnan, 1990, 1991; Mishra and

Ramakrishnan, 1982; Maikhuri et aI., 1996; Nautiyal et aI., 1998) are lacking in the

intensive agricultural zone. This chapter deals with a detailed analysis of energy and

monetary an<}lysis of agricultural landscape of village Rohad.

Methods Spatio-temporal variability in agroecosystems of village Rohad was classified

based on two features: irrigation and crop type. Based on the attributes of irrigation

three agroecosystems types could be differentiation: rainfed or unirrigated

agroecosystems, agroecosystems receiving irrigation from canal water and

agroecosystems receiving irrigation from ground water drawn through tube wells

(hereafter referred to as unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated

agroecosystems/land use. Further differentiation in each of these three types of

45

agroecosystems/land use was based on the crop grown by traditional sources of

irrigation water, the ponds and wells, have markedly reduced and more over not at all

used since last 15 years. As described earlier, two harvests are taken in a year but many

a times land is fallowed in one or both growing seasons of the year. In all, four crops

were grown during rainy season and three crops during winter season. Wheat, paddy

and sorghum were grown in all the three agroecosystem types differing in respect of

irrigation, pearl millet only in unirrigated and canal irrigated areas, berseem in

unirrigated and tubewell irrigated land, and mustard and pigeon pea only in unirrigated

land. Paddy/fallow-wheat rotation was most prevalent rotation. Thus, wheat crops

could be further differentiated as wheat crops following fallowing during preceding

kharif season or following paddy during preceding kharif season. Such differentiation

within a crop could not be established for other crops during the period of study. Each

crop is represented by one cultiver/variety.

Ten households (land holding size ranging from 5 ha to 7 ha, the most

dominant land holding class in the village), were selected for budgeting energy and

monetary inputs and outputs. While inputs were estimated considering the whole area

under a given crop of a household as a unit, outputs were measured in 8 quadrats (of 1

m x 1 m size) distributed ev~n1y in the selected households. Heads of these households

were contacted regularly to have advance information on the farming activities. Such

informal relationship with two farmers could not be maintained with two of ten

households and these were excluded from sampling after about 6 months.

Inputs viz. seeds, fossil fuel used for tillage by tractors, insecticide spray,

operation of tubewells, threshing, and transportation of outputs to the nearest market,

labour input from men and women and chemicals including fertilizers and pesticides

were monitored for each crop type. Fertilizers, pesticides and fossil fuels were

measured at the time of application/operating machines. Durations of sedentary,

moderate or heavy works by males and females (Leach, 1976) were noted. The area

46

under each crop type for all eight households was measured. Per ha input was obtained

by dividing the quantity of input spent by a household by the area of the crop.

At the time of weeding, density of different weed species was counted in 10

quadrats each of 1m x lrn size in each crop type and each household. Twenty

individuals of each weed species were sampled for biomass estimation. Weeds were

classified based on whether they were used as green fodder or recycled directly. The

following weed species were frequently found in the study area, as phylaris minor,

chenopodium album, C}peral rotundus, bacopa sps., jimbristylis sps, brachiaria

ramosa etc. Twenty weeded individuals of each weed species were weighed in the

field. Similarly, crop density was enumerated in twenty quadrats for each crop type in

each household. At the time of harvest, twenty random individuals of a crop in a given

agroecosystem type were sampled, separated into edible/economic yield and straw/crop

by products, and weighed. Average output of grain, straw (according to Bacon, 1979

straw includes almost any above ground part of a plant that remains after the seeds have

been harvested, which is rich in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin), quantity of weeds

used as fodder and of unpalatable weeds per ha for each crop for a household was

obtained by multiplying the mean output per plant and plant density. Output attributes

of a crop were computed as mean of household level data.

Monetary values of the inputs were calculated on the basis of purchase price

during the period of study July 1996 to April 1998. Selling price was used to calculate

the monetary values of the outputs. Standard energy values of inputs and outputs given

in Aykroyd et at. (1951); Gopalan et al. (1985) and Mitchell (1979) were used for

budgeting. Monetary and energy values used for budgeting are given in Appendix 1 to

5.

Mean energy and monetary inputs and outputs of Kharif and Rabi crops were

calculated based on the attributes of different crops and their areas. Similarly, a

generalized picture of the three agroecosystem types was obtained based on the

47

individual crop attributes and the total area of a given agroecosystem type in the

village. Area under different crops and fallow are discussed in Chapter 3.

Results

Inputs: individual crops

Primary measurements of inputs of different crops in different agronomic

conditions are given in Tables 4.1-4.4. These primary measurements were converted to

energy and monetary equivalents which are presented in Fig. 4.a-1. Quantities of inputs

sources of variation in energy input in the present study include the effect of crop

(seven crops grown in the village), year (sampling done for two years 1996 July and

1998 April), agroecosystem type (unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated

agroecosystems) and fallow/crop preceding the sampled one (this effect was delimited

only to wheat crop). Data presented in Fig. 4.a-b show that effects of year and

preceding conditions were not as prominent as differences between crops and

agroecosystem types. In case of all crops, energy inputs between two years (1996-1997

and 1997-1998) did not show any prominent difference. Inputs in wheat grown after a

fallow phase did not differ from that grown after paddy.

Energy input

Comparison of inputs in crops grown in all three agroecosystem types viz.

wheat, paddy and sorghum showed that while there was no effect of agroecosystem

type in case of sorghum and paddy, prominent differences were observed in case of

wheat. Wheat crop received higher input of chemicals applied in the form of pesticides

(Isoproturon and 2,4D at the rate of 1.235 kg/ha) and fertilizers at the rate of 370.5 kg

urea/ha and 123.5 kg Diamonium phosphate under irrigated system as compared to

61.75 kg/ha urea and 123.5 kg/ha Diamonium phosphate in the unirrigated system.

Canal irrigated wheat crop differed from tubewell irrigated wheat crop in that use of

energy in fossil fuels, on account of their use for running the tubewells, was higher in

the latter agroecosystem type as compared to the former. Human labour accounted for

48

the lowest input in all crops and agroecosystem types. Synthetic chemicals accounted

for more than 50% of total input in these crops. Total energy input in wheat crop under

unirrigated conditions was 12 GJ/ha compared to about 20 GJ/ha in canal irrigated area

and about 25 GJ per ha in tubewell irrigated area. Total input to paddy cultivation was

about 8 GJ/ha and about 2.5 GJ/ha in sorghum in all the three agroecosystem types

(Fig. 4.a-d).

Pearl millet grown in unirrigated and canal irrigated conditions received similar

levels of inputs (about 5 GJ/ha). About 70% of total energy input was accounted by

fertilizers, 25% by fossil fuels used largely for tillage and remaining 5% by human

labour and seeds (Fig. 4.e).

In case of berseem, energy input through chemicals in tubewell irrigated

condition (about 7 GJ/ha) was about two times of that in unirrigated condition (4

GJ/ha). Input through fossil fuels, labour and seeds did not differ much between the

two conditions. Fossil fuel use in operating tubewells was not as high as in wheat and

mustard because frequencey and intensity of irrigation in berseem were much lower

(Fig.4.e).

Mustard and pigeon pea grown only in unirrigated conditions received a total

input of about 9 GJ/ha and 5 GJ/ha, respectively. About 60% of total input was through

fertilizers in mustard compared to about 25% in pigeon pea (Fig. 4.f).

Comparisons of crops grown during winter season (Rabi crops) showed that

wheat was the most energy intensive crop receiving 11.4GJ/ha (unirrigated

condition),22.87GJ/ha( canal irrigated condition),25.5GJ/ha(tubewell irrigated

condition followed by mustard (8.651GJ/ha) and berseem (3.68GJ/ha) respectively.

Differences among these three crops were more because of differences in input of

chemicals (fertilizers+pesticides), fossil fuels and seeds. Comparison of Kharif season

49

crops showed that paddy was the most energy intensive crop receiving about 8.71GJ/ha

followed by pearl millet receiving 5.8GJ/ha(unirrigatet condition)6.07GJIha(canal

irrigated condition), pigeon pea(4.5GJ/ha) and sorghum, receiving 2.4GJ/ha(unirrigated

condition),2. 74GJ/ha(irrigated condition).

Monetary input

Human labour accounted for the highest proportion of total input, though the

magnitude of this input varied among crops and agroecosystem type. HUman labour

cost in wheat and paddy was of similar magnitude (Rs 4068.91 and Rs 4386.5/ha,

respectively) compared to Rs 3814/ha in pigeon pea, Rs 2920 in berseem, Rs 2092.5 in

mustard and Rs 1185 in pearl millet. Fertilizer input was highest in. wheat (Rs 2136 in

unirrigated system to Rs 3275/ha in irrigated system) followed by mustard (Rs

1121/ha), paddy (Rs 1027/ha), pigeon pea (Rs 531), pearl millet (Rs 435/ha), berseem

(Rs 185/ha in unirrigated,Rs.456/ha in tubewell irrigated condition) and sorghum (Rs

100/ha). Total monetary cost of cultivation was highest for wheat (Rs 9562/ha)

followed by paddy (Rs6305.7/ha), berseem (Rs.5334/ha), pigeon pea (Rs 51931ha),

sorghum(2019/ha)and pearl millet(l918/ha).

Output: individual crops

Biomass

The biomass of crops was estimated component wise viz. root, stem, leaves,

husk, grains etc and presented in appendix 6-10. Data on output in the form of

quantities of edible/economic yield, straw, weeds fed to livestock and unpalatable

weeds measured in field (oven dry weights given in appendix 6-10) are given in Tables

4.5-4.8. In crops grown in all the three situations (i.e., rainfed/unirrigated, canal

irrigated and tubewell irrigated), means of the above four output components were

compared using least significant difference (LSD) at P = 0.05. Crops grown in . two

conditions or two years in similar agroecosystem type were compared using t-test

(Snedecor and Cochran, 1967).

50

Wheat : Grain yield of wheat varied from 2901 kg/ha in second crop grown after

fallow in unirrgated condition to 5403 kg/ha in first crop following paddy. Yield of

wheat grain and straw was highest in tubewell irrigated crops followed by cailal

irrigated and unirrigated crops. However, the difference in output was not significant

(P>0.05) between canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated conditions in second crop of

wheat after paddy or fallow. Weeds were more abundant in tubewell irrigated crops as

compared to canal and unirrigated crops. Growth and abundance of weeds was higher

in first crop following fallow phase as compared to that following paddy during the

preceding cropping period. However, this effect of preceding period was not observed

between second crops of wheat. In most cases, in the first crop after paddy or fallow,

quantity of unpalatable weeds was lower than that of palatable ones but during the

second crop unpalatable weeds dominated over the palatable ones (Table 4.5).

Paddy: In both years of study, the highest level of output in the form of grains or crop

bypro ducts used as straw was observed in canal irrigated areas followed by tubewell

irrigated and unirrigated areas. Grain yield was 2368-2206 kg/ha (during first year and

second year respectively) in canal "irrigated areas compared to 1862-1975 kg/ha in

tubewell irrigated areas and 1669-1775 kg/ha in unirrigated areas. Unpalatable weeds

dominated over the palatable weeds during first year of study but this difference was

not observed during the second year of study (Table 4.6).

Sorghum: Sorghum, a crop grown earlier both for fodder and human food, is now

grown only for fodder production. It is used as green fodder and also stored as straw to

be used during lean periods. The highest yield was observed in the tubewell irrigated

areas (23400-24300 kg/ha) followed by canal irrigated areas (21800-24100 kg/ha) and

unirrigated areas (18200-19700 kg/ha). However, the difference between canal and

tubewell irrigated crops was not significant (P>0.05) during the second year of study.

While weeds were more profuse in irrigated areas as compared to unirrigated areas

51

during first year of study, all the three areas showed similar level of weed growth

during second year of study. None of the weed species were used as fodder (Table 4.7).

Pearl millet: Pearl millet, like sorghum, was earlier grown for both fodder and human

food purposes but is now grown only for fodder and in unirrigated and canal irrigated

areas. Output of both crop and weed component was significantly (P<O.OI) higher in

canal irrigated area as compared to the unirrigated area. Irrigated area yielded 19750-

22150 kg/ha of fodder as compared to --17080-18200 kg/ha from unirrigated area.

Further, growth during second year of study was higher than that observed during the

first year of study (Table 4.8).

Berseem: Berseem, a fodder crop of winter season and grown in unirrigated and

tubewell irrigated areas, output was significantly (p<0.05) higher in tubewell irrigated

areas as compared to the unirrigated areas in both the years of study. Straw/fodder

output from unirrigated area (33300 and 31200 kg/ha in first and second year of the

study, respectively) compared to 37900-34017 kg/ha in irrigated area. However, the

effect of year was not significant (P<0.05) in terms of weed popUlations. Like pearl

millet and sorghum, weeds coming up along with this crop are not used as fodder

(Table 4.9).

Mustard: Grain yields were estimated as 1507 kg/ha in 1997 and 1620 kg/ha in 1998

and straw as 3498 kg/ha in 1997 and 3755 kg/ha in 1998. Mustard grown only in

unirrigated condition did not show any significant difference in grain, straw and

unpalatable weed growth between two years (Table 4.10).

Pigeon pea: Grain yield of pigeon pea estimated in 1996 (1680 kg/ha) was

significantly (P<0.05) lower than that in 1997 (1871 kg/ha). The effect of year was not

significant (P>0.05) for crop byproduct yield and weed biomass (Table 4.10).

52

Output: energy

Wheat: About 40% of total energy output was in the fonn of grain/economic yield

component. Energy output through grain component varied from 43.76GJIha to 71.79

GJ/ha and through straw component from 73.04GJ/ha to 97.83GJ/ha. The first crop of

wheat after paddy showed highest output under tubewell irrigated condition followed

by canal irrigated and unirrigated conditions. However, tubewell and canal irrigated

crops showed similar levels of output in second crop of wheat after paddy. Wheat crops

raised after a fallow phase during Kharif crop showed trends different from those raised

after paddy cultivation. The unirrigated and canal irrigated crops showed comparable

outputs when grown after a fallow phase during Kharif season, whereas there was no

significant difference between canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated crops in second

crop of wheat after fallow. Weeds accounted for less than 5% of total energy output

and were more dominant in tubewell irrigated areas. Total energy output (crop+weed

component) varied from 124.4 GJ/ha to 181.32 GJ/ha (Fig 4.b).

Paddy: In both years of study, canal irrigated system showed higher output of both

edible (32.7 GJ/ha) and straw (63.7 GJ/ha) as compared to 24.6 GJ/ha of grain

component and 43.2 GJ/ha of straw component from unirrigated and canal irrigated

crops. Unirrigated and tubewell irrigated crops showed similar levels of output. Edible

component accounted for about 32% of total energy output and this proportion was not

affected by irrigation or year. Energy output from palatable weeds was substantially

lower than that from unpalatable weeds (Fig. 4.c).

Sorghum: Total energy output from sorghum was marginally lower in unirrigated

condition (74.61/ha) in comparison to canal and tubewell irrigated crops. Canal and

tubewell irrigated crops showed similar level of outputs (90.36/GJ/ha and 93.9 GJ/ha

respectively. Contribution of weed biomass to total output varied from 3.08 to 4.51

GJ/ha (Fig. 4.d).

53

Pearl millet: Pearl millet, like sorghum, was earlier grown for both fodder and human

food purposes but is now grown only for fodder and in unirrigated and canal irrigated

areas. Output from unirrigated crop was about 70 GJ/ha compared to 82.5 GJ/ha from

the canal irrigated crop. Unpalatable weeds accounted for about 5% of total energy

output. This proportion was not affected by irrigation or year (Fig. 4.e).

Berseem: Berseem, a fodder crop of winter season and grown in unirrigated and

tubewell irrigated areas, yielded about 140 GJ/ha in unirrigated condition as compared

to about 160 GJ/ha in tubewell irrigated area. Weeds accounted for less that 5% of

total output from the qop and this proportion was not affected by year or irrigation

(Fig.4.e).

Mustard: Energy output from mustard in the year 1996 was comparable to that in the

year 1997. Total output was about 95 GJ/ha of which 38.4% was from seeds, 54.8%

from straw, 1.9% from palatable weeds and 4.9% from unpalatable weeds (Fig. 4.f).

Pigeon pea: Similar to mustard, pigeon pea did not show any prominent difference in

energy output between two years. Of the total output of about 130 GJ/ha, 18.6% was

accounted by grain component, 76.6% by straw component and 3.5% by unpalatable

weed component (Fig. 4.f)

Monetary output

Monetary equivalent of the output from different crops is shown in Fig. 4.g-1.

While farmers took grains to the government procurement agencies located in

Bahadurgarh tehsil and borne the transport cost themselves, crop by products were

purchased by private traders within the village. Thus no transportation cost was borne

by the farmers in case of straw. The effects of year, irrigation and preceding crops were

54

similar to those observed in energy output patterns. Monetary value of grains was about

four times oft:hat of straw, though·the latter was produced in larger quantities. Weeds,

palatable or unpalatable, had no market.

Output: input ratio

Eleven units of energy were obtained per unit of energy input from unirrigated

wheat crop as compared to 6 units from canal irrigated and 7 units from tubewell

irrigated crops (mean of crops following fallow and paddy). Twelve units of energy

were obtained per unit of energy input from canal irrigated paddy crops compared to 10

units from tubewell irrigated and 9 units from unirrigated crop. Output/input ratio did

not differ in sorghum crop in the three agroecosystem types (Oil ratio varied from

32.14 to 35.61) as much as wheat and paddy grown in all the three agroecosystem

types. Of the two crops grown only in unirrigated conditions, pigeon pea showed

output/input ratio of 29.53 compared to 10.64 in case of mustard. Among the three

winter season crops, fodder crop berseem was most energy efficient and was followed

by unirrigated wheat and mustard crops. Among the rainy season crops, sorghum was

most efficient followed by pearl millet and paddy irrigated by canal water. Comparison

of all crops grown in the village showed unirrigated berseem and sorghum to be most

energy efficient and canal irrigated wheat to be the least efficient crop (Table 4.11).

About 10-11 units of economic currency were returned per unit of monetary input from

sorghum and pearl millet compared to 5.5 units from pigeon pea and 1.6-4.5 units from

other crops.

Energy and monetary efficiency at landscape scale

Energy and monetary inputs and outputs for the mean farm holding size was

computed using crop attributes described above and area under different crops.

Differences between unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated segments of the

landscape were more prominent in Rabi season as compared to Kharif season. Total

energy input to unirrigated land in Kharif season was similar to that in Rabi season

55

(about 4 GJ/ha). Energy input in canal irrigated land was about 6 GJ/ha during Kharif

season compared to about 20 GJ/ha during Rabi season. Total input in tubewell

irrigated area in Kharif season was about 6 GJ/ha compared to about 13 GJ/ha in Rabi

season. Chemicals constituted the most dominant input followed by fossil fuels (used

for ploughing, irrigation in case tubewells, threshing) in all the cases. Total output did

not differ much between unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated areas during

Kharif season. However, energy accounted by grain output in unirrigated area was less

than half of that from irrigated areas. During Rabi season, energy output from irrigated

crops was substantially higher than that from the unirrigated crops. Straw was the most

dominant output followed by seeds in both seasons (Fig. 4.m-n).

Monetary inputs in Kharif as well as Rabi crops and outputs from Rabi crops

showed effect of irrigation similar to that on energy. During Kharif season, while canal

irrigated crop showed the highest output in terms of energy, unirrigated one showed the

highest output in terms of monetary currency (Fig. 4.m-n).

Energy output and input ratios worked out at the scale of mean farm holding are

given in Table 4.12. Average household obtained 7 units of energy from Rabi crop per

unit of input and 15.3 unit from Kharif crops. However, in terms of monetary currency,

rate of return from Rabi crop (output/input ratio: 3.22) was not much different from

that from Kharif crop (output/input ratio: 3.87) (Table 4.12).

Discussion

Energy and monetary input-output budgeting is a common approach for

assessment of production efficiency of different crops and cropping systems.

Boundaries of the production system need to be appropriately defmed in space and time

for making meaningful comparisons (Giampetro et aI., 1992). In this analysis, energy

and economic inputs and output patterns have been analysed at two levels: individual

crops grown under varied irrigation regimes and the mean farm holding. Some energy

56

costs, such as cost of energy in transporting fertilizers and pesticides from the

production sites to the retailers supplying fanners, cost of energy in maintaining and

manufacturing of agricultural machinery (tractors, threshers), costs of construction and

maintenance of water flow in canals have been ignored (Pimentel, 1990). Similarly,

subsidy provided by government on different inputs (Acharya, 1992) has also been

ignored. Use of energy values available in literature rather than estimating and using

energy values from own analysis could be viewed as a limitation of the study. The

focus of the study was to evaluate in what ways energy and economic costs and

benefits affect fanners decision making on choice of crops, land use intensity and the

environmental and economic implications of the land use changes. The limitations

listed above do not come significantly in way of this objective as discussed in Nautiyal

et al. (1998).

Traditional fanning in the area (before 1970s) was characterised by low leve.l of

energy inputs, use of locally available energy sources and a high level of energy use

efficiency as also observed in many other traditional farming systems (Mitchell, 1979;

Ramakrishnan, 1992; Nautiyal et al., 1998). Energy in the form crop by-products used

to be recycled though integration of crop husbandry with animal husbandry. Crop

diversity used to be quite high and cropping patterns were designed to reduce the risks

of total crop failure, help maintain soil fertility and reduce external energy inputs.

Traditional farming systems changed with time and with emergence of new

opportunities and constraints the world over. The changes induced by trial and error

experiences of the farniing communities over generations were however not as

prominent as those induced ·by external forces. The improvements in traditional

agriculture were brought in to achieve food security and survival on a local scale and

not from the point of regional or national food security. When and where it has been

recognized that there is a problem, some remedial action is recommended and

instituted through policies in the present set-up (Redclift 1992). Transformation of

traditional less energy intensive and local resource based crop-liv~stock integrated

57

fanning was geared by policies aiming for achieving food self-sufficiency and security

at a scale much larger than that conceived by the traditional village communities.

Amongst the inputs, irrigation is not an input altogether unknown to the

fanners. The traditional means of irrigation, largely the ponds and wells, were different

from the new ones, the canals and tubewells. All the costs of traditional irrigation

means were borne by the users, i.e., the farmers, collectively or individually. In the new

irrigation system, the costs are subsidized by the government. The canal system is

owned by the government and canal water is provided to farmers on a nominal payment

of Rs 74.10/ha/crop. Quality of canal water coming from the Himalayan mountain

system is considered to be better than the quality of ground water. Steady and adequate

supply of canal water can be ensured only when the Himalayan watersheds are properly

protected (Hamilton, 1987; Ives and Messerli, 1989). Efficiency of canal irrigation has

been deteriorating partly because of degradation of Himalayan watersheds and partly

because of deterioration of distribution and management of canal water by the

government faced to budgetary and other constraints. As such canal based irrigation is

environmentally more sound as it does not involve use of fossil fuels as compared to

tubewells largely run by diesel based pumps. However, stress on tubewell based

irrigation is increasing as they are privately owned and so are not subjected to the risks

faced by common or public properties like canals (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom et aI., 1999).

In the present case, canal water was abundantly available during Kharif season, a

period when rainfall is also high, but not during Rabi crop when it is more needed. Of

the two major crops, paddy during Kharif season and wheat during Rabi season, the

highest level of paddy output was observed in canal irrigated area and that of wheat in

tubewell irrigated area. In some areas, tubewell based irrigation of paddy could sustain

much higher levels of outputs in comparable ecological conditions (2400-5800 kg/ha of

grain yield and 1860-6290 kglha of straw yield; Sarkar (1997) as compared to the

present study (1800-2100 kglha of grain yield and 3000-4500 kglha of straw yield).

This difference is partly because of different variety effect, crop management effects

58

but, apparently, largely because of quality of irrigation water and its management and

use. Farmers in the present case have realized that ground water in the village is too

saline to be appropriate for irrigating paddy. For this reason, paddy crop does suffer

from water stress resulting in lower output. The study of Sarkar (1997) shows higher

energy input for cultivation of paddy than wheat in optimally irrigated conditions using

tubewells (15.4 OJ/ha for paddy and 10.8 OJ/ha for wheat). In contrast, in the present

study, energy input to wheat crop was higher (about 24 OJ/ha in canal irrigated area

and 26 OJ/ha in tubewell irrigated area) as compared to paddy (about 8 OJ/ha in canal

irrigated area and 8.4 OJ/ha in tubewell irrigated area). Yields of paddy in the present

case 1800-2100 kglha are much lower than noted elsewhere for paddy based systems in

other agroeconomic regions (Pal et aI., 1985). This could be attributed to deterioration

in quality of ground water as well as improper management and utilization of canal

water. Ideally, the policy should promote for tubewell based irrigation where canal

network has not reached, rather than allowing it to grow as an alternative to canal

irrigation.

Wheat-paddy rotation has become an important crop rotation all through the

northern India following introduction of high yielding varieties, as also observed in the

present micro-level study. Energy output: input ratios for wheat-paddy rotation based

on the data presented above (output from wheat+paddy in a year/input to wheat+paddy

in a year) are 10.2, 7.l and 7.97 for unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated

conditions compared to ratios in the range of 1.27-1.80 reported by Singh et al. (1997)

and Sharma (1991) in the Himalayan region and in the range of 3.2-6.8 in experimental

farms as reported in Pal et al. (1985). A more recent study by Sarkar shows the

output:input ratio as 3.86. A synthesis of energetics of agroecosystems by Pal et al.

(1985) considering largely the data collected from agricultural research institutions

shows that areas showing the highest level of output are least efficient in terms of

energy use efficiency. In the present case, the unirrigated agroecosystem yielded lowest

quantities of output in absolute terms but was more efficient in terms of energy output

59

per unit of energy input.

Energy and monetary inputs, outputs and energy or monetary efficiency

computed as output/input ratios may not be necessarily correlated. In the present study,

tubewell irrigated wheat crop showed highest values of energy or monetary input while

berseem showed the highest input output ratios, among the winter crops. Among the

Kharif crops, canal irrigated paddy showed the highest levels of energy as well as

monetary input and energy output, pigeon pea the highest level of monetary output and

sorghum the highest level of energy as well as monetary output::input ratio. Sorghum,

despite of being a highly remunerative fodder crop and also less energy intensive, is not

being grown on a larger scale partly because replacement of draught power by tractors

has led to a drastic reduction in livestock population. An important reason behind fast

expansion of wheat-paddy rotation is a more organized and secured market of these

two staple crops.

Practices such as rotating legumes with cereals or fallowing are known to

reduce energy inputs in the form of fertilizers (Pal et ai., 1985; Sarkar, 1997; Pathak

and Sarkar; 1994; Azam, 1990; Scott et ai., 1989; Singh and Singh, 1993; Swift and

Woomer, 1994) but are becoming uncommon. There seem two major reasons for this

trend. First, the extent of amelioration in soil fertility through natural process is too low

to get reflected in terms of a substantial increase in output over a short time frame.

Second, fertilizers are highly subsidised inputs and farmers find it more cost effective

to use fertilizers rather than to adopt fallowing or legume-non-Iegume crop rotation.

Moreover, continued application of larger quantities of fertilizers and erratic irrigation

management increases soil salinity which becomes an additional constraint in making

choice of crops. Farmers in village Rohad have virtually abandoned growing gram, a

legume, because this crop suffers large scale mortality in the present level of salinity

alkalinity.

60

The average size of land holding in the study village (1.81 ha) and PWljab

Haryana region as a whole is larger than the values reported for other cOWltries like

Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. ( 0.13 ha, 0.10 ha and .53 ha, respectively) and other

parts of inherently productive areas of the COWltry (Anonymous, 1992a). Supply of

inputs highly expensive in tenus of fossil fuel energy such as fertilizers, fann

machinery, tubewells at a highly subsidised price, development of infrastructure for

supply and procurement of the produce at public cost and other incentives led to fast

improvement in fann economy in Punjab-Haryana belt. As at present, human labour

available \vithin the village is not fully utilized while the tendency of hiring labour is

getting more and more common as a result of substantial accumulation of savings from

large holdings. The recent problem of aggravation of Phylaris minor, a weed of wheat

crop, seems to be partly related to land use-land cover changes and their ecological

impacts, and partly to casual attention to weeding by the hired labour. This weed

resembling closely to wheat is Wlcommon in the areas to which the migrant labourers

belong to. Because of Wlfamiliarity, desired level of weeding seems to be not achieved.

Local farmers are able to distinguish it but are withdrawing from Wldertaking weeding

activities as they are economically stronger enough to hire labour. Hiring of labour has

now become a status symbol. The improvement in farm economy and infrastructure led

to farmers' risk absorption capacity and sub-optimal uses of energy expensive inputs.

This is evident from use of high yielding varieties and substantial quantities of

fertilizers even in Wlirrigated areas. Use of organic manure which may substantially

reduce fertilizer input without any reduction in yields has been completely abandoned.

Long tenu sustainability of the recent changes towards energy intensive and

profit oriented cropping systems become doubtful when one considers the possibility

of withdrawal of subsidy and hike in price of non-renewable fossil fuel resource

leading to increase in costs of yield increasing inputs like inorganic fertilizers and

pesticides. India imports currently 2769 tones of chemical fertilizers accoWlting 22%

of annual consumption (Anonymous, 1992). About 50% cost of inorganic fertilizers is

61

subsidized by the Government. Traditional knowledge based options such as

manipulation of composition, timing of recycling of residues and compo sting process

establishing synchrony between the release of nutrients from locally available organic

inputs and crop demands need to be thoroughly investigated (prasad and Goswami,

1992; Saxena et a!., 1993b). Cooperative marketing and value addition to the farm

produce locally could be other options by which small farmers can realize cash income

without intensification of energy use. A diversified agroforestry (crop husbandry

animal husbandry-trees/woody perennials integration) based production system would

comprise between the environmental and economic concerns. Costs borne by the

Government for reducing farmer's use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides when their

adverse effects become severe could be quite high (Anderson, 1990; Singh et al.,

1997). Integration of traditional farming strategies and modern technologies

(Gliessman et a!., 1981; Pluckett and Smith, 1986; Denevan and Padoch, 1987; Smith,

1990; Sarkar, 1997) together with appropriate policy instruments is required for

promotion of sustainable land use in the intensive agricultural zone.

1I'alM~ 4U ; Q{UI.mrm~Dtty ([JIj)' I!iIDj)'j)'~Il"~rm~ nrmlJllun~§. allJllip'lllite.rll Uffil wlli\~811tt (CJrI[j)IJll§ IP)J(I[j)(CtetelllkemJ !by j)'alllll([JIw/ll"n(C~ (cll1ln~n'V.m~n([JIrm nrm I!iInj)'j)'~Jr~rm~ aI~Il"([JI~(CI[j)§y§ttteUTIl\ ttylP'te§.

TIru.beweH----l Unirrigated---' Canal

irrigated! l.!lmgated I

I-:-I-st-c-'-r-op-o-'-f-. ---+-S-ee-d-s---1-:-1-2-3-. s----f-1-ll-.-2 -----.-i 11.2 ---1 wheat after (Kglha) I nee Fossil fuels 100.3 122.3 191.7 l

OLitre/ha) ~--+-------+-- I Labour 46.4 52.9 I 54.0'

Ist crop of wheat after fanow

2nd crop of wheat after nee

O\1andays) I I I I

~S-y-n-ili-e-ti-c--+-1-85-.-0----~4-9-6-.4---~9-'6-.0--'----~

chemicals (Kg/ha) Seeds (Kglha)

123.5 111.2 111.2

Fossil fuels 108.1 111.9 1 ]189.0 1-:-(L"-:-iit_re_Ih_aL--) __ +-_____ -l-_____ .+-l __________ J Labour 47.0 52.0 /54.0 'i'

(Mandays)

Synthetic 185.0 496.4 I 496.4 i chemicals II

(Kg/ha)

Seeds 123.5 n 1.2 I 11 1.2 II (lKg/ha) .

Fossil fuels 102.0, 123.7 182.0. J ~~~L~itr~e~fu~a)~~--------4---------+------- i Labour 46.6 53.0 52.9 I ~andays) ,

t--~--:---_+-----+_------t-.-------~ Synthetic 185.2 496.0 I 496.0 i chemicals I

1---_____ (Kg/ha) I'

2nd! crop of Seeds 123.5 111.1 111.2 wheat after (Kg/ha) I

. fanow Fossil fuels _fl.,itre/ha) Labour (Mandays)

99.7

46.3

117.8 180.7

52.4 52.7

~~~--+--------j--------+---~--.----_ Synthetic 185.0 496.5 496.0

chemicals _________ ~~~~~lM_a~) __ ~ ______ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~

1fmlb>De ~.2 : QlUlmlIUttnty ojf ~njfjfell'elIUt lllIUfilllUlt§ mfillfillnne~ nlID II'll(Ce mrrn~ §1[JI1I'~llnIUlITIID ~II'I[JIWIID nlID ~mell'elIDt m~lI'l[JIe(Cl[JI§y§tem ttyJPle§ nlID tlhle yemll'§ 1l.9J9J6 mrrn((fi 1l.9J9J7

Crop/year Knputs Untrrigated Canal irrigated Tubewell irrigated

Rice Seeds (Kg/ha) 75.0 70.0 70.0 1996 Fossil fules(litre/ba) 50.8 52.8 51.5

Labour (mandays) 57.0 59.5 59.2 Synthetic 171.0· 171.0 171.0 Chemicals(kglha)

Rice Seeds (Kg/ha) 75.0 70.0 70.0· 1997 fossil fules(litre/ha) 50.5 52.2 51:1

Labour (mandays) 56.0 59.4 59.0 Synthetic 171.0 171.2 171.0 chemicals(kg/ha)

Sorghum Seeds (Kglha) 45.0 42.0 42.0 1996 Fossil fules(litre/ha) 25.0 25.0 25.0

Labour (mandays) 14.0 16.0 17.0 Synthetic 20·9 30.0 30.0 clhemicals(kglha)

Sorghum Seeds (Kglha) 45.0 42.0 42.0 1997 Fossil fules(litre/ha) 25.0 25.0 25.0

Labour (rnandays) 14.0 16.0 17.0 Synthetic 20.0 30.0 30.0 chemicals(kglha)

I

1f'mM~ 4l.J : Qunmllll¢nty off IdIm~r~llll¢ nlllllPiun¢s mlPilPilln~«ll nllll JP>~mrll Illl1lllllll~¢ mllll«ll lffimrs~~1lll1l nllll lUlllllllJ"lJ"ngmtt~«ll ( lUlllln } ,Cmllllmll lllJ"lJ"llgm¢~«ll ( Cmu } mllll«ll lUllllfilJ"lJ"figmtt~«ll { lUlllln } , 1f'unlblew~llll llnngm¢e«ll { 1f'unn ) reslPie~¢nv~lly

/Crop Agroecosystem Inputs 1996 1997 Pearl millet Uni Seeds 8.64 8.64

. (kglha) Fossil fuels 30.00 32.00 (litre/ha) Labour 13.00 15.00

(manday)

Synthetic 123.50 123.50 Chemicals (kg/ha)

I Cai Seeds 7.41 7.41 (kglha) !

I

fossil fuels 34.00 37.00 (litre/ha) Labour 17.00 18.00 (mandays)


1997 1998 Barseem Uni Seeds 24.70 24.70

(kg/ha) Fossil fuels 35.00 35.00

. Qitre/ha) Labour 29.00 25.00 (manday)


Tui Seeds ~O.OO 20.00 (kg/ha) Fossil fuels 35.00 35.00 (litre/ha) Labour 44.00 48.00 (manday)


I j I

I

1f~Mte 41.41 : iQ>un~IIDttfitty oif i!llfiififterteIIDtt llIIDJPluntt§ SlJPIJPIllfitei!ll fiIID Mfun§tt~ri!ll ~IIDi!ll JlDll~teOIID JPlte~ ~rO\wIID llIID r&llllIIDiftei!ll m~rlltCunllttlll1rte· llIID ytemr§ 1~~1 ~IIDi!lll~~~··

Crop Knputs Quantity Mustard Seeds 5.00

(Kglha) Fossil fuels 84.69

' .. (Litre/ha) Labour 26.1 (Mandays)

Synthetic 185.0 Chemicals (Kg/ha)

Pigeon pea Seeds 18.0 (Kg/ha) Fossil fuels 66.48 (Litre/ha) . Labour 48.0 (Mandays)

Synthetic 60.0 chemicals _~g/hjll

*Pigeon pea and mustard were not grown in irrigated agricultural land in the study village.

* * There was no any very prominent difference in inputs in the year 1997 and -1998 and hence the average of two years is given here.

']['mlbll~ 41.5 : <OlunttllDuntt (memllll ± §ttmlllldlmrdl d1evnmttn«m) fr([J)m wllnemtt u([J)jpl ~1l"([J)WIlll mftter ~mnH(J)w IPllnm§e dlunll"nllllg lklhlmll'uf §em§ollll or IPmdldy (tunllttnnanollll dlunrfillll~ Ikllumll'nf llDerllodlllllll unllllllrrngmttedl, uun~ll nrrngalttedl allIlldl ttun\blewellll nnngmttedl aI~rn(tunllttunrmllll!!llllldl

1IJ IIDnrll"figmtteiIll Cm~ nmg!lltteiIll 1I'lIn\bl~W(eln lL§]jJ) (IMUD5 nIl"ll"figm¢eGll

1. IFnrntt (tIl"l!lljpl !llfftteIl" jpl!lliIlliIlly (1996) i 621 Grain 2951±457a 4624±681a 5403±629 8

Strnw . 4795±486 a 5867±637 8 7336±1115 8

1824

Weed (fodder) 316±28 8 334±47 8 411±35 8 i 29 I Weed (unpalatable) 238±67 8 222±43 8 606±144.9 8 --l-~-~.--~--~ 2. §~I!ll1DliIll (tIl"l!lljpl !lljftt~Il" jpl!lliIlliIlly (1997)

/493 I Grain 3081±378a 4737±69S" 4692±214 b

Strnw 4814±151 8 6480±358a 6775±763" I ~i4 i Weed (fodder) 188±26b 354±80 8 374±86 B

Weed (unpalatable) 363±79 b 560±93 b 743±97 8 94 i ----l

3. IFfintt Ul!lljpl !lllf'tt~Il" If'~Rl!lIw (19%) I Grain 3544±305 8 3949±217 a 5205±465a 358 i Straw 6430±778 B 5752±425a 7004±825a i 727 i

I Weed (fodder) 495±29 8 486±39 a 586±29 a ! 33 I Weed (unpalatable) 373±33 8 333±32 8 822±94 8 120 I ! !

4. §ecoIIDiIll (tIl"l!lIjpl !lljftt~Il" jf~lll!llw (1997)

4559±302 b Ii, Grain 2901±309 b 4283±327 b

_n~ ___ J Stmw 4953±459 b . 6473±635 b 6997±671 8

Weed (fodder) 271±37 b 593±56 b 411±47 b

Weed (unpalatable) 500±98 b 493±197 b 685±lOOb

0 Means of two crops of two years are significantly different if means ± standard deviation values are followed by different superscript alphabets.

Table 4.6: Output (mean ± standard deviation, Kg/ha) from paddy crop grown in unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated land during the study period 1996-1997

Year/Crop Unirrigated Canal Tubewell LSD (P=O.05) irrigated irrigated

1. 1996 crop Grain l775±105a 2368±116 a 1975±2l0 a 158 Straw 3021±200 a 4233±434a 3258±142 a 264 Weed (fodder) 214±14 a 286±37 a 279±61 a 43 Weed 659±86 a 465±44a 625±31 a 61 (unpalatable) 2~ 1997 crop Grain 1669±91 b 2206±227a 1862±124 a 165 Straw 2877±218a 4479±231 a 3310±266 a 250 . Weed (fodder) 379±40 b 417±44b 533±29b 40 Weed 493±96 b 453±58 a 574±93 a 87 (unpalatable)

• Means of the two years are significantly different (8<0.05) if mean ± standard deviation values are followed by different superscript alphabets.

Table 4.7 : Output (mean ± standard deviation, Kg/ha) from sorghum crop grown in unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewell irrigated agroecosystem types during the study period (1996-1997)

Agroecosystem 1996 1997

Grain Straw Weed Weed Grain Straw Weed (Weed (fodder) (unpalatable) (fodder) (unpalatable)

Unirrigated - 19700±194a - 196±42 a - 18200±211 b - 247±39a Canal irrigated

. 21200±199 a 402±39a 24100±316 b 246±18 a - - - -

Tubewell - 23400±314 a - 319±49 a - 24300±224 b - 227±28a irrigated LSD (P=O.05) - 252 - 45 - 265 - 31

• Means ofthe two years are significantly different (P<O.05) if the means ± standard deviation values are followed by different superscript alphabets.

Table 4.8 : Output (mean ± standard deviation, Kg/ha) from pearl millet grown only in unirrigated and canal irrigated agricultural land during the study period 1996-1997

Output 1996 1997 Unirrigated Canal Unirrigated Canal irrigated irrigated

Grain - - - -

Straw 17080±710 a 19750±62Sa 18200±S28 b 221S0±817 b

Weed (fodder) - - - -

Weed 177±18 a 288±139 a 233±48 b 376±114 b

(unpalatable)

* Means of the two years are significantly different (P<O.OS) if the mean ± standard deviation values are followed by different superscript alphabets.

Table 4.9; Output (mean ± standard deviation) from berseem crop grown only in unirrigated and tubewell irrigated lands during the study period 1996-97

1996 1997 Output (Kg/ha) Unirrigated Tubewell Unirrigated Tubewell

irrigated irrigated Grain - - - -

Straw 33300±649 3 37900±891 3 31200±872b 34017±915 b

Weed (fodder) - - - -

Weed (unpalatable) 432±52 3 589±1l8 3 372±87 3 619±1063

• Mean of the two years are significantly different (P<O.05) if mean ± standard deviation value are followed by different superscript alphabets; based on t test.

Table 4.10 : Output (mean ± standard deviation, Kg/ha) from mustard and Pigeon pea crops grown only in unirrigated land during the period of study 1997-98

Output Mustard Pigeon pea

1997 1998 1996 1997 Grain 1507±221 a 1620±108 a 1680±118 a 1871±185b

Straw 3498±396a 3755±274a 4983±517 a 5389±372 a

Weed (fodder) 475±54 a 419±29 b 416±39 a 437±20 a

Weed (unpalatable) 303±74.8 a 342±33 a 317±37.4 a 363±67 a

• Means of the two years are significantly different (P<O.05) if mean ± standard deviation values are followed by different superscript alphabets: based on t test.

Table 4.11 : Output input ratio of different crops in unirrigated, canal irrigated and tubewells irrigated lands.

Unirrigated Canal irrigated Tubewell irrigated

Kharif crops 1996 1997 Mean 1996 1997 Mean 1996 1997 Mean Paddy 9.15 8.51 8.83 11.87 12.01 11.94 9.91 9.79 9.85 Sorghum 17.55 19.16 18.35 20.84 22.02 21.43 19.84 23.02 21.43 Pearl millet 12.11 12.81 12.46 13.83 15.31 14.57 - - -Pigeon pea 28.20 30.86 29.53 - - - - - -

Rabi crops Wheat cropped 10.22 10.21 10.11 6.55 7.28 6.96 7.00 6.86 6.93

Fallow 12.66 10.48 11.57 6.36 6.29 6.32 7.27 6.90 7.08 Mustard 10.27 11.02 10.64 - - - - - -Berseem 37.04 34.78 35.91 - - - 24.94 22.51 23.72

Table 4.12 : Mean output input ratio of Kharif and Rabi crops for the whole village.

Rabi crop

Kharifcrop

Where,

Energy

~_ni_ I Cai ~. , I: ~ ~_ ~

12.68f 5.985 20.38f

Uni - Unirrigated Cai - Canal irrigated Tui - Tubewell irrigated

14.22

Tui

7.26 11.195

Monetary

Me,h Uni Cai Tui

3.484 3.00~ 3.166 7.08

15.267 5.961 3.42~ 2.234

Mean

3.218

3.87

1st crop of wheat after rice Energy input (GJ per hal

30'-~~~~------------------------------------'

25

20

15

10

5

0'-----Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type Tal

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel [I] Labour ~ Chemicals

2nd crop of wheat after rice Energy Input (GJ per ha)

30'-~~~~~~--~----------------------------'

25

20

15

10

5 oU-----.i Unl Cal Agroecosystem type

Tal

_ Seed ~ FossU fuel EJJ Labour ~ Chemicals

1st crop of wheat after fallow Energy Input (GJ per hal

30.-~------------------------------------------.

Unl Cal


_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel [J] Labour ~ Chemicals ,

2nd crop of wheat after fallOW Energy Input (GJ per ha)

30r-~~~--------------------------------------~l

Uni Cal Agroecosystem type

Tal

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel CJ) Labour ~ Chemicals

Fig 4a. Energy inputs related to wheat crop grown in all the three agroecosystem types. Vni. Vnirrigated/rainfed agriculture; Cai, Canal irrigated agriculture; Tui, Tubewell irrigated agriculture.

1st crop of wheat after rice Energy output (GJ per ha)

200~~------------------------------------------~

150

100

50

o Unt Cat

Agroecosystem type Tat

_ Groin ~ Sirow D Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpolotoble)

2nd crop of wheat after rice Energy output (GJ per ha)

200r-~~--~~~~--~--------------------------~

Unt Cal


_ Groin ~ Sirow c:q Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpolotoble)

1st crop of wheat after fallow Energy output (GJ per ha)

200~~----------------~----------~-------------.

150r········::;.;:.:::.:::.

100

50

o Unl Cal


_ Groin ~ Stro.w CJ Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpolotable)

2nd crop of wheat after fallow Energy output (GJ per ha)

200r-~~--~~--~--~---------------------------,

Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type Tat

_ Groin ~ Straw EZl Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpolatoble)

Fig 4b. Energy outputs related to wheat crop grown in all the three agroecosystem typo es. Uni. Unirrigatedlrainfed agriculture,· Cai, Canal I·rrl·gated agrl·culture· TUI· , , Tubewell irrigated agriculture.

Rice crop In 1996 Energy Input (GJ per ha)

30r-~~~----~--------------------------------.

25

15

10~··················································· ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... j

5

o L.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ------Unl Cat

Agroecosystem type Ttl I

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel E2l Labour ~ Chemicals

Rice crop In 1996 Energy output (GJ per ha)

200~~~~--~~----~------------------------~

150

50

o Un! Cal

Agroecosystem type Ttl I

_ Grain ~ Straw 0 Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpalatal)le)

Rice crop In 1997 Energy Input (GJ per ha)

30r-~~~~--~--~------------------~------,

25

20

15

10

Unl Cal Agroecosystem type

Ttl I

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel [I] Labour ~ Chemicals

Rice crop In 1997 Energy output (GJ per ha)

200r-~~--~~~----~---------------------------

150

Un! Cal Agroecosystem type

Ttl!

_ Grain ~ Straw 0 Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpalatal)le)

Fig 4c. Energy inputs and outputs related to rice crop grown in all the three agroecosystem types. Vni. Vnirrigated/rainfedagriculture; Cai, Canal irrigated agriculture; Tui, Tubewell irrigated agriculture.

Sorgbum crop 1n 1996 Energy inpui (GJ per ha)

30~~~~~--~--~--------------------------~

Sorgbum crop 1n 1996 Energy Input (GJ per ha)

30~~~~--------------------------------------,

25

20

15

10

5

Uni Cai Agroecosystem type

Tui

_ Seed ~ Fossil iuel EIJ Labour ~ Chemicals

25

20

15

10

5


Tul

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel IIIJ Labour ~ Chemicals

Sorgbum crop 1n 1997 Sorgbum crop 1n 1996 Energy output (GJ per ha)

200~~~~----~--~---------------------------, Energy output (GJ per ha)

200r-~~~--~~----~-------------------------'

150

o Uni Cai

Agroecosystem type Tul

~ Straw CZJ Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

150

Fig ·4d. Energy inputs' and outputs related to sorgh~rncrop grown agr?ecosystern. types. Vni. Vnirrigatedlrainfed agriculture' Cai agriculture; TUl, TubeweII irrigated agriculture. "


Tul

~ Straw CJ Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

in all' the three Canal irrigated

Pearl mUlet _En=e~r~g~Y~I=n~pu~t~(~G=J~p~e=r~h~a~)~ __________________________ ~

30 r-

Pearl millet Ewn~e~r~g~y~o~u~t~p~u~t~(G=J~p~er~h=a~) __ ~ ______________________ ~

200 r-

25 150

20 f- ............................................. .

15 100

10 50

5

o Unl Cal Unl 1997

1996 Agroecosystem type

o Cal Unl Cal Unl

1996 Agroecosystem type 1997

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel ED Labour ~ Chemicals _ Grain ~ Straw 0 Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Berseem wE~ne~r~g~y~l~n~p~u~t~(G=J~p~e=r~h=a)~ __________________________ ~

30 r-

Berseem wE.n~e~r~g~y~o=u~t~P~U~I~(G=J~p=e~r=h=a~) __________________________ ~

200 r-

25f-.... ······ .. ········· 150

20

15

10

Unl Tul Unl 1997 1996 Agroecosystem type

Tul Unl O~~

Tul Unl Agroecosystem type 1996 1997

Tul

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals _ Grain ~ Straw 0 Weed (Iodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Fig. 4e. Energy inputs and outputs related to crops (pearl millet and berseem) grown in only two types of agroecoystems. Pearl millet was grown only in unirrigated (Uni) and canal irrigated systems (Cai) while berseem was grown only in rainfed and tubewell irrigated systems (Tui); data for two year period of study (1996 and 1997) are shown.

Mustard Mustard crop ~E~ne~r~g~Y~I~n~p~U~I~(G~J~p~er~h~a~)~ ____ ~ ____________ ~ ______ ~

30, ~E~ne~r~g~Y_O~U~I~P~U~I~(G~J~p~e~r~h~a~)~ _________________ -------------1 200r

25 150

20

15

10

1996 1997 1996 1997

_ Seed ~ Fossil lue1 0 Labour ~ Chemicals _ Grain ~ Straw [IJ Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Pigeon pea Pigeon pea

30 ;::En=e~r~g~Y~i=n~p=U~I~(G~J~p~er~h~a~) __________________________ ___ ~E~ne~r~g~Y~O~U~I~P~U~I~(G~J~p~e~r~h~a~) __________________________ ~

200r

25 150

20

15

10

o 1996 1997 1996 1997

_ Seed ~ Fossil luel [JJ Labour ~ Chemicals _ Grain ~ Straw D Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable) ,

Fig. 4f. Energy inputs and outputs related to crops (mustard and pigeon pea) grown only in unirrigated land. Data for two year period of study (1996 and 1997) are shown.

1st crop of wheat after rice Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)

12r-----~~~--------~--~------------------__,

Unl Cal


_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour a Chemicals

2nd crop of wheat after rice Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)

l2.---------------------------------------------~


Tal

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals

1st crop of wheat after fallow Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)

l2r-------~--------------~------------------__,

Unl Cal


_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel CD Labour ~ Chemicals

2nd crop of wheat after fallow Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)

l2r-----~~----------~--~"------------------~

2

o Unl Cal


- Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals

Fig 4g M t,.,.,,· . . one~J mputs related to wheat crops grown in all the three types. Vni. Vnirrigated/rainfed . ltu C agroecosystem T b agrlcu re; ai, Canal irrigated agriculture,' T .

u ewell irrigated agriculture. Ul,

1st crop of wheat after rice 1st crop of wheat after fallow Monetary output (Rs ,(thousands) per hal Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40.-----~~--~--------~----~----------------. 40.-------------------------------------------~

o Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type

_ Grain ~ Straw

Tal Unl Cal Agroecosystem type

_ Grain ~ Straw

Tat

2nd crop of wheat after r.1ce Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r---------------------~--------------------__.

2nd crop of wheat after fallow Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-------~--~--------~----~------------------,


_ Grain ~ Straw

Tal o


_ Grain ~ Straw

Fig 4h. Monetary outputs related to wheat crops grown in all the three agroecosystem types. U~i.. Unirrigatedlrainfed agriculture;' Cai, Canal irrigated agriculture; Tui, Tubewell Irrigated agriculture.

Tal

Rice crop in 1996 Monetary Input (Rs (thousands) per hal

12r-----~~~--~----~~--~----------------__.

10

8


Tal

_Seed ~ Fossil luel [JJJ Labour ~ Chemicals

Rice crop In 1996 Monelary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-------------------------------------------~

30

20


_ Grain ~ Straw

Tal

Rice crop in 1997 Monetary Input (Rs (thousands) per hal

12r-----~------------------~--------------------,

10

8


Tal

_ Seed ~ Fossil tuel CD Labour ~ Chemicals

Rice crop in 1997 Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal 40r------------------------------------------------,

30

20


_ Grain ~ Straw

Tal

Fig 4i. Monetary inputs and outputs related to . flce crops grown in all the three agr?ecosystem. types. Uni. Unirrigated/rainfed agriculture; Cai, Canal irrigated agrIculture; TUl, Tubewell irrigated agriculture. /

Sorghum crop In 1996 Monetary Input (Rs (lhousands)/ha)

12r-----~~~--~----~--~------------------__.

10

8

6

4

Unl Cal Ttl I . Agroecosystem type

_ Seed ~ Fossil luel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals

Sorghum crop In 1996 Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-----~~--~--------~----~--------------__.

30


_ Grain ~ Straw

Ttl I

Sorghum crop In 1997 Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)

12r-----~~--~~----------------------------__.

10

8

6

4


Ttl I

_ Seed ~ Fossil luel Q Labour ~ Chemicals

Sorghum crop In 1997 Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-----~~--~~------~----~----------------__,

30


_ Grain ~ Straw

Ttl I

Fi 4· M . g J. onetary mputs an.d ou~ut~ related to sorghum crops grown in all the three

agr?eclosystem types. Unto UntITlgatedirainfed agriculture· Cai Canal irrigated agrlcu ture; Tui, Tubewell irrigated agriculture. "

Pearl m1llet Monetary tnput (Rs (thousands) per hal

12r-----~~--~--------~----~----------------__.

10

8

6

4

Unl 1996 Cal Unl 1997 Agroecosystem type

Cal

_ Seed ~ Fossil 1uel c:J Labour ~ Chemicals

Berseem Monetary Input (Rs (thousands) per hal

12~~~~~~--~----~~--~------------------,

10

8

2

o Unt 1996 Tul Unl 1997


_ Seed ~ Fossil 1uel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals

Pearl m1llet Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-----~--~----------~------·------------------,

30

Unl Cal Unl 1996 Agroecosystem type 1997

Cal

_ Grain ~ Straw D WeecS (locScSer) ~ weed (unpalatable)

Berseem Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal

40r-----~--~~--~----~~--~------------------,

30

Unl 1996

Tul Unl


1997

_ Grain ~ Straw D Weed (locSder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Fig. 4k. Monetary inputs and outputs related to crops (pearl millet and berseem) grown in only two types of agroecoystems. Pearl millet was grown only in unirrigated (Uni) and canal irrigated systems (Cai) while berseem was grown only in rainfed and tubewell irrigated systems (Tui); data for two year period of study (1996 and 1997) are shown.

Mustard Mustard crop

12 Monetary Input IRs (thousands) per hal M~o~n~e~ta~r!y~o~u~t~pu~t~~IR~S~(~th~o~u~s~an~d~s~)~P~e~r~h~a~) __________________ l 40 ;.::

10 30

8

61-···········································

_ Seed ~ Fossll luel [I] Labour ~ Chemicals _ GraIn ~ Straw

Pigeon pea Monetary Input IRs (thousands) per hal 12 --

Pigeon pea ) 40 ~M~o~n~e~ta~r!y~o~u~t~p~u:..t !!:IR~s~(~th~o~u~s~a~nd~s~)~p~e~r....:h:::a~ __________________ I

10

8

6

4

2U1~ __ ~~~ o 1996 1997

_ Seed ~ Fossilluel CZJ Labour mChemlcals _ Grain ~ Straw

Fig. 4/. Mone<my inputs and outputs related to crops (muS!Md and pigeon pea) grown only in unirrigated land. Data fo,two ye", period of study (1996 and 1997) are shown. .

KharU crop cE~ne~r~g~Y~I~n~p~u~t(G~J~p~e~r~h~a~)~ __________________________ ~

30~

25

20

15

10

5

o Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel EIJ Labour ~ Chemicals

Rabl crop hEn~e~r~g~Y~I~n~p~u~t(G=J~p~e~r~~ha~)~ __________________________ ~

30~

25


Ttl I

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel C3 Labour ~ Chemicals

KharU crop cEn~e~r~g~y~o~u~t~p~u~t~(G~J~p=er~h~a~) __________________________ ~

200~

150

100

50

0'------Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type

_ Grain ~ Straw 0 Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Rabl crop cE~ne~r~g~y~o~u~t~p~u~t~(G~J~p~e~r~h~a~) __________________________ ~

200r

150

100

50

OL-----Unl Cal

Agroecosystem type

_ Grain ~ Straw CJ Weed (fodder) ~ Weed (unpalatable)

Fig. 4m. Mean energy inputs and outputs in Kharif and Rabi crops. Uni, Unirrigatedlrainfed agriculture; CaL Canal irrigated agriculture; TuL Tubewell irrigated agriculture.

KharU crop .M.~o~n~e~ta~r~Y~I~n~p~ut~(~R~S~(~th~o~u~sa=n=d=s~)/~h=a~) ____________________ __

12~

10

8~································

6

4

oLJ====~--~~~~--~ Unl C~ ~I

Agroecosystem type

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel CZJ Labour g Chemicals

Rap1 crop .. M~o~n~e~ta~r~y~l~n~p~ut~(~R~s~(~lh~o~u~sa=n=d=S~)/~h=a~) ____________________ --,

12~

10


~I

_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals

KharU crop ~M~o~n~e~la~r~y~o~u~t~p~u~t~(R~S~(~th~o~u~s=a~n=d~S)~P~e=r~h~a~)~ ________________ 1

40 ....

30

20

o Unl

Rap1 crop

Cal Agroecosystem type

_ Grain ~ Straw

~I

~M~o~n~e~la~r~y~O~U~I~P~u~t~(R~S~(~lh~o~u~s=a~nd~s~)~P=e=r~h~a::) __________________ 1 40 ....

30


_ Grain ~ Straw

~I

Fig. 4n. Mean monetaty inputs and outputs in Kharif and Rabi crops. Uni, UnirrigatedJrainfed agriculture; Cai, Canal irrigated agriculture; Tui, Tubewell irrigated agriculture.

energy and monetary analysis of...

Documents