Energy and Monetary analysis of...
Transcript of 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)
Synthetic 123.50 123.50 Chemicals (kg/ha)
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)
Synthetic 50.00 50.00 Chemicals (kg/ha)
Tui Seeds ~O.OO 20.00 (kg/ha) Fossil fuels 35.00 35.00 (litre/ha) Labour 44.00 48.00 (manday)
Synthetic 123.50 123.50 Chemicals (kg/ha)
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
Agroecosystem type Tal
_ 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
Agroecosystem type Tal
_ 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
Agroecosystem type Tal
_ 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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
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. "
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
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
Agroecosystem type Tal
_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour a Chemicals
2nd crop of wheat after rice Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)
l2.---------------------------------------------~
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
Tal
_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel 0 Labour ~ Chemicals
1st crop of wheat after fallow Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)
l2r-------~--------------~------------------__,
Unl Cal
Agroecosystem type Tal
_ Seed ~ Fossil fuel CD Labour ~ Chemicals
2nd crop of wheat after fallow Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)
l2r-----~~----------~--~"------------------~
2
o Unl Cal
Agroecosystem type Tal
- 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-------~--~--------~----~------------------,
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ Grain ~ Straw
Tal o
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ 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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
Tal
_Seed ~ Fossil luel [JJJ Labour ~ Chemicals
Rice crop In 1996 Monelary output (Rs (thousands) per hal
40r-------------------------------------------~
30
20
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ Grain ~ Straw
Tal
Rice crop in 1997 Monetary Input (Rs (thousands) per hal
12r-----~------------------~--------------------,
10
8
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
Tal
_ Seed ~ Fossil tuel CD Labour ~ Chemicals
Rice crop in 1997 Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal 40r------------------------------------------------,
30
20
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ 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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ Grain ~ Straw
Ttl I
Sorghum crop In 1997 Monetary Input (Rs (thousands)/ha)
12r-----~~--~~----------------------------__.
10
8
6
4
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
Ttl I
_ Seed ~ Fossil luel Q Labour ~ Chemicals
Sorghum crop In 1997 Monetary output (Rs (thousands) per hal
40r-----~~--~~------~----~----------------__,
30
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ 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
Agroecosystem type Tul
_ 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
Agroecosystem type Tul
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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
~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
Unl Cal Agroecosystem type
_ 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.