IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14636-d965556.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Resource-Efficient and Environmentally Safe Cropping Systems for Sustainable Energy Use and Economic Returns in Indo-Gangetic Plains, India

Author

Listed:
  • Sohan Singh Walia

    (School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India)

  • Subhash Babu

    (Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India)

  • Roopinder Singh Gill

    (Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India)

  • Tamanpreet Kaur

    (School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India)

  • Noopur Kohima

    (Division of Vegetable Science and Floriculture, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture and Technology, Jammu 180009, India)

  • Azad Singh Panwar

    (Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, ICAR, Meerut 250110, India)

  • Dinesh Kumar Yadav

    (Division of Environmental Soil Science, Indian Institute of Soil Science, ICAR, Bhopal 462038, India)

  • Meraj Alam Ansari

    (Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, ICAR, Meerut 250110, India)

  • Natesan Ravishankar

    (Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, ICAR, Meerut 250110, India)

  • Sanjeev Kumar

    (Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research, ICAR, Meerut 250110, India
    Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University, Iroisemba, Imphal 795004, India)

  • Karmjeet Kaur

    (School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India)

  • Majhrool Hak Ansari

    (Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 141004, India)

Abstract

Achieving an economically feasible and environmentally robust model in agriculture while satisfying the expanding population’s food demands is a global challenge. Hence, a three-year (2014–2017) study was conducted at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana to design environmentally clean, energy-efficient, and profitable cropping systems. Twelve cropping systems viz., rice-wheat (CS 1 ), basmati rice-hayola (transplanted)-mung bean (CS 2 ), basmati rice-radish-maize (CS 3 ), maize-potato-maize (CS 4 ), maize + turmeric-barley + linseed (CS 5 ), maize + turmeric-wheat + linseed (CS 6 ), maize + radish-wheat + linseed-mung bean (CS 7 ), groundnut + pigeon pea (5:1)-wheat + sarson (9:1) (CS 8 ), maize + black gram-pea (bed) + celery (furrows) (CS 9 ), : maize + pigeon pea-chickpea (bed) + gobhi sarson (furrows) (CS 10 ), maize (green cobs) + vegetable cowpea + dhaincha ( Sesbania spp.)-chickpea + gobhi sarson (CS 11 ) and sorghum + cowpea (fodder)-wheat + gobhi sarson (9:1) (CS 12 ) were tested in a four-times-replicated randomized block design. CS 11 had the maximum system productivity (28.57 Mg ha −1 ), production efficiency (78.27 Kg Day −1 ha −1 ), irrigation water use efficiency (2.38 kg m −3 ), system net returns (4413.3 US$ ha −1 ), and benefit to cost (B:C) ratio (2.83) over others. In comparison to the CS 1 system, this cropping system required ~78% less irrigation water for a unit economic production. However, the cultivation of CS 12 registered the highest energy use efficiency (49.06%), net energy returns (6.46 × 10 3 MJ ha⁻¹), and global warming potential (GWP) (Mg CO 2 e ha −1 ) at spatial scale. Among all the intensified systems, CS 11 had the lowest GHGI (0.29 kg CO 2 e kg −1 ). Furthermore, cultivation of CS 6 resulted in the maximum bacterial and actinomycetes population in the soil, while CS 5 yielded the highest fungal count (23.8 × 10 3 cfu g −1 dry soil) in soil. Our study suggests that the cultivation of CS 11 is a resource-efficient, economically viable, and environmentally clean production system and could be a potential alternative to rice-wheat systems for developing a green economy policy for agricultural development in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of India.

Suggested Citation

  • Sohan Singh Walia & Subhash Babu & Roopinder Singh Gill & Tamanpreet Kaur & Noopur Kohima & Azad Singh Panwar & Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Meraj Alam Ansari & Natesan Ravishankar & Sanjeev Kumar & Karmjeet , 2022. "Designing Resource-Efficient and Environmentally Safe Cropping Systems for Sustainable Energy Use and Economic Returns in Indo-Gangetic Plains, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14636-:d:965556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14636/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14636/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Druckman, Angela & Jackson, Tim, 2009. "The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-2004: A socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input-output model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2066-2077, May.
    2. Hatirli, Selim Adem & Ozkan, Burhan & Fert, Cemal, 2006. "Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 427-438.
    3. Perry, Simon & Klemeš, Jiří & Bulatov, Igor, 2008. "Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1489-1497.
    4. Haina Wang & Yingsheng Yang & Xiaoyi Zhang & Guangdong Tian, 2015. "Carbon Footprint Analysis for Mechanization of Maize Production Based on Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study in Jilin Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dong, Gang & Mao, Xianqiang & Zhou, Ji & Zeng, An, 2013. "Carbon footprint accounting and dynamics and the driving forces of agricultural production in Zhejiang Province, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 38-47.
    2. Xi Xie & Wenjia Cai & Yongkai Jiang & Weihua Zeng, 2015. "Carbon Footprints and Embodied Carbon Flows Analysis for China’s Eight Regions: A New Perspective for Mitigation Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Domingo Gil-Giménez & Gladys Rolo-González & Ernesto Suárez & Gabriel Muinos, 2021. "The Influence of Environmental Self-Identity on the Relationship between Consumer Identities and Frugal Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    5. Tabatabaie, Seyed Mohammad Hossein & Rafiee, Shahin & Keyhani, Alireza, 2012. "Energy consumption flow and econometric models of two plum cultivars productions in Tehran province of Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 211-216.
    6. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    7. Xinkuo Xu & Liyan Han, 2017. "Diverse Effects of Consumer Credit on Household Carbon Emissions at Quantiles: Evidence from Urban China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Matsuda, Kazuo & Hirochi, Yoshiichi & Tatsumi, Hiroyuki & Shire, Tim, 2009. "Applying heat integration total site based pinch technology to a large industrial area in Japan to further improve performance of highly efficient process plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1687-1692.
    9. Chitnis, Mona & Sorrell, Steve & Druckman, Angela & Firth, Steven K. & Jackson, Tim, 2014. "Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 12-32.
    10. Pottier, Antonin, 2022. "Expenditure elasticity and income elasticity of GHG emissions: A survey of literature on household carbon footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. Varbanov, Petar Sabev & Fodor, Zsófia & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, 2012. "Total Site targeting with process specific minimum temperature difference (ΔTmin)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 20-28.
    12. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Gassner, Martin & Maréchal, François, 2009. "Thermodynamic comparison of the FICFB and Viking gasification concepts," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1744-1753.
    14. Chitnis, Mona & Sorrell, Steve, 2015. "Living up to expectations: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 100-116.
    15. Pahlavan, Reza & Omid, Mahmoud & Akram, Asadollah, 2011. "Energy use efficiency in greenhouse tomato production in Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 6714-6719.
    16. Jackson, T.M. & Hanjra, Munir A. & Khan, S. & Hafeez, M.M., 2011. "Building a climate resilient farm: A risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 729-745.
    17. Pottier, Antonin & Combet, Emmanuel & Cayla, Jean-Michel & de Lauretis, Simona & Nadaud, Franck, 2021. "Who emits CO2 ? Landscape of ecological inequalities in France from a critical perspective," FEEM Working Papers 311053, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Ghatrehsamani, Shirin & Ebrahimi, Rahim & Kazi, Salim Newaz & Badarudin Badry, Ahmad & Sadeghinezhad, Emad, 2016. "Optimization model of peach production relevant to input energies – Yield function in Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari province, Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 315-321.
    19. Castoldi, Nicola & Bechini, Luca & Ferrante, Antonio, 2011. "Fossil energy usage for the production of baby leaves," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 86-93.
    20. Scott Kelly & Michael Pollitt & Doug Crawford-Brown, 2011. "Building performance evaluation and certification in the UK: a critical review of SAP?," Working Papers EPRG 1219, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14636-:d:965556. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.