Paddy straw management practices in Northern India for improved efficiency and techno-economic feasibility

PARVEEN  DHANGER; MUKESH  JAIN; VIJAYA  RANI; MOHIT  KUMAR; SACHIN  GHANGHAS

doi:10.56093/ijas.v92i4.124012

Authors

PARVEEN DHANGER Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004, India
MUKESH JAIN Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004, India
VIJAYA RANI Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004, India
MOHIT KUMAR Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004, India
SACHIN GHANGHAS Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i4.124012

Keywords:

Cost of operation, Economics, Straw management, Wheat

Abstract

The study deals with the optimization of paddy residue management technologies for the management of paddy straw in combine harvested fields. The study emphasizes paddy straw management under different techniques (Retention, Incorporation and Removal of straw) with the use of different combinations of machinery. The research was conducted at farmer's field Dabra, Hisar, Haryana during 2017–18. The objective of the research was to evaluate techno-economic feasibility of different options of machinery. According to the results of the trials, the M4 (Combine harvester with SMS + Reversible mould board plough + Rotavator + Seed drill) had the greatest fuel consumption of 53.12 l/ha. M2 (Combine harvester with SMS + Spatial till drill) had the lowest fuel consumption of 22.29 l/ha. The lowest cost of operation of 63.32 `/q was found in treatment M2. Highest unit cost operation of 140.52 `/q was found in M9 (Traditional combine + Stubble shaver + Hay rake + Straw baler + Disc harrow (2 pass) + Planker + Seed drill). The benefit-cost ratio was found to be highest in traditional combine (1.99) and lowest in zero-till drill (1.11). Treatment-wise, benefit-ratio ratio was found maximum in treatment M10 (1.80) and minimum in M5 (1.50). According to the findings of study, residue retention technology is found better in comparison to straw incorporation and straw removal.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anonymous. 2016. Annual report of AICRP on farm implements and machinery-PAU, Ludhiana Centre 2015–16. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Anonymous. 2018a. Package of practices for crops of Punjab, Kharif 2018. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Anonymous. 2018b. Package of practices for crops of Punjab, Rabi 2018. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Bansal N K and Kumar A. 2014. Role of machinery for crop residue management. Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering CSS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. URL:// www.hau.ernet.in/research bansal.pdf.

Chakraborty D, Nagarajan S, Aggarwal P, Gupta V K, Tomar R K, Garg R N and Kalra N. 2008. Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management 95(12): 1323–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.06.001

Jaideep. 2017. ‘Design and development of potato cum sugarcane bud planter’. MTech Thesis, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana.

Jaideep, Jain M, Rani V, Pannu S R and Dhanger P. 2018. Exploring the Possibilities of Sowing Sugarcane Bud and Potato Tuber with a Single Equipment–A Review. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 29(2): 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/CJAST/2018/43589

Kepner R A, Bainer R and Barger E L. 1978. Principle of Farm Machinery. 3rd edn, pp 341–66. AVI Publishing Company Inc. Westport.

Kumar V, Saharawat Y S, Gathala M K, Jat A S, Singh S K, Chaudhary N and Jat M L. 2013. Effect of different tillage and seeding methods on energy use efficiency and productivity of wheat in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Field Crops Research 142: 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.11.013

Kumar V, Singh S, Chhokar R S, Malik R K, Brainard D C and Ladha J K. 2013. Weed management strategies to reduce herbicide use in zero-till rice–wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains. Weed Technology 27(1): 241–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-12-00069.1

Mehta C R, Sharma S, Nair R and Singh K P. 2013. Impact of crop residue burning on environment and human health. Indian Farming 63(5): 24–25.

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Resources (MNRE). 2009. www.mnre.gov.in/biomassrsources Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Mor A. 2014. ‘Performance evaluation of weeders in cotton’. MTech Thesis, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana.

Mor A, Bansal N K, Parveen, Karwasra N and Kumar S. 2020. Performance evaluation of different weeders in cotton. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering 13(2): 177–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJAE/13.2/227-236

Parveen, Singh A and Dogra R. 2020. Energy requirement for the sowing of wheat after the in-situ management of paddy residues. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering 13(1): 10–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJAE/13.1/10-18

Parveen, Jain M, Rani V, Kumar H, Jaideep, Mor A and Sachin. 2021. Comparison of the energy consumption in traditional and advanced paddy residue management technologies for wheat sowing. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 20(3): 846–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56042/ijtk.v20i3.33276

Porichha G K, Hu Y, Rao K T V and Xu C C. 2021. Crop residue management in India: Stubble burning vs. other utilizations including bioenergy. Energies 14(14): 4281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144281

Safa M, Samarasinghe S and Mohssen M. 2010. Determination of fuel consumption and indirect factors affecting it in wheat production in Canterbury, New Zealand. Energy 35(12): 5400–05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.015

Venkatramanan V, Shah S, Rai A K and Prasad R. 2021. Nexus Between Crop Residue Burning, Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development Goals Over North-Western India. Frontiers in Energy Research 8: 392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.614212