Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:18:47.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IRRIGATION AND SULPHUR FERTILIZATION EFFECTS ON THE PRODUCTIVITY, PROFITABILITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS IN INDIAN MUSTARD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2015

K. RAY ,
H. BANERJEE ,
T. PAUL  and
T. K. DAS
K. RAY
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Mohanpur-741252, Nadia, West Bengal, India
H. BANERJEE
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Mohanpur-741252, Nadia, West Bengal, India
T. PAUL
Affiliation:
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India.
T. K. DAS*
Affiliation:
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India.
*
§Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]; Telephone: 91-11-9868128266; Contact address: Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The response to sulphur (S) and irrigation of mustard although site-specific, is less studied across sites. Economics and greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions are other important considerations for developing resource-efficient technologies, but hardly studied in mustard. The objectives of this study were to appraise productivity, economics and GHGs emissions under three irrigation regimes combined with four levels of S, laid out in a split plot design with three replications. Results showed that two irrigations at 30 and 60 DAS combined with 60 kg S ha−1 resulted in highest gross and net returns, which were 30.9 and 37.2% higher than that in single irrigation at 30 DAS, and 47.2 and 68.0% higher than that in single irrigation at 60 DAS without S application, respectively. Estimated GHGs emissions from common inputs (machinery, diesel, fertilizer and insecticides) of mustard were 1486.2 kg CO2 eq ha−1 with greater share (95%) of fertilizer. Econometric analysis predicts that 1% increase in irrigation and S use will lead to 10.29 and 9.98% increase in mustard yield, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 434 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barber, A. (2004). Seven case study farms: total energy and carbon indicators for New Zealand arable and outdoor vegetable production: AgriLINK New Zealand.Google Scholar
Beslemes, D. F., Tigka, E. L., Efthimiadis, P. and Danalatos, N. G. (2014). Biomass production and N-use of fibre sorghum under different cover cropping management, nitrogen influxes and soil types in central Greece. Experimental Agriculture 50:109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhagat, K. L. and Soni, K. C. (2000). Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth, seed and oil yield of mustard (Brassica juncea). Journal of Oilseeds Research 17:96–99.Google Scholar
Bharati, V., Prasad, U. K. and Singh, J. P. (2003). Irrigation and sulphur on yield and nutrient uptake of Indian mustard. Journal of Farming Systems Research & Development 8:97–98.Google Scholar
Das, T. K. and Yaduraju, N. T. (1999). Effect of weed competition on the growth, nutrient uptake and yield of wheat as affected by irrigation and fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 133:45–51.Google Scholar
DRMR. (2011). Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research (DRMR). Vision 2030. Available at: http://www.drmr.res.in. Accessed on 20 October, 2011.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. A. and Desjardins, R. L. (2003). Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosystems Engineering 85:503–513.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. A. and Desjardins, R. L. (2006). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Biosystems Engineering 93:107–118.Google Scholar
Economic Review. (2012). Statistical Appendix. Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Government of West Bengal, India, pp. 66.Google Scholar
Ehsanullah, M. D., Prasad, U. K. and Prasad, T. N. (1991). Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on yield, functional relationship and economics of mustard (B. juncea). Indian Journal of Agronomy 36:150–152.Google Scholar
Ghahderijani, M., Komleh, S. H. P., Keyhani, A. and Sefeedpari, P. (2013). Energy analysis and life cycle assessment of wheat production in Iran. African Journal Agricultural Research 8:1929–1939.Google Scholar
Ghasemi, H., Keyhani, A., Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, Sh. and Akram, A. (2010). Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for barley production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 137:367–372.Google Scholar
Hatirli, S. A., Ozkan, B. and Fert, C. (2005). An econometric analysis of energy input-output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 9:608–623.Google Scholar
ICAR. (2010). Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Available at: http://www.icar.org.in/files/reports/icar-dare-annual-reports/2009–10/Crop-Management. Accessed 10 October, 2010.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. M., Hanjra, M. A., Khan, S. and Hafeez, M. M. (2011). Building a climate resilient farm: a risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture. Agricultural Systems 104:729–745.Google Scholar
Khodi, M. and Mousavi, S. M. J. (2009). Life cycle assessment of power generation technology using GHG emissions reduction approach. In: 7th National Energy Conference. 22–23 December 2009, Tehran, Iran. pp A 00219 [in Persian].Google Scholar
Kumar, H. and Yadav, D. S. (2007). Effect of phosphorus and sulphur levels on growth, yield and quality of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal of Agronomy 52:154–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S., Verma, S. K., Singh, T. K. and Singh, S. (2011). Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences 81:145–149.Google Scholar
Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emissions from farm operations. Environment International 30:981–990.Google Scholar
Mittal, V. K., Mittal, J. P. and Dhawan, K. C. (1985). Research digest on energy requirements in agricultural sector. Co-ordinating Cell, AICRP on Energy Requirements in Agricultural Sector. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, A. and Omid, M. (2010). Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Applied Energy 87:191–196.Google Scholar
Morris, R. J. (2007). Sulphur in agriculture: International Perspective. In: Proc. TSI-FAI-IFA Symposium cum Workshop on “Sulphur in Balanced Fertilization”, 1–7 (Eds. R. K. Tewatia, R. S. Choudhary and S. P. Kalwe). New Delhi: The Fertilizer Association of India.Google Scholar
Patel, G. N., Patel, P. T. and Patel, P. H. (2008). Yield, water use efficiency and moisture extraction pattern of summer groundnut as influenced by irrigation schedules, sulphur levels and sources. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 6:1–4.Google Scholar
Pathak, H. and Wassman, R. (2007). Introducing greenhouse gas mitigation as a development objective in rice-based agriculture: I. generation of technical coefficients. Agricultural Systems 94:807–825.Google Scholar
Piri, I., Nik, M. M., Tavassoli, A., Rastegaripour, F. and Babaeian, M. (2011). Effect of irrigation frequency and application levels of sulphur fertilizer on water-use efficiency and yield of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). African Journal of Biotechnology 10:11459–11467.Google Scholar
Pishgar, K. S. H., Keyhani, A., Rafiee, Sh. and Sefeedpary, P. (2011). Energy use and economic analysis of corn silage production under three cultivated area levels in Tehran province of Iran. Energy 36:3335–3341.Google Scholar
Shabani, Z., Rafiee, S. and Mobli, H. (2012). Econometric model on energy input and yield in carnation flower. Journal of Agricultural Science and Application 1:8–12.Google Scholar
Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N. M. and Ranjan, M. (2003). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone India: part II. Energy Conversion and Management 44:1053–1067.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P. and Pal, M. S. (2011). Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, quality, nutrient uptake and economics of mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal of Agronomy 56:381–387.Google Scholar
USDA. (2014). India mustard production by year (1000 MT). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available from URL: http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=rapeseed-oilseed&graph=area-harvested. Accessed 10 May 2014.Google Scholar
Wood, S. and Cowie, A. (2013). A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertilizer production, pp. 1–20. Available at: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org [accessed: 22 June 2013].Google Scholar