The wheat is one of the most important grains for food.Different practices have been adopted for production of wheat crop which involve variable energy consumption during production process.To assess the energy consumption associated with different practices, a survey was conducted in three districts of Bihar.The survey compared 18 different wheat production practices to identify the most energy-efficient methods.The highest total energy consumption (18.72 GJ/ha) was recorded for conventional practices in fields with high weed infestation, where harvesting was done using a combine harvester and straw was processed and collected with a tractor-operated straw reaper.Conversely, the lowest total energy consumption (12.96GJ/ha) was observed for no-tillage practices in weed-free fields, where harvesting was performed with a combine harvester and no straw reaper was used.Fertilizer application accounted for maximum input energy across all the 18 practices.Similarly, total energy output was the highest (18.72 GJ/ha) for no tillage practices in weedinfested field where harvesting and threshing was done using reaper-cum-binder and tractor operated thresher, respectively.The highest renewable energy13.88% was used in conventional practice and maximum non-renewable89.01%was noted in no tillage practice.Energy efficiency (10.28) and energy productivity (0.37 (kg/MJ)) were highest under no-tillage in weed-infested fields, where harvesting was done by reaper-cum-binder followed by threshing with a tractor-operated thresher, or using a combine harvester without straw production.The specific energy and water productivity were highest for conventional practices in which field having high weed infestation and harvesting was done by reaper cum binder followed by threshing by tractor operated thresher.This study reveals that conservation agriculture practices, particularly no-tillage (using a zero-till seed-cum-ferti drill), outperform conventional tillage systems in wheat production by minimizing energy use and maximizing energy output.
Pal et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: