1.
PROJECT
Evaluation of Precision-Conservation Agriculture based
practices for improved resource use efficiency and carbon
footprints in maize-wheat cropping system
Ram Dhan Jat
Enl. No. 2011A9D
CCS HAU, Hisar, India
Location: Taraori, Karnal, India in collaboration with CIMMYT
Year of start: Kharif 2012

2.
INTRODUCTION

3.
Why Conservation agriculture….
Factors of concern in Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of India for cereal system
 The inefficient use of inputs (fertilizer, water, labor)
 Increasing scarcity of resources, energy and labor
 Changing climate
 Socioeconomic changes (urbanization, labor migration,
preference of nonagricultural work, concerns about farm‐related
pollution, etc.).

4.
Why MWCS…………
RW Cropping System (13.5 mha) Caused many second
generation problems in IGP
land degradation
Declining underground water table
Environmental pollution
Higher production cost
Receding total factor productivity
Labor, water and energy crises

5.
OBJECTIVES
1. To study the effect of precision conservation
agriculture based management practices on
productivity, profitability and resource use efficiency
in maize-wheat cropping system
2. To record crop growth pattern under improved
management scenario
3. To study the effect of tillage, residue management,
legumes and nutrient management practices on carbon
footprints in conventional vis-à-vis conservation
agriculture based management practices

6.
Treatment details
A. Main-plots (tillage, residue, legume)
1.CT- Remove/burn (W)-Remove (M)-Green gram
[Conventional/Farmers practice]
2. CT- Incorporate wheat stubbles-Incorporate 50 %
maize + Green gram
[Improve over FP]
3. PB-Retain stubble (W)-retain 50% (M)-Green gram
[Partial CA]
4. PB- Retain stubble (W)-retain 50% (M) + Green gram
(retain all residue)
[Full CA]
B. Sub-plot (Nutrient management)
1. Farmer fertilizer practice [FP]
2. State recommendations [SR]
3. Site specific nutrient management [SSNM]

7.
Methodology
Crop/plant related parameters
• Growth attributes
• Yield attributes and yield
• Plant chemical analysis
Soil related parameters
• Soil physical properties: Texture, BD, HC, IR and soil
aggregation before and after the expt.
• Soil chemical properties: pH, EC, OC, available NPK.
• Nutrient balance sheets
Irrigation water parameters
• Soil moisture content and potential
• Water use efficiency
• Water productivity
Carbon sustainability index
Resource use efficiency
• Carbon input
• Nutrient use efficiency
• Carbon output
• Energy use efficiency
• Water use efficiency
• Economic efficiency

8.
Results
Crop productivity
FP
16000
SRF
SSNM (NE)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Maize Wheat
CT (FP)
-
MW Maize Wheat MW Maize Wheat MW Maize Wheat MW
System
System
System
System
CT (Imp FP)
Partial CA
Full CA
During first year, tillage, residue & legume had non-significant effect on grain yield
1.46 and 0.47 t/ha/year of higher yield was observed through NE system (SSNM)
over to FFP and SRF in MW system.

9.
Net returns (INR/ha) of MWCS
120000
FP
SRF
SSNM (NE)
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Maize
Wheat
CT (FP)
-
MW
System
Maize
Wheat
CT (Imp FP)
MW
System
Maize
Wheat
Partial CA
MW
System
Maize
Wheat
MW
System
Full CA
NR was improved by INR 16561 and 14950/ha/year with full and partial CA
respectively over farmer’s management.
Fertilizer management by NE (SSNM) under full CA helped in improving the NR by INR
22416 and 13035/ha/year over FFP and SRF, respectively.

10.
Conclusion
- CA based practices with precise nutrient
management under MWCS proved to be more
productive and remunerative than farmers practices
Thank You