Sakshi Pandey presented on resource conservation technologies and their impact on resource conservation, economics, and productivity in agriculture. Some key points: 1) Indian agriculture consumes about 30% of total electricity and 20% of the world's arable land, yet faces increasing challenges of water scarcity, soil degradation, and stagnating yields. 2) Various resource conservation techniques were discussed, including conservation tillage practices like zero-tillage, reduced tillage, and furrow irrigation to save water, reduce energy use, and improve yields. 3) Precision farming tools like leaf color charts, green seekers, and laser land leveling were also presented as improving nutrient and water use efficiencies.

1. Speaker
Sakshi Pandey
48341
M.Sc Agriculture
(Agronomy) 2nd yr
Department of agronomy
Resource Conservation Technology
Impact on resource conservation, economics and
productivity
1

2. What is Resource ?
2

3. Agriculture Resource Consumption
 Indian agriculture consumes about 30% of
its total electricity. According to BERI
(2007),
 Indian arable land surface is the second
largest in the world, after the US,
representing 20% of the world’s arable land
(FAO,2017)
(CEA,
2016)
3
FAO, 2017

4. 5177
2209
1820
1545 1341
1140
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
2011
2021
2031
2041
2051
2061
India will have a projected deficit of 755 billion m3 of water by 2030. (World water
resource group
Year 2016 2050
Population 1.299 billion 1.64 billion
Water resources 1869 BCM 1869 BCM
Water availability 1439 cum/ person 1140 cum/person
Energy /ha arable land (kj/ha)
Cereal
yield
(t/ha)
Energy consumption
FAO(2016)
4
IWMI

5. Soil Degradation Status
 NBSS&LUP (revised) 2004 : 146.8 Mha
degraded area
 Area affected by salinization, alkalinization
and waterlogging : 3.2 (Mha)
 Cost of salinization, alkalinization and
waterlogging in lost production (Rs billion) 7.6
Cost of soil erosion in lost nutrients (Rs
billion) 18.0
 Total direct cost of land degradation (Rs
billion) 75.2
(
NRSA)
5

6. Faulty Resource use management and agricultural sustainability
• Tillage and soil degradation
• Puddling
• Faulty irrigation management
• Yield stagnation & imbalanced
nutrient use
• Low energy efficiency and high
carbon foot print
6

7. What we can do ?
FOCUSES
Saving energy
Saving fuel
Saving time
Saving inputs
7

8. Agronomic
Measures
Mechanical
Measures
Engineering Measures
8

9. NO TILL
SOD SEEDING
LIVE MULCH
ZONAL TILL
STRIP TILLAGE
CHISEL TILLAGE
MINIMUM TILL
STALE BED
RIDGE TILL
CONSERVATION TILLAGE
Energy consumed for 1 kg of wheat
production
Tabatabaeefar et al.,
9

10.  Elimination of primary tillage
operations
 With the help of zero till seed drill
saves 70-80% time
 increases 15-20 % wheat yield.
Zero tillage technology
Minimum tillage
 Improved soil conditions .
 Higher infiltration.
 Less resistance to root growth
 Less soil compaction
Stubble mulch tillage
 Soil is protected all the time by growing
crop and crop residue left on the soil
surface
 Prevent soil erosion reduce CO2
emission and increase rate of infiltration
10

11. Treatments
Grain
Yield (q ha-1)
consumptive use
Water
productivity(kg m)
B:C ratio
Tillage crop establishment methods
T1 Zero Tillage 43.55 18.70 1.30 1.29
T2 Reduced Tillage 41.49 19.45 1.12 1.11
T3 Rotavator
Tillage
39.29 22.50 0.98 0.96
T4 FIRB 44.57 19.65 1.79 1.19
T5 Conventional
Tillage
38.98 23.30 - 0.76
CD P = 0.05 0.87 20.72 -
Tillage practices influence water productivity
Singh et al., 2017
Exp site: Crop Research Centre of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
University of Agriculture &Technology, Meerut (U.P.
Rabi season
11

12. Crop diversification
Strip cropping
 Reduce erosion from water and
wind
 Reduces runoff velocity
 Increases infiltration rate
•Increasing income on small farm holdings
•Mitigating effects of increasing climate
variability
•Improving fodder for livestock animals
•Conservation of natural resource
•Reducing dependence on off-farm inputs
(CTCN)
12

13. Incorporation of legumes
 Summer moongbean fits well in RWCS and can partly meet N
requirements of RWCS.
 Summer moongbean has a potential to yield 0.5-1.5 t/ha pulse grain,
leaves 30-50 kg N/ha as a residual N
 (Jat et al., 2014)
13

14. Resource use efficiency under various rice-based
cropping system
Cropping system
Land-use
efficiency
(%)
Production efficiency
(kg REY ha-1day-1)
WUE
(kg REY ha-
1mm-1)
Available
nitrogen (kg
/ha
Rice-wheat- fallow 63.01 34.17 5.56 232.2
Rice-wheat-GG 83.56 40.83 7.28 257.2
Rice-sorghum-GG 71.23 36.30 5.85 264.7
Rice-mustard-GG 76.71 45.69 7.70 248.3
Rice-chickpea-
cowpea
78.08 39.24
6.94
242.6
Rice-fenugreek-
okra
68.49 102.94 15.98 251.6
Rice-onion-cowpea 78.08 84.74 14.54 236.4
CD at (0.05) 8.19 5.60 0.72 6.20
Jat et al., (2014)
Location : Navsari Gujarat
Soil : Vertisol
RBD
Initial soil test value 213
14

15. Cropping system
PEq.Y
(q/ha)
consumptive
use(mm)
WUE
(mm)
Moisture extraction
pattern (%)
0-30
cm
30-60
cm
60-90
cm
Pearlmillet soil (50
cm)
26.6 335.5 8.07 43.1 32.7 24.2
Pearlmillet paired
row (30/70 cm) +
Mothbean (1 row)
29.6 359.4 8.37 41.5 33.3 25.2
Consumptive use, water use efficiency and moisture extraction pattern as
influenced by intercropping system
PEY pearl millet equivalent yield Source : Tetarwar and Rana ( 2016)
Place : IARI New Delhi Pearl millet : PUSA605
Mothbean: RMO 40
15

16.  Less seed and nutrient requirement
by 25 %
 Less water requirement by 30-
40%
(Gupta et. al.)
Furrow irrigated raised bed
Drip irrigation
Water saving measures
 saves water 30% to 70%
 improves yield 30% to 200%
 savings in widely spaced crop is
300 mm/year & closely spaced crop
is 500 mm/year (National Mission
on Micro Irrigation, 2003)
 water savings is directly
proportional to energy savings
(Narayanmurty, 2007).
16

17. Planting pattern
Seed rate
(kg/ha)
Leaf area
index
Irrigation
water applied
(m3/ha)
Grain yield
(kg/ha)
water
Productivity
(kg/m3)
Bed 75 cm -3 rows 90 4.23 2287.0 4560 1.53
B 90 cm -3 rows 80 5.32 2051.3 6180 2.25
B 90 cm -4 rows 90 4.66 2096.3 4890 1.75
Flat planting 100 5.06 3499.7 5282 1.26
CD 0.05 -- 0.26 9.4 343 0.11
Kumar et al., 2017
Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences
Wheat yield and productivity of wheat as influenced by planting
pattern
Sandy soil
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar,
17

18. Banana sugarcane
DMI FMI
Benefit over
FMI(%)
DMI FMI
Benefit
over FMI
(%)
Water consumption (HP
hours/ha)
7884.7 11,130 29.20 1793.9 3425.8 47.6
Productivity(quintal/ha) 679.5 526.3 29.1 1354.0 1080.8 25.3
Water use efficiency(HP
hours/quintal)
11.6 21.1 45.1 1.3 3.1 58.2
Water consumption and productivity of drip and flood
irrigated crops
Narayanamoorthy (2016)
Maharashtra
18

19.  LCC have 4-6 strips having
different shade of leaf colour.
 Measures leaf colour intensity
which is related to leaf N status.
Leaf Color Chart
Green seeker
 Green seeker is an integrated
optical sensing, variable rate
application and mapping system
that measures crop’s N demand.
 Displays NDVI (Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index)
reading .
Modern gadgets for resource conservation
19

20. Treatments
Total dose
of
Nitrogen
1000 grain
weight (g)
Grain yield
(t/ha)
T1Control (no N) 0 28.6 1.3
T2 Recommended 150 46.4 4.3
T3 30 kg at LCC 4 85 35.6 2.6
T4 40 kg at LCC 4 105 44.0 3.8
T5 30 kg at LCC 5 85 36.0 2.7
T6 40 kg at LCC 5 105 44.0 4.1
T7 30 kg at SPAD 40 85 38.3 2.8
T8 40 kg at SPAD 40 105 44.3 4.1
T9 30 kg at SPAD 35 85 35.6 2.6
T10 40 kg at SPAD 35 105 43.4 3.9
T11 30 Kg at CRI+30 kg
kg at SPAD 40
85 36.0 2.7
T12 40 Kg at CRI+40
kg at SPAD 40
105 44.2 4.0
CD (P=0.05) 8.3 0.6
Effect of different nitrogen management treatments on yield
attributes and grain yield of wheat
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11
T12
Agronomic efficiency (kg grain yield increase
per kg N applied)
Recovery efficiency (% increase in N uptake
per kg N applied)
Reena et al.,( 2017)
GBPUA&T,Pantnagar International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
20

21. Effect Nutrient Management using Nutrient Expert™ strategies on
PFP under different tillage regimes
Partial
factor
productivity
of
P
(kg
grain
yield
/
kg
P)
Partial
factor
productivity
of
N(kg
grain
yield
/
kg
N
)
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5
Treatment Details
N1-
NE80:20
80% basal and 20% at
second irrigation 40-
45DAS
N2-
NE33:33:3
3
33% basal, 33% at CRI
stage (20–25 DAS) and
33% at second irrigation
(40–45 DAS)
N3-
NE80:GS
80% basal and further
application of N based on
optical sensor (Green
Seeker TM) guided
prescriptions
N4-
SR50:50
state recommendation with
N rate split as 50% basal
and 50% at CRI stage
N5-FFP Farmer fertilizer practice
Sapkota et al., 2014
Location : Haryana
Field Crops Research
21

22. Dry seeding
dry seed
 5.33 % higher grain yield
 Water up to 25% .
 Energy up to 27%
 35 to 40 man days / ha
Zhu et al., (2019)
Direct seeded rice
Saves
22

23. Irrigation time Irrigation(mm)
DSR 13 456
TFR 17 536
Direct seeded rice over transplanted flooded rice
Liu et al., (2017)
INRA and Springer-Verla
23

24. Compartmental bunding (<1 %)
Storing initial rainfall and increases infiltration rate
Graded bund or channel terracing (6 to 10 %)
To make runoff water trickle rather than to rush out
Bench terracing (16 to 33 %)
To convert original slope in to level field
Contour bunding (upto 6 %)
To reduce length and degree of slope
Tied ridging
To form a series of micro catchment basins in field
24

25. Why laser land leveler
For better distribution of water
For water saving
For improvement in nutrient use
efficiencies
Option for precision farming
Higher crop productivity
Yield increase upto 25%
Reduce weed problem 40%
Increase cultivatable yield 3-6%
25

26. Parameters
Conventional
levelling
Laser
Levelling
Levelling index (cm) >1.5 <1.5
Irrigation depth (cm)
Paddy
Wheat
110-115
30-35
90-95
20-25
Pumping requirement (hr/ha/irrigation)
Paddy
Wheat
25-27
15-17
20-22
9-11
Water productivity (kg/m3)
Paddy
Wheat
0.37
1.50
0.47
2.44
Profit over conventional (Rs/ha)
1st year
2nd year onwards
- -
1000-1200
4000-5000
Comparative performance of laser land levelling and conventional
tillage levelling
Saxena et al., (2020)
LI before operation 2.70
Levelled before rabi season ORP
Karnal CSSRI
26

27. Implement
Operation
Time
(hrs/ha)
Cost
(Rs/ha)
Levelling blade 26.4 5280
Levelling float 15.0 3000
Levelling float bed 18.5 3700
Super leveller 19.5 3900
Laser land leveller 5.0 2500
Different leveling equipment to be integrated with precision land
levelling , their cost and operation time
27
Saxena et al., (2020)

28. Wheat Cotton
Conventional
Laser
levelling
Conventional
Laser
levelling
Average Yield
(Mds/Acre)
33 38 28 31
Number of irrigation 5.67 5.17 7.48 7.36
Time consumed
(Hrs/Irrigation/acre)
2.26 1.18 2.58 1.37
Total cost 26567 27780 36013 38115
Net return 4156 7484 56947 64495
Impact of laser levelling technology on water use efficiency and
crop yield
Shahani et al., 2016
Percentage of saving water 21.15%
exp site: Mirpurkhas and Tando Allahyar Pakistan .
Soil : clay soil and clay loam
28

29. Fuel and Time saving equipments
Saving in Rs : 1000- 1500/ha
Saving of Diesel : 60-70 %
Zero till seed drill
fuel consumption : 4.5-4.6 l/ha
Field efficiency : 83.52 %
Time and energy saving : 32-35%
Sanjay et al(2020)
Happy Seeder Technology
Rotavator
saving : 11.5 L of diesel
Profit 20%
Tiwari et al(2019)
29

30. Parameter Method of sowing
Happy Seeder
(Mean ± SD)
Conventional Method
(Mean ± SD)
Weed count per sq m 25.4 ± 5.6 56.7 ± 8.4
Irrigation water
requirement (mm)
215 ± 33.2 285 ± 40.9
Yield (q/ha) 53.2 ± 2.6 51.4 ± 4.1
Parameters Frequency (%)
Economical 128 (85.3)
Time saving 135 (90.0)
Water saving 118 (65.0)
Labour saving 143 (95.3)
Better yield 79 (52.7)
Benefit available for sowing of wheat with happy seeder
Evaluation of happy seeder as resource conservation technique
Tiwari et al.,(2019)
Happy
Seeder
Conventional Difference
Number of tillage operations
required
for wheat sowing
1-2 6-8 7
Time required (min/ha) 95 220 125
Energy / Fuel used (litre/ha) 9.0 25.5 11.5
Number of Weedicide sprays 1 2-3 1-2
Money spent (Rs./ ha) 2411 5906 3495
30

31. Conclusion
In present day agriculture’s most prominent RCTS are :
 Laser land leveler - saves 20-25% water , increase yield
more than 17% reduce pumping more than 25%.
 Conservation tillage- reduce soil compaction , increase
infiltration
 Inclusion of legumes - 10% higher yield , add 30 to 50 kg
N/ha
 Modern gadgets - saves 30% nitrogen fertilizer
31

32. 32