Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Economic sustainability and energy efficiency of irrigated urdbean [Vigna mungo] under different sowing methods and weed management practices

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5500
Submitted
3 October 2024
Published
14-08-2025 — Updated on 28-08-2025
Versions

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at the Pulse Farm of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, during the summer season of 2024 to evaluate the energetics and economic viability of summer irrigated urdbean (Vigna mungo) under different sowing and weed management methods. A split-plot design was employed and treatments were replicated thrice. The results indicated that sowing in Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed (FIRB) and weed management through pre-emergence application of herbicides, followed by mechanical weeding (baby weeder) at 20 days after sowing (DAS), produced the highest yields of 833 kg/ha and 850 kg/ha, respectively. In terms of energy productivity, sowing in FIRB with the weed-free plot achieved 0.63 kg/MJ, followed by the same method of planting with the pre-emergence application of herbicides followed by one-hand weeding at 20 DAS (0.57 kg/MJ). A similar trend was observed in energy use efficiency, with values of 9.22 and 8.35, respectively. Economically, urdbean sowing by seed drill and pre-emergence application of herbicides followed by mechanical weeding at 20 DAS resulted in the highest benefit-cost ratio of 2.01, followed by the sowing in FIRB with the pre-emergence application of herbicides followed by mechanical weeding at 20 DAS. Hence, the study concluded that sowing in furrow irrigated raised beds with weed management through hand weeding and mechanical weeding at 20 DAS provides higher energy use efficiency and economic sustainability.

References

  1. 1. National Pulses Scenario Normal and EH APY. National pulse scenario 2022–2023, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage. Available from: www.dpd.gov.in
  2. 2. Anonymous. 2022-2023b. Season and crop report. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Tamil Nadu government portal; 2022–23 Available from: https:www.tn.gov.in/crop/productionofprincipalcrops.pdf
  3. 3. Ramakrishna A, Gowda CL, Johansen C. Management factors affecting legumes production in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. In: Johansen C, Duxbury JM, Virmani SM, Gowda CLL, editors. Legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of Indo-Gangetic Plain-constraints and opportunities. Patancheru andhra Pradesh: ICRISAT; 2000. p. 156–65
  4. 4. Dhindwal AS, Hooda IS, Malik RK, Kumar S. Water productivity of furrow-irrigated rainy-season pulses planted on raised beds. Indian J Agron. 2006;51(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.25194
  5. 5. Singh G, Virk HK, Khanna V. Effect of land configuration and weed management on productivity of green gram (Vigna radiata). The Ind J Agric Sci. 2020;90(5):947‒51. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i5.104368
  6. 6. Karimi M, Tabar BI, Khubbakht GM. Energy production in Iran’s agronomy. American-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2008;4(2):172–77.
  7. 7. Mohanty TR, Roul PK, Maity SK. Energetics of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) production as affected by residual effect of rice establishment methods and nutrient management practices in rice-green gram cropping system. J Agr Vet Sci. 2014;7:51–54. https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-07735154
  8. 8. Esengun K, Gündüz O, Erdal G. Input–output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manag. 2007;48(2):592–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.06.006
  9. 9. Rath S, Mishra G, Gulati JM, Mohapatra AK. Energetics and economics of green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] as influenced by varying land configuration and nutrient management. Plant Sci Today. 2023;10(3):276–80. https://doi.org/ 10.14719/pst.2297
  10. 10. Nassiri SM, Singh S. Study on energy use efficiency for paddy crop using data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. Appl Energy. 2009;86(7-8):1320–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.10.007
  11. 11. Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar A, Shahin S, Rafiee S, Keyhani A. Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Convers Manag. 2008;49(12):3566–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.07.003
  12. 12. Mandal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenerg. 2002;23(5):337–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00058-2
  13. 13. Rafiee S, Avval SH, Mohammadi A. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy. 2010;35(8):3301–06. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.04.015
  14. 14. Yuan S, Peng S, Wang D, Man J. Evaluation of the energy budget and energy use efficiency in wheat production under various crop management practices in China. Energy. 2018;160:184–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
  15. 2018.07.006
  16. 15. Mohammadi A, Omid M. Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Appl Energy. 2010;87(1):191–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.021
  17. 16. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York; 1984. 680 p.
  18. 17. Halli HM, Angadi SS. Influence of land configuration on rainwater use efficiency, yield and economics of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in maize-cowpea sequence cropping under rainfed condition of Northern Transitional Zone. Legume Res-An Intl J. 2019;42(2):211–15. https://doi10.18805/LR-3985
  19. 18. Kumar A, Singh R, Singh T, Dass A, Arora K, Reddy MB. Effect of land configuration and weed management practices on weeds, productivity and profitability of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan). Indian J Ecolog. 2023;50(3):641–45. https://doi.org/10.55362/ IJE/2023/3945

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.