Author(s): ML Jadav, KS Bhargav, DV Bhagat, Bharat Singh, J Himanshu Rao and Deepa Malviya

Abstract: Energy is the most valuable input in agricultural production. Energy and monetary analysis is used to find the energy and economic indices for better management. This study was conducted during 2020-21 and 2021-22 in kharif season in Malwa region to analysis the energy and monetary indices for the soybean cultivation under climate smart sowing techniques. Three sowing techniques were adopted for the trial i.e. T₁- Sweep Blade type, T₂- Broad Bed furrow (BBF) and T₃- Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed System (FIRBS). Randomized Block Design statistical design with eight replications were applied for analysis. The energy equivalent of different inputs and output were used to determine the energy indices. FIRBS resulted highest seed yield (1403 kg ha^-1), net return (₹32729/-) and B:C (2.14) and followed by BBF. Despite erratic climate, yield under climate smart sowing techniques (FIRBS and BBF) were better than Farmer's practice. The lowest total input energy requirement 11141MJha^-1 was noticed in T₁ and highest was 11847 MJha^-1 in T₃. Difference in total input energy requirement occurred because of time taken for sowing and seed rate was differ in all sowing techniques. The maximum soybean output (seed and straw) energy obtained under FIRBS (54429 MJha^-1) and lowest was recorded in farmer’s practice (43976 MJha^-1). The maximum energy ratio (4.59) obtained in FIRBS, followed by BBF (4.36) and lowest was recorded in farmer’s practice (3.95). Among all the treatments, highest net energy return (42582 MJha^-1) was recorded with FIRBS sowing technique, followed by BBF (39042 MJha^-1). Energy profitability was highest (3.59) with FIRB system and closely followed by BBF system (3.36). Specific energy was minimum in FIRBS (8.44), while maximum observed in sweep blade system (10.00). Higher productivity with maximum net energy return of soybean cultivation can be achieved by adopting climate smart sowing techniques (FIRBS and BBF) as compared to other methods.

DOI: 10.33545/26174693.2024.v8.i1h.445