Paddy and Water Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00864-5

ARTICLE

Investigations on in‑situ paddy straw management technology

implemented under different mechanical treatments for wheat
establishment
Ankit Sharma1 · Amandeep Singh Brar1

Received: 21 September 2020 / Revised: 18 June 2021 / Accepted: 20 June 2021

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering 2021

Abstract
The need of providing a farmer friendly and cost-effective option for the paddy straw management is a major challenge. The
present study investigated the performance of happy seeder technology for in situ paddy straw management under different
mechanical field treatment T ­ 2 (harvesting and straw management in two operations) and ­T3 (harvesting and straw manage-
ment in one operation) alongwith the yield, economic, and energy analysis and compared it with ­T1 (farmer’s practice). It
was observed that the average actual field capacity was 10.85% more for T ­ 3 than T
­ 2. The average fuel consumption was less,
and field efficiency was more for T ­ 2. The maximum yield (5270 kg ­ha−1) was obtained with T
­ 3 as compared to T ­ 1 having
maximum coefficient of variation (3.84%) followed by ­T3 and ­T2 having yield 5262 and 5215 kg ­ha−1 with coefficient of
variation 1.06 and 1.80%. The maximum net return was observed in ­T3 followed by comparable net return in ­T2 with benefit
cost ratio of 3.83 and 3.69, respectively. The energy consumption in wheat establishment was minimum in T ­ 3 and maximum
in ­T1. Also, the consumption of direct and indirect energy sources is maximum in T ­ 1 as compared to ­T2 and ­T3. The saving
in energy consumption in T ­ 2 and T­ 3 is 47.06 and 54.00% over T­ 1. The results indicates that the happy seeder technology is
the efficient method for sowing wheat after combine harvesting of paddy (­ T2 and T ­ 3) and has the additional advantage of
avoidance of paddy straw burning, i.e., diminish the environmental pollution.

Keyword  Energy consumption · Happy seeder · Mechanical · Super SMS · Technology · Yield

Introduction there is a cost associated with the delay in wheat sowing.

After paddy crop harvesting by combine, paddy straw
remains, which consists of standing stubbles with a height
of 30–60 cm, as well as a large amount of loose straw in 1 m
wide windrows. Tillage and seeding operations for wheat
(next crop) sowing are hampered by the loose paddy straw.
Incorporation of this straw in to the field requires many till-
age operations. In Punjab state of India, 5 and more than 5
tillage operations are being used after partial and full burning
of paddy straw by 50 and 25% of farmers, respectively (Gajri
et al. 2002). In addition to the direct cost of cultivations,
* Ankit Sharma
ankitsharma@pau.edu
Amandeep Singh Brar
amanbrar@pau.edu
1
Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Punjab Agricultural
University, Moga, Punjab, India
This is due to the time it takes to prepare the field, as well
as the fact that sowing should be postponed for a few weeks
after integration to prevent nitrogen tie-up issues caused by
the newly incorporated straw (Singh et al. 2004). Delay-
ing wheat sowing after the optimum date (5 November in
Punjab, India) results in a substantial yield loss of 1–1.5%
per day (Aslam et al. 1993; Ortiz-Monasterio et al. 1994).
Therefore, due to a lack of user-friendly, cost-effective, and
time-effective alternatives, farmers often choose to burn
paddy straw in combine-harvested fields (Singh et al. 2014).
Several researchers indicated various baneful impact of on-
farm paddy straw burning on environment, soil, and health
of living beings, which is mention in Table 1.
Some other paddy growing countries such as China,
Indonesia etc. are benefiting from the environmental and
economic advantages of using rice straw as energy, biochar,
in biogas production, ethanol production. Lim et al. (2012)
looked at a number of main factors that could influence the
use of paddy husk and straw as renewable energy sources.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Paddy and Water Environment

Table 1  Baneful impact of paddy straw burning

Parameter Baneful impact due to straw burning

Soil health Loss of soil plant nutrients, organic matter that adversely affects soil health (Lohan et al. 2018)
About 90% of N and S, 15–20% of P and K available in paddy straw are lost (IARI 2012)
Loss of about 9.2 million tonnes of C equivalent ­(CO2-equivalent of about 34 million tonnes) per year and a loss of about
1.4 × ­105 t of N (equivalent to Rs. 200 crores) annually (NAAS 2017)
Environment Crop residue burning emitted pollutants such as ­CO2, CO, C ­ H4, ­N2O, NOx, S ­ O2, black carbon, non-methyl hydrocarbons
(NMHC), volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) which contribute enormously to global
warming (Jain et al. 2014; Milham et al. 2014)
Burning of one tonne paddy straw releases 13 kg particulate matter, 60 kg CO, 1460 kg C ­ O2, 3.5 kg NOx, 0.2 kg S
­ O2 (Bakker
et al. 2013)
Human health Increase in the concentration of PM 2.5 and PM10 during the large scale burning of paddy straw is a major health hazard (Jain
et al. 2014)
Paddy straw burning poses some unrecoverable influence on children pulmonary functions (Kumar et al. 2015)
The survey and economic evaluation showed a clear increase in health-related and medical expenditure, and workdays lost dur-
ing the paddy straw burning period (September–November) each year in state of Punjab, India (Milham et al. 2014)
The human health costs due to burning of paddy straw in rural areas of state of Punjab, India are estimated as Rs. 7.61 crores
annually (Milham et al. 2014)

In Thailand, the potential of paddy straw for heat and power
generation was reported by Suramaythangkoor and Ghee-
wala (2010). Delivand (2011) evaluated economic feasibil-
ity of paddy straw based combustion projects of various
capacities. Zhang and Zhang et al. (1999) used an anaero-
bic phased solids digester method to examine the suitability
of rice straw for bio-gasification. For rice straw digestion,
ammonia was used as a nitrogen substitute. The biogas yield
of untreated whole straw was found to be highest when a
combination of grinding (10 mm length), heating (110 °C),
and ammonia treatment (2%) was used. Biochar, which is
similar to charcoal and is created by burning organic materi-
als such as rice straw with no or very low levels of oxygen,
is recommended to increase soil productivity rather than as
a fuel (Lehmann and Joseph 2009). Haefele et al. (2011)
concluded that biochar from rice residues can be beneficial
in rice based systems depending upon site specific condi-
tions. Asai et al. (2009) also reported increase in crop yield
with biochar application in rice crop. Rice straw, according
to Kim and Dale (2004), can generate 205 GL of bioethanol
globally, the most of any single biomass feedstock. Paddy
residues can be ground, soaked, pelleted, or chopped to min-
imize particle size, and then used in a variety of ways, as
described above. Instead of above mentioned uses of paddy
straw for its utilization, the on-farm burning of paddy straw
is also prevalent among various countries. Therefore, on-
farm management of paddy straw has become the need of
the hour.
In situ paddy straw management is the most commonly
used method for paddy straw management by farmers since
it only involves machinery to handle the residue and a com-
mon farmer can perform all of the operations himself. In situ
management involves incorporating the paddy residue into
the soil with the help of machineries and preparing the
field for next crop or using the paddy residue as mulch for
succeeding crop. Because of the high integrating costs and
energy requirements, as well as the time commitment, only
a few farmers have adopted in situ paddy straw incorporation
as an alternative to burning. It also necessitates the use of a
mould board plough with a large capacity for incorporating
residue into the soil (Singh et al. 2008). Paddy straw burn-
ing is practiced in a large area in other NorthWestern (NW)
Indian states. It is estimated that, annually in NorthWest
states of India, about 23 million tons of paddy straw is burnt.
According to estimates, farmers in the Punjab state of India
burn up to 80% of paddy straw. Collection and storage of
such a huge quantity of straw is neither practically feasible
nor economical (Lohan et al. 2018). Therefore, the need for
providing a cost-effective and farmer friendly alternative
for the management of paddy straw, so that wheat sowing
can be accomplished timely, is both a major challenge as
well as an opportunity for the sustainability of the intensive
RWCS (rice wheat cropping system) in NorthWest India.
Using the paddy straw as mulch can be viable alternative for
paddy straw management. When compared to no mulch, rice
straw mulch increased wheat grain yield, reduced crop water
usage by 3–11%, and improved water use efficiency by 25%
(Chakraborty et al. 2010). Various machineries are avail-
able for this purpose. Now a days, some progressive farmers
of Punjab State of India, is using tractor mounted happy
seeder machine/technology for sowing of wheat seed in field
which retain the paddy straw as mulch. Given the context,
wheat establishment/sowing with happy seeder paddy straw
management technology should be investigated. The sow-
ing of wheat crops under various mechanical treatments
with happy seeder technology, which maintains the straw
as mulch and performs in situ paddy straw management,
is investigated in this study. The performance of machine,
grain and straw yield, cost, and energy consumption in crop
establishment (machine/technology, operation, and source

13
Paddy and Water Environment
wise) is investigated in the present study and is compared
with conventional farmer’s practice, which includes on-field
paddy straw burning as a straw management method and
field preparation for sowing of wheat crop.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted during the year 2017–18 in
farmer participatory research mode at different locations
in the Sandhuan Wala village, district Moga of state Pun-
jab, India. The village covers a total area of 248 hectares
(ha) and located between latitude 30.7747° N and longitude
75.1648° E. Rice–wheat crop rotation is largely followed in
the study area. In the present study, the in situ paddy straw
management technology is implemented by the application
of Happy Seeder, Super SMS (Straw Management System),
Stubble Shaver machinery, which are described as below:
Happy seeder
Happy seeder is an in situ paddy straw management tech-
nology, used for sowing seed of wheat crop into a combine-
harvested paddy field (without paddy straw removal or burn-
ing) in one operation by managing only that part of straw
in front of moving furrow openers. It consists of a rotor
for managing the paddy straw and a zero till drill for sow-
ing of wheat. The straw management rotor is equipped with
flail style straight blades that cut the standing stubbles/loose
straw in front of the sowing tines and clean each tine twice in
one rotation of the rotor to ensure proper seed placement in
the soil. Between the seeded rows, the flails push the straw
as far as they can (Singh et al. 2018). General specifications
of happy seeder are shown in Table 2. Happy seeder machine
used in the present study had the press wheel attachment.
Table 2  General specifications of happy seeder machine
S. no. Parameter Value
1 No. of tines 10
2 No. of blades 20
3 Working width (mm) 2025
4 Overall width (mm) 2225
5 Power requirement (hp) 50
6 Tine spacing 225 mm
7 Weight (Kg) 700
8 Seed and fertilizer mechanism Flutted roller
9 Type of furrow opener Inverted T type
10 Rotor rpm 1400 rpm at
540 rpm of trac-
tor PTO
Press wheel attachment
It’s a wheel that’s connected between two adjacent happy
seeder furrow openers/tines to press the chopped straw
thrown by the flails. It produces a uniformly thick layer
of paddy straw in the inter-row spaces when pressed. The
rotating press wheels prevent straw from plugging or fall-
ing into the furrows where seeds are sown, allowing for
better crop emergence. This theory promotes a crop’s ini-
tial growth and production. A thick and extensive mulch
cover often greatly reduces the density and variety of weed
flora. This attachment improved the machine’s balancing
and smooth running, resulting in increased capacity and
efficacy (Singh et al. 2018).
Super straw management system (super SMS)
Super SMS attachment was used to ensure uniform dis-
tribution of loose paddy straw, which was essential for
the happy seeder’s smooth operation. It was placed on the
combine harvester’s back side. It chops and distributes the
paddy straw from the combine harvester equally.
Stubble shaver machine
Standing paddy stubbles were shaved with the stubble
shaver. Depending on the amount of paddy straw loaded,
it was driven in 2nd low gear at 1500–1600  rpm. It is
made up of two blades fixed on a vertical shaft, which are
encased in a frame on all four sides and top.
Field operations
The wheat crop (variety HD 3086) was sown with three
mechanical ­t reatmentsT 1, ­T 2 and T­ 3. The treatment ­T 1
includes: sowing of wheat with seed cum fertilizer drill
after burning of paddy straw (farmer’s practice); ­T2: sow-
ing of wheat with happy seeder machine after operation of
stubble shaver with manual spreading of straw; ­T3: sow-
ing of wheat with happy seeder after operation of Super
SMS. The study was conducted at five farmers’ fields, i.e.,
F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5 having 0.4 ha area for each treat-
ment. The detail of treatments mentioned above is given
in Table 3.The soil of experimental fields was loamy, and
the climate was sunshine with the temperature range of
26–34 °C. The process of wheat sowing with three alter-
natives is shown in Fig.  1 and operational view of the
machinery used in T­ 2 and T­ 3 is shown in Fig. 2. The straw
load measured by weighing straw from one ­m2 area varied
from 8.0 to 10.0 t ­h a −1, and 55 hp tractor was used for
present study and was operated in 2nd low and 3rd low
13
 Paddy and Water Environment

Table 3  Treatments with Technology/ Machine used (No. of operation) No. of Total no. of Inclusion of
different technologies/machines Machines machine field operation paddy straw
for sowing of wheat crop in operated burning
combine-harvested paddy field
T1 Stubble shaver (1) + Disk harrow 05 08 Included
(2) + Cultivator (2) + Planker (2) + Seed
drill (1)
T2 stubble shaver (1) + Happy seeder (1) 02 02 Avoided
T3 Super SMS (1) + Happy seeder (1) 02 02 Avoided

Fig. 1  Process of sowing in T
­ 1,
­T2 and ­T3

gear, between 1600 and 1800 engine rpm depending upon
the field conditions.
During the investigation of the above said treatments, the
parameters like actual field capacity (ha ­h−1), field efficiency
(%), fuel consumption (l h­ −1) of machineries were observed
and recorded for ­T2 and ­T3. Fuel consumption was measured
by top-up method (Pal et al. 2016) in which the tank is filled
to full capacity before and after the operation. Amount of
refilling after the test is the fuel consumption for the opera-
tion. The machine performance parameter are described as
below:
Theoretical field capacity (TFC)
It is the rate of field coverage of an implement that would
be obtained if the machine performed its work at the rated
forward speed 100% of the time and always covering 100%
of its width. Theoretical field capacity was calculated by
taking optimum forward speed of 2.5 km ­h−1 (Malik et al.
2017) and operating machine width 2.25 m. It was calculated
by Eq. (1), given as below:
TFC = (W × S)∕10, (1)
where TFC: theoretical field capacity, (ha ­h−1); W: width of
machine, (m); S: speed of machine, (km ­h−1).
Actual field capacity (AFC)
It is the actual average rate of coverage by the machine,
based upon the total field time (Kepner 1972) and is
expressed as ha h­ −1. Since it is difficult to run machines at
their rate width of operation continuously, their practical
capacity is significantly lower than their theoretical capacity
(Hunt 1979).
Field efficiency (FE)
It is the ratio of actual field capacity to theoretical field
capacity, in percent (%). It is defined as the percentage of
time when the machine is operated at its maximum rated
speed and width in the field, taking into account time lost
in the field and failure to use the full width of the machine
(Nasri 2015). It described how effective the time was spent
to do the work (Grisso 2004). Because of the headland turns,
machine trouble, ground surface and overlapping, the FE for
an actual field operation was always less than 100% (Zan-
donadi 2012).
Yield and economic analysis
The yield performance of T ­ 2 and T­ 3 mechanical field treat-
ments was compared with T ­ 1 (farmer’s practice) for sow-
ing of wheat. After harvesting the wheat with combine
harvester and operating straw combine for wheat straw col-
lection, grain, and straw yield (kg ­ha−1) was observed and
recorded from each trial, respectively. The grain and straw
was collected in trolley and were weighted from commer-
cially available weighing bridge. A prerequisite for using
the happy seeder is that, loose paddy straw (comes out
from combine harvester) should be uniformly spread over
the field and for this purpose Super SMS fitted combine

13
Paddy and Water Environment

Fig. 2  Operational view of
stubble shaver, happy seeder,
and crop germination for ­T2 and
super SMS, happy seeder, and
crop germination in standing
stubble for T
­3

harvester was operated in T ­ 3. On the other hand, in case Gross return of production Rs ha−1 =Yield kg ha−1
( ) ( )
of ­T2 spreading of paddy straw was done manually after
× Sale price Rs kg−1
( )
operating the stubble shaver machine. But in case of ­T1,
(2)
after operating the stubble shaver, farmer done the man-
agement of paddy straw by on-field burning of straw. The Net return Rs ha−1 =Gross return Rs ha−1
( ) ( )

economic analysis was done to compare the cost in Indian
Rupees (Rs.) involve in sowing of wheat with T ­ 1, ­T2 and
­T3 and to obtain the net return (Rs h­ a−1). The cost involved
in sowing were hiring the machinery, purchasing seed, fer-
tilizer, weedicidies, insecticides, labor and irrigation cost,
marketing charges, interest of variable cost @9% for three
months. The gross return (Rs h­ a −1) includes the return
from grain and straw yield which was Rs 17.35 and 3.0
per kg. The benefit cost ratio (B:C) was calculated for each
mechanical treatment after the cost analysis and was com-
pared to farmer’s practice. The gross return of production,
net return, and benefit cost ratio were calculated (Moham-
madi et al. 2008) using Eqs. (2–4), mentioned below:
−Gross cost of production Rs ha−1
( )
(3)
Benefit cost ratio (B ∶ C)
(4)
= Gross return of production∕Gross cost of production
Energy consumption in wheat establishment
The energy consumption for wheat crop establishment
using ­T1, ­T2 and T
­ 3 mechanical treatments was calculated
from the total amount of direct energy (DE) sources that
release energy in a direct manner (e.g., human labor, diesel,

13
 Paddy and Water Environment

electricity) and indirect energy (IDE) source which do not
release energy direct way but release it by conversion pro-
cess (energy embodied in machinery). Indirect energy is the
total amount of energy used in the processing and transpor-
tation of all inputs to the plant (Uhlin 1999; Hülsbergen et al.
2001; Refsgaard et al. 1998; Pimentel 1980). Proper energy
equivalents (EE) were used to account for both direct and
indirect components according to the nature of the input
and the values of the energy equivalent for each form of
energy consumption are provided in Table 4. The parameters
and assumptions used to calculate energy expenditure for
each farm operation are included in Table 5. The human,
fuel, water, and machinery energy consumption (Sidhu et al.
2015) for each operation was determined using Eqs. (5–8),
written as below:
Fuel energy, MJ ha−1 = Fuel consumption, l h−1 ∕AFC, ha h−1
( )
× EE, MJ l−1
(7)
−1
Water energy, MJ ha
= (Amount of water applied, l∕Area covered, ha)
× EE, MJ m−3 (8)
The amount of electricity consumed, kW-h, the rate of
irrigation, ha h­ −1, and the energy equivalent of electricity
was used for calculation of electric energy for pumping
water. The energy consumption in each group of inputs
was calculated from the multiplication of the amount
of the input consumption and its energy equivalent per
unit (extracted from scientific sources). The significance

Machine energy, MJ ha−1 = (Machine weight, kg)∕ Wear out life, h × AFC, ha h−1
( ( ))
(5)
× EE, MJ kg−1

Human energy, MJ ha−1 =((No. of labor used × time, h)∕Area covered (ha))
(6)
× EE, MJ h−1

(p = 0.05) of the difference between the grain and straw

Table 4  Values of energy equivalents for different sources of energy yield of wheat for T­ 1, ­T2 and T
­ 3 and field capacity, fuel
(Singh and Mittal, 1992; Devi et al. 2018) consumption and field efficiency of happy seeder for ­T2
S. no. Source Unit EE (MJ u­ nit−1) and ­T3 treatments was determined using the independent
‘t’ test using SPSS (V26) statistical software.
1 Human h 1.96
2 Diesel l 56.31
3 Tractor kg 64.8
4 Machinery kg 62.7
5 Electricity kW-h 11.93
6 Water m3 1.02

Table 5  Parameters and assumptions (Sidhu et al. 2015) considered for calculating energy expenditure for different farm operations
Method Source Machine Wear out life (h) AFC (ha h­ −1) Human (h ­ha−1) Fuel con-
weight (kg) sumption (l
­h−1)

T1 Combine harvester 8900 6000 0.42 4.76 9.5

Disk harrow 475 2500 0.65 1.54 5.5
cultivator 175 2500 0.7 1.43 4.5
Planker 150 2500 0.72 1.39 3.5
Irrigation pump (11.19 kW) 150 10,000 0.15 6.67 -
Seed cum fertilizer Drill 322 1200 0.62 1.61 4.75
T2 Combine harvester 8900 7000 0.42 4.76 9.5
Stubble shaver 195 1200 0.55 1.82 3.5
Happy seeder 700 1200 0.33 6.06 6.95
T3 Super SMS fitted combine harvester 9100 6000 0.4 5.0 11.0
Happy seeder 700 1200 0.37 5.41 5.88

13
Paddy and Water Environment

Results and discussion
Machine performance
Happy seeder technology in mechanical field treatment
­T 2 and T
­ 3 were evaluated at five field each, and it was
observed that average actual field capacity (AFC) of happy
seeder machine was more (0.37 ha ­h−1) in ­T3 treatment
as compared to ­T2 treatment (0.33 ha ­h−1). The average
increase in actual field capacity between T ­ 3 and T­ 2 was
10.85%. The average fuel consumption (FC) was less
(5.88 l/h) in ­T3 as compared to ­T2 (6.95 l  ­h−1) but field
efficiency was more (65.35%) in T ­ 3 as compared to T ­2
(58.21%). The actual field capacity was more and fuel con-
sumption was less in ­T3 due to the uniform distribution
of loose straw by Super SMS prior to operate the happy
seeder, which, make the operational of happy seeder more
feasible in combine-harvested paddy field. Detail of happy
seeder performance for ­T2 and ­T3 mechanical field treat-
ments is given in Table 6. Independent t test conducted
showed that mean of actual field capacity, fuel consump-
tion, and field efficiency of happy seeder in ­T2 and ­T3 dif-
fer significantly (p = 0.038, p = 0.032 and p = 0.038) with
each other.
Yield analysis
The trails conducted at each five fields for ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3
mechanical treatments showed (Table 7) that the yield
of wheat crop with ­T2 and T ­ 3 is comparable to the con-
ventional method T ­ 1. The maximum yield (5270 kg ­ha−1)
was obtained with T ­ 1 having maximum (3.84%) coef-
ficient of variation (CV) followed by T ­ 3 and ­T 2 having
yield 5262 and 5216 kg ­ha−1 with coefficient of variation
1.07 and 1.80%. In case of straw yield coefficient of vari-
ation (CV) was maximum (4.99%) for ­T1 and minimum
(3.98%) for ­T2. Comparison of grain yield for ­T1, ­T2 and
­T3 field treatments is shown in Fig. 3. Independent t test
conducted showed that mean of grain and straw yield differ
non-significantly.

Table 6  Comparison of happy Locations T2a T3b Increase in AFC

seeder performance in T
­ 2 and T
­3 of ­T3 than ­T2 (%)
mechanical treatment AFC (ha h­ −1)c FC (l ­h−1)d FE (%)d AFC (ha h­ −1) FC (l ­h−1) FE (%)

F1 0.3 7.91 53.57 0.33 6.67 58.92 9.09

F2 0.31 7.33 55.35 0.35 6.16 62.50 11.42
F3 0.32 6.83 57.14 0.37 5.67 66.07 13.51
F4 0.34 6.66 60.71 0.4 5.5 71.42 15
F5 0.36 6.0 64.28 0.38 5.42 67.85 5.26
Average 0.33 6.95 58.21 0.37 5.88 65.35 10.85
SD 0.024 0.719 4.30 0.027 0.525 4.824 –
CV (%) 7.30 10.34 7.39 7.30 8.93 7.38 –
a, b
  Significantly differ
c
 Actual field capacity
d
 Fuel consumption
f
 Field efficiency

Table 7  Yield analysis of wheat Technology T1 T2 T3

crop sown with T­ 1, ­T2 and ­T3
Locations GY* SY** GY* SY** GY* SY**

F1 5535 3708 5359 3581 5334 3607

F2 5207 3531 5199 3305 5260 3581
F3 5398 3607 5237 3480 5298 3531
F4 5199 3429 5103 3277 5199 3254
F5 5009 3251 5179 3300 5215 3353
Average 5270 3505 5215 3388 5261 3465
SD 202.32 175.06 93.96 134.78 56.26 154.14
CV (%) 3.8 4.99 1.80 3.98 1.07 4.45

*GY Grain Yield (kg h­ a−1)

**SY Straw Yield (kg h­ a−1)

13
 Paddy and Water Environment

6000
Grain yield Straw yield by ­T2. Benefit cost ratio was minimum for ­T1 (3.19) as the
cost involve in sowing of wheat crop is more due to more
5000
number of field operation was involved in field preparation
4000
and sowing, on the other hand, least operation was involved
Yield (kg ha-1)

3000 in case of T
­ 3 as wheat was sown directly after harvesting of
2000 paddy crop with Super SMS fitted combine harvester. Cost
1000
analysis details is shown in Table 8.
0
T1 T2 T3 Energy analysis
Treatments

Machine‑wise energy consumption

Fig. 3  Comparison of grain and straw yield for T
­ 1, ­T2 and ­T3
Analysis of energy consumption in establishment of wheat
crop using the T ­ 1, ­T2 and T
­ 3 field treatments is given in
Economic analysis Table 9. This analysis showed that total energy consump-
tion for the crop establishment was highest (6171.3 MJ ­ha−1)
The maximum net return (75,110 Rs h­ a−1) was observed in in case of T ­ 1 followed by T ­ 2 (3266.75 MJ  ­ha−1) and T ­3
−1
­T3 followed by comparable net return (73,385 Rs h­ a−1) in T
­2 (2838.89  MJ  ­ha ). The energy consumption for wheat
with benefit cost ratio of 3.83 and 3.69, respectively. Ben- establishment was maximum in T ­ 1, because it involved more
efit cost ratio was maximum for T ­ 3 because cost involve in machinery to operate for the purpose whereas in T ­ 2 and T
­3
sowing of wheat crop was minimum in case of T ­ 3 followed the machinery involved for the purpose is less. Among the

Table 8  Economic analysis of Technology GY SY GC GY RSY GR NR BCR

wheat crop sown with T
­ 1, ­T2
and ­T3 T1 5270 3505 32,004 91,434 10,515 101,949 69,945 3.19
T2 5215 3388 27,259 90,480 10,164 100,644 73,385 3.69
T3 5261 3465 26,563 91,278 10,395 101,673 75,110 3.83

GC Gross Cost, RGY​ Return from Grain Yield, Return from Straw Yield, GR Gross return, NR Net Return in
Rs ­ha−1, BCR Benefit Cost Ratio

­ 1, ­T2 and ­T3

Table 9  Energy consumption for of T
Method Name of machine Direct energy (MJ ­ha−1) Indirect energy (MJ ­ha−1) Total
energy
Human Diesel Electricity Machinery Water consume
Machine Tractor

T1 Combine harvester 9.33 1273.68 0 221.44 0 0 1504.45

Stubble shaver 3.54 358.34 0 18.53 25.92 0 406.33
Disk harrow 6.04 952.94 0 36.66 43.86 0 1039.5
Cultivator 5.6 723.98 0 12.54 40.74 0 782.86
Planker 5.44 547.46 0 10.46 39.60 0 602.96
Pre-sowing irrigation 13.06 0 890.42 6.27 0 437.43 1347.18
Seed cum fertilizer drill 6.12 417.93 0 26.29 22.28 0 487.85
Total 49.32 4287.81 890.42 333.04 173.11 437.43 6171.13
T2 Combine harvester 9.33 1273.68 0 221.44 0 0 1504.45
Stubble shaver 7.68 358.34 0 18.53 25.92 0 481.11
Happy seeder 11.88 1185.92 0 110.83 43.20 0 1351.83
Total 28.89 2817.94 0 350.8 69.12 0 3266.75
T3 Combine harvester with Super SMS 9.8 1548.53 0 237.74 0 0 1796.07
Happy seeder 10.58 894.87 0 98.85 38.52 0 1042.82
Total 20.38 2443.4 0 336.59 38.52 0 2838.89

13
Paddy and Water Environment

­T1, ­T2 and ­T3, number of machinery required was least in
­T3 which results in least energy consumption in T ­ 3. Super
SMS fitted combine harvester machine consumed the maxi-
mum (1796.07 MJ ­ha−1) energy while operating under T ­ 3.
Happy seeder machine used for sowing purpose in ­T2 and
­T3 consume less (1042.82 MJ ­ha−1) energy in T ­ 3 than in ­T2
(1351.83 MJ ­ha−1).
This is due to the operation of Super SMS fitted combine
harvester prior the operation of happy seeder in T ­ 3 which
results in uniform distribution of straw. This further lead to
decrease in straw load which cause increment in field capac-
ity of happy seeder machine with low fuel consumption. On
the other hand in ­T2 operation of stubble shaver machine
harvest the standing stubble, but distribution of straw load
in less uniform as in the case of ­T3. This result in more
increment in straw load, which further decrease the field
Human Diesel Machine
Energy consumption (MJ ha-1)
capacity of happy seeder machine with more fuel consump-
tion. The consumption of electricity (890.42 MJ ­ha−1) and
water energy (437.43 MJ ­ha−1) in ­T1 is due to the pre-sowing
irrigation operation. This irrigation operation is not required
in ­T2 and T
­ 3 as in both of these methods the sowing is done
in the conserve (due to the presence of paddy straw) soil
moisture which was present due to the last irrigation applied
to paddy crop. The graphical representation of energy con-
sumption while operating happy seeder machine in ­T2 and
­T3 is shown in Fig. 4.
Operation‑wise energy consumption
The energy consumption was highest in ­T 1 due to the
energy involved in land preparation (2425.32  MJ  ­ha−1)
which required tillage machinery operation and pre-sowing
irrigation (1347.18 MJ ­ha−1) which was absent in the case
Tractor
of ­T2 and ­T3 as no land preparation and pre-irrigation was
required. The percentage of energy consumption (Table 10)
in residue management operation with respect to the total

1200
energy consumed was highest (63.27%) in case of T ­ 3 fol-
1000
lowed by ­T2 (58.62%) and ­T1 (30.97%). This indicate that
800 residue management with the mechanical means required
600 more energy. On the other hand, percentage of energy con-
400 sumption in sowing operation was highest (41.38%) in case
200
of ­T2 followed by T­ 3 (36.73%) and T­ 1 (7.90%). This indi-
cates that absence of land preparation operation before the
0
T2 Treatments T3 sowing crate results more requirement of energy for sow-
ing operation, as it is predicts from ­T2 and ­T3. The land
Fig. 4  Graphical representation of energy consumption while operat- preparation operations implemented only in T ­ 1, consumed
ing happy seeder machine in T ­ 2 and ­T3 39.30% of the total energy consumed in ­T1. The graphical

Table 10  Energy consumption in various operations for wheat establishment in T

­ 1, ­T2 and ­T3
Method Farm operation Technology Energy consumption % Over
(MJ ­ha−1) total
energy

T1 Residue Management Combine harvesting + Stubble shaver + straw burning 1910.78 30.97

Land preparation Harrowing + Cultivation + Planking 2425.32 39.30
Sowing Seed cum fertilizer drill 487.85 7.90
Pre-sowing irrigation Applicable 1347.18 21.83
Total 6171.13
T2 Residue Management Combine harvesting + Stubble shaver + manual Spreading 1914.92 58.62
Land preparation NA –
Pre-sowing irrigation NA –
Sowing Happy seeder 1351.83 41.38
Total 3266.75
T3 Residue management Super SMS 1796.07 63.27
Land preparation NA –
Pre-sowing irrigation NA –
Sowing Happy seeder 1042.82 36.73
Total 2838.89

13
 Paddy and Water Environment

representation of operation-wise energy consumed in ­T1, ­T2 Table 11  Source-wise energy consumption in ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3 for wheat
and ­T3 is shown in Fig. 5. establishment
Method Energy source Energy con- % Over Saving
Source‑wise energy consumption sumption (MJ total over ­T1
­ha−1) energy (%)
Among the all, the human component of energy consump- T1 DE 5227.55 84.71 –
tion was least because of high level mechanization was IDE 943.58 15.29 –
applied in the studied area. It was observed that, in ­T1, ­T2 Total 6171.13 –
and ­T3 the maximum portion of the energy consumption T2 DE 2846.83 87.15 45.54
was comes from direct energy source as compared to indi- IDE 419.92 12.85 55.50
rect energy sources (Table  11). ­T1 consumed maximum Total 3266.75 – 47.06
(5227.55 MJ  ­ha−1) direct energy sources followed by T ­2 T3 DE 2463.78 86.79 52.87
(2846.83 MJ ­ha−1) and ­T3 (2463.78 MJ ­ha−1). The highest IDE 375.11 13.21 60.25
energy consumption component in all the machine opera- Total 2838.89 – 54.00
tion (Table  9) was fuel (diesel) (4287.81, 2817.94, and
2443.40 MJ ­ha−1 for ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3) which is a major con-
tributor under direct energy source and also a non-renewable number of considerable field operations (2 disk harrow, 2
energy source. The consumption of non-renewable energy cultivator and 2 planker operations) with the utmost impor-
source on large scale is a matter of musing because these are tant benefit of avoidance of paddy straw burning. Further, in
available in limited quantity and increased environmental ­T2 and ­T3 germination of crop was good resulting in uniform
pollution on use. crop stand, luxuriant growth and on-time crop maturity as
Dependence on non-renewable energy source may not compared to T ­ 1. Among T
­ 2 and T
­ 3, in T
­ 3 timeliness in wheat
be acceptable from the futuristic point of view. To omit sowing can be achieve immediately after the harvesting of
this, it is suggested to use technologies, which required less the paddy crop (even on the same day of paddy harvesting,
consumption of non-renewable energy sources. T ­ 2 and T
­3 if there is optimum moisture available in the soil). Also, ­T3
method can be used over ­T1, as there is 45.54 and 55.50%; has more saving in fuel consumption due to less machinery
52.87 and 60.25% saving of direct and indirect energy source operation as compared to ­T2. The same reason can be stated
in ­T2 and T ­ 3 over T
­ 1. The overall saving in energy source for more return in case of ­T3. Table 12 showed the beneficial
consumption was maximum (54%) in ­T3 over ­T1. This indi- comparison of ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3.
cates ­T3 is the most efficient method and best alternative to
­T1, i.e., farmer’s practice. Graphical representation of direct
and indirect energy sources is shown in Fig. 6. Conclusions

Considerable outputs The study finds that the mechanical treatment ­T3 and T­ 2 is a
viable alternative to open-field burning of paddy straw. The
In comparison to T­ 1 treatment, T
­ 2 and T
­ 3 treatment has sav- mean output in terms of yield of wheat crops is comparable
ing in water (at least one irrigation) and diesel fuel con- to fields that have been sown with ­T1 treatment and from
sumption (34.28 and 43.03%) and also T ­ 2 and T
­ 3 eliminate those that have been cultivated using ­T3 and T
­ 2 treatments.
Farmers also get substantial time savings because the happy
Residue management Land preparation Pre-sowing irrigation Sowing
120 DE IDE
6000
Energy consumption (MJ ha-1)

100
Energy consumption (%)

5000
80
4000

60 3000

40 2000

20 1000

0 0
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Treatments Treatments

Fig. 5  Graphical representation of operation-wise energy consump- Fig. 6  Graphical representation of direct and indirect energy sources
tion in ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3 consumption in ­T1, ­T2 and ­T3

13
Paddy and Water Environment
Table 12  Comparison of ­T1, ­T2 Benefits
and ­T3
Cultivation cost
Water saving
Straw burning
Timeliness in sowing
Net return (Rs ­ha−1)
Energy consumption (MJ ­ha−1)
seeder technology used in ­T3 and ­T2 field treatments that,
can be brought into the field immediately after the combine
harvesting of paddy. This enables farmers to sow wheat in
combine-harvested paddy field with avoidance of burning of
paddy straw. Net return is maximum for ­T3 with least energy
consumption for wheat sowing, having happy seeder and
super SMS technology which decrease the field operation
involved in wheat sowing, thus decrease the cost of sowing.
The saving in energy consumption in T ­ 2 and ­T3 is 47.06 and
54.00% over ­T1 and also, the saving indirect and indirect
energy source is maximum in T ­ 3 as compared to T ­ 2 over T
­ 1,
i.e., farmer’s practice.
Acknowledgements  Authors gratefully acknowledged Punjab Agricul-
tural University (PAU), Ludhiana, Punjab, India for providing financial
assistance and hardworking farmers of district Moga of state Punjab,
India in recognition of their sincere cooperation in conducting the
work.
References
Asai H, Samson BK, Haefele MS, Homma K, Kiyono Y, Inoue Y,
Shiraiwa T, Horie T (2009) Biochar amendment techniques for
upland rice production in Northern Laos 1: soil physical proper-
ties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Res 111:81–84
Aslam M, Majid A, Hashmi NI, Hobbs PR (1993) Improving wheat
yield in the rice-wheat cropping system of Punjab through zero
tillage. Pak J Agric Res 14:8–11
Bakker R, Elbersen W, Poppens R, Lesschen JP (2013) Rice straw
and wheat straw. Potential feedstocks for the biobased economy
Netherlands programmes food and biobased research NL energy
and climate change. Wageningen UR, NL. pp 32
Chakraborty D, Garg RN, Tomar RK, Singh R, Sharma SK, Singh RK,
Trivedi SM, Mittal RB, Sharma PK, Kamble KH (2010) Syn-
thetic and organic mulching and nitrogen effect on winter wheat
(Triticumaestivum L.) in a semiarid environment. Agric Water
Manag 97:738–748
Delivand MK (2011) Economic feasibility assessment of rice straw uti-
lization for electricity generating through combustion in Thailand.
Appl Energ 88:651–658
Devi S, Hooda VS, Singh J (2018) Energy input-output analysis for
production of wheat under different planting techniques and her-
bicide treatments. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 7(7):749–760
Epner RA, Bainer R, Barger EL(1972) Principles of farm machinery
management. The AVI publishing Co. Inc., Westport. pp 17
Gajri PR, Ghuman BS, Samar Singh, Mishra RD, Yadav DS Singh
H (2002) Tillage and Residue Management Practices in Rice-
wheat system in Indo-Gangetic Plains: a diagnostic survey.
T1 T2 T3
Maximum Less Least
– One irrigation water One irrigation water
100% – –
Less achievable Achievable Maximum achievable
Minimum More Maximum
Maximum Less Least
Technical Report, National Agricultural Technology Project
(Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and Pun-
jab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India)
Grisso RD, Kocher MF, Adamchuk VI, Jasa PJ, Schroeder MA
(2004) Field efficiency determination using traffic pattern indi-
ces. Appl Eng Agric 20(5):563–572. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13031/​
2013.​17456
Haefele SM, Konboon Y, Wongboon W, Amarants S, Maarifat AA,
Pfriffer EM, Knoblauch C (2011) Effects and fate of biochar from
rice residues in rice-based systems. Field Crops Res 121:430–440
Hülsbergen KJ, Feil B, Biermann S, Rathke GW, Kalk WD, Die-
penbrock W (2001) A method of energy balancing in crop pro-
duction and its application in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agr
Ecosyst Environ 86(3):303–321
Hunt DR (1979) Farm power and machinery management. Iowa State
University. University Press, Ames, Iowa – USA. 7th edition.
366 pp
IARI (2012) Crop residues management with conservation agricul-
ture: potential, constraints and policy needs. Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi, TB-ICN: 100/2012, vii+32 pp
Jain N, Bhatia A, Pathak H (2014) Emission of air pollutants from
crop residue burning in India. Aerosol Air Qual Res 14:422–430
Kim S, Dale BE (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from
wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26: 361-375
Kumar P, Kumar S, Joshi L (2015) Socioeconomic and environmen-
tal implications of agricultural residue burning: a case study of
Punjab. Springer
Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management.
science and technology. Earthscan
Lim JS, Manan ZA, Alwi SRW, Hashim H (2012) A review on uti-
lization of biomass from rice industry as a source of renewable
energy. Renew Sust Energy Rev 16:3084–3094
Lohan SK, Jat HS, Yadav AK, Sidhu HS, Jat ML, Choudhary M,
Peter JK, Sharma PC (2018) Burning issues of paddy resi-
due management in north-west states of India. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 81:693–706
Malik A, Vikas Kumar V, Sharma S, Kumar A (2017) Performance
evaluation of strip till seed drill for wheat crop. Int J Sci Eng
Res 8(7):81–99
Milham N, Kumar P, Crean J, Singh RP (2014) Policy instruments
to address air pollution issues in agriculture: implications for
Happy Seeder technology adoption in India. Final Report.
FR2014-17. Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research (ACIAR). Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. (aciar.gov.
au/publication/fr2014-17)
Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar SS, Rafiee Sh, Keyhani A (2008) Energy
use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case
study: ardabil province. Energy Convers Manag 49:3566–3570
NAAS (2017) Innovative viable solution to rice residue burning in
rice-wheat cropping system through concurrent use of super
straw management system-fitted combines and turbo happy
seeder. Policy Brief No. 2, National Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, New Delhi. p 16
13

Nasri NN, Nawi NM, Abdullah N, Saripa S, Mat R (2015) Measure-
ment of field efficiency for different field operations in sweet corn
production. In: Proceedings of the technology and innovation
national conference, pp 1–6.
Ortiz-Monasterio JI, Dhillon SS, Fischer RA (1994) Date of sowing
effects on grain and yield components of irrigated spring wheat
cultivars and relationships with radiation and temperature in
Ludhiana, India. Field Crop Res 37:169–184
Pal R, Kumar R, Mishra R, Bhatia S, Singh Bist AS (2016) Study of
tillage and performance evaluation of zero seed Drill. Int J Eng
Sci Res Technol 5(11):491–499. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​
168434
Pimentel D (1980) Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. CRC
Press, Boca Raton
Refsgaard K, Halberg N, Kristensen ES (1998) Energy utilization in
crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock
production systems. Agric Syst 57(4):599–630
Sidhu HS, Singh M, Singh Y, Blackwellc J, Lohan SK, Humphreys E,
Jat ML, Singh V, Singh S (2015) Development and evaluation of
the Turbo Happy Seeder for sowing wheat into heavy rice residues
in NW India. Field Crop Res 184:201–212
Singh S, Mittal JP (1992) Energy in production agriculture. 1st ed.
Mittal Publ., New Delhi. Pp 166
Singh Y, Singh B, Ladha JK, Khind CS, Khera TS, Bueno CS (2004)
Effects of residue decomposition on productivity and soil fertility
in rice–wheat rotation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:854–864
13
Paddy and Water Environment
Singh B, Shan YH, Johnson-beeebout SE, Singh Y, Buresh RJ (2008)
Crop residue management for lowland rice based cropping sys-
tems in Asia. Adv Agron 98:118–1994
Singh Y, Thind HS, Sidhu HS (2014) Management options for rice
residues for sustainable productivity of rice-wheat cropping sys-
tem. J Res 51:239–245
Singh J, Grover J, Singh A, Kumar R, Marwaha B, Chandel R, Chhina
RS, Sharma K, Sharma A, Kumar A, Murai AS, Lohan SK, Singh
M, Narang M, Manes GS, Singh M, (2018) Manual on Happy
Seeder (Technology for in-situ management of paddy residue),
ICAR-ATARI, Zone-1, PAU Campus, Ludhiana, Punjab. 20 pp.
Suramaythangkoor T, Gheewala SH (2010) Potential alternatives of
heat and power technology application using rice straw in Thai-
land. Appl Energ 87:128–133
Uhlin H-E (1999) Energy productivity of technological agriculture-
lessons from the transition of Swedish agriculture. Agr Ecosyst
Environ 73(1):63–81
Zandonadi RS (2012) Computational tools for improving route plan-
ning in agricultural field operations. Doctoral thesis. Univ. of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Zhang R, Zhang Z (1999) Biogasification of rice straw with an anaero-
bic-phased solids digester system. Bioresour Technol 68:235–245