Energy-carbon footprint, productivity, and profitability of fodder-based cropping patterns under different nutrient management options in north-west India

Résumé fourni par la source

Context Intercropping of cereal–legume forages with integrated nutrient management could be an effective agronomic strategy to increase forage biomass production and economic returns. However, the energy-carbon footprints of the management strategies are of utmost importance in the present era of climate-conscious agriculture. Aim To identify the best possible combinations of fodder-based cropping patterns and nutrient management with higher yield and profitability with lower energy-carbon footprints. Methods This field study was carried out with four fodder-based cropping patterns under different nutrient management options in a split-plot design. Key results The maize (Zea mays) + cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) (1:1)–oats (Avena sativa) under 75% recommended fertiliser dose with zinc, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and farmyard manure significantly increased system productivity and profitability and saved fertiliser by 25% compared to the same with 100% recommended dose only. In comparison to maize–oats, this combination showed lower energy and carbon footprints, but higher system productivity and profitability. The system yield and net returns of this combination were significantly higher than those of cowpea–oats cropping pattern, despite having a higher energy-carbon footprint. Conclusions The 1:1 cereal–legume intercropping-based cropping pattern maize + cowpea (1:1)–oats under 75% recommended dose of N, P2O5, K2O with zinc, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and FYM could be the most productive, profitable fodder-based cropping pattern with lower energy-carbon footprints in north-west India. Implications The study identified the most profitable combination of fodder-based cropping patterns and nutrient management with low energy and carbon footprints in north-west India, which could be a component of climate-smart agriculture in similar agro-climates of the globe.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.